Jesus is the son of God

Since we have recently heard the Gospel according to Matthew, I’m not quite clear on something.
Matthew lists all the names of the generations from Abraham to David, to show us the lineage, and it finishes with Joseph.
Joseph wasn’t the biological father of Jesus, God was. Mary was the biological mother of Jesus.
Is Mary’s lineage included? There are so many names, I get lost in it.

There’s a scholarly and pious theory that Luke actually gives Christ’s genealogy through Mary.

See here for a deep explanation:

I recently read Benedict XVI’s book on Jesus’ infancy. He treats the subject of Christ’s lineage in great depth. I suggest you read the book if you haven’t already.

Basically, he says that, since Joseph was Jesus’ ‘earthly father’ Jesus does in fact, in a way, descend from David, although not in a biological sense. He descends from David as he was born in David’s family, although his Divinity clearly entails that he is ‘not of this world’.

Jesus’ lineage, in a way, perfectly symbolizes and demonstrates his nature - he is fully human and fully Divine

Matthew and Luke both give the lineage of Jesus through Joseph.

Matthew changes his “father of” pattern when it comes to identifying Jesus’ parentage. Joseph is not called the “father of Jesus”. Matthew identifies him only as “the husband of Mary”. Mary is the only person named as a biological parent. (…Mary, of whom Jesus was born, …") Matthew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.


I’ve read the theory, but it’s not in keeping with scripture. II Samuel (and I believe Chronicles) claim that the messiah must descend from **BOTH and David and Solomon **and the throne of this lineage would endure forever. Nathan, although one of David’s sons was not a son of Solomon but his brother and was never a King of Israel.

Moreover, lineage never passed through a woman. (See if you can find an exception in scripture).:confused:

And we know now that a woman doesn’t have the Y chromosome for maleness so she could not give what she didn’t have. So Jesus, if solely from her blood line, would have been a woman.:slight_smile:

If Jesus had only the genetic information of his mother, indeed He would be a she. And He would be only haploid. So where did the genes come from that made Jesus a normal human male? They would have to have been donated by a male human. So where was this male with human sperm?

Same place the very first male got his - God.

“… you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith; 5 whereas the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith. 6** Certain persons by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion**, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions.” 1Tim 1:3-7

"5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is sure.

I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men. 9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile." Titus 3:5-9

In the love of Christ,


These passages illustrate the inferred intention of the Church. The actual truth as determined by facts is not as valuable as myths based on the desire to enhance spirituality.
Catholics are impressed more powerfully by beliefs of divine achievements even if these beliefs cannot be supported by facts.


In Nazareth. His name was Joseph. See Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, 1:3 “the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh

Helloooooooo Boniventure!

Ummmmmmmmmmm…God is a man. No kidding. Where on earth did this bit of “scholarship” come from? The camp of the feminazis? :cool:


I agree that God has to be neuter. But try telling that to the guys who wrote scripture.

prayer is a part of spirituality. some subjectiveness is fact not myth, legend, etc… and never is definitive and empirical truth false ever. since you are a fellow christian i assume you have heard of God’s love. if you have you know His love is real and exists as fact even though what is known in substance, life, reality, the quest for truth, reality, science, subtlty, and even simplicity can not truly define or create love out of nothing.

God bless

Hello nmgauss

Where did I say God has to be neuter?

He isn’t. He is the Father. He is the Son. He is the Holy Spirit. God revealed Himself to us humans as a Man. I am a woman. I guess since you are non-denominational I can write off some silliness and confusion, but when I person claims Christianity for him or herself, I kinda expect that the fundamental belief that God is in the person of Jesus Christ, a Man is an accepted fact of their chosen religion and that they’ve pretty much given up any beliefs they may have previously had regarding the vague and nebulous notions about God’s gender. Gender madness. If they don’t believe that much then perhaps they shouldn’t call them selves Christian and find honest shoes to walk in till they can again. Perhaps that seems harsh, but I am a firm subscriber to this little bit of Platonics: “To thine ownself be true.” Why pretend you believe when in fact you don’t?


Eusibius in Church History Book 1 quoted Africanus explaining the discrepancies of Jesus genealogy.

2. For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated—
3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.

4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.
5. But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begot Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.
6. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
7. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begot children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.
8. By Estha then (for this was the woman’s name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begot Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as before said, and begot a son Eli.
9. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begot by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begot Joseph.’ Ma tthe w 1:6 But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.

17. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.*

To sum it up, Matthew showed the genealogy according to Nature and Luke by Law. Mary is in the same tribe since according to the law of Moses intermarriages between tribes were prohibited.

Ahhhhhhh All this quibbling about genealogies.

********Need I remind everyone, unless you are either Mary, the Mother of God or Jesus Himself, then you are all children by adoption. That is a legalistic term with biological implications. :stuck_out_tongue:

So, now you know where you fit in. And that is only by God’s grace.


Where did God reveal a gender of masculinity? I thought that since God incarnate was not human, there is no need to be either masculine or feminine. Also, why can’t God be neuter and Jesus masculine and the Holy Spirit have no human qualities at all?

I am a secular humanist, not Christian. I declare non-denominational in the religion category.
The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, social justice and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[1][2][3]

It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.

God did not reveal God to us as a Man, God revealed God-Incarnate to us as a Man.

God is neither a Male, a Female nor an it even tho God-Incarnate was/is a Male.

Actually, God Is a Being of Love in that Love is not an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit