Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Utnapishtim · 03-29-2002, 01:46 PM

I have read the differing genealogies of Joesph in Matthew and Luke, and the bible I was reading had a footnote saying that Heli (stated as Joesph's father in Luke) may have been the his father-in-law. I have also noticed that many of the same names appear in both genealogies. What is the basis of the arguement that Heli is Mary's father? Is there any evidence of this? Or is it just stated to avoid admitting a contradiction? I find it odd that Luke would trace Joesph through his wife's father. Any comments?

Sojourner553 · 03-29-2002, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Utnapishtim:
I have read the differing genealogies of Joesph in Matthew and Luke, and the bible I was reading had a footnote saying that Heli (stated as Joesph's father in Luke) may have been the his father-in-law. I have also noticed that many of the same names appear in both genealogies. What is the basis of the arguement that Heli is Mary's father? Is there any evidence of this? Or is it just stated to avoid admitting a contradiction? I find it odd that Luke would trace Joesph through his wife's father. Any comments?

You can find your answer at this link -- you need to search for the subsection:
--Discrepancies on the Genealogy Lists from Jesus to David

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/BIRTH.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/BIRTH.TXT</a>

also at Section II Chapter 1 at
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

Sojourner

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

03-29-2002, 03:13 PM

The basis for this is that Mary was "woman" as described in Gen.2, "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called 'woman', for out of her man this one has ben taken."

Matthew gives the Jewish perspective and Luke the omniscient perspective.

From Luke's perspective Mary's father was the true lineage to David because Mary was the "womb of man" through which the firstborn is reborn. A son of Joseph-the-sinner would become just another imposter while the firstborn of Joseph- the-man is from the line of David. Notice that the lineage in Luke appears after the illumination of Jesus (the descent of the dove) and not traced back in history from other sources in the Jewish tradition.

In case you can't follow the above I will add that Luke gives us a hint that Jesus might just be the reborn Joseph. In this case Mary was the true womb of man (soul of man) and Joseph the upright carpenter persona. Hence, Mary gave birth to the firstborn that was left behind when Joseph first began to write his carreer as carpenter (sinner).

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

spin · 03-29-2002, 08:41 PM

In short Utnapishtim, there is no basis for the gymnastics over the two genealogies. They both refer to Joseph. In Luke Joseph of Heli, in Matt Joseph whose father was Jacob. They are just different traditions. Don't be mystified by anyone about it.

You'll also find that the part of the lineage from David to Salathiel (Shealtiel) father of Zerubbabel are also different. As both follow the male line from David and finish back at Shealtiel, you should see that at least one must not reflect how the line was. They are just two separate traditions that are both probably not reflective of history, though Matt has the support of the old testament chronologies at least to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.

spin · 03-29-2002, 08:57 PM

Amos:
--------------
From Luke's perspective Mary's father was the true lineage to David because Mary was the "womb of man" through which the firstborn is reborn. A son of Joseph-the-sinner would become just another imposter while the firstborn of Joseph- the-man is from the line of David. Notice that the lineage in Luke appears after the illumination of Jesus (the descent of the dove) and not traced back in history from other sources in the Jewish tradition.
--------------

Come now, Amos, do you really believe that Luke, which clearly indicates that Joseph's relationship to Heli was that of all the other names in the genealogy (there is no word "son" in it anywhere, it's all Joseph of Heli of Matthat ... of Adam of God), was somehow talking of Mary when Mary is not even mentioned anywhere near the genealogy? You must be kidding even yourself.

The Lucan lineage has nothing to do with Mary. The text does not allow you to jump to such conclusions. It is straight forward with its connection of Joseph to the lineage.

The only thing which is strange is the enomizeto (supposed) attached to Joseph regarding the relationship of Jesus as his son. This word has the appearance of having been inserted for the religious notion that the father of Jesus was your god. Otherwise the whole genealogy would be a waste of time, for Joseph is part of the genealogy, and if Jesus was not, then there would be no point of giving it, because it was irrelevant to Jesus, who was, according to your religion, not the son of Joseph.

Sojourner553 · 03-30-2002, 07:29 AM

Per Amos:
_____________________________________________
Luke gives us a hint that Jesus might just be the reborn Joseph. In this case Mary was the true womb of man (soul of man) and Joseph the upright carpenter persona. Hence, Mary gave birth to the firstborn that was left behind when Joseph first began to write his carreer as carpenter (sinner).
_____________________________________________

So which was it? Was Jesus born of the virgin Mary or was he descended through his father Joseph to the line of David?

Why not look at facts -- rather than making up nonsense?

The virgin story was very similar to stories from the Greco-Roman myths:

In the Greco-Roman world, sexual relations between the "gods" and a
"human" woman were believed to be fairly common occurrences. The Roman
historian Livy (who died a few years before Jesus' ministry) wrote an
extremely popular history of Rome whereby the twin founders--Romulus
and Remus--were born of a virgin. Their mother Silvia was a Vestal Virgin
who was fathered by the Greco-Roman god Mars.( For this reason, it has been
suggested that early Christians, knowing of the great legend of pagan Rome's
founding, would naturally expect as miraculous a beginning for their Christian
founder, Jesus).

There were many other role models within the Greco-Roman pagan
literature of women being impregnated by gods: Zeus reportedly fathered the
Greek heroes Hercules and Perseus. The god Aesclepius had fathered Aratus
of Sicyon, while in the disguise of a serpent. Real, historical figures were
also purported to have been fathered by the gods. Alexander the Great was
said to have been fathered by Zeus. Pythagorus, Plato, and even the
first emperor Augustus were believed to have been fathered by Apollo, the
Sun God.

The terms "son of God", "savior", "gospel", and "magi" were not unique
to the early Christians, but instead were common terms that can be found
throughout Greco-Roman literature

...

Interestingly, some early Christians appear to have
noticed these parallels, and therefore rejected the Virgin Birth stories of
Jesus, because they sounded too similar to some Greek myths--such as the
the myth of Dana� who was impregnated by Zeus. (Note: Danae was the mother
of the hero Perseus, who eventually become a Greek god):

The Christian father Justin Martyr wrote in his DIALOGUE WITH THE
JEW TRYPHO how pagans accused Christians of taking the story of the virgin
birth from Danae. Justin responded,

"Why are we Christians alone of men hated for Christ's name, when we do
but related of him stories similar to what the Greeks relate of Hermes
and Perseus?...What we teach, we learned from Christ and the prophets
who preceded him, and it is a true lore and more ancient than that of
all other writers that ever existed; but we claim acceptance, not because
our stories are identical with those of others, but because they are true."

Justin goes on to say that Satan had created mischief in causing these
similarities:

"When I am told that Perseus was born of a virgin, I realize that here
again is a case in which the serpent and deceiver has imitated our religion."

Justin noted that some of his fellow Christians believed Jesus was NOT
born of a Virgin:

"It is quite true that some people of our kind acknowledge him to be
Christ, but at the same time declare him to have been a man of men. I,
however, cannot agree with them, and will not do so, even if the majority
[of Christians] insist on this opinion."

Justin explained that he did not agree with them, because it appeared to
him that the Virgin Birth was based upon "predictions set forth by the
blessed prophets."

-----------------------------------------------
So if you go back to the geneology stories of Joseph being descended to King David.

"Both Matthew and Luke give listings of Jesus' descendants. A close
look at these genealogies will quickly show that they are so very different
from each other, that they would appear to be irreconcilable.

There is [also a] LITERAL discrepancy
between Matthew's genealogy continuing from David to Abraham, with the
version given in Chronicles of the Old Testament. Here the names are
the same, but Matthew list is SHORT four names. Thus this discrepancy
can NOT be due to reckoning genealogies through say a step-father, instead
of a father--For it is IMPOSSIBLE for BOTH a grandfather AND a father
to be the previous ancestor of (the same) son.

(taken from the sources given earlier.)

Sojourner

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Grumpy · 03-30-2002, 08:24 AM

As blatant as the Jacob/Heli quandry is, I find it is much harder to dismiss the plain fact that, in Luke, 42 generations are listed from David to Jesus, but in Matthew there are only 27.

What caused the lineage of Solomon to reproduce so much faster? Could it be that they are exclusively first-sons? (Strictly speaking, Solomon was David's second son; the first was killed by God as punishment for adultery.) Does Luke report subsequent offspring, who might be sired in the fathers' later years? Matthew reports the royal lineage, while Luke reports a second route of sanguinity?

I don't even know if this is possible, especially given the intersections. I've never heard any apologists use this argument (indeed, it only occurred to me while writing this post).

Grumpy · 03-30-2002, 08:31 AM

Quote:

above, I just said:
Does Luke report subsequent offspring, who might be sired in the fathers' later years? ...
I don't even know if this is possible, especially given the intersections.

On second thought (and this is a quick thought, as you can see), working backward we see this is impossible. Joseph's grandfather may have had two sons, #1 Jacob and a later son Heli. But they can't both be Joseph's father.

Unless the conventional apologetic is correct, and where it says "father" we should read "father-in-law" or "Mary's father." But this throws the whole plain reading into doubt, since we could just as easily read any of the listed relationships as in-laws, uncles, or even brothers. Or, for that matter, Jesus wasn't the "Son of Man" but merely the "Nephew of Man."

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]

ex-preacher · 03-30-2002, 08:40 AM

Some other interesting observations about the genealogies:

1. The two sets are in agreement from Abraham to David, then diverge from David to Joseph. BUT, they re-converge in the middle where they agree that Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel. But who was Shealtiel's father? According to Matthew (and OT sources), it was Jeconiah. According to Luke, it was Neri. The clever Christian apologist must here invent another excuse.

2. Matthew's entire genealogical construct attempts to prove that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile and 14 from the exile to Jesus. Scholars disagree over the significance Matthew saw in the number 14, but he clearly was forcing a pattern. The iteresting thing is that Matthew left out 3 names between David and the exile to create the magic 14. Even more astounding: the last set actually numbers 13, not 14! Like our friend Douglas J. Mindbender, Matthew was obsessed with numbers, but couldn't do math.

(Note: I don't think that Matthew was actually written by the apostle Matthew (why would an apostle plagiarize a non-witness like Mark), but call the author "Matthew" out of convenience.)

03-30-2002, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:

So which was it? Was Jesus born of the virgin Mary or was he descended through his father Joseph to the line of David?

Jesus was descendend through Joseph-the-man and not Joseph-the-Jew. The dual identity of Joseph as both "Joseph the Jew" and as "Man in the image of God" tracable to Adam are identified here. hence Luke goes to Adam and Matthew goes to Abraham. Alert, a new religion is born!

Why not look at facts -- rather than making up nonsense?

The virgin story was very similar to stories from the Greco-Roman myths:

In the Greco-Roman world, sexual relations between the "gods" and a
"human" woman were believed to be fairly common occurrences. /snip/

So why must you add more literal interpretations to prove your point? Just so I can say that you don't understand them either? The virgin birth is a metaphysical rebirth and only a stretch of the imagination is required.

There were many other role models within the Greco-Roman pagan
literature of women being impregnated by gods: 

Don't you wish that some of us were also born of God so we could understand what they were talking about? 

The Christian father Justin Martyr wrote in his DIALOGUE WITH THE
JEW TRYPHO how pagans accused Christians of taking the story of the virgin
birth from Danae. Justin responded,

"Why are we Christians alone of men hated for Christ's name, when we do
but related of him stories similar to what the Greeks relate of Hermes
and Perseus?...What we teach, we learned from Christ and the prophets
who preceded him, and it is a true lore and more ancient than that of
all other writers that ever existed; but we claim acceptance, not because
our stories are identical with those of others, but because they are true."

Well Justin is my hero (always was), because what we write is inspired directly from God and appears plagiarized to the outsider but are, in fact, first hand accounts of our personal experience describing an archetypal reality which therefore may seems plagiarized (Jn.5:40). Literary and bible critics always make this mistake because of their own oblivion.

Justin goes on to say that Satan had created mischief in causing these
similarities:

"When I am told that Perseus was born of a virgin, I realize that here
again is a case in which the serpent and deceiver has imitated our religion."

Justin noted that some of his fellow Christians believed Jesus was NOT
born of a Virgin:

"It is quite true that some people of our kind acknowledge him to be
Christ, but at the same time declare him to have been a man of men. I,
however, cannot agree with them, and will not do so, even if the majority
[of Christians] insist on this opinion."

Very true because many are reborn from carnal desire and will never comprehend the virgin birth. They will deny this to their grave and therefore die nontheless. Nothing has changed.

Justin explained that he did not agree with them, because it appeared to
him that the Virgin Birth was based upon "predictions set forth by the
blessed prophets."

But let me tell you that Justin knew exactly what he was talking about but just would not say anymore than that it was "predicted by the prophets." Don't forget that he was a early Church father and for him the truth and nothing but the truth must be incorporated without removing the mystery of salvation.

Sojourner, I am amazed by your memory and wish I could remember as far back as what I read or wrote yesterday. But then, I am just here for fun and so I don't really have to remember much.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

03-29-2002, 03:13 PM	#3
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	The basis for this is that Mary was "woman" as described in Gen.2, "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called 'woman', for out of her man this one has ben taken." Matthew gives the Jewish perspective and Luke the omniscient perspective. From Luke's perspective Mary's father was the true lineage to David because Mary was the "womb of man" through which the firstborn is reborn. A son of Joseph-the-sinner would become just another imposter while the firstborn of Joseph- the-man is from the line of David. Notice that the lineage in Luke appears after the illumination of Jesus (the descent of the dove) and not traced back in history from other sources in the Jewish tradition. In case you can't follow the above I will add that Luke gives us a hint that Jesus might just be the reborn Joseph. In this case Mary was the true womb of man (soul of man) and Joseph the upright carpenter persona. Hence, Mary gave birth to the firstborn that was left behind when Joseph first began to write his carreer as carpenter (sinner). [ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

03-30-2002, 07:29 AM	#6
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	Per Amos: _____________________________________________ Luke gives us a hint that Jesus might just be the reborn Joseph. In this case Mary was the true womb of man (soul of man) and Joseph the upright carpenter persona. Hence, Mary gave birth to the firstborn that was left behind when Joseph first began to write his carreer as carpenter (sinner). _____________________________________________ So which was it? Was Jesus born of the virgin Mary or was he descended through his father Joseph to the line of David? Why not look at facts -- rather than making up nonsense? The virgin story was very similar to stories from the Greco-Roman myths: In the Greco-Roman world, sexual relations between the "gods" and a "human" woman were believed to be fairly common occurrences. The Roman historian Livy (who died a few years before Jesus' ministry) wrote an extremely popular history of Rome whereby the twin founders--Romulus and Remus--were born of a virgin. Their mother Silvia was a Vestal Virgin who was fathered by the Greco-Roman god Mars.( For this reason, it has been suggested that early Christians, knowing of the great legend of pagan Rome's founding, would naturally expect as miraculous a beginning for their Christian founder, Jesus). There were many other role models within the Greco-Roman pagan literature of women being impregnated by gods: Zeus reportedly fathered the Greek heroes Hercules and Perseus. The god Aesclepius had fathered Aratus of Sicyon, while in the disguise of a serpent. Real, historical figures were also purported to have been fathered by the gods. Alexander the Great was said to have been fathered by Zeus. Pythagorus, Plato, and even the first emperor Augustus were believed to have been fathered by Apollo, the Sun God. The terms "son of God", "savior", "gospel", and "magi" were not unique to the early Christians, but instead were common terms that can be found throughout Greco-Roman literature ... Interestingly, some early Christians appear to have noticed these parallels, and therefore rejected the Virgin Birth stories of Jesus, because they sounded too similar to some Greek myths--such as the the myth of Dana� who was impregnated by Zeus. (Note: Danae was the mother of the hero Perseus, who eventually become a Greek god): The Christian father Justin Martyr wrote in his DIALOGUE WITH THE JEW TRYPHO how pagans accused Christians of taking the story of the virgin birth from Danae. Justin responded, "Why are we Christians alone of men hated for Christ's name, when we do but related of him stories similar to what the Greeks relate of Hermes and Perseus?...What we teach, we learned from Christ and the prophets who preceded him, and it is a true lore and more ancient than that of all other writers that ever existed; but we claim acceptance, not because our stories are identical with those of others, but because they are true." Justin goes on to say that Satan had created mischief in causing these similarities: "When I am told that Perseus was born of a virgin, I realize that here again is a case in which the serpent and deceiver has imitated our religion." Justin noted that some of his fellow Christians believed Jesus was NOT born of a Virgin: "It is quite true that some people of our kind acknowledge him to be Christ, but at the same time declare him to have been a man of men. I, however, cannot agree with them, and will not do so, even if the majority [of Christians] insist on this opinion." Justin explained that he did not agree with them, because it appeared to him that the Virgin Birth was based upon "predictions set forth by the blessed prophets." ----------------------------------------------- So if you go back to the geneology stories of Joseph being descended to King David. "Both Matthew and Luke give listings of Jesus' descendants. A close look at these genealogies will quickly show that they are so very different from each other, that they would appear to be irreconcilable. There is [also a] LITERAL discrepancy between Matthew's genealogy continuing from David to Abraham, with the version given in Chronicles of the Old Testament. Here the names are the same, but Matthew list is SHORT four names. Thus this discrepancy can NOT be due to reckoning genealogies through say a step-father, instead of a father--For it is IMPOSSIBLE for BOTH a grandfather AND a father to be the previous ancestor of (the same) son. (taken from the sources given earlier.) Sojourner [ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-29-2002, 01:46 PM	#1
Utnapishtim Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 330	Question about genealogies I have read the differing genealogies of Joesph in Matthew and Luke, and the bible I was reading had a footnote saying that Heli (stated as Joesph's father in Luke) may have been the his father-in-law. I have also noticed that many of the same names appear in both genealogies. What is the basis of the arguement that Heli is Mary's father? Is there any evidence of this? Or is it just stated to avoid admitting a contradiction? I find it odd that Luke would trace Joesph through his wife's father. Any comments?

03-29-2002, 08:41 PM	#4
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	In short Utnapishtim, there is no basis for the gymnastics over the two genealogies. They both refer to Joseph. In Luke Joseph of Heli, in Matt Joseph whose father was Jacob. They are just different traditions. Don't be mystified by anyone about it. You'll also find that the part of the lineage from David to Salathiel (Shealtiel) father of Zerubbabel are also different. As both follow the male line from David and finish back at Shealtiel, you should see that at least one must not reflect how the line was. They are just two separate traditions that are both probably not reflective of history, though Matt has the support of the old testament chronologies at least to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.

03-29-2002, 08:57 PM	#5
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Amos: -------------- From Luke's perspective Mary's father was the true lineage to David because Mary was the "womb of man" through which the firstborn is reborn. A son of Joseph-the-sinner would become just another imposter while the firstborn of Joseph- the-man is from the line of David. Notice that the lineage in Luke appears after the illumination of Jesus (the descent of the dove) and not traced back in history from other sources in the Jewish tradition. -------------- Come now, Amos, do you really believe that Luke, which clearly indicates that Joseph's relationship to Heli was that of all the other names in the genealogy (there is no word "son" in it anywhere, it's all Joseph of Heli of Matthat ... of Adam of God), was somehow talking of Mary when Mary is not even mentioned anywhere near the genealogy? You must be kidding even yourself. The Lucan lineage has nothing to do with Mary. The text does not allow you to jump to such conclusions. It is straight forward with its connection of Joseph to the lineage. The only thing which is strange is the enomizeto (supposed) attached to Joseph regarding the relationship of Jesus as his son. This word has the appearance of having been inserted for the religious notion that the father of Jesus was your god. Otherwise the whole genealogy would be a waste of time, for Joseph is part of the genealogy, and if Jesus was not, then there would be no point of giving it, because it was irrelevant to Jesus, who was, according to your religion, not the son of Joseph.

03-30-2002, 08:24 AM	#7
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	As blatant as the Jacob/Heli quandry is, I find it is much harder to dismiss the plain fact that, in Luke, 42 generations are listed from David to Jesus, but in Matthew there are only 27. What caused the lineage of Solomon to reproduce so much faster? Could it be that they are exclusively first-sons? (Strictly speaking, Solomon was David's second son; the first was killed by God as punishment for adultery.) Does Luke report subsequent offspring, who might be sired in the fathers' later years? Matthew reports the royal lineage, while Luke reports a second route of sanguinity? I don't even know if this is possible, especially given the intersections. I've never heard any apologists use this argument (indeed, it only occurred to me while writing this post).

03-30-2002, 08:40 AM	#9
ex-preacher Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: University of Arkansas Posts: 1,033	Some other interesting observations about the genealogies: 1. The two sets are in agreement from Abraham to David, then diverge from David to Joseph. BUT, they re-converge in the middle where they agree that Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel. But who was Shealtiel's father? According to Matthew (and OT sources), it was Jeconiah. According to Luke, it was Neri. The clever Christian apologist must here invent another excuse. 2. Matthew's entire genealogical construct attempts to prove that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile and 14 from the exile to Jesus. Scholars disagree over the significance Matthew saw in the number 14, but he clearly was forcing a pattern. The iteresting thing is that Matthew left out 3 names between David and the exile to create the magic 14. Even more astounding: the last set actually numbers 13, not 14! Like our friend Douglas J. Mindbender, Matthew was obsessed with numbers, but couldn't do math. (Note: I don't think that Matthew was actually written by the apostle Matthew (why would an apostle plagiarize a non-witness like Mark), but call the author "Matthew" out of convenience.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.