Are there contridictions to the Genealogies of Jesus?

Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels. The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a direct descendant of King David.

Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely borrowed from the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth. Although the virgin birth could be accommodated by inserting a few words into the genealogies to break the physical link between Joseph and Jesus, those same insertions also broke the physical link between David and Jesus.

The church had now created two major problems: 1) to explain away the existence of two genealogies of Joseph, now rendered meaningless, and 2) to explain how Jesus was a descendant of David.

The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required.

Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg being discovered in 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children.

This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the "seed of David" through Mary.

In Luke Chapter 3 verse 23--> it talks of jesus, being supposed son of joseph, son of Heli...all the way to verse 31, which says son of david.

Heli was father of Mary, not Joseph, I posed a question to a creationist, about this and they said that, according to experts, in thsoe times, son in laws were essentialy refered to as the son of a father in law. Such a reference was not uncommon. Therefore chp 3 does not contridict another qoute that jesus is the seed of david, because he is the son of mary, daughter of heli, son of....david(from long geneology).

THe premise is that it was common to call stepsons, sons, which allows the line sone of heli....



Either there is no argument here or I am missing somehting. HELP ME!





Wait I just realized something, we dont know that MAry is son of Heli, that is purely speculation. My opponent proposed that experts think history (other than bible?) suggests she is daughter of Heli. But it seems to me as nothing more than speculation.



SO TELL ME CREATIONSIST: explai this contridiciton! lol.

I not sure what the problem is. Genealogies were apart of the culture and that it is why we have Genealogies. Here some information to review.

Luke 3:23 notes

The real father of Joseph was Jacob (Mat_1:16); but having married the daughter of Heli, and being perhaps adopted by him, he was called his son, and as such was entered in the public registers; Mary not being mentioned, because the Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. Hence it appears that Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham, through whom the promises were given to the Jews, to David, and from David, through the line of Solomon, to Jacob the father of Joseph, the reputed or legal father of Christ; and that Luke, who wrote for the Gentiles, extends his genealogy upwards from Heli, the father of Mary, through the line of Nathan, to David, and from David to Abraham, and from Abraham to Adam, who was the immediate "son of God" by creation, and to whom the promise of the Saviour was given in behalf of himself and all his posterity. The two branches of descent from David, by Solomon and Nathan, being thus united in the persons of Mary and Joseph, Jesus the son of Mary re-united in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called "the Son of David."

The Complete word study dictionary

spÈrma; gen. spÈrmatos, neut. noun from speÃŒrō (G4687), to sow. Seed, both what is sown as containing the germ of new fruit, and what is growing out of the seed sown, produce. Originally spÈrma was used of plants as seed (Mat_13:24, Mat_13:27, Mat_13:32, Mat_13:37-38; Mar_4:31; 1Co_15:38; 2Co_9:10; Sept.: Gen_1:11; Gen_47:23). In 1Jn_3:9 the spÈrma of God denotes the power of God operative through the Holy Spirit working in believers. Also figuratively used of living beings as the seed of man; i.e., of posterity or descendants. By implication, spÈrma means a remnant, a few survivors, such as those remaining from a former year (Rom_9:29 alluding to Isa_1:9).
In the Class. Gr. terminology, spÈrma rarely signifies descendants collectively, and even less, posterity as a whole, but primarily only the individual, the child, offspring, son or daughter. In the Sept. however, spÈrma has mostly a collective meaning. In the few places where it is used of an individual (Sept.: Gen_4:25; Gen_21:13; 1Sa_1:11; 2Sa_7:12), it includes oneself or represents the progeny (Sept.: 1Sa_2:20). In Isa_59:21 it signifies primarily the immediate descendants, the children (see Sept.: Gen_15:3; Gen_21:13), and hence spÈrma denotes the descendants collectively traced back to one ancestor (Sept.: Gen_13:16; Gen_15:13, Gen_15:18; Gen_22:17; Gen_28:14; Gen_32:12). Therefore, it passes into the meaning of family, stock (Sept.: 2Ki_11:1; 2Ki_25:25), and of Israel collectively (Sept.: Ezr_9:2). In some instances such as Psa_37:28; Psa_69:36; Pro_11:18; Isa_1:4; Isa_57:4; Isa_65:23, it has the meaning of gÈnnēma (G1081), offspring, and signifies an ethical spiritual fellowship without reference to relationship of race. SpÈrma is used especially of the people of Israel as descendants of Abraham or Jacob, with whom Ishmael or Esau and their descendants were not reckoned (Sept.: Gen_21:12-13; Gen_28:4, Gen_28:13-14; Psa_105:6; Isa_41:. Besides these, we find it employed of individual families, such as the family of Aaron, David, and others. With these aforementioned exceptions, spÈrma is everywhere a collective concept for which the pl. is never used.
The word continues in its collective meaning in the NT (Rev_12:17). Thus, it denotes immediate descendants, children (Mat_22:24-25; Mar_12:19-22; Luk_20:28). The expression "the seed of David" (Joh_7:42; Rom_1:3; 2Ti_2: means progeny, posterity (see Act_13:23). Similarly with "the seed of Abraham" (a.t. [Luk_1:55; Joh_8:33, Joh_8:37; Act_3:25; Act_7:5-6; Act_13:23; Rom_4:13, Rom_4:16, Rom_4:18; Rom_11:1; 2Co_11:22; Gal_3:19; Heb_2:16; Heb_11:18]). Where Christ is designated as the progeny or offspring of Abraham, He is referred to as the Messiah. He is the offspring of Abraham as Isaac is the offspring of Abraham, including and exhibiting in himself that progeny (Rom_9:7). There are, indeed, spÈrmata, seeds, of Abraham, lines of descent, namely those of Ishmael or Esau besides Isaac or Israel. However, the promise does not apply to all the lines of descent, but to one line which alone is always meant by the seed of Abraham, i.e., the Messiah, which henceforward is brought into existence through Christ. To take spÈrmata (pl.) as a collective term, and spÈrma (sing.) as an individual person, is foreign to Pauline phraseology. In Gal_3:16 we must distinguish between one line of progeny and more than one (spÈrma, seed, coll. spÈrmata, seeds, lines of descendants) and bear in mind Gen_21:12-13 (with which Gal_3:29 very well agrees). That Paul has in mind the several lines of descendants from Abraham is evident in Gal_4:22.

I do not see the your problem considering Mary is a descended from David thus Christ is in David's bloodline. Joseph was took him as hi son. Matthew is the Jews Genealogy and Luke constants a Gentle genealogy.

Doug, can I assume that you think these Genealogies are historically accurate, then you are also a Young Earth Creationist?

Evidentialism is not my field of study but their is not reason to doubt the history claims when their our outside source verify the claims of the text. I will not argue this point since if any one wants to ague this point, they haven't done listen to other side. Genealogies are correct and if any deny that, you haven't done any studying on the topic. History is not subjective when their are clean documents for support.

Young earth creationist, it depends what you mean. Did God create the universe and earth in six days, yes. How old is the earth, good question.

Doug,

I am so lifted up at this moment, that I can hardly speak or type. Thank you for the understanding. I wish George hadn't left and I hope James is still following. Where the heck is Jeremy and Karl?

WOO HOO, ABBA FATHER!

There is no reason to doubt two wildly contradicting genealogies that go back to "Adam" - the first man? I am assuming you mean that you cannot see any good reason -- not that you believe that you are fully aware of all the arguments and you are certain that none of the arguments present anyone with any logical reason to doubt.
I am sorry Doug, you are making quite a bit of absolutists statements that do not reflect honest criticism.
Sure, but your use of "clean documents" is very subjective.
I mean if humans are roughly 200,000 years old as science tells us, and evolution is true, then the Genealogies going back to the first man cannot be true -- not even with 900 year old men.

Hi Linda. I am still around, been enjoying ytour posts. I just haven't been so busy here coz I keep a bit quiett as to what some say. If I have to reply it might just become a battler lol. And I have been trainig for a compatision. In fact we are busy driving at this moment, we would have been in George from Cape Town by now (450km) but had delaya thus far. I hope you all well. Thanks Linda

Wildly contradicting....what contradictions? In the Historical sense the Bible has been verified. I have reviewed many theory against but are all argument are answerable. The issue is, do you accept the answer? You're worldview will decide that for you. Since man is in sin, man will not accept the evidence.
Did Hilter exist? Is that subjective? I am not asking about belief here.
Sorry Bo, you have lost me.
Science and evolution and creationism. Sadly what we see today is not science based upon the scientific definition. Science is a retestable test with same general results and test the natural world. God can not be tested by science since He is supernatural by definition. Evolution, you can not reproduce it in a lab. Scientist have tried and now they heading towards the direction Aliens seeded this plant. I can not put a number the age of the earth but it is not billions of years old. Since I do not have a fixed date to start with, I can tell you how old the earth is. Question for you. Why does supernatural standard or events have to bow down to science? Before the enlightenment, human experience was not final authority on reality.

Matt and Luke. The whole genealogy from Mary is a apologetic excuse for the discrepancy, not historically verifiable evidence. What other genealogies in the Bible use the mother?

Sin is not preventing me from accepting the "evidence" -- it's the lack of evidence. I don't blame it on SATAN.

Doug, you said, "Genealogies are correct and if any deny that, you haven't done any studying on the topic." and I said "I am sorry Doug, you are making quite a bit of absolutists statements that do not reflect honest criticism." To which you responded, "Did Hilter exist? Is that subjective? I am not asking about belief here." Enough said.
What is a "clean document"? To you, it is the Bible. MANY people would not accept that as a "clean document", therefore, the idea of a "clean document" is subjective.

You appear to be dodging the question if you are a YEC creationist of not, but I think you are. The reason I ask is because this explains a lot to me as to if it is pointless or not for me to try to use evidence in my argument.
Please tell me what scientific background you have that makes you think you are right and 98.5% of earth scientists are wrong at their interpretation of the data that leads them to a 4.5 billion year old earth?

I was raised in a houshold that used the logic of the Bible as the only way to prove the point - When one takes into consideration that events in the Bible are based on pure lore one cannot replace science with this sort of faith.

Faith must go hand in hand with Science - else it is worthless - Essentially even using the Bible to prove this point is possible with the statement of the "Apostle" James - Faith without WORKS is dead.

While there are those that claim that due to carbon dating being a not completely reliable proof, there are also many supporting arguments for the use of carbon dating - Not to mention the measurements of the size of the galaxy, figuring in time it takes them to move etc.... Need I go on?



Geneologies in the Bible are made up at best - As has been stated there is no evidence behind any of these claims. Even looking at Ancient Sumerian texts that predate the 12 Tribes of Isreal it shows where most of the bible itself came from - not to mention the fact that Abraham came OUT of Sumeria (Ur of the Chaldees) and most stpries in the bible come out of the Epic of Gilgamesh - a Sumerian tale preserved by the Babylonians -

One must remember that the Jewish people (Who are good people) where in captivity in Babylon for MANY years - so many of the Babylonian, Persian, and most definately Sumerian culture rubbed into their Culture - (Zoriastrianism comes directly from Persian process, and is the first Good V. Evil system.)



Jesus, (actually Yeshua) was a person yes - and even more likely he did have a following here on Earth, however his influence was only limited to the Middle East - and as even the bible states he was crucified for being the King of the Jews - Essentially Governmental and political reasons. His followers perpetuated his memory into the fable of the Messiah who was Rejected...

The Christian church originally was not much more than a secret following of persecuted outsiders... Till Emperor Constantine of Rome decided to make it the State religion - Thus giving birth to the first real Christian movement - Catholicism. This was heavily influenced by Roman Mythology, which itself contained essential elements of Sumerian Faith - (The Queen of Heaven Cult mentioned in the Bible of Tammuz aka Dumuzi was Sumerian in origin - and gave birth to the Holy Mother in the Catholic church).



Essentially attempting to claim any form of modern Christian Ideology of Faith to be CLEAN is incorrect - as it includes every other local, and worldwide religion to some degree, twisted into one monolithic program. Remember all the peoples that the Catholic church assimilated into its dogma - Holidays on pagan holidays, saints that were actually Pagan deities of some form (I cant remember the exact ones at this time , my apologies) etc etc..



Whether or not the universe was "created" by some ultimate being or natural chain reactions is irrelevant - however, it is more likely that the Gods who actually put life on this earth are not SUPER natural - rather they are more than likely para-natural - From the spiritual realm that co-exists in a superior state to the Physical as we understand it.

Science has shown there to be a very high probability that other "dimensions" exist = and that is most likely the gods that we seem to squabble over.



Hence why I go as far back as I can into human history for my evidence - easier to prove and much easier to believe.



Jokingly Mr. Bo - Why not blame it on Satan - He is only trying to enlighten others !!

I deny that. What verse says Heli is father of Heli.

Who Karls and George? Jeremy and James? I not sure what your what your referring to "understanding" but praise the lord!!!
Ya

So what you deny the text? It does not make the text invalid? Are you final authority when it comes to truth. Tell me your qualification that your right beside your opinion? If prove to the world your superior? Or accept the answer your were provide and move on.

First off, according to the Book of Luke. Luke was a doctor and visited eye witnesses, then wrote Gospel of Luke based upon the accords. John, Matthew, John were eye witnesses that livid with Jesus for 3 1/2 years. For Christ Resurrection, their were more then 500 people saw him. When 1 and 2 Corinthians were, Corinth church know Christ rose from the dead and verifies Paul accounts of claims of Christ Resurrection.

Second, The external evidence of historian. Their were Jewish and Romans historian. The record we have tells us, Man named Jesus did all miracle stated in Scripture and stated he was the Son of God and reports he rose from the dead.

Third, places have been found that Bible states like Galilee. Galilee was through through to be imagery until it was discovery. Archaeology is proved many people and places.

Fourth, if you quote me, accounting to Greek and Romans myth it states the same as the Bible, so the writer of the new testament stole ideas. This is your assumption. Just because a two or more writing have similarity does not means they stole from each other. If historian states an event in history, it is understand to be history and if a text falls mythical stores, these are two categories. Theses two categories should be mixed.

My background is theology and philosophy, not archaeology or evidentialism but from study this topic to have basic understanding, historical aspect our correct. You need to remove the evidence. Their is no evidence to conclude that the is not Historical correct.
Really? Since Man is born sinful and blinded their nature, how can you tell? All your experience is defiled and you knowing nothing but rebellion of against your creator. You can not know since it your nature. Tell me, how can you judge self to verify your consider if all you can do is sin and curse Christ. I now your position, you have recreated Christianity and I will not debate this at this time. Oh, you brought up Satan, not I.
Interesting..... Their are clean document and archaeology for the historical aspect of the Bible. If you refuse to accept them, that is not my problem. If someone denies Hitler existed, they are irrational. Their is evidence out but refuse to accept it based upon your sin and your irrational thinking need a saviour to change it.
If I do not know about topic well, not going to give an answer. This is such a case.
No, you convince me. It is interesting, I have posted information to reply to the original post but no one has given meaningful reply beside I do not belief that. You convince me what is science and why should I accept Evolution and it's time frame. When your at it, tell were the universe came from within science.

I really don't know what you are debating, Doug. You are trying to prove the resurrection of Jesus. The topic is the Genealogies of Jesus. I stated that the two genealogies are wildly different, and asked you to show me where the Bible also uses genealogies from the mother, since that is your excuse for the contradicting Genealogies.
Really, Why is man born sinful? Because you read it in a book? You have to realize that everyone does not accept what you do by default.
I am not denying that archeological evidence exists that back up some information in the Bible. I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose, or what, but you are not responding to my questions/arguments. My question to you is what makes the two genealogies of Jesus "clean documents"? How does archeology verify these genealogies?
But you already gave an answer. You said that the earth is NOT billions of years old.
Again, now you are shifting the argument to the origin of the universe? Science does not have an answer for this, and never claimed to. But it does have an answer to the age of the universe and earth. If I understand you correctly, you are stating that you do not accept science because no one has "convinced you" of it. Is that correct? You think that 98.5% of these scientists are all wrong (perhaps corrupted by SATAN) and their PhD's mean crap in cosmology, astronomy, geology, etc. I am not going to even attempt to convince you "what science is" since you already do not accept it.

Sorry Doug,

I just get a little carried away when I get a clear understanding or revelations. I was referring to your post on the Genealogies of Jesus.

The names of those I mentioned are those who are believers on here. They may have understood the line, but if not, I sure didn't want them to miss it.

That is alright and I am encourage you are understanding. Keep on learning and understanding.

Doug,

As far as I am concerned, you are a God send on here. Please don't get ruffled by the negative, it is a debate. I believe that you could do so much good and I personally want to hear more of what God has revealed to you. Just before you showed up, I asked God to send recruits. Then you came. What does that tell ya!

He also sent you a Satanist.

ROFLMBO

I just replied to statements, that's all. Already stated (or I thought I did), Luke genealogy is for Gentles thus is was not follow Jewish genealogy. That why their is a different pattern. I do not see the problem, examine it to me, please.
You see the cross as foolishness but the ones saved by it, it powerful and meaningful. If your going to debate with me, then you'll have to get used to my absolutist biblical claims and deal with them. I read and deal with clear bias against Christianity. It only fair.
What is the need to verify these genealogies when the books are historical correct. Here is the thing if you want to attack records but you're attacking the whole book and saying the writer is a lair or incorrect. Give me a reason to doubt the record. You could start with my statements about correctness of the text.

It is very interesting why people here automatic assume a position and expect every one to follow suit. Sorry, if you want to go in some direction, convince me. Too often Christian follow suit in a debate but needs change. I would like if you could do the hard work as well.
I was referring to more detail number. That's all.
Where is Satan coming from, I did not bring this up and your putting in my month. You asked me for proof for a young earth and I replied to what you said. That is how you debate. I am confused? Convince me Evolution can be tested in a lab. You are asking me to accept Evolution as fact and you have no idea where the universe came from. It is connected topic which I would love to have answer for. I would like someone to address philosophy aspect with Evolution as well.

I do accept science when it can be tested in lab with the same general result. But with Evolution this can not be done. I reject Evolutionary science based upon what is science like many other people.

What do you mean by a God? I am a sinner saved in and through Christ, who was resurrected. I getting ruffled about when I reply to statement by attacking the assumption, no one replies. What is your religion view? It says spiritual but what does that mean?

Linda said "you are a God send" not "you are a God"
You are going with the "Luke's genealogy was through Mary" excuse for the 77 vs 42 generations differences. I asked you what evidence do you have to believe this is the case -- it certainly does not say it in the Bible. You seem to be taking the "the Bible is 100% true, it is in the Bible, so it is true" approach, rather than supporting the idea that Luke's genealogy is through Mary with even the tiniest bit of evidence.
That's not a debate. That's just insisting you are right without explaining why you are right.
You are not doing any hard work. You are assuming that your interpretation of the Bible is 100% perfect. Yet when challenged on a simple apparent contradiction of genealogies, you cannot give a rational explanation -- you simply use circular reasoning to state that the Bible is true, that is in the Bible, so that must be true.
Where does Sin come from then? I apparently cannot understand things because of "Sin" -- is that not just a way of saying SATAN has a hold on me?
I asked for no such thing. I asked you why you do not accept the age of 4.5 billion years, as testified and proven in every sense of the word scientifically by 98.5% of scientists qualified to make such observations. I am not going to play 8th grade science teacher and prove to you the age of the earth, I just want to know why you believe that you are more qualified then the scientists to know that the earth is not "billions of years old".

You are not admitting that you believe the earth is 6000 years old -- are you embarrassed by this? Please explain to me how the earth can POSSIBLY be any older (give or take a thousand years) if the genealogies of Jesus are correct and that God created the earth in a literal 6 days (as you already admitted).

Doug, take it easy, OK

A God send ( maybe I didn't spell it out right) means that God sent you. I believe in only one God and that is the God of the bible, Father of Christ.

I believe in the infilling and receiving of the Holy Spirit of Christ, which gives me understanding. I believe that we live in a spirit filled world and without God, in our sinful state, we are vulnerable to those spirits in the world.

God is a Spirit. To communicate with Him, we must become spiritual.

I hope we are OK here.

Josh, Luke 3:23, according to how Doug explains it, Joseph's name would have been used in behalf of Mary.