Jesus Birth Line Is Suspect

Two New Testament authors present the lineage of Jesus. This is all important because the Old Testament has tedious, exhausting genealogies to prove a key point.

The short history of the Jews, they were slaves in Egypt. Moses apparently with God on his side brings them out and then they wander about for 40 years. Then under Joshua they commit mass genocide against the peoples who lived in the land of God's promise. Now this genocide was not a sin because God told them to do it. Well, eventually they stopped believing in God and what they had done to others was now being done to them. Many of them were carried off to Babylon or Assyria and the country was no more. God had punished them enough and again pulled them out of these countries and re-established Israel. With all that going on how could you know you were the seed of Abraham, Isaac (not Ishmael) and Jacob (not Esau)? You had to have your pedigree papers in order. If you could not prove your lineage then you were basically on the out. It was especially important for the priests. You have to be chosen to wait at God's table and provide Him His favorite food, that is blood.

So, we come to the New Testament and you have to prove Jesus is a true blood. Two gospels took a stab at that and apparently didn't compare notes. Immediately they both disagree on who Jesus' grandfather was, one says Jacob the other Heli. Luke, a gentile presents 42 generations from King David to Jesus. Matthew, on the other hand, presents only 27 generations from King David to Jesus. The strict biblical literalist would see that Luke says "the son of" and Matthew going in the opposite order says "the father of".

So how can a fundie resolve this contradiction? They say that Luke being a gentile didn't need to be convinced of the "chosen" lineage didn't mean Joseph but Mary's lineage. So, why does he specifically say Joseph? If Mary was important why is there not even one mention of her in his entire book? But for sake of argument let's say he meant Mary (which is a contradiction), then how could her lineage contain 42 peers to Matthew's 27 generations be right? There would be some really old dudes in Mathew's line to make it work. 15 missing generations would be a flaw. Additionally, Mary does not have a legitimate messianic family because her ancestry is from Nathan and not Solomon (see 2 Sam.7:12-13,1 Chron.17:11-14,22:10,28:4-7).

I have recently argued with a fundie on this topic. I told him he needed to take the Bible literally. Both say Joseph. However to throw him a bone, I pointed out that Jesus was called the son of David when he really wasn't but he was of the lineage. David and Jesus were separated by about 1000 years. I proposed "why couldn't all these generations be like that?". He began to get uncomfortable with taking the Bible literally in this way. And you know why? Because NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY HOW OLD THE EARTH IS. The 6000 years is all wrapped up in the biblical genealogies. Some English bishop named James Ussher produces a work based on these genealogies in the 17th century proving the age of the earth was 6000 years old and Christians have been saddled with that ever since. And like the Pope who persecuted Copernicus, rejecting the earth revolved around the sun, we have these Christians still believing in the delusion.

After going back and forth with this fundie I decide I would ask one precise question. I asked him if the heavens and the earth were only 6000 years old and only at that time would sin & destruction enter how can we see exploding stars that are million light years away?

His answer was to change the laws of physics. The speed of light was a gazillion times faster before sin. This is the nature of the myth of religion. If you find anything contrary, you don't take it at face value (literally) but force fit it with the lamest, outlandish argument and go away satisfied. They learned this skill from believing the bible does not contradict itself. So they have spent many years proving that seven equals two.

So the Bible has contradictions and this is a good one. It is easy to see. But to make it fit you have to be willing to believe any kind of crazy thinking. We have Matthew's numerological list and Luke's lengthy list conflicting with each. On one thing they both agree that Jesus' father was Joseph. However, science steps in and says the DNA of Jesus & Joseph don't match. Remember Mary was a virgin. Jesus was his own father. Jesus was the son of Mary and her father (incest). Jesus was only Joseph's father and he defiled his wife. Literally makes sense, right?


Maybe Paul the Apostle was brighter than Matthew and Luke and avoided the problem.

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.