• 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!

Contradiction: Which geneaology of Jesus is correct?

@SA Huguenot

Luke 3:23...as was supposed:

Was supposed in Greek is ENOMIZETO which means: was legalized. To spell out more plainly: As was supposed means that Jesus was the legalized son of Joseph.

The explanation that Luke's genealogy being Mary's family line is the most elementary of explanations used.
 
Last edited:

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Luke 3:23...as was supposed:

Supposed in Greek is ENOMIZETO which means: was legalized. To spell out more plainly: As was supposed means that Jesus was the legalized son of Joseph.

The explanation that Luke's genealogy being Mary's family line is the most elementary of explanations.

They didn't think women added any genetic or physical material to the baby back then. They thought women were only receptacles for sperm, which carried the whole baby.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Does it really matter which, if either, is correct? Maybe neither. The pointis that they can't both be correct. Thus the whole Christian notion that the Holy Spirit inspired without error the gospels goes up in smoke.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Does it really matter which, if either, is correct? Maybe neither. The pointis that they can't both be correct. Thus the whole Christian notion that the Holy Spirit inspired without error the gospels goes up in smoke.
Then again, as we saw the allegation was incorrect and not a contradiction at all.
It was simply a Muslim that forgot he himself has a FATHER-IN-"LAW".
you know, as per custome or as per law.
Therefore, nothimg went up in smoke but some uninformed ignorant hater of Jesus, the son of the Father.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Does it really matter which, if either, is correct? Maybe neither. The pointis that they can't both be correct. Thus the whole Christian notion that the Holy Spirit inspired without error the gospels goes up in smoke.

Both genealogies are a construction and serve the theological purpose of the authors. Matthew 'brings on the ladies'. The four share two common elements found in Hebrew Scripture; elements that is shared with Mary: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathshieba. God uses the unaccepted to triumph over human obstacles
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Both genealogies are a construction and serve the theological purpose of the authors. Matthew 'brings on the ladies'. The four share two common elements found in Hebrew Scripture; elements that is shared with Mary: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathshieba. God uses the unaccepted to triumph over human obstacles
First, when showing the genealogy of the house of David, one cannot include women, as it is passed only father to son.

Second, there is outright disagreement over who is the father of Joseph. Matthew states it is Jacob. Luke says it is Heli.

Each of these, all by themselves, is enough to discredit the gospels.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Each of these, all by themselves, is enough to discredit the gospels

As I stated, the genealogy in MT is artificial and not meant to be strictly historical in biological descent. To present an historical or biographical life of Jesus is not the intent of the Gospels. What misunderstanding you express of the Gospels is rooted in a fundamentalist, literalist mindset.
 

Iymus

Active Member
He was king of 2 lineages, tracked from the first man created by God, and the descendend of the seed of the Woman.

seems that way because The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ is of Joseph's generation according to the first 17 verses of Matthew Chapter 1

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Also seed of the woman is of the man; with seed being sperma in greek. " G4690 "
 

coconut theology

coconuts for Jesus
1. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16).
OR
(b) Heli (Luke 3:23).

This so called contradiction was also highlited by Zakir naik in 2000 with his debate ...
There are 0 (zero, nada, zip, ziltch, nuthin', none, no, bubkiss) actual contradictions in the inspired and preserved (Psalms 12:6-7) word of God, in the English, being the King James Bible.

Zakir Naik is one of the worst debaters amongst the Islamic community, and is no substitute for the harsh Deedat (died of cancer). The 'information', that Zakir Naik provides most of the time, is incorrect, misstated, misrepresentative.

Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
  • Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
  • Heli (Luke 3:23)
"Heli" is Mary's father, and thus Joseph becomes the "son" in law [as the two become "one flesh"], just as "David" became the "son" in law of King "Saul", having married Saul's daughter, "Michal", see:

1 Samuel 24:16 KJB - And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept.

1 Samuel 18:18 KJB - And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king?​

Another for instance, see Naomi and Ruth:

Ruth 2:2 KJB - And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter.

Ruth 1:22 KJB - So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.​

Scripture [KJB] does this all of the time, in regards ancestors, descendants, notice:

Adam:

Luke 3:38 KJB - Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

Eve:

Genesis 3:20 KJB - And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.​

Jesus:

Matthew 1:1 KJB - The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Matthew 15:22 KJB - And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Jesus is called the "son of David" numerous times: Matthew 1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30,31, 21:9,15, 22:42; Mark 10:47,48, 12:35; Luke 18:38,39 KJB​

Zacchaeus:

Luke 19:9 KJB - And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.​

Elisabeth:

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.​

Joseph:


Matthew 1:20 KJB - But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.​

Christians:


Galatians 3:7 KJB - Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.​

A question in return for Zakir Naik:

Matthew 22:41 KJB - While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

Matthew 22:42 KJB - Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

Matthew 22:43 KJB - He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

Matthew 22:44 KJB - The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Matthew 22:45 KJB - If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Matthew 22:46 KJB - And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.​

Whose Son is Jesus? Will he say Mary' son? Notice, the question is dealing with Father, not mother.
 
The linage of Christ can seem to be contradictory. Although Joseph’s linage is from David, Matthew’s account is not a true “blood line” because Jesus did not have a biological father. However, his step-father was also from the linage of David. In Luke’s account, Joseph is identified as the son of Heli-although being Mary’s father. According to Jewish custom, daughters were not identified in genealogical records. Joseph is identified because of his marriage to Mary. This was important for inheritance rights under Jewish customs.


Most important, Luke identified Nathan (David’s son) in Mary’s linage-1 Chronicles 3:5 In other words, the “blood line” was through Mary.
 

Iymus

Active Member
The linage of Christ can seem to be contradictory. Although Joseph’s linage is from David, Matthew’s account is not a true “blood line” because Jesus did not have a biological father. However, his step-father was also from the linage of David. In Luke’s account, Joseph is identified as the son of Heli-although being Mary’s father. According to Jewish custom, daughters were not identified in genealogical records. Joseph is identified because of his marriage to Mary. This was important for inheritance rights under Jewish customs.


Most important, Luke identified Nathan (David’s son) in Mary’s linage-1 Chronicles 3:5 In other words, the “blood line” was through Mary.

No as was supposed.

Joh 1:45 KJV Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
---‐---------------------

Joh 6:42 KJV And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
_______________
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16).
OR
(b) Heli (Luke 3:23).

This so called contradiction was also highlited by Zakir naik in 2000 with his debate against DR Campbell. His question was, If we read "Matthew 1 and Luke 3, we find a contradiction on who the father of Joseph, Jesus's father was. there is not a single person in the namelist the same as the other. How can one trust the Bible if it does not even know the ancerstors of Jesus and gives 2 totally different name lists?"

Well, I learned that naik got his information from the Atheist website, annodated bible.com, where this accusation is used as "evidence" that the Bible is somehow corrupted, incoherrent and not reliable.
I went and read for myself and found the following:

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,

Yes, a contradiction so it seems does exist in the geneaologies of Jesus.

But one thing caught my eye, this words in brackets: "(as was supposed) ".
Why, I asked myself?
I went to the Greek to see if this word is in the scripture, and I found the following.
Answer:
I found the word, "Nomidzo” to describe that Heli was Joseph’s father by “Custom” or “Regulation”.
Then it hit me!
Heli was Mary's father, and Joseph was his Son in law!
Just shows you how one can miss pure logical practices when we read the Bible.
When I got married, I had a father, AND A FATHER IN LAW.
My grandfathers were now 4, out of who I did not call 2 of them Grand Fathers in law!
Thats silly, they are my grandfathers, and my father in law, is My FATHER BY CUSTOM!

THIS MEAN THAT THE WHOLE LIST OF THE 2 GENEAOLOGIES WHICH THE ATHEIST CALLS A CONTRADICTION, IS ACTUALLY THE NAMELIST OF MARY'S ANCESTRY, AS WELL AS JOSEPH'S ANCESTORS!

I can only say: "WOW"!!!!
Who would have thought that the Bible would contain such a correct and detailed version of events.
and to top it off, If the Atheist and Muslim did not demand this to be a Biblical error, I would never have discovered this nice detail so precious to the history of Jesus Christ.

He was king of 2 lineages, tracked from the first man created by God, and the descendend of the seed of the Woman.
And He is King of everything.
But that's not How it Works, unfortunately. Neither genealogy is intended to be factually accurate. Both are intended to make a theological -- not a genealogical argument. And they certainly were never intended to be glommed together. This looks Impressive, but by exegetical standards, it's rubbish.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Which is why the Biblical detail is so incredible.
As God promised in Genesis:' Your Seed will crush his head'!
Eves' seed.
Who would ever have known that the Mitochondria of Eve will be in Jesus's body?
Except that Eve's mitochondria is as fictitious as Eve.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So, what do you say?
Your Father and Mother also had the same grand, and great grand fathers and mothers?
Let me draw you a picture, it seems as if you are not grasping the most logical pattern on Earth.

I Bet you dont even know you had 4 grand fathers!
:rolleyes::)
Except that's not how genealogy works.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And you make accusation after accusation with no substance at all.
for one,
I find it very interesting that the Bible clearly say, Your seed, His seed!
if the Bible would have said, His seed only, your claim would be valid.
The argument is correct. It has the substance of biblical anthropology.

By the way, here we have a definate geneaology from Joseph's descendends, and another from Mary's, and you just dont like this at all.
"Definate?" "Geneaology?" "Descendends?" It's not Mary's lineage.

I dont have to listen to any scholar if it comes to read the Bible.
I learned to read when I was 5, and still continue to do so without Mommy helping me.
See above: "Definate." "Geneaology." "Descendends." You can't even spell in English, much less, I suspect, begin to understand the subtleties of ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, nor the problems inherent in translation.

but when it comes to a very simple book, like the Bible,
If you believe the bible is "a simple book," you've already misunderstood it.

Today I realise the value of the Bible as the history of Man and God.
Except that it's not a "history." A "history" is a specific literary genre. If you don't get that point, you're unlikely to be able to navigate the deep waters of exegesis.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Does it really matter which, if either, is correct? Maybe neither. The pointis that they can't both be correct. Thus the whole Christian notion that the Holy Spirit inspired without error the gospels goes up in smoke.
I disagree. Since the objective of both genealogies is to support a theological and not a genealogical argument, "correct" isn't at issue. And the arguments they support can certainly be seen to be inspired.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Both genealogies are a construction and serve the theological purpose of the authors. Matthew 'brings on the ladies'. The four share two common elements found in Hebrew Scripture; elements that is shared with Mary: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathshieba. God uses the unaccepted to triumph over human obstacles
If I could frubal this multiple times, I would. That is PRECISELY what's going on here. You nailed it, and beat me to it. Thank you.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
There are 0 (zero, nada, zip, ziltch, nuthin', none, no, bubkiss) actual contradictions in the inspired and preserved (Psalms 12:6-7) word of God, in the English, being the King James Bible.

Zakir Naik is one of the worst debaters amongst the Islamic community, and is no substitute for the harsh Deedat (died of cancer). The 'information', that Zakir Naik provides most of the time, is incorrect, misstated, misrepresentative.

Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
  • Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
  • Heli (Luke 3:23)
"Heli" is Mary's father, and thus Joseph becomes the "son" in law [as the two become "one flesh"], just as "David" became the "son" in law of King "Saul", having married Saul's daughter, "Michal", see:

1 Samuel 24:16 KJB - And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept.

1 Samuel 18:18 KJB - And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king?​

Another for instance, see Naomi and Ruth:

Ruth 2:2 KJB - And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter.

Ruth 1:22 KJB - So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.​

Scripture [KJB] does this all of the time, in regards ancestors, descendants, notice:

Adam:

Luke 3:38 KJB - Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

Eve:

Genesis 3:20 KJB - And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.​

Jesus:
Matthew 1:1 KJB - The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Matthew 15:22 KJB - And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Jesus is called the "son of David" numerous times: Matthew 1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30,31, 21:9,15, 22:42; Mark 10:47,48, 12:35; Luke 18:38,39 KJB​

Zacchaeus:

Luke 19:9 KJB - And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.​

Elisabeth:

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.​

Joseph:


Matthew 1:20 KJB - But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.​

Christians:


Galatians 3:7 KJB - Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.​

A question in return for Zakir Naik:

Matthew 22:41 KJB - While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

Matthew 22:42 KJB - Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

Matthew 22:43 KJB - He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

Matthew 22:44 KJB - The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Matthew 22:45 KJB - If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Matthew 22:46 KJB - And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.​

Whose Son is Jesus? Will he say Mary' son? Notice, the question is dealing with Father, not mother.
What an impressive rabbit hole you've created.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The linage of Christ can seem to be contradictory. Although Joseph’s linage is from David, Matthew’s account is not a true “blood line” because Jesus did not have a biological father. However, his step-father was also from the linage of David. In Luke’s account, Joseph is identified as the son of Heli-although being Mary’s father. According to Jewish custom, daughters were not identified in genealogical records. Joseph is identified because of his marriage to Mary. This was important for inheritance rights under Jewish customs.


Most important, Luke identified Nathan (David’s son) in Mary’s linage-1 Chronicles 3:5 In other words, the “blood line” was through Mary.
No. That's not it. You're arguing genealogy. This is theology.
 
Top