What do you make of this Bible contradiction?

Question

People suggested that my Genesis contradiction was not a real contradiction.

Who was Jesus' grandfather on Joesph side?

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Matt 1:16

Or

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. Luke 3:23

Oh, come ON people! Joseph is Heli's son because he is married to Mary?! The it would say "Mary, daughter of Heli, wife of Joseph"


The lengths people to go to dance around a clear contradiction. Amazing.

Answer 1

The New Testament writers worked very hard to try to trace Jesus back to King David and King Solomon in order to make him appear to fulfill Jewish prophecies. However, Mary's lineage goes back to Nathan, the brother of Solomon, so this does not work. Despite the fact that Joseph isn't supposed to even be related to Jesus except as an adopted father, the New Testament writers used his genealogy as well. This makes no sense since the Holy Spirit was supposed to have made Mary pregnant, not Joseph. Then, the two genealogies for him are contradictory and require you to say that father actually means father in law. I highly recommend you read the links I provided, so you would see that the Jewish scriptures are distorted by Christians as false proofs for the divinity of Jesus. I'm not even Jewish, but I still think the group Jews for Judaism has the best interpretation and knowledge of scriptures.

Answer 2

Such contradictions can be found throughout The Bible. I have heard numbers quoted from anywhere between 50 and 200.

Contradictions creep for a variety of reasons -- with the most common being "mistranslation" -- purposefully or through bias, preconceived notions, and pre-existing beliefs, and downright mistakes (ignorance).

So what if this is a contradiction?

What is your purpose for pointing this (apparent) contradiction -- or what conclusion is it that you expect us to come to and/or believe as a result of this contradiction?

That Jesus wasn't Jesus, or that Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, or that Joseph didn't have a father?

Or, that all the rest of The Bible is a contradiction? That there are no "errors" in The Bible -- or what?

I sense and intuit that this question was really intended as some kind of "pit" that you attempted to dig so that others would fall into -- and not an attempt to "enlighten" and "reveal".

So, what purpose has been served here? What "new light" revealed?

Here, let me help you so that your question won't be a complete waste of everyone's time.

The REAL point of your question and all the answsers should be this:

One should take care to NOT focus on the "physical expression" of the man Jesus (nor his relatives) -- nor ANY of the other "arms of flesh" spoken about in these inspired works, but instead the focus should be SOLEY on the "message" -- the "teachings" and the eternal nature of them. (Note: This includes the "physical expression" of the printed words either.)

Regards,

Answer 3

 The genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are both ostensibly of Joseph, not 
 of Mary. But whereas Matthew 1:16 gives Jacob as the father of Joseph, Luke 
 3:23 states that Joseph was the son of Heli.
 We know that Mary had a sister (John 19:25), but nowhere is a brother 
 mentioned. So if Heli had no son, according to the precedent set by the 
 daughters of Zelophehad, his inheritance would pass to his nearest male 
 relative, in this case his son-in-law (Numbers 27:1-11), provided he was 
 of the same tribe (Numbers 36:1-9). Therefore, we should read in Luke 3:23 
 that Joseph was *son-in-law* of Heli. The Greek says simply IWSHF TOU hHLI, 
 not IWSHF _hUIOS_ TOU hELI.
 So Heli was *Mary's* father, and Mary was descended from David. Gabriel's 
 words to Mary "the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father 
 David" (Luke 1:32) would seem to confirm this.

Answer 4

In previous writing, family history was stated as the quotes above. A step-grandson isn't written as "Son of Joseph, Son of Heli" because that's just not true. It would be "Son of Mary, Daughter of Heli" so that knocks THAT attempt at an answer off.

Also, how come calling a man by two separate names is acceptable when it's not even clearly stated in the Bible? You can't GUESS that they are one in the same just to make the puzzle pieces fit. That's not how it works. For all we know, they could be completely different people. They could be one and the same. They could be anything. In any case, why isn't it just "Jesus, son of God"?

That clarifies any confusion AND supports the argument that Jesus is the son of God.

Answer 5

Hold on I/ll ffind the clear answer, it has to do with the way the Jews kept geneological records.

REASONS FOR DIFFERENCES IN ANCESTRAL LISTS

The account by Matthew traces Jesus’ descent in the line of Solomon, through which the legal right to the throne of David ran. Therefore Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts purposely differ on lines of descent from David down to Jesus. It is noteworthy, however, that both writers take care to make it clear that Jesus was not actually the son of Joseph, but was the true natural son of Mary. Matthew says: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Matt. 1:16) Luke says: “Jesus himself, when he commenced his work, was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph.”—Luke 3:23.

There are different names in the Chronicles account from those of Matthew, who follows Solomon’s line, as do the Chronicles. These names appear after Zerubbabel, the nineteenth after Solomon. This difference can easily be explained by the fact that in many Bible genealogies some links are left out. A good example is found in Ezra’s genealogy, in which he showed that he was a priest. (Ezra 7:1-5) His list omitted several names that are found in a parallel listing at 1 Chronicles 6:3-14. Why did Ezra leave these names out? He likely did this to avoid unnecessary repetition and to shorten the long list. Also, he may have used only the best-known names, just as today, a person wanting to prove that he was a descendant of some famous man, such as George Washington, would need only to name a few of the most recognizable, acknowledged descendants of the famous man, and show that his own father or grandfather was one of them. Ezra used what was needed to serve his purpose, and achieved it. This practice appears in some other Bible genealogies.

Answer 6

Ever hear the song, "I'm my own grandpa?"

You will have less of a problem with your question, and the answers, if you realize that Mary and Joseph were first cousins.

Joseph was the son of Heli, but through Heli's brother Jacob, Mary's dad, Joseph also had an inheritance which came to Jesus. The two genealogies of Jesus Christ both track through Joseph, but show two different things.

To repeat and expand: The grandfather of Jesus was Heli. His great grandfather was Matthan or Matthat. In addition to Heli, Matthan had another son who was named Jacob. This Jacob was not only the father of Mary; but her husband Joseph had an inheritance from him which passed to Jesus the Christ. Cozy huh. God runs a tight ship.

The genealogy in Matthew and Luke are both of Jesus Christ. Matthew traces him to show that he is the "legal" son of Joseph and Mary; although Joseph provided no sperm and Mary no egg. It shows Jesus heir to the crown of Solomon; thus son of David and Messiah.

While one genealogy goes to Solomon and the promise to Abraham; the other goes to Seth; exposing, by default, the genealogy of Satan, and connecting Jesus to Adam in the account of both creations which are set forth in Genesis.

Answer 7

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.

Answer 8

heli was Evidently the father of Mary and maternal grandfather of Jesus Christ. (Lu 3:23) Joseph’s being called the “son of Heli” is understood to mean that he was the son-in-law of Heli. While not listing her, Luke evidently traces the natural descent of Jesus’ mother Mary from David. jacob was josephs father.

Answer 9

One genealogy is that of Joseph, the other Mary. The Jewish Talmud acknowledges that saying that Heli with Mary's father. The Bible is referring to Joseph being the son in law there.

Answer 10

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. 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.