The step 'Grandfather' of Jesus!

[oldbadger]

Here's my problem....
.... in G-Luke Joseph's father is named as 'Heli', and so Joseph's formal name would have been Joseph BarHeli.... ?

.... in G-Matthew Joseph's father is named as 'Jacob', and so Joseph's formal name would have been Joseph BarJacob...... ?

So please, is there any way that these two accounts can be explained?

I would have posted this in the HJ section, but I might get more response here.

Thanking you in anticipation of lots of replies!

[Monta]

Here's my problem....
.... in G-Luke Joseph's father is named as 'Heli', and so Joseph's formal name would have been Joseph BarHeli.... ?

.... in G-Matthew Joseph's father is named as 'Jacob', and so Joseph's formal name would have been Joseph BarJacob...... ?

So please, is there any way that these two accounts can be explained?

I would have posted this in the HJ section, but I might get more response here.

Thanking you in anticipation of lots of replies!

Why is it important to you, does it matter?

[Left Site]

Here's my problem....
.... in G-Luke Joseph's father is named as 'Heli', and so Joseph's formal name would have been Joseph BarHeli.... ?

.... in G-Matthew Joseph's father is named as 'Jacob', and so Joseph's formal name would have been Joseph BarJacob...... ?

So please, is there any way that these two accounts can be explained?

I would have posted this in the HJ section, but I might get more response here.

Thanking you in anticipation of lots of replies!

I found the following info for you:

Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, page 346, paragraph 1, subject = Mary

1. Mary the mother of Jesus. She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Marys husband Joseph as the son of Heli. Says MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughters husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7). It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli."Lu 3:23.

<><><><>

I have heard that pushed by those who believe the book of Enoch which exists today is the authentic works of the pre-flood Enoch.

I almost bit on their story but after a thorough dissection of the modern book of Enoch I determined it to be a modern forgery and a scam.

As I remember (though my memory is a bit stale on it for it was long ago that I researched it) the book of Enoch was supposedly discovered by a man that was associating with a prostitute in Modern Israel. He supposedly learned of it's existence and location from her. The whole story seemed highly suspicious to me. I had read that book of Enoch first and so my suspicions surrounding the way it was discovered had no influence on my opinion of the book itself.

One of the outstanding clues which i found proving it a forgery was it's detailed use of the names of lands that did not even exist before the flood.
But that was by no means the only thing I found which convinced me the whole presentation was an elaborate Jewish hoax.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by oldbadger]

We've discussed this one before. Here is how it goes. One of the divinely inspired writers wrote father when what they really meant was father-in-law. When it is pointed out that the distinction between natural relations and in-law relations is made numerous places in the New Testament, they either lose interest or speculate about adoption.

[JehovahsWitness]

Luke Joseph's father is named as 'Heli' ... Matthew Joseph's father is named as 'Jacob' [...] is there any way that these two accounts can be explained?

Yes, Heli was Joseph's fathe-in-law (biological father of Mary).

In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter's husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7) - Clintock and Strong's Encylopedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774)

Further Reading: Insight on the Scriptures Vol I p. 916
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001647

Did Luke actually write the words Joseph "son of" Heli?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 38#p808438

[oldbadger]

Why is it important to you, does it matter?

Hi......
HJ is my hobby.......

[oldbadger]

Yes, Heli was Joseph's fathe-in-law (biological father of Mary).

Thankyou.....

[McCulloch]

[row]Matthew 8:14 [col]When Jesus came into Peters home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. [row]Matthew 10:35 [col]For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; [row]Mark 1:30 [col]Now Simons mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her. [row]Luke 4:38 [col]Then He got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simons home. Now Simons mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Him to help her. [row]Luke 12:53 [col]They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. [row]John 18:13 [col]and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.

The other inspired writers found the language to correctly indicate an in-law relationship, but Luke wrote son when the Holy Spirit really intended him to write son-in-law. Thanks for that.

[oldbadger]

[row]Matthew 8:14 [col]When Jesus came into Peters home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. [row]Matthew 10:35 [col]For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; [row]Mark 1:30 [col]Now Simons mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her. [row]Luke 4:38 [col]Then He got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simons home. Now Simons mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Him to help her. [row]Luke 12:53 [col]They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. [row]John 18:13 [col]and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.

The other inspired writers found the language to correctly indicate an in-law relationship, but Luke wrote son when the Holy Spirit really intended him to write son-in-law. Thanks for that.

I'm happy with the explanation given, that Heli was in fact Joseph's father-in-law, Mary's Father.
I pereceive that there is a difference between Luke's geneology account and the verses that you have shown, because Luke was reporting names, and those verses chosen by yourself did not report names but relationship titles.

But I thankyou for your additional points.

[Left Site]

[row]Matthew 8:14 [col]When Jesus came into Peters home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. [row]Matthew 10:35 [col]For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; [row]Mark 1:30 [col]Now Simons mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her. [row]Luke 4:38 [col]Then He got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simons home. Now Simons mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Him to help her. [row]Luke 12:53 [col]They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. [row]John 18:13 [col]and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.

The other inspired writers found the language to correctly indicate an in-law relationship, but Luke wrote son when the Holy Spirit really intended him to write son-in-law. Thanks for that.

You will notice that the texts you have presented are not being used to determine genealogy. MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia never said they did not use a term for mother-in-law. Only that in their genealogies they reckoned through all males. And that is true in both the Old and the New Testaments.

But if you prefer to believe the writer made a mistake just ignore that. I personally would rather know what the real reason was for the way it was written and my personal survey of genealogies in the scriptures proved to me that MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia gives the more correct answer.