suzi1247 said
So if Joseph is not the father of Jesus, what is the relevance of his genealogy back to King David? In other words, why mention it?
While I would not necessarily endorse either explanation for this, there seem to be two responses that are generally offered for this obvious conflict. One is to argue that Mary is part of Joseph’s line because she marries him (a very convenient position, which presumes that Jesus gets carried along with it). Another argument is offered by a much longer, but probably no more persuasive case: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Neither Matthew nor Luke were concerned with modern genetics. That’s not the reason for including genealogies. For Matthew, it is important to show that Jesus is part of, and indeed the culmination of, the Jewish history of Abraham and its Davidic dynasty. Three cycles of 14 generations, 14 being the number of David in Hebrew gematria. For Luke, it is important to show that Jesus is fully human, a son of God in the same sense that Adam was a Son of God. Interestingly Luke places his genealogy immediately following Jesus’ baptism, when God himself proclaims to Jesus that his is his beloved son in whom he is well pleased. In some respects, Luke deserves to be considered the first Christian humanist.
I have also read commentary (Amy-Jill Levine) that in addition to the line coming through Nathan a son of David, rather than the well known son Solomon; the number of names included in the genealogy including “Adam the son of God”, the number being 77, suggests “completion”.
Robert said
For Luke, it is important to show that Jesus is fully human, a son of God in the same sense that Adam was a Son of God. Interestingly Luke places his genealogy immediately following Jesus’ baptism, when God himself proclaims to Jesus that his is his beloved son in whom he is well pleased. In some respects, Luke deserves to be considered the first Christian humanist.
That’s an interesting take on Luke’s genealogy. I’ve never heard it said that Luke believed that Jesus was fully human.
suzi1247 said
So if Joseph is not the father of Jesus, what is the relevance of his genealogy back to King David? In other words, why mention it?
The only Reason the scribes of the Bible put those fake genealogies of Jesus was to try and Brainwash People that Jesus was from the Lineage of David. to try and convince the Jews to accept Jesus, Since the Jews believed ‘the messiah’ would come from the house of David.
The genealogy of Jesus in Luke should be completely thrown out. because it completely contradicts Luke 20:41-44 where Jesus Denies that , the messiah cannot be son of David. Not Forgetting Luke 1:35 where it mentions Mary as a cousin to Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, a Levite. Proving what Jesus said in Luke 20:41-44.
If we start to throw out parts of religious texts that try to convince people of something that may or may not actually be fully true, we will end up throwing them all out. I do not think that we should be advocating tinkering with texts that are now established historical documents (by which I mean that they are themselves documents with a given history, not that that they necessarily relate accurate history). It seems to me fine to add commentary about various sections of such works, but not really to alter them for the sake of making them more cohesive. Indeed, it seems to me a very strange concept given that the Koran (or whatever is the current preferred form of title) is not really even considered acceptable in translation. (And to the extent that I am familiar with the history of that book, it has also gone through a good deal of tinkering, so people living in glass houses probably should not throw stones.)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)