It says that Joseph was the descendent, however Joseph had no blood relation to Jesus. Keep in mind I am a very on fire Christian, but I read over Matthew 1 again and it kinda freaked me out.
2007-01-01 04:43:12 · 14 answers · asked by Blaize Pennington 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Joseph is JESUS' father in the legal sense - in that He was born in his household.
However, JESUS' genealogy to David is traced through His mother Mary, who is also a descendant of David through Nathan.
Matthew describes His legal genealogy, and Luke describes his blood genealogy.
2007-01-01 06:59:15 · answer #1 · answered by tas211 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The SPIN on this is that the genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's. This would supposedly be the "legal" genealogy since most people would consider Joseph to be Jesus' father. The genealogy in Luke is supposed to be that of Mary and would be Jesus' actual physical genealogy so that people would know that he was truly descended from David. The problem is simply that is not what the Bible says. Matt. says that Jacob begat Joseph and Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli. It doesn't say he was the son-in-law. This is just a claim that some Christians make to explain away a glaring contradiction in the Bible.
2007-01-01 04:56:09 · answer #2 · answered by Weird Darryl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wish I could fully answer this question, but I cannot because I have been wondering the same thing. I am looking for it though. I think it lies in understanding more about Hebrew law of genealogy and succession that is detailed in the Old Testament.(refer to the story of Ruth). However it is interesting to note that Mary was of the house of Aaron which was of the priesthood, refer to Zechariah and Elizabeth. And Christ would receive priesthood from that line. The "King" line came through David and it appears that that being "anointed" played a role in that just as much as being born by blood relation. Consider the gift of the Magi, one of the gifts was Myrrh for anointing. I am not sure how it all ties in but I have heard some teaching on it. Good question to ask though. Keep searching, the answer is there. See Jeremiah 29:13, Deuteronomy 4:29.
2007-01-01 05:08:59 · answer #3 · answered by rainyday 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
2007-01-01 05:14:12 · answer #4 · answered by Just So 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let me start by saying I am a Christian also...
Mathew, Mark, and Luke have many similarities, but there are key differences like you are discovering.
1) Did Jesus enter Jerusalem on two animals (Mathew) or one animal (Mark)?
2) Jesus' birth stories are different. In Mathew, wise men visit baby Jesus; this does not happen in Luke.
There are also key differences in the Easter stories.
What do we conclude from the many differences? Atheists will see it as further proof that The Bible is ridiculous, while conservative Christians will explain it away, and hold onto the belief that The Bible is the literal Word of God.
Another conclusion: The Bible was written to bring us closer to God The Father. It might have inconsistencies, but that does not mean it does not contain truth.
The third conclusion is mine (and many others). Don't let the differences in the Bible tear apart your faith;in fact, use it to expand your faith.
peace be with you
2007-01-01 04:58:09 · answer #5 · answered by Colin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both Mary and Joseph were of The House of David... both lines are given.... as it was fortold. Jesus The Christ came from the line of David... at least the mortal portion of The Fully God and fully man Jesus.... by the world Joseph was concidered Jesus' father
2007-01-01 04:47:09 · answer #6 · answered by idahomike2 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When Joseph accepted the baby and decided to marry Mary even though she was already pregnant, he was adopting the baby as his own. Therefore, the baby would be raised as his own. I think calling him son of David would be similar to giving him the father’s (Joseph's) name. This is not uncommon with adoptions.
2007-01-01 04:49:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Joseph was the Father of Jesus. How many people have Fathers and not share blood? Many many
2007-01-01 04:45:44 · answer #8 · answered by Shayna 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He's a descendant of Mary by birth. However, He is a descendant of David... legally.
2007-01-01 04:59:03 · answer #9 · answered by RedStarYellowSun 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ive had the same question for years....it says that joseph was in the blood line of david, abraham etc...and that jesus would be born in the blood line..how can that be if mary never had sex with joseph? mary wasnt in the bloodline. makes christianity unbelievable if you ask me.
2007-01-01 04:47:15 · answer #10 · answered by INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋