Lineage of Jesus

Below are two lists of the lineage of Jesus from the New Testament
​
Lineage of Jesus             |      Lineage of Jesus
according to Matthew Chapter 1        |   according to Luke Chapter 3
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Adam
Seth
Enosh
Cainan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
Cainan  ----- Who is Cainan?
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
 Abraham                               Abraham 
Isaac                                 Isaac
Jacob                                 Jacob
Judah                                 Judah
Perez                                 Perez
Hezron                               Hezron
Ram                                   Ram
Amminadab                             Amminadab
Nahshon                                Nahshon
Salom                                  Salom
Boaz                                   Boaz
Obed                                   Obed
Jesse                                  Jesse
 King David                                   King David  
Soloman                                 Nathan
Rehoboam                              Mattathah
Abijah                                Menan
Asa                                   Melea
Jehoshaphat                             Elikim
Joram                                 Jonan
Uzziah                                Joseph
Jotham                                Judah
Ahaz                                  Simeon
Hezekiah                                Levi
Manasseh                             Matthat
Amon                                   Jorim
Josiah                                   Eliezer
Jeconiah                                 Jose
Shealitiel                                   Er
Zerubbabet                            Elmodam
Ahiud                                  Cosam
Eliakim                                 Addi
Azor                                    Melchi
Zadok                                   Neri
Achim                                   Shealtiel
Eliud                                    Zerubbabel
Eleazar                                   Rhesa
Matthan                                   Joannas
Jacob                                     Judah
Joseph                                    Joseph
Jesus                                     Semei
Mattathrah
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathiah
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Mattat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus

Matthew Chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3 both dictate the lineage of Jesus but they blatantly contradict each other. Before King David they are in agreement with each other, although Matthew only goes back as far as Abraham. Luke, on the other hand goes back to Adam. Luke 3:36 mentions Cainan in Jesus’ lineage. Who is Cainan? Genesis 10:24 omits Cainan saying Arphaxad begot Shelah and Shelah begot Eber. Genesis 11:12 also has an omission of Cainan in the lineage mentioned there.But it is from King David to Jesus that Matthew and Luke disagree completely. Luke mentioned 43 generations from King David to Jesus. Matthew says there were only 28 generations in the same span but none of the names are the same between the two gospels. It is true people might have more than one name but none of the names match up except David, Jesus and Joseph. They don’t even agree on who Joseph’s father was. They also don’t agree what son of David Jesus descended from. Matthew says Jesus was descended from David’s son Soloman. Luke says Jesus was descended from David’s son Nathan.Why would these two gospels disagree so? The disciples were no historians. They were just put into a situation where they were obligated to put their story into writing. I’m not sure why they didn’t research it, or at least talk it over. I think Matthew tried to exalt Jesus and show more reasons he should be King of the Jews. In Matthew 1:17 he says: All the generations from Abraham to David are 14 generations, from David to the captivity in Babylon are 14 generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are 14 generations. Matthew and Luke both agree there were 14 generations from Abraham to King David. This information is in the Old Testament. Then I think he wrote the genealogy to make the other periods 14 generations each. The significance of numbers was highly regarded by people back then, especially in religion.Another thing is that Matthew also made every descendant from David to the exile a King from the Old Testament. (Joram was a king of Israel; the rest were kings of Judah). The problem is the Old Testament doesn’t always say these Kings were a continuous line of descendants. Kings were often assassinated by someone that would then seize power. For example Matthew 1:7 says Rehoboam begot Abijah but 1Kings 14:1 says Amaziah was Abijah’s father. Another contradiction is when Matthew 1:8 says Joram begot Uzziah but Joran was a king of Israel and Uzziah was a king of Judah. The fact that the two were completely unrelated is documented many places in the Old Testament. 2 Chronicles 26:1 is just one example.Matthew was trying to prove a point when he said Jesus was born to a line of Kings. At the time of Christ it was believed that Jesus was to literally be the next King of the Jews. In Matthew 21:2 Jesus is coming to Jerusalem and He tells his disciples where to get a donkey. As Matthew 21:4 says: This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet saying: Behold your King is coming to you. Lowly and riding on a donkey. This is referring to Zechariah 9:9 but when you look it up Zechariah goes on to say this King’s dominion shall be from sea to sea (Mediterranean to Dead Sea?). And from the river (Nile or Euphrates?) to the ends of the earth You can see they are talking about a literal king to rule a vast region of land. This is what people believed back then. Only later did people realize that they maybe should consider Jesus as a spiritual king over the Kingdom of God.Lastly I would like to ask — why did Matthew and Luke even mention the lineage of Jesus if He was supposedly born of a virgin birth? Joseph wasn’t even Jesus’ father. God is.------------------[This message has been edited by Dave901, 07-21-2003][This message has been edited by Dave901, 07-21-2003][This message has been edited by Dave901, 07-21-2003][This message has been edited by Dave901, 07-21-2003][This message has been edited by Dave901, 07-21-2003]{Edited by Adminnemooseus, to restore page width to normal. I took out the pre-formating, for the discussion portion of the message. The original author had previously done 5 edits. I hope my edit is true to his intents.}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-21-2003][This message has been edited by Admin, 07-22-2003][This message has been edited by Admin, 07-22-2003]

As it is, the continuation of the pre-formating to include the discussion, causes the page to be overwide (at least as my browser displays it).I tried doing my own edit, to restore the discussion formating back to what is normal here, but the line breaks caused it to come out poorly.Perhaps you can repaste the discussion portion (from your word processing file?) in a nicer format?Adminnemooseus

I just completed my own edit of the opening message, and got things closer to normal width. I hope this helps the readability of the message.Cheers,Adminnemooseusps: BUMP

There seems to be a bug in the Preview function that displays "pre" HTML regions smaller than in the eventual message. I'll fix this when I get a chance. In the meantime, I reformatted the initial message again to reduce the width a little bit more.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Hello Dave,What a lot of work for you! And subsequent work for the admin's; but well worth the trouble. For future projects I would recommend Verdana if you have that font available. Not sure why it wasn't converted to Verdana when you posted it, but as anyone perceptive can see, I am no expert with html.I have never seen these genealogies laid side by side in this way, and your comments are exceptionally revealing. Can't say I understand them all (this hasn't been an area of much study for me) but I especially appreciated the last line. Between this and what Percy posted re: Paul's comments on Jesus "natural" and "fleshly" origin, I believe the skeptics are building a wonderful exegesis to refute the already textually vacuous theory of "virgin birth."db------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

ok well the linage of jesus really is irrelavent, because he really didn't exist He was based on a scholar of the first century and of ancient religions and heros.here is a small history on the creation of the church and the christian religion.
In 325 ad Emperor Constantine gave the Nicene Council the task of creating a religion that would encompass the whole of the Roman Empire. Ok lets go over the last 200+ since the passing of the mythical man Jesus.What Historian of that time mentions him? None. No mention of a man called Jesus Christ is in history untill 325 ad. In 325 ad the Nicene Council came out with the Bible. Emperor Constantine created the Church and killed anyone that said anything against the church. This is how Christianity came to be. In the fourth century Hierocles had charged the Church of plaglarizing the works of Apollonius of Tyana. The Church realized it had been found out and acted fast, all of Hierocles work was destroyed and he was scilenced. This is the Church's modus operandi. Archbishop Chrysostom happily said in the fith century ad "Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has now vanished from the face of the earth". This of course would make the Church very happy for any knowledge of where they had stolen their religion from was thought to be gone. Paulinus the first Archbishiop of York in 622, stated that he was the first translator of the scriptures from Gallic into the Saxon tounge had said "I subsituted, as did Eusebius, Jesus Christ of Judea for Apollonius of Tyana" to make "them correspond with Eusebius' version." (Antiquity Unveiled p.544)I don't know if this is proof for you that The man Jesus never existed, but the truth is Christianity was created some 250+ years after the man Jesus was suppose to have lived. IT was created based on diffrent religions and diffrent teachings of a scholar named Apollonius. I dont know what proof you need to see that The Nicene Council had made the religion up it should be so easy to see. Its in the history unfortunalty the Roman Catholic Church had over a thousand years to supress what ever information anyone had on the truth. IT wasnt until the 1600's and the advent of the printing press (which the church tried to stop ) that the works of Appolonius had been made in mass productions and therefor the church could not destroy them all. Also the Bible finaly became set in its form then, instead of being changed over the years. So in actuality the bible as we know it is only roughly 400 years old. An interesting fact.------------------
--ignorance is humankinds worst enemy--[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-26-2003]

Greetings sup32string,

quote:

---

ok well the linage of jesus really is irrelavent, because he really didn't exist He was based on a scholar of the first century and of ancient religions and heros.

---

Indeed,
there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure, even where we would expect it - e.g. Justus of Tiberias or Philo Judaeus.Notably, not even the earliest Christians makes any mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth :
* Paul refers in spiritual terms to a divine figure Iesous Christos - nothing historical
* other epistles makes no reference to a historical Jesus of Nazareth - James, Peter, Jude, Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastorals, Hebrews
* other early Christian writings make only vague spiritual references - Clement, the Didakhe
The Gospels and their contents were unknown to Christians until early-mid 2nd century.

quote:

---

here is a small history on the creation of the church and the christian religion.

---

History?
Incorrect - no historian or history text agrees with your arguments - it sounds more like a pamphlet from the Theosophical Society or some-such. If you are a sceptic trying to find the truth, why on earth didn't you check your claims?

quote:

---

No mention of a man called Jesus Christ is in history untill 325 ad.

---

Wrong.
Christians start referring to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure starting just after the final Jewish war - early-mid 2nd century :
* Papias seemingly refers briefly to a historical Jesus, probably early-mid 2nd century,
* Ignatius (probably forged early-mid 2nd century) makes a TINY few references to Jesus.
* Aristides refers briefly to Jesus, probably early-mid 2nd century - he describes the "Gospel" as preached for a short time (i.e. a RECENT production).
* Justin argued with Trypho about whether Jesus really was the Christ, mid 2nd century.
* Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Clement wrote at length about Jesus as a historical figure at the end of the 2nd century.
* Many other Christian writers refer to a historical Jesus Christ in the 3rd century.A few non-Christians refer to a historical Jesus from late 2nd century :
* Celsus argued that the Gospels were fiction based on myth - yet he seems to agree that Jesus did exist as such figures were commonplace - in the late 2nd century.
* Galen mentions Jesus briefly in late 2nd century.
* Porphyry argued that the Gospels were fiction, yet apparently accepted Jesus existed, late 3rd century.Readers may be interested to note that some 2nd century Christian writings describe a Christianity with NO Jesus -
* Theophilus describes Christianity in detail, with NO MENTION of Jesus Christ even when discussing the meaning of the word "Christian" or arguing resurrection is possible!
* Athenagoras also argues for resurrection with no mention of Jesus or Christ even ONCE (or Lazarus.)
* Minucius Felix argues specifically that Christians do NOT believe in a crucifixion or the incarnation!
* The Johanine epistles arguably show evidence for a Christian sect with no son of god.I agree that Jesus never existed, I agree there is no contemporary evidence for him.
But,
its simply not true to claim that No mention of a man called Jesus Christ is in history untill 325 ad

quote:

---

In 325 ad the Nicene Council came out with the Bible.

---

Actually, sup23string, this claim is often made by sceptics, yet it has no foundation.
The decisions of the Council of Nicea still exist to this day (the "minutes of the meeting", so-to-speak) - you can read them yourself here:
Philip Schaff: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library If you read this incredibly boring turgid rubbish yourself, you will find the council dealt with two main issues:
* Arianism
* the date of EasterThere is NO MENTION anywhere in the Nicean writings about the books of the Bible -
none,
nada,
zip,
zero,
zilch.
But, ten years later, Constantine commissioned 50 Bibles to be made - we may even have 1 or 2 of these very Bibles to this day (C.Vaticanus and/or C.Sinaiticus). They do NOT contain the same books as our modern bibles.Also,
there are several ancient accounts of what happened at the Council of Nicea, and NONE of them makes ANY mention about the books of the Bible (or re-incarnation) - you can see a good analysis of this here:
The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible

quote:

---

This is how Christianity came to be...the truth is Christianity was created some 250+ years after the man Jesus was suppose to have lived.

---

No it isn't - you left out Paul, James, Peter (assuming he existed, which is doubtful), Marcion, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the 2 Clements etc. who all had a hand in creating Christianity.

quote:

---

This of course would make the Church very happy for any knowledge of where they had stolen their religion from was thought to be gone. Paulinus the first Archbishiop of York in 622, stated that he was the first translator of the scriptures from Gallic into the Saxon tounge had said "I subsituted, as did Eusebius, Jesus Christ of Judea for Apollonius of Tyana" to make "them correspond with Eusebius' version." (Antiquity Unveiled p.544)

---

I don't think alleged channelings of dead people will be seen as very credible arguments - I can find no real evidence that Paulinus really said that.

quote:

---

Also the Bible finaly became set in its form then, instead of being changed over the years. So in actuality the bible as we know it is only roughly 400 years old. An interesting fact.

---

Its not a fact, its just plain false information.The canon was fixed long before then - the Festal Epistle of Athanasius of 367CE containing the first canon that agrees with ours (not counting the issue of Catholic vs Protestant canons)
The Greek wording of the Bible was generally fixed long before then, but differing translations continue to arise based on newly discovered manuscripts, and also on the choices between different manuscripts when making a translation.
The only thing had happened to the Bible 400 years ago was that an influential translation was made under the patronage of King James - this Bible is now considered a very POOR translation of the original, and many better translations have been, and continue to be made.Iasion

May I ask how you are sure that the historical refrences you speak of that mention Jesus are not ficticious themselves? Why did the church have to forcibly make people belive? In the inquisitions the church tortured any who would preach the old philosophies and kill those who would not recant their claims. It seems odd to me that a religion would have to do that if it indeed was true. Might you be able to explain to me then what the reason behind the Inquisition is please? Thanks for your information I'll will look into what you have said.oh one more thought. With the invention of the printing press (which the church sought to stop) the bible could be massed produced. In mass producing the bible, it was no longer easy to change things in the bible. As far as you my claims of the bible being only roughly 400 years old in it present form being false I would have to disagree.
Through out the years the bible has been translated and re-translated, and re written, but instead of like it is in modern times where we just make copies using machines, scribes would painstakenly write by hand copies and translations. Much of the time things get changed in the translation, and as times change so do the interpretations that the scribes get from the original scriptures, or original manuscripts as to witch they are coping. I hope this will clear up as to why I belive that the bible in its present for is around 400 years old.
check back in day or 2 and I will tell you what I have found on your historical refrenses. thanks for your ideas agian.------------------
--ignorance is humankinds worst enemy--[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003]

Arguments at EvC Forum should be supported with evidence. I hope this isn't the beginning of an argument along the lines of, "Ancient Christian writings are mere fictions, and I am therefore free to engage in unhindered speculation."There is a legitimate question of upon whom the burden first falls. Should you first be required to supply evidence that the ancient Christian writings referred to are false? Or should Iasion take the lead, providing evidence that they're true? Since the historicity of most of these sources is not seriously questioned by any significant historical school of thought (not that there aren't known later Christian insertions/modifications, and suspected ones, too), I think the burden falls upon you.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Shouldn't "humankinds" include an apostrophe to indicate the possessive?--Percy

it matters for one reason. you ask most people who believe in it to answer why do you believe in this book when People wrote it? they always seem to answer this way "Because God directed them to do it" but if it doesn't agree then God didn't do a very good Job did he?

Isn't the idea of god speculative itself? Sorry if my missing a apostophe offended you I will have to fix that. All I was asking is what makes them so sure that their historical evidence is true. I thought this was a valid question. Meaning what makes one sure that information he gets is valid. Im Not trying to prove anything only seeking as many veiws on the subject as I can, because at the moment I don't have all the facts nor do I pretend to. I just question the validity of the information avilable today. Considering the Church was in control of the majority of the world for so long is it not possible to assume that its possible that their recording of history is biased?
For instance today goverments engage in the use of propaganda to influence people,and the veiws of a news story can vary from source to source as well. I hope you understand what im driving at.[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003][This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003]

Offended? No way! I just find the irony interesting, that a person who pays little attention to punctuation, capitalization and possessives has a signature about ignorance. As you state it here it is a perfectly valid question. But what you originally said was, "May I ask how you are sure that the historical refrences you speak of that mention Jesus are not ficticious themselves?" This made it seem like you were questioning whether there were really such people as Ignatius and Irenaeus, and if so whether they really wrote the works attributed to them. That they existed and wrote these works is pretty much a settled issue, while the acuracy and historicity of the contents of these works is certainly open to debate.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Percy wrote:
"This made it seem like you were questioning whether there were really such people as Ignatius and Irenaeus, and if so whether they really wrote the works attributed to them. That they existed and wrote these works is pretty much a settled issue, while the acuracy and historicity of the contents of these works is certainly open to debate."
If the historictity and accurcy of the works are in question then wouldn't that mean they could be fictitious?He he I never said I was not included in humanity I realize I am an ignorant person, which is why I ask questions. By the way how do you put the quotes in a box like that (see im still ignorant lol )[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003]

They meaning that the works themselves may be fictitious in part of in whole? Sure. But Irenaeus and Ignatius and the rest were all real people, and there is little question in historical circles that they authored the works attributed to them.It sounds like you were asking the right question, it was just the way you phrased it that had me wondering. When you're typing a message into the little message box, look just to the left of the box. You'll see a couple of links, one for HTML, the other for UBB codes. Click on the link for UBB codes, it will bring up a page explaining how to use them.--Percy