Christian Bible readers please. Why do the Gospels list a human blood line to Joseph, father of Jesus?

Fact: There was no Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church was from the late 4th Century. The Roman Bishops, part of the Royal Roman Court invented Catholicism with the intention of unifying several ideologies into universal beliefs to stabilize an Empire in decline.

The Jesus character (2nd Century) was originally a Jewish King in the blood line of King David of the Old Testament. Matthew and Luke list the two chronologies. This did not sit well various Roman Emperors. ( Imagine a Jewish King competing with Roman Emperors) The escalation of Jesus to Deity was politically motivated out of necessity.

Jesus, as the Son of God, with all the detailed, word-for-word theatrics, came later. Perhaps starting at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. They demoted Joseph to a lowly, humble carpenter who’s wife gave birth (Virgin) to the Son of God instead of Royalty.

I've read and studied he Bibles from a cultural and historical prospective.

I'm an atheist continuing my education.

The "as supposed" lines are the related by marriage (in-laws) blood lines. Not Jesus' bloodline. Only the line of the Blessed Virgin Mary applies directly to Jesus. That is (not surprisingly) a line of kings and priests.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are fabrications made in an attempt to show a human blood line to Joseph, so you can't tell anything factual from them. Each of those writers wanted to show that Jesus was descended from David, so they separately made up the respective genealogies. That is why they contradict each other.

They each provided their fabricated genealogies as showing the descent from David through Joseph, which would have been according to the legal descent, since Joseph was the husband of Mary.

Since the genealogies are contradictory, some Bible apologists try to say that the genealogy in Luke is actually that of Mary. However, Mary is not even mentioned in that genealogy. If that genealogy was that of Mary, why doesn't her name appear in it?

That is especially relevant because Luke mentions Mary in his birth story of Jesus much more than Matthew does. For example, instead of Joseph, it is Mary whom the angel appears to concerning the coming birth of Jesus. There are also several other narratives about Mary, indicating the importance that Luke gave her. In that case, why didn't he have Mary mentioned in the genealogy if he intended it to be hers?

Furthermore, according to Luke (in one of his many references to Mary) Mary was Elizabeth's cousin (suggenes in the original Greek, which indicates a blood relative). Since Elizabeth was of the priestly tribe of Levi, Mary would also have been of that descent and could therefore not have been a descendant of David. That is, if you believe what Luke says.

Those who say that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's therefore have no basis for saying that other than wishful thinking.

It should be noted that Mary's name does appear in Joseph's genealogy in Matthew, where it states that Joseph was the husband of Mary.

See also my answer to this question in which I show that the authors of Matthew and Luke fabricated the stories of the birth of Jesus in their attempts to show that Jesus was born in Bethlehem according to prophecy.

/question/index?qid=20140...

See also my answer here showing that Matthew fabricated the prophecy of the virgin birth.

/question/index?qid=20150...

It starts with the original Christians, who only knew a divine Jesus revealed in the Old Testament or seen in visions. This is in evidence in Paul's genuine letters and Hebrews. This divine Jesus then gets transformed into flesh so that it can die and be resurrected. Paul literally says that the physical body of Jesus was made from the seed of David (note, not descended from David, as some mistranslations have it).

This probably derives from 2 Samuel 7.12-14 - When your days are done, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your sperm after you, which shall come from your belly, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build for me a house in my name, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. Note this states that this son will be the direct descendant of David.

Yes, some first and second century AD Jews and Christians held such weird views.

The gospels are later allegorical fictions, with the unknown author of Mark inventing his out of the OT, with the unknown author of Matthew rewriting Mark while adding a few things of his own. The unknown author of Luke tries to smooth over the theological differences in both, and the unknown authors of John 'corrects' all three.

The peer reviewed literature usually agrees that the genealogies are symbolic, with hidden meaning for those in the know. That's why different manuscripts of the same gospel have different changes. 1 Timothy 1:3-4 admits the early Christians invented many different genealogies and myths for Jesus, with Titus 3:9 saying avoid foolish genealogies.

And what was that hidden meaning. No one knows, as the original Christians took it to their graves.

Over and above the natural inclination of man to keep a record of birth and relationships, genealogy was important to chronology, particularly in the earliest part of mankind’s history. But more than that, because of God’s promises, prophecies, and dealings, a record of certain lines of descent became essential.

The genealogy furnished by the Bible is sufficient to prove Christ’s Messiahship, the genealogical matter of prime importance to Christians. The other Biblical genealogies stand as a testimony to the authenticity of the Scriptural record, manifesting clearly that it is a genuinely historical account.

Mary was also of that blood line. HOw do we know that? She went to visit Elizabeth her cousin In Luke. He was a priest so he had to be in the right blood line. They were related.

(Luke 1:34-36) 34 But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am not having sexual relations with a man?” 35 In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son. 36 And look! Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son, in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her, the so-called barren woman;

Joseph was not the father of Jesus. He was the foster father, if "foster" is the right word. God is Jesus's father and Mary his mother.

Josephs blood line was shown, I think, to show that both members of His family where of the line of David. That make Jesus legal heir to the throne of David.

It has a lot to do with the son of God. As our God is a God of relationships, and family is important to God. That includes foster parents and children. If God were a singular and aloof or far away from mankind, because He's too holy to associate with us. Then He would have no understanding of human relationships, but in His Trinity, He loved even before the creation of mankind. We Christians are like orphans that have been fostered by our Father God, through faith in Jesus the Christ. We are grafted into the true vine that is Christ Jesus. We stand upon the rock, the sure foundation.

https://carm.org/why-are-there-different-genealogi...

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4...

Those genealogical records are there primarily for Jewish readers. Ancient Israelites, including Jews, kept such records (see Chronicles) to prove that they were descendants of Jacob, what tribe they came from and if they were allowed to be priests (descendants of Aaron).

In America, to prove that you are a U.S. citizen, often you have to produce a birth certificate. In the ancient theocracy of Israel, which normally required one to be a descendant of Jacob, one's written genealogical record provided such proof.

Ancient prophecy determined that the Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and David. The records in Mt and Lk show that Jesus met that criteria.

The prophesies said that the messiah would come from the line of David. This verse proves that lineage.