Matthew on Jesus' birth

[rwc109]

Matthew Chapter 1 announces the genealogy of Jesus and then recounts the genealogy of Joseph! - who was NOT Jesus' father as Mary " was found with child of the Holy Ghost" !!

[The whole genealogy is thus a serious error by the witness of this chapter within itself!

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
....
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

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.

 

[Blueberry Sponge]

It's His legal geneology.

 

[rwc109]

Is that legal by man or legal by God?

if legal by man then why is it in scripture ?

if leagl by god, why would God deny paternity through the holy spirit?

Bearing in mind that there are also tWO different genealogies for Jesus in scripture and that curiously we are extolled nt to biother with such things [although scripture is full of genaelogies and there are other discrepancies where the same person's genealogy is described]

What I wonder is that these things which clearly cobtain all-too-human mistakes have any place or relevance to the message of God about Love?

 

[ten-k]

rwc,

Gal.4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come
God sent forth His Son, made of a woman
made under the Law.

God doesn't deny paternity, He establishes
a 'legal' relationship between
Joseph and Mary and Jesus because there can
be 'on Jesus' part, no transgression of the Law.
He would have been counted as a ******* son
had He not had that 'legal' relationship, as in
Deut. 23:2. He had to adhere to the 'Law'.

 

[rwc109]

dear ten-k
I see what you're saying , but it just doesn't fit, God making up a lie. a cover story, just to fiddle a 'legal' requirment.... it just wouldn't be a valid way of 'keeping the law'. There is nothing to hide about Jesus' paternity, it is someyhing to rejoice in, not hide under a decepton!

i really don't think that lying about paternity would be valid in law anyway, it is just adding the offence of lying ... and it wouldn't even make any difference if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus either.

 

[ten-k]

rwc,

i am not putting together your thought process
concerning your statement that God could lie???
Joseph 'had' to be there as a 'father', he had his
part in God's plan in the raising of Jesus, He had to have
a physical 'father' in order to adhere to the pattern
of 'family'. this is in 'no' way denying that Jesus is
begotton of the 'Holy Spirit', this is just Jesus
conforming to the physical law, which He had to,
for 'transgression of the Law' is defined as sin in
1John 3:4.
like it is written in Ps., 'i said in my haste, all men
are liars' but like it is written in another place,
Titus1:2, God, that cannot lie'.

it's our job to find the 'truth' in the scriptures,
and 'not' to 'undo' the scriptures.
like it says, 'those that were noble searched the
scriptures daily, seeing what was true and what
was false.