Why do you think the genealogy of Jesus is different in Matthew than it is in Luke?
Is this something that concerned you at any point in your walk with Christ?
2007-09-10 12:01:56 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
For Zero or Die
I don't have point per se. I am actually curious about the beliefs of others.
Here is a summary of the actual genealogy with links directly to scriptures in question.
2007-09-10 12:17:03 · update #1
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/genealogy_of_jesus.htm
2007-09-10 12:17:52 · update #2
And please open your own Bible and read for yourself that they both trying to tell you who the father of Joseph is.
2007-09-10 12:24:03 · update #3
People have been discussing this fact for 2000 years, since it is blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever read the NT.
There are several explanations as to why it is this way. The one that I personally believe is the most likely explanation is that the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew belongs to Joseph, and the genealogy of Jesus in Luke is actually traced through to Mary (even though Luke says that Joseph is the son of Heli, it probably means that Joseph is the son-in-law (son by marriage) of Heli).
One reason to assume that Matthew is concerned with tracing the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, is that Matthew was trying to establish chain of title to the throne of David by tracing the lineage of Jesus through his step-father. Since Matthew was a gospel written by a Jew in order to prove that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, this seems likely.
Luke was a Greek writing to other Greeks about Jesus as the savior of all mankind, and as such, he would have been less concerned with chain of title to the Jewish throne as he would have been with the human lineage of Jesus.
BTW, if someone was to have just "made up" the Bible stories, as some allege, then why wouldn't have someone have edited or corrected this embarrassing apparent contradiction in the Gospel stories long ago?
=====edit====
"...At first glance, Matthew and Luke appear to be in disagreement as to who Joseph's father was. Matthew states he was the son of Jacob, while Luke states he was the son of Heli. Fortunately, an unlikely source has aided scholars in unraveling this mystery.
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. Refer to Son in "Jewish Genealogies" for more on this topic.
Thus, Joseph was the son of Jacob, and the son-in-law of Heli. ..."
2007-09-10 12:31:20 · answer #1 · answered by Randy G 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How sweetly and quickly monkey brains pick up on the scent of ideologies. Aren't the Christians around here so cute? I do know that the church celebrates the Sainthood of Anna and of Joachim for being Mary's parents. If their names are attached there, then that's Mary's. (I LOVE the name Joachim!) (Pronounced "wah-KEEM") The other genealogy is Joseph's although it may be that he was adopted, or so the rumor goes. (If that is the way those lists begin, then one counts up and the other counts down, nes pas?) Once adopted, that person who is your step father is treated as if he were your blood relative, because usually he is. He inherits both father's line.
The Holy Bible is at once an archaeological and spiritual mystery. It deserves the respect, not the derision, of all people.
2007-09-10 12:17:32 · answer #2 · answered by Somewhat Enlightened, the Parrot of Truth 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's quite a long and technical answer that I really didn't spend much time on. You see, with Judaism you have two ways of doing things; there's a religious way, and a legal way, there's a religious calendar, and a civil calendar. It gets complicated. Lineage is also split. We have the genealogy of the step father of Jesus, and the genealogy of Mary, the mother. One is legal, the other poses relation from David through the mother.
The fact that both are telling us, whether legal in presentation or not, Jesus descended from David, the King of Israel. As it was prophesied.
2007-09-10 12:16:48 · answer #3 · answered by Christian Sinner 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's a perception. Just roll with it. The boat of lifestyles has many passengers, and no longer too many oars. Try to not rock the boat on account that I do not suppose like swimming. To reply your final query, no. Your fair elements will persuade no person. It will simply reaffirm the ideals of folks that consider you, and variety of annoy the Christians who suppose the Scriptures have been prompted by way of God. As the Bible says, "Do no longer solid your pearls upon swine."
2016-09-05 09:23:33 · answer #4 · answered by larry 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well the two geneologies are not written by the same person. But by two different people at different times. Your next question should be if different people wrote different books of the Bible yet each Book corresponds and is consistent with every other one then shouldn't the Bible be thought of as true? Since more than one person tells the same story.. But in different words?
2007-09-10 12:16:22 · answer #5 · answered by SMX™ -- Lover Of Hero @};- 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Luke is Mary's bloodline David is of the king line of judah ,for this would
be Mary's fathers bloodline. The term "which was" in hebrew text is what we use today as :which was supposed or recokoned by law -In -law's .This is a recording of the inlaws of Joseph, or the bloodline of Marys father.WE know Marys mother is of the lineage of Aaron,or LEVI as Mary and elisabeth were cousins ,Mary mother and elisabeth's mother were sisters giving Jesus the lineage of both priest and king.
2007-09-10 13:23:59 · answer #6 · answered by grace 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Both writers wanted to emphasize certain aspects of Jesus genealogy. Mathew wanted to emphasize Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy, Luke wanted to emphasize Jesus' role as humble servant and friend to the poor and the outcast. So both took the line that would best show that.
2007-09-10 12:09:29 · answer #7 · answered by keri gee 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Probably because Genealogy deals with the Science of Genetics which did not exist at that time nor did the technology to assess the truth regarding progression of the gene pool.
2007-09-10 12:07:30 · answer #8 · answered by jay k 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
One is talking about the blood line from Joseph's side and the other is from Mary's blood line. Any good Christian knows this. As they both show the link from David as the Messiah was to be from the tribe of Judah.
2007-09-10 12:13:43 · answer #9 · answered by Kathy H 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Please tell me where it states one is the geneology of Joseph and one is of Mary. It's my understanding Anne and Joachim are Mary's parents.
Matthew 1:16 - and Jacob the father of 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
2007-09-10 12:31:21 · answer #10 · answered by OPad 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋