How do Christians resolve the inconsitent geneology of Christ?

Question

A lot of denominations in Christianity are taught that the bible is the literal truth (doctrine of biblical inerrancy). However, there is a glaring inconsistency in the bible. Both Matthew (1:1-16) and Luke (3:23-38) both trace the geneology of Joseph, Jesus' father on Earth. Both of these accounts can not be true, and thereby invalidate the argument that the bible is the literal truth.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneology_of_Jesus
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:1-16;&version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:21-38;&version=31;

Serious answers only please.
No abuse or derogatory remarks.
Please debate.

The argument of one line being Mary's and the other Joseph's doesn't tally with the text. The text clearly state that the lineage is the paternal line in both cases.

Matthew
(15) Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
(16) and Jacob the father of Joseph, the
husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus, who is called Christ

Luke
(23) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli,
(24) the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

I suppose that I am really talking about the inconsistency of the geneology of Joseph here really.

That is .. if people believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (doctrinal addition c.1854, although celebrated c.1476), and the virgin birth (doctrinal addition c.325)

For John H
Actually I'm an animist, not a Christian. I was raised a Methodist though and I've read the Bible, the Holy Qu'ran and the Noble Eightfold Path. I've also researched Shinto, Wicca, and Shamanism.

Answer 1

Alleged Discrepancies
A discussion of the genealogies would be incomplete without considering some of the apparent discrepancies between the records. Some of the most common objections are raised here.
Those which are addressed in greater detail in the preceding information, are briefly recapped.

1. If Matthew indicated there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, why do only 41 names appear in his genealogy?
This is a common objection, which a cursory look at Matthew 1:17 would seem to justify.
However, careful examination shows that Matthew broke the genealogy down into three historic divisions, each of which contained fourteen generations. David's name was repeated because he was alive when the first division ended, and the second division began.

2. Matthew's genealogy is inconsistent with Old Testament records, that show Matthew skipped generations.
Matthew's genealogy was deliberately abridged. This may have been to aid in memorization of the tables. Old Testament writers also abridged their genealogical records, so Matthew had scriptural precedent to do so (compare Ezra 7:3 with 1 Chronicles 6:7-10).

3. Comparison shows that Matthew and Luke did not record the same names in their genealogies. Since they are not in harmony with each other, one or both of them must be erroneous.
Matthew and Luke traced two family histories. Matthew recorded the ancestors of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus. Luke recorded the ancestors of Mary, the biological mother of Jesus. The divergence of names is natural, given the fact that both authors presented two different family trees.

4. Luke stated that Joseph was the son of Heli, while Matthew stated he was the son of Jacob.
The Jerusalem Talmud shows that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Joseph's father was Jacob. It was customary to refer to a son-in-law as a son in the first century. So Luke's statement was culturally correct..........

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/

Answer 2

The Matthew account is the geneology of Joseph, but the geneology in Luke is actually the geneology of Mary.

The Joseph that is mentioned in the Luke geneology account is actually Mary's father (hence some of the confusion)...

Actually both Joseph and Mary were from the line of David (which is why the accounts are very similar).

Hope that helps :)

Answer 3

Interesting question.

You are spot on that (a) the geneologies in the New Testament favour Joseph, not Mary; (b) Joseph is not supposed to be the genetic father of Jesus; (c) Mary is supposed to be the only biological parent apart from God.

This will not stop people marking down any answer that they feel differs from their interpretation of the Bible and the assumption that the geneologies are Mary, and Mary only.

The fact that any geneology MUST show a connection between Jesus and some ancestor to be legitimate, will be incredibly ignored. Instead, many will jump into the earliest parts of the geneologies in the New Testament and refuse to answer clearly the final link Mary to Jesus or Joseph to Jesus, or both, or none?

The accurate geneologies of Jesus are to be found in the Supreme Bible of God, not in the inferior Bible according to Paul of Tarsus. See:

Mary's Geneology See
http://one-faith-of-god.org/new_testament/gospels/matthew/matthew_0010.htm

Joseph's Geneology See
http://one-faith-of-god.org/new_testament/gospels/luke/luke_0030.htm

Answer 4

They are complimentary, not inconsistent.

One is the geneology through Joseph, the other through Mary.

They are not both through Joseph. In Luke, Heli is not Joseph's father, rather he is Mary's.

You will note that both geneologies descend through King David.

You must consider the audience of each book. Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience who would want to know about Jesus' claim to be first Jewish and second in the Davidic line. That geneology, for Christ to claim to be King had to be through the earthly father Joseph.

Luke wrote to Theophilus, a Greek interested in Christ's diety. Therefore Luke showed the geneology through Mary because God is the true Father and Christ is of the "seed of the woman" as prophicied in Genesis.

My father in law calls me "son" all of the time. Common Jewish culture at the time... and today is one centered around family. The geneology in Luke... is of Mary, Heli is her father.

You wanted an explanation. I won't argue further, you can chose to accept or reject it.

Answer 5

by skill of definition, a Christian merely follows Christ. user-friendly good judgment tells us this. Does this propose we are closed to different concepts? No. as long by fact the assumption is in step with Christ's Gospel, then it relatively is stable. The words of Paul in the Bible are seen to be inspired by skill of the Holy Spirit. this could propose that God the Holy Spirit, the 0.33 individual of the Holy Trinity, helped Paul write his letters. Divine proposal has no blunders, which might make Paul's words infallible. additionally, considering divinity is eternal, then what comes from divinity is likewise eternal, it relatively is why the Bible applies to all generations perpetually. If Paul had merely written letters to the dedicated on his very own skill, it must be fairly argued that his words have been merely meant for the Christians of his time. the alternative, whether, is the actuality. God bless.

Answer 6

One of their favourites is by trying to claim one is the geneology of jesus mother, but even a brief reading of the text knocks that one down. Then they claim that one is the genealogy of Josephs mothers side. That is just as contrived, In short the normal response is to deny that there is an inconsistancy and to make up a bigger lie to cover it up.
They will even try using pious frauds from the 1500s to cover it up.
And old Annius was noted as a fraud even in his own time folks.

Answer 7

Geneology was always written through the Father, and as Mary married Joseph for the purposes of the time they went through Joseph. Don't waste your time trying to ask christians questions or argue about the bible, it is interesting enough in itself with history and mythology without the need to bring religion and beliefs into it :-)

Answer 8

But they are true, both of them. Do you just stop looking for the truth when you hear a rumor?

One gives the genealogy of the Mother, and the other gives the Fathers.

Tradition stated that the written reference to the mothers genealogy was attributed to the Father, because women were held in lower esteem in this way, (all of the Old Testament omits many female family members by name). The actually human lineage of Jesus given by Luke was true, and fulfilled scripture.

Joseph was the father of Jesus by adoption, hence, his was valid for Jesus through that adoption. This was common place as well, as the right adoption of a son gave that son the right of inheritance, and Joseph was a descendant of David, according to Matthew.

So they both are true, one gives the title to Jesus as King of the Jews by adoption, the other by birth right.

Answer 9

In the first place I went to a Roman Catholic school all my life, I miss mass as little as possible. I can never remember any teachings that led to "literal truth" your speaking about. I've always been led to believe there are inconsistencies in the Bible and we chose to take them per se. We make our own decisions.
I for one will not argue the Bible like some do, page for page and verse for verse. This only shows what I read not, what I really believe in. There's a big difference.

The arguments of Jesus being brought to Southern France and the Holy Family following with Mary Magdalen and her daughter Sarah, the child of Christ. There's also a following in Southern France as to the Women of the Mary Magdalen Society.
I believe in the Ascension of Christ. I keep an open mind to what others believe in. I sat in the deep jungles of Viet Nam in the '60's and sometimes cried I was so scared as a young man, my friends being killed around me, I myself wounded. I prayed to my God my way. I made promises that I kept as much as possible but, I don't think God will punish me for thinking about other unfounded facts, as long as I keep my beliefs.
I hope you understand me.

Answer 10

Joseph was NOT Jesus Christ father, He was God's Son & no one else. Jesus was born without the sex act. Therefore Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus birth, God did. In fact Joseph & Mary did not have any sex until after Jesus was born, then they had others childrens That made Joseph of the others born, their father.