St Luke 3:23 - 38 Vs St Matthew 1: 2-17?

Question

Matthew has Jesus as the 27th in line from David
Luke has Jesus...................38th in line from David

The list given by Luke is exponentially different to that of Mathew.

Luke 3:23 - And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of Age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

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

why does Matthew bother with the genealogy of Joseph, to then give comment by way of "husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born.." that Jesus was not the true son of Joseph?

why does Luke give notice that Jesus was the son of Joseph, but has a complete different genealogy to that of Matthew, to that, his expands the genealogy by at least 11 generations?

by both accounts Joseph was a descendant of David, but why would this matter if Joseph was not the father of Jesus?

why does Luke have Joseph as the son of Heli; while Matthew has Joseph as the son of Jacob? confused?

do you have the answer? I think I might, but I would like to see what you think first.

David C, once again you have recieved my message loud and clear.
the vatican says that the genealogy of Luke was that of Mary. This is false due to the fact that Luke clearly states that Joseph was the son of Heli, which takes away any credibility Luke had. The genealogy of Matthew was put in on Hindsight ( which is a wonderful thing when trying to explain a Man was actually God) it was added to give credence to the prophesy of the OT, that the messiah would be a descendant of David, but in doing this he has also lost all credibility due to the fact of Pauls doctrine of Jesus as the christ born of the virgin. the fact that his step-dad was a descendant of David then becomes irrelevant.
it is just more proof that the scripture was meddled with post the nicene creed.

The female line of Mary was not significant toJewish tradition, the jews believed that the human body was transferred to the woman in its entirety from the mam, SEED is derived from this philosophy that the mans seeds the women, the womens role is only that of the soil in which the seed will grow. they had no knowledge that the women had her part ot play with the despatch of the egg, they thought that they were just flower boxes in which the human life was grown.

helloooooo, Luke says in his genealogy that Joseph son was the son of Heli, nowhere in this verse does he mention Mary!!!! you are either blindly believing what the church tells you to believe, or you are that blinded to the truth that you make up excuses to fit your faith, that is not a good thing to do, for the only person you are cheating is 'yourself'

Answer 1

because the original text that Jesus was the prophet descended from David got changed into the son of God somewhere along the way.... scrip was changed, but the fools writing it much later, were not his disciples, but people who met them, and they were so confused they did not know what to throw away, and what to keep, so they kept all the facts, myths and legends, and knitted them together in a nice mess, with their own bias attached.

They were confused back then, and the confusion continues, it helps to have contradictions, for you can then read any message into the text, like Nostradamus - avoid clear predictions, and mugs will swallow it hook line and sinker - that's why he choose so many fishermen as his followers, wanted to reel in the mugs lol

Answer 2

When I studied the differing genealogies I came to the conclusion that one was the Royal blood line from David and the other was natural blood line from David .

One observation I made was Jeremiah 22:30 where Jehoiachin is ‘ Recorded childless’ and ‘ none of his children will sit on the throne of Judah’, yet in Matthew 1:12 his name is recorded.

Some Christians say one line is Marys genealogy, yet this would go against all Jewish tradition , since women were far too insignificant during those times. Also there is no mention of a daughter nor mother in the genealogies, it is always ‘Father of’ , or ‘Son of’ .

Other verses to look at :
Hebrews 7:3
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

1Timothy 1:4
nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith.

Answer 3

These genealogies were very important to the Jewish people of Jesus's time. They were handed down verbally and so tended to be very inaccurate. The ones quoted differently in the two gospels are intended to show that Joseph was of the House of David.

The clan system in 1st century Palestine extended to spouses and adopted children. So it didn't matter whether or not Joseph was Jesus's genetic father - if Jesus's mother married someone from the House of David, he would become part of that clan. A genealogy of Mary, God or the Angel Gabriel would not be relevant.

Answer 4

First, Joseph become born contained in the relatives line of David, as a effect the geneology. 2d, Luke's gospel become written more suitable from Mary's aspect of the tale, maximum likely Luke's source become close with Mary and may want to hence provide a more suitable special account of Mary's moves, concepts, and emotions. third, at the same time as the census become ordered they went to Bethlehem, no longer Nazareth. Fourth, your no longer God and neither am I, so how do we question the way God does issues if we extremely won't be able to understand his strategies. yet another element, women individuals were given married a lot youthful in that subculture and maximum had toddlers before their 1920s, someone of a present day/western attitude likely couldn't carry close this variety of questioning. would not propose that is incorrect, in basic terms diverse.

Answer 5

If Jesus was shown for what he actually was (a bastard) none of his teachings or saying would be acceptable to the jews, the greeks, or the romans. So to overcome this problem a geniology had to be invented to legitermate Jesus.

His illegitamate status is why he left palistine at the age of 12. He had nothing to stay for as he had no birth right and was considered an outcast.

Answer 6

All these effidences are based on human emotion and back to write. Those cannot proof anything. From the normal situation, a creator of religious cannot tell him detailly especially christ between 15-30 ages empty.
There must be somethings not good to the religious and the party, so that all had been deleted.

Answer 7

Matthew 1 is the lineage of Joseph showing forth that Jesus came from the descent of David...Luke 3 is the lineage of Mary because physically she became the instrument for Jesus to become flesh....it was also through her lineage that she too came from the descent of David...making Jesus...as the promised King forever from the descent of King David. both genealogies were presented to show forth that Jesus is the fulfilled King as promised by God to King David

Answer 8

I believe that with the tampering of the bible and translations have got it all wrong, that's why you see different translations coming up correcting older translations adding words and taking out words that give the book a complete different meaning. Many cults have written their own bibles to suit their religion and added much and taken things out. The book has been tampered with.

Answer 9

Hello Silver

as you know I am Atheist and this is a very good question. I am quiet aware the Bible was written by man and not by Gods hand.

So I think what the problem is, is that the man or men who wrote this had some sort of mental problem. They could not quiet make up their minds on what to put so they ended up guessing instead of listening to what their God was telling them.

They either had:
A: Split personality
B: Borderline Personality Disorder
C: Schizophrenia
lol Roman

I guess it is meant that blindness is the correct path to follow going by the Bible and its followers.
He said I will make you fishers of souls.
And in that regard he has succeeded. congratulations to him huh!

Answer 10

One is biological, the other legal...

The claim that one represents Mary's genealogy is not based on fact. Mary was most likely Levite, like her "cousin" (the Greek word roughly translates "same ancestors" but indicates a fairly close relative) Elizabeth.