1) [size=15pt] The Genealogy of Jesus [/size]
The Gospel of Mark was written first, yet omits the genealogy required to prove that Jesus was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18.

The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke, there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did those two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might, nevertheless, be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. If Matthew speaks truth, Luke speaks falsehood, and if Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood; and as there is no authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even in the very first thing they say and set out to prove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they say afterward. Truth is a uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory. Either, then, the men called apostles are impostors, or the books ascribed to them has been written by other persons and fathered upon them, as is the case with the Old Testament.

The book of Matthew gives, chap 1 ver 6, a genealogy by name from David up through Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and makes there to be twenty-eight generations. The book of Luke gives also a genealogy by name from Christ, through Joseph, the husband of Mary, down to David, and makes there to be forty-three generations; besides which, there are only the two names of David and Joseph that are alike in the two lists. I here insert both genealogical lists, and for the sake of perspicuity and comparison, have placed them both in the same direction, that is from Joseph down to David.

Genealogy according to Matthew.
1) Jesus Christ
2 Joseph
3 Jacob
4 Matthat 5 Eleazar 6 Eliud 7 Achim 8 Sadoc 9 Azor 10 Eliakim 11 Abiud 12 Zorobabel 13 Salathiel 14 Jechonias 15 Josias 16 Amon 17 Manasses 18 Ezekias 19 Achaz 20 Joatham 21 Ozias 22 Joram 23 Josaphat 24 Asa 25 Abia
26 Roboam
27 Solomon,
28 David*

NOTE: In Mat 1:17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ. . After counting the genealogy from exile to christ, I noticed that it was thirteen generations and not fourteen as mattew claimed up here, and that makes it another glaring contradiction.

Genealogy according to Luke.
1) jesus Christ,
2 Joseph,
3 Heli
4 Matthan, 5 Levi, 6 Melchi, 7 Janna, 8 Joseph, 9 Mattathias, 10 Amos, 11 Naum, 12 Esli, 13 Nagge, 14 Maath, 15 Mattathias, 16 Semei, 17 Joseph, 18 Juda, 19 Joanna, 20 Rhesa, 21 Zorobabel, 22 Salathiel, 23 Neri, 24 Melchi, 25 Addi, 26 Cosam, 27 Elmodam, 28 Er 29 Jose 30 Eliezer 31 Jorim 32 Matthat 33 Levi 34 Simeon 35 Juda 36 Joseph 37 Jonan 38 Eliakim 39 Melea 40 Menan 41 Mattatha
42 Nathan
43 David

Now, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood between them as these two accounts show they do) in the very commencement of their history of Jesus Christ, and of whom and of what he was,

What authority (as I have before asked) is there left for believing the strange things they tell us afterward?

If they cannot be believed in their account of his natural genealogy, how are we to believe them when they tell us he was the son of God ?

If they lied in one genealogy, why are we to believe them in the other?

If his natural genealogy be manufactured, which it certainly is, why are we not to suppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured also, and that the whole is fabulous?

Can any man of serious reflection hazard his future happiness upon the belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of falsehood?

2) [size=15pt] Jesus, Joseph, Mary in Egypt [/size]
The story of Herod destroying all the children under two years old, belongs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest mentions anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would have been too striking to have been omitted by any.

Mathew 2 verse 13 – 16: Now when they had departed. Behold an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, rise take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and remain there till I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child and destroy him. and he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod.

[size=15pt] According to Luke, Jesus never stepped into Egypy [/size]

Luke 2 v 22- 40: ( a long story, I cant type) Note: following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remained in the area of Jerusalem for the presentation (about 40 days) and then returned to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There was no slaughter of the infants.


This writer of Mattew tells us, that Jesus escaped this slaughter because Joseph and Mary were warned by an angel to flee with him unto Egypt; but he forgot to make any provision for John, who was then under two years of age. John, however, who stayed behind, fared as well as Jesus, who fled; and, therefore, the story circumstantially belies itself...

Food is ready. I hereby call on, Ifeann, Truthman2012, malvisguy212, PastorKun, Tru2god, macelliot and Co.

Let's eat .

Rilwayne001:
1) [size=15pt] The Genealogy of Jesus [/size]
The Gospel of Mark was written first, yet omits the genealogy required to prove that Jesus was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18.

The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke, there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did those two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might, nevertheless, be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. If Matthew speaks truth, Luke speaks falsehood, and if Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood; and as there is no authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even in the very first thing they say and set out to prove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they say afterward. Truth is a uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory. Either, then, the men called apostles are impostors, or the books ascribed to them has been written by other persons and fathered upon them, as is the case with the Old Testament.

The book of Matthew gives, chap 1 ver 6, a genealogy by name from David up through Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and makes there to be twenty-eight generations. The book of Luke gives also a genealogy by name from Christ, through Joseph, the husband of Mary, down to David, and makes there to be forty-three generations; besides which, there are only the two names of David and Joseph that are alike in the two lists. I here insert both genealogical lists, and for the sake of perspicuity and comparison, have placed them both in the same direction, that is from Joseph down to David.

Genealogy according to Matthew.
1) Jesus Christ
2 Joseph
3 Jacob
4 Matthat 5 Eleazar 6 Eliud 7 Achim 8 Sadoc 9 Azor 10 Eliakim 11 Abiud 12 Zorobabel 13 Salathiel 14 Jechonias 15 Josias 16 Amon 17 Manasses 18 Ezekias 19 Achaz 20 Joatham 21 Ozias 22 Joram 23 Josaphat 24 Asa 25 Abia
26 Roboam
27 Solomon,
28 David*

NOTE: In Mat 1:17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ. . After counting the genealogy from exile to christ, I noticed that it was thirteen generations and not fourteen as mattew claimed up here, and that makes it another glaring contradiction.

Genealogy according to Luke.
1) jesus Christ,
2 Joseph,
3 Heli
4 Matthan, 5 Levi, 6 Melchi, 7 Janna, 8 Joseph, 9 Mattathias, 10 Amos, 11 Naum, 12 Esli, 13 Nagge, 14 Maath, 15 Mattathias, 16 Semei, 17 Joseph, 18 Juda, 19 Joanna, 20 Rhesa, 21 Zorobabel, 22 Salathiel, 23 Neri, 24 Melchi, 25 Addi, 26 Cosam, 27 Elmodam, 28 Er 29 Jose 30 Eliezer 31 Jorim 32 Matthat 33 Levi 34 Simeon 35 Juda 36 Joseph 37 Jonan 38 Eliakim 39 Melea 40 Menan 41 Mattatha
42 Nathan
43 David

Now, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood between them as these two accounts show they do) in the very commencement of their history of Jesus Christ, and of whom and of what he was,

What authority (as I have before asked) is there left for believing the strange things they tell us afterward?

If they cannot be believed in their account of his natural genealogy, how are we to believe them when they tell us he was the son of God ?

If they lied in one genealogy, why are we to believe them in the other?

If his natural genealogy be manufactured, which it certainly is, why are we not to suppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured also, and that the whole is fabulous?

Can any man of serious reflection hazard his future happiness upon the belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of falsehood?

Well op, the genealogy from Matthew traces from Joseph's side directly, while the genealogy traced from Mary's. The name of Joseph was mentioned in Luke's genealogy simply because he was Mary's husband. It was a practise in Jewish (Israel culture) to adopt one's son in law as a son (The internet is available for your personal research on this). I feel this practise was to ensure that: 1.Every tribe's claims to their inheritance will be preserved, and 2) Each family with daughters will not be cut off once their daughters get married. 3) Genealogy can be traced from women through their husband's adoption into the woman's family tree.
Luke's perspective was complementary else any one can reject Christ saying, since Joseph was not his biological father, then (supposing Mary was not from David's lineage) He is not the Messiah because the Latter was called the Son of David in prophecy.

Nice work,let them open/shine their eyes well.This is not the only contradiction in the bible there is a lot of them.But I wonder why on heart some pple are waging their paradise on folks of tail...I dedicate my fc to Dr. zaik Naik

Rilwayne001:
2) [size=15pt] Jesus, Joseph, Mary in Egypt [/size]
The story of Herod destroying all the children under two years old, belongs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest mentions anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would have been too striking to have been omitted by any.

Mathew 2 verse 13 – 16: Now when they had departed. Behold an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, rise take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and remain there till I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child and destroy him. and he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod.

[size=15pt] According to Luke, Jesus never stepped into Egypy [/size]

Luke 2 v 22- 40: ( a long story, I cant type) Note: following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remained in the area of Jerusalem for the presentation (about 40 days) and then returned to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There was no slaughter of the infants.


This writer of Mattew tells us, that Jesus escaped this slaughter because Joseph and Mary were warned by an angel to flee with him unto Egypt; but he forgot to make any provision for John, who was then under two years of age. John, however, who stayed behind, fared as well as Jesus, who fled; and, therefore, the story circumstantially belies itself...

Food is ready. I hereby call on, Ifeann, Truthman2012, malvisguy212, PastorKun, Tru2god, macelliot and Co.

Let's eat .

I didn't get you!

Rilwayne001:
2) [size=15pt] Jesus, Joseph, Mary in Egypt [/size]
The story of Herod destroying all the children under two years old, belongs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest mentions anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would have been too striking to have been omitted by any.

Mathew 2 verse 13 – 16: Now when they had departed. Behold an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, rise take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and remain there till I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child and destroy him. and he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod.

[size=15pt] According to Luke, Jesus never stepped into Egypy [/size]

Luke 2 v 22- 40: ( a long story, I cant type) Note: following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remained in the area of Jerusalem for the presentation (about 40 days) and then returned to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There was no slaughter of the infants.


This writer of Mattew tells us, that Jesus escaped this slaughter because Joseph and Mary were warned by an angel to flee with him unto Egypt; but he forgot to make any provision for John, who was then under two years of age. John, however, who stayed behind, fared as well as Jesus, who fled; and, therefore, the story circumstantially belies itself...
.

Herod was told that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5- hence his order to kill all infants was targeted at Bethlehem and it's borders only, not all Israel (Matthew 2:16) But Elizabeth,John's mum lived in," the hill country, in a city of Judah" Luke 1:39 not the same place Jesus was born.

The events in Luke 2:22-40 occurred eight days after the birth of Jesus. The order of Herod could not have come immediately after Jesus'birth because the wisemen went off to search for Christ hence Herod would have given them a space of a year etc And that's why the execution order was children under 2 years meaning ample time was given to the wisemen.

If you think the slaughter of infants, journey to Egypt was a lie what then do we say of the old testament prophecies quoted by the writers- Jeremiah 31:15; Hosea 11:1? If the death of infants seem too cruel to have happened recall what Pharaoh did to Israel's male babies!

Another buttress to the issue of Genealogy is the fact that the sons of David mentioned by both Matthew and Luke are authenticated in 1CHRONICLES 3:5.

Scholar8200:


Well op, the genealogy from Matthew traces from Joseph's side directly,

Well, here is where we run into our first problem. How does one inherit tribal lineage according to jewish law? From his father.

Who was Jesus’ father? according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a descendant of Joseph, he was going to divorce Mary because she was pregnant. So, you can’t use Joseph’s genealogy.

while the genealogy traced from Mary's. The name of Joseph was mentioned in Luke's genealogy simply because he was Mary's husband. It was a practise in Jewish (Israel culture) to adopt one's son in law as a son (The internet is available for your personal research on this). I feel this practise was to ensure that: 1.Every tribe's claims to their inheritance will be preserved, and 2) Each family with daughters will not be cut off once their daughters get married. 3) Genealogy can be traced from women through their husband's adoption into the woman's family tree.

Well, I just made use of the internet and here is what I got: " One cannot inherit tribal lineage through adoption. Here’s an example… Let’s say that Yonatan is a Cohen (of the priestly line) and he marries Rivkah and they have a son named Yosef. Yosef is a Cohen (he inherited it by birth from his father), and when he grows up he can serve in the Temple. Now, let’s say that Yosef’s father Yonatan dies. Can Yosef still serve in the Temple when he grows up? Absolutely – he’s still a Cohen – still of the priestly line. Now let’s say his mother Rivkah marries Shlomo, from the tribe of Yehuda. Shlomo can one day serve as a King. And let’s say that Shlomo loves Yosef and decides to adopt him. Is Yosef still a Cohen? Yes. Can Yosef still serve in the Temple? Yes. Can he serve as a king? No. Even though his adopted father is from the tribe of Yehuda, Yosef is still a Cohen. Adoption doesn’t change a fact of birth.

So, if Joseph is not Jesus’ father, then his genealogy is pointless. It’s a red herring. It doesn’t make a difference, and it doesn’t matter."

Luke's perspective was complementary else any one can reject Christ saying,

I don't get you here. Are you trying to say we should disregard luke?

since Joseph was not his biological father, then (supposing Mary was not from David's lineage) He is not the Messiah because the Latter was called the Son of David in prophecy.

If we are to go by the other genealogy, which is attributed to Mary that actually presents an additional problem applying to the last qualification.

Was Jesus a descendant of David through his son Solomon? Since Joseph is not Jesus’ father, let’s look at Mary’s genealogy. According to Luke 3:31, Mary is a descendant of David through Nathan, not Solomon.

According to 2 Samuel 7:12 – 13 He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son “And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever…”

Scholar8200:

Herod was told that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5- hence his order to kill all infants was targeted at Bethlehem and it's borders only, not all Israel (Matthew 2:16)

Where was Jesus born, was it not in Bethlehem? Is bethlehem part of Egypt.? He was born in Bethlehem and was carried to Jerusalem and not Egypt according to Luke, unless you want to tell me that Jerusalem is part of Egypt

But Elizabeth,John's mum lived in," the hill country, in a city of Judah" Luke 1:39 not the same place Jesus was born.

Not just in bethlehem alone: Mat 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

The events in Luke 2:22-40 occurred eight days after the birth of Jesus. The order of Herod could not have come immediately after Jesus'birth because the wisemen went off to search for Christ hence Herod would have given them a space of a year etc And that's why the execution order was children under 2 years meaning ample time was given to the wisemen.

The point is why should it belongs altogether to the book of
Matthew; not one of the rest mentions anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would have been too striking to have been omitted by any.

If you think the slaughter of infants, journey to Egypt was a lie what then do we say of the old testament prophecies quoted by the writers- Jeremiah 31:15; Hosea 11:1? If the death of infants seem too cruel to have happened recall what Pharaoh did to Israel's male babies!

Well, I have no business with this^^…

Rilwayne001:

Who was Jesus’ father? according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a descendant of Joseph, he was going to divorce Mary because she was pregnant. So, you can’t use Joseph’s genealogy.

Well, I just made use of the internet and here is what I got: " One cannot inherit tribal lineage through adoption

When I said adoption it was in the sense of recognition for genealogical purposes hence the 3 reasons I gave hence the example below might not be applicable.

Here’s an example… Let’s say that Yonatan is a Cohen (of the priestly line) and he marries Rivkah and they have a son named Yosef. Yosef is a Cohen (he inherited it by birth from his father), and when he grows up he can serve in the Temple. Now, let’s say that Yosef’s father Yonatan dies. Can Yosef still serve in the Temple when he grows up? Absolutely – he’s still a Cohen – still of the priestly line. Now let’s say his mother Rivkah marries Shlomo, from the tribe of Yehuda. Shlomo can one day serve as a King. And let’s say that Shlomo loves Yosef and decides to adopt him. Is Yosef still a Cohen? Yes. Can Yosef still serve in the Temple? Yes. Can he serve as a king? No. Even though his adopted father is from the tribe of Yehuda, Yosef is still a Cohen. Adoption doesn’t change a fact of birth.
So, if Joseph is not Jesus’ father, then his genealogy is pointless. It’s a red herring. It doesn’t make a difference, and it doesn’t matter."

but Joseph was Mary's husband and both were of David's lineage.

I don't get you here. Are you trying to say we should disregard luke?

of course not! I meant Jews or anyone who might have wanted to reject Jesus' Messiah-ship( on the Son of David prophecy) because of not being Joseph's son would be convinced since Mary was from same lineage.

If we are to go by the other genealogy, which is attributed to Mary that actually presents an additional problem applying to the last qualification.

Was Jesus a descendant of David through his son Solomon? Since Joseph is not Jesus’ father, let’s look at Mary’s genealogy. According to Luke 3:31, Mary is a descendant of David through Nathan, not Solomon.
According to 2 Samuel 7:12 – 13 He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son “And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever…”

note that this prophecy was given when David was asked to defer from building a Temple (2 Samuel 7:12-16) and the promise of Throne being established forever was to David. Solomon did all the above stated as a proximate fulfilment.. Also note that the promise was to a seed from David's bowels not necessarily Solomon. If this was spoken to Solomon, then it would be a different thing. Also 2 Chronicles 7:17-22 shows that, it was highly conditional in Solomon's case because it was an inherited promise which he qualified for as one of David's seed but which was not without conditions to him[Solomon].

Rilwayne001:

Where was Jesus born, was it not in Bethlehem? Is bethlehem part of Egypt.? He was born in Bethlehem and was carried to Jerusalem and not Egypt according to Luke, unless you want to tell me that Jerusalem is part of Egypt

He was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem for dedication Luke 2:21-25 eight days after His birth but Luke 2:39 shows they went back home after the dedication.

Not just in bethlehem alone: Mat 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
The point is why should it belongs altogether to the book of
Matthew; not one of the rest mentions anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would have been too striking to have been omitted by any.

Now there were more striking occurrences that Jesus did which were not mentioned John 20:30,31 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. . . Point is that not all occurrences were penned down. Besides the writers of the 4 gospels had different audiences in mind. Matthew's audience was the Jews , Mark to the Romans, Luke to the Greeks , while John wrote to the Church (same as other books he was inspired to write). Hence Matthew's detailing of occurrences and prophecies was because his audience were very familiar with same.

Scholar8200:
When I said adoption it was in the sense of recognition for genealogical purposes hence the 3 reasons I gave hence the example below might not be applicable.

It is applicable.

but he was Mary's husband and both were of David's lineage.

Then Mary's genealogy should have been used directly and not that of her husband since Joseph is not the direct father of jesus, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a
descendant of Joseph, So, using Joseph’s genealogy here is another inconsistency. Perhaps because Joseph is the true father of Jesus christ, we have christians who hold the view that Joseph was the one that actually impregnated Mary.
Cc: Sukkot.

of course not! I meant Jews or anyone who might have wanted to reject Jesus' Messiah-ship( on the Son of David prophecy] because of not being Joseph's son would be convinced since Mary was from same lineage.

Then definitely Luke genealogy might is not true since is aim is to deceive the jews by making it look like Joseph was the biological father Jesus, again maybe because Joseph is his true biological father.

note that this prophecy was given when David was asked to defer from building a Temple (2 Samuel 7:12-16) and the promise of Throne being established forever was to David.

Not it wasnt just David but Solomon as well.

Solomon did all the above stated as a proximate fulfilment.. Also note that the promise was to a seed from David's bowels not necessarily Solomon.

It is definitely solomon.

1Ch 22:7-10 David said to Solomon: "My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD my God. But this word of the LORD came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.' <<< 2 Samuel 7:13
He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

If this was spoken to Solomon, then it would be a different thing. Also 2 Chronicles 7:17-22 shows that, it was highly conditional in Solomon's case because it was an inherited promise which he qualified for as one of David's seed but which was not without conditions to him[Solomon].

Solomon is is the only qualified descendant of David to build the temple.

Oya say another thing.

Scholar8200:
Another buttress to the issue of Genealogy is the fact that the sons of David mentioned by both Matthew and Luke are authenticated in 1CHRONICLES 3:5.

nice job brother.

This is a good thread but I wonder if the OP is as discerning about the historicity of the Qur'an?

Scholar8200:
He was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem for dedication Luke 2:21-25 eight days after His birth but Luke 2:39 shows they went back home after the dedication.

So, Is Jerusalem or Nazareth part of Egypt?

Jesus was born in bethlehem >>> after 8 days he was taken to jerusalem for presentation >>> and from there they return to the city of Nazareth . Don't forget that this is the verse that followed their journey Luk 2:40-41 And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. <<< as we can see, there was nothing like fleeing/fled to egypt in these verses, reading the chapter further, one will notice that Luke was narrating the story like he was with them, especially where he said Jesus got lost on their way from jerusalem and he was found where he was questioning and answering question from teachers. So, one will wonder how come Mr. Luke was never aware of Mr. mattew's claim of jesus fleeing to Egypt

Now there were more striking occurrences that Jesus did which were not mentioned John 20:30,31 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. . .

But, atleast they all acknowledged that he performed miracle isn't it?

The purposes of this thread is, there are some astounding occurence(s) that allegedly occured during his time. but the silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the production of some unconnected individuals,

Point is that not all occurrences were penned down. Besides the writers of the 4 gospels had different audiences in mind. Matthew's audience was the Jews , Mark to the Romans, Luke to the Greeks , while John wrote to the Church (same as other books he was inspired to write). Hence Matthew's detailing of occurrences and prophecies was because his audience were very familiar with same.

Simply tell me the bolded is your own point of view. ??

Macelliot:

I didn't get you!

What is it that you don't get?

malvisguy212:
nice job brother.

Ogbeni, na only you waka come?? where are the rest?

Cc: Truthman2012, Ifeann, Pastorkun, True2go

Rilwayne001:

Then Mary's genealogy should have been used directly and not that of her husband since Joseph is not the direct father of jesus, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a
descendant of Joseph, So, using Joseph’s genealogy here is another inconsistency. Perhaps because Joseph is the true father of Jesus christ, we have christians who hold the view that Joseph was the one that actually impregnated Mary.
Cc: Sukkot.

Genesis 2:24,Matthew 19:6 states that after marriage, the couple are not two but one flesh. Bear this in mind. The issue you have raised is dealt with in the principle stated in Numbers 36:8,7" ...every daughter that possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father...so shall not the inheritance ...of Israel remove from tribe to tribe" So both genealogies are valid since the couple were made one after marriage. And since women are not normally mentioned in most genealogies, it's only logical that her husband is used. The only times I recall women being mentioned were those from other Nations (eg Matthew points out Thamar from Canaan, Rachab from Jericho b4 conquest, Bathsheba formerly married to a Hittite) Besides why will joseph (but for the admonition of the angel) try to reject Mary if he was responsible for the pregnancy?

Then definitely Luke genealogy might is not true since is aim is to deceive the jews by making it look like Joseph was the biological father Jesus, again maybe because Joseph is his true biological father

. Luke wrote primarily to a greek by the name Theophilus (Luke 1: 3,4) and since they (greeks) were intellectuals and great thinkers and philosophers, it was needful to clarify this to him for the reasons aforestated(Messiah-ship).

Not it wasnt just David but Solomon as well
It is definitely solomon.

1Ch 22:7-10 David said to Solomon: "My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD my God. But this word of the LORD came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.' <<< 2 Samuel 7:13
He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.


Solomon is is the only qualified descendant of David to build the temple.

Oya say another thing.

David himself warned Solomon that the promise was conditional in 1Chronicles 28:9 also see 1Kings 9:4-9," If[/b]thou will walk before me as David thy father walked,in integrity of heart and uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee...[b]Then will I establish the throne of [b]thy[/b]kingdom forever. but [b]if [/b]ye shall at all turn...and will not keep my commandments... then will I cut off Israel...and this house which I have hallowed for My Name will I cast out of My Sight."

Well Solomon went after idols after some years had passed and God's verdict (after Solomon rejected God's repeated warnings 1Kings 11;9,10) 1 Kings 11:11 ," Wherefore the Lord said to Solomon, ...I will surely rend the kingdom from thee..." Since the condition of an established throne forever over Israel (not a fraction thereof viz Jerusalem and Judah who were David's tribesmen)was violated, the promise was forfeited by Solomon being the proximate fulfilment.

But since the promise ultimately pointed to Christ Isaiah 9:6,7 (because Solomon could not remain on the throne forever sans dying) then it will be fulfilled as the Ultimate fulfilment of the prophecy.Luke 1:32," He shall be great and be called the Son Of The Highest;and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father(used in ancestral sense) David " This was the statement made by angel Gabriel to Mary.

Rilwayne001:


So, Is Jerusalem or Nazareth part of Egypt?

Jesus was born in bethlehem >>> after 8 days he was taken to jerusalem for presentation >>> and from there they return to the city of Nazareth . Don't forget that this is the verse that followed their journey Luk 2:40-41 And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. <<< as we can see, there was nothing like fleeing/fled to egypt in these verses, reading the chapter further, one will notice that Luke was narrating the story like he was with them, especially where he said Jesus got lost on their way from jerusalem and he was found where he was questioning and answering question from teachers. So, one will wonder how come Mr. Luke was never aware of Mr. mattew's claim of Jesus fleeing to Egypt

I appreciate your inquisitiveness! Luke 2:42 shows that the issue of Jesus getting lost happened at the age of twelve at which time, they had relocated to Nazareth Luke 2:51 (Matthew 2:23).

But, atleast they all acknowledged that he performed miracle isn't it?

Yes but not all detailed all the miracles. John, for example, focused less on Miracles but more on sayings.

The purposes of this thread is, there are some astounding occurence(s) that allegedly occured during his time. but the silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the production of some unconnected individuals,

That is why I quoted John 20:30. Kindly specify your disagreements apart from that on genealogy which have been dealt with. Besides would we also declare that Christ never gave the sermon on the mount because John did not record it? Or that there was no transfiguration because John did not record same? Or that story of Lazarus and the Rich man(Luke 16:19) never existed because John , Matthew, Mark never referred to his case as Luke quoted that Jesus did?

Simply tell me the bolded is your own point of view. ??

Sorry, the source of the bolded is,"The Bible - Its Contents, (with an introduction to the Books of the Old and New Testament) by Dr William F. Kerr, Professor of Systematic Theology. But you can sample Luke and verify with Luke 1: 3," it seemed good to me also ...to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus..." Theophilus was a greek.etc

mmsen:
This is a good thread but my question but I wonder if the OP is as discerning about the historicity of the Qur'an?

I wonder if he could trace the genealogy of Muhammad to Ishmael.

So many loop holes in Islam. Smh!

Rilwayne001:


Ogbeni, na only you waka come?? where are the rest?

Cc: Truthman2012, Ifeann, Pastorkun, True2go

They are busy eating Roti and Teh tarik

Rilwayne001:


What is it that you don't get?

If we take the purpose of a genealogy to be that of showing definite succession especially of the most significant ancestry then the alleged discrepancies between and in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke can be seen to be an apparent but not a real one.

A number of ways to resolve dissimilarities have been advanced my many over the years. But skeptics like Rilwayne001 will refuse to accept them. Perhaps they lack the capacity so to do.

Whatever stand taken on the listings of the two gospel authors the fact remains that “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
The person the genealogy points to is the Messiah, the Saviour of the world that Rilwayne & co need to believe in him in order to have eternal relationship with God.

If Rilwayne001 take this much time to OBJECTIVELY scrutinize his Quran I wonder, I just wonder what results he would come up with.

I challenge him to do so.

Rilwayne001:


Ogbeni, na only you waka come?? where are the rest?

Cc: Truthman2012, Ifeann, Pastorkun, True2go

it is good you look into the Genealogy of Jesus ,before I start you should know this; Jesus was the legal son of Joseph but not the biological son of Joseph. This is important because God curse one of the king of isreal( Jeremiah 22:24-30)Jeconiah was an ancestor of Joseph, if Joseph was Jesus' biological father then Jesus would not be an eligible to inherit the throne of Judah. Hope you understand? Ok.
MATHEW1:1-17, read this link to know the Genealogy of Jesus
https://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matthew%201.1-17

Luke 3:23-38: read here to the Luke account;
http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Luke%203.23-38

1. According to Matthew: Joseph is
descended from Solomon, the son of King David and Bathseba ( Matthew 1:6) while Luke seems to say that Joseph was
descended from Nathan, another son of
King David ( Luke 3: 31). After King David
the two genealogies diverge greatly.
2. According to Matthew: Joseph is
descended from Jeconiah ( Matthew
1:11-12). However God placed a curse on Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:24-30). Jeremiah 22: 30: This is what the LORD says:
"Record this man as if childless, a man
who will not prosper in his lifetime, for
none of his offspring will prosper, none
will sit on the throne of David or rule
anymore in Judah."
Any descendant of Jeconiah would not be suitable for the throne of Judah. Luke's genealogy traces the line through Nathan, son of David.
However God's covenant to David that his descendants would have the throne of Judah was inherited by Solomon because he was the one who finished the Temple of God (2 Samuel 7:12-16). If Jesus did not descend from Solomon then he would ineligible for the throne.
Jesus was born of a virgin then legally
adopted by Joseph through marriage.
Matthew's genealogy traces his LEGAL LINE through his LEGAL FATHER JOSEPH. Jesus was eligible to inherit the throne of Judah because he was legally the descendant of Solomon and his offspring however he BYPASSES THE CURSE OF JECONIAH because he is not BIOLOGICALY A DESCENDANT OF JECONIAH.

Luke traces Jesus' BIOLOGICAL LINE . Heli was the biology father of MARY. In ancient times just as Scholar8200 say father- in-laws were considered as if they were
fathers. If Jesus was the biology son of
Joseph he would fall under the Curse of
Jeconiah however he is the biological son
of Mary but not Joseph. Since he is the
legal son of Joseph he is legally
descended from Solomon fulfilling God's
promise to David and Solomon.

Matthew traces the genealogy back to Abraham. Jesus is the seed of Abraham and the fulfilment of the promise God gave to Abraham ( Galatians 3:16). Abraham is a descendant of Shem (Genesis 11:10).

Shem was the son of Noah. If you reject
the story of the flood then you should
also reject the story of Abraham.
Allegorical characters cannot have real
life sons. If Abraham did not exist then
he could not have had offspring. Luke's
genealogy goes back to Adam. If Adam
did not exist then the whole line is wiped out.Genealogies link the different books of Scripture together. It links the Old and New Testaments together.
Hope you understand!!! Now can you reply this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/2263213/claim-god-advocates-modesty-sexual

Scholar8200:
Genesis 2:24,Matthew 19:6 states that after marriage, the couple are not two but one flesh. Bear this in mind.

Sir Genesis 2:24 was talking about Adam and eve, and Jesus was refering to it in Mattew 19:6 to those that are him about divorcing ones wife Mat 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" Jesus replied them that what God has joined together let no man put asunder, that the plan of God from the begining since Eve removed from part of Adam, then when husbad and wife are married, they are expected to remain as one. But there is a clause which jesus himself acknowledge Mat 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." <<<< Therefore, we should understand that the 2 verses above have nothing to do with genealogy of both husband and wife but about UNITY IN MARRIAGE, hence, the reason why jesus makes us understand that we can Divorce our wife if there is MARITAL UNFAITHFULLNESS.

The issue you have raised is dealt with in the principle stated in Numbers 36:8,7" ...every daughter that possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father...so shall not the inheritance ...of Israel remove from tribe to tribe"

We must understand that this verse was directed to a particular individual Num 36:6 This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father.
But even if we are to take the verse into consideration, we have to understand that Joseph was not the father on Jesus, and jesus which was to come must be from the lineage of SOLOMON, mary is not a descendant of solomon, and that automatically makes it void.

So both genealogies are valid since the couple were made one after marriage.

No, they are not valid.

And since women are not normally mentioned in most genealogies,

The fact that you also admit that woman are sometimes mentioned in genealogy makes the above claim invalid because, there should be no reason why Joseph who happened not to be his father should be used as his direct descendant. Lemme ask you Mr. Scholar, who is the father of Jesus christ, Joseph? God the father? or the holy spirit?

it's only logical that her husband is used.

It isnt, it can only be logical when the husband is the biological father, but in this case Joseph is not his biological father, Perhaps he actually his According to some xtian sect believe.

Besides why will joseph (but for the admonition of the angel) try to reject Mary if he was responsible for the pregnancy?

I am not sharing in the view that Joseph was responsible for her pregnancy, but some xtian sect does.

David himself warned Solomon that the promise was conditional in 1Chronicles 28:9 also see 1Kings 9:4-9," If ]thou will walk before me as David thy father walked,in integrity of heart and uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee...Then[ will I establish the throne of thy kingdom forever. but ]if [ye shall at all turn...and will not keep my commandments... then will I cut off Israel...and this house which I have hallowed for My Name will I cast out of My Sight." Well Solomon went after idols after some years had passed and God's verdict (after Solomon rejected God's repeated warnings 1Kings 11;9,10) 1 Kings 11:11 ," Wherefore the Lord said to Solomon, ...I will surely rend the kingdom from thee..." Since the condition of an established throne forever over Israel (not a fraction thereof viz Jerusalem and Judah who were David's tribesmen)was violated, [b] the promise was forfeited by Solomon being the proximate fulfilment.

Indeed Solomon was warned not to go astray in other for him not to loose the promise, but indeed Solomon went astray but does that make his descendant lose the promise? Lemme start from 2 Samuel 7:14,15,16..35 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men,and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.... And now, O LORD God, the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant, and concerning his house, establish it for ever, and do as thou hast said.

Let me now turn to 1 king 11 you used in validating your point above. 1Ki 11:11,13[b] So the LORD said to Solomon, "Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates... Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen. " [/b] << What you seem not to get @the bolded in your comment up there is that, the verse was never saying that the kingdom will be taken away totally from Solomon descendant, but rather a faction will be taken away and will be given to his tribesmen. but this doesn't in anyway stop the promise child from his descendent as highlighted in the underlined.

Prove of this ^^ assertion
Readin the chapter further in 1Ki 11:31,32,34, 35[b] Then he said to Jeroboam, "Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon's hand and give you ten tribes. But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe "'But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon's hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who observed my commands and statutes. I will take the kingdom from his son's hands and give you ten tribes. I will [size=15pt] give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, [/size] the city where I chose to put my Name. <<<< The underlined says it all, so the question is, Solomon genealogy is portrayed above to bear the genealogy of the messiah after david and not Nathan that you have wanted us to believe. Then in 1Ki 11:43 Then he rested with his fathers and was buried in the city of David his father. And Rehoboam his son succeeded him as king <<< the underlined make Rehoboam the next genealogy after solomon.

I believe this automatically put to rest your assertion that Nathan the greatgrand father of MARY might have been the lineage from which jesus came. There are escape route for you here, 1) It is either you admmit that, Joseph was actually the biological father of jesus, hence, the reason why mattew relate his genealogy with Solomon or 2) that Mattew and Luke genealogy are not valid.

^^^both account are valid, matthew trace the geanology of Joseph and Luke include that of Mary. So what else do you not understand?

Can you proved from the quran, muhammed is the descended of ishmael? The way bible present that of Jesus?

malvisguy212:
^^^both account are valid,

No they are not, one is from king solomon which is the valid genealogy while the other is not which makes it invalid.

matthew trace the geanology of Joseph

Why should mattew trace the genealogy to Joseph when actually Joseph wasnt the biological father of jesus? or did Joseph ever had intercourse with mary to give Jesus? Who is the BIOLOGICAL father of Jesus?

And please don't tell me adoption makes him automatically a biological son oo

and Luke include that of Mary. So what else do you not understand?

Show me with scriptural reference where Nathan was said to bring the lineage of the messiah.

Can you proved from the quran, muhammed is the descended of ishmael? The way bible present that of Jesus?

Stop attacking Strawman. Please.

I like to hold discussion with reasonable peeps lik mr. Scholar and not robot like, hence the reason why I ignored your posts.

I'll still ignore you if you don't make any sense in your next post.

plainbibletruth:

If Rilwayne001 take this much time to OBJECTIVELY scrutinize his Quran I wonder, I just wonder what results he would come up with.

I challenge him to do so.

I'll do that whenever you use the bible in validating 1+1+1=3 a.k.a Trinity.

It isn't easy using my phone to type long replies, hence, the reason for those typographic errors.

I'll try and edit them tomao.

Rilwayne001:


No they are not, one is from king solomon which is the valid genealogy while the other is not which makes it invalid.



Why should mattew trace the genealogy to Joseph when actually Joseph wasnt the biological father of jesus? or did Joseph ever had intercourse with mary to give Jesus? Who is the BIOLOGICAL father of Jesus?

And please don't tell me adoption makes him automatically a biological son oo



Show me with scriptural reference where Nathan was said to bring the lineage of the messiah.



Stop attacking Strawman. Please.

I like to hold discussion with reasonable peeps lik mr. Scholar and not robot like, hence the reason why I ignored your posts.

I'll still ignore you if you don't make any sense in your next post.

malvisguy212:
it is good you look into the Genealogy of Jesus ,before I start you should know this; Jesus was the legal son of Joseph but not the biological son of Joseph. This is important because God curse one of the king of isreal( Jeremiah 22:24-30)Jeconiah was an ancestor of Joseph, if Joseph was Jesus' biological father then Jesus would not be an eligible to inherit the throne of Judah. Hope you understand? Ok.
MATHEW1:1-17, read this link to know the Genealogy of Jesus
https://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matthew%201.1-17
Luke 3:23-38: read here to the Luke account;
http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Luke%203.23-38
1. According to Matthew: Joseph is
descended from Solomon, the son of King David and Bathseba ( Matthew 1:6) while Luke seems to say that Joseph was
descended from Nathan, another son of
King David ( Luke 3: 31). After King David
the two genealogies diverge greatly.
2. According to Matthew: Joseph is
descended from Jeconiah ( Matthew
1:11-12). However God placed a curse on Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:24-30). Jeremiah 22: 30: This is what the LORD says:
"Record this man as if childless, a man
who will not prosper in his lifetime, for
none of his offspring will prosper, none
will sit on the throne of David or rule
anymore in Judah."
Any descendant of Jeconiah would not be suitable for the throne of Judah. Luke's genealogy traces the line through Nathan, son of David.
However God's covenant to David that his descendants would have the throne of Judah was inherited by Solomon because he was the one who finished the Temple of God (2 Samuel 7:12-16). If Jesus did not descend from Solomon then he would ineligible for the throne.
Jesus was born of a virgin then legally
adopted by Joseph through marriage.
Matthew's genealogy traces his LEGAL LINE through his LEGAL FATHER JOSEPH. Jesus was eligible to inherit the throne of Judah because he was legally the descendant of Solomon and his offspring however he BYPASSES THE CURSE OF JECONIAH because he is not BIOLOGICALY A DESCENDANT OF JECONIAH.
Luke traces Jesus' BIOLOGICAL LINE . Heli was the biology father of MARY. In ancient times just as Scholar8200 say father- in-laws were considered as if they were
fathers. If Jesus was the biology son of
Joseph he would fall under the Curse of
Jeconiah however he is the biological son
of Mary but not Joseph. Since he is the
legal son of Joseph he is legally
descended from Solomon fulfilling God's
promise to David and Solomon.
Matthew traces the genealogy back to Abraham. Jesus is the seed of Abraham and the fulfilment of the promise God gave to Abraham ( Galatians 3:16). Abraham is a descendant of Shem (Genesis 11:10).
Shem was the son of Noah. If you reject
the story of the flood then you should
also reject the story of Abraham.
Allegorical characters cannot have real
life sons. If Abraham did not exist then
he could not have had offspring. Luke's
genealogy goes back to Adam. If Adam
did not exist then the whole line is wiped out.Genealogies link the different books of Scripture together. It links the Old and New Testaments together.
Hope you understand!!! Now can you reply this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/2263213/claim-god-advocates-modesty-sexual

Rilwayne001:


No they are not, one is from king solomon which is the valid genealogy while the other is not which makes it invalid.



Why should mattew trace the genealogy to Joseph when actually Joseph wasnt the biological father of jesus? or did Joseph ever had intercourse with mary to give Jesus? Who is the BIOLOGICAL father of Jesus?

And please don't tell me adoption makes him automatically a biological son oo



Show me with scriptural reference where Nathan was said to bring the lineage of the messiah.



Stop attacking Strawman. Please.

I like to hold discussion with reasonable peeps lik mr. Scholar and not robot like, hence the reason why I ignored your posts.

I'll still ignore you if you don't make any sense in your next post.

did you read my first post? Go back and read it.Jesus was the legal son of Joseph but not the BIOLOGICAL son of Joseph. you are confused,infacte for the quran to used his mother name to adress Him proved my point here, the Luke account of Jesus geanology talk about His biological root which is Mary, they both are valid one talk about his legal father and the other talk about the biological root.

oh oh @plainbibletruth, you are here again?. You left unanswered question on the other thread Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by rilwayne

Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestry through the ROYAL LINE, and does so with potential heirs to the throne following the Captivity, whereas Luke follows a
NONE-RULING branch of the royal family back to Nathan, another son of
David by Bathsheba.

Matthew, writing wanted to show Jesus’ LEGAL RIGHT TO THE THRONE OF DAVID . Therefore his genealogy begins with Abraham and goes through David and his son Solomon to Jesus’ LEGAL
FATHER, Joseph. On the other hand, Luke is writing primarily to Gentiles and the world and, therefore, wants to show
Jesus’ PHYSICAL LINEAGE as the perfect
man. So he traces Mary’s line back to
Adam through Heli, Mary’s father the
father-in-law of Joseph--and on through
David’s son Nathan. As a matter of fact Luke add some gentile name includes the names of women brought into the people of God Ruth, Thamar, Rachab, and Bathsheba (the wife of Urias).

Rilwayn step by step you will see proved that Jesus is the son of God.

Rilwayne001:
Jesus was refering to it in Mattew 19:6 to those that are him about divorcing ones wife Mat 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" Jesus replied them that what God has joined together let no man put asunder, that the plan of God from the begining since Eve removed from part of Adam, then when husbad and wife are married, they are expected to remain as one. <<<< Therefore, we should understand that the 2 verses above have nothing to do with genealogy of both husband and wife but about UNITY IN MARRIAGE

Yes but it was referred to because God made them one and not even genealogists who understood this could remove one from the family tree of the other.

Joseph was not the father on Jesus, and jesus which was to come must be from the lineage of SOLOMON, mary is not a descendant of solomon, and that automatically makes it void.

The bolded needs scriptural proof. Yes Solomon had the proximate fulfilment but the Ultimate fulfilment is Christ Isaiah 9:6,7 "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor. . . Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end , upon the throne of David and upon His kingdom..." Isaiah 11 is another prophesy, there Christ is called A Rod out of the stem of Jesse, David's father . Mary was Joseph's wife and was made one with Joseph

there should be no reason why Joseph who happened not to be his father should be used as his direct descendant

.Mary was Joseph's wife & was made one with Joseph by God (Matt 19:6),& not a foreigner like those mentioned; this clarifies it.

who is the father of Jesus christ

kindly see Luke 1:35, Matt 1:18,24,25. Pls read those. But also note that Mary said in Luke 2:48. . . "behold your father (Joseph) and I have sought you sorrowing" Jesus did not deny Mary's statement as untrue but gave a reply that was to remind her of His purpose on earth and Heavenly Father just as God becomes our Father when we give our lives to Christ and we still do not deny our earthly father. Indeed it appears you are overlooking the culture where an in-law was recognised for genealogical purpose. Well, it has been explained in previous posts. But ignoring what can be substantiated, if you'll be objective in ur search, I'm afraid lives us going in circles.

Indeed Solomon was warned not to go astray in other for him not to loose the promise, but indeed Solomon went astray but does that make his descendant lose the promise? Lemme start from 2 Samuel 7:14,15,16..35 [b] I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men,and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever...Solomon descendant, but rather a faction will be taken away and will be given to his tribesmen. but this doesn't in anyway stop the promise child from his descendent as highlighted in the underlined.

Prove of this ^^ assertion
Readin the chapter further in 1Ki 11:31,32,34, 35[b] Then he said to Jeroboam, "Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon's hand and give you ten tribes. But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe "'But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon's hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who observed my commands and statutes. I will take the kingdom from his son's hands and give you ten tribes. I will [size=15pt] give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, [/size] the city where I chose to put my Name. <<<< The underlined says it all, so the question is, Solomon genealogy is portrayed above to bear the genealogy of the messiah after david and not[b] Nathan that you have wanted us to believe.[/b]

All others after Solomon did not inherit the promise because the original scope was all Israel 1 Chronicles 17:7,11,12 not just a tribe. Note that angel Gabriel said Luke 1:32 "HE shall be Great , and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the Throne of His father David (not Solomon) and He shall reign over the house of Jacob ( note the scope, not Judah or Jerusalem alone) The bolded is not my argument rather my focus is on the marriage btwn the two by which they became one.