Genealogy Of Jesus Research Paper

The Gospel of Luke was also written around eighty CE, written somewhere outside of Palestine (Tatum, 1999, p.34). The author may have been Luke the Gentile Christian, writing to another Gentile, Theophilus. Like Matthew, Luke is strongly believed to be written after Mark, with references from him, “Q” and “L” if following the Two (Four)-Document Hypothesis. The authors of Luke and Matthew are believed to be written during the same time without the knowledge of knowing. As mentioned before, Luke is about fifty percent longer than Mark is, making it important source since it contains more information about the historic life of Jesus. There is also a second part to Luke which is the book Acts, but is separate in Bible. Both include the beginnings

“When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18). Lastly, to complete the prophecy of Jesus’s birth, Matthew reaffirms that “. . . Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea . . .” (Matthew 2.1). Matthew inserts these assertions to emphasize the credulity of Jesus’ tie with traditional Judaism.

Matthew and Luke each contain short but elaborate birth narratives concerning Jesus’. Within each of their narratives,both Matthew and Luke mention the genealogies of Jesus which when compared to each other are quite different. In Matthews gospel he traces Jesus’ ancestry back to that “of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matt 1:1). While in Luke’s gospel, Jesus is traced back through David and Abraham to Adam and God. Now, even though both Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are not the same, what is even more concerning is that neither is overly correct. In regards to Matthews take on Jesus’ genealogy, one can see that his “genealogy suggests — indeed, it almost demonstrates— that the entire course of Israel’s history has proceed according to divine providence” (116). However, historians today know about two thirds of

Matthew begins his account by giving Jesus? genealogy. He then tells of Jesus? birth and early years, including the escape

When looking in the Gospel of Matthew 15:21-28 and the Gospel of Mark 7:24-30 one can find that each of these pieces of their respective gospels have both some similarities and differences. There is evidence of overlap between these two which are quite easy to find whilst one is reading the sections of each. There also are points in which these two accounts diverge from one another by either telling a certain part of the other gospel in a different way, removing content from one of the other gospels, or adding something that may not have been referenced or described in the other. Either way these accounts from Matthew and Mark both have connections to each other even if not visible on the surface.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the focus on the Jewish genealogy of Jesus played a significant role in the birth story. To fully understand Jesus, it was imperative to first acknowledge who Jesus was within Jewish ancestry and his subsequent position as King of the Jews.

Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity, the only way of salvation and the second person of the Trinity. (Funk & Wagnalls, 2015) The Gospels Matthew and Luke introduce the birth and childhood of God’s one and only Son, Jesus. His story began when the Angel Gabriel visited His virgin mother, announcing that she would give birth to a son, and that she was to call Him Jesus, for He would be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:30-35) The incarnation of the Messiah, was the Word

Jesus was from the lineage of Abraham. God made a covenant with Abraham to make him the father of many nations. According to Matthew Jesus was the Messiah for all people. When Jesus became angry,

The gospel of Luke and John are gospels about Jesus and John the Baptist. They have several differences and similarities. The Gospel of Luke describes the conception and birth of John the Baptist and Jesus while the gospel of Luke describes their life after birth. Summaries, variances, and connections of these two gospels are discussed below.

Luke presents the human/natural man of Jesus. Luke used a longer description of Jesus birth, and childhood. Luke was written after Mark and in all probability Matthew also. The book of Luke focuses primarily on Jesus' humanity. The deliberation in the church was not over rather Jesus was God (that was acknowledged by

Yancey provides many clear pieces of evidence supporting his idea that the Jesus he grew up with is different than the actual Jesus who lived over two-thousand years ago. He proves how different Jesus’ birth was than how people make it out to be in this day and age. Yancey points out how his birth was amid a time of great religious conflict and scandal, and would have been much different than Christmas cards and stories would have some believe. When Mary was given the news that she would be the mother of Jesus, Joseph did not accept it as truth. Joseph thought Mary had committed adultery, and Yancey even states, “Matthew tells of Joseph magnanimously agreeing to divorce Mary in private rather than press charges, until an angel shows up to correct his perception of betrayal.” (Yancey 31) Only when an angel came to Joseph, did he believe Mary would give birth to Jesus. This part of the birth of Jesus is not one that is told to anyone learning the Christmas story. It is one part of many that are overlooked because they do not fit with the calm, yet miraculous, birth told of in church. Yancey uses arguments such as the one above to convince his reader there is more to Jesus than what most Christians think. His arguments are backed up by facts from the Bible, and because of this, he successfully creates a strong basis for his

Gospels are narratives of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. There are many gospels but only four were included in the Christian cannon: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The canonical gospels have many similarities and differences. There are many different theories as to why these differences exist beginning with the observations of Clement, Augustine, and Papias – three fathers of the church. Clement of Alexandria was said to have held a traditional view that Matthew and Luke, the gospels with genealogies, were written first. Augustine of Hippo believed that the gospels were written in what is now their canonical order and that each writer relied upon the work of the previous author. Thus, John derived from Luke who derived from Mark who derived from Matthew. Papias thought that Mark used Peter as a source for much of his gospel. In the late 18th century, church scholars began to challenge the long held views that the gospels were written before any of the other New Testament writings

In the beginning of Matthew, Matthew talks about how he’s going to portray Jesus. He mentions that first, he’s going underline that he is the new Jewish Messiah, The Messiah was supposed to be the offspring of David and Abraham. Since Abraham was the father of the Jews. Mark also was portraying Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

There are small differences within each book. This raises some questions with what book was written first and where the information came from. One theory is that there is a third party book named Q. Historically we know Mark is the first book written. With the Q theory it is said that Matthew and Luke use information from both Mark and Q to write their own version of the story of Jesus. Which could account for the extra or missing parts between Matthew and Luke. There is also another theory that Matthew was the first book then Mark and Luke were written after. This could fit because Matthew has the most information and the beginning genealogy. Mark and Luke could have simply left out the parts they felt weren’t as important to the

In previous chapters, the real identity of Jesus is unknown- the crowds wonder if he is the Son of David (Matt 12:23), the disciples previously said that he was “the Son of God (Matt 8:29, 14:33) and Jesus himself identifies himself as “the Son of Man” (Matt 10: 23; 2:8; 12:40) and even likening himself to a Prophet (Matt 13:57).