• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can Jesus have to genealogies?

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
The reason I use YLT is because it doesn't add or remove words. In other words, no manipulation on my part. The translation you use does. But tell me, what makes my reasoning twisted, and yours not so much?
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
The reason I use YLT is because it doesn't add or remove words. In other words, no manipulation on my part. The translation you use does. But tell me, what makes my reasoning twisted, and yours not so much?

Because you're adding words. The name Mary doesn't occur in Luke 3:23, and there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that Mary was implied. Only by twisting can you find Mary in that verse.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Because you're adding words. The name Mary doesn't occur in Luke 3:23, and there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that Mary was implied. Only by twisting can you find Mary in that verse.

Mary didn't need to be mentioned. Why? Because the person who wrote the genealogy knew that Jesus was born of a virgin, and says so. So, logically, straight across the street is what I am telling you. The people supposed He was of Joseph, and some of them certainly knew Joseph's father wasn't Eli. Some of them would have known Eli was Mary's father. Matthew would have to be very bold to lie about Joseph's immediate family, specifically saying, 'Jacob begat Joseph, Mary's husband.'
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
If you read the genealogies from Luke, and then from Matthew, you will see that they are significantly different.

They both start off from Joseph, so we know it is the father's genealogy. However, after Joseph, not much matches between the two.

Luke 3:23-38
Matthew 1:1-17

Could it be that at least one of them was a blind attempt at just relating Jesus to David?

everyone has two geneologies

Your mother and father each come from two different families (hopefully), and these two different families have a family tree. Jesus had a mother who's family was of one tree, and his 'father' was of a different family tree....unless you think Mary and Joseph were brother and sister :cover:
 

Shermana

Heretic
everyone has two geneologies

Your mother and father each come from two different families (hopefully), and these two different families have a family tree. Jesus had a mother who's family was of one tree, and his 'father' was of a different family tree....unless you think Mary and Joseph were brother and sister :cover:

What's the point of having a family tree for Joseph? Why would Luke go through all that trouble listing Joseph's line if it didn't really matter? Why does being a stepdad have any bearing whatsoever?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
sleepy said:
The reason I use YLT is because it doesn't add or remove words. In other words, no manipulation on my part.

I am not talking JUST about the translation. I'm talking about your interpretation on context, which is a manipulation of the context on your part.

When you add or change the context of a passage or two through interpretation, like saying that the genealogy (Luke 3:23-38) belonged to Mary instead of Joseph, even though Mary is not mentioned at all in this part of the chapter, then it is damn well a MANIPULATION.

I don't see how it cannot be manipulating the text.*


sleepy said:
The translation you use does. But tell me, what makes my reasoning twisted, and yours not so much?

Did you bother to even read the 4 translations that I posted?

Each one clearly indicated that Heli is Joseph's father...according to Luke's version of Jesus' supposed genealogy. Even the YLT provided square brackets enclosing the word "son".

Luke 3:23 said:
23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

24 the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,

It is no way indicating that Jesus' fathers were Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchi, etc, etc. The genealogy start with Joseph, being the son of Heli, and naming each predecessor, generation after generation.

So clearly, Joseph was Heli's son. No where in Luke's lineage included Mary, and clearly doesn't say that Mary was Heli's daughter.

Why would Luke go from Joseph in 3:23*and then jump to Mary's line?

Mary's line is non-existent in this gospel. Mary's parents were never mention in any of the gospels or epistles; their names were never given. And since Mary's father is never named, it is impossible to her lineage. So you are manipulating the genealogy.

You had stated that she was from the House of David in a previous post:

Sleepy said:
Actually, David's blood is needed.. Which both Mary and Joseph had. And as these were Jesus' parents, so did Jesus.

Although it could be saying that Jesus or Joseph being of the house of David and therefore they each could be called "son of David", I don't think so. Luke 3:23-38 is a genealogy, so it is naming each son-father - generation after generation, going back all the back to Adam.*

In any case, how do you know she was of David's blood?*

The gospel(s) never explicitly named her father. And the gospel never stated anywhere, what tribe or house she (Mary) was in, because her father remained nameless in the New Testament.*

Luke only stated that she was engaged to Joseph, who was of the House of David (Luke 1:27):

Luke 1:27 said:
to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Clearly, it say nothing about Mary being of a descendant of David. *So again, more manipulation from you.*

Although the gospel never state what house or tribe, it may be possible to imply that Mary was a Levite, since her relative (aunt, cousin?) Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron (Luke 1:5).

I am not saying that Mary was certainly a descendant of Levi or that of Aaron, but that her relation to Elizabeth seem to indicate or imply that she was.*

Luke 1:5 said:
His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

At the very least, I used ACTUAL CLUE as to what possible lineage she come from.*I have not been manipulating the genealogy in any way. But you have.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
What's the point of having a family tree for Joseph? Why would Luke go through all that trouble listing Joseph's line if it didn't really matter? Why does being a stepdad have any bearing whatsoever?

because the Messiah was foretold to arrive through the family line of King David and when the Messiah was first introduced to the jews of his day, they did not comprehend that Jesus was originally a spirit in heaven....they only saw him as the son of Joseph and Mary.

And both Mary and Joseph could trace their family line to King David. So it helped to solidify his claim of being the Messiah.
 

Shermana

Heretic
because the Messiah was foretold to arrive through the family line of King David and when the Messiah was first introduced to the jews of his day, they did not comprehend that Jesus was originally a spirit in heaven....they only saw him as the son of Joseph and Mary.

And both Mary and Joseph could trace their family line to King David. So it helped to solidify his claim of being the Messiah.

It doesn't matter if Joseph traces his family line to King David, that's the point. There's absolutely no reason to assume that the person who raised him as the Stepfather who wasn't blood related to him would be of any note to be related to King David. Only if he was actually related to King David. Him being originally a Spirit in Heaven has nothing to do with it.



Luke's inclusion of Joseph's geneology, when read objectively free of any retrospective theological inventions, clearly implies that the original intent was of no virgin birth.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
It doesn't matter if Joseph traces his family line to King David, that's the point. There's absolutely no reason to assume that the person who raised him as the Stepfather who wasn't blood related to him would be of any note to be related to King David. Only if he was actually related to King David. Him being originally a Spirit in Heaven has nothing to do with it.



Luke's inclusion of Joseph's geneology, when read objectively free of any retrospective theological inventions, clearly implies that the original intent was of no virgin birth.

Luke makes the statement "as the opinion was" when he speaks of Joseph being the father. If he thought Joseph was the father, why would he include these words??

Anyway, his gospel clearly says that Jesus was the son of God... so its not like he thought Jesus was Josephs real son. He's really clarifying what the jews actually thought about Jesus and they would have needed proof that 'both' his parents were of the Davidic line.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
I am not talking JUST about the translation. I'm talking about your interpretation on context, which is a manipulation of the context on your part.

When you add or change the context of a passage or two through interpretation, like saying that the genealogy (Luke 3:23-38) belonged to Mary instead of Joseph, even though Mary is not mentioned at all in this part of the chapter, then it is damn well a MANIPULATION.

I don't see how it cannot be manipulating the text.*




Did you bother to even read the 4 translations that I posted?

Each one clearly indicated that Heli is Joseph's father...according to Luke's version of Jesus' supposed genealogy. Even the YLT provided square brackets enclosing the word "son".



It is no way indicating that Jesus' fathers were Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchi, etc, etc. The genealogy start with Joseph, being the son of Heli, and naming each predecessor, generation after generation.

So clearly, Joseph was Heli's son. No where in Luke's lineage included Mary, and clearly doesn't say that Mary was Heli's daughter.

Why would Luke go from Joseph in 3:23*and then jump to Mary's line?

Mary's line is non-existent in this gospel. Mary's parents were never mention in any of the gospels or epistles; their names were never given. And since Mary's father is never named, it is impossible to her lineage. So you are manipulating the genealogy.

You had stated that she was from the House of David in a previous post:



Although it could be saying that Jesus or Joseph being of the house of David and therefore they each could be called "son of David", I don't think so. Luke 3:23-38 is a genealogy, so it is naming each son-father - generation after generation, going back all the back to Adam.*

In any case, how do you know she was of David's blood?*

The gospel(s) never explicitly named her father. And the gospel never stated anywhere, what tribe or house she (Mary) was in, because her father remained nameless in the New Testament.*

Luke only stated that she was engaged to Joseph, who was of the House of David (Luke 1:27):

[QUOTE1:27]to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Clearly, it say nothing about Mary being of a descendant of David. *So again, more manipulation from you.*

Although the gospel never state what house or tribe, it may be possible to imply that Mary was a Levite, since her relative (aunt, cousin?) Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron (Luke 1:5).

I am not saying that Mary was certainly a descendant of Levi or that of Aaron, but that her relation to Elizabeth seem to indicate or imply that she was.*



At the very least, I used ACTUAL CLUE as to what possible lineage she come from.*I have not been manipulating the genealogy in any way. But you have.[/QUOTE]

Read Luke from the beginning, until you reach the genealogy. That's your context.

Luke says Jesus was born of the virgin, Mary, and would have the throne of His father, David.. But then tries to say Joseph was his father? That might make sense to you, and make what I'm saying seem like some type of manipulation, but I'm getting to the point where I don't even care what you think. Thanks.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Luke makes the statement "as the opinion was" when he speaks of Joseph being the father. If he thought Joseph was the father, why would he include these words??

Anyway, his gospel clearly says that Jesus was the son of God... so its not like he thought Jesus was Josephs real son. He's really clarifying what the jews actually thought about Jesus and they would have needed proof that 'both' his parents were of the Davidic line.

Why should we believe what Luke says in the matter when we have Mark lacking a virgin birth? You'd think that an important detail to skip over if we're treating the gospels as biographies.

We also have John saying that Jesus is Joseph's son in John 1.45

Luke's birth narrative more likely has a theological motive behind it like John Dominic Crossan has suggested. Early Christians were presenting Jesus to the Roman world as a rival to Caesar.

Caesar was regarded as the son of Apollo, so you can't say Luke didn't have motive.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Luke makes the statement "as the opinion was" when he speaks of Joseph being the father. If he thought Joseph was the father, why would he include these words??

I have suspected that this word for "Supposed" would as well as the accounts have been interpolated

Anyway, his gospel clearly says that Jesus was the son of God... so its not like he thought Jesus was Josephs real son. He's really clarifying what the jews actually thought about Jesus and they would have needed proof that 'both' his parents were of the Davidic line.
[/QUOTE]

Son of God can mean a lot of things.

Either way, we can't escape that the Lineage of Joseph is otherwise completely useless in the case of the Virgin Birth.

We also see that there was a tradition dating back to what was likely the very early known "Acts of Pilate" that Joseph was the real father.

How interesting that John and Mark didn't feel it was important enough to mention. Or Paul. Or anyone else.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I have suspected that this word for "Supposed" would as well as the accounts have been interpolated

Son of God can mean a lot of things.

Either way, we can't escape that the Lineage of Joseph is otherwise completely useless in the case of the Virgin Birth.

We also see that there was a tradition dating back to what was likely the very early known "Acts of Pilate" that Joseph was the real father.

How interesting that John and Mark didn't feel it was important enough to mention. Or Paul. Or anyone else.[/quote]

Not only that how early Christians viewed Jesus divinity early on was wide and varied.

The different books all giver different interpretations and place when Jesus received his divinity at different times.


All the way into the second century real Jews had viewed him fully human.

Hellenistic Judaism/christians viewed him as Divine and Human

And some fully Divine like Marcion.

Some placed Jesus Divinity at birth, others at baptism, and yet others not until resurrection.

And scripture contradicts itself with this from one book to the other.


"son of god" was term given to mortal emperors just before Jesus was even born and taken by the authors while competing Jesus divinity with that of the living Emperor.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I suspect that it could be the case that the virgin birth is a literary mechanism. It would make no sense to give Joseph's genealogy and then make him not Joseph's son.

Then again, Borg and Crossan point out that even Jesus's lineages have theological implications.

Luke traces him back to Adam because he's presenting the new Adam.

Matthew traces him only to Abraham because he's presenting the new Moses, complete with an evil king and massacre of innocents rehashing from Exodus.

What do we make of texts so theologically motivated, and how are they useful as biographies? They can't be.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Son of God can mean a lot of things.

Either way, we can't escape that the Lineage of Joseph is otherwise completely useless in the case of the Virgin Birth.

We also see that there was a tradition dating back to what was likely the very early known "Acts of Pilate" that Joseph was the real father.

How interesting that John and Mark didn't feel it was important enough to mention. Or Paul. Or anyone else. Not only that how early Christians viewed Jesus divinity early on was wide and varied.

The different books all giver different interpretations and place when Jesus received his divinity at different times.


All the way into the second century real Jews had viewed him fully human.

Hellenistic Judaism/christians viewed him as Divine and Human

And some fully Divine like Marcion.

Some placed Jesus Divinity at birth, others at baptism, and yet others not until resurrection.

And scripture contradicts itself with this from one book to the other.


"son of god" was term given to mortal emperors just before Jesus was even born and taken by the authors while competing Jesus divinity with that of the living Emperor.

[/QUOTE]

I don't think Jesus was ever viewed as "Divine" in the sense of being God Himself by Hellenist Jewish Christians, only "Divine" in the sense of being the incarnation of the Logos or "A god", which was the case with the early Jewish Gnostic Christians at the very least. The trinity seems to have been denied by the Nazarenes and Ebionites well into the later centuries of early Christianity.

I also don't think Marcion viewed him as fully divine either, but I don't know enough about his beliefs specifically, it was around Tertullian's time that the Trinity became a widespread concept so it could have been around Marcion's time but probably not much earlier.

But yes, "Son of God" does not refer to being the literal Son of God. The idea of him being of Virgin Birth was obviously a later addition that probably developed outside of Jewish Circles around Justin Martyr's time. As many scholars in early 20th century agreed, the Virgin Birth account was likely interpolated, and I'd guess it was around the same time as his "Divine" status was in development, perhaps even during Luke's time.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
sleepy said:
Read Luke from the beginning, until you reach the genealogy. That's your context.

I have read gospels, from Matthew to John, at least several times, before I turn 20, and I know the Jesus' birth myth quite well.

Well enough, to see that you are making things up.

sleepy said:
Luke says Jesus was born of the virgin, Mary, and would have the throne of His father, David.

Yes, I am aware of that verse (Luke 1:32-33) where Gabriel tell Mary that he (Jesus) would rule the kingdom on David's throne, but it sound too generic. It could referred to Joseph's line, instead of Mary's.

Luke 1:32-33 said:
32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Luke said earlier that Joseph was of the house of David, but did not say anything about Mary being of the same house (Luke 1:27, which I have already quoted in my last reply).

Luke 1:27 said:
to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Also, going back to 1:32-33 verses, Jesus never rule Israel (as in all of Jacob's houses) on David's throne. By Jesus' time (time of his ministry before his death and resurrection), Judaea, formerly as the kingdom of Judah, was part of the Roman empire, there was no throne of David to speak of.

How could Jesus rule, when A) there were no house of Jacob (like most of the 12 tribes had vanished), and B) David's throne didn't exist in Jesus' time.

sleepy said:
But then tries to say Joseph was his father? That might make sense to you, and make what I'm saying seem like some type of manipulation, but I'm getting to the point where I don't even care what you think. Thanks.

That's up to you.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I don't think Jesus was ever viewed as "Divine" in the sense of being God Himself by Hellenist Jewish Christians, only "Divine" in the sense of being the incarnation of the Logos or "A god", which was the case with the early Jewish Gnostic Christians at the very least. The trinity seems to have been denied by the Nazarenes and Ebionites well into the later centuries of early Christianity.

I also don't think Marcion viewed him as fully divine either, but I don't know enough about his beliefs specifically, it was around Tertullian's time that the Trinity became a widespread concept so it could have been around Marcion's time but probably not much earlier.

But yes, "Son of God" does not refer to being the literal Son of God. The idea of him being of Virgin Birth was obviously a later addition that probably developed outside of Jewish Circles around Justin Martyr's time. As many scholars in early 20th century agreed, the Virgin Birth account was likely interpolated, and I'd guess it was around the same time as his "Divine" status was in development, perhaps even during Luke's time.


Lets just run with belief in jesus divinity was as diverse as Judaism at this time.

You had a full wide spectrum, so its all to probable that some believed Jesus to be fully divine, since they never knew or met or heard him. Its mythology and in such context its all open for different beliefs.

I dont think the label "son of god" was originally literal, but I also think it didnt take but a decade or two for that belief to become perverted to mean as many things as one could imagine.

Before the epistles and gospels were wide spread and canonized, you had belief as wide as imagination could provide. Only with time did the popular versions get wittled down to orthodoxy.
 
Top