Why NOT Christ Lineage through Joesph's boodline, Instead of Judah's

quote:

---

That is true, that there are differences in the two geneologies. Luke's purpose differs from Matthew's purpose. Matthew's purpose is to establish Jesus as the royal Jewiash King and stresses His thoroughly Jewish roots back to Abraham

---

It sounds as if your position is that the genealogies were invented to serve these purposes. Although it is not one of the differences you choose to discuss, Matthew traces Jesus' ancestry thrugh Solomon while Luke traces it through Nathan (2 Samuel 5:14). The genealogies have no points of agreement between David and Shealtiel and Zerubbabel - and none after those two, until Joseph.These differences make it impossible to honestly claim that both genealogies are correct.

I am aware of the usual pretext for dismissing the difference - that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy. However they give no reason to even accept that as a valid reason. Supporters of this view also have a tendency to misrepresent what the Bible says on levirate marriages as I have discussed here on earlier threads.In short the usual excuse is ad hoc, and unreasonable. If you have an alternative explanation I trust that you will offer evidence that establishes that your reading is reasonable, and is not motivated solely by a need to deny the clear contradictions produced by taking the two genealogies at face value.

quote:

---

Matthew’s geneology says that ”Jacob begot Joseph,” but Luke 3:23 says, “Joseph, the son of Heli.” It has been said that Luke’s words ”so it was thought” or as some translations say ”as was supposed” means according to law (Jewish).

​

Joseph was not actually the son of Heli but was reckoned his son according to the law. Joseph was the son-in-law if Heli, Mary’s father. This may have been a case according to Numbers 27:1-8 and 36:1-12. A regulation was made by God that if any parents had only daughters as heirs, the inheritance would go to the daughters, who would then have to marry a man from their own tribe in order to keep their inheritance within the tribe.

​

I believe that even such a regulation in the Old Testament is related to the geneology of Christ, showing that all Scripture is a record of Christ and that He is central to the entire divine revelation of the Bible.

---

Since the regulation is not related to genealogies and does not establish that a man may be considered the son of his wife's father for the purposes of genealogy it clearly plays no part. (Indeed, it is clear that the future husbands of women in this situation would remain in their own tribe).So, you need to present evidence that Joseph could be presented as the son of Mary's father in a genealogy and evidence that that is in fact the case. Do you have such evidence, or is it merely an ad hoc invention concocted to deny the clear inconsistencies betwen the genealogies provided by Luke and Matthew ?

Actually it's quite shallow. While they rightly reject the notion that Luke was presenting Mary's genealogy they present no examples of this supposed flexibility of Hebrew genealogies. They don't present a single case of two differing genealogies where we know that adoption or a levirate marriage provides the solution.So it's all just speculation intended to explain away the differences in the genealogies.9

So far as I can tell one would not use the word "almah" if one specifically wanted to make a point of virginity. I can find nowhere in the Bible that actually does so.(Of course since "almah" means "young woman" it is clear that any virgin who is a young woman could be referred to by "almah". But that isn't the point at issue)..