Genealogy of Jesus

[@WayOfHaQodesh]

Brother man, I've been labelled a heretic too but you know that being on the narrow way that leads unto the strait gate, likely entails getting hated, being persecuted, called all manner of insults, and I don't pretend to be one of those walking on that narrow way, I hope and pray I will be found on that way. Stay strong brother Marty. Thank you for all your thoughts and research.

[@HadassahThomas7]

You’re not a heretic brother Marty!!! If you are one, then I am one as well! Listening now!

[@koreyoneal2623]

I've been working on my family tree for over a decade now and have over 12 , 000 people in it and I can assure you that it's definitely possible that Mary's father could have been Joseph and her husband could be Joseph also . Another common trend that I see is a son with the same name as his father and marries a woman with the same first name as his mother , happens all the time

[@grcleve7053]

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and "her" seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel

[@Exposed777]

Nothing wrong with being a heretic. It just means you are a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted. We are on the narrow path few take and not Paul's broad path that many take, which leads straight to destruction.

[@mnamhie]

Firstly, nowhere in the two NT genealogies does it mention the father of Mary. Secondly, they both refer to the line through Jesus' supposed father, Joseph. And they differ wildly. They are contradictory. For example, between King David and King Shealtiel, Luke provides a total of twenty names while Matthew provides a total of fourteen names. Not only is the count different, but of all those names, not a single name between David and Shealtiel is on both lists. In effort to link Jesus to prophecy, as the author of Matthew was fond of doing, he presented a genealogy in order to demonstrate that Jesus was descended from King David. He wrote portentously that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile, and fourteen from the exile to Jesus. The number 14 is associated, in Jewish numerology, with David and hence kingship. Unfortunately, however, the author of Matthew had to massage the data in order to generate three groups of fourteen. Compare his genealogy with the one provided in 1 Chronicles. The author of Matthew had the effrontery to delete names from the list in order to alter the count. In the middle group of 14 he deleted Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah from the list. In fact, he was so committed to discarding names that he ended up with only thirteen instead of the advertised fourteen. What a blunder. Not only this but if Jesus were, as Christianity claims, a divine offspring, then he would have lacked a human father, and Joseph’s genealogy could not have linked him to David anyway. Incidentally, even if we ignore all these problems, the genealogies still fail. Here’s why: Matthew lists Jeconiah as a descendant. But Jeconiah was cursed, and none of his descendants can inherit the throne (Jeremiah 22:28-30). Luke’s genealogy runs through David’s son Nathan rather than through Solomon. But only descendants of Solomon can inherit the throne (2 Samuel 7:12-13). So Matthew’s genealogy fails because it runs through the cursed Jeconiah, and Luke’s genealogy fails because it runs through the wrong son of David. Therefore, if either one of the two genealogies were accurate, it would decisively disqualify Jesus as an heir to David’s throne.

[@bibledefinedbymartycozad]

I agree with you on a few points thanks for sharing.