recently it struck me that virgin mary and elizabeth (mother of john the baptist) were relatives. the fact that both women gave birth to high profile spiritual men is far from sheer coincidence. who is mary? who is her Father? where is she from?

1b8m:
recently it struck me that virgin mary and elizabeth (mother of john the baptist) were relatives. the fact that both women gave birth to high profile spiritual men is far from sheer coincidence. who is mary? who is her Father? where is she from?

The genealogy of Jesus the Messiah in Luke's gospel is actually Mary's genealogy.

Heli was actually Mary's father but Luke recorded him as Joseph's father following a Jewish tradition of calling a son-in-law as his father-in-law's son.

There is no geneology recorded in the gospel of luke
which chapter are you referring to

lordnicklaus:



The genealogy of Jesus the Messiah in Luke's gospel is actually Mary's genealogy.

Heli was actually Mary's father but Luke recorded him as Joseph's father following a Jewish tradition of calling a son-in-law as his father-in-law's son.

At some point your question has boggled my mind too. It gets creepier when considering the fact that galilee--where she (mary) lived was a metropolis at that epoch, comprising of people from different nations and races. It is possible that mary might have been everything but a caucasian jew which neo-christianity promotes, courtesy of the council of nicae.

Let me zero in to say that mary was more of an african hebrew than the lies proposed by constantine and his gang. Until you find the answer to why jesus (proposed white man) could comfortably take refuge in egypt (black neighbourhood), you will never know who mary was and who her ancestors where

benELOHIM7:
There is no geneology recorded in the gospel of luke
which chapter are you referring to

wen u r being educated u r here claiming oversabi. Go out of ur comfort zone next time make research before coming to open ignorant thread.
There are two account of d geneology of Christ in d gospel. D first is in matt 1 nd dat was d genealogy of Joseph d husband of mary. Both ofvtheir forefathers was David but Joseph came out of Solomon branch but mary came out of Nathan branch. Both Solomon nd nathan were children of david. It is because of Jewish culture dat Joseph was used instead of mary in luke 3. Read commentaries to understand better

In the jewish custom, there is what is called the levirate marriage where If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. If you researched well, you'd find out that at some point in both geneologies, melchi and mathan married same woman, though at different times. This would make heli and jacob half brothers in which the former died without a son. By jewish custom, jacob married heli's wife begatting joseph. In light of this, its obvious that luke gave account of the legal lineage of jesus while matthew gave account of his biological lineage, all having nothing to do with mary.
As per your initial statement, I did not acquire the knowledge I have by merely reading up literatures. You'd walk the streets naked if you know half what I know.

oyeludef:
wen u r being educated u r here claiming oversabi. Go out of ur comfort zone next time make research before coming to open ignorant thread.
There are two account of d geneology of Christ in d gospel. D first is in matt 1 nd dat was d genealogy of Joseph d husband of mary. Both ofvtheir forefathers was David but Joseph came out of Solomon branch but mary came out of Nathan branch. Both Solomon nd nathan were children of david. It is because of Jewish culture dat Joseph was used instead of mary in luke 3. Read commentaries to understand better

No

benELOHIM7:
In the jewish custom, there is what is called the levirate marriage where If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. If you researched well, you'd find out that at some point in both geneologies, melchi and mathan married same woman, though at different times. This would make heli and jacob half brothers in which the former died without a son. By jewish custom, jacob married heli's wife begatting joseph. In light of this, its obvious that luke gave account of the legal lineage of jesus while matthew gave account of his biological lineage, all having nothing to do with mary.
As per your initial statement, I did not acquire the knowledge I have by merely reading up literatures. You'd walk the streets naked if you know half what I know.

well as d Bible says, knowledge puffs up. But u should first of all ask ursef if Jesus birth had anything to do with Joseph gene.

How typical of christians to often cower beneath bible vverses after their hypocrisy is blown.
Your question still begs the question. Who is mary? Where is she from? The significance of the answers to these questions are unimaginable

oyeludef:
No well as d Bible says, knowledge puffs up. But u should first of all ask ursef if Jesus birth had anything to do with Joseph gene.

Am a Christian nd I belief God really exist...But historical account of Bible is total fraud......

To the best of my knowledge, christianity is an adulteration of an ancient kemetic belief that existed until 2000yrs before the birth of jesus. This belief was based on a god, horus who had twelve disciples, performed miracles, raised one aserus (lazarus) from the grave, died and rose after three days. There are findings to buttress these facts

The name jesus was probably coined in the council of nicae to merge both the jewish yaheshua and the egyptian horus as one. The phrase "the son of man" is more kemetic than jewish. It actually is "the sun of man" relating to horus symbolized with the sun. Why of all places, did jesus seek asylum in egypt?

Again. Who is mary? Who are her people? Why is attention deviated from a woman of such spiritual importance?

benELOHIM7:
How typical of christians to often cower beneath bible vverses after their hypocrisy is blown.
Your question still begs the question. Who is mary? Where is she from? The significance of the answers to these questions are unimaginable

wen u think u know and u know nothing. read commentaries on Luke 3 before trading ur ignorance here

Matthew had given us somewhat of this. He goes no higher than Abraham, but Luke brings it as high as Adam. Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David and therefore he begins with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent's head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary. And some suggest that the supply which our translators all along insert here is not right, and that it should not be read which, that is, which Joseph was the son of Heli, but which Jesus; he was the son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, c., and he, that is, Jesus, was the son of Seth, of Adam, of God, <i>v.38. The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ has been a stumbling-block to infidels that cavil at the word, but such a one as has been removed by the labours of learned men, both in the early ages of the church and in latter times, to which we refer ourselves. Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah. It is well for us that our salvation doth not depend upon our being able to solve all these difficulties, nor is the divine authority of the gospels at all weakened by them; for the evangelists are not supposed to write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke. And this is the meaning of hos enomizeto ( v.23), not, as it was supposed, referring only to Joseph, but uti sancitum est lege--as it is entered into the books, as we find it upon record; by which is appeared that Jesus was both by father and mother's side the Son of David, witness this extract out of their own records, which any one might at that time have liberty to compare with the original, and further the evangelists needed not to go; nay, had they varied from that, they had not gained their point. Its not being contradicted at that time is satisfaction enough to us now that it is a true copy, as it is further worthy of observation, that, when those records of the Jewish genealogies had continued thirty or forty years after these extracts out of them, long enough to justify the evangelists therein, they were all lost and destroyed with the Jewish state and nation; for now there was no more occasion for them.

am helping the ignoramus who dont have access to commentaries.

The real father of Joseph was Jacob -Matt 1:16;but having married the daughter of Heli, and being perhaps adopted by him, he was called his son, and as such was entered in the public registers; Mary not being mentioned, because the Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. Hence it appears that Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham, through whom the promises were given to the Jews, to David, and from David, through the line of Solomon, to Jacob the father of Joseph, the reputed or legal father of Christ; and that Luke, who wrote for the Gentiles, extends his genealogy upwards from Heli, the father of Mary, through the line of Nathan, to David, and from David to Abraham, and from Abraham to Adam, who was the immediate "son of God" by creation, and to whom the promise of the Saviour was given in behalf of himself and all his posterity. The two branches of descent from David, by Solomon and Nathan, being thus united in the persons of Mary and Joseph, Jesus the son of Mary re-united in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called "the Son of David.

In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are toldMatthew 1:16, that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke "the son of Heli"? He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and of Heli. But in Luke it is not said that Heli begat Joseph, so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called "son of Heli" ("son" is not in the Greek, but rightly supplied by the translators) would be in accord with Jewish usage.

(CF) 1 Samuel 24:16 The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's genealogy; and Joseph was "son of Heli" because espoused to Heli's daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, whose father, Heli, was descended from David.

Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli
( ων υιος ως ενομιζετο Ιωσηφ του Hελε). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on Mat 1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Mat 1:16). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article του repeating υιου (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" ( ως ενομιζετο). His own narrative in Luk 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, υιος must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Mat 1:16; Mat 1:18-25 (refs2) that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (Luk 3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conceptio

GENEALOGY OF MARY (Luk 3:23-38 )

We say “Mary” because that is the generally accepted view of the differences between this list of names and that in Matthew. The latter gives us the genealogy of Joseph saying, “Jacob begat” him (Mat 1:16 ). In what sense, therefore, can Luke call him “the son of Heli” (Luk 3:23 )? The answer of some is, that inasmuch as the latter does not say Heli begat Joseph the inference is that he was as husband of Mary the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David. That he should in such a case be called “of Heli” is in accordance with Jewish usage (1Sa 24:16 ).

i have taken my time to share popular commentaries here by ppl like Matthew Henry, scofield, gray etc so dat Mr knowledge can shove his pile of scraps into wherever he deems fit. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and still doubts d veracity of d bible is a disgrace to himself

how dramatic that luke, fully acquainted with jesus' patriarchal geneology would rather give account of his matriarchal geneology in a period when patriarchal geneology was considered very important. now let me ask you, which other geneology was taken from the mother side in the bible? oyeludef you are stupid. you are stupid because all you could do is copy and paste people's opinion on this without giving your good-for-nothing head a try.

oyeludef:
i have taken my time to share popular commentaries here by ppl like Matthew Henry, scofield, gray etc so dat Mr knowledge can shove his pile of scraps into wherever he deems fit. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and still doubts d veracity of d bible is a disgrace to himself

1b8m:
how dramatic that luke, fully acquainted with jesus' patriarchal geneology would rather give account of his matriarchal geneology in a period when patriarchal geneology was considered very important. now let me ask you, which other geneology was taken from the mother side in the bible? oyeludef you are stupid. you are stupid because all you could do is copy and paste people's opinion on this without giving your good-for-nothing head a try.

according to d bible u read? mr wise, did Jesus have any patriarchal gene mr ignoramus. luke felt d need to trace her root to prove dat Jesus actually came from d root of David as prophesied. common sense u don't have.

the bible i read never said luke traced jesus' ancestors from the mother side. the bible never traced anyone's lineage from the mother side, i dont see why jesus' case would be an exception. you dull the development of this thread with your flimsy and baseless points.

oyeludef:

according to d bible u read? mr wise, did Jesus have any patriarchal gene mr ignoramus. luke felt d need to trace her root to prove dat Jesus actually came from d root of David as prophesied. common sense u don't have.

benELOHIM7:
There is no geneology recorded in the gospel of luke
which chapter are you referring to

Check Luke 3:23-38

benELOHIM7:
To the best of my knowledge, christianity is an adulteration of an ancient kemetic belief that existed until 2000yrs before the birth of jesus. This belief was based on a god, horus who had twelve disciples, performed miracles, raised one aserus (lazarus) from the grave, died and rose after three days. There are findings to buttress these facts

The name jesus was probably coined in the council of nicae to merge both the jewish yaheshua and the egyptian horus as one. The phrase "the son of man" is more kemetic than jewish. It actually is "the sun of man" relating to horus symbolized with the sun. Why of all places, did jesus seek asylum in egypt?

Again. Who is mary? Who are her people? Why is attention deviated from a woman of such spiritual importance?

Lol!!!! These are the claims of a desperate and desiderate apologist. "Son of man" and "sun of man" have no relationship whatsoever seeing that the Bible wasn't written in English. Based on the Aramaic spoken by Jesus, "Son of man" is "bar d'enash" and your forged "sun of man" is "shemesh d'enasha." In bible language, they have no relationship at all. Please gain knowledge before typing incoherence. You actually thought the bible was written in english, so you claimed "son of man" is actually "sun of man" when actually in bible language, they have no relation.

Horus never did such. Infact, there is never a relationship between the Horus story and Jesus story. Jesus in Hebrew/Aramaic is Yeshua and the name "Jesus" is not a merging of "Yeshua" and "Horus". Jesus is coined from the Hellenized form of Yeshua which is "Iesous" and Horus is actually the Latinicized form of the Egyptian "Heru" and the only biblical name that seems to have relationship with the name "Horus" is the name "Aaron" which in Hebrew is "Aharon" which is derived from the adjective "har" which means "high" or "lofty" both in Egyptian and Hebrew. So, Jesus is out of the Horus-copy claim. You can tag another messiah with Horus.

1b8m:
how dramatic that luke, fully acquainted with jesus' patriarchal geneology would rather give account of his matriarchal geneology in a period when patriarchal geneology was considered very important. now let me ask you, which other geneology was taken from the mother side in the bible? oyeludef you are stupid. you are stupid because all you could do is copy and paste people's opinion on this without giving your good-for-nothing head a try.

This doesn't call for insults. Luke was tracing Mary's genealogy based on the fact that Joseph wasn't responsible for Mary's conception of Jesus. While Matthew considered Joseph the legal father of Jesus.

the geneology recorded there is the same geneology recorded by matthew. heli was the legal father of joseph while jacob was his biological father

lordnicklaus:


Check Luke 3:23-38

1b8m:
the bible i read never said luke traced jesus' ancestors from the mother side. the bible never traced anyone's lineage from the mother side, i dont see why jesus' case would be an exception. you dull the development of this thread with your flimsy and baseless points.

ur dead thread? u should be greatful dat i even commented here on s thread everyone ignores. which bible did u read? what do u even know? u r just one of those bence warmer Christian if at all u go to church. am sure ur pastor even refers to good commentaries writen as far back as 1600 by bible scholars like d ones i shared here but u r too dumb to know. keep basking in ur ignorance.

1b8m:
the geneology recorded there is the same geneology recorded by matthew. heli was the legal father of joseph while jacob was his biological father

who is ur own legal father and who is ur biological father? ur foolishness is really telling on u.
u r very dull

you have been irredeemably brainwashed oyeludef. all you offer is ur pastors opinion and commentaries from men like you. i desist from engaging u henceforth since you are nothing but an avatar representing a thousand confused minds.

oyeludef:

ur dead thread? u should be greatful dat i even commented here on s thread everyone ignores. which bible did u read? what do u even know? u r just one of those bence warmer Christian if at all u go to church. am sure ur pastor even refers to good commentaries writen as far back as 1600 by bible scholars like d ones i shared here but u r too dumb to know. keep basking in ur ignorance.

1b8m:
you have been irredeemably brainwashed oyeludef. all you offer is ur pastors opinion and commentaries from men like you. i desist from engaging u henceforth since you are nothing but an avatar representing a thousand confused minds.

so i should rather listen to a slow individual like u who doesn't even av any reference but speaking from empty head nd full stomach. don't mention me, keep basking in ur slowness

i dont do references, i do field research. in jewish custom, matrigeneology dont exist. if luke took jesus' geneology from the mother side, he would have indicated. stop telling me your pastor said this! your pastor said that!

oyeludef:
so i should rather listen to a slow individual like u who doesn't even av any reference but speaking from empty head nd full stomach. don't mention me, keep basking in ur slowness

1b8m:
i dont do references, i do field research. in jewish custom, matrigeneology dont exist. if luke took jesus' geneology from the mother side, he would have indicated. stop telling me your pastor said this! your pastor said that!

so mary never had a father, uv forgotten she was part of d early church so her genealogy isn't worthy of mention? where did i mention my pastor said dis or dat. which field research did u carry out. sabi sabi. go online and read reasonable arguments on d subject matter by ppl who have first hand knowledge of Jewish culture instead of trading ignorance here

Mary was an Israelite. Her Father, Imran was a Brother of Zacharial, the Prophet, husband of Elizabeth and Father of John, The Baptist. Zacharial and Imran loved God and God loved them. Imran approached God by Prayers and suplications for a Child and God gave him Mary. Imran complained to God about the sex of Mary. And God answered that He knew but deliberately gave him female. That Female was the mothe of Christ.

source please

orunto27:
Mary was an Israelite. Her Father, Imran was a Brother of Zacharial, the Prophet, husband of Elizabeth and Father of John, The Baptist. Zacharial and Imran loved God and God loved them. Imran approached God by Prayers and suplications for a Child and God gave him Mary. Imran complained to God about the sex of Mary. And God answered that He knew but deliberately gave him female. That Female was the mothe of Christ.