Hawkingfan

This has probably been brought up before, but are the following comments about the geneology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke valid? (This person is saying there is no contradiction in the geneologies):

Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph to Abraham to show that Jesus was Jewish while Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam, showing that Jesus is related to all mankind. (H)Eli may have been Mary's father and Joseph's father-in-law. Luke wanted to be as exact as he could in his writing, so he may have gotten the genealogy directly from Mary. This would make sense because Luke gave women prominence in his book compared to the other gospels. Different writers showing different sides of the same coin.


My initial assertion (for your reference):
Matthew 1:6 traces the lineage of Jesus through David’s son, Solomon. Luke 3:23-31 traces the lineage of Jesus through David’s other son, Nathan. Matthew 1:16 says that Jacob was Joseph’s father. Luke 3:23 states that Heli was Joseph’s father. Matthew 1:17 states that there were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus. Luke 3:23-38 says there were fourty-three.

outhouse

There is nothing known about a pre 30 Jesus charactor at all. His name might have been Yehoshua and the gospels only deal with the last week of his life, because they didnt even know that with any credibility.

The authors of the bible were far removed from Judaism and the culture and people of Galilee.

hjalti

Well, the text says 'Joseph' and not 'Mary'. Does the guy give any reasons for this claim?

outhouse

We know the unknown author of Gluke was far removed from the possible man.

We also know they built a fictional geneology to match OT prophecy, simple as that.

Duvduv

Why or how did Epiphanius take on the assumption that Joseph's family included Pandera per the Jewish tradition if that isn't at all included in the gospels?

aa5874

Again, your statement that the Gospels only deal with the last week of Jesus' life is in error. The Myth Fables called Gospels that mention the genealogy of Joseph wrote about Jesus from birth to the resurrection and up to the Ascension in gLuke.

Toto

The only way to say that there is no contradiction in the genealogies is to say that the Bible is inerrant by definition and cannot contain contradictions - who are you going to believe - God hisself or your lying eyes?? :Cheeky:

That's sweet, but it really shows that the genealogies are symbolic and not historical.

This is ridiculous. The texts both say that they are based on Joseph, not Mary. Genealogies only ran through the male line, never the female.

No neutral scholar actually believes that the gospel of Luke was written by anyone who knew Jesus or Mary. The indications are that it was written at least half a century possibly as much as a century after the claimed crucifixion date. Besides, you would expect Luke to tell us if he had an actual source like the Mother of God.

It's not the same coin. It's two totally contradictory passages.

Some sources: Rejection of Pascal's Wager has a thorough discussion of prior attempts to reconcile the two lists.

There is also some discussion here of the meaning behind the two lists - More there....

Duvduv

Then there is the question of the source for the names that GMatt and GLuke have on their respective lists that are post-Tanakh.
MATTHEW:
Eliakim
Azor
Zadok
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob

LUKE:
Rhesa =
Joanan = Yochanan
Joda = Yehuda
Josech =
Semein = Shimon
Mattathias = Matityahu
Mahath =
Naggai =
Hesli =
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli = Eli

Chili

They compliment and do not contradict, simply and simple, and I will show you how and why that is so without if's, but's, and maybe's, maybe.

To not go by appearances, the facts are that in Matthew the lineage for the Son of Man is given, while in Luke it is for the Son of God, and those are different, I suppose, or they would be the same, why not?

So I would not call Matthew a lier, but outside talk (paralogism) it surely was, because the Son of Man is not 'who' we want to know about, but the Son of God instead so it can rub off on him and Joseph 'be' the end that he was looking for (as in "I AM" that which I am).

So already, they should not be the same, or Matthew's Joseph would be God and he was far from that as just a Jew. My point here now is that indeed the Son of God is 'firstborn to him' and so the potential is (exists) in Matthew as well, except now that the Son of Man is born and not the Son of God.*

Then let me add that Joseph's lineage was a historical account that was from records, while in Luke it was a spontaneuos rant after the father and the son became one, for which the decent of the dove was in evidence . . . and is needed to be Jesus' voice to say, as thus Nazareth is coming home to roost and never fly the coop again.**

Then notice the sonship in Luke from Joseph, son of Heli, etc, while Mary was from Nazareth as that 'little big city of God' inside the mind of Joseph from where the rant is made, that was put together after the shepherds had 'looked in' to understand, and susequently the Magi had been entertained by Joseph to validate Epiphany in Luke, but not in Matthew where Joseph was not home when they arrived. ***

So the difference just contains the metaphysics of awakening and the rest is less important, except is must be noted that Matthew begins with David while Luke goes back past all the ancients and right back to God to show that indeed he is the Son of God to replace the God of Abraham and so forth, and 'be' the messiah [Christ] as promised in the OT and so is the NT in the making, there as God and Lord God in person when all doubt was removed from him that Thomas confirmed with " My Lord and My God." ****



* This tragedy is caused by desire as made known in John 1:13 in the distinction between "begotten not by blood, nor carnal desire, nor by man's willing it, but by God" to identify the difference between 'from above and from below.' Shakepseare called it "from his mother's womb untimely ripped' and Songs tells us: "do not arouse, do not stir up love before its own time" (2:7 and 3:5), or 'he' will be from his mother's womb untimely ripped as not [yet] the Son of God.

** The basis for our Loreto Litany where Mary is the sum total of Nazareth before she moved to Rome.

*** These differences are what the Gospels are about, where Matthew blunders though them all to make it opposite to Luke (cf Herod and Cana). This in turn is not to be a slam against the Jews, but explains the error that prevailed against their will and is the reason why there was a need the Luke to be. Then later John paved the way to Rome that Paul painted yellow as the now ripe apple they once ate = the final maturing stage of humans under Rome.

**** The ancients called this stretch in lineage 'synthesis' used like smoke to obscure the end.

Minimalist

You have two different authors inventing two different stories to appeal to two different audiences.

It's really only a problem for people who insist they are the same.

They are not.