Thread: Serious Bible Question

The one you seek goes by many names.

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

I have never been able to get a straight answer on this...

Who is Joseph's (Mary's husband) father?

There are two geneologies of Christ in the bible. They both reference a different person as Joseph's father.

The bible is supposed to be infallible. If it can't even stay consistant with basic facts, how can we trust anything in it?

i guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

one genealogy is mary one is Joesph

Originally Posted by yoxtheox

one genealogy is mary one is Joesph

I have heard that excuse too but it's just not true if you read the passages.

Matthew 1:16 says:

"and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Luke 3:23 says:

"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"

One clearly says Jacob is the father of Joseph. The other says Joseph is the sone of Heli.

Neither one mentions Mary's father at all.

Looking Unto Jesus - Who is Joseph's father? - Limestone Church of Christ, Kingston, Ontario, Standing for New Testament Christianity, Bible, faith, Bible study, word of God, Christianity, Christian, church, truth, atheism, answers, gospel, salvation

THE ATHEIST'S COMPLAINT:
Who is Joseph's father? In Matthew 1:16 we read, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." However, Luke 3:23 records, "...Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." Have we caught the inspired writers in a point of contradiction?

RESPONSE:
I believe the careful Bible student is likely to conclude that Matthew and Luke present two different genealogies. Following through the genealogies, one will notice that there are some names which are common to both, but also, an great number of differences. Matthew begins at the patriarch Abraham, and works his way to Jesus the Christ. Luke begins at Jesus, and works his way back to Adam. There are two genealogies, with two distinct purposes. Matthew, it appears reveals the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke, presents the genealogy of Mary.

Matthew, penning his gospel with the Jews in mind sets out to establish Jesus' qualifications to be the Messiah through Joseph's genealogy. Thus, beginning with Abraham, he maps the Lord's genealogy through David, and the kings which followed. He presents Jesus royal lineage (through the males) through "...Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."

Luke, writes to the Gentiles with a view toward the humanity of Christ. The concept of one being both God and man would seem strange and foreign to those accustomed to Greek and Roman gods. Thus, Luke begins at Jesus, and follows the genealogy of Mary, passing through the patriarchs, ending with the very first man, Adam.

If Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary, why does he cite Joseph's name? Today, it would be politically incorrect to map a woman's genealogy through her husband, however, in Luke's day, it was proper and correct. Luke follows Mary's genealogy, beginning with the name of Joseph, her husband, Heli's son-in-law (in legal terms, his son by marriage).

There is no contradiction.

also one is the literal geneology. meaning father to son. the other sets forth the geneology of david. the king of the jews. literally showing that by birthright Jesus was the heir to the Jewish thrown. mathew, mark, luke and john were all written for different audiences. if your audience is Jewish setting forth the geneology of David becomes unbelievably important if your purpose is to show Jesus as the Savior and King of the Jews. If your audience is not Jewish that not does show as important. Please also remember that Joseph and Mary were cousins.

im sure a study of the english crown will prove similarly confusing.

I'm not buying that when it says "Joseph, the son of Heli", they really meant "Mary, the daughter of Heli"

That's just dumb

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

I'm not buying that when it says "Joseph, the son of Heli", they really meant "Mary, the daughter of Heli"

That's just dumb

Are you Jewish? Do you understand Jewish law and tradition? Just because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a reason for you to call it dumb. We are talking about crossing multiple cultures and 2,000 of history here. It makes sense to me that the Jews of 2,000 years ago would treat something like the lineage of their King differently than you or I might look at it.

This is really your big concern with the bible? I mean really? damn, i can think of a thousand different things to go after if I wanted to attack Christianity or the bible long before I would choose this.

Zoroastrianism begat Judaism which had Christianity who then had an incestuous affair and spawned Islam.... Each generation get's nuttier and nuttier I'd hate to be around to see what Islam might spawn, hell they might keep the incest going and make another hybrid with Xtianity, Suicide Bishops anyone?

Originally Posted by maniclion

Zoroastrianism begat Judaism which had Christianity who then had an incestuous affair and spawned Islam.... Each generation get's nuttier and nuttier I'd hate to be around to see what Islam might spawn, hell they might keep the incest going and make another hybrid with Xtianity, Suicide Bishops anyone?

interesting take of history on religions. bogus. but fun none the less

joseph and mary were cousins??? I thought they were married???

Originally Posted by mcguin

joseph and mary were cousins??? I thought they were married???

they were. both married and cousins. thats really not that uncommon throughout history.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

they were. both married and cousins. thats really not that uncommon throughout history.

Go to West Virginia and you still see it!!

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

The bible is supposed to be infallible.

That would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

If it can't even stay consistant with basic facts, how can we trust anything in it?

You take an ambiguity like that to point to the flaws of the Bible? It's like blaming the Klu Klux Klan for not cleaning up after they have lynched someone.

Originally Posted by Witchblade

That would be funny, if it weren't so sad.


You take an ambiguity like that to point to the flaws of the Bible? It's like blaming the Klu Klux Klan for not cleaning up after they have lynched someone.

The reason I look at that passage is because it is factual. You can bring up tons of other passages that contradict each other but then someone always just says you misinterpreted the passage and that they are really in agreement. They cross reference it with something else that shows that isn't what the passage really meant. Since most of the bible is up to interpretation, it is impossible to prove any inconsistancies.

Just like these passages, they both say Joseph's father is someone different but then people come in and say, "no that's not what it means... one is talking about Mary."

Religion always has a way of explaining their beliefs. Opposite religions can explain completely different concepts and they both make sense if you buy into their interpretation and there is no way to really prove anyones interpretation wrong.... it's all just opinion.

All these religions use the same passages to prove the other is wrong... that is why I tried to pick 2 passages that disagreed and couldn't possibly be interpreted in more than one way. I guess I failed.

That interpretation excuse is such horse shit. When you say the Koran is a book of hatred and violence, they claim it's peaceful and you're interpreting it wrong. Bullshit. It is repeatedly and explicitly stated that non-believers, heretics and other infidels should be slain on sight. Interpretation my ass. That's second grade reading comprehension.

Ditto with the Bible. It states women are inferior to men, gays should be killed, the sun revolves around the earth, etcetera, etcetera. The lessons of morality in the Bible are appalling and anyone upholding those standards in any modern civilized society would surely be shunned.

Originally Posted by Romans 1:24-32 NLT

So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.