• 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?

dantech

dantech

Well-Known Member
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?
 
Last edited:
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
dantech said:
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?
Click to expand...
They were created for theological reasons.
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Do you have the genealogies of anyone forward from David, living today? To compare?
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
How will we ever authenticate the Jewish messiah, to come, if no one has any certainty of David or his sons? How will he ever make it to David's throne? By genealogy?
 
ChristineES

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
There are a lot of reasons why they wouldn't match. There are two different authors- one might have been Jewish (Matthew) and the other was Greek (Luke). Matthew was Levi and was a tax collector (If he was the author of Matthew and his name wasn't just put on it). Luke was a friend of Paul's and a physician. There isn't enough evidence (the way I see it) to dismiss either one as a "blind attempt at relating Jesus to David" or not.
But Bible scholars would have more information than I would. I am just guessing at this point.
It also could have even been an error- either by the authors themselves or by translation. But, as I said, I am not going prepared to accuse either Matthew or Luke (Or whomever wrote the books) of out and out falsification of records to relate Jesus to David.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
dantech said:
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?
Click to expand...

And if you read today's parsha about Caleb and Joshua, and compare it to the first chapter of Deuteronomy, it becomes clear that two different traditions have been conflated. Could it be that the Priestly source was attempting to create/embellish a Judahite narrative?
 
Last edited:
dantech

dantech

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
And if you read today's parsha about Caleb and Joshua, and compare it to the first chapter of Deuteronomy, it becomes clear that two different traditions have been conflated. Could it be that the Priestly source was attempting to create/embellish a Judahite narrative?
Click to expand...

This may surprise you, but I don't know every Parashah by heart. Would you mind giving verses, being more specific?
 
InChrist

InChrist

Free4ever
Both genealogies were necessary to show that Jesus met the two biblical requirements of kinship establishing his right to the throne of David.


"The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Y'shua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew's Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke's Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David's throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David's throne. On the other hand, Luke's Gospel gives the real line, showing that Y'shua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David's throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true."

The Genealogy of the Messiah - Jews for Jesus
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
dantech said:
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?
Click to expand...

He's not even related to Joseph.
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Awoon said:
LOL. Jesus was Fathered by the Holy Ghost...No Joseph needed. So no need for Joseph's bloodline.
Click to expand...

Needs Joseph's blood to inherit the tribal lineage of David. Therefore not the messiah.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Sleeppy said:
Actually, David's blood is needed.. Which both Mary and Joseph had. And as these were Jesus' parents, so did Jesus.
Click to expand...

But we don't have a genealogy for Mary. Both genealogies make it clear that they go through Joseph. Thus, the only way for them to count for Jesus is if Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.
 
Rocky S

Rocky S

Christian Goth
dantech said:
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?
Click to expand...
No not really. Hmm "a blind attempt". Could this be a rhetorical thread lol,
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Awoon said:
What kinda bloodline does a ghost have?
Click to expand...

What?

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

Blood is not passed through adoption.

fallingblood said:
Except that he was. Even if we assume that Jesus is literally the son of God, Jesus is still related to Joseph as Joseph would be his step-dad. Still a familial relationship.

However, the virgin birth is largely seen to be mythical by modern scholars.
Click to expand...

Example: if a Jewish woman adopts a Catholic child it does not make the child Jewish. They would have to convert. Problem here is there would be no way for Jesus to become a blood relative of Joseph.

And if we are just going to start ignoring scripture why not ignore the claim Jesus was messiah? He never accomplished what the messiah is supposed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top