• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Real Jesus (Son of David According to the Flesh)

So your argument is based on a maybe? Luke and Matthew make it very clear that Jesus was considered to be the literal son of God. She was called a virgin, it was clear that Josephus did not know her until after the pregnancy. And we are told that the Mary was pregnant through the Holy Spirit. That what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. Now, the Holy Spirit meaning the Spirit of God. Really, you have no ground to stand on here.

This actually argues against the point you're making. First, it specifically states that Jesus is a descendant of David. This disproves your idea as to why the Jews reject him. Second, the verse states that Jesus was born in the normal fashion, as in, Joseph and Mary had sex, and then conceived. It argues against the virgin birth.

my arguments are based on scripture, that is why I'm posting verses from the scripture.
Christ indeed is Son of God, but Jesus's flesh was made of the seed of david according to the flesh, as is written. Mary indeed was a virgin and she did not have sex with joseph before she conceived, as was written.
Can God not make Mary be impregnated with Joseph's seed even without sex? If God was able to make Sarah who was already old and menopaused conceive Abraham's seed and Elisabeth who was barren conceive Zachariah's seed, how can he not do the same to Joseph and Mary especially if that is how the prophecies about the messiah would be fulfilled?
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Whether there is evidence for it or not, it is recorded as prophecy and is what eventually led Mary and Joseph to leave the land they were living in for Bethlehem or w/e it was they went. Massacre of the Innocents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Herod the Great (73 BC – 4 BC) was an Idumean (or Edomite) whom the Romans established as the king of Idumea, Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Matthew's account is consistent with the character of Herod, who was ruthless in defense of his power and notorious for his brutality."
Here's the problem. Luke disagrees with that. Thus, we have two accounts that do not sync up. If you want to believe Matthew is correct, you have to admit that Luke is wrong. Either way, the Bible can not be correct on this account as it disagrees with itself. And if we come to the conclusion that the Bible has errors in it, then whether or not Matthew says something means little unless you can back it up. You can't, as there is no evidence to support the idea.

The fact is this, King Herod did not have such a massacre. There is no evidence. There is no record outside of Matthew. Luke disagrees with the account. None of the other New Testament writers had a clue about it. No one, outside of Matthew, ever had a clue that such a massacre happened. There is no reason to believe that it happened then.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
You can continue quoting that verse, but it means very little. As I've already shown, and as Oberon has also shown, Isaiah does not say anything about a virgin. And using Matthew and Luke will not prove other wise.
 
You can continue quoting that verse, but it means very little. As I've already shown, and as Oberon has also shown, Isaiah does not say anything about a virgin. And using Matthew and Luke will not prove other wise.
and why not when they already have?


Original Word: עַלְמָה
Transliteration: almah

according to strong's hebrew Dictionary almah means a young woman, a virgin
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
my arguments are based on scripture, that is why I'm posting verses from the scripture.
Christ indeed is Son of God, but Jesus's flesh was made of the seed of david according to the flesh, as is written. Mary indeed was a virgin and she did not have sex with joseph before she conceived, as was written.
Can God not make Mary be impregnated with Joseph's seed even without sex? If God was able to make Sarah who was already old and menopaused conceive Abraham's seed and Elisabeth who was barren conceive Zachariah's seed, how can he not do the same to Joseph and Mary especially if that is how the prophecies about the messiah would be fulfilled?
You are picking and choosing what scripture fits your needs. The fact is this; scripture disagrees with itself. You can't get around it.

Matthew 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matthew 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Matthew:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Scripture states that Jesus was the biological son of God. That Joseph had nothing to do with it. That in fact, Joseph did not even have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. You can quote whatever you want; however, the Gospels make the idea very clear. Paul may state something else, but that just shows that the scripture contradicts itself.

More so, the prophesy had nothing to do with Jesus. The fact is that Jesus failed as the Messiah. And again, as has been shown over and over again, Isaiah 7:14 does not state virgin and it has nothing to do with Jesus. A faulty understanding of scripture simply will not fly here.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
and why not when they already have?
They haven't. All that they show is that they have problems. Matthew, quoting Isaiah 7:14 incorrectly shows that there is a problem. Matthew and Luke disagreeing with each other shows that there is a problem. And not once have they proved your idea. Isaiah 7:14 still refers to a young woman no matter how many times you want to quote Matthew and Luke. Maybe it is time you simply accept that the scripture is not 100% accurate. Or, simply, don't debate it.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
and why not when they already have?


Original Word: עַלְמָה
Transliteration: almah

according to strong's hebrew Dictionary almah means a young woman, a virgin
And here is the problem. I've posted information showing why it wasn't referring to a virgin. Oberon, who is far more knowledge on this subject than I, and actually know the original languages, has explained to you the problem with what you're doing. Yet, you want to continue with blinders on. That's fine, but you won't win any debates, and for the most part, will simply be brushed off.
 
You are picking and choosing what scripture fits your needs. The fact is this; scripture disagrees with itself. You can't get around it.

Scripture states that Jesus was the biological son of God. That Joseph had nothing to do with it. That in fact, Joseph did not even have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. You can quote whatever you want; however, the Gospels make the idea very clear. Paul may state something else, but that just shows that the scripture contradicts itself.

God's words cannot disagree with itself.

There is none written that Jesus was biological son of God. God is a spirit, how can he have a bological son?
John 4:24 God is a spirit.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
 
Last edited:
And here is the problem. I've posted information showing why it wasn't referring to a virgin. Oberon, who is far more knowledge on this subject than I, and actually know the original languages, has explained to you the problem with what you're doing. Yet, you want to continue with blinders on. That's fine, but you won't win any debates, and for the most part, will simply be brushed off.

Oberon said it could imply virginity, similarly to the way preteen in today's world could imply virginity.

Therefore it could imply being a woman in her teens (young woman). It doesn't necessarily mean "not "intact" anymore, right?
 
Last edited:

Oberon

Well-Known Member
it could mean "through the holy spirit'

This would be dia pneumatos agiou


or "by the power of". right?
which would be dative and not use ek. From the BDAG "in expressions which have to do with begetting and birth from, of, by: ek introduces the role of the male." In other words, the line literally takes the holy spirit to be the father of Jesus.

Here is the issue that you have as I see it. You take as a starting premise that, as the bible is the word of god, it can't disagree. Ok, that's something I'm certainly not going to try to argue with. What is less clear is why you go in the direction you do. In one place, for example, (e.g. romans), the NT clearly seems to state that Jesus was begotten from a human father. In other places (e.g. Matt 1:18), it states just as clearly that Jesus had no biological father and was descended from the holy spirit.

Now, if neither one of these statements which appear to disagree can actually be disagreeing, one of them must be interpreted differently (i.e. metaphorically or something).

Again, fine. But why go with interpreting from the seed of David as meaning what it most likely does (descended from a human father), something which implies that 1) Jesus wasn't born of a virgin mother and 2) he wasn't born of the holy spirit, instead of interpreting this line as somehow just referring to Jesus' foster father, and reading "begotten of the holy spirit" as the more literal line? In other words, why choose one line as not meaning what it says over the other?


and it could also imply virginity as being "still intact" right?

Sure, a young woman, in hebraic culture/language, could imply this. Which is why context is important. It is hard to imagine that a word which only implies virgin given its cultural context still implies it when you have "a young woman will bear a son."
 
They haven't. All that they show is that they have problems. Matthew, quoting Isaiah 7:14 incorrectly shows that there is a problem. Matthew and Luke disagreeing with each other shows that there is a problem. And not once have they proved your idea. Isaiah 7:14 still refers to a young woman no matter how many times you want to quote Matthew and Luke. Maybe it is time you simply accept that the scripture is not 100% accurate. Or, simply, don't debate it.

Was it written in the scripture that Luke and Matthew had problems and that they were disagreeing? no. I guess it depends on who's reading.

Can you show me in the scripture where "you think" Matthew and Luke disagreed regarding Jesus?
 
This would be dia pneumatos agiou

You said:

The line "from/of the holy spirit" is placed in the genitive with the preposition ek. The sense of the genitive phrase here can't really be interpeted as anyway other than originating from.

The originator/cause/the which begat/etc.

which would be dative and not use ek. From the BDAG "in expressions which have to do with begetting and birth from, of, by: ek introduces the role of the male." In other words, the line literally takes the holy spirit to be the father of Jesus.

from, of, by: ek
the line simply takes the holy spirit as the "cause of existence" of the fetus, it was from, it was of. it was by, the holy ghost...it does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit sired Mary.




(e.g. Matt 1:18), it states just as clearly that Jesus had no biological father and was descended from the holy spirit.


Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The verse only says that Mary got pregnant before she even had sex with Joseph, the child was from, of, by the Holy Ghost, it did not say Jesus had no biological father and it did not say that the Holy ghost was Jesus' biological father.


It was written that Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3) , prophecy says that the messiah would descend from David, from the tribe of Judah (micah 5:2).

Therefore, indeed Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, through Joseph, the prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus that the messiah would descend from David, from the tribe of Judah because Joseph is son of David according to scripture.

Joseph was not supposed to and did not have to have to have sex with Mary (this was done so that the prophecy would be fulfilled in Jesus, that he should be born of a virgin). God, through the Holy Spirit prepared the body (heb 10:5) of Jesus (the holy seed), from Joseph and then implanted it to Mary's womb. Both prophecies were then fulfilled in Jesus regarding the Messiah, that he would be from the fruit of the body of David (through Joseph), to be born of a virgin (through Mary).

Like I said,

God can make Mary be impregnated with Joseph's seed even without sex. And yes, it had to be from Joseph's for the prophecy to be fulfilled, and it was.
If God was able to make Sarah who was already old and menopaused conceive Abraham's seed and Elisabeth who was barren conceive Zachariah's seed, how can he not do the same to Joseph and Mary especially if that is how the prophecies about the messiah would be fulfilled?

Ps 94:10... he that teaches man knowledge, shall not he know?
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

****************************************

In Luke 24:44 Jesus said, many things concerning him are in the writings of Moses, the prophets and in psalms of David , this particularly caught my interest, i believe it affirms my thoughts:

Genesis 22-24 Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:
The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:
But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel: )
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
God's words cannot disagree with itself.

There is none written that Jesus was biological son of God. God is a spirit, how can he have a bological son?
John 4:24 God is a spirit.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Then the Bible can't be God's word as it disagree's with itself. For instance, what day did Jesus die? The synoptics state that it was on Passover. John states it was on the day of Preparation, the day before Passover. That means they disagree with each other.

As for your quoting scripture, taking items out of context doesn't work. John 3:6 is saying something different from what you are stating. And it doesn't say that Jesus wasn't born of the Spirit. Also, trying to define God by saying that he is a spirit simply doesn't fly very well. Especially since you didn't define what a spirit is. More so, the Gospel of John can be used to make the argument that Jesus is God, and thus "a spirit." So really, your argument doesn't hold up to even a little bit of scrutiny.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Oberon said it could imply virginity, similarly to the way preteen in today's world could imply virginity.

Therefore it could imply being a woman in her teens (young woman). It doesn't necessarily mean "not "intact" anymore, right?
It doesn't mean virgin. Whether or not it implies virgin is pointless and does not fuel your argument. It just shows that you are stretching to make your point. Especially when there was a word in Hebrew that would have meant virgin.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Was it written in the scripture that Luke and Matthew had problems and that they were disagreeing? no. I guess it depends on who's reading.

Can you show me in the scripture where "you think" Matthew and Luke disagreed regarding Jesus?
Where were Jesus's parents from? Matthew implies that it was in Bethlehem, and it was only later they decided to relocate in Nazareth. Luke has them being from Nazareth and then going to Bethlehem for a census (I'm not even addressing the problem of that). There is a disagreement. Or even better, all one has to do is look at the genealogies in the two Gospels.

More so, Matthew has the episode of King Herod, Luke knows nothing of the situation. The two nativity stories do not mesh up.

And it doesn't depend on who's reading it.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
God can make Mary be impregnated with Joseph's seed even without sex. And yes, it had to be from Joseph's for the prophecy to be fulfilled, and it was.
If God was able to make Sarah who was already old and menopaused conceive Abraham's seed and Elisabeth who was barren conceive Zachariah's seed, how can he not do the same to Joseph and Mary especially if that is how the prophecies about the messiah would be fulfilled?
First, apples and oranges. Sarah had sex. It is as simple as that.

As for Joseph not having sex with Mary, yet still impregnating her, there is nothing in the scripture that states that. Instead, the scripture states that the child was conceived through the Holy Spirit. I have already shown the scripture that states that. But here is another:

Luke 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

I don't really see how you can twist the scripture so much as to fit what you want.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
from, of, by: ek
the line simply takes the holy spirit as the "cause of existence" of the fetus, it was from, it was of. it was by, the holy ghost...it does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit sired Mary.

You can't just look up the preposition (particularly without using a lexicon) an get the meaning of the phrase. ek governs the genitive, and in this construction prep + genitive has a particular meaning. Part of this meaning has to do with the other lexemes in the construction. It means, as the BDAG notes (which, by the way, it pretty much the lexicon of new testament greek) that the holy spirit played the role of father.







The verse only says that Mary got pregnant before she even had sex with Joseph, the child was from, of, by the Holy Ghost, it did not say Jesus had no biological father and it did not say that the Holy ghost was Jesus' biological father.

The greek does. ek + genitive here (in a construction having to do with birth/pregnancy) signifies the holy spirit as Jesus' "father." We can see this through other uses with this type of construction.

It was written that Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3)
Again, the verb doesn't mean made. And Matthew and Luke both state that the line of david had no direct role in Jesus' parentage.

Therefore, indeed Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
Again, there is no verb meaning "made" there.
 
Then the Bible can't be God's word as it disagree's with itself. For instance, what day did Jesus die? The synoptics state that it was on Passover. John states it was on the day of Preparation, the day before Passover. That means they disagree with each other.

As for your quoting scripture, taking items out of context doesn't work. John 3:6 is saying something different from what you are stating. And it doesn't say that Jesus wasn't born of the Spirit. Also, trying to define God by saying that he is a spirit simply doesn't fly very well. Especially since you didn't define what a spirit is. More so, the Gospel of John can be used to make the argument that Jesus is God, and thus "a spirit." So really, your argument doesn't hold up to even a little bit of scrutiny.



Mark 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

John 19:42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulcher was near at hand.

I don't see any contradiction between the synoptics' and John's.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Mark 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

John 19:42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulcher was near at hand.

I don't see any contradiction between the synoptics' and John's.
Because you didn't finish Mark. If you aren't going to try to even read the scripture, there is on reason to continue. Taking it out of context doesn't work. Especially when Mark 15:42 is after the fact, and talking about the day before the Sabbath, not Passover.
 
Top