I think I discovered why there are two genealogies of Jesus

The genealogy in Matthew is taken from the line of kings that ruled from King David onward.  The genealogy in Luke could be a direct bloodline or the bloodline of Mary.  Still a mystery.

So you didn't really discover anything then.

Not really.

Faaaaaaascinating.

I no rite?

You might like this one:

Moses = Akhenaten

his middle name was Harold..
and Moses had the first ever motorbike and the stretchiest bum in humankind..

"Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil! "
Golda Meir

lalaalalaa wrote: The genealogy in Matthew is taken from the line of kings that ruled from King David onward.  The genealogy in Luke could be a direct bloodline or the bloodline of Mary.  Still a mystery.
--------------

There's actually no need to reconcile the two. Raymond Brown, an extraordinarily learned biblical scholar and one of the leading authorties on the infancy of Jesus, as well as Jerome O'Connor, another leading authority on the topic and a catholic just like Raymond, have both conducted the most extensive studies on the birth of Jesus and reached the conclusion that the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke are simply impossible to harmonize without coming up with unwarranted hypothesis and unsubstantiated claims. 

The more clever attemps at defending the value of the genealogies, such as those made by Dominic Crossan in "The First Christmas", rely on a symbolic and metaphorical interpretation of these excerpts. 

If you try to look at these genealogies as modern and rigorous family trees established through a plethora of documents and even DNA tests, you'll probably end up thinking that they're not so much a mystery as incoherent and loose attempts at establishing Jesus as the Messiah.

Now, if you try, just like Crossan, to look at them as allegories, then these genealogies may still hold something of value to you as a Christian.

I'm very skeptical about the historicity of the gospels, especially when it comes to Jesus' birth and infancy. But then, I'm surely very biased in this matter. 

My advice, if it's worth a minute's attention, is to give up the burden of trying to harmonize the Gospel accounts and "prove" them and accept the fragile nature of faith. The awareness of this fragility helps us become more tolerant and open-minded towards other people's beliefs and ideas. 

Despite having a different religious background, I noticed I started to learn much more and become way more tolerant and relaxed - and not nearly as afraid of discussions and doubts as I was before. 

Take care!

I'm not trying to prove anything.  I'm just posting for the sake of conversation.  The internet can be dreadful sometimes, ya know.

wise words from yara :) 
glad ur still around here yara, missed u!

"I'm just posting for the sake of conversation"

Then you got exactly what you wanted!  I agree about the internet being dreadful sometimes, but you shouldn't complain when you get what you ask for.

Ok, well let me know when I start complaining then.

"The internet can be dreadful sometimes, ya know"

^  A (snotty-nosed) complaint.

lalaalalaa wrote: I'm not trying to prove anything.  I'm just posting for the sake of conversation.  The internet can be dreadful sometimes, ya know.

===============================================

pffffffffff! tell me about it! conversation just dosent exist on queenzone