Heritage Album - some please explain this question i am a believer but this makes you think?

some please explain this question i am a believer but this makes you think?

the bible tells us the savior would come from the lineage of david.if you look at the family tree it goes down to joseph.joseph wasn't Christ's father so dna would not link the two together but it would joseph and Christ's brother.how is this a viable conclusion?

Public Comments

I'm in favor of anything that makes people think.
There are two lineages for Jesus and both end with Joseph.
Because Mary is of the lineage of David.
Matthew... the lineage goes to Mary.
I'm not sure, but I believe the actual phrase used was "from the house of David." since Mary and Joseph were married, this would still hold true. I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure that's correct.
it was Mary's bloodline.
http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/are-josephs-and-marys-lineage-incorrect In Biblical times there was no word for father-in-law, just as there was no word for grandfather. Joseph can't be the son of both Jacob and Heli. According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Chag. 77,4), Heli was actually Mary's father making him Joseph's father-in-law. The reason the two genealogies are different is that Joseph was descended from Solomon while Mary was a descendant of Solomon's older brother Nathan So Joseph and Mary were actually cousins although many times removed
The conclusion I come to with Joseph's lineage is that he was the secular legal adoptive father of Jesus. Was there something else you were expecting?
Mary was also of the lineage of David. So Jesus had Joseph as his physical tie to the throne of David, yet Mary was his fleshly tie. I believe this is how it is.
The bible has many flaws....
Mary is descended from the line of David. There are two geneologies of Christ, one that is for Mary, and the other that is for Joseph.
Yes that question made me think. Where, oh WHERE did your education go wrong that you don't use grammar?
Mary was from the line of David too.
interestingly, the royal bloodline was soon lifted due to some of the immorality of the past israelite kings. this bloodline would not be in christ except in principle that He is royal. also, it was prophesyed that he would be born of a virgin, which happened. Jesus was taken as Joseph's earthly son and not biological son.
actually, they said mary would have a child and his name would be Jesus Christ (according to the bible) and if you know your bible and history, his name was not Jesus Christ at first. his name was Joseph pasjdflsdfjaldfhaskl something. He gave himself that name later and christ means like "the great one," or "mosiah" for short and that was given to him leter.
You are a Jew if your mother is a Jew or you convert. You can look that up if you like. It gives you a genealogical perspective of Judaism. PS: In Matthew the words used are "begat" which means "fathered", essentially. In Luke 3 the words used are "the son of", which can also mean accepted as a son as in Son-in-law. Even back then people used "politically" correct descriptions which can cause real problems in translation especially if you do not understand the culture or the context of the words.
In Jewish custom of the day begetting a child as your own made them of your lineage. Also, Mary may have been of the lineage of David, actually very probable because many Jews of the day could probably trace their lineage to David in some way.
Mary is also from the line of David, I'll have to find where in the bible I read that.
Mathew Chapter 1 gives Jesus' LEGAL genealogy, Matthew Chapter 3 giver his GENETIC descent. However, there are issues here, some say Matthew's genealogy is actually Mary's. Boths ancestors lists are probably attempts to prove that Jesus' was the Messiah, and are not to be taken literally. That's the explanation of the Catholic Church and major Protestant Churches.
The idea of blood-lineage is a product of Medieval Europe. We imagine the stories of a long-long heir to the throne who suddenly proves that he a blood-descendent of royalty. But that was completely foreign to ancient Judaism. To them, all that mattered was legal lineage. An adopted son was far more legitimate in their minds than, for example, a biological child who did not have legal claim to his father's inheritence. If Jesus was adopted by Joseph, then he was Joseph's descendent as far as the Jews were concerned. The Jews even used the Greek word "sperma" ("seed" or "sperm") to refer to adopted children! And it is likely that Joseph adopted Jesus - the citizens of Nazareth called him "the carpenter's son." They wouldn't have done that if Joseph hadn't adopted Jesus. Also, the ancient Church unanymously maintained that Mary was descended from David (via Nathan). St. Joachim, Mary's father, was the Heli mentioned by Luke (Eliachim and Joachim meant the same thing, as El and Jah were interchangeable). The only reason people sometimes think that Mary was a Levite was that she is described as Elizabeth's "cousin." But the Greek does not imply a familial relationship - "cousin" (or "kinsman") could just as easily refer to a close friend, or (more likely) a surrogate parent. The most popular theory in the ancient Church (and the one supposedly endorsed by the cousins of Jesus) was that Joseph and Mary were half-siblings, and that she was permanently betrothed to Joseph (an elderly widower) under the assumption that she would be ready to marry about the time that he died.
Joseph however was not the one in the line of David, Mary was actually the one that can be traced back to the line of David
Your question addresses why there are two lineages supplied in the NT, Joseph's and Mary's. God made sure that Jesus' parents (stepfather and mother) both were in the direct descendant line of King David. Because of this and because of God's choice, Christ Jesus is the one to inherit king David's throne -- see Isaiah 9:6,7.