The Genealogy of Jesus

[Cartoonist]

You can't make this stuff up.
Oh wait, they did.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/tracing-genealogy-jesus/

The New Testament provides two genealogical tables for Jesus, one by Matthew and one by Luke. These tables differ at significant points. Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience and Luke for a Gentile audience. Matthew was concerned to show that Jesus legally descended from David and was therefore a descendant of Judah to whom the messianic kingship was promised. Matthew treats the legal descent of Jesus and limits the lists to three groupings of fourteen generations, allowing himself to make omissions.

Luke follows the natural descent with greater detail. He takes the list back to Adam, as it was a central theme in his Gospel to set forth the universality of the gospel. Jesus is indeed the Son of Abraham and the Son of David, but He is also the new Adam who comes to redeem not only Israel but men and women from every tribe and nation.
_

I'm still confused. So is this Mary's lineage they are talking about? Joseph made no contribution to the ancestry.

And who needs Adam or Abraham? Isn't Jesus supposed to be the son of God? You can't go further back then that.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Even more confusing is that Jews consider maternal genealogy while...

Romans tended to look at the paternal lineage. Matthew and Luke, whoever they really were, wrote for their audiences.

But, this is only relevant to those who insist on an innerant Bible. Or those who try to embarrass them.

[trotsky]

6. "this is only relevant to those who insist on an innerant Bible"

Is it, though?

The same men who (allegedly) recorded all those things that Jesus said and did also went to great lengths to provide this genealogy. If one can simply wave your hands to dismiss any questions about that, why can't one simply wave away everything else as well?

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. I'm not sure what's more embarrassing

Believing in an inerrant Bible, or knowing the Bible is bullshit and believing this Jesus hogwash anyway.

[Major Nikon]

9. The Jews didn't consider maternal genealogy any more than the Romans did

It was actually Christian literalists who insisted on an inerrant bible that floated the idea of Mary’s genealogy (all on the paternal side mind you), to account for the glaring contradiction between Luke and Matthew. There’s nothing in the bible that suggests this and plenty that suggests otherwise.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Well...

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ask-the-expert-matrilineal-descent/

According to traditional Jewish law (halacha), Jewishness is passed down through the mother. So, if your mother was Jewish, you are too. This position is held by most members of the Conservative and Orthodox communities. The Reform movement recognizes the children of one Jewish parent — mother or father — as a Member of the Tribe if the child is raised Jewish.

...

Shaye D. Cohen, the Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard University, has written a book and several articles on this issue specifically. Cohen found that matrilineal descent evolved from an original policy of patrilineal descent. In the Torah , a person’s status as a Jew seems to come from his father. Joseph was married to a non-Jewish woman, and his children were considered Jewish. The same was the case for Moses and King Solomon. The change to a policy of matrilineal descent came in late antiquity.

Cohen has two theories about how this came to be. One is that the Tannaim, the rabbis who codified the concept of matrilineal descent, were influenced by the Roman legal system of the time. According to two sources from the end of the second century CE and the beginning of the third century CE, in a marriage between two Romans, a child would receive the status of his father. In an intermarriage between a Roman and a non-Roman, a child received the citizenship status of its mother.

Cohen’s other theory is that the Tannaim developed matrilineal descent from an already existing conclusion about mixed breeding in the animal kingdom. The Torah prohibits the breeding of animals of different species, but there is an opinion in the Mishnah (Kilayim 8:4) that suggests that a mule whose mother was a horse and whose father was a donkey should be allowed to mate with other horses. This implies that “horse-hood” is passed down through the mother, regardless of the father’s species. This concept may have been extrapolated by the rabbis to operate beyond the animal kingdom. Cohen presents both theories, but admits that neither have been conclusively proven.

[Major Nikon]

11. Well so some centuries after Christ...

You were considered Jewish if your mother was Jewish and even that wasn’t codified for another thousand of so. Genealogy during the time of Jesus was based on the father. Your title came from your father. You were called ‘son of...(insert father’ name)’. Begat means to father. It was all patriarchal.

[Voltaire2]

12. Which parts are not errant?

Be specific.

At least you passed on the “metaphor” dodge.

[MineralMan]

2. It's funny, isn't it. Joseph had nothing whatever to do

with the conception of Jesus, according to the same book of Matthew. It's all ridiculously transparent, really.

[Voltaire2]

13. When a god knocks up your wife the rules are different.

[MineralMan]

16. I'd think so. Cuckolded by a deity? Shame or blessing?

Discuss...

[Brainstormy]

3. genealogy, heck

the funniest thing to me is that all three of "great" (Abrahamic) religions are founded on a non-existent character. Very few Bible scholars even try to maintain that Abraham was anything but a mythological figure. Sort of makes the Jesus family tree thing pure nitpicking.

[MineralMan]

5. It's all a metaphor for something, see...

Yeah...or it's all true...who knows?

[Voltaire2]

14. In this thread the dodge is inerrancy.

The words are just a bit wrongish.

[Major Nikon]

4. In order to have street cred as the messiah, Jesus had to be a descendant of King David

First you have to realize that god and the messiah are two different things. Jews didn't worship King David nor any of his descendants as such would be strictly forbidden under idolatry laws. What Jesus claims is he's the messiah and he was really just one out of many folks of the time with a messianic claim.

The problem is there's all sorts of problems with Jesus' messianic claim. A few of which are...

1) Matthew lists lineage through Jechonias, which had already been invalidated by Jeremiah. So right away you can throw out the lineage in Matthew, because it was specifically invalidated already.

2) God makes it quite clear in numerous passages, the messianic line will come through Solomon. So right away you can also throw out the lineage in Luke because it also was specifically invalidated.

3) The two lineages are contradictory. After David, Luke takes the path of Nathan while Matthew takes the path of Solomon.

But wait! Christians also claim the whole process was short circuited, because the Holy Poltergeist impregnated Mary, which wouldn't make him the messiah, and why do they go to such great lengths in Luke and Matthew trying to establish a messianic lineage?

Then again, with "metaphor" all things are possible. I think Jesus even said that.

[Cartoonist]

8. Luke's tree

added as further thought

So Luke traced Jesus' lineage back to Adam. Isn't that true for everybody who accepts that story? What's the big deal?

[Voltaire2]

15. Your being inerrant. Stop it.

Only bad people like fundagelicals and atheists demand that the Big Book O Bullshit is not full of errors. Or so we’ve been told.