griceldaperez
New Member
Perhaps those who wrote the New Testament did not put the genealogy of Mary because it was something tacit according to their customs that the wife of Joseph would be of the same lineage or descendant of King David.
-
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!
What is the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's line?
- Thread starter griceldaperez
- Start date
griceldaperez
New Member
For the Jews Jesus was the son of Joseph. The priestly caste, the scribes and Pharisees, rejected Jesus because they felt threatened by a new leadership.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I haven't heard from the Jewish community that that's the case, aside from Messianic Jews, which came later.
Most Jews however don't recognize Jesus at all.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I will take that as an admission that you know that you are wrong.We don't need your approval
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I can tell you my genealogy (or what it is supposed to be, Past, Present, Future):
Vasishtha - .. - Vyaghrapada - Upamanyu - .. - Mukund Murari - Vishweshwar - Kailas - Aupmanyav - Amitabh - Aradhya, Amogh.
Vasishtha is one of the seven primordial sages in this eon (Manvantara) along with Kaśyapa, Atri, Viśvāmitra, Gautama, Jamadagni and Bharadvāja.
Well, I do not have a complete authenticated list like Jesus had right from Adam onward.
Vasishtha - .. - Vyaghrapada - Upamanyu - .. - Mukund Murari - Vishweshwar - Kailas - Aupmanyav - Amitabh - Aradhya, Amogh.
Vasishtha is one of the seven primordial sages in this eon (Manvantara) along with Kaśyapa, Atri, Viśvāmitra, Gautama, Jamadagni and Bharadvāja.
Well, I do not have a complete authenticated list like Jesus had right from Adam onward.
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
The Genealogies in Matthew and in Luke are different and people have worked out that Luke's genealogy is probably that of Mary.
Luke 3:23-38
syo
Well-Known Member
Non existent.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And what was that "probability" based on? It appears to exist only because of the contrast to that in Matthew. And how do these same people handle the ten year difference in date of birth between the two
As far as the question I'll presume you meant 10 listed generations not 10 years(13 extra in Luke - the 3 missing in Matthew equals 10 names, perfect). Well they obviously don't all have to be the same length of time between listed generations now do they. In fact the greatest provable span in the Matthew lineage around that time was 45 years beteeen son and father(Manasseh and Amon), with two other occurences of roughly the same span around that time. Those also don't include the ones that Matthew listed but don't have any corresponding time span associated with them, so it is not what you are supposing anyway.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It is based on the idea that both gospels are true, for a start.
Then it would be on the idea that Matthew was wanting to show to the Jews that Jesus came from a family legitimately in the line of David through the male side.
Then it would be on the idea that Luke was showing to the gentiles that Jesus was actually a biological descendant of David.
Then it would be on the wording of each genealogy concerning Joseph.
Since it is you who claims that there is 10 years difference in date of birth between the two, it is you who can show that to be true.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Well there's your problem. You are arguing on a forum where that assumption is not allowed. In a DIR it may be valid. But not in a general discussion.
That only hurts your position if you think about it. When you state it that way it looks as if both of those are made up.
I have done that many times and it a well accepted concept by Biblical scholars. I will give you the short version:
Matthew has it during the reign of Herod. He says so himself. Herod died in about 4 BCE so it was before then.
Luke has it when Quirinius took over Judea and had to run a census. That date is very well set at 6 CE.
see 'The Da Vinci Code'
Brian2
Veteran Member
You have never shown that there is a 10 year difference in the dating of the birth of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Matthew has it during the reign of Herod as you say and Luke also has it in the reign of Herod.
Luke 1:5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.
Both gospels also have Jesus being born in Bethlehem.
So the place and timing of the birth of Jesus are the same in each gospel.
You disagree with the mention of a census at that time in Judea, that is all. But you cannot show that your disagreement is true because historians have shown the possibility that Luke was right about the census.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Maybe not in this thread, but I have in others.
So what? That was about Elizabeth, not Mary.
I know. That was because they had to get Jesus into Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy. It does not appear to have happened. Both tales are fatally. Flawed. Both disagree with each other in key areas. The version in Luke is the worse of the two in my opinion.
This may be vital to your off post comment, but that's not in Luke. The reality is that the dates don't mean anything much either, since as long as you can say that Archelaus' reign ended after Herod died you can claim that Luke diverges from Matthew. It means nothing.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, it is in Luke. It names Quirinius by name. Wait, did you make the error of using a KJV? One of the problems with it are pronunciations. Pronunciations of words change with time. Quirinius is a modern anglicization of his Latin name. In the KJV he is Cyrenius. Same person. Same name in Latin, or rather Greek since his Roman name would have been in Greek in Luke and then translated into English in modern text.
And why does it mean nothing? Actually the author of Luke never mentioned Archelaus. He did not have to. He gave enough information that we know when his nativity myth happened. And the author of Matthew gave us enough information to know when his nativity myth happened. They are a good ten years apart.
No I did not make any such mistake, the full statement you made is what I referenced. Also I don't think we're on the same page here. If you haven't read Josephus(the basis of your claims) I can see why those statements wouldn't make sense.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Have you read Josephus? You are not naming any specific errors. You should note that most modern biblical scholars that would have read Josephus and other works agree (for the most part, there will always be a few outliers) that this is a clear contradiction. In other words, this is not my argument, but the argument of those that know more than others.