Question about the two genealogies in the New Testament. Does one really lead to Mary?

Question

Or is that just another lie in the name of God? In a recent post I pointed out the glaring contradictions in the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke. Or maybe somebody finally authorized another revision of the bible to erase the contradiction.

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

Luke 3:23: "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."

These do NOT lead to Mary, as one person has stated in rebuttal to my earlier remark about this. So, folks, what say you? Who gets the "oops?" And in case anyone is unfamiliar with this, the two genealogies are vastly different. Yet both are supposed to be the word of God?

This is from "The authorized (King James) version."

Andrew L, like I *quoted* the two relevant parts of the genealogies. I am talking about what the bible *says* not some speculation that Mary *might* have descended from Abraham.

"God is Love," I'm sorry but I can't make sense out of *either* of your terse answers. Waste of five points? Proving a gross error in the bible, New Testament even, isn't worth five points? What "speculation?" I directly quoted the bible. It has grossly contradictory genealogies. The person who said one led to Mary, (saying "oops" to me), was wrong or lying. I would really like *him* to address this.

Yes, tebone, as I suspected: ad hoc fabrications to cover up the error. If that's the case then it would probably be even harder to explain why Mary's ancestry was so *similar* to Joseph's. But to make a claim like that, surely you feel obligated to cite where in the Talmud this can be found. My son-in-law is Jewish and he has relatives whom I believe are very well versed in the Talmud and the Hebrew language. Citation, please?

Answer 1

First of all you note that Biblical Geneologies often are given in terms of Patriarchs. For instance all Jews, Muslims, and CHRISTians have a father in faith, in Abraham. Therefore we can all say we descended from Abraham. And before Abraham, Noah, and before Noah, Adam.

Second of all of the generations of MOTHER MARY we must remark because it is most remarkable, she had a Mother in Saint Anne, but we also recognize that MOTHER MARY was made without original sin . .. this is Catholic Doctrine . . . thus MOTHER MARY becomes THE NEW EVE and is THE ARK OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT OF JESUS' BODY AND BLOOD because of course nothing defiled can defile that which is HOLY as JESUS' FLESH AND BLOOD is HOLY AND SACRED FLESH AND BLOOD. Joachim was MOTHER MARY's father. However this doesn't appear to be in the Bible.

Jeremiah 31:4  And I will build thee again, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy timbrels, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.

I believe this to be a prophecy that MOTHER MARY would be made by GOD to be the NEW EVE and MOTHER OF ALL THE LIVING.

LOVE your neighbor as yourself.
Amen.

Answer 2

The geneoloigies ,they are both correct, one is Josephs lineage and the other is Mary's

Joseph is Heli's son in law.
The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke could rightfully call Joseph the "son of Heli" because this was in compliance with use of the word "son" at that time. Moreover, designating a son-in-law as a son had scriptural precedent.

Joseph was the son of Jacob, and the son-in-law of Heli.

Matthew and Luke showed that Joseph was a legal parent, but not a genetic parent to Jesus. Jesus was miraculously conceived in Mary, through the Holy Spirit. By virtue of being Mary's husband, Joseph was considered the father of Jesus. Since Jesus was born into Joseph's family, he was a legal heir. Through Joseph, Jesus obtained a rightful claim to the throne of David.
Although Jesus was a legal descendant to Joseph, he was not a physical descendant. Luke's genealogy directly addressed this issue by stating Jesus was "supposedly the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23). Clearly, people had assumed that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, when in fact he was not (Matthew 13:55).

Answer 3

Yes supposed to be the word of God. But king Constantine change the original New testament in 324 AD with his click of scribes. It was easy to do back then because only higher ups in the church and government had copies, and women didn't read. Jesus originally taught karma, reincarnation and no one goes to hell eternally, and vegetarianism. But Constantine wanted to control the citizens for his own idea and he was an avid meat eater. He would have molten lead pored down the throats of those who proclaimed vegetarianism. (he even had one of his wives killed for this. He was no true Christian. So today they are following the Roman empires version of the Bible not exactly Jesuses teachings Though many things are still in tact. Mary is the mother of Jesus No question in the original New Testament. There are at least 4 Marie's in the Bible and the Church lumped them in to Two. The Gospel Of the Nazarines explains all in detail and has historical documentation of its authenticity.google gospelofthenazirenes.com For sincere seekers of Truth.

Answer 4

at the beginning, permit's look on the origins of the books of Luke and Matthew.. the books have been written by distinctive human beings in distinctive cases.. even although the two one among them have been given their components from amassing witness bills, not via any prophetic visions.. so, that's predicted that there'll be some small incorrect information in the genuine areas (yet not the ethical areas).. as an occasion, in one gospel, that's written on Jesus' pass "behold, the King of the jews" on an identical time as the different reported "King of Jews" in basic terms.. such small distinction is predicted once you're amassing witness account.. hence in basic terms 4 maximum precise and consistent books out of hundreds have been selected into the bible.. even although, the version in the lineage of Jesus isn't an significant one. does it rely if Joseph's father replace into Jacob or Heli and so on? none that i know of. while the church pronounces that there at the instant are not any contradictions in the bible, she replace into conversing on the subject of the message at the back of the words.. consequently, the message replace into "Jesus replace right into a descendant of David".. it would not contradict with any element of the bible this type, and that's what concerns greater.. what rely's much greater is that Jesus' human ancestry bears no magnitude in any respect while in comparison together with his non secular ancestry, that's Him being the Son of the main extreme Lord! don't be at a loss for words over such small conflict.. if can, ask a priest or catechist that may be useful you out, he can clarify greater suitable.. :)

Answer 5

The bible has lots of contradictions , because it is not the word of GOD. Another example of a contradiction I like to site is the reference to "which is the son who abraham was ordered to sacrifice, isaac or ismael?" Angel Gabriel is said to have told abraham "sacrifice your only son isaac"
This cannot be true, because isaac is the second son of abraham.
(1) Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than GOD, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #82)
islam was sent to correct the corruption which occured in christianity over time (like the introduction of the concept of trinity and the aleviation of the status of jesus pbuh, from prphet, to God) and confirming to the jews, who are still waiting for the christ and denying that he came, that indeed the mesiah has come.
Have you looked into the quran?

Answer 6

Matthew 1 states that Jacob "begat" Joseph, indicating kinship from father to son.
Luke makes no such claim, merely the "son of Heli." No claim is made that "Heli begat Joseph."

Under Jewish traditions of the time, sons-in-law were also referred to as sons, so the logical conclusion is the Heli begat Mary, and Mary was given to Joseph.

Both Mary and Joseph trace their blood lines back to King David, one through Nathan, the other through Solomon.

Answer 7

Not at all, I do not think you wasted 5 points. One must be prepared to ask questions and challenge thougths in order to come to knowledge and understanding.
I commend you for reading and analyzing, which is much more than what the average person does. I do not have the answer for you because to be honest, I do not know, nor have I studied those details. Although I believe in the existence of God, I do not
dedicate my life to reading religious scriptures.

Answer 8

It was Mary's geneology that was used because Joseph was the son-in-law of her father, Heli.

If that was your excuse for denying the son of God, then you'll just have to find something else now.

Answer 9

yes mary is like a descendant of like abraham or someone. i'm not quite sure. I know she is a descendant of someone important in the old testament
the new testament gives a genealogy at like the beginning of matthew

Answer 10

Speculation?