Luke and Matthews geneologies

Howdy judge,You've probably noticed that a similar topic has had my attention of late, but you take a different tack, so lets see what we can do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
However if we add up the generations it is quite clear there are only 41! A pretty obvious mistake!

---

okey dokey

quote:

---

Secondly Matthew tels us that Josephs father was Jacob
Matthew 16:19
" and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
whereas Luke seems to clearly and directly contradict this, Luke 3:23-24
"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,"

---

OK. That is the significant chunk.

quote:

---

Unfortunately many commentators have tried to explain this by ignoring what the text plainly says.

---

Tell me about it

quote:

---

Surely these are the same people. In the greek version the same word is used to describe each man "aner.

---

There seems to be some debate as to what language Matthew actually wrote. Interesting but not a critical point, as I see it. Let's go with the Hebrew, as you propose.

quote:

---

Thus the aramaic differentiates between these two different Josephs while the greek translator did not.

---

The very first translation of Matthew from Aramaic which I stumbled across reads virtually identical to the more common translations. V-a.comMatt. 1:16 To Jacob Joseph, husband of Mary, the Mary to whom was born Jesus, who is called the Anointed One.

quote:

---

So we see this apparent problem is easily resolved ;-)

---

So the idea is that Matthew was written in Hebrew and that work was translated into Greek and into Aramaic. The Greek has an error, the Aramaic does not.hmmm... we do not have the Hebrew original, so how do we know which is more accurate?Translator error, eh? So much for God preserving his divinely inspired work. Just a note. I know you haven't brought this issue up.Thirdly, the translation from Aramaic which I found contradicts you.Even then, you haven't really addressed that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are radically different.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 11-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
No I do not believe Matthew was written in Hebrew.

---

Ok. I missed that part. [quote][b]The proof of this is , as I showed, gowra is used to describe a [i]father[i/] in Matthew 7:9 for example.[/b][/quote]This is interesting but I don't see that it is proof.

quote:

---

So Victor has translated it following the english, but even he doesn't follow the meaning within Matthew itself for the word gowra.

---

I don't see that he would have to translate the same word the same way every time. Sometimes languages don't work that way. Of course, this is largely semantic because my Aramaic is nil.

quote:

---

Matthew gives jesus's geneology thru Mary and Luke thru Joseph.

---

This is the position Funkie took and he didn't do a good job defending it. I can't say that I understand your line of reasoning well enough yet to make much of a comment.Lets see.Matthew 1:16. This is the verse where the word 'gowra' is used.You believe this verse should read "And Jacob begat Joseph the FATHER of Mary..... " Yes? Interesting. It does solve the problem neatly.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
Isn't it a simpler solution to this whole business that Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience, and so used a "traditional" lineage that portrayed Jesus as David's heir, and Luke was writing for a gentile audience and was merely showing that Jesus was as much a son of Adam as the rest of us - a real man, Son of Man as He keeps calling himself.

---

Why would writing for a gentile audience involve showing that Jesus was a son of Adam-- a Jewish myth? And why does the lineage from David not show the same thing?

quote:

---

Probably neither of them has the "true" lineage because the information probably wasn't available.

---

Jews kept pretty good records of lineage as I understand it. I'd bet the information was available, or would have been had the works been written in Christ's lifetime rather than decades later.

quote:

---

But the early church "knew" Jesus was the Messiah, and therefore must be David's heir; the actual names are pretty immaterial.

---

I'd bet you are right, but this also blows the divine inspiration theory.

quote:

---

The gospels are not biographies; they are highly selective works written by people with an agenda

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

- to communicate in story things which they knew to be fundamentally true through their experience of Christ alive in the early church.

---

Again, agreed.

quote:

---

That doesn't make the writers liars - they firmly believed that the truths that they were communicating through their writings were really true.

---

And again... we agree.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

*just a little nudge*
Is this being ignored because it makes no sense? needs clarification? is so laughable that there's no point in responding? has no answer?

​

---

I saw this post and meant to spend some time on it, but forgot Below is a list taken directly from the site mentioned. I have left out the chapters and verses except where directly relevant to my comments.First off, the proof for nearly every fulfilled prophecy is the NT, at least as this cite has it listed. The problem with this ought to be obvious. The NT was written ~60-150 years after the death of Christ by people well aware of the OT prophecies and perfectly capable of writing the NT so that Jesus fits the bill. And, no, I don't have to prove that this actually is what happened. As long as it is option, the book cannot be proof of itself.Secondly, some of the proofs for the fulfillment of OT prophecies are more prophecies in the NT. This is too nuts for words. How can one unfullfilled prophecy be proven by yet another (as yet, to be kind) unfullfilled prophecy?

quote:

---

Important Messianic Passages

​

Messiah to be the seed of the Woman

---

A bit of a no-brainer really. We all fulfill this one.

quote:

---

Messiah to be the seed of Abraham

---

Not a tough thing really, since the myth has Abraham to be the ancestor to all of the Isrealites, or damn close. Basically, this one says "he has to be a Jew"

quote:

---

Messiah to be of the tribe of Judah

---

Matthew 1:1-2 >> Abram > Isaac > Jacob > Judas > Phares > EsromLuke 3:33 >> Abraham > Isaac > Jacob > Juda > Phares > EsromGood so far...

quote:

---

Messiah to be of the seed of Jacob

---

Notice the genealogy above. Being from the Tribe of Judah, he is by default the seed of Jacob. Basically it is a slightly more general phophecy than the one preceeding it.

quote:

---

Messiah to be of the seed of David

---

To make this work you have to violate jewish genealogical rules. Since most of the rest of the thread is about this specifically. I am going to skip it here. No webpage found at provided URL: http://Torah.freeyellow.com/page35.html

quote:

---

Messiah to be a prophet like Moses

---

This is a weird one. How does one tell if this has been fulfilled or not? Like Moses? Much of what Jesus taught flies in the face of Moses' teachings.

quote:

---

Messiah to be the Son of God

---

Another weird one. We have only the word of a couple of people whe were not even born at the time of the event. And it is virtually impossible to reconcile with Christ being the seed of David. Jews didn't trace genealogy via females so it wasn't through Mary that he got this precious seed of David.

quote:

---

Messiah to be raised from the dead

---

Nice story. One of about a hundred resurrection myths. There is no evidence that it actually happened so calling it fulfilled is just silly.

quote:

---

Messiah to experience crucifixion

---

The two psalms cited describe the cruxifiction of the NT quite well. I'd say the NT was written to fit this prophecy. Is there any evidnce outside of the NT? Nope.

quote:

---

Messiah to be betrayed by a friend

---

Well, we all fit this one.

quote:

---

Messiah to ascend to heaven

---

This is another one of those typical-of-every-religion prophecies. But that aside, the only evidence that this happened is the book making the claim.

quote:

---

Homage and tribute paid to Messiah by great kings

---

The only evidence that this happened is the book making the claim.

quote:

---

Messiah to be a priest like Melchizedek

---

I don't recal that Christ was a priest at all. The verses in Hebrews is odd to me. Don't you think this priesthood would have been mentioned in the Gospels?

quote:

---

Messiah to be at the right hand of God

---

This is a fulfilled prophecy? How does one know?

quote:

---

Messiah, the stone which the builders rejected, to become the head cornerstone

---

Far too cryptic and ethereal to have meaning as a fulfilled prophecy.

quote:

---

Messiah to be born of a virgin

---

Verification anyone? Even the NT itself seems to be a bit schizophrenic about this one.Is. 7:14 translates the Hebrew 'almah' as virgin. 'Almah' more correctly means young woman.And the verse in Isaiah is referring to a person living the time of the prophecy, not in the time of christ. So it seems to me. The virgin birth was to be God's way of taking the heat off of Ahaz.Oh, and the verse says the virgin born child will be called Immanuel. Jesus is not called Immanuel in the NT, not once. So this ain't him anyway.

quote:

---

Galilee to be the first area of Messiah's ministry

---

Not a hard prophecy to fulfill. Jesus, hopefully would have bee fright enough to get this part right.The prophecy in Isaiah is written in past tense. Prophecies are usually in the future, yes?

quote:

---

Messiah will be meek and mild

---

We all know Christ had a temper, and those money changers got a good taste of it.

quote:

---

Messiah will minister to the Gentiles

---

Again, not a hard thing to pull off.

quote:

---

Messiah will be smitten

---

It is remarkable easy to get yourself executed. Just piss off the church, as Christ found out.

quote:

---

Messiah to suffer, die and rise again.

---

The only proof is the book that makes the claim. Silly. Besides the resurrection stories don't track exactly anyway.

quote:

---

The new and everlasting Covenant

---

And we are to know that this is an EVERLASTING covenant, how? This cannot be considered fulfilled until the end of time, when we can look back and see if it was everlasting or not.

quote:

---

Messiah as the right arm of God

---

I'd like to know how this is supposed to be a fulfilled prophecy?

quote:

---

Messiah as intercessor

---

Verification? We have some guy saying so. Oops, sorry. We have some guys who never met Jesus saying that he said so.

quote:

---

Messiah will perform miracles

---

Miracles are a dime a dozen in mythology. Why is this myth to be taken literally while the others are not?

quote:

---

Messiah is called "The Lord"

---

Another silly sort of prophecy. I guess this make up for not being called Immanuel?

quote:

---

The time of Messiah's coming prophesied

---

I want someone to try to explain this one to me.

quote:

---

Bethlehem to be the place of Messiah's birth

---

The verse in Micah refers to a clan not a place and the prophecy refers to a military leader, which christ was not.

quote:

---

Messiah will enter the Temple with authority

---

So Christ threw a fit and this qualifies him? Hardly a difficult thing to pull off.

quote:

---

Messiah will enter Jerusalem on a donkey

---

Matthew has Jesus sitting on an ass and a colt (Matt. 21:5) Mark and Luke have him riding a colt only (Mark 11:7 and Luke 19:35) While John opts for only the ass (John 12:14)You call this fulfilled?

quote:

---

Messiah will be pierced

---

And to think my mom had a fit when I pierced my ears.Zacheriah 12;10 hardly seems like aprophecy anyway. God is talking in the past tense.

quote:

---

Messiah to be forsaken by his disciples

---

Zach 13:7 God is threatening livestock and children? Smite the shephered and the sheep shall be scattered? Not a terribly striking statement for a tribe of nomadic pastorialists. Its just common sense.

quote:

---

The coming of the Holy Spirit in the days of the Messiah

---

Where is the verification?

quote:

---

Opposition of the nations; Messiah's final victory over death

---

Death seems to be getting along just fine.

quote:

---

The glorious Messiah; Messiah as King

---

Right. Christ the King. Are they serious? Was not a King.

quote:

---

Submission of all nations to Messiah's rule

---

This is at best, not yet fulfilled. What then is it doing among the supposedly fulfilled prophecies?

quote:

---

The Gentiles shall seek the Messiah of Israel

---

The gentiles seek Baba Ram Dass and L. Ron Hubbard as well. What is this supposed to prove?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
You have confused me in this discussion (not a difficult thing to do, so don't pat yourself on the back yet ) I understood that we were discussing a geneaology written in the Bible that you suggested did not line up with what other scriptures said about the coming Messiah. Now that I have presented internal evidence that these other things line up, you step outside of the context of the discussion. (At least thats the way I perceive it).

---

Chara,You posted a link to a list of messianic prophecies and implied, at least, that you agreed that these prophecies had been fulfilled. Then bumped the post. So I responded to the only thing of substance-- the list of prophecies. You are right, it is mostly off topic, but not entirely. And I couldn't let such a list get away scott free. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
In the context of the discussion, my question was not relevant?

---

No offense intended.

quote:

---

Anyway, the point of posting this link was to point out that there are
many criteria/criterion ummmmm qualifications for the Messiah that have been satisfied.

---

It seems that pointing out that Christ did not fulfill the messianic prophecies or that the prophecies were too fuzzy to have any real meaning seems directly relevant.

quote:

---

shown internally* Given the math of probabilities is it possible that the geneaology in question is not counter evidence (is that a correct phrase?), but something we just don't understand yet.

​

The question is not relevant ... why?

---

I missed that it was a question. oops...Math of probabilities? You mean, since so many prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus the chances are good that he is the one?1) There aren't many, if any, unambiguous and verifiable prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ.2) I don't think it works that way. Being the messiah, he'd have to fulfill all of them, not just some or most. Otherwise, you'd never be sure. It isn't a case of best qualified. It is qualified or not-qualified.The genealogies are pretty clear and unambiguous, unless you want them to mean that Christ is the messiah. For the later, you need much mojo.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Given the math of probabilities is it possible that the geneaology in question is not counter evidence (is that a correct phrase?), but something we just don't understand yet. Please note the emphasis on "possible".

---

​

John you have done a wonderful job running and hiding from this question, dancing around the point and nit picking at wordings, however it's a very simple straight forward question. It's an easy one word post. Just curious

---

No offense to Chara, but I am not exactly sure what the question means. Namely, how does the math of probability connect with whether the genealogies describe messianic bloodlines?Secondly, you've got two-- not one but two-- different genealogies for Christ, neither of which fits the requirements for a messianic bloodline. This is in direct contradiction of the messianic prophecies. If you have a set of conditions, you can meet those conditions or not. This is a definite not. It is counter-evidence, hands down.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
Hi John...I think you will from my original post that one geneology is that of Mary (Matthews) and one is that of Joseph the "step" father of Jesus.

---

Your assertion is unsupported. And I think you will find, unsupportable. But please try.

quote:

---

As Matthew gives Marys geneology, Jesus was a direct blood descendent of David, thus fulfillinhg the prophesies.

---

Niether Matthew nor Mark give a valid messianic bloodline. In the end, this is the killer and this conclusion has yet to be challenged.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
Can you define what would be a "valid messainic bloodline"? I believe I have supplied this but perhaps you are defining it differently.

---

The prophecies are not only that the messiah be of David's line, but of David's line via his son Solomon.Luke's bloodline, typically argued to be that of Mary rather than Joseph, traces back to David via Nathan not Solomon. II Samuel 7:12-13. So we strike that one. Note: It really doesn't matter if it is Joseph's line or Mary's.Matthew give us a lineage that runs through a character named King Jeconiah. What's wrong with the King you ask? Well, God cursed him for one.Jeremiah 22:30 "Write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days. For no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling anymore in Judah."------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
It does not have to be, as far as I can see, a curse on the line from Jehoiachin for ever.

---

It plainly states "for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah." That strikes me as pretty absolute.You can, of course, deny that it is a messianic passage. It is, however, nearly universally argued as such.

quote:

---

I am sure that, given the fact that Matthew was (a) writing for a Jewish audience, and (b) was well versed in the OT himself, he would not have made an elementary error like this if he thought it was a problem.

---

Matthew made numerous errors so this is a bit of a moot point. No webpage found at provided URL: http://web2.iadfw.net/capella/aguide/mattherr.htmNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.2think.org/hii/matt_err.shtml

quote:

---

IIRC, this whole issue came from a site with a religious motive for discrediting Matthew's genealogy. Such sources need to be treated with caution; it's a bit like getting your science of a creationist website.

---

Granted. However, from what I can tell, the author has it right. This isn't the only source I have read, but merely the most concise.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 11-29-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
It's a shame I have to nip off now, as the sites you quote raise interesting issues.

---

I anxiously await your return.Take care.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
I am aware that Lukes bloodline is "typically argued" to be that of Mary, but the whole point of my first post here is that Matthew gives the bloodline of Mary.

---

Apologists choose Luke's genealogy as Mary's because there is an (percieved) exploitable word in Luke's text. I am not aware of anything similar in Matthew. The first question then is why do you believe that Matthew gives the genealogy through Mary? Without some means of counteracting what the Bible plainly states, the argument fails right here.

quote:

---

So I think your argument is a GOOD one if I were arguing for Luke givig Mary's bloodline, but I am not doing this :-)

---

I don't see that it matters. I have argued that both lines are invalid. Whose line is actually given is irrelevant.

quote:

---

As for the curse on Jeconiah, this curse was clearly lifted!

---

ummm.... no. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/Does_Yeshua_qualify_as_the_Messiah.htmNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.branchofdavid.org/articles/either2.htmlNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/antimissionary/genealogy.htmlNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/Does_Yeshua_qualify_as_the_Messiah.htm

quote:

---

The following site gives numerous sources (non Christian) supporting this.

---

The site you posted draws heavily upon extra biblical sources from Jewish tradition. This will cause some significant theological problems, which occured to me as I read it. One of the links I give confirms this and outlines some problems, so I won't repeat.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
John I can only suggest that you read my opening post again, as I dealt with this there, but it may somehow have escaped yourr attention.

---

Oh yes. I remember that now. The argument rests upon the fact that the NT was originally written in aramaic. I can find no conclusive evidence for this, despite your first post.Secondly, the argument depends upon some questionable linguistic maneuvers. It isn't convincing. I'd like to see some harder evidence.And...The real issue, from my point a view, is that niether lineage is valid.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
Those who investigate it may be surprised just how good it is ;-).

---

Sure, they may be surprised, but that is hardly grounds for taking it as a given.And I think the evidence against is pretty conclusive, anyway. And that makes any word-play based of the aramaic a moot point. Christianseparatist.org------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
Hi John, just what exactly do you find so conclusive about the "christian seperatist" analysis.
Do you think perhaps it would be better to get the views of someone who understood aramaic rather than the "christian seperatists"?

---

Having some religious tolerance issues there judge? That post sure smells like distaste.But seriously, folks, that would be a ad hominem directed toward the author of the article. Granted, the man appears to be a white-supremist type, but the article looks to be a competent account. It tracks pretty well with what I've found elsewhere. That's right. I didn't stop looking when I found Mr. Herrel's site. His is a nicely written article though. I have in fact been looking into this for a week or so, off and on, because of this very thread. What I've found is that there is a lot going for the Greek-originals hypothesis and not much going for the aramaic-originals hypothesis.1)The Peshitta is written is Syriac. Syriac is not the Aramaic of the 1st century. Syriac didn't pop up until the third or fourth century.2)The Peshitta wasn't produced until 400 something. It can't therefore be the original.3)A major language of the area at the time of Christ was Greek, and had been for some 300 years. (Christ apparently spoke aramaic, but then we are talking about the original language of the NT, not the language Christ spoke.) No webpage found at provided URL: http://answering-islam.org/Bible/nt-languages.html
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/queball23/Jesusspoke.html4)The NT quotes the Greek septuagint, thus establishing that the authors read Greek.5) Mark 5:41 quotes Jesus speaking in aramaic and TRANSLATES those words into GREEK. This makes no sense if the text was written in aramaic. Why translate the aramaic to greek if your readers are already reading aramaic? -- my fav------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com