• 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!

How can Jesus inherit the throne of David?

Mike.Hester

Member
No they aren't fourth degree hearsay since they at least one of them discuss Paul's writings 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 reasonably accurate source for early Christianity's history.
Clement of Rome never mentioned any gospels or letters from anyone( Herron, Thomas J. (2008). Clement and the Early Church of Rome: On the Dating of Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road) The Catholic Enclopedia confirms that Luke´s writings were written 200 years after the so called fact.


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.
Incredible,in 60 years of my studies this is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that Clement was a contemporary of Paul.No one knows anything about Paul except Luke who only wrote a complete fiction. Teruliian knew nothing of a Paul for the simple reason he never existed. If he was a Roman citizen he would of had a public trial--this is reality not a Ben Hur movie. Tacitus wrote an excellent account of the fire some 50 years after the fact and never mentions anything you have mentioned. one last note on Clement, there is no evidence whatsoever except for legend and tradition that connects him to any other persons letters.A TRADITON that began in the 3rd and 4th century,[2] has identified him as the Clement that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3, a fellow labourer in Christ. "Clement of Rome, St." Cross, F. L. (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). A tradtion is not evidence only speculation.



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.
Jesus said I came not to change the law but to uphold it.The Council of Jerusalem, all we know from this meeting is from Acts and a few other chapters. Again total unreliable hearsay.




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.
If you understood how a creation myth is formed(evolution and involution) then Paul is a neo Moses-another myth-Moses was reared by an Egyptian but became of the leader of the Jews,so Paul was reared a jew and became the leader of the Gentiles:Moses was the law giver of the jews,and Paul was the law giver of the Christians.God spoke to Moses through a burning bush so Christ spoke to Paul from a blinding light.Moses was told to go to Sinai to receive power and Paul went to Damascus. The list goes on.Moses and Paul never existed.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
If you understood how a creation myth is formed(evolution and involution) then Paul is a neo Moses-another myth-Moses was reared by an Egyptian but became of the leader of the Jews,so Paul was reared a jew and became the leader of the Gentiles:Moses was the law giver of the jews,and Paul was the law giver of the Christians.God spoke to Moses through a burning bush so Christ spoke to Paul from a blinding light.Moses was told to go to Sinai to receive power and Paul went to Damascus. The list goes on.Moses and Paul never existed.

First, Paul was never "the leader of the gentiles", he was a missionnary and an important figure of early Christianity, but far from the only one. His importance also rised with time as his own students became more and more important. The role of Paul as a "founding father" of Christianity would not be crystalised until the early 4th century. Had history played itself slightly differently, he could very well have turned out into a footnote of history.

Paul wasn't "the law giver" of Christianity anymore than all other apostles and missionnaries. As metionned before, Paul had no special authority. His position on circumcision for example, won the day because he had the support of others and won a vote while Moses had kingly rights.

Finally, correlation doesn't equate causation. That two stories have some points in common doesn't mean anything in and on itself. Considering the numbers of liberties you take with your evaluation of those two stories, brushing aside their clear differences and unicity, brushing aside the historical and archeological proofs undermining your narrative, this makes your theory even more fragile and almost conspirational even by the standards you use.

While Moses is regarded as a fictionnal character by the overwhelming majority of historians, you could use a wide marker to draw all sorts of comparison between him and a bunch of historical figures. Take Joan of Arc. The evidence of her existence and her deeds are overwhelming. Like Moses, she had divine visions of God, travelled to a place of power to fullfil her destiny, won battles, was betrayed and died an ignominous death as a martyr. Do you grasp the complete stupidity of such argument. Moses isn't considered fictionnal because his story has a mythical vibe, but because there is no evidence for him or anything like him in history and archeology at the time he was supposed to live.

In other words, argument by assertions aren't arguments.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
I am for reality not mythology.

Then deal with reality and address the problems I have raised based on historical and archeological evidence. Your theory, is to my mind and that of the overwhelming majority of historian, nothing more than mythology since it has no basis in reality at the moment and will remain so until you address those issues and inaccuracies.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
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.
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, angelic ( Not human) armies according to Revelation 19:14. Jesus is Commander in Chief (Hail to the Chief ! ) of angelic armies.
If you consider that the ' executional words from Jesus' mouth ' are violence then yes - Isaiah 11:3-4.
For the sake of ' justice for the righteous ' even the world executes people. Is such an execution considered as violent or as justice___________

We are forewarned, warned in advance, to ' repent ' if we don't wish to ' perish ' ( be destroyed ) - 2 Peter 3:9
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, angelic ( Not human) armies according to Revelation 19:14. Jesus is Commander in Chief (Hail to the Chief ! ) of angelic armies.

If angels use force or projection of force to impose the their authority or that of their commander, then yes. This is violence.

If you consider that the ' executional words from Jesus' mouth ' are violence then yes - Isaiah 11:3-4.
For the sake of ' justice for the righteous '

I don't think anybody has commited acts of mass violence for any other sake than for "justice for the righteous". Of course, the victims of such mass violents and neutral onlookers don't often have the same view of justice and righteousness. It's a bit of a slippery excuse.

even the world executes people. Is such an execution considered as violent or as justice___________

Today, in modern democracies and in humanist thought for centuries, the death penalty, slavery, torture, solitary confinement are indeed considered violent and barbaric practices. Punitive justice is viewed largely as a symptome of systemic violence by the State or whatever authority imposed the punishment.

We are forewarned, warned in advance, to ' repent ' if we don't wish to ' perish ' ( be destroyed ) - 2 Peter 3:9

Of course you will certainly agree that death threats are actions of a violent nature, will you?
 

DKH

Member
The Anointed said:
And we accept the fact that the above is your own personal opinion.


Thank you, I feel that it is necessary to acknowledge this (in all my posts), because my positions are not mainstream and I don't want to give the impression that I'm preaching or seeking to convince anyone to change their beliefs. But, I was hoping for a rebuttal, which would have addressed my opinions and the bible verses referenced…


The Anointed said:
According to Torah law, Nathan, the adopted son of King David and Nathan’s descendants, were legitimate heirs of King David.



I disagree that Nathan was an adopted son, where 1Chronicles 3:5 is clearly referencing that Nathan was "born" to King David and Queen Bathsheba. However, I do agree that Nathan and his descendants were heirs of King David…But, heirs to what? It seems that God and King David chose Solomon over Nathan, even though Nathan appears to be born before Solomon! So, it can't be the crown of David. The only reasonable explanation would be that Nathan and his descendants had a higher social and/or political advantage over others. Because, the royal line to the Christ would need to come from Solomon's descendants. The main problem with suggesting that Matthew's linage leads to Joseph (Mary's husband) would give the impression that God was not the Father or the source of the additional requirements for human life.


Yet, there is another important point…Matthew's genealogy included women. Where, Luke's doesn't. This would be a clear distinction between the law and reality. Thus, Luke's genealogy would be for Joseph (Mary's husband), the law and Matthew's would be for Joseph (Mary's father), then Mary and the Christ. This would correct the error presented in Matthew 1:17 and present the reality that the Christ came to be by a virgin birth, presenting God as the Father.


Note: Even though I have used bible verses for support, this posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
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.

It sounds as if you are saying that Ancient Hebrew thought that the sperm alone from the male grew into the baby.
I would have thought that they knew as much about biological descent as any other humans of the day. They knew that children sometimes looked remarkably like the mother and sometimes looked like the father and they would have known something about animal breeding to get the traits of the animals involved and not just of the male animal.
The fact is that humans have not known the details of fertilisation for long, but that does not mean that they have not known about biological descent from both the male and female.

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.

When it came to the line of Kingship and the line that the Messiah would come from it was important to keep accurate records. When it came to the descent of the priesthood it was also important. We can see these records in the Bible before and after the exile, which was only a generation or 2 btw.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
It sounds as if you are saying that Ancient Hebrew thought that the sperm alone from the male grew into the baby.
I would have thought that they knew as much about biological descent as any other humans of the day. They knew that children sometimes looked remarkably like the mother and sometimes looked like the father and they would have known something about animal breeding to get the traits of the animals involved and not just of the male animal.
The fact is that humans have not known the details of fertilisation for long, but that does not mean that they have not known about biological descent from both the male and female.

Actually, the belief that sperm alone grew into a baby will remain widely accepted until the late 19th century AD. The idea was that sperm was "the seed" and a woman's womb "the soil" in which it grows. Thus, bloodlines were passed exclusively from the father and a mother only provided the proper environment. Note that infertility problems were placed upon women exclusively while men were only considered responsible of such issue only if they were incapable of having an erection and havin sexual intercourse with their wives.

It's also good to note that Ancient Hebrew believed that superficial characteristics of children like their general appearence and even health were caused by the environment and, in some case, divine will. There is, for example, the annecdote of a shepard trying to make animals born with stripes by placing his cattle in the shadow of a fence so that the shadow stripes became "absorbed" by the animal. In other words, something akin to Lamarck's theory of transformism. That's how Ancient Hebrews and more modern western civilisation explained why some children looked like their mother. It was a superficial thing the blood was that of fathers.

Note that diformity were often seen as a sign of divine wrath, witchcraft or even of infidelity from the woman bearing such a child.

All that to say, men believed very stupid things about women for a very long time and often display today a baffling ignorance of female anathomy.

When it came to the line of Kingship and the line that the Messiah would come from it was important to keep accurate records. When it came to the descent of the priesthood it was also important. We can see these records in the Bible before and after the exile, which was only a generation or 2 btw.

The Babylonian exile lasted about 60 years indeed (so about three generation), but resulted in the destructon of the Jerusalem temple with all of its archives and with it much of Ancient Hebrews tradition, records and history. It profoundly changed their civilisation. Following the exile, they would adopt a new alphabet, a see profound changes to their religious practices and theology.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
For reference:
43582_4b97e7c78b22decbcd54e5687b6dbb44.png

(Contradiction: Which geneaology of Jesus is correct?)

One of the gospels goes to great lengths to show a series of 14 generations. That is because the gematria of 'David' is 14. He is just trying to ingrain the notion that Jesus is a son of David. Discrepancies don't matter to that author.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Actually, the belief that sperm alone grew into a baby will remain widely accepted until the late 19th century AD. The idea was that sperm was "the seed" and a woman's womb "the soil" in which it grows. Thus, bloodlines were passed exclusively from the father and a mother only provided the proper environment. Note that infertility problems were placed upon women exclusively while men were only considered responsible of such issue only if they were incapable of having an erection and havin sexual intercourse with their wives.

It's also good to note that Ancient Hebrew believed that superficial characteristics of children like their general appearence and even health were caused by the environment and, in some case, divine will. There is, for example, the annecdote of a shepard trying to make animals born with stripes by placing his cattle in the shadow of a fence so that the shadow stripes became "absorbed" by the animal. In other words, something akin to Lamarck's theory of transformism. That's how Ancient Hebrews and more modern western civilisation explained why some children looked like their mother. It was a superficial thing the blood was that of fathers.

Nevertheless a daughter was seen as the descendant of a father and so Mary was seen as the descendant of her father and so on back to Nathan and David.
Luke, a physician and a gentile who also probably know the genealogy in Matthew's gospel, probably realised it did not show that Jesus was descended from David (even if it provided a descendancy line in a legal way.)
And anyway Gen 3:15 does suggest that the Messiah would be the offspring of the woman, something that makes sense in a virgin birth situation and a Divine Messiah situation.

The Babylonian exile lasted about 60 years indeed (so about three generation), but resulted in the destructon of the Jerusalem temple with all of its archives and with it much of Ancient Hebrews tradition, records and history. It profoundly changed their civilisation. Following the exile, they would adopt a new alphabet, a see profound changes to their religious practices and theology.

The changes in religious practice were the result of wanting to not go back to the old ways of worshipping other gods besides Yahweh. Enough documents from the pre exile times came down to post exile times unless you want to suggest everything pre exile was made up according to oral tradition.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Nevertheless a daughter was seen as the descendant of a father and so Mary was seen as the descendant of her father and so on back to Nathan and David.

Yes, a daughter belong to her father's household until she married in which case she belongs to her husband household. A woman in Ancient Hebrew culture cannot inherit nor give anything that belongs to her father. She belongs to her husband once she's married. If you believe Jesus was miraculously created by direct divine intervention, he cannot be born from the House of David, but who cares at that point. In such a scenario, Jesus would be a literal demi-god. That's a much bigger claim to power.

Enough documents from the pre exile times came down to post exile times unless you want to suggest everything pre exile was made up according to oral tradition.

Considering the changes in theology and socio-political structure. Whatever documents they might have had before the exile to Babylon, the overwhelming majority of them were destroyed. The rest are pretty much a collection of oral tradition or borrowed from their captors.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
One of the gospels goes to great lengths to show a series of 14 generations. That is because the gematria of 'David' is 14. He is just trying to ingrain the notion that Jesus is a son of David. Discrepancies don't matter to that author.

Note that 14 generation would not cover the 1200 years seperating Jesus from David. For 14 generation to seperate Jesus from David, the average age of fatherhood would have to be well over 80 years old in a time where men of such age were very, very rare and that's not taking into account the difficulty linked to male fertility at that age. A human generation is about 20 years since the average age of the first born son for men was in the early 20's. If David's dynasty was similar, you would expect about 50 generations not 14. Then again, the Bible wasn't really written by people heavily concerned by simple mathematics, or credibility.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Yes, a daughter belong to her father's household until she married in which case she belongs to her husband household. A woman in Ancient Hebrew culture cannot inherit nor give anything that belongs to her father. She belongs to her husband once she's married. If you believe Jesus was miraculously created by direct divine intervention, he cannot be born from the House of David, but who cares at that point. In such a scenario, Jesus would be a literal demi-god. That's a much bigger claim to power.

There is exception as given in Numbers 27:1-11 where the law was given that daughters can inherit if the father dies without sons.
I do not believe Jesus was miraculously created by direct divine intervention, I believe that the pre human Jesus was in His Father before He was conceived in and born from Mary. Mary supplied to biological link to David, Joseph the legal standing and Jesus was both human and Divine.
Jesus did have a big claim to power but came as the servant of God because His human nature meant that He had the nature of a servant. He lived as a human under the law of Moses and did not throw His power around until the time came for His earthly ministry when He was baptised and given the anointing of the Holy Spirit for it and was led by that Spirit.

Considering the changes in theology and socio-political structure. Whatever documents they might have had before the exile to Babylon, the overwhelming majority of them were destroyed. The rest are pretty much a collection of oral tradition or borrowed from their captors.

Hmmm, sounds like later historian ideas with the ideas of the Documentary hypothesis as their guide and the idea that writing was not a tool of pre Egyptian Hebrews nor of Moses and the Egyptian and post Egyptian society.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
One of the gospels goes to great lengths to show a series of 14 generations. That is because the gematria of 'David' is 14. He is just trying to ingrain the notion that Jesus is a son of David. Discrepancies don't matter to that author.
Except for the over 140 times, textually, when the gematria is 24. I stopped counting in the second chapter of 2 Chronicles.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
There is exception as given in Numbers 27:1-11 where the law was given that daughters can inherit if the father dies without sons.
I do not believe Jesus was miraculously created by direct divine intervention, I believe that the pre human Jesus was in His Father before He was conceived in and born from Mary. Mary supplied to biological link to David, Joseph the legal standing and Jesus was both human and Divine.

Again, Ancient Hebrew have no conception of modern biology. Mary cannot "supply a biological link" to the line of David. The OT state that the messiah was to be born in the House of David. Jospeh wasn't his father according to Christian scripture thus Jesus cannot be born from the House of David. If someone wanted to make the silly, unsupported argument that Joseph was from the House David, we could make the argument that Jesus too is from this house since he was adopted by Joseph, but he isn't "born out from the House of David". In sucha case he would be adopted into the House of David.

Hmmm, sounds like later historian ideas with the ideas of the Documentary hypothesis as their guide and the idea that writing was not a tool of pre Egyptian Hebrews nor of Moses and the Egyptian and post Egyptian society.

We have already discussed at length how completely how the Exodus is purely a myth as was Moses and the mass detention of Ancient Hebrew in Egypt. We also discussed precedently how the conquest of the territory that would become the Kingdom of Israel is also largely a fiction. Archeological and historical evidence all point at a very different history.
 
Top