For Deep Thinkers

[Jonathan_Gale]

Your above statement is technically a Straw Man fallacy. I never suggested that Joseph had two biological fathers, nor do I believe so. What I do believe is that Matthew has one account of the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke records a different account of the genealogy of Joseph. But BOTH are of Joseph. Neither is of Mary.

Now I have a friend who has been a brother in Christ for at least 30 years, and I found out last night that he never realized that there are two differing accounts for the genealogy of Joseph. Perhaps no one had ever shown this to you before, so I understand the emotional turmoil involved.

As for me, it doesn't really make a difference. Matthew has a couple of mistakes in his account, and there is at least one other place where the account of Matthew and Luke conflict, but that doesn't cause me to throw out the baby with the bath water (to use an expression). Jesus is still the Son of God, even if both genealogies are wrong.

The reason that I post about these FACTS is that we need to be honest with unbelievers that they exist. We should not change what is actually written. And to deny the truth, which can be easily seen by anyone, is the quickest way to lose any measure of trust that an unbeliever might have in the gospel.

In other words, we should not handle scripture deceitfully and become lying scribes.

Scripture never contradicts against itself. Whenver or wherever you find it does, there's something wrong with your theory, not the Scripture.

Mr. Gale, I would strongly point out that Infallibility is NOT the same thing as Inerrancy. And perhaps we could have a discussion about what these two terms actually mean, but to point out the FACTS and the TRUTH of the two differing genealogies does NOT undermine scripture. Lying about it does.

Respectfully,
Rhema

Scripture has no error in genealogies, you do. By suggesting Matthew's account is erroneous, you're undermining the Scripture. Matthew made no mistake, you did.

An honest person needs to realize that two different genealogies are given for JOSEPH, and to preach anything else is to handle scripture deceitfully.

An honest person needs to realize that the Bible is CONSISTENT. If both were Joseph's, then you tell me what validates Jesus as the son of David according to the FLESH - in Romans 1:3? Was Paul lying or you? Also, Jewish identity comes from the MOTHER, not the father, Mary's genealogy is absolutely necessary.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3854897/jewish/Who-Is-a-Jew.htm

Truly Br. Bear my post was not well written, and hopefully the above helps to clarify my position. I have said before that I don't quite understand how Mr. Gale thinks, so I am quite willing to admit that my words may not have been adequate to explain things clearly.

Meaning - I think we're good. I was not offended by his reaction. Hopefully he is not offended at the truth.

I don't quite understand how you think either, and why you have to pick on the Lord's genealogy, which such a no brainer. The Scripture provided two genealogies of Jesus - not Joseph.

 

[B-A-C]

which: 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."

Not everyone accepts this, but it works for me.

 

[Waggles]

Not everyone accepts this, but it works for me.

Yes indeed.
For some to claim that the inspired word of God is mistaken and is not the truth is unbelief - maybe even a blasphemy.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth. -[apparently not for some]
2Sam 7:28 And now, O Lord GOD, you are God, and your words are true, and you have promised this good thing to your servant.
Psalm 119:160 The whole of your word is truth, and your every righteous judgment endures forever.
2Tim 2:15 Give diligence to present thyself approved to God, a workman that needeth not to be shamed, rightly dividing the word of the truth.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

which: 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."

Not everyone accepts this, but it works for me.

Yeah, this is the common and traditional understanding of the two genealogies, that Matthew’s attributed to Joseph, Luke’s attributed to Mary. There’s another minority opinion which suggests that the “husband” in Matt. 1:16 was referring to a woman’s “male guardian” in that culture, and in Mary’s case, an unmarried woman’s male guardian was usually her father or brother, thus this Joseph is actually her father, not husband. This theory is dubious compared to the traditional one, but I keep an open mind to accept both.

 

[Rhema]

Scripture never contradicts against itself.

Where does scriptures say this?

But lets say it's true. What will you do when find a contradiction? (A very serious question. And we can have a discussion about some contradictions.)

Whenver or wherever you find it does, there's something wrong with your theory, not the Scripture.

There is no "theory" sir. A contradiction is Prima Facie, to mean that it's easily seen when an honest comparison of two passages is made.

By suggesting Matthew's account is erroneous, you're undermining the Scripture.

First, You really need to stop putting words in my mouth and clean off your logic circuits. I NEVER SAID MATTHEW's account is erroneous. All I did was have you read the passage.

HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY BE THAT I'M UNDERMINING SCRIPTURE WHEN I'M MERELY QUOTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN. Forget the Greek and just HONESTLY read and compare these two verses... (it's not rocket surgery)

And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

(Matthew 1:15-16 KJV)​

​

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,​

(Luke 3:23-24 KJV)​

I mean, truly, it needs to be asked... CAN YOU BE HONEST ?? If so, (and I hope you can be) then read the scriptures as written.

Matthew ) ... Achim -> Eliud -> Eleazar -> Matthan -> Jacob -> Joseph the husband of Mary (of whom was born Jesus​

​

Luke ) ... Janna -> Melchi -> Levi -> Matthat -> Eli -> Joseph ...​

BOTH genealogies are of Joseph.

And to LIE about the FACT that two different genealogies for Joseph are RECORDED ....... to LIE about that undermines scripture. Acknowledging the Truth doesn't.

But please I never said that either genealogy was wrong. I don't know which one is wrong. I may have an educated guess, but you having a flat out emotional meltdown doesn't help move the conversation forward.

What I have said, though, is that BOTH passages, the one in Matthew and the one in Luke record the genealogy of Joseph because that's EXACTLY what is Written.

Now if YOU want to lie about what is written, (what) in order to "help" God out? All I can say is that you will reap what you sow.

An honest person needs to realize that the Bible is CONSISTENT.

An honest person needs to know what is actually written and be HONEST about it.

But I have the feeling that your emotional need for "Consistency" would actually drive you to CHANGE THE WORDS.

If both were Joseph's, then you tell me what validates Jesus as the son of David according to the FLESH - in Romans 1:3?

Well, any one who can read, even in the third grade, would let you know that both genealogies are about Joseph. Just go ask a third grader. (But be nice.)

And you need to calm down and find out why.

Okay then.... you asked "what validates Jesus as the son of David according to the flesh ... and you quoted Roman 1:3, so let's take a look.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;​

(Romans 1:3 KJV)​

You don't think that God could have used actual seed directly from King David for the overshadowing of Mary? (Think about it if you decide to deny God the power to do this.) Regardless, you just said that Jesus was MADE (according to the flesh).

Now you gave a link to some Jewish website, and I'm rather disappointed to have found numerous contradictions within, so I'll leave you with one comment.

If the MOTHER's lineage is so important, why aren't any WOMEN listed in all those "begetting" lists? If (according to this website) Mary is a Jew because her mother is a Jew, then why isn't Mary's mother's name listed? Her grandmother's name? Her great-grandmother's name?

As for the rest of that article, God could raise up stones to be children of Abraham, no? (Or didn't you read the entirety of your own article?)

Mary's genealogy is absolutely necessary.

So where is it? (Hint.... NOT THERE.)

I don't quite understand how you think either, and why you have to pick on the Lord's genealogy, which such a no brainer. The Scripture provided two genealogies of Jesus - not Joseph.

Now that statement is truly absurd, Mr. Gale, bordering on a possible medical condition. Go ask a good friend to read you the following two verses and tell you who Joseph's father was..

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

(Matthew 1:16 KJV)​

​

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,​

(Luke 3:23 KJV)​

And with regards to how I think? Rather quite well, as attested to by both my education, my erudition, and my IQ (since you brought it up.)

Become well,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Yes indeed.
For some to claim that the inspired word of God is mistaken and is not the truth is unbelief - maybe even a blasphemy.

Waggles, you of all people should know not to change the scripture.

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

(Matthew 1:16 KJV)​

​

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,​

(Luke 3:23 KJV)​

Deal with it. Don't make up lies. Don't become one of them.

Rhema​

 

[Rhema]

but I keep an open mind to accept both.

And yet you cannot accept what is actually written.

What a nightmare you present to the world.

Rhema

 

[complete]

Hello @Rhema,

I have only now read this page of the thread, and your words regarding the genealogies of Christ found in Matthew 1, and Luke 3. In Matthew being the regal legal line ('The throne of His father David') through Joseph (according to law, as the husband of Mary, and not by natural descent) : and in Luke the natural legal line ('the seed of the Woman' - Mary). The both seem to cover all angles.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

Waggles, you of all people should know not to change the scripture.

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

(Matthew 1:16 KJV)​

​

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,​

(Luke 3:23 KJV)​

Deal with it. Don't make up lies. Don't become one of them.

Rhema​

Hello @Rhema, (and @Waggles)

Joseph was 'reckoned' the 'Son' of Heli' ( according to law - Luke 3:23 ), by his betrothal to Heli's daughter: therefore ( also according to law - compare, Matt. 1:20, Luke 2:5 with Deut. 22:23 & 24 ), husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus, Who is called 'Messiah' 'The Son of Adam, who was the son of GOD.' No problem.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Waggles]

Matthew 1:1 A genealogy of Jesus Christ, David’s Son, Abraham’s Son.
of David. Matthew necessarily proves the Saviour to be the son of David on account of the promise that he should, as David’s son, sit on David’s throne (Luk_1:32, Isa_9:6-7) in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (+**2Sa_7:10 note). Mat_1:20, Mat_9:27; *Mat_12:23; Mat_15:22; Mat_20:30-31; Mat_21:9; Mat_21:15; Mat_22:41-45, +**2Sa_7:12; +**2Sa_7:13; +**2Sa_7:16, +*Psa_89:35; +*Psa_89:36; *Psa_132:11, +*Isa_9:6; +*Isa_9:7; *Isa_11:1, +*Jer_23:5; +*Jer_23:6; Jer_33:15-17; Jer_33:26, Amo_9:11, Zec_12:8, Mar_10:47-48; Mar_11:10; Mar_12:35-37, +**Luk_1:31; +**Luk_1:32; Luk_1:69; Luk_1:70; Luk_2:4; Luk_18:38-39; Luk_20:41-44, *Joh_7:42, Act_2:30; +*Act_13:22; +*Act_13:23; +*Act_13:33-37, *Rom_1:3; *Rom_1:4, 2Ti_2:8, Rev_5:5; *Rev_22:16.
the son. FS171G, +Gen_13:8.
of Abraham. Matthew proves the Saviour to be the son of Abraham as "the seed of Abraham in whom all nations of the earth should be blessed" (Gen_17:5, Gal_3:16, Rom_4:16) in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (+**Gen_12:2 note). Luke in his genealogy establishes our Saviour to be the son of Man (Luk_3:23; Luk_3:38) to prove him "the Seed of the Woman" (Gen_3:15), the "Second Adam" (1Co_15:47), the Redeemer of man, and the restorer of his lost inheritance (Psalms 8; Heb_2:5-8) [adapted in part from William De Burgh, New Marginal Readings and References to the Gospels, p. 4]. +*Gen_12:3; Gen_15:4-5; Gen_15:18; Gen_18:18; +**Gen_21:12; +*$Gen_22:18; Gen_26:3-5; Gen_28:13-14, Mat_22:43-44, Luk_1:73; +*Luk_3:34, **Joh_8:56, Rom_4:13; Rom_9:5, **Gal_3:16, *Heb_2:16.
The Ultimate Cross-Reference Treasury by Jerome H. Smith © 2004

 

[Waggles]

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself, when he began, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, of *Hēlei,

as was supposed. or, as reckoned by law. Gr. nomizō, to lay down a thing as law; to hold by custom, or usage; to reckon correctly, take for granted (CB). Luk_2:44, Mat_20:10, +*Act_7:25; +Act_14:19 note. Act_16:13; Act_16:27, +1Co_7:26 g.
of Joseph. Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Mat_1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heli’s daughter (Mary), and be reckoned so according to law (Gr. nomizō).
It does not say "begat" in the case of Heli (CB). +Luk_1:27; Luk_2:4, +*Rom_9:5.
which. or, who. Note: 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 their genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.
Hence it appears that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham, through whom the promise was 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 St. 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 reunited 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 son of. The genealogy of the ideal man begins from his father, and goes backward as far as may be. That of a king begins at the source of his dynasty and ends with himself.
Compare that of Matthew with Luke (CB). Note.—Read (the son-in-law) of Heli, this genealogy giving the lineage of Mary, who was daughter of Heli. Or, applying the words to Jesus, (son i.e. grandson) of Heli; as though it were written—"being the son, as was reputed, of Joseph (but in reality) of Heli," as being his grandson by the mother’s side—son in the same sense as son of David or Abraham: which, it is remarkable, is confirmed by the reading of the Vatican MS. and other copies…. See G. Penn in loco. Observe also that the words which was the son are supplied in the translation all through, and should be in italic: so that the original text is not altered (DeBurgh, p. 172). Mat_1:1-16.
Heli. i.e. ascending, *S# G2242. Compare *S# H5941, +1Sa_1:3, Eli.
The Ultimate Cross-Reference Treasury by Jerome H. Smith © 2004

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

There is no "theory" sir. A contradiction is Prima Facie, to mean that it's easily seen when an honest comparison of two passages is made.

Yes, it is very easily seen, Joseph's father is either Jacob or Heli, but can't be both.

First, You really need to stop putting words in my mouth and clean off your logic circuits. I NEVER SAID MATTHEW's account is erroneous. All I did was have you read the passage.

HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY BE THAT I'M UNDERMINING SCRIPTURE WHEN I'M MERELY QUOTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN. Forget the Greek and just HONESTLY read and compare these two verses... (it's not rocket surgery)

What is actually written is Lord JESUS's genealogy, not Joseph's. What you've forgotten is the purpose of these two genealogies.

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. (Matt. 1:1)
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at the thirty years of age... (Luke 3:23)

BOTH genealogies are of Joseph.

And to LIE about the FACT that two different genealogies for Joseph are RECORDED ....... to LIE about that undermines scripture. Acknowledging the Truth doesn't.

But please I never said that either genealogy was wrong. I don't know which one is wrong. I may have an educated guess, but you having a flat out emotional meltdown doesn't help move the conversation forward.

Neither is wrong, you are.

What I have said, though, is that BOTH passages, the one in Matthew and the one in Luke record the genealogy of Joseph because that's EXACTLY what is Written.

Now if YOU want to lie about what is written, (what) in order to "help" God out? All I can say is that you will reap what you sow.

You're the one who's lying through omission. Lord Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and conceived in virgin Mary:

... that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Matt. 1:20
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you, therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35

Joseph had no contribution in Lord Jesus's conception, his genealogy is irrelevant regarding the FLESH that dwelt among us.

An honest person needs to know what is actually written and be HONEST about it.

But I have the feeling that your emotional need for "Consistency" would actually drive you to CHANGE THE WORDS.

I never change any words, the only thing needs to be change is perspective. A change of perspective is what "repentance" actually means. If you don't change your perspective, no amount of knowledge in anicent Greek can get you anywhere.

Well, any one who can read, even in the third grade, would let you know that both genealogies are about Joseph. Just go ask a third grader. (But be nice.)

Anyone who can read, even in the third grade would read the first line first, and then think of Jesus's family tree, not Joseph, who's only SUPPOSED to be the father, and the Scripture makes it crystal clear that he isn't, so what's wrong with you for all these obsession with him? I'm not here to talk Joseph the carpenter, I'm here to talk Jesus my Lord and Savior.

You don't think that God could have used actual seed directly from King David for the overshadowing of Mary? (Think about it if you decide to deny God the power to do this.) Regardless, you just said that Jesus was MADE (according to the flesh).

Indeed God had the power to raise a man from the dirt like he did Adam, He could even directly appear in the form of an adult Jewish man and start the ministry, but He CHOSE not to, He CHOSE to be MADE in Mary's womb, and let Mary carry him to term nonetheless. Who are you to determine what God should or shouldn't do?

Now you gave a link to some Jewish website, and I'm rather disappointed to have found numerous contradictions within, so I'll leave you with one comment.

If the MOTHER's lineage is so important, why aren't any WOMEN listed in all those "begetting" lists? If (according to this website) Mary is a Jew because her mother is a Jew, then why isn't Mary's mother's name listed? Her grandmother's name? Her great-grandmother's name?

As for the rest of that article, God could raise up stones to be children of Abraham, no? (Or didn't you read the entirety of your own article?)

OK, then you tell me, what VALIDATES Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of David, the stem of Jesse? Not Joseph - who was only as SUPPOSED to be the father.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

So where is it? (Hint.... NOT THERE.)

Where is Jesus's lineage according to the FLESH? When are you gonna stop lying and admit that Joseph was irrelevant to the Lord's humanity, which was according to the FLESH?

BEFORE they came together, she (Mary) was found with child of the Holy Spirit; (Matt. 1:18)
How can this be since I DO NOT KNOW a man? (Luke 1:34)

Now that statement is truly absurd, Mr. Gale, bordering on a possible medical condition. Go ask a good friend to read you the following two verses and tell you who Joseph's father was..

Go ask a good friend to read you what the titles of these two passages are. In my NKJV, there are subtitles for Matt. 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, and both are identical - "The Genealogy of Jesus Christ". Those are the subtitles verbatim. Yeah, I know you don't like subtitles of these sections, but even without these, a normal person would get a simple impression that they are reading a genealogy of JESUS CHRIST, not Joseph the "supposed" father.

And with regards to how I think? Rather quite well, as attested to by both my education, my erudition, and my IQ (since you brought it up.)

"The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

And yet you cannot accept what is actually written.

What a nightmare you present to the world.

Rhema

It is you who cannot accept what is actually written in Romans 1:3. There's no "God could have", God did what must be done, He brought his grand plan of salvation into fruition, which can be traced to Gen. 3:15 - "and I will put enmity between you and the WOMAN, and between your seed and HER seed;" Last time I checked, Joseph was a HE, not a she.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Joseph was 'reckoned' the 'Son' of Heli' ( according to law - Luke 3:23 ), by his betrothal to Heli's daughter: therefore ( also according to law - compare, Matt. 1:20, Luke 2:5 with Deut. 22:23 & 24 ), husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus, Who is called 'Messiah' 'The Son of Adam, who was the son of GOD.' No problem.

"DO not give what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

 

[Rhema]

I have only now read this page of the thread, and your words regarding the genealogies of Christ found in Matthew 1, and Luke 3.

Hi Chris,

That's not quite an accurate portrayal. Both passages list the genealogy of Joseph, not Christ.

The genealogy in Matthew specifically ends with "Jacob who begat JOSEPH husband of Mary." There is no genealogy of Mary given, although it does state that Jesus was born of Mary.

The genealogy in Luke, acknowledges Jesus supposed father, then gives the genealogy of JOSEPH son of ELI - "Jesus ... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. There is no genealogy of Mary given, but merely states that Joseph was not Jesus' father.

The Scripture is VERY clear on this -

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

(Matthew 1:16 KJV)​

​

And Jesus ... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,​

(Luke 3:23 KJV)​

Why do people bear false witness about what is written in scripture?

in Luke the natural legal line ('the seed of the Woman' - Mary).

No. It isn't.

The name MARY isn't even found in the text of Luke. By what stretch of the lying imagination can one state that the genealogy given in Luke is that of Mary's when her NAME IS NOT EVEN WRITTEN?

Why do people need to bear false witness about what is ACTUALLY written and deceitfully handle scripture ?

They both seem to cover all angles.

They both present a genealogy of JOSEPH. To say otherwise is to lie.

Do we REALLY need to do that?

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Joseph was 'reckoned' the 'Son' of Heli'

NO. THAT IS NOT what is Written in Luke. Whoever told you this lied to you.

JESUS was "reckoned" the Son of JOSEPH-of-Heli.

και AND αυτος HIMSELF ην WAS ο (THE) ιησους JESUS ωσει ABOUT ετων YEARS τριακοντα THIRTY αρχομενος BEGINNING ων BEING ως AS ενομιζετο WAS SUPPOSED υιος SON OF ιωσηφ JOSEPH του OF ηλι 'ELI

I BEG YOU ALL TO STOP LYING.

by his betrothal to Heli's daughter

WHERE IS THIS WRITTEN? It's a wonderful tale of fiction, but there is NOTHING in any scriptures that says Mary was Heli's daughter.

Prove it. Please. Don't just repeat the same lie, ... PROVE IT. (Proof would be most welcome.)

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

The Ultimate Cross-Reference Treasury by Jerome H. Smith © 2004

Jerome H. Smith is an idiot.

It does not say "begat" in the case of Heli

Of course it doesn't. How could it? Why would any text say that JOSEPH would "beget" his own father ELI. That's idiotic (see first sentence).

Pick a verse.... any verse...

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,​

(Luke 3:23 KJV)​

​

Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,​

(Luke 3:23 NRSV)​

​

And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph,​

(Luke 3:23-24 YLT)​

​

And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years: being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,​

(Luke 3:23 DRB)​

Has our educational system failed so catastrophically that none of y'all can read?

Get a grip... please.

Note: 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 their genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.

I am just STUNNED at how people invent fiction, provide no source proof and then the fable just gets repeated like a BAD internet meme.

The REAL father of Joseph was Eli... (according to Luke).
The REAL father of Joseph was Jacob... (according to Matthew).

Now... if one actually did some study, there is another lie (based on a linguistic trick), but this would place MARY's genealogy in MATTHEW, not Luke. (At least Mary's name is written in Matthew.) But it's still a lie.

The REAL father of Joseph was Jacob... (according to Matthew).
The REAL father of Joseph was Eli... (according to Luke).

Deal with it. Don't handle scripture deceitfully.

Rhema

Hence it appears that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews,

No he didn't. A real Jew wouldn't make the mistakes found in Matthew, and a real Jew would never accept the mistakes when he reads Matthew. ( I merely point this out as another idiotic thing said by ... (what's his name up there).

St. Luke, who wrote for the Gentiles, extends his genealogy upwards from Heli the father of Mary,

Stop repeating the lie. (Stop listening to idiots.)............ or .............

PROVE IT. Provide PROOF that Heli was the father of Mary, because that's NOT what is actually written in scripture.

"being the son, as was reputed, of Joseph (but in reality) of Heli,"

Okay, I was wrong. Jerome H. Smith is not an idiot, he's an evil liar.

@Waggles ... why on earth would you accept ANYTHING from a person who adds words into scripture? You do see that he added in words, yes?

Adding in words to scripture is EVIL.

Don't follow EVIL people. (You're better than that.)

You know.... I was wrong again.

Jerome H. Smith is an EVIL idiot.

Read the quote above. Mr. Smith just said that Jesus was "in reality" the son of Heli.

(Maybe "evil moron" ???)

 

[Rhema]

Yes, it is very easily seen, Joseph's father is either Jacob or Heli, but can't be both.

Thank you. And for the record, I never said that it was both.

So why are two separate genealogies given? Why did the people from whom Luke got his information want Joseph traced back to Nathan? And why did the community of Matthew want Joseph traced back to Solomon? (Hopefully we can get back to this.)

What is actually written is Lord JESUS's genealogy, not Joseph's. What you've forgotten is the purpose of these two genealogies.

Doesn't matter. The "purpose" doesn't change the fact that scripture records two different genealogies for Joseph (however Jesus is tied in).

And I haven't "forgotten," because there are reasons why two genealogies for Joseph are written (and they are because of Jesus).

Neither is wrong, you are.

To say that "neither is wrong" IS to say that Joseph had two daddies. But nothing can be done if you wish to think with your emotional anger and flubbery instead of with your reason and intellect. So... prove to everyone that you don't use your brain.

How is it wrong to point out that IT IS WRITTEN, that Matthew gives a different genealogy for Joseph than Luke does?

It's delusional to say otherwise, not to mention that it handles scripture deceitfully.

You're the one who's lying through omission. Lord Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and conceived in virgin Mary:

And this is why I say that I cannot fathom how you think. Why? Because I never said otherwise. I didn't omit the fact of Jesus being born of the Holy Spirit and conceived in virgin Mary, because THAT WAS NOT THE TOPIC. You messed up again. Please by all means go back and read through the thread and prove me wrong.

The topic is that MATTHEW gives a different genealogy for JOSEPH than does LUKE.

Can you at least be honest enough to admit that? ( If not, then please for your own well being, seek medical help for your cognitive dissonance.)

My apologies. I think you did admit that... here:

Yes, it is very easily seen, Joseph's father is either Jacob or Heli,

So then we're done and agreed.

Rhema



Except for wrapping up some minor loose ends.

Joseph had no contribution in Lord Jesus's conception, his genealogy is irrelevant regarding the FLESH that dwelt among us.

And that is irrelevant to the FACT that MATTHEW gives a different genealogy for JOSEPH than does LUKE.

Why are you arguing about the virgin birth when that's not the topic, nor was it ever in contention? (A bit absurd, you know.)

I never change any words, the only thing needs to be change is perspective. A change of perspective is what "repentance" actually means. If you don't change your perspective, no amount of knowledge in anicent Greek can get you anywhere.

Well then I'm glad you repented and changed your perspective to understand that the words as actually written show that Matthew gives a different genealogy for Joseph than does Luke.

Anyone who can read, even in the third grade would read the first line first, and then think of Jesus's family tree, not Joseph, who's only SUPPOSED to be the father, and the Scripture makes it crystal clear that he isn't, so what's wrong with you for all these obsession with him? I'm not here to talk Joseph the carpenter, I'm here to talk Jesus my Lord and Savior.

Since you are hung up on this... and emotionally need to hear these words... when looking at Jesus' family tree, our third grader will see that Matthew gives a different genealogy for Joseph than does Luke. YOU had a meltdown over this. I hope you recover.

Where is Jesus's lineage according to the FLESH? When are you gonna stop lying and admit that Joseph was irrelevant to the Lord's humanity, which was according to the FLESH?

Seek help. When are you going to stop lying and admit that MATTHEW gives a different genealogy for JOSEPH than does LUKE. Oh wait, I'm sorry. You did.

Yes, it is very easily seen, Joseph's father is either Jacob or Heli,

But that's the ONLY point I've been discussing. You keep bringing in all this other unrelated nonsense that I never spoke about. Seek help.

But the short answer to your question is that there IS no lineage of Mary given. But it is stated that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, and that Elizabeth was of the daughters of Araon.

Does that help you?

Where is Jesus's lineage according to the FLESH?

Good question. Why is that important?

Go ask a good friend to read you what the titles of these two passages are.

Uh... you DO realize that "titles" are not actually in the scripture itself, Mr. Gale. Don't you? Why are you prancing around obscure and irrelevant topics?

But I am glad that we finally agree that MATTHEW gives a different genealogy for JOSEPH than does LUKE.

OK, then you tell me, what VALIDATES Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of David, the stem of Jesse? Not Joseph - who was only as SUPPOSED to be the father.

Then you tell me... WHY was Joseph's genealogy even included at all since YOU think it to be irrelevant?

a normal person would get a simple impression that they are reading a genealogy of JESUS CHRIST, not Joseph the "supposed" father.

And a normal person would see that the two genealogies of Jesus Christ are different, starting at JOSEPH.

"The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

Mr. Gale, you brought MY intellect into question. And now you think to compare your's to God?

Wait... What? You think God to be foolish? That God has foolishness ??

It is you who cannot accept what is actually written in Romans 1:3.

Please seek help. As previously stated, I do accept WHAT IS ACTUALLY written in Romans 1:3.
And this is what is actually written:

περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαβιδ κατα σαρκα​

And I quite accept that that is what is actually written.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;​

(Romans 1:3 KJV)​

Indeed Jesus was MADE of the seed of David. But the woman doesn't provide SEED, now, does she......

(You truly need to learn how to think these things through.)

 

[Rhema]

So why are two separate genealogies given? Why did the people from whom Luke got his information want Joseph traced back to Nathan? And why did the community of Matthew want Joseph traced back to Solomon? (Hopefully we can get back to this.)

@Jonathan_Gale

Oh dear... we never got back to that.

Rhema