• All of religion is symbolism. With spatterings of morals thrown in.
  • You have an interesting point. There is a significant line of scholarly thought that the tracing of Jesus's geneology through Joseph (found in the Gospel of Matthew back to Abraham and in the Gospel of Luke which traces it back to Adam and God)was to give Jesus the credibility associated with succession through Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were the three most prominent figures in Judaism. Placing Jesus with these names would evoke the associations and recognitions necessary to provide people with the framework/context/points of reference necessary to consider/understand the life and actions of Jesus. Note that the first Gospel written - Mark does not show a need to identify the BONA FIDES of Jesus but leaps into the narrative at warp speed. It is only as the Gospels are written is there felt to be a need to provide Jesus with more detail including the birth narratives which are widely regarded as fiction.....
  • There are two different geneologies, one is Joseph's and one is Mary's. Both descended from King David.
    • ReiSan
      No, Jews were patriarchs, so they did not count ancestries of women. Anyhow both Matthew and Luke give conflicting ancestries for Joseph.. Neither says it is Mary's descent.
      Blessed: I"ve heard this excuse many times, but I've never known anyone to present a shred of evidence supporting it. What's more, what the Bible teaches ***directly contradicts*** that explanation. (The author of Luke explicitly teaches us that it was Joseph's lineage, not Mary's.) I wonder why the explanation that you espouse - which is very popular - persists.
  • Tracing the geneology of Jesus back to David is only an attempt to write in the fulfillment of a prophesy. Joseph's geneology is obviously of no consequence, and nowhere is Mary's geneology traced (the geneology in Luke is not claimed to be that of Mary).
  • It seems odd that Matthew and Luke give conflicting ancestries from David to Joseph and then add Jesus was son of God. Why bother to list Joseph's descent, if he is not Jesus' father? It appears that the original tales had Jesus as the son of Joseph and thus a descendant of David and thus the Messiah, but someone decided to copy the many virgin birth myths and did it awkwardly. He cannot be both Messiah and son of God. Judaism says Jesus is not the Messiah, but Christianity insists upon this contradictory stance. The Bible is extremely poor fiction with such errors as this major one.
  • not sure what it is
  • Easy for you to find out, so I will just report the greatly insightful answer of St Augustine: Just as Mary was the Virgin Mother, Joseph was the Virgin Father"
  • Probably not to the first century Jews. Jesus was born to Mary, wife of Joseph. As in our own culture (though it is "passing" now), so in theirs, the wife of a man became a part of HIS house (and was a part of HIS family). Even more in first century Judaism, in a sense - a legal sense - she was his PROPERTY. (That's pretty much completely in the past in our culture, though only about 100 years or so in the past.) So: Jesus, by the mere fact that his mother was married to Joseph when he was born, WAS (legally, but not biologically) the son of Joseph, WAS (legally) a member of Joseph's family, and WAS (legally) therefore of the house of David.
  • It was actually just an attempt at sleight of hand, given that the Messiah was supposed to be of the House of David.
  • Frist we need to remember way Jesus was needed, In Genesis 3:15 God speaks about a "Seed" KJV This "Seed" is again mentioned in Gen in connection with Abraham and his son Isaac. Later The Seed was connected to King David though his lineage at 2 Samuel 7:16 KJV. I gave you all this back history to show why the genealogy of Jesus is so important, To show that the "Son Of Man" Jesus was legal(Joseph) and natural(Mary) heir to the throne of David as prophesied, and just as David sat on God's earthly throne; Jesus is sitting on God's heavenly throne. There are several scriptures stating that Jesus was "David's" "Son". I hope this helped, if you would like more information on this or other Bible topic's please log-in to
  • Matthew intends to set down Christs political or Royal Pedigree, by which he had a right to the crown of the Jews, while Luke shows his natural descent.
  • Jesus's genealogy through Joseph was a legal justification that Jesus, as a descendent of King David; whom his God Jehovah promised that a man from his line would be king. Therefore He(Jesus) could be King over the Jews, and had the legal right to do so. Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. By tracing both genealogies took away any argument of Jesus' right to sit on the throne of David. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father thus giving him legal right as first born extending to the kingship of David. I hope this is helpful. Here is a link with more information about Jesus and his genealogy

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy