or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Jesus from the Line of David?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jesus from the Line of David? - Page 2

post #21 of 188
Quote:
And in re the absurdity of nonJews telling the Jews that they're wrong about the Jewish rules/traditions as to the Jewish Messiah, well, BTDT.
As usual, I think the argument boils down to presuppositions and authority. Either party saying 'these are our texts, so we know the best way to interpret them' is begging the question. A reasonable debate about the issue surely has to discuss things like the authority of Jewish commentaries and rabbinical teaching. It is ridiculous for a Christian to say 'Your specifically Jewish, extrabiblical traditions and interpretations have to allow for Jesus to be the Messiah'; it is not ridiculous for a Christian to challenge the validity of those traditions and interpretations.
post #22 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post


What I mean is that the trouble with arguing with Christians about anything is that they come from a place of assuming that they're right, and then work backwards to prove those assumptions using whatever means are efficacious at the time.
Not all of us on here are Christians. Personally, I studied Old Testament and New Testament (at times in original language) as documents written by many people with their own unique agendas relevant to historical time and space. I am not trying to argue that Jesus was the messiah, and I didn't take that most of the responders were trying to say that. I think the people here are trying to understand the connection of Jesus to the Jewish idea of the messiah, and also understand concepts like the virgin birth.

also to this point,

Quote:

I believe that's a mistake. Why do the writers of the gospels make a point of connecting it? Because the early Christians were Jews, and they felt obligated to try to fulfill Jewish requirements as far as the messiah.

RIGHT. But they wouldn't make the point if it was wrong, i.e., they wouldn't make the point if Jews didn't accept his lineage to David in the manner described.

Also, regarding the virgin birth, it was a pretty common theme in Ancient Greek religion, and in the region, hero cults were common. Perseus was son of Danae and Zeus came to her in the form of a golden shower, impregnating her. There are many more, but that one is closer to the Jesus birth than some of the others.

My point is just that the gospel writers were trying to convince different audiences to follow Jesus. It is why Paul's letters end up becoming such an important part of the canon, because he really discusses the way the new Christians should handle their incredibly divergent ways of expressing religion, e.g., to circumcise or not, follow Kosher laws, etc., many of those are because non-Jews ended up being the majority of the converted Christians. The New Testament was written in Attica Greek (beyond some Aramaic) for just this reason.
post #23 of 188
Thread Starter 
I wonder how accurate paternal genealogies can be. Following a maternal line would be much easier to trace and verifiable.
post #24 of 188
from a jewish perspective, if jesus wasn't literally the son of god, why is it then assumed he was not the son of joseph?
post #25 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
And the whole thing about a "virgin birth" was that Jesus was conceived "without sin," right?
To me, the important thing about the virgin birth is that Jesus is God -- the "Son" part of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus' humanity means He can identify with us and our struggles -- His deity means He has power over sin, and this power enabled Him to live a sinless life, so He could be the perfect Sacrifice for the sins of all the world, and could defeat sin and death through giving up His life on the cross.
post #26 of 188
Oh, and since God created the line of David, as well as that of every other family, I don't see how Jesus could be considered "outside" the line of David.
post #27 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledutch View Post
from a jewish perspective, if jesus wasn't literally the son of god, why is it then assumed he was not the son of joseph?


Jews don't do "son of god" either.

Jews have no problem with him being the son of Joseph. Why would you think they would?

It's the Christians who say he wasn't really the biological son of Joseph. Jews don't have a horse in that race.
post #28 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Oh, and since God created the line of David, as well as that of every other family, I don't see how Jesus could be considered "outside" the line of David.


???

Only from the Jewish perspective of requirements of Mashiakh-hood does it even matter. And from the Jewish perspective, he is not/was not it. So ... However Christians want to view his "lines," feel free. Those views have no relation to Jewish rules about bloodlines, geneologies (sp?), etc.
post #29 of 188
:
post #30 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
No. Judaism doesn't do "virgin births."

There's nothing particularly 'holy' or 'superior' about the idea of a person being conceived without a man and woman performing the sexual act, Jewishly speaking.

And the whole thing about a "virgin birth" was that Jesus was conceived "without sin," right?
Thank you for answering.

As for without sin ... I don't believe in original sin, and I certainly don't believe in literal children of god, but I do believe in the virgin birth. There are a lot of takes out there on that one, I suppose, not all having to do with particular aspects of christian thought. Hence wondering.
post #31 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
Jews don't do "son of god" either.

Jews have no problem with him being the son of Joseph. Why would you think they would?

It's the Christians who say he wasn't really the biological son of Joseph. Jews don't have a horse in that race.
i didn't think jews had a *problem* with jesus being joseph's son, but it's implied in the line of thinking in the op: that jesus could not be the messiah was because he wasn't a direct descendent of david. (among other reasons!)
post #32 of 188
But according to all of organized Christianity, Jesus was *not* the biological son of Joseph.

And if he was Joseph's son? There were a whole lot of descendents of Yehuda/Judah (and come to think of it, I'm one ... along with the majority of the Jewish folks you might know). There's a whole lot more required of someone before they get the mantle of Mashiakh/Messiah. And Jesus doesn't fit the bill. And come to think of it, neither do I.

So that, as they say, is that. Jewishly speaking.
post #33 of 188
i do understand that there are many reasons jews do not accept jesus as the messiah. i just think it's silly to say, "jesus couldn't be the messiah because, as the literal son of god, he wasn't a descendent of joseph," when you do not believe he was the son of god.
post #34 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledutch View Post
i do understand that there are many reasons jews do not accept jesus as the messiah. i just think it's silly to say, "jesus couldn't be the messiah because, as the literal son of god, he wasn't a descendent of joseph," when you do not believe he was the son of god.

I think what Jews are trying to say is that Christians can't have it both ways. If Christians are saying he's the son of God and he's not the son of Joseph, then he cannot be the Messiah. Jews aren't saying he is God and therefore cannot be the Messiah; they're just arguing against the Christian argument for Jesus as God and Messiah. In Judaism, Messiah does not equal God.

I'm not Jewish btw, so any Jewish person, please feel free to correct me!
post #35 of 188
Clearly from the OP she is asking Christians from a Christian perspective. So I don't think Jews opinions on Jesus are relevant.
post #36 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Clearly from the OP she is asking Christians from a Christian perspective. So I don't think Jews opinions on Jesus are relevant.
True, LOL!
post #37 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by umsami View Post


This is one of the things that made me go "hmmm" back when I was a Christian.

The Wiki article pretty much goes through all of the arguments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

I do want to point out that both genealogies are about Joseph, not Mary.

Luke 3:23.... "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, ...."

Matthew 1:16... "and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. "

There are many other aspects where Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies.... it's not just a lineage thing.

http://www.carm.org/questions/2geneologies.htm
post #38 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Clearly from the OP she is asking Christians from a Christian perspective. So I don't think Jews opinions on Jesus are relevant.


Point taken.






And since this is the Religious Studies board, the section of Spirituality where discussion and dissection and disambiguation is encouraged (as opposed to Spirituality, where the 'support groups' meet&greet), everyone's free to scroll right on by any posts they don't think are relevant to the discussion at hand and its various tangents.

post #39 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
And since this is the Religious Studies board, the section of Spirituality where discussion and dissection and disambiguation is encouraged (as opposed to Spirituality, where the 'support groups' meet&greet), everyone's free to scroll right on by any posts they don't think are relevant to the discussion at hand and its various tangents.

I've often said similar things on other threads! I love debate, and wish so many didn't find it so offensive.
post #40 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbeau View Post
Christianity accepts that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophesies, one of which is that Jesus is of the line of David. How can this be if Christians believe He was conceived by God in Mary's womb? Joseph was David's descendent, not Mary's (I think?) and wouldn't that sort of line be carried down paternally? Or maybe not?

Just curious!

Jesus was of the line of the House of David because St. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was chief, and the Blessed Virgin Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief.

Here's the lineage of Jesus all the way back to God Himself from the Gospel of St. Luke:

Quote:
23 And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, 24 Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph, 25 Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge,


26 Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda, 27 Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri, 28 Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her, 29 Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi, 30 Who was of Simeon, who was of Judas, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim,

31 Who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David, 32 Who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson, 33 Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas, 34 Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor, 35 Who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale,

36 Who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech, 37 Who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan, 38 Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God." Luke 3:23-38/DRV
The term son among Hebrews was used in the case of a house finished by a woman to designate the son-in-law, as women were not entered into the geneaology.

This commentary (Haydock) was from my Latin Vulgate Bible.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Jesus from the Line of David?