Author Topic: Matthew and Luke Genealogy Contradictions  (Read 1182 times)

Kay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Matthew and Luke Genealogy Contradictions
« on: March 16, 2016, 12:20:23 AM »
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict each other when you get to generations listed after David, and there is a big problem with Matthew's genealogy. Matthew lists Jeconiah (aka Jehoiachin) in the genealogy, but God said he and his descendants would not sit on the throne of David or rule in Judah (Jeremiah 22:24-30). Three consecutive kings are omitted from Matthew: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. These three kings come from the line of Ahab through his daughter Athaliah. Jeconiah's father, Jehoiachim, is also omitted from Matthew's genealogy. One could argue that the genealogies don't match up because one applies to Joseph* and the other to Mary*. However, if you apply Matthew's genealogy to Joseph* or Mary*, the result is still putting God against Himself. Why would God denounce Jeconiah and his descendants, but then have His Son descend from this lineage? While Matthew and Luke contradict each other, I am positive Luke's genealogy is the accurate one, with the exception of it tracing back to Joseph* instead of Mary*.

I think Luke's genealogy has to be the accurate one because there are no generation omissions, plus it doesn't list Jeconiah. The reason the genealogy should trace to Mary* is because Joseph* is just the stepfather. He (Joseph*) has no direct biological relationship to the Son of God. There are only two possibilities that would make the genealogy apply to Joseph*: 1) he married his own daughter, or 2) Joseph* conceived the Son of God. We know God wouldn't approve of an incestuous relationship and He designed women, not men, to conceive. By default, the genealogy applies to Mary's* lineage. Aside from this, something to take note about Luke's genealogy is that between David and Joseph*, there are 40 men listed who we know nothing about. Why is that? (Don't believe the lies that it's because of lost books. There are people who are purposely withholding key historical facts, and they will pay for it.) A name that stands out to me is Amos. Isaiah's father's name was Amos, and they were from the tribe of Judah. I'd be willing to bet that the Amos listed in Luke is Isaiah's father, which would mean Mattathias (Matthew) is Isaiah's brother. There is also another possible prophet listed in this genealogy--Naum (Nahum)-- however, I'm not certain if Nahum was from the tribe of Judah.

I placed asterisks next to the names Mary and Joseph, because those aren't the real names of Jesus's* stepfather and mother. I have not fully connected the dots, but I believe the Mary and Joseph of the Bible were Edomites of the Herodian lineage. (There's an asterisk next to Jesus because I don't believe that's the real name of the Messiah due to it contradicting Isaiah's prophecy of the Son being called Immanuel).

1Disciple

  • Guest
Re: Matthew and Luke Genealogy Contradictions
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2016, 04:41:26 PM »
Genealogy of the gospel accounts were - according to some experts - added later.  There isn't much in the oldest texts of Matthew, and Luke has a bad account, then someone added to Matthew after perhaps 100 or 150 AD or later.

I looked into it, even from Rabbi's refuting the genealogy accounts.  What need it there to go beyond King David?  or Solomon?

Jonathan Hoffman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Matthew and Luke Genealogy Contradictions
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2016, 03:50:13 PM »

. I have not fully connected the dots, but I believe the Mary and Joseph of the Bible were Edomites of the Herodian lineage.

Kay, why would you think that Mary and Joseph were Edomites, aka descendants of Esau, whom God hated, and who are to be destroyed as told in the book of Obadiah?  Did you know that Paul was likely an Herodian Edomite?  See https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html