I have some thoughts but i do not want to get into a big debate about who is wrong or right.
Mary and Jo were in trouble she got pregnate and jo knew he was not the father, so God told him go ahead and marry her when he thought of divorce and be her husband.
God didnt tell everyone he told the shepards angels and Mary trusted elizabeth enough to tell her of God's revelation she was gonna have a baby.
In the records they speak of Jesus brothers and sisters.. I think for those who didnt believe it was just a "normal" everyday family .
the bible doesnt talk about his youth so much just that he was subject to mary and Jo as his parents.
many probably assumed jo was "his father" and in a sense he was in that role he provided was married to mom etc.
he was his earthly father in every sense of the word.
they both had strong faith and ability to obey to carry out what God revealed to them . Many isrealites were alive then and many had the blood line Yet God also needed people who would do as He asked under very intense circumstances.
hiya pond! Thanks for chiming in. :) And no I don't want to get into a right/wrong debate, it's just that from what I seem to have read in the NT so far, and what the tv preachers I watch have said is that Joseph is from David's bloodline, and I would think that if Jesus were to be a decendent of David, Mary would have to have been as well. Don't the Jews today believe the messiah will be of David's bloodline? Anyway, I am REALLY showing my bible ignorance here, but is there somewhere that gives Mary's bloodline as well?
he was his earthly father in every sense of the word.
Not every sense of the word if you believe what the Bible says. Matthew and Luke both tell us that Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35) and many passages refer to him as the Son of God.
But as for the genealogies, which are important to his claim to be the Messiah, the King, there is some discussion. It's been noticed by many that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are different. Matthew 1:16 says "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." Luke 3:23 on the other hand says, "Jesus... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."
Some skeptics claim it's another discrepancy that proves the Bible is full of errors and can't be trusted. Others have suggested different explanations.
VPW taught that the word "husband" in Matthew 1:16 was the Greek word aner which means a male of full age, and should have been translated as "father" rather than husband. (It is translated husband as well as man, sir, and fellow, but nowhere translated "husband.") In Aramaic it is the word gavra which literally means "mighty man" and according to VPW could mean "husband" or "father" depending on the context. It was his contention that Matthew 1:16 was saying that Jacob was the father of a different Joseph, who was the father of Mary, not her husband. This would make 14 generations from Babylon to Christ, which would otherwise not add up, according to VP.
Bullinger, on the other hand, had a different take. It's all laid out in appendix 99 of the Companion Bible. Matthew's claim that Jacob is the father of Mary's husband is upheld, while in Luke, Joseph is legally considered "of" Heli ("the son" is in italics), Heli being his father-in-law (Mary's father). The generations in Matthew are counted differently by Bullinger too. The first 14 are from Abraham to David; the second 14 begin with David again and go to Josias; then the third 14 go from Jechonias through Joseph to Jesus. I used to wonder why David was counted twice, but it fits the summary in v.17, which says, "from Abraham to David are 14..." and then "from David to the carrying away to Babylon are 14..." and "from the carrying away to Babylon to Christ are 14..."
Most theologians agree that the genealogies are different because Jesus was a descendant of David both physically through his mother, and legally through his foster father. But which genealogy is Mary's and which is Joseph's seems to be the subject of some debate. If you Google "Jesus genealogies" you will find many explanations for apparent discrepancies in the genealogies.
Most of them seem to favor the theory that Joseph was considered a "son" to Heli, his father-in-law, and so the Luke record presents the genealogy through Mary, while Matthew presents it through Joseph. One source I read mentions that there is a passage in the Jewish Talmud that refers to "Mary, the daughter of Heli..." which would corroborate this.
The most interesting thing about it to me is that rather than this issue being proof of error in the Bible, there are actually several possible explanations. Which one is right is not as big a deal as the fact that most of them are plausible.
Recommended Posts
pond
I have some thoughts but i do not want to get into a big debate about who is wrong or right.
Mary and Jo were in trouble she got pregnate and jo knew he was not the father, so God told him go ahead and marry her when he thought of divorce and be her husband.
God didnt tell everyone he told the shepards angels and Mary trusted elizabeth enough to tell her of God's revelation she was gonna have a baby.
In the records they speak of Jesus brothers and sisters.. I think for those who didnt believe it was just a "normal" everyday family .
the bible doesnt talk about his youth so much just that he was subject to mary and Jo as his parents.
many probably assumed jo was "his father" and in a sense he was in that role he provided was married to mom etc.
he was his earthly father in every sense of the word.
they both had strong faith and ability to obey to carry out what God revealed to them . Many isrealites were alive then and many had the blood line Yet God also needed people who would do as He asked under very intense circumstances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
hiya pond! Thanks for chiming in. :) And no I don't want to get into a right/wrong debate, it's just that from what I seem to have read in the NT so far, and what the tv preachers I watch have said is that Joseph is from David's bloodline, and I would think that if Jesus were to be a decendent of David, Mary would have to have been as well. Don't the Jews today believe the messiah will be of David's bloodline? Anyway, I am REALLY showing my bible ignorance here, but is there somewhere that gives Mary's bloodline as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Not every sense of the word if you believe what the Bible says. Matthew and Luke both tell us that Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35) and many passages refer to him as the Son of God.
But as for the genealogies, which are important to his claim to be the Messiah, the King, there is some discussion. It's been noticed by many that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are different. Matthew 1:16 says "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." Luke 3:23 on the other hand says, "Jesus... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."
Some skeptics claim it's another discrepancy that proves the Bible is full of errors and can't be trusted. Others have suggested different explanations.
VPW taught that the word "husband" in Matthew 1:16 was the Greek word aner which means a male of full age, and should have been translated as "father" rather than husband. (It is translated husband as well as man, sir, and fellow, but nowhere translated "husband.") In Aramaic it is the word gavra which literally means "mighty man" and according to VPW could mean "husband" or "father" depending on the context. It was his contention that Matthew 1:16 was saying that Jacob was the father of a different Joseph, who was the father of Mary, not her husband. This would make 14 generations from Babylon to Christ, which would otherwise not add up, according to VP.
Bullinger, on the other hand, had a different take. It's all laid out in appendix 99 of the Companion Bible. Matthew's claim that Jacob is the father of Mary's husband is upheld, while in Luke, Joseph is legally considered "of" Heli ("the son" is in italics), Heli being his father-in-law (Mary's father). The generations in Matthew are counted differently by Bullinger too. The first 14 are from Abraham to David; the second 14 begin with David again and go to Josias; then the third 14 go from Jechonias through Joseph to Jesus. I used to wonder why David was counted twice, but it fits the summary in v.17, which says, "from Abraham to David are 14..." and then "from David to the carrying away to Babylon are 14..." and "from the carrying away to Babylon to Christ are 14..."
Most theologians agree that the genealogies are different because Jesus was a descendant of David both physically through his mother, and legally through his foster father. But which genealogy is Mary's and which is Joseph's seems to be the subject of some debate. If you Google "Jesus genealogies" you will find many explanations for apparent discrepancies in the genealogies.
Most of them seem to favor the theory that Joseph was considered a "son" to Heli, his father-in-law, and so the Luke record presents the genealogy through Mary, while Matthew presents it through Joseph. One source I read mentions that there is a passage in the Jewish Talmud that refers to "Mary, the daughter of Heli..." which would corroborate this.
The most interesting thing about it to me is that rather than this issue being proof of error in the Bible, there are actually several possible explanations. Which one is right is not as big a deal as the fact that most of them are plausible.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Mark: Thank you! :) Very interesting! And oh my goodness what a great link you provided.
Edited by RottieGrrrlLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.