Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lineage of Jesus
phil
Guest


Message 41 of 82 (50779)
08-17-2003 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dave901
07-21-2003 12:46 AM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
The original question regarding the differing lineages of Jesus does not seem to have been answered. . . .
The four Gospels each have a theme to them. Matthew presents Jesus as King. Mark presents Jesus as a servant. Luke presents Jesus as the Son of Man. And finally, John presents Jesus as God.
Matthew includes the lineage of Jesus to show the significant figures in the genealogy of Christ. The genealogy starts with Abraham, "the first Jew", to show that Christ is, indeed, the "King of the Jews." There are many other notable figures in this genealogy, including King David and his son Solomon (take note: the genealogy presenting Christ as King traces the lineage through Solomon and not Nathan).
Mark does not include a lineage of Jesus at all. Why? In the time of Christ the genealogy of a servant was not significant. In the same way, John does not include a lineage because it is a portrayal of Christ as the Everlasting God, who is and always has been, and has no genealogy.
Luke does include a genealogy of Christ, but it differs greatly from the one in Matthew. First off, Luke traces Christ's lineage all the way back to Adam, the first man, to show that Christ is, indeed, the "Son of Man." Luke therefore focuses on the fact the Jesus was born to a woman (Mary) and even focuses on Mary herself in the early chapters.
Matthew and Luke's lineages are identical from Abraham to King David, but after this they do not agree at all until Joseph, Jesus' "father." Why such a seemingly blatant contradiction in the Word of God? Simple. Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph, the man--the "head of the household", because he was portraying Jesus as a king and the father's genealogy was what mattered. Luke, on the other hand, traces Christ's lineage through Mary. Although it lists Joseph as Jesus' father, it is meant as the household of Joseph, in which Mary is included. Luke even alludes to this in verse 23 of the same chapter: "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old. . .He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph. . ." Luke is not only pointing out that Joseph is not Christ's real father (God is), but also that this particular lineage is traced through Mary. This accounts for the differences in the genealogies.
The fact that each gospel is written in such a manner where each portrays Christ in a different way is proof to me that "all Scripture is God-breathed."
Finally, there is a mysterious "Cainan" between Arphaxad and Shelah in the Luke genealogy that does not appear in Genesis. I have heard this is because Cainan is Shelah's father, and Arphaxad was Shelah's stepfather, and Luke included both whereas Moses omitted Cainan (because he was cursed and cast-off, or something like that). I know that last part was a bit unclear, but hopefully you understand what I am saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dave901, posted 07-21-2003 12:46 AM Dave901 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 2:55 AM You replied

     
phil
Guest


Message 45 of 82 (50905)
08-18-2003 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by judge
08-18-2003 2:55 AM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
"Mary's father was called joseph also. This was mistranslated into greek and then into english."
That may very well be. Either way, the genealogy in Luke is through Mary, and not Joseph, Jesus' "father."
Dave901 writes: "Are you implying Mary was Jesus' mother genetically?"
I think this is addressed to me even though it is listed as a reply to judge. . . . . .Anyway, I am not implying that Mary was Jesus' father genetically. All I mean is that Jesus was born to Mary, and she is therefore his mother. Jesus might have been genetically linked to Mary, but there is no way of determing this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 2:55 AM judge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 11:01 PM You replied

     
phil
Guest


Message 48 of 82 (50960)
08-19-2003 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by judge
08-18-2003 11:01 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
Well, I am claiming that it is not through Joseph, but through Mary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 11:01 PM judge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by judge, posted 08-19-2003 1:04 AM You replied

     
phil
Guest


Message 51 of 82 (51140)
08-19-2003 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by judge
08-19-2003 1:04 AM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
I did explain how in my first post, #41. I'll reiterate, though.
All four of the gospels portray Christ in a different way. Luke is written to show Christ as the "Son of Man." Luke therefore focuses on Jesus being born of a woman. Chapter one includes several passages all focusing on Mary (NIV: The Birth of Jesus Foretold, Mary Visits Elizabeth, and Mary's song--basically verses 26 through 56). It is only logical, then, for Luke to include the genealogy through Mary.
Luke 3:23 says: "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old. . .He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph. . ." I believe this is alluding to the fact that Joseph was not Jesus' real father, and that this particular genealogy is through Mary. It only says Joseph because Mary is included in the "house of Joseph," and it is customary to list the men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by judge, posted 08-19-2003 1:04 AM judge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2003 5:25 PM You replied

     
phil
Guest


Message 54 of 82 (51708)
08-21-2003 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
08-19-2003 5:25 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
Sorry about the delayed reply; I have been very busy as of late.
I don't see how my explanation does not work. Whether or not you accept it as a valid explanation is a different story. I cannot give any examples of other genealogies written this way, but I didn't really look for any (it would be pretty hard to find something like that given my resources anyway).
"Why not explicity give Mary's lineage instead?" I have answered this several times. . .Mary was a woman and so she was listed under the household of Joseph.
I understand why it may seem overwhelmingly apparent that it is written through Joseph, but I believe there are enough clues to determine that it is actually through Mary.
Also, if it is through Joseph, then why does Luke write, "He was the son of Joseph, SO IT WAS THOUGHT. . .?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2003 5:25 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 08-22-2003 1:17 AM You have not replied
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2003 5:44 AM You have not replied

     
phil
Guest


Message 57 of 82 (51836)
08-22-2003 12:06 PM


First off, John:
I do not need scientific evidence to prove that Mary was listed under the household of Joseph. Whether or not that means the genealogy in Luke is actually through Mary is more or less an opinion. At first glance it is very clear that it is written through Joseph. After studying the first few chapters of Luke, the themes of each gospel, the prophecies in the Old Testament, and the history of Joseph's lineage, though, it is clear TO ME that it is through Mary. If you disagree, I understand why, though.
Also, the "so it was thought" does mean, primarily, that God is the actual father of Jesus, I believe. In the same way, I believe that Luke is trying to put emphasis on the fact that Joseph was not Christ's real father in order to establish this line through Mary. In other words, why would Luke emphasize that Joseph was not Christ's real father, yet continue to trace the lineage through him?
PaulK:
My explanation is not directly contrary to the text if you choose to believe that Mary is simply listed under the household of Joseph. If not, that's fine. Yes, this explanation might seem a bit "strained," but directly contrary to the text? No.
Finally, I have some questions about your "plausible reasons":
1) Maybe I am reading this one wrong but how does this explain the "so it was thought"?
2) I have never heard that Luke copied the lineage. Please explain this.
3) This contradicts your #3. How could Luke have added the "so it was thought" (as you state in #2) but not have written it (as you state in #3)? Also, please show some evidence that it was added "early on" (and if it was, why did they not add it to Matthew's genealogy as well?).

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2003 12:18 PM You have not replied
 Message 61 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-22-2003 9:32 PM You have not replied

     
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024