answers1: Friend , <br>
It depends on what bible you are reading as the k j version quotes
different to yours. <br>
The two Gospels of the genealogy as you stated do differ in so much as
the book of Mathew lists the legal successors to Davids throne.Its not
necessarily a genealogical list in a strict father to son sense,for,
as is true in many kingly histories,the eldest surviving heir maybe a
grandson a great grandson,or nephew of the reigning monarch. <br>
Lukes record however is a father to son listing linking Joseph to king
David, of course Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but Joseph geneolgy
was essental,for they were cousins, <br>
Jesus inheritid from his mother the blood of David and therefor the
right to Davids throne. <br>
"Had Judah been a free and independent nation,ruled by her rightful
sovereign, Joseph the carpeter would have been her crowed king; and
his lawfull succesor to the throne would have been Jesus ,the king of
the Jews." <br>
God bless.
answers2: It's not inerrant, but why does that matter. <br>
<br>
I look at the point it's trying to make, not compare different views. <br>
<br>
3 harmony gospel writers still see things 3 different ways. Mathew
wanted to make him the perfect Jewish candidate for Messiah; with Luke
his intended audience are gentiles so the Jewishness is less
important. <br>
<br>
My faith isn't shaken by a difference in the lists, my faith isn't in
the words but the doctrines and meanings.
answers3: St. Luke's geneology traces through Mary. <br>
<br>
It only says Joseph because the patriarchal times that the Gospels
were written in.
answers4: one is speaking from Mary side of Family the other from
Joseph s side of the Family
answers5: Joseph's is in Matthew's gospel and the Blessed Virgin
Mary's is in Luke's gospel, Joseph is also in Mary's geneolgy because
in Jewish households when there is no son the husband takes on the
roll of son instead of son in law
answers6: Actually, they are not contradictory at all. <br>
Matthew says that Joseph, the husband of Mary was "Begotten" of Jacob. <br>
Joseph's natural father is Jacob. <br>
<br>
Luke says that Joseph is Heli's son, more correctly in English,
Heli's son-in-law. <br>
<br>
Heli did not beget Joseph, so the Luke genealogy is Mary's not Joseph's.
answers7: Jews have poured over this and have worked it out. One is
Jesus and the other is Mary Maria {mar-ee'-ah} or Mariam {mar-ee-am'}
<br>
<br>
These genealogical records of Matthew and Luke purport to give the
lineage of Jesus, tracing it back from Joseph his foster father.
Several discrepancies are apparent, but as Elder James E. Talmage
points out, "such have been satisfactorily reconciled by the research
of specialists in Jewish genealogy." Then he summarizes the known
facts in this field in these words: "The concensus of judgment on the
part of investigators is that Matthew's account is that of the royal
lineage, establishing the order of sequence among the legal successors
to the throne of David, while the account given by Luke is a personal
pedigree, demonstrating descent from David without adherence to the
line of legal succession to the throne through primogeniture or
nearness of kin. Luke's record is regarded by many, however, as the
pedigree of Mary, while Matthew's is accepted as that of Joseph. The
all important fact to be remembered is that the Child promised by
Gabriel to Mary, the virginal bride of Joseph, would be born in the
royal line. A personal genealogy of Joseph was essentially that of
Mary also, for they were cousins. Joseph is named as son of Jacob by
Matthew, and as son of Heli by Luke; but Jacob and Heli were brothers,
and it appears that one of the two was the father of Joseph and the
other the father of Mary and therefore father-in-law to Joseph. That
Mary was of Davidic descent is plainly set forth in many scriptures;
for since Jesus was to be born of Mary, yet was not begotten by
Joseph, who was the reputed, and, according to the law of the Jews,
the legal, father, the blood of David's posterity was given to the
body of Jesus through Mary alone."
answers8: Just to show how blitheringly stupid some Christian's can
be, note that both Geneologies plainly end with Joseph, neither with
Mary, but this "one is Mary's, one is Joseph's" is the lame
explanation they are fed and it makes them blind to the clear fact
that BOTH GENEOLOGIES END WITH JOSEPH!!!! SO you see the Bible is the
literal innerant word of God unless it's in error, then Christians
feel free to explain it away. Moreover, Joseph, according to the
faith, is the begotten son of God, not the begotten son of Joseph and
thus not a descendant of David and thus not the Messiah. Yeah their
brain farts when they see this too.
answers9: The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy
of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact
that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of
Solomon as did Matthew. <br>
(Luke 3:31; Matthew 1:6,7) <br>
Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, showing Jesus natural
decent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus legal right to the throne
of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus
father. <br>
Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus actual father
but only his adoptive father.
answers10: The answer Callay is correct and shown even in your proof
of genealogy <br>
. <br>
In the first chapter of Matthew we find the genealogy of Jesus running
from Abraham forward. At Luke chapter 3 is a genealogy back to "Adam,
son of God." Jesus' genealogy is the only one given in the Christian
Greek Scriptures. <br>
Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke
differ? <br>
<br>
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as
compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke
traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did
Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of
Mary, thus showing Jesus' natural descent from David, while Matthew
shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from
Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both Matthew
and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus' actual father but only his
adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the
style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying:
"Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was
born, who is called Christ." (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say
'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary,
of whom Jesus was born." Luke is even more pointed when, after showing
earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35),
he says: "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph,
son of Heli."—Lu 3:23.
No comments:
Post a Comment