The Genealogy Of Jesus

It is all legend written many years after the fact in order to fit the myths. And this is not well done at all.
To say that Jesus was "...like man in all things" is not to say that he was man, but LIKE man.
I don't think the geneology matters much to modern people.

Ye Olde Fart wrote:

It is all legend written many years after the fact in order to fit the myths. And this is not well done at all.
To say that Jesus was "...like man in all things" is not to say that he was man, but LIKE man.
I don't think the geneology matters much to modern people.

He is actually a man. Not woman.
He is actually a man. Because He was Human being. Not animal or plant being.
I hope this clear.

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

So all of those brains of religion out there answer this. what was Josephs last name, what was Marys last name? without doing research and those who do that answer, will be stricken with a serious illness. Nam Meoho Renga Kiyo.

Get The Hell Out wrote:

So all of those brains of religion out there answer this. what was Josephs last name, what was Marys last name? without doing research and those who do that answer, will be stricken with a serious illness. Nam Meoho Renga Kiyo.

Jewish people of that time period had no "last names". Last names were not forced upon Jewish people by secular authorities until after the fall of the Roman Empire. Prior to that time Jewish people were know by their "fathers' house"; see, e.g., BAMIDBAR (Numbers), 1:20. Jewish people are still known by their "fathers' house" today for religious purposes, although the Reform Movement today uses both "fathers' and mothers' house."

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Jewish people of that time period had no "last names". Last names were not forced upon Jewish people by secular authorities until after the fall of the Roman Empire. Prior to that time Jewish people were know by their "fathers' house"; see, e.g., BAMIDBAR (Numbers), 1:20. Jewish people are still known by their "fathers' house" today for religious purposes, although the Reform Movement today uses both "fathers' and mothers' house."

they had last names called patronymix
what you mean is they didnt have family names

ADAM (1)
"The Son of God" and The First
Adam
SETH (2)
ENOS (3)
CAINAN (4)
MAHALEEL (5)
JARED (6)
ENOCH (7)
METHUSALEH (8)
LAMECH (9)
NOAH (10)
SHEM (11)
ARPHAXAD (12)
CAINAN (13)
SALA (14)
EBER (15)
PELEG (16)
RAGAU (17)
SARUCH (18)
NAHOR (19)
TERAH (20)

(1) ABRAHAM (21)
(2) ISAAC (22)
(3) JACOB (23)
(4) JUDA (24)
m. Tamar
---> Zera
(Matthew 1:3)
(5) PHAREZ (25)
(6) ESROM (26)
(7) ARAM (27)
(8) AMMINADAB (28)
(9) NAASON (29)

(10) SALMON (30)
m. Rachab
(Sala: Luke
3:32)
(11) BOAZ (31)
m. Ruth
(12) OBED (32)
(13) JESSE (33)
(14) DAVID (34)
m. Bathsheba (Luke 3:31)
(1) SOLOMON
Matthew 1:6
NATHAN (35)
(2 Sam.5.14)
(2) REHOBOAM
(3) ABIA MATTATHA (36)
(4) ASA MENAN (37)
(5)
JOSOPHAT
OMRI MELEA (38)
| ELIAKIM (39)
AHAB m.
Jezebel |
JONAN (40)
(6) JORAM m. Athaliah JOSEPH (41)
JUDAH (42)
SIMEON (43)
(Ahaziah)
(Joash)
(Amaziah) LEVI (44)
(7) OZIAS
MATTHAT
(45)
(8)
JOATHAM
JORIM (46)
(9) ACHAZ ELIEZER (47)
(10)
EZEKIAS
JOSE (48)
(11) MANASSES ER (49)
(12) AMON
ELMODAM
(50)
(13) JOSIAS COSAM (51)
ADDI (52)
(14) JEHOIKIM
(who had brothers, Matthew
1:11)
MELCHI (53)
(1)
JECHONIAS
(55) m.--->
(2)
SALATHIEL
(56)
Widowed
daughter
husband
deceased
NERI (54)
<------

(Evidently Salathiel died childless
and Pedaiah, his brother, married
his widow according to Deut.
25,5,6)
wife m. PEDAIAH
(Quite legally according to the
Mosaic law, Pedaiah's name does
not appear as the father of
Zerubbabel in either Matthew or
Luke.)

(3) ZERUBBABEL (57)
(1 Chr. 3:19)
daughter
SHELOMITH --> m RHESA (58)
(4) ABIUD JOANNA (59)
JUDA (60)
(5) ELIAKIM
JOSEPH (61)
SEMEI (62)
(6) AZOR
MATTATHIAS
(63)
(7) SADOC MAATH (64)
NAGGE (65)
(8) ACHIM
ESLI (66)
NAHUM (67)
(9) ELIUD AMOS (68)
MATTATHIAS
(69)
(10) ELEAZER JOSEPH (70)
JANNA (71)
(11) MATTHAN MELCHI (72)
LEVI (73)
MATTHAT
(74)
(12) JACOB HELI(75)

(13) JOSEPH m.
MARY
(76)
(14) Yahshua (77)
The Son of Elohim and the Last
Adam

Shalom.

The Genealogy of Yahshua...

I noticed the title of the thread but did not see that anyone had posted the genealogy hope this helps.

Sambee wrote:

(Evidently Salathiel died childless
and Pedaiah, his brother, married
his widow according to Deut.
25,5,6)
wife m. PEDAIAH
(Quite legally according to the
Mosaic law, Pedaiah's name does
not appear as the father of
Zerubbabel in either Matthew or
Luke.)
(3) ZERUBBABEL (57)
(1 Chr. 3:19)
daughter
SHELOMITH --> m RHESA (58)
(4) ABIUD JOANNA (59)
JUDA (60)
(5) ELIAKIM
JOSEPH (61)
SEMEI (62)
(6) AZOR
MATTATHIAS
(63)
(7) SADOC MAATH (64)
NAGGE (65)
(8) ACHIM
ESLI (66)
NAHUM (67)
(9) ELIUD AMOS (68)
MATTATHIAS
(69)
(10) ELEAZER JOSEPH (70)
JANNA (71)
(11) MATTHAN MELCHI (72)
LEVI (73)
MATTHAT
(74)
(12) JACOB HELI(75)

I didn't notice that you made the differentiation between Matthew's and Luke's accounts. Matthew continues the lineage through Solomon, for Joseph's blood line, while Luke takes the lineage through Solomon's full brother Nathan to show Mary's lineage.

Peace, brother.

brother winston wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't notice that you made the differentiation between Matthew's and Luke's accounts. Matthew continues the lineage through Solomon, for Joseph's blood line, while Luke takes the lineage through Solomon's full brother Nathan to show Mary's lineage.
Peace, brother.

Shalom Bro.Winstion,

What you say is true,I was wanting for the creator of this thread to go there.

Bro.Winston,

The genealogy of Yahshua in Matthew 1:1-17 established his legal lineage and
right to the throne of David. It is Joseph's ancestry which constituted
this Jewish requirement.

The genealogy of Yahshua which is found in Luke 3:23-38 is the physical linage
of Yahshua - the ancestry of Mary.(Read Luke 3:23 carefully: Yahshua was
assumed to be the son of Joseph, but he was really the "grandson of Heli,..."
Therefore, Heli was Mary's father.

Please note that these two lineages meet in King David: the legal descent
of Yahshua coming through King Solomon, David's son (Matt. 1:6-7), while the
physical lineage of Yahshua came through Nathan, another son of David (Lk.
3:31).

Yes, you are correct. Thank you for responding.

The new moon was seen by a number of witnesses from the land of Israel just after late sunset today. Yom Teruah Sameach!

Shambee and Bro. Winston got it right! Yashuah was his name and, actually, I think that is Joshua translated from Hebrew to English? The languages at the time were Hebrew and Aramaic. There is no letter "j" in either of these languages!!!

What do you gentiles say about the Jeconiah curse and Jesus?

Maverick wrote:

What do you gentiles say about the Jeconiah curse and Jesus?

That's right; Jesus actually had three (3) relatives cursed by Yahweh never to inherit the throne of David (which is vital for anyone to be named "king" in Hebrew/Christian lore).

twinertia wrote:

<quoted text>
That's right; Jesus actually had three (3) relatives cursed by Yahweh never to inherit the throne of David (which is vital for anyone to be named "king" in Hebrew/Christian lore).

Well quite a few Christians are hush hush on that question.

I will ask it in hopes of an answer from their NT.

What do you Christians think about the Jeconiah curse and how it relates to jesus?

brother winston wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't notice that you made the differentiation between Matthew's and Luke's accounts. Matthew continues the lineage through Solomon, for Joseph's blood line, while Luke takes the lineage through Solomon's full brother Nathan to show Mary's lineage.
Peace, brother.

Luke 3: 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24. Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

Mat 1: 15. And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Never mind the fact that tribe is paternal, why is Joseph in the linage of Mary in Luke then?Incest? Both linages give different names for the father of Joseph and different sires for Joseph's grandfather,ad nauseum.

According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a "virgin". This claim makes it impossible, however, for Christians to insist that Jesus was king of the Jews. This is because tribal lineage is traced only through a person's father. This is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18. According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, not a human Jewish father. This human Jewish father would be essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.Tribal linage remains the same for a child even if he/she is taken in by someone of another tribe.A child of,say,Dan, taken in by a Levi that is a priest (Kohanim),remains of the tribe of Dan, and can't grow up to be a priest.
I should mention that according to both Catholic and Protestant tradition, whereas Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke's genealogy is of Mary. Although this tradition is completely alien to the words of the Gospels, it was a necessary doctrine for the church to embrace.
Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament for that matter, does it state that Mary was from the House of David. On the contrary, Luke 1:27 insists that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary. In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest,1 placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David's tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because Joseph was from the House of David.

There are a number of reasons why the church has a vital interest in claiming that Luke's genealogy is through Mary's line. To begin with, Paul claims in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was from the seed of David after the flesh. This has always been understood to mean that Paul was claiming that King David was the biological ancestor of Jesus. Although at the time Paul penned the Book of Romans, he was completely unaware that Christendom would eventually claim that Jesus was born of a virgin birth. The church desperately needed to have Paul's statement correlate with the virgin-birth story. This was solved by insisting that whereas Matthew's genealogy was through Joseph's line, Luke's genealogy was through Mary's line. In this way, Jesus could now be from the seed of David after the flesh through Luke's genealogy. Claiming Luke's genealogy is through Mary's line, not only solved the problem of what to do with Romans 1:3, but established a physical link between Jesus and King David.

Finally, it resolves an awkward discrepancy between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies. Whereas in Matthew's genealogy, Joseph's father is Jacob,2 in Luke's genealogy it is Heli.3 By claiming that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, Heli becomes Mary's father and Joseph's father-in-law. Problems solved.