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

[mayacrisol]

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

But there is in the scripture clearly written that Joseph is the son of David, of the house and lineage of David.

Is it so impossible to think that God could make Mary pregnant with Joseph as sperm donor, if that is how the prophecy should be fulfilled then surely God can do it. If man can perform artificial insemination to virgins and make them conceive via sperm donor, how can God not perform a more brilliant and perfect method than man's.
(same thing with Sara and Elisabeth, today it is possible through vitro fertilization and stem cell treatment)

Ps 94:10 ... he that teaches man knowledge, shall not he know?

 

[mayacrisol]

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.

then why don't you post here all the exact verses from Mark's that will show the contradictions you're saying?

 

[mayacrisol]

Matthew and Luke both state that the line of david had no direct role in Jesus' parentage.

are you saying that Matthew and Luke are not accepting that the Messiah would come from the fruit of the loins of David according to the prophets? then are you also saying that they do not accept what peter said?

Acts 2:30 Therefore (David) being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

can you please post here the verses supporting what you just stated?

 

[fallingblood]

But there is in the scripture clearly written that Joseph is the son of David, of the house and lineage of David.

There is also scripture that gives two separate genealogies for Josephus. You can check them out in Matthew and Luke.

Is it so impossible to think that God could make Mary pregnant with Joseph as sperm donor, if that is how the prophecy should be fulfilled then surely God can do it. If man can perform artificial insemination to virgins and make them conceive via sperm donor, how can God not perform a more brilliant and perfect method than man's.
(same thing with Sara and Elisabeth, today it is possible through vitro fertilization and stem cell treatment)

If we assume God is real, then no, it would not be impossible. However, there is no reason to assume that is what happened. There is no reason to assume there was some artificial insemination going on to fulfill a prophecy that had nothing to do with Jesus, and was already fulfilled prior to his conception. The scripture never states anywhere, or even applies such a thing happens. It is alright if you believe that, but if you choose to do so, it is on faith. That is alright, but you won't be able to prove your faith to other people.

 

[mayacrisol]

There is also scripture that gives two separate genealogies for Josephus.
You can check them out in Matthew and Luke.

So what is your thought about those two separate genealogies?

However, there is no reason to assume that is what happened.

Just the contrary, based on the prophecies and testimonies of the apostles, there is every reason to believe that that is what happened.

It was written:
2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.
Ps 132:11 The LORD has sworn in truth to David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of your body will I set on your throne.

 

[fallingblood]

then why don't you post here all the exact verses from Mark's that will show the contradictions you're saying?

John 19:14 Talking about the Day of the Preparation for the Passover, directly referring to the time in which Pilate pronounces the verdict.

In Mark 14:12, the disciples ask about preparing the Passover meal. That night, (Mark 14:22-25), they eat the Passover meal. Then Jesus is crucified that morning, still on Passover (Mark 15:25). The Jewish day started at sundown. That is when they ate the Passover meal. The next morning was still Passover day.

There is the contradiction, explained quickly.

 

[fallingblood]

So what is your thought about those two separate genealogies?

They contradict each other as they are quite different; yet they are both claimed to be from Joseph. Thus, it shows that the Gospels contain problems.



Just the contrary, based on the prophecies and testimonies of the apostles, there is every reason to believe that that is what happened.[/QUOTE]On what Testimony? Paul is the only apostle who we know of that wrote, and he certainly didn't subscribe to the idea of some type of artificial insemination. He said that Jesus was born of the flesh, implying he was born the same way we were, as in his parents had sex.

The Gospels, which were not written by apostles, but later scribes, never speak of artificial insemination or anything of the like. The New Testament as a whole never gives the implication. The Early Church Fathers, as far as I have read, never gave the implication. I don't even believe any of the pagans who were attacking Christianity ever even brought anything like that up.

 

[mayacrisol]

John 19:14 Talking about the Day of the Preparation for the Passover, directly referring to the time in which Pilate pronounces the verdict.

In Mark 14:12, the disciples ask about preparing the Passover meal. That night, (Mark 14:22-25), they eat the Passover meal. Then Jesus is crucified that morning, still on Passover (Mark 15:25). The Jewish day started at sundown. That is when they ate the Passover meal. The next morning was still Passover day.

There is the contradiction, explained quickly.

I see, well I'm not really out here to dwell on that, so I googled and found an explanation for that.

According to a study there were two Sabbaths. One was the "special" or yearly Sabbath, that is, the first day of Passover, and the other was the weekly Sabbath.
read it for yourself here: What Day Did Jesus Die?

 

[mayacrisol]

They contradict each other as they are quite different; yet they are both claimed to be from Joseph. Thus, it shows that the Gospels contain problems.

Matthew 1 genealogy is saying that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.
Joseph’s descendants (in Mat1 gen, aside from being consistent in its chronology, are scripturally supported to be the valid vessels (blood lineage of the true Messiah)

see how that in Luke it was Nathan in line instead of Solomon, when scripture supports that the promise of line will be to David, to Solomon and down his line. You won't find any verse in the scripture stating the promise to David will go on through Nathan's line.

Luke3 genealogy, however, aside from its inconsistencies (see for yourself), are obviously littered with lists of priests’ names. Moses said that the Messiah would come from Judah’s tribe and this tribe will have nothing concerning of priests.

Heb 7:14 (KJV) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Notice also the ending of Luke3 genealogy,
Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, ..

The correct understanding for “as was supposed” is ‘as was known”.
(Meaning: This genealogy is only how Jesus was known as son of Joseph in society; only for political and societal understanding and relating. Nearly every time that Luke uses the word “supposed” in his gospel and the book of Acts, it is under the implication that there is an assumption being made that was not accurate)

While In Mat1, the genealogy ends with this:

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Notice how in the above verse was emphasized that THIS is the JESUS who is called CHRIST.

 

[mayacrisol]

The Gospels, which were not written by apostles, but later scribes, never speak of artificial insemination or anything of the like.

How can they explicitly write about something that hasn't even occurred to human mind and understanding back then?

 

[fallingblood]

I see, well I'm not really out here to dwell on that, so I googled and found an explanation for that.

According to a study there were two Sabbaths. One was the "special" or yearly Sabbath, that is, the first day of Passover, and the other was the weekly Sabbath.
read it for yourself here: What Day Did Jesus Die?

That is not an explanation for it. It is a dodge. The fact is this. John specifically states, as I showed, that Jesus died on the day of Preparation for the Passover. This is the day before the Passover. Mark makes a different claim. We are told that in Mark, the disciples prepare for the Passover meal, eat the Passover meal, and then on Passover, Jesus is crucified. Two Sabbaths does not explain this or even come close.

 

[fallingblood]

Matthew 1 genealogy is saying that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.
Joseph’s descendants (in Mat1 gen, aside from being consistent in its chronology, are scripturally supported to be the valid vessels (blood lineage of the true Messiah)


Notice how in the above verse was emphasized that THIS is the JESUS who is called CHRIST.

So you admit that Luke and Matthew, both claiming to be genealogies of Joseph, contradict each other? That is all you have to say. Your explanation simply fails.

 

[mayacrisol]

That is not an explanation for it. It is a dodge. The fact is this. John specifically states, as I showed, that Jesus died on the day of Preparation for the Passover. This is the day before the Passover. Mark makes a different claim. We are told that in Mark, the disciples prepare for the Passover meal, eat the Passover meal, and then on Passover, Jesus is crucified. Two Sabbaths does not explain this or even come close.

I don't think it's a dodge, i think it's a reasonable explanation.

 

[fallingblood]

How can they explicitly write about something that hasn't even occurred to human mind and understanding back then?

So then you admit the scripture says nothing that supports your idea of artificial insemination then? That is all you have to say. And really, your question fails as if scripture is the word of God, certainly God was aware of the idea, and thus could have said exactly that.

As you now admit, there is no suggestion that the idea of artificial insemination ever figured in. Thus, scripture doesn't support it, and there is no reason we should consider it here.

 

[mayacrisol]

So you admit that Luke and Matthew, both claiming to be genealogies of Joseph, contradict each other? That is all you have to say. Your explanation simply fails.

I'd say the two different and separate genealogies were written for a purpose.
Perhaps to separate the goat from the sheep.
Those who faithfully search from the scripture to know the truth and those who are indolent and has blind faith.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't think it's a dodge, i think it's a reasonable explanation.

In what way is it reasonable?

 

[fallingblood]

I don't think it's a dodge, i think it's a reasonable explanation.

Except it isn't as it doesn't explain anything. John states clearly and specifically that it was on the day of Preparation of the Passover that Jesus was crucified. That is meant to be the day before the Passover, the day in which one prepared for the Passover. It has nothing to do with the Sabbath.

Mark, on the other hand, states that on that day, the day before the Passover, or the day of Preparation for the Passover, Jesus' disciples asked about preparing for Passover. That night, on Passover (according to John, Jesus was already dead), they ate the Passover meal. He was then arrested (on the Passover), and in the morning (still on the Passover), was killed (again, on the Passover).

Two Sabbaths make no difference here. It doesn't explain anything at all. Especially when according to John, Jesus was dead before the passion narrative of Mark even began. Thus, it is unreasonable to assume your explanation is correct, as it ignores everything the scripture states.

 

[fallingblood]

I'd say the two different and separate genealogies were written for a purpose.
Perhaps to separate the goat from the sheep.
Those who faithfully search from the scripture to know the truth and those who are indolent and has blind faith.

The scripture states nothing of the such. And there is no reason for two genealogies. Both claim to be the same thing. There is no suggestion otherwise. What you are doing here is making up an explanation to suit your needs; however, it is not based on either scripture, or historical knowledge.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Except it isn't as it doesn't explain anything. John states clearly and specifically that it was on the day of Preparation of the Passover that Jesus was crucified. That is meant to be the day before the Passover, the day in which one prepared for the Passover. It has nothing to do with the Sabbath.

Mark, on the other hand, states that on that day, the day before the Passover, or the day of Preparation for the Passover, Jesus' disciples asked about preparing for Passover. That night, on Passover (according to John, Jesus was already dead), they ate the Passover meal. He was then arrested (on the Passover), and in the morning (still on the Passover), was killed (again, on the Passover).

Two Sabbaths make no difference here. It doesn't explain anything at all. Especially when according to John, Jesus was dead before the passion narrative of Mark even began. Thus, it is unreasonable to assume your explanation is correct, as it ignores everything the scripture states.

Perhaps one of them was a Greek and was confused about Jewish holy days.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The scripture states nothing of the such. And there is no reason for two genealogies. Both claim to be the same thing. There is no suggestion otherwise. What you are doing here is making up an explanation to suit your needs; however, it is not based on either scripture, or historical knowledge.

Given the similarity in the geneaologies, it seems to me that some names were missing in one tradition, and later writers filled in differing names.