9 thoughts on “Why two genealogies of Jesus?

  1. Hi Matt,
    Why do folk overlook the obvious? So many say they are “Bible based” Christians, but they ignore it when it comes to the Nativity.
    The Nativity stories are majorly different in Matthew and Luke.
    The solution is that there were indeed two:
    The Matthew child was born in a cave:


  2. Two children both named Jesus? Well, that’s new, I’ve heard of the Thomas Didymus conspiracy theory but not that one. Personally though, if we’re going for alternate births, I prefer the Life of Brian version. But seriously, what difference would it make to your faith if it were true, if there were two Jesi?


  3. What I have often found strange about the genealogies are that they trace Jesus’s lineage through Joseph, the man who is not Jesus’s father. I mean, the gospel writers (or at least Luke) goes through great pains to make it clear that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Christian theology makes it clear that this point is absolutely essential so that Jesus could be born free of sin.
    And then, when it comes time to establish Jesus’s connection to the line of kings, they do so using the ancestry of the man who they’ve made it perfectly clear had no part in his conception or birth?


  4. Hi Matt,
    Two Jesus Children – one Christ. Christ entered into Jesus at the Baptism – “This day I have begotten thee” as some manuscripts quote.
    A prediction was made in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
    “the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered – portions of a scroll were found that would later come to be known as the Damascus Document which speaks of a central dogma among the Essene community of the prophesy of two Messiahs – one, a Messiah of Aaron; and one, a Messiah of Israel; a priestly Messiah and a kingly Messiah, both coming out of the House of David to rule side by side.”


  5. Jarrod, as the article reports, some see Luke as describing Mary’s line rather than Joseph’s line. To me that seems a bit of a stretch, I am with Osborn on that, but I don’t prtend to know nearly enough about ancient Jewish geneological practices to really know the answer. But as my faith does not rest on knowing the answer to everything, particularly in matters of more secondary significance, I’m happy to leave this puzzle unresolved till more satisfactory explainations come along.


  6. Bruce, you said: “Christ entered into Jesus at the Baptism” But which Jesus?
    If I understand you correctly, you’re differentiating between a kingly Jesus decendend from Solomon and a pristly Jesus decended from Nathan. So which one of the two are you saying is referred to in this verse you quote?
    Also, just to clear things up, are you an Androsophist or disciple of Steiner or do your affinities lie elsewhere?


  7. >But which Jesus?
    They were amalgamated before the presentation in the temple, Matt. One passed away at that time. William Blake in his Songs of Innocence and Experience describes the conditions well. Nathan Jesus was a pure child, Solomon Jesus an experienced/wise child.
    Rudolf Steiner describes it thusly:
    As you know, Mark does not describe the Nativity. As for the Baptism:
    “The writer of Mark uses the Greek preposition eis (into) while Matthew and Luke use epi (upon) to describe how the Spirit comes to Jesus. Robert Fowler (1996) pointing out that the understanding of the later writers is often read back in Mark, observes:
    “…Mark is portraying for us a person being invaded and possessed by a spirit. In Mark, Jesus becomes spirit-possessed.”(p16)
    Fowler also points out that in Mark the Spirit is not specified as Holy, though Matthew and Luke are careful to make that clear.”
    As to the true Nativity of the Christ: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You” you can find further proofs that this verse should be in the Gospels as the words of the Voice from Heaven at the time of the Baptism on my blog:
    Obviously I respect Rudolf Steiner as one of my many teachers, named or unnamed. I am a disciple of Christ, an esoteric Christian if you will.


  8. But the presentation in the temple came before the baptism in the Jorden did it not? How then, if they were “amalgamated before the presentation in the temple” and “one passed away at that time” can the baptism accounts point to two different people? The time sequence would be back the front! Unless you are saying the baptism in the Jorden really came before the presentation in the temple. Have I understood you right? And I must ask (now you have me really curious) how were they “merged”?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s