- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Thanks brother Nick for popping this thread on Geneology of Jesus. Here are some arguments on this topic. please subit your comments on those arguments.
The genealogies in the New Testament have long been a source of embarrassment for literalist Christians. Jesus' lineage is provided twice — once in Matthew 1:1-17 and once in Luke 3:23-38, but the differences between them are immense, and the problems within them are complex. These inconsistencies cannot easily be explained away.
Contrary to what many poorly-informed Christians assert, both genealogies trace Jesus' line through Joseph, even though both of the gospels also claim that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. Both Matthew and Luke seem to recognize the awkwardness of this, though they do not make any effort to explain it. Matthew 1:16 reads “Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born,” suggesting that he's not quite able to bring himself to say “Joseph the father of Jesus.” Similarly, Luke 3:23 says that Jesus was “the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli”; the parenthetical aside makes it clear that Luke doesn't quite know what to do with Joseph's relationship to Jesus. It would have been very easy for one of the evangelists, or for a later scribe, to shift the genealogy over to Mary. But none of them did.
As can be seen even from the brief quotations above, the two genealogies diverge immediately, and they do not often mesh. Was Joseph's father Heli or Jacob? Was his great-grandfather Levi or Eleazar? Was his great-great-grandfather Melchi or Eliud? Was his great-great-great-grandfather Jannai or Achim? These are not minor glitches; what we see here are two completely different bloodlines. In point of fact, the two genealogies have only three names in common between David and Jesus. (David is one. The other two, for the record, are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.)
On the subject of Mary's lineage, Luke says in 1:36 that Mary was “kin” (suggenis) to Elizabeth, John the Baptist's mother. Elizabeth, we are told, is a “daughter of Aaron,” which is to say that she is from a priestly (Levite) family. This makes sense, since she is married to a priest, Zechariah, and Levites tended to marry within the tribe. If Mary is a blood-relation to Elizabeth, as suggenis suggests, then that means it's very unlikely that she is of Davidic stock (on which see below).
Matthew's genealogy begins with Abraham, the father of the Israelites. This fits the generally “Jewish” orientation of Matthew's gospel, his interest in the Law, his portrayal of Jesus as a new Moses, and so on. Luke's genealogy, by contrast, goes all the way back to Adam, the first human being. This gels with Luke's interest in Christianity as a religion for the whole world, Jew and Gentile alike.
Of course, this is not a contradiction strictly speaking; a genealogy that goes further back does not necessarily conflict with a genealogy that stops sooner. However, it is important to note that these genealogies are subtly supporting each evangelist's agenda, and therefore should be read with a critical eye.
Matthew's genealogy is divided neatly into three groups of fourteen generations. Fourteen generations are counted between Abraham and King David, another fourteen between King David and the Babylonian Exile, and a third fourteen between the Babylonian Exile and the birth of Jesus. Matthew's point is that something significant happens to the Israelites every fourteenth generation.
Various reasons have been suggested for this scheme. Seven is a significant number in many religions, and Judaism is no exception; twice seven, therefore, might be seen as a doubly perfect number. Also, the numerical value of David's name in Hebrew adds up to fourteen, which Matthew may have used as a way to emphasize the Messiahship of Jesus.
But there's a problem. If you look carefully, you'll see that the final list contains only thirteen names. Go ahead. Count them yourself. I'll wait.
(Some Christian traditions claim that the missing fourteenth means that Jesus should be counted twice: once for himself, and once for the Holy Spirit. As lovely as this explanation is, it simply is not supported anywhere in Matthew's text.)
Luke does not use the system of fourteens, and he expresses no interest in the Babylonian Exile. Instead, he counts seventy-seven generations from the beginning of the world to Jesus, suggesting that he, too, is interested in sevens.
Both evangelists trace Jesus' line — or at least Joseph's line — through David, Israel's most famous king. The reason for this is that the Messiah (literally, “the Anointed One,” which is translated as Christos in Greek) was expected to be of Davidic descent. God's promises to this effect can be found in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Isaiah 55:3-5, Ezekiel 34:20-24, and so on.
Both Luke and Matthew are keen to establish that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, David's birthplace (as we are told in 1 Samuel 16:18; for a relevant prophecy, see Micah 5:2). However, Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth, probably because he actually was from Nazareth, which meant that the evangelists had to come up with a way to get the pregnant Mary to Bethlehem. Luke and Matthew did this in very different ways.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth but travelled to Bethlehem, his ancestor's birthplace, so that they could take part in a census. Not only do no records of this census exist anywhere in contemporary Roman sources, but no other New Testament book mentions it. Besides, the idea of returning to the birthplace of your ancestors every time there is a census seems surpassing odd. (To my e2 friends who are the children of immigrants: do you go back to your grandparents' homeland every time a census takes place there?)
Matthew, for his part, has Jesus born in Bethlehem but his parents flee for Egypt in order to get away from the murderous rage of Herod. When they return, they hear that the new ruler in Bethlehem is just as bad as the previous one, so they settle in Nazareth instead. Luke mentions neither the trip to Egypt nor the slaughter of the innocents.
It is true that “Jewishness” is traditionally passed down through the mother rather than the father. To this day, Conservative and Orthodox Jews both consider a child Jewish so long as its mother is Jewish. (Reform Jews consider a child Jewish if either parent is Jewish.) However, that doesn't get us out of the genealogy problem in the gospels. No genealogy in the Torah traces the ancestry of an important figure through women. Check for yourself: the genealogies in Genesis 4 and Genesis 5 are typical, and other examples abound. I don't think that anyone would have doubted that Jesus was Jewish, but that's not the question in the first place. The question is how we get from David to Jesus. Despite the length of their genealogies, neither Matthew nor Luke answer that question at all satisfactorily.
Is it possible to be a Christian even after learning about all these complexities and inconsistencies in the gospel accounts? Of course it is. However, in my opinion, it is not possible to be a simplistic, literalist Christian, who claims that the Bible's message is free of conflicts and complications. There are lots of ways to read texts besides literal ways, and Luke's and Matthew's birth narratives require those other sorts of readings.Thanks and peace to you
AdamAdam……We must also concider the law of adoption that existed at the time of Jesus, if a person adopted a child as his, that child was given full reconition as His own Child. Perhaps this is could explain the discrepancy. I have realized these discrepancies before and condidered Jesus may be of the blood linage of a Levite, the priestly tribe. We know his Mother Mary was because she was a cousin to Elizabeth the wife of Zechariah the acting High Priest at that time. There definitely is inconsistency's with Jesus' birth linage in the texts.
peace to you and yours…………..gene
Hi,
Could it be that one of the geneologies is not of blood but of FAITH?
Anyway we are not to get caught up in endless geneologies.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 24 2008,03:20) Adam……We must also concider the law of adoption that existed at the time of Jesus, if a person adopted a child as his, that child was given full reconition as His own Child. Perhaps this is could explain the discrepancy. I have realized these discrepancies before and condidered Jesus may be of the blood linage of a Levite, the priestly tribe. We know his Mother Mary was because she was a cousin to Elizabeth the wife of Zechariah the acting High Priest at that time. There definitely is inconsistency's with Jesus' birth linage in the texts. peace to you and yours…………..gene
Hi brother Gene,
Thanks for your response on Geneologies of Jesus. Certainly Matthew and Luke have borrowed the Geneologies from the available scripture of Judaism and interpreted as per their understanding. After all they were also human beings like us therefore errors were prone to happen. But our Christendom seems to impute ierrency to our Bible that is the problem for inferring many views on our Messiah Jesus. Bible is not an history book it is only theological book. If they realise this fact then we may come to some collective compromise on these understandings on our Messiah.Thanks and peace to you
AdamHi brother Nick,
My honest question to you is; where is it written that Holy Spirit directly written our Bible ? If so why there are so many errors and controdictions in this book ? Is it not a suicidal on our side by closing our eyes and uttering Bible is inerrent ?Hi GM,
The Spirit gave us the bible through men. [2peter1]
We may never grasp it all and there are minor additions.But if you choose not to accept it as truth do you feel the same about the Spirit?
Must you understand first before you can trust?
Should you rely on yourself?
Hi brother Nick,
Thanks for your response. Infact I am with you whatever you quoted above, only thing I want to add is we should not blame God's Spirit for human errors. We should have broad mind in accepting the errors of N.T which caused havoc among Christians for so many divisions and misconceptions.Thanks and peace to you
AdamNick…..from your statement, you don't seem to understand the true meaning of the word FAITH, Don't go to the dictionary meaning , but use the bible definition, found in Hebrews…> Faith (IS) the substance of things hoped for, the (EVIDENCE) of things not seen. the word (EVIDENCE) means Faith requires (PROOF). To except something just because someone says it even through you don't understand it is not true faith at all, but pure stupidity. Jesus ask the question …> “when the son of man comes will he find faith upon the earth”, I don't think he will , what he will find is people who have been duped into believing every false theology you can think of all under the false assumption of Faith. We are told to seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you, ask and it shall be given unto you, these are all way of acquiring the true faith from God. Supposition will not cut it Nick, now or in the future. imo
peace to you and yours………….gene
Hi GB,
If Faith requires proof then that proof is 'seen'.Faith is the evdence of things NOT SEEN.
Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.
We walk by faith and not by sight.You need to believe all Jesus said because we no one else to go to, not because we understand.
Those who could not understand his teaching about eating his flesh left him.
Those who trusted him did not.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 25 2008,05:29) Hi GB,
If Faith requires proof then that proof is 'seen'.Faith is the evdence of things NOT SEEN.
Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.
We walk by faith and not by sight.You need to believe all Jesus said because we no one else to go to, not because we understand.
Those who could not understand his teaching about eating his flesh left him.
Those who trusted him did not.
Nick….If you pray to God and He answers your prayer , You have proof of the unseen God. This proof is your evidence, and without it you simple have supposition and no proof so you can not have Faith, just suppositions. Have you Faith have it unto yourself, why? because true faith is proof that God himself gave you, this kind of faith is not a supposition. It is a hard proof GOD has given you and it has nothing to do with what you read in the bible of other mens Faith, you must have your own as they have theirs. To say you believe without proof is simply false, Jesus' faith was his, Peter's faith was his, Paul's faith was his , and your faith is yours and is not based on their faith. You must have your own, not someone else's.Your mixing up the word Sight with seen, we certainly can not see (site) God, but to say we can't see his hand in our life which gives us proof of His existence is simply not true. If God would not have given me these proofs in my life i certainly would not be hear. If you do not have prayers answered in your life i would seriously question your faith, because it would be based on suppositions, without any real proofs. imo
peace ………….gene
Nick……..remember Jesus said , will the son of man find faith on the earth when he comes, why do you think he said that.
peace………gene
Nick….No, Faith is the result of evidence, evidence is what gives us our faith, otherwise we just have suppositions. True faith can not be had without true evidence. You can not believe their is a GOD without proof, God must give us this proof or how can he ask us to believe. The story of the unjust Judge shows this point. Jesus compared God to a unjust Judge who would put you off and not hear you, but said God was not like that , that he would answer speedily, which should have given them FAITH, but went on to say never the less when the son of man comes will he find Faith. True evidence must not be forgotten because then your faith diminishes ,. Faith in GOD requires experience with Him. Real personal experience with him and is not based on what other say. Every time God answers us or intervenes in our lives or the lives of those we pray for, it builds our faith more and more.
Peace to you and yours………………gene
Nick…..while the grace of God can and does give us a Godly heart, it is not what faith is (Faith is the substance of things Hoped for), and also or brought about by, (the (EVIDENCE) of things not seen). God can not be seen “For no man has seen God at any time”, But as i said we can see His hand in our lives, through answered prayer and signs and wonders. God does these things to evidence Himself to Us who are called, or do you think Jesus said in vain , “these signs will follow them that believe” I have seen all these signs in my life time. Faith is given by God to those he is calling, yes God evidences His existence to them, it's not supposition but (REAL EVIDENCE). The problem is do people retain the proof when God gives them.
love and peace to you and yours…………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
