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

[mayacrisol]

So then you admit the scripture says nothing that supports your idea of artificial insemination then?

I never said that it's not supported by scripture, Haven't you noticed? I've actually been posting verses from scripture that supports it.

So far, i guess these are all the verses i already posted:

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah,yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Isaiah 1:11-12 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

Hebrews 7:14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

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.

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;

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: )

1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Matthew 1:19-20 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.


Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David: )

Luke 1:26-27 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.


Luke 1:24 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?


Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

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.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;


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

 

[mayacrisol]

Except it isn't as it doesn't explain anything.

Well atleast the author had an explanation, what is yours?

 

[mayacrisol]

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.

how can you say that there is no reason for two different and separate genealogies, when they truly exist?

 

[fallingblood]

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

I guess that would explain the discrepancy; however, I think it is more likely that John was making a theological statement, that Jesus was the Lamb of God who would die for our sins, as stated in John 1:29. This would then make sense as to why John has Jesus die on the day of Preparation, the same day the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered.

 

[fallingblood]

I never said that it's not supported by scripture, Haven't you noticed? I've actually been posting verses from scripture that supports it.

None of those support the idea of artificial insemination.

 

[fallingblood]

Well atleast the author had an explanation, what is yours?

That the Gospels contradict each other. I've stated this already.

 

[fallingblood]

how can you say that there is no reason for two different and separate genealogies, when they truly exist?

Okay, there is a reason. I will agree with A_E here. There are two separate genealogies because later writers filled in the missing names.

They just happen to both have different ideas of whose those missing names were.

 

[mayacrisol]

None of those support the idea of artificial insemination.

Those verses prove that the messiah would come from the fruit of the body of David according to the flesh, those verses show that Joseph is son of David according to the flesh. Therefore, the man Jesus indeed came from the fruit of the body of David through Joseph by the power of the Highest and He is The Messiah.

 

[mayacrisol]

That the Gospels contradict each other. I've stated this already.

and you call that an explanation? that's not even trying to reconcile what seems to be a contradiction, it's just finding fault at the Bible.

 

[mayacrisol]

Okay, there is a reason. I will agree with A_E here. There are two separate genealogies because later writers filled in the missing names.

They just happen to both have different ideas of whose those missing names were.

filled in the missing names? but you should read the chronicles, Samuel, Kings, before making such assumptions, Matthew is consistent.

Don't you think it would've been easier for the later writers if they had just replaced the whole list of Luke's based on scripture so that there'd be no difference with that of Matthew's? I told you, there is a purpose for Luke's genealogy. Matthew is a witness, an apostle of Jesus, Luke was not.

 

[fallingblood]

Those verses prove that the messiah would come from the fruit of the body of David according to the flesh, those verses show that Joseph is son of David according to the flesh. Therefore, the man Jesus indeed came from the fruit of the body of David through Joseph by the power of the Highest and He is The Messiah.

Nope. It proves no such thing. Especially when you are not taking into consideration the vast array of other literature on the subject of the Messiah during the first couple of centuries both B.C.E. and C.E. More so, the verses never state what you are saying about Jesus. They don't support artificial insemination. All that they show is that you can take some verses, out of context, and not knowing the history behind them, and try to make a case that simply is not logical.

I have no problem with you believing this way; however, you must come to terms that it is based on faith.

 

[fallingblood]

and you call that an explanation? that's not even trying to reconcile what seems to be a contradiction, it's just finding fault at the Bible.

Why would I want to try to reconcile passages that are simply contradictory? So I find fault in the Bible. If you were honest with yourself, you would see that there is fault with the Bible.

 

[fallingblood]

filled in the missing names? but you should read the chronicles, Samuel, Kings, before making such assumptions, Matthew is consistent.

Don't you think it would've been easier for the later writers if they had just replaced the whole list of Luke's based on scripture so that there'd be no difference with that of Matthew's? I told you, there is a purpose for Luke's genealogy. Matthew is a witness, an apostle of Jesus, Luke was not.

Actually, Matthew isn't consistent.

More so, Matthew wasn't a witness. The Gospel of Matthew was first circulated with out names attached. Matthew was actually written around 80-90 C.E. There is no suggestion that the apostle Matthew was actually the author. Especially when we know that he based his account off of Mark, and possibly the Gospel Q. This is the scholarly consensus.

 

[Oberon]

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

I already went over matt. 1:18, and why/how this means that the holy spirit was the closest thing Jesus had to a "father" according to the author of matthew. Both matthew and luke seem to want to have it both ways. Both are aware of the importance of connecting Jesus with the davidic line. Yet both also state that Jesus was begotten by the holy spirit, and specifically not by Joseph. Mary was a virgin, and while there is no mention anywhere of some miraculous insemination by Joseph, there is an explicit mention that Jesus was begotten by the holy spirit, not by Joseph.

 

[mayacrisol]

there is an explicit mention that Jesus was begotten by the holy spirit, not by Joseph.

There is no explicit mention of that either. You explained it yourself: you said:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2252842-post20.htmlThe 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.

from, of, by: ek/etc
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 say that the Holy Spirit sired Mary.

ἐk - a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause)




other english translations are these:
New International Version (©1984)
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

New Living Translation (©2007)
This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Webster's Bible Translation
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this manner: When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child by the Holy Spirit.

Weymouth New Testament
The circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ were these. After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they were united in marriage, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

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

The holy seed was flesh, the holy ghost is spirit, the scripture says:
That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit

the holy seed which was flesh cannot have been begotten by the holy spirit, otherwise God would contradict his word.

The holy ghost by the power of the highest prepared the holy seed (Heb 10:5) for Christ (who is the Son of God, the Spirit begotten and brought forth by the Father who is the father of Spirits, he was brought forth before the world was [Prov 8:22-30] ). Christ came in the flesh (the body, the flesh, the seed) that was prepared for Him (Micah 5:2, John 2:17). It was the Holy ghost by the power of the Highest that executed divine and marvelous wonder to fulfill the prophecies concerning the Messiah.

And this body (seed) had to come from the fruit of the body of David, from the tribe of Judah, he is a biological offspring of David according to prophecies.

Prophecies:
Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah,yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Isaiah 1:11-12 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

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.

Testimonies:
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;
Hebrews 7:14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Given all that, the scripture plainly points out how this happened to Jesus....Joseph is his biological and earthly father, through God's knowledge and Wisdom.

 

[Oberon]

There is no explicit mention of that either. You explained it yourself: you said:



from, of, by: ek/etc
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 say that the Holy Spirit sired Mary.

When did I say this?

ἐk - a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause)

Again, this isn't just about the preposition. Prepositions in greek govern cases, clauses, constructions, etc. We have a phrase dealing with birth/pregnancy/etc. In this situation, ek refers to the "father" role. We can see this by comparing this phrase with similar phrases in greek. You don't see ek used of agents who simply made the birth possible. It's used of the father role.

other english translations are these:

I really don't care about other english translations I can read the greek just fine.

 

[mayacrisol]

I really don't care about other english translations I can read the greek just fine.

I can imagine the other translators saying the same thing to you.

 

[Oberon]

I can imagine the other translators saying the same thing to you.

Not really. Because translators realize that something is always lost in translation. When scholars debate about the meaning of a passage or line of any text, they do so by dealing with the syntax, grammar, lexemes, constructions, etc., of that language. They don't go around basing arguments on translations.

Why do you think there are variations in the translation? It's because you simply can't get across the meaning, and so it always comes down to various choices, like "should I translate it more word for word, or concentrate more on trying to get idiomatic english, or concentrate more on meaning" etc.

 

[mayacrisol]

Not really. Because translators realize that something is always lost in translation. When scholars debate about the meaning of a passage or line of any text, they do so by dealing with the syntax, grammar, lexemes, constructions, etc., of that language. They don't go around basing arguments on translations.

Why do you think there are variations in the translation? It's because you simply can't get across the meaning, and so it always comes down to various choices, like "should I translate it more word for word, or concentrate more on trying to get idiomatic english, or concentrate more on meaning" etc.

It's alright you don't have to explain yourself, I'm sure they'd say that same thing too. You're not infallible, and you can't be better than all of them, are you? I didn't think so.

 

[Oberon]

It's alright you don't have to explain yourself, I'm sure they'd say that same thing too. You're not infallible, and you can't be better than all of them, are you? I didn't think so.

I did explain myself. As a matter of fact, I cited what is generally regarded as THE NT greek lexicon on this matter, which refers directly to Matt. 1.18. In return, you went to Strong's, which isn't really a lexicon at all and certainly isn't used by anyone experts in the field, and then only dealt with the preposition, and finally just quoted translations.