English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

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

LUK 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.

2007-10-27 16:22:19 · 12 answers · asked by Shawn B 7 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Schneb, that is entire dishonest. The bible does not say Heli is Mary's father, but it does say Heli is Joseph's father. Why is it that Christians must lie in defense of 'infallibility'?

2007-10-27 16:40:36 · update #1

12 answers

who cares?
when it says jacob begat joseph it just means joseph was a descendant of the special jacob dude the one who wrestled with the angel or whatever not his son the time frames dont fit together
So im guessing "Heli" is his actual dad. But hes not supposed to be anyone special so like i said... who cares

2007-10-27 16:31:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Note the difference in these two verses. Matthew says that Jacob begat Joseph, so that would imply that Jacob was Joseph's father.

Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, who was actually Mary's father, but since there was no term for father-in-law or son-in-law, Joseph would be called the son of Heli.

So actually, both scriptures are true.

2007-10-27 23:39:16 · answer #2 · answered by mysongsrhis 3 · 1 1

One is through the lineage of Mary, the other is through Joseph himself. Heli was Mary's father, but when they were betrothed, Heli became Joseph's father--legally. Note it did not say that Heli begat Joseph. It was Jacob that begat Joseph. It merely states that Heli was the son of Joseph, which in Jewish circles, is legally correct. There was no Jewish word for "father-in-law" because they made no distinction as we do today.

2007-10-27 23:30:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

Good question because different sources say different things. Some Catholic sources say that Jacob died childless, so his brother HEli to his name and married Jacob's wife, therefore Joseph was both the son of Heli and the son of Jacob (by name). Some sources say they were actually the same person...

2007-10-27 23:30:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I've seen all sorts of twisted answers to them, all of them wrong. Joseph was the son of either Heli or Jacob; neither of the geneologies is through Mary, despite claims that the wording implies it because of culture ("son" also means "son-in-law", not so).

2007-10-27 23:25:58 · answer #5 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 0 1

You are looking at two different texts, working from different sources. The point of each of the texts is to connect Jesus to David, so that it could be argued that he was the Messiah son of David, legally competent to inherit the kingdom of Israel. & both accounts work not only with different genealogies, but with different contexts. Matthew situates Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in -4; Luke situates his birth during a census that occurred during +6; one makes Joseph a native of Bethlehem who goes to Nazareth only out of fear; the other makes Joseph a native of Nazareth who goes to Bethlehem simply because of the census; & so on.

But the point of the genealogies is really lost. At least according to both genealogies, Joseph is a son of David, but if he's not the father of Jesus, then it's hardly relevant. On the other hand, the likelihood that both genealogies were fabricated is quite high.

2007-10-28 00:18:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Heli is supposed to be the father of Mary, and Jacob is Joseph's father.

2007-10-27 23:26:34 · answer #7 · answered by rath 5 · 1 2

it depends on which Joseph you are meaning, Joseph in th eold testament is Jacob's son. Joseph in the new testament is Heli's son.

2007-10-27 23:37:01 · answer #8 · answered by brown_eyes_scarlet 1 · 0 1

Jacob, as written in Matthew. Here is an explanation for the Luke passage:

"Which was the son of Eli;
meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to (Mat_1:16), but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi, &c. till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell (b) us of one,

"that saw, "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere (c), the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.''

By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews (d), that

"the family of the mother is not called a family.'' "

2007-10-27 23:33:12 · answer #9 · answered by BrotherMichael 6 · 0 1

Jesus said:

Matthew 23:24:
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

The Bible doesn't have to be infallible for the Gospel message to be true. Do you think you may be straining out a gnat?

2007-10-27 23:35:03 · answer #10 · answered by frenzy-CIB- Jim's with Jesus 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers