Ref verses.
Matt 1:16 and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary,
Luke 3:23... being supposedly the son of Joseph the son of Eli.
The bible seems quite clear that The Matthew verse tells us that Jacob as
the father of Joseph. The term *born* in the verse seems to indicate that
this is the case. Jacob was Josephs biological father.
Luke 3:23 may appear to be in contradiction or error saying that Joseph
was the son of Eli. Further research clearly indicates that Joseph was
the son-in-law of Eli and that the term and meaning of the word in the
ancient greek language and legal understanding of the title *son* in this
case meant *son-in-law*.
No, it says "son", unless you are suggesting that whenever scripture says "son", it could mean "son in law", or anything else? So Jesus was actually God's son in law? How about Solomon being David's son in law? Look, you can't just decide to change the text of your Bible when it suites you. It's obvious disrespect for God's word.
Some reasons why.
1)The Son-in-law belief is held by several early Christian writers.
a, Origen
b, Irenaeus
c, Tertullian,
d, Athanasius
e, Justin Martyr
Good, let's look at some reasons why.
First, your list of names - Really? Or are you just making that up? Would you care to cite where in their writings it says this?
Please do so, because when you do, it will help confirm what I said earlier - that this "Mary's lineage" idea is an idea that people made up later, one which contradicts scripture.
2)It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. The Talmudic writers
wrote of Mary as the daughter of Eli.
Again, first, show me the where in the Talmud it says that. And second - and more importantly - it's irrelevant, since (I hope) you know that the Talmud was written centuries later. That's like asking me who Chief Pontiac's mother was. Instead of going by what the scripture says.
3) This verse shows us in what way Christ was the Son of David. If Mary
was the daughter of Eli, then Jesus was strictly a descendent of David,
not only *legally*, through his reputed father, but *actually*, by direct
personal descent, through his mother.
That's silly. Every 1st century Jew is a descendant of David. That's like saying that it's Mary's line so as to prove Jesus had two eyeballs. Legends have David having hundreds of kids and grandkids, and that's 900 years before Jesus. Heck, you and I, along with practically all Americans, are descendants of David. There was no need to prove that.
4) This point affords a simple explanation of the whole matter.
Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefor her husband,
according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her fathers family , as his
*son*. This would make Joseph the *actual* son of Jacob, and the *legal* son of Eli.
The book of Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown, where
Luke sets forth his natural pedigree. The latter employs Joseph1s name,
instead of Mary's, in *accordance with the Israelite law*
that * genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.*
Complete speculation that doesn't make logical sense. You are making up the ideas that Mary had no brothers, that either parent needs to be shown to be descended from David, that Joseph's line would matter anyway (since he isn't the father), and so on. You provide no evidence for any of this, the pieces don't support your conclusion, and again, it is shown to be wrong by scripture anyway.
Just for the record..
Joseph was Jacobs son by birth. Eli was Josephs father in law.
Sorry, but your reasons don't make sense, and simply stating this doesn't help either.
********************************
Either Joseph was literal and historical or Joseph was figurative...which one.
But back to the list...here it is once again....I hi-lited David. Was he just figurative and not in the linage of Jesus?
Um, what? Surely you know that a figurative story of any kind can still reference people and things that really exist right? Maybe an example would help you. Dickins' "tale of two cities" is some of the best known fiction out there, and it includes both London and Paris, two real cities. Stories of Pythagoras include him walking on water and on air, and Pythagoras appears to have been real - so the stories that include him are real?
King David appears to have likely been real - though archeology has not supported all the stories about him.
You didn't respond to this:
Thus, the skipped generations (between Mt and Chr) show that these are to be interpreted figuratively - at least for anyone who doesn't want to conclude that parts of their Bible are factually incorrect.
Nor this:
-57, we both agree that the Bibles have some parts that are figurative and some that are historical, right? We both agree that Genesis has figurative parts, right (because claiming it is all literal rejects the Christian doctrine of original sin, etc.). Since we both agree on that, then of course any Bible will switch at times from one to the other - are you rejecting that your Bible has both historical and figurative parts?
In Jesus' Name-
Papias