Jesus' genealogy

[Phoenix]

Actually he did

Mat 1:1 ¶ The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.


Mat 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;


Mat 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;


Mat 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;


Mat 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;


Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias;


Mat 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;


Mat 1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;


Mat 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;


Mat 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;


Mat 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:


Mat 1:12 ¶ And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;


Mat 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;


Mat 1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;


Mat 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;


Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations.

Also the old testament prophesies especially in Isiah are fulfilled through Christ.

The only thing left for jesus to do is be the conquering king.

the old testament refers to the messiah in two different ways.
one as the suffering servant (what we learn in the life and death of Christ) and two as the conquering king. This actually refers to his second coming.

In fact if someone handed you the prophecies in the old testament (which was followed before Jesus time)
and you did not know the passage or that it was from the old testament you would say that it was talking about what Jesus did and written in the New Testament. Several people have already done this. Isaiah is a big one on this.

Made a new thread so it doesn't go too off topic.

You know, nice post, but you forgot one teensy, small little thing: JOSEPH IS NOT JESUS' FATHER

God made it pretty clear that it had to be David and Solomon's physical offspring:

Psa 132:11-12
The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.


Psa 89:34-37
My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.


Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;


Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;


So Joseph's genealogy you provided is essentially useless.

[Omonomous]

Little comment here on the contradictions of the geneologies:

(Leaving out the [begot]s and the [which was the son of]s)
Order according to Luke 3:21-31 (comments regarding Matthews' ordering)
1. David
2. Nathan
3. Mattatha
4. Menan
5. Melea
6. Eliakim
7. Jonan
8. Joseph
9-20.Juda-Melchi
21. Neri
22. Salathiel
23. Zorobabel
24. Rhesa
25. Joanna
26-39. Juda-Levi
40. Matthat
41. Heli
42. Joseph
43. Jesus

(in bold) In Matthews Eliakim came after Salathiel + Zorobabel
(in italics) In Matthews Jacob begot Josheph and not Heli

1Chr 3:11-12 shows three generations between Osiah and Jotham (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah), however Matthews forgets to name them.

Matthews 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias.
1 Chr 3:15-16 And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son.
So was Jechonias son or grandson to Josias?

Though- yeah... still, Joseph, wasn't the father, but the Holy Spirit (I believe... did the HS ever do anything?); I still thought I'd post these notes.

P.S.: Is it just me, or did I count 41generations to Jesus in Matthews?

[Electropop]

Lol.

Mormons and Jesus's family.

They said he had alot of kids and had three wives, one was his mother. =/

[incandescenza]

... And how long did it take for God to make that statement true?

Seriously. Bible lineages = insane.

[Thelonepickle]

Originally Posted by Electropop

Lol.

Mormons and Jesus's family.

They said he had alot of kids and had three wives, one was his mother. =/

There's nothing in the Mormon religion that states that, to my knowlege, and trust me, I'd know.

Proof, pl0x. If you can provide a legit source, I'd be happy to acknowledge your victory, but I seriously doubt you can back that up.

[Venomous Pen]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You know, nice post, but you forgot one teensy, small little thing: JOSEPH IS NOT JESUS' FATHER

I rarely get into these kinds of discussions...but eh. In the context of the time, Joseph was legally considered Jesus's father. And, ask any parent who has adopted a child, and you'll find they are indeed that child's mother or father, genetics aside. In fact, stating any less to their face will probably end with you waking up in the emergency room...but I digress.

The point is, under Jewish law at the time, Joseph is, and was, indeed Jesus's father, legally and relationally, though not genetically, which would have been irrelevant.

God made it pretty clear that it had to be David and Solomon's physical offspring:

I always enjoy it when people who have not studied proper Biblical hermeneutics attempt exegesis...the results are usually quite humorous.

Psa 132:11-12
The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.

First off, Psalms is poetic in nature, and it is bad methodology to take anything it says too literally. And, let's say I take this as literally as you would like even, all it says is that David's descendants, genetic descendants even, will take his thrown; it is possibly not even referring to Jesus in the first place, just David's eventual descendants. The focus is not on Jesus even, but on Jews keeping God's commandments, and if they are obedient, God promises to establish David's thrown through them.

This Psalm is not even about Jesus, but on David's descendants being promised his thrown if they remain obedient. And also...it is not exclusive, meaning the inheritance of David's thrown is not necessarily limited to non-genetic descendants (spiritual descendants).

Psa 89:34-37
My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.

My translation has "seed" as descendants, and that hardly needs to denote physical, genetic descendants, and can possibly include spiritual or legal descendants, after all...it is poetry.

Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

It is commonly considered that Jesus obtained biological genetic information of David from Mary herself. And again, legal status, if Mary herself is not related to David by biology, was just as good as physical status, which Jesus possessed through Joseph's lineage.

Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Again, Jesus had both legal and biological ties (if Mary is indeed David's descendant) to David, and thus He easily fulfills this requirement.

So Joseph's genealogy you provided is essentially useless.

Hardly, once again, legal ancestry was just as valid as biological, and there are arguments which favor one of the genealogies refers to Mary's ancestry, though it's a bit more involved than I prefer to get into.

[Phoenix]

First off, Psalms is poetic in nature, and it is bad methodology to take anything it says too literally.

Fine.

Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;


A hypothetical question; if God wanted that only Solomon and David's physical offspring inherit the throne, what word would he have used then? Since "seed" and "fruit of thy body" are not enough.

Hardly, once again, legal ancestry was just as valid as biological,

Dude, the Bible makes it clear enough.

and there are arguments which favor one of the genealogies refers to Mary's ancestry, though it's a bit more involved than I prefer to get into.

Is Mary even mentioned in the genealogy ever?

[Venomous Pen]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Fine.

Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Well...once again, that's a bad translation (or at least not a very accurate one). Here is the NASB, by far the most accurate translation on the market:

Acts 2:29"Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.

30"And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE,

31he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.

Once again, assuming I do grant the notion that Jesus possesses no genetic information of David, which I by no means agree with at all, legal ancestry to David is more than adequate. Jesus was a lawful, by way of law, descendant of David, and no one, not even Jesus's enemies, ever questioned His lineage to David until a few centuries after His death and Resurrection. It was, for all intents and purposes, a moot issue when He was on earth, and it is a moot issue now.

A hypothetical question; if God wanted that only Solomon and David's physical offspring inherit the throne, what word would he have used then? Since "seed" and "fruit of thy body" are not enough.

You have to look at the text itself. All it says is that David's seed will inherit God's throne; it never limits that no one else could. However, it only -promises- that David's seed will inherit the throne, but it never limits it -just- to David's physical descendants. Do not read things into the text that aren't there.

Dude, the Bible makes it clear enough.

Makes what clear enough?

Is Mary even mentioned in the genealogy ever?

As I said...it's an argument that's bit more involved than I prefer to get into, but it's worth the effort if you're ever bored on a Saturday afternoon.

[Phoenix]

Well...once again, that's a bad translation (or at least not a very accurate one). Here is the NASB, by far the most accurate translation on the market:

Acts 2:29"Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.

30"And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE,

31he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.

Most translations I see have the word "loins" in it. Do you happen to know what was the original word used for this verse?

Once again, assuming I do grant the notion that Jesus possesses no genetic information of David, which I by no means agree with at all, legal ancestry to David is more than adequate. Jesus was a lawful, by way of law, descendant of David, and no one, not even Jesus's enemies, ever questioned His lineage to David until a few centuries after His death and Resurrection. It was, for all intents and purposes, a moot issue when He was on earth, and it is a moot issue now.

Isn't this irrelevant if God specifies a physical offspring? If the Bible is what we're going with, then God's word must be taken as literally as possible. Anything else would be a leap of faith, no?

You have to look at the text itself. All it says is that David's seed will inherit God's throne; it never limits that no one else could. However, it only -promises- that David's seed will inherit the throne, but it never limits it -just- to David's physical descendants. Do not read things into the text that aren't there.

1. That's why we're debating Acts now, eh?
2. You didn't answer my question though. If you were God, and you wanted to make clear that the Christ had to be David's physical descendant, what would you say?

[Venomous Pen]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Most translations I see have the word "loins" in it. Do you happen to know what was the original word used for this verse?

I'm afraid not. I don't know the manuscript which was used for the translation of this verse. I looked at the NASB, ESV (probably the second or third best translation) and the NIV (which uses the same manuscript methodology), and they never mentioned "loins." I would imagine they are using some sort of critical manuscript (early manuscript, basically). Unfortunately, I lack access to the specific one used.

Isn't this irrelevant if God specifies a physical offspring? If the Bible is what we're going with, then God's word must be taken as literally as possible. Anything else would be a leap of faith, no?

God's words must be interpreted within its own context as "literally as possible." For example, in Psalms, if God says: "I will make your enemies your footstool." He does not really mean He is going to make the enemies a literal footstool, only they will be utterly subjected to their authority. Even God is poetic.

1. That's why we're debating Acts now, eh?
2. You didn't answer my question though. If you were God, and you wanted to make clear that the Christ had to be David's physical descendant, what would you say?

What I would do as God is really irrelevant, but I would just use a prophet to make my point clear when it became pertinent, which is exactly what is done in Acts. Jesus is David's descendant, and the writer of Acts shows this to be the case.

[Phoenix]

I'm afraid not. I don't know the manuscript which was used for the translation of this verse. I looked at the NASB, ESV (probably the second or third best translation) and the NIV (which uses the same manuscript methodology), and they never mentioned "loins." I would imagine they are using some sort of critical manuscript (early manuscript, basically). Unfortunately, I lack access to the specific one used.

There's a site somewhere, i just need to find it :/

God's words must be interpreted within its own context as "literally as possible." For example, in Psalms, if God says: "I will make your enemies your footstool." He does really mean He is going to make the enemies a literal footstool, only they will be utterly subjected to their authority. Even God is poetic.

You have a point. That is a very clear analogy, but analogies are often used when there is a very clear distinction (i.e. we all know he isn't talking about footstools). Something like seed and loins wouldn't be used as such, however; that'd simply confuse the readers. It's just bad literature.

What I would do as God is really irrelevant, but I would just use a prophet to make my point clear when it became pertinent, which is exactly what is done in Acts. Jesus is David's descendant, and the writer of Acts shows this to be the case.

I'll concede that point when I find that nifty little site I lost.

[Venomous Pen]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You have a point. That is a very clear analogy, but analogies are often used when there is a very clear distinction (i.e. we all know he isn't talking about footstools). Something like seed and loins wouldn't be used as such, however; that'd simply confuse the readers. It's just bad literature.

As is the case of the Psalm portion referring to David's loins and his descendants, it really does refer to his physical descendents, perhaps even limited to genetic descendents. However, the Psalm used is probably not even referring to Jesus Himself, but only to David's faithful progeny. It's poetic and prophetic (the two usually go together), and it's a very good read.