Jesus and the Number 14 cockup

[michaelsherlock]

Interesting stuff. I had never realised that even the genealogies were so mucked up.. or that they were forcing it to be something that it most likely wasn't.

Good read, thanks for that.

There not, the two genealogies are about two different people, one being Joseph, the other Mary.

I have heard this apology before, but I thought it was now extinct.

Ok, many apologists used to claim that the list of ancestors provided by "Luke" relate to Mary and those provided by "Matthew" pertain to Joseph. So what do the texts themselves say regarding this issue?

"Luke" Chapter 3 specifically traces Jesus' ancestors through Joseph:

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,[a] the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah,...Yadda, yadda, yadda!

And "Matthew" also traces Jesus' ancestors from Abraham to Joseph (see "Matthew" 1:1-16).

Where are you getting your information from?

---

Many people are aware that there exists a contradiction between “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus and “Matthew’s”. Whilst “Matthew” records "42" generations from Jesus back to Abraham, (see "Matthew" 1:2-16 Vs “Luke” 3:23-38), “Luke” says there were 57 and many of these ancestors were different people. ("Luke" 3:23-38). Before getting to the contradiction which forms the basis of this Post, we should also be aware that “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:16-19 and "Matthew's" is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:9-15 (which lists 18 generations from David to Babylonian Exile, not 14 as "Matthew" errantly claimed).

In regards to the two separate genealogies in Matthew and Luke: The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when the large majority of Christians believe that Jesus had/has no human father??

For that matter the Bible contradicts itself even on the virgin birth as well:

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;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

(There's a ton of information on this concept, but I don't have it in me to get into another unending debate with one of our local sheep.)

The truth is, there was a time when to be king, you had to show that you were of the correct royal lineage. It means little today, but once upon a time, it would've been important to prove that Jesus was worthy of the crown. It's all bull shit. The fact that people still believe this gobbledegook shows how far behind we still are as a species.

I don't know how to express how strongly I agree with all you have written here.