Matthew tells us that Mary had a baby born named Jesus during the reign of King Herod the Great who died about 4 B.C.
Luke tells us that Mary had a baby born named Jesus during the Roman census of Judea in 6 A.D.
May we conclude then that Mary had two sons named Jesus? Which one was divine? (or neither).
Are both accounts inspired and inerrant?
Did Mary have two sons named Jesus?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
[Replying to post 10 by polonius]
Hi polonius, yes, you bring up a very good, and for Christians, like myself, a somewhat problematic point. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, which traces his lineage back to King David. Luke does the same but follows a different trajectory, tracing the lineage back Heli, which due to this, some claim that this is actually the lineage of Mary. But, as you noted, if Mary was a cousin of Elizabeth, who was explicitly stated to be from the lineage of Aaron, how can both be true? I don't know, you have me there. But, I can only speculate...
...Jesus was from the line of Joseph by adoption (law of inheritance)?
Mary was through the line of David from one parent, and from Aaron by the other parent (most tribes didn't mix though).
polonius, I'm sorry, Christians have debated this question for centuries without coming to a viable resolve, or consensus, and nor do I have a viable solution either. Probably a more astute person than myself, will have a better response? But, because I feel that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and the fact of the necessity for Jesus to be of the lineage of King David, according to God's eternal promise to him, I feel that due to either, my own ignorance on this matter, or currently unknown or undisclosed information, there is a substantial resolution to this. ...of course, I can't expect you to take my word for it.
Thanks for the very challenging and thought provoking question!
Hi polonius, yes, you bring up a very good, and for Christians, like myself, a somewhat problematic point. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, which traces his lineage back to King David. Luke does the same but follows a different trajectory, tracing the lineage back Heli, which due to this, some claim that this is actually the lineage of Mary. But, as you noted, if Mary was a cousin of Elizabeth, who was explicitly stated to be from the lineage of Aaron, how can both be true? I don't know, you have me there. But, I can only speculate...
...Jesus was from the line of Joseph by adoption (law of inheritance)?
Mary was through the line of David from one parent, and from Aaron by the other parent (most tribes didn't mix though).
polonius, I'm sorry, Christians have debated this question for centuries without coming to a viable resolve, or consensus, and nor do I have a viable solution either. Probably a more astute person than myself, will have a better response? But, because I feel that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and the fact of the necessity for Jesus to be of the lineage of King David, according to God's eternal promise to him, I feel that due to either, my own ignorance on this matter, or currently unknown or undisclosed information, there is a substantial resolution to this. ...of course, I can't expect you to take my word for it.
Thanks for the very challenging and thought provoking question!
A simple answee
Post #12RESPONSE: The answer should be obvious. One or both accounts are fictional, not historical.DB wrote: [Replying to post 10 by polonius]
Hi polonius, yes, you bring up a very good, and for Christians, like myself, a somewhat problematic point. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, which traces his lineage back to King David. Luke does the same but follows a different trajectory, tracing the lineage back Heli, which due to this, some claim that this is actually the lineage of Mary. But, as you noted, if Mary was a cousin of Elizabeth, who was explicitly stated to be from the lineage of Aaron, how can both be true? I don't know, you have me there. But, I can only speculate...
...Jesus was from the line of Joseph by adoption (law of inheritance)?
Mary was through the line of David from one parent, and from Aaron by the other parent (most tribes didn't mix though).
polonius, I'm sorry, Christians have debated this question for centuries without coming to a viable resolve, or consensus, and nor do I have a viable solution either. Probably a more astute person than myself, will have a better response? But, because I feel that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and the fact of the necessity for Jesus to be of the lineage of King David, according to God's eternal promise to him, I feel that due to either, my own ignorance on this matter, or currently unknown or undisclosed information, there is a substantial resolution to this. ...of course, I can't expect you to take my word for it.
Thanks for the very challenging and thought provoking question!
Re: A simple answee
Post #13[Replying to polonius]
That would depend on one's view on the rest of either Matthew's or Luke's testimony. For me, they have inspired me to accept the majority of their works by the profundity and solicitude of its message, that now, any perceived aberrations, I'm willing to accept by faith (acquired), as being resolvable.
But again, I can't expect all to share the same sentiments, as one must first accept the straight forward parts, in order to acquiesce to the unclear ones.
That would depend on one's view on the rest of either Matthew's or Luke's testimony. For me, they have inspired me to accept the majority of their works by the profundity and solicitude of its message, that now, any perceived aberrations, I'm willing to accept by faith (acquired), as being resolvable.
But again, I can't expect all to share the same sentiments, as one must first accept the straight forward parts, in order to acquiesce to the unclear ones.
Post #14
The geneologies in Luke and Matthew reveal another "seam" in stories or traditions. They are included to show that Jesus is a descendant of David, as the Messiah should be.
Yet how can this be if he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not Joseph? Adoption, or the Mary idea, are later rationalizations not based on anything in scripture or anyplace else.
Luke and Matthew knew the son of David tradition, and also the virgin birth tradition, and chose to include both, in spite of the conflict. Actually, they both recognized the conflict:
Matthew: "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus"
Luke: "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph"
Yet how can this be if he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not Joseph? Adoption, or the Mary idea, are later rationalizations not based on anything in scripture or anyplace else.
Luke and Matthew knew the son of David tradition, and also the virgin birth tradition, and chose to include both, in spite of the conflict. Actually, they both recognized the conflict:
Matthew: "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus"
Luke: "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph"
