How can Jesus inherit the throne of David?

[Mike.Hester]

For reference:

(Contradiction: Which geneaology of Jesus is correct?)

Neither are credible without reference to the maternal linkage, totally neglect by both genealogies. Moreover considering that both books where written more than 200 years after the fact(according to the Catholic Encyclopedia the book of Luke was written 200 after the event, the book makes clear reference to Theophilus a famous bishop in Antioch from 169 to 177 ce). How could any author without documentary evidence make such a genealogy?

 

[Harel13]

maternal

Hardly any Biblical genealogies list women. I'm not Christian, so I don't feel the need to defend the NT's genealogies, but the reasoning behind the lack of women makes sense in light of how ancient Jews typically traced their ancestry.

 

[Brian2]

Neither are credible without reference to the maternal linkage, totally neglect by both genealogies. Moreover considering that both books where written more than 200 years after the fact(according to the Catholic Encyclopedia the book of Luke was written 200 after the event, the book makes clear reference to Theophilus a famous bishop in Antioch from 169 to 177 ce). How could any author without documentary evidence make such a genealogy?

If the Catholic Encyclopedia says that it must be a typo. The Catholic church sees Luke as a companion of Paul in his journeys and knows that the Gospel of Luke was quoted and commented on a long time before the 3rd century.

 

[Brian2]

Why would anybody make the genealogy of a woman? Both the Jews of the time and the Romans were strictly patriarchal and patrilineal. The genealogy of a woman is completely pointless.

Someone might do it to show that Jesus was actually a descendant of David.

 

[Mike.Hester]

If the Catholic Encyclopedia says that it must be a typo. The Catholic church sees Luke as a companion of Paul in his journeys and knows that the Gospel of Luke was quoted and commented on a long time before the 3rd century.

Paul never existed, another part of a simple solar myth. Luke was an arbitrary name given to a highly edited chapter of the second worst book written in Human history! Check the aforementioned Youtube Video above.

 

[Brian2]

Paul never existed, another part of a simple solar myth. Luke was an arbitrary name given to a highly edited chapter of the second worst book written in Human history! Check the aforementioned Youtube Video above.

Nothing about these things in the video.
It is interesting to me that the video speaks of the known changes to the Bible. The number of copies and fragments of scripture that we have from various places and times actually allows scholars to find and trace these alterations/mistakes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that together with the quotes from the gospels in early Christian writings allowed some scholars last century to say that finally they knew what the original text of the New Testament was.
Newer translations have incorporated scholarship like this.
The Old Testament is known to have been pretty accurate because of the find of the Dead Sea Scrolls last century, which seemed to match the current OT quite well. The scrolls come from a couple of centuries before Jesus.
I cannot help with other things you have said.

 

[epronovost]

Someone might do it to show that Jesus was actually a descendant of David.

That's not how descendance is established in patrilinear societies though so it wouldn't serve that purpose. It's more likely both accounts are competing genealogies. It's not like when either was written there were extansive records of birth that tracked back to thousands of years, especially not for a person of modest means like a carpenter. Divine and heroic claims from pseudo-genealogy were a common trope in Antiquity. The Roman emperors were descendant of Mars, Alexander the Great from Apollo and Zeus, Hammurabi from Marduk, the Pharaoh from Osiris or Amon-Ra, etc. Many made themselves descendants of mythical heroes like Achilles or Aeneas.

 

[epronovost]

Paul never existed, another part of a simple solar myth.

Saul of Tarsus is overwhelmingly considered by historians and specialists of the era as a historical figures who indeed is contemporary with Christ.

 

[Mike.Hester]

Paul? He never existed.Justin Martyr who wrote voluminously about the early Christians never mentions Paul or his Epistle.Acts is a total fiction which no one knew anything about until at least 250 years later. Tertullian stated "The Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Barnabas. Origen stated "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows". The evidence is over whelming that he is just another fictional character. If you understood a solar myth, which the bible is, the role of Paul makes perfect sense.

 

[epronovost]

Paul? He never existed.Justin Martyr who wrote voluminously about the early Christians never mentions Paul or his Epistle.Acts is a total fiction which no one knew anything about until at least 250 years later. Tertullian stated "The Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Barnabas. Origen stated "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows". The evidence is over whelming that he is just another fictional character. If you understood a solar myth, which the bible is, the role of Paul makes perfect sense.

Then publish your book and blow the entire profession away my good sir if you think you can so convincingly demonstrate the overwhelmin majority of historians of early christianity wrong. You might win a Pulitzer prize or a Wolfson History Prize for it.

I'll have to note though that Justin Martyr's work is largely destroyed and the context of his surviving work doesn't need to mention the work of Paul in any way. In fact, that he would would have been rather strange. Note that Paul of Tarsus was mentionned by at least three other sources that are older or contemporary to Justin Martyr. You will also have to convincingly demonstrate that his tomb which was found about 20 years ago isn't his.

 

[Link]

I believe the trial of Mary (a) was to make a distinction and force of will, to accepting miracles and yet let go of presumptions of Judaism they build over the years, and also to prepare the way for Fatima (a) and the link of her offspring to Mohammad (s).

And all this was for to have a unity of Ali's (a) offspring and Mohammad (s) offspring through Fatima (a). And this was also to do away with the notion that Sarah (a) is not the mother of Ismail (a) which we didn't leave despite Quran giving alternative reasons and not mentioning Hajar at all who would be significant person to mention.

And why are the successors mainly from one offspring all the time. It's as Zakariya (a) prayed, he knew Jesus (a) succeeding him would cause problems with regards to the heirs he has, who would say, they have more right to succession.

So his prayer, was oh God, make the inherit first my son, who inherits me and also inherits spiritually the family of Jacob, and other words paraphrase, he saying for God to give him pure offspring because Jesus (a) would have too rough coming from Mariam (a).

And this shows God sets up succession to due away with as much as possible false claims, while, if not in offspring mainly one after the other, like Solaimon (a) inheriting Dawood (a) emphasis type succession, it results in allowing all humans almost, to claim it. Well in children of Israel, not all humans, but it would allow anyone from children of Israel to claim it.

And so Aaron and the righteous of his offspring, which the covenant was established clearly in the Torah, despite all the none-sense after to de-establish it, was hard to accept. Why, the only reason, was that it was Aaron's (a) offspring, and not Moses' (a) offspring, and so because of this, distortion took place.

And this is a disease that took with Aaron (a) early even before his succession, just 40 days in taking place of Moses (a) people disobeyed and even due to some weak magic on a golden statue believed that was God despite Aaron's (a) clear words that it was just a trial, yes, God can stop it, true, but he doesn't have to, you should know better who your Lord is.

And this separating between Messengers (a) seeing the 1st as better then the 2nd or whatever division we make, is in our heads, from the dark magic.

The whole story of death of Aaron (a) and his sister Mariam (a) - the first Mariam (a) who 2nd Mariam (a) was named after to clear her honor as well, was a way to start this disease of belittling Aaron (a) and his family (a) while Quran shows by singular "taraka" is that it's one family, the family of Moses (a) and Aaron (a).

And so Lot (a) was a way to prepare people for it, because he was like Aaron (a) in a way to Moses (a) but to Abraham (a), but God out of his wisdom, put offspring in Abraham (a). And so we why now it was distorted to show Lot (a) having sex drunk with his daughters.

This distortion that some Messengers (a) are morally so high while others, like Aaron (a) get's tricked by his sister (a) to oppose the power of Moses' (a) shows the heart of the disease that Quran didn't want continued.

But Fatima (a) because of the emphasis upon her by Prophet (s), but because that emphasis would go missed if no proof for an example in the past of it, Mariam (a) was chosen instead of Imran (a) having Jesus (a).

And Mariam (a) was chosen despite the household of Moses and Aaron already having Mariam who the mana was through her hands and who performed miracles, and who was able to bring food, and God did that with Mariam (a) the 2nd one, but only fed her.

And part of their opposition to Mariam (a) was saying, you are named after the sister of Aaron (a) and they didn't say Moses (a) lol because they wanted to emphasize on Aaron (a) disobeying Moses (a) and opposing him, and dying, and said you are named after someone who did something so bad, that God killed her by a disease for it, and both aren't linked to Moses (a) but rather the first Mariam (a) and Aaron (a) are more linked because of their hate towards Moses' (a) and so despite you being a daughter of Imran (a), and good parent, you've become insolent like the first Mariam (a). This is why they called her sister of Harun (a) and Quran recalls that event.

And this issue that God doesn't really know the final fate of goodness of who he chooses, is also brought up with the story of Samuel (a) appointing Talut (a) (Saul). And in that story, it was emphasized Aaron's (a) family is Moses' (a) family and vice versa, and that it's where knowledge of tranquility carried by Angels to be found.

And the Tabut carried really by Angels (a) is like all miracles, it has an outward sign, but it's also showing us the interior reality and something significant that is more perpetual then the actual miracle event itself.

And so Talut (a) in the Torah today, if you read, was like Mariam (a) the first, all jealous, and towards David (a) because for some reason, God couldn't wait to keep Talut (a) king but hat to replace him with David (a), the reason being a dark spirit was upon Saul (a) lol.

What kind of joke is this. If you read Gospels from Islamic perspective, it's saying the anointed kings are instances of the holy spirit and are words of God brought to life, shining light to the world and are the path to God.

There is no way Talut (a) from the perspective of the Gospels had a dark spirit. I see Gospels fixes much of the errors in the previous books and emphasizes on their light to remove the darkness words that was not filled in it.

So there was enough light in previous books left, but also distorted enough, to counter it's light, and if you read gospels in light of that it's to be short, saying, do you not know who we are, who we anointed kings are, for before Abraham as in the physical human Abraham, we were. We are chosen before coming to this world.

Mariam (a) in light of that, if declared chosen, that's it, no one should doubt her. And Mariam (a) the first, as in sister of Aaron (a) and Moses (a), she was doing miracles lol, she sang as well words from God that were not scripture true, but still from God.

I believe the "great evil word against Mariam" that Quran speaks about that resulted in the curse was about the first Mariam (a), not the 2nd, for the curse of rejecting the 2nd Mariam (a) is the same rejecting Jesus (a), there is no difference.

The talk about Mariam (a) the first, I don't know how this even possible people can straight up read it and not raise their eye brows. This person that God fed believers oppressed by Pharaoh and sang them songs of soothing and healing from God and who the mana was from her very hands, somehow is jealous over Moses.

Yeah, that's gonna be great for the chosen leaders, they can go from good to evil like that, what's the point of making a covenant. And of course, all that, was to discontinue the chosen established offspring of Aaron (a).

And so Quran never confirms anyone not be linked in a chosen family, yet, Muslims, cling to Aaron (a) not succeeding Moses' (a) based on the story of him and Mariam (a) the the first becoming jealous of Moses' (a).

And despite Joshua son of Nun not mentioned in Quran, and if you count the successors of Moses (a) in Quran, you get twelve people, no less, no more, and the Quran shows the covenant of children of Israel was linked to the Twelve.

They clung to the fabrication, to oppose Ali (a) and Fatima (a) and their chosen offspring (a).

Mariam (a) was the only proof that remained that when Abbasids said to Imam Reda (a) "how can you be linked to Mohammad (s) more then us, when you link to Ali (a) his cousin, and we link to Abbas (a) so why are you closer to Mohammad (s) then us lineage wise".

And the reply was Jesus (a) was linked back to the offspring of Abraham (a) through Mariam (a), back to offspring of Nuh (a) through Mariam (a) and back to Imran (a) through Mariam (a).

And as we believe, the Ahlulbayt (a) of Moses (a) and Aaron (a) were meant among other things, to prepare the way for the exalted ones talked about in the Torah, and who were the tree of life, and who I believe the gospels talks in intro of John's gospel, when talking about the word, it's not about God, it's about the exalted ones.

And so the Torah talked about the tree of life and knowledge and showed Adam (a) although chosen, was no where near their status, and so Mohammad (s) and his family (a) are that tree of life I believe.

"from you God initiated and from you will God end" - in addressing Ahlulbayt (a) in visiting addressment taught by them.

Fatima (a) is the trial of all trials, and whoever is saved from hell, will be saved through her. Loving her and her secret in Quran, is of the beginning and also the perfection of faith.

Those who know it, know it, but if Ali (a) was not the rank of being chosen by God, God would never allow him to marry Fatima (a). And this one way among many to prove Ali (a) and his chosen offspring (a), but just focusing on the hadiths about Fatima (a).

And the hadiths are clear, she is the leader of the women in paradise, is bright, radiant, pure, and who Prophet (s) said about her "the mother of her father".

 

[URAVIP2ME]

As I can see, no, you indeed don't see the contradiction.

I'm trying for you to post the contradiction.

 

[Brian2]

That's not how descendance is established in patrilinear societies though so it wouldn't serve that purpose. It's more likely both accounts are competing genealogies. It's not like when either was written there were extansive records of birth that tracked back to thousands of years, especially not for a person of modest means like a carpenter. Divine and heroic claims from pseudo-genealogy were a common trope in Antiquity. The Roman emperors were descendant of Mars, Alexander the Great from Apollo and Zeus, Hammurabi from Marduk, the Pharaoh from Osiris or Amon-Ra, etc. Many made themselves descendants of mythical heroes like Achilles or Aeneas.

The patrilinear descendancy was established in Matthew. The biological descendancy was established in Luke.
All through the Bible we find genealogies. They seemed important to the Jews for various reasons. They established Jewishness and which tribe one belonged to, whom one could or could not marry, whether one could be a priest or be a King or be the Messiah etc
Records and memories would have been kept in families and there is evidence of public records also.

 

[epronovost]

The patrilinear descendancy was established in Matthew. The biological descendancy was established in Luke.

Ancient Hebrews have no conception of such things as "biological descent". They don't understand genetics and didn't knew anything about embryo fecondation. Descend comes from the father not from the mothers. Your interpretation is anachronical.

All through the Bible we find genealogies. They seemed important to the Jews for various reasons. They established Jewishness and which tribe one belonged to, whom one could or could not marry, whether one could be a priest or be a King or be the Messiah etc
Records and memories would have been kept in families and there is evidence of public records also.

Of course genealogy is extremely important. That's how wealth is transmitted in agrarian societies at the time, but there is no official and meticulous record that is centrally organised and well maintained. Hebrews were no different than Greeks, Romans or Eyptians in that regard. You will not see such system be created until the 19th century for common people like Joseph the carpenter. Those things were of oral traditions and often of dubious accuracy when they go back further than five or six generation, especially if there is wars or destruction that breaks those chains. In the case of the genealogy of Jesus, there is the multiple wars that rvaged the region and the Babylonian exile tha complicates genealogy tremendously.

 

[epronovost]

I'm trying for you to post the contradiction.

Basically you say that Jesus will come with an army kill all the killers (except himself and his army of course) and than create peace amongst the people of goodwill (people of goodwill are already pacifist since that's what people of good will are supposed to be). In other words, violence will solve the problem of violence on Earth. It's a bit of a naive and self-contradictory solution.

 

[Mike.Hester]

Then publish your book and blow the entire profession away my good sir if you think you can so convincingly demonstrate the overwhelmin majority of historians of early christianity wrong. You might win a Pulitzer prize or a Wolfson History Prize for it.

I'll have to note though that Justin Martyr's work is largely destroyed and the context of his surviving work doesn't need to mention the work of Paul in any way. In fact, that he would would have been rather strange. Note that Paul of Tarsus was mentionned by at least three other sources that are older or contemporary to Justin Martyr. You will also have to convincingly demonstrate that his tomb which was found about 20 years ago isn't his.

name them!

 

[epronovost]

name them!

Clement of Rome in the epistle to the Corinthians which is dated around 90 AD
Ignatus of Antioch in his own epistle which is about two decades older
Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians which is contemporary to Ignatus

 

[Mike.Hester]

what you have cited is 4th degree hearsay.How about first hand accounts? IF Paul was a roman citizen why is there no death warrant signed by the emperor or eyewitness accounts of his execution? Paul calls himself an apostle but he never met Jesus. Who gave Paul the power to change Jewish Law with the first defacto pope James ie you can be a Christian without circumcision. Paul is nothing more than a repeat of the Moses Myth,a key actor in a solar myth misunderstood by Western man.

 

[epronovost]

what you have cited is 4th degree hearsay.How about first hand accounts?

No they aren't fourth degree hearsay since they at least one of them discuss Paul's writtings and contemporary to him. That makes him first degree. The other two are second degree accounts. None of them are hearsay since they are all considered reasonnably accurate source for early Christianity's history.

IF Paul was a roman citizen why is there no death warrant signed by the emperor or eyewitness accounts of his execution?

Why would there be such a thing. Clement, who was a contemporary of Paul wrote that he was martyred and killed. He doesn't precise exactly how he was killed or by whom though he does blame Nero as "responsible for it" though you can be responsible in. Note that the story that he was executed under the order of Nero following the Great Fire of Rome is something that will be told by Tertullian in 200 AD (so about at the same time than Justin Martyr lived) and several others in the 4th and 5th century. Note that you will probably never find any eyewitness account of executions in Antiquity if only because the overwhelming majority of people who witness execution don't know how to read. Neither will you find execution orders of people unless they are very important and were so noteworthy they were recorded by historians.

Paul calls himself an apostle but he never met Jesus. Who gave Paul the power to change Jewish Law with the first defacto pope James ie you can be a Christian without circumcision.

Note that Christians didn't change the Jewish Law. They created a new religion from a core of Jewish reformers. They agreed amongst themselves in the council of Jerusalem to allow gentille converts to Christianity not to be circumsized. Note that Paul wasn't the only person supporting this idea which would accelerate the growth of Christianity and facilitate trememdously evangelisation efforts.

Paul is nothing more than a repeat of the Moses Myth,a key actor in a solar myth misunderstood by Western man.

First, solar myths aren't uncommon in the West and second you will need a hell of a lot more proofs because so far your theory that Paul was "unknown" until the late 3rd century AD, is easily disproven. Comparing Paul to Moses is the height of idiocy in terms of historicity is the height of stupidity.

 

[Mike.Hester]

Clement of Rome in the epistle to the Corinthians Is this who you are talking about?