Jesus from the Line of David? - Page 3

[StacyL]

Originally Posted by doubledutch

- so joseph and mary were very, very, very, very, very distant cousins. both insert joseph between jesus and his grandfather, not sure what's up with that (like why the "mary" one doesn't actually say mary instead of joseph???) but his geneaology is listed through both his parents and they were both descendents of david.

As are all of us as descendents of Adam and Eve!

[1littlebit]

Originally Posted by StacyL

As are all of us as descendents of Adam and Eve!

I'm sitting here trying to figure out if you mean this literally or not .

when i was younger i remember wondering where exactly adam and eve were (geographically speaking) and how in the world eve had enough babies for them to populate the earth. then i wondered how in the world those people got anywhere other then the continent on which they started. I figured that if christianity could accept pangea then it would make sense. I asked my teacher once and she said that as catholics (apparently this answer doesn't necessarily work if your not catholic) we don't necessarily believe adam and eve were the only ones to populate the earth but if we did then yes pangea would be an acceptable way to explain how they spread out.

this line of david thing is interesting. i want to hear more!

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

when i was younger i remember wondering where exactly adam and eve were (geographically speaking) and how in the world eve had enough babies for them to populate the earth. then i wondered how in the world those people got anywhere other then the continent on which they started. I figured that if christianity could accept pangea then it would make sense. I asked my teacher once and she said that as catholics (apparently this answer doesn't necessarily work if your not catholic) we don't necessarily believe adam and eve were the only ones to populate the earth but if we did then yes pangea would be an acceptable way to explain how they spread out.

I'm guessing you would find The Real Eve pretty interesting. Search "real eve" on youtube and it comes up broken up into parts. It's explicitly not a "tracing back to the first humans on earth" thing, but it is a "tracing all living people back to a common source" thing, which gets into the migratory patterns of humanity and so on.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by Liquesce

I'm guessing you would find The Real Eve pretty interesting. Search "real eve" on youtube and it comes up broken up into parts. It's explicitly not a "tracing back to the first humans on earth" thing, but it is a "tracing all living people back to a common source" thing, which gets into the migratory patterns of humanity and so on.

This looks very interesting! I'm a Christian who actually thinks it's likely that Darwin's theory makes a lot of sense, so I'm also leaning towards believing that there wasn't a literal Adam and Eve, and that the forbidden fruit wasn't actually a literal fruit, either.

I've been influenced a lot by reading some of Daniel Quinn's writings -- he's a (secular, I think) anthropologist who points out that the time of The Fall recorded in Genesis, corresponds to the time that archeologists have discovered was when people in one culture began practicing a very aggressive form of agriculture, which quickly spread and created our current situation where we're now so out-of-balance with the laws of nature.

Anyhow, don't want to hi-jack. Maybe I should start another thread about this, huh?

[DahliaRW]

Originally Posted by merpk

But according to all of organized Christianity, Jesus was *not* the biological son of Joseph.

There is no reason to believe that God didn't put Joseph's DNA into Jesus when he caused him to be conceived. It could be that he was (by DNA) Joseph's son, placed there by God. If that makes sense. If you want to go biologically speaking. Not saying it is true, but Jesus still had to have DNA to be human and I have a hard time believing it was all Mary's since the Y chromosome had to have some sort of DNA.

[maria22000]

Originally Posted by Charbeau

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!

Actually, Mary's father Joachim, was the son of Barpather, who traced his ancestry to Nathan, the son of David, while her mother Anna, was the daughter of Matthan the priest, who was of the line of Aaron. Thus, she was of royal birth by her father, and of priestly birth by her mother.

It was not the law among the Jews that the genealogy of women should be traced. David, being from the house of David would not have endured to take a wife from another race.

ETA: StacyL. just saw your post. Sorry for the repeat.

[Nickarolaberry]

Originally Posted by maria22000

Actually, Mary's father Joachim, was the son of Barpather, who traced his ancestry to Nathan, the son of David, while her mother Anna, was the daughter of Matthan the priest, who was of the line of Aaron. Thus, she was of royal birth by her father, and of priestly birth by her mother.

It was not the law among the Jews that the genealogy of women should be traced. David, being from the house of David would not have endured to take a wife from another race.

This is not quite accurate. The question of whether a person is Jewish is ONLY determined matrilineally (through the mother), so the geneology of the mother is crucial.

However, tribal (as in priestly; or royal) ONLY descend patrilineally (through the father) in Judaism -- certainly by the time of Jesus (which is fairly late in the game, Jewishly).

So if the question is whether, according to Jewish law at the time of Jesus, he could have been considered as descended royally through his mother, the answer would have been no.

Moreover, the priestly tribe (Aaron) and the royal tribe (David -- before him Yehuda) are mutually exclusive. You can't be both. For example, Kohanim (priests in the Temple) could not hold royal positions. And similarly, those descended of the royal tribe could not hold positions or serve functions in the Temple (kohanim and levi'im).

In fact, we have had a clear and continuous knowledge of the royal tribe until as late as the 15th century CE or so, and some say even later. The royal designate was known as the "Reish Galuta" (or Exilarch) -- King in Exile. He was always the direct descendant of King David's line. He served very specific functions.

Not sure what you mean by David not 'enduring' to take a wife from another 'race.' It was not uncommon for kings to take wives from other lands -- Shlomo HaMelech (King Solomon) had hundreds. Many of them became Jews; Judaism has never been about 'race' although it is about nationhood as well as religion. However the royal lineage was always preserved through a specific, Jewish, wife.

[choli]

Originally Posted by merpk

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?

And that is a totally nonJewish concept. Antithetical to Jewish thought, actually.[/url]

For Catholics, it was Mary who was conceived without sin. That referred to her being born free of original sin, and had nothing to do with the method of conception (if I remember rightly).

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by choli

For Catholics, it was Mary who was conceived without sin. That referred to her being born free of original sin, and had nothing to do with the method of conception (if I remember rightly).

Both Mary and Jesus were born without sin, according to RCs.

[maria22000]

This is not quite accurate. The question of whether a person is Jewish is ONLY determined matrilineally (through the mother), so the genealogy of the mother is crucial.

Indeed, that question is. Tribal is what I meant, on both counts.

I think this text answers more what I was trying to convey http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200102.htm

[merpk]

Originally Posted by maria22000

Indeed, that question is. Tribal is what I meant, on both counts.

I think this text answers more what I was trying to convey http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200102.htm

Well, yes, the text does. It answers what the Catholic interpretation of the Christian requirements for the Christian Messiah.

[TzippityDoulah]

I think the question then becomes is the fullfilment of the Messiah being through the lineage of David meant to meet the Jewish standards/practice of tracing ancestors? or is it a factual way - as in regardless of the common way of tracing ancestors, God choose to do it this way. both was are "factually correct", and one is "culturally correct" (though I realize even that is up for debate)

is the "way" of ancestry a direct requirement of the fullfillment of the promise of the messiah? Some would say yes, some would say no. I say no. God choose to do somethings His way and somethings the traditional way. the the traditional ways isn't ALWAYS the Godly way. sometimes they are completely in line with one another, some times there are variables.

I can't rest on the idea that God would certainly choose to through the lineage the traditional way. He did a lot of non-traditional things. he isn;t worried about impressing us, or fullfilling our requirements of how we think it should be done.

I realize this isn't *enough* to change a jew to christianity. it's just the one issue we were talking about last. don't misunderstand me. I don't think anyone is going ot say "wow good point. I will be a christian now!" as if i were that simple. lol.

[TzippityDoulah]

Originally Posted by maria22000

Indeed, that question is. Tribal is what I meant, on both counts.

I think this text answers more what I was trying to convey http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200102.htm

p.s. Hey Maria - good to see you around here :

[merpk]

Originally Posted by HennyPenny

I realize this isn't *enough* to change a jew to christianity. it's just the one issue we were talking about last. don't misunderstand me. I don't think anyone is going ot say "wow good point. I will be a christian now!" as if i were that simple. lol.

That was a very eye-opening paragraph, HP.

[TzippityDoulah]

Originally Posted by merpk

That was a very eye-opening paragraph, HP.

Merpk,

I'm not at all sure you how you meant that. Did I come across in some way other than I intended? all I can assume is either you saw my point, or that you were being sarcastic in thinking I was being snide. please do let me know so I can know how to respond.

just in case... I thought i might better explain (I was hurried at the end and didn't get to finish b/c my husband needed the computer for work and I'm now concerned perhaps my intent or point was mistaken). my point is that I realize there is so much more to why Jews do not believe that Christ was/is the messiah, and i respect that (though I clearly disagree or i wouldn't be a Christian). I was just addressing the one point and didn't want to sound as if i was saying "and so that is why you should believe Christ was the messiah". as if I thought you just needed little old me to point out an obvious fact to you or something snide like that. II can't stand it when people assume that is the only reason why Jews don't believe the ways Christians do. I recognize there is a LOT more to it than that. and to be honest I think logically it's not an easy thing to just stamp one's approval on. there are a lot of questions I still have, even though I believe in Christ. But... there are a lot of questions I have about God regardless of the messiah...

hopefully my point came across.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by HennyPenny

is the "way" of ancestry a direct requirement of the fullfillment of the promise of the messiah?

First off, I'm nak.

I see what you're saying, but the fact remains that there are many more things than lineage that make you moshiach. If it was just the lineage thing, that would be one thing. But the lineage is one among MANY things that don't fit.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by HennyPenny

I'm not at all sure you how you meant that. Did I come across in some way other than I intended?

I'm going to try to explain at least what your final paragraph came across sounding like. WITH THE DISCLAIMER that I know this isn't what you meant to say.

When you say

I realize this isn't *enough* to change a jew to christianity.

It's really, really scary for us. People throughout history have tried to change Jews (and others - not discounting their experiences) to Christianity when we're just fine and dandy being Jews.

The mentality of some Christians that all non-Christians just need to be led the right way in order to become Christian and be "saved" has led to lots and lots of bad things for us. There is a much more subtle anti-semitism that is being taught nowadays that says "Love the Jews" and in the next breath says "Save the Jews." These two thoughts cannot coexist (and I know there are lots of people who disagree, but it's true). Loving the Jews means accepting them as Jews, NOT trying to make them Christians or save them. You cannot profess to love something that you're trying to eliminate.

All this being said, I know it's not what you meant to imply. I just think that this might have something to do with why Amy was .

[TzippityDoulah]

ok no I didn't mean to imply it, I meant to make a joke of it!!! yikes no I don't think that in the least! clearly I didn't do a good job of wording it, but it is SO not what I meant - I meant the exact opposite in fact.

you know... this is controversial so I wont get into it. but there are plenty of us Christians out there that don't think down on jews. don't think they all are going to burn or some crap like that. seriously... I've seen that obnoxious vibe time and again, and it's sick. and it's pathetic. and not at all what Christianity is supposed to be about. YES, it's true that by saying we believe in jesus is Messiah, it puts a wedge between people who disagree that he is the messiah(or atleast the "jewish messiah") - that's a given. but, I don't have some idea I'm a jew but rebirthed. I find that so obnoxious. I'm not some kinda "new-jew". like the new and improved version. I'm a Christian.

the word "*enough*" was supposed to be sarcastic in my direction... not as a snide remark, or some kinda undertone of me knowing better than another. I'm not ever presumptuous of such things. thank you for replying because i would HATE to misrepresent myself or my feelings in some arrogant ignorant way. I mean if someone dislikes or disagrees with me so be it, but I would hate for it to be b/c I made a boo-boo of words - not of meaning! trust me... there was undertone of anything. no secret second guessing of anyone... I was only addressing this issue: some people argue that Jesus isn't the "jewish" messiah b/c of birth lineage. my point is to make it clear that obviously isn't the only issues jews disagree with us on, or it'd be simple to clear up. my point is that it is very complex. (granted some people could argue that it isn't and the answer is clear... but whatever. I mean thereis much more to it that how lineage is calculated)

ok have I managed over explained myself enough for one thread?

[smeisnotapirate]

I know - tone comes off really badly on the internet sometimes.

[TzippityDoulah]

thanks for understanding.