I have a question about the geneology of Jesus as presented in the new testament. I apologize for not being able to give exact references. I don't have my notes or bible in front of me at the moment.
The first chapter of Matthew lists the geneology of Jesus from Abraham to David to Joseph. Then says that shows that Jesus is descended from David as prophecized in the old testament. Luke(I think)also mentions a little about Jesus's geneology. If I remember correctly its differnet but makes the same statement that Joseph is descended from David thus showing that Jesus is of the line of David. Obviously, if Jesus is born from a virgin mother, Joseph's geneology is irrelevent.
So how is this resolved to xians?
I asked some fundies that I work with and there answer was that Mary is also descended from David but couldn't show anything to support that.
I'm further confused by the 1st Timothy which states something about not getting wrapped up in the geneologies.
And, Romans which states Jesus is descended from David of the flesh. Or something like that.
Again I apologize, for lack of exact reference and my poor paraphrasing.

Poor paraphrasing or not, there's really nothing more left to say. Jesus is given two different genealogies, in Matthew and Luke. They are different. And, if one holds to the Virgin Birth doctrine, irrelevant. And, if one holds to the Davidic Messiah doctrine, troublesome.

How do Christians overcome this? They compartmentalize it: either they say it's unimportant (as liberals do) or they lie and say it's not a problem (as fundies do).

As far as that I Tim. verse (I don't know if it actually is in I Tim., but I will take your word for it), I think that I have an explanation. You are right in sayinng that the OT prophesies of the Messiah coming from the line of David; it was for this reason that the Jews kept meticulous records of David's descendants, so that they could at least narrow it down a little bit as to who the Messih might be. All of the records, so I've heard, were kept in the temple; when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the records were lost (or at least most of them). Now, despite the fact that we sometimes call one's descendants his "line", of course the geneology of one's descendants is more of a pyramid (it is only really a line when you trace from one person to ONE SPECIFIC descendants). Since many generations had elapsed since the time of David, the bottom of the pyramid was very large, having been growing geometrically (w/ an exponent), and the number of his descendants was far too large for anyone to know entirely. Many Jews, apparently including some Jewish Christians in Timothy's church, argued over who was a descendant of David. Paul said, however, that it was an irrevalent question, since the Messiah had already come.

Grumpy,

You sure are!

Matt

OK. I'm home from work with trusty Bible in hand to give exact references.
Matthew: all of chapter one. Which, is contradictory in and of itself, in my opinion.
Luke 1:27
1st Timothy 1:4
Romans 1:3
I would really like to hear remarks from xians on this one.

Thanks. I hadn't considered that.

Hi Draven,

Obviously this is a major problem for inerrantists, and the usual ad hoc defence is that Luke says "the son of Joseph, the son of Heli etc." he is actually giving a geneology of Mary. This seems more than a little desperate to me.

Also don't forget that the Gospel of John contradicts both of them. It says (John 7:41-43) that some people didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah because he wasn't of the line of David (or from Bethlehem, for that matter).

Most Christians though don't regard the Bible as infallible, and would just admit that one or both of the authors got some facts wrong, and would probably add that it makes no difference to the important points of the Gospels. They'd probably have some justification in saying this, but in return it could be countered that if one of the evangelists included a false geneology to support his case it hardly helps his credibility as a historian.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that passage in John. Every christian I run into seems to think the Bible is infallible. One of the reasons I got started on this whole thing is a lady I work with told me there are no inconsistencies in the bible one day when we were discussing religion. I took this as a personal challenge to stump her. She's since recruited all of her fundamentalist friends at work to back her up. This is the one (so far) they have had the most trouble answering. Their best answer being that Mary is also descended from David. I agree with you thats a desperate arguement.

Hello draven, if Jesus was the reborn Joseph would that work?

Amos

I always like to look at what makes "SENSE" of the verses/concepts that don't "fit".

If I were including the genealogy from David to Joseph, then concluded the David link to Jesus, I would be saying that there was NO VIRGIN BIRTH, all that crap had to have been made up and added in later. If there was no initial belief in a Virgin Birth by the writers, then the Matt and Luke make PERFECT sense. They did not originally Diefy Jesus, he was just a regular, everyday Messiah born of Joseph and Mary (the old fashion way).

That is the only explanation that "MAKES SENSE". (if there is any sense in the Bible)

Sorry Xians, your bible is nothing more than patch work and so is your false god, Jesus.