/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

also wondering about this, but it hardly effects my faith or anything, just a curiosity.

>First of all, why is there a discrepancy between the accounts of Jesus's genealogy in Luke and Matthew

Verses?

Mary was also of David's line according to tradition (as early as Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Ephesians even mentions it, and that's been dated in the early 100s AD), and some have proposed the two lines presented are Joseph's and Mary's somehow. That the "Heli/Eliachim" who is the Father of Joseph in Luke is another name for Joachim, Mary's father. While in Matthew, Joseph's direct father is Jacob.

>>749271

It's an irrelevant issue. See Titus 3:9. Paul is referring to exactly this debate. It is not improbable that both genealogies are made up.

>>749271

>rst of all, why is there a discrepancy between the accounts of Jesus's genealogy in Luke and Matthew?

I had a professor explain that "begat" or "was the son of" doesn't only mean one generation different in the Bible. A grandson is "begotten" of his grandfather

Other answers: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html

>Secondly, tribal claims are inherited through the father, and tribal claims also didn't pass through adoption in Hebrew society as I am told, so how was Jesus from the line of David exactly?

As far as the Bible is concerned, (and the Bible is God's word), Joseph's participation as an earthly father figure fulfills the necessary condition that Christ needed to be descended from David. We can disregard cultural anthropoligists who raise that doubt because it's not an internal inconsistency in the Bible.

>>749289

Sacred scripture is inerrant and belong to the deposit of faith. If you think it is made up then you have lost supernatural faith.

>>749289

>It is not improbable that both genealogies are made up.

So one of Jesus' own apostles, and Luke, who traveled with Paul and gathered input from many sources… they're liars?

No thanks. That's unacceptable.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

/thread.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/lightfoot/vol11.pdf

Bishop Lightfoot covers this in his commentary on Matthew, but with the added perspective of a Jewish context. So he will describe how the Jews would have understood it.

Pg 9 in the book, Pg 15 in the pdf.

>>749305

Your way of looking at things is very anachronistic. People from that period did not care that much about factual accuracy. Luke's gospel is a hagiography, not a historical record. And the genealogy in Matthew has clear poetical characteristics. The timeline in the synoptics differs significantly from the timeline in the Gospel of John. Et Cetera.

Scripture is inerrant on matters of morals and faith, not in trivial, irrelevant details. Once again, see Titus 3:9.

>>749371

Factual accuracy is in no way in opposition to the poetic nature of Sacred Scripture. "People from that period" did not see them as opposing forces, you do.

That they do not oppose is the basis for Liturgy, and the entire Bible is liturgical. From Genesis to Revelations. If you're reading it from the scientific assumption that unless the material effectiveness is not maximized it is not literal, you're not going to get it and you will project some weird philosophy like you did.

>>749371

Those aren't trivial details lad.

The Catholic Church condemns your statements.

And people from that period did care about factual accuracy. Otherwise the Church Fathers wouldn't write entire books explaining stuff like this.

The only thing you can say it that Matthew messes around with the chronology of events, because he wants to make a point and thought it was better to put the episodes in that arrangement.

Every episode narrated on the gospels actually happened 100%, the minor differences are only in the wording of some phrases, but that's meaningless. see Augustine's "The Harmony of the Gospels"

The difference of the genealogies are easily explained if we learn how Jews keept their genealogies. According to most church fathers Matthew traces Jesus ancestors through the Royal lineage of David while Luke traces Jesus ancestors through the "priestly" lineage, since Matthew portrays Jesus as a King and Luke portrays Him as a sacrificial Lamb.

>but what happens when we get to Joseph's dad?

The common opinion is that Eli was just his father according to the law, since Jacob was his next of kin, and Eli died with no offspring it was Jacob's task to give children to his brother, Onan had the same task in genesis and God killed him because he didn't want to give his late brother kids so he spilled his semen so Jacob begat Joseph and the two fathers problem is thus solved because the Jews pushed to put lots of importance in this family matters.

>used to put lots of importance in this family matters.

>>749401

I do not view them as "opposing forces" at all. I am merely stating a fact: during antiquity, people did not care about historicity in the way we do. A more or less correct but not entirely accurate portrayal was considered good enough back then.

>>749403

The genealogies are not "events" though. You're mixing apples and oranges. Two of the Gospels don't even have a genealogy of Jesus. The exact genealogy of Jesus is immaterial.

>>749271

You can find an answer on the internet.

>>749436

>The genealogies are not "events" though. You're mixing apples and oranges. Two of the Gospels don't even have a genealogy of Jesus. The exact genealogy of Jesus is immaterial.

Wtf does that even mean? What kind of modernism is that?

The genealogy of Christ is a real one. Even by his mother side he is a descendant of David by the flesh.

>>749436

>during antiquity, people did not care about historicity in the way we do.

What kind of fact is that? The early church fathers were already working on this "difficulties".

To claim the mentality of the people changed in less then 50 after the gospels were written is retardeness.

>>749445

>in less than 50 years…

Fixed.

>>749271

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw&feature=youtu.be

This offers an explanation, its quite complicated but that may be why Paul in Titus 3:9 (as stated by >>749289) advises against worrying about "foolish genealogies"

>>749450

But Titus 3:9 just warns not to waste time with genealogies because the Jews would say they are the best because they came from Abraham and other claims.

That verse is basically about the Jews since he mentions strivings and contentions about the Law.

In no way can this be used to support the modernistic view that the genealogy of Christ presented by the Gospels aren't correct. It's true that they aren't very important compared to the other eternal truths revealed, but it's plain modernism to say they are wrong or inaccurate.

>>749450

This isn't meant for you, but there are anons here trying to justify their modern heresies.

>>749444

>What kind of modernism is that?

>>749445

>What kind of fact is that? The early church fathers were already working on this "difficulties".

>

>To claim the mentality of the people changed in less then 50 after the gospels were written is retardeness.

This is the kind of faggy thing that passes for "scholarly" (not faithful) biblical commentary these days too. Not just on imageboards.

>>749458

The sad things is that those kind of commentaries are on some Catholic bibles.

Who the winnie the pooh though it was a good ideia to let atheists write bible commentaries in the first place?

The sad thing is that some catholics and Christians in general go along so they won't look dumb or retarded to the rest of the world.

So many fundies ITT.

>>749456

You're wrong. Paul is talking about debates within the early Church about Jesus' earthly genealogy. His letters predate the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Besides, if the matter is irrelevant for "the Jews who would say they are the best because they came from Abraham" then they are all the more irrelevant for Jesus, who is not great because he is descended from David/Abraham/whomever, but because he is the Word made Flesh.

I thought the "line of David" just meant the Hebrew people

>>749800

This anon might be onto something.

>>749289

Is there any reason for believing this other than being a contrarian?

>>749773

Go back to Reddit

>>749810

This. The amount of modernism in this thread is staggering.

>>749828

>correctly pointing out that the exact genealogy of Jesus is irrelevant makes one a modernist

Ok buddy.

>>749833

>Scripture

>Irrelevant

Yes, that's modernist

>>749833

What's next? That Adam and Eve didn't exist? That the miracles are just there to color the story up a bit?

Either you accept the Scripture and the interpretation of the Church or you're winnie the poohed.

Read Lamentabili by Pius X and see with how many condemned statements you agree with.

>>749942

> Read Lamentabili by Pius X and see with how many condemned statements you agree with.

Thanks, that's a good resource. I agree with many if not most of those statements yet I think liberal Christianity is really shit. Weird. But a nice list to do a check of your beliefs.