The Bastard Kings of Israel

[StuartJ]

Jesus is said to have been descended from the David kings.

The Davids were no longer on the throne in Jesus' time.

In what looks to me to be political propaganda from a faction that took over from the Davids, Jesus' ancestry is shown, in early biblical writings, to be illegitimate.

[bluethread]

Very Little is known of the probably historical David kings outside the biblical propaganda.

The biblical propaganda, in the Tamar Turns a Trick story, portrays them as illegitimate.

It's plausible, in my view, that this piece of slander was written by a faction that ousted the Davids.

Jesus is believed to be a son of a god and a human sacrifice.

Two reasons the Davids may have been ousted.

First this is totally inappropriate on this forum. On the C&A forum it would be acceptable, but this is the TD&D forum. Here the Scriptures are presumed to be authoritative.

That said, Tamar children were not mamzers. The were children of a near kinsman. This is the right of a childless widow granted by HaTorah. Regarding Yeshua, an adopted child is equal to a naturally born child. By choosing to marry Miriam, rather than put her way, He was adopting Yeshua. It was presumed at the time that Yeshua was Yoseph's natural son. That is why people were amazed the the son of a carpenter should become a notable rabbi.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 11 by bluethread]

I'm staying EXACTLY with the Scriptures.

Please read the Leviticus verse carefully.

The writers of the Scriptures have written that Perez was not only a mamzer according to Scripture, but he was also not the firstborn.

[StuartJ]

I forgot to mention:

The progenitor of the line of David kings was also born of harlotry.

So that's incest, harlotry and second-born counting against them from the authority of Scripture.

I suggest the theology, doctrine and dogma of the writers of this Scripture differed widely from that of the writers of the Scriptures of David's time.

We must also look at the Scriptural legitimacy of the line of Abraham - but, okay, I'll do that in another forum.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 11 by bluethread]

I'm staying EXACTLY with the Scriptures.

Please read the Leviticus verse carefully.

The writers of the Scriptures have written that Perez was not only a mamzer according to Scripture, but he was also not the firstborn.

Please provide the verse or verses you are referring to in Leviticus that show that the child of a kinsman redeemer is a mamzer.

I forgot to mention:

The progenitor of the line of David kings was also born of harlotry.

So that's incest, harlotry and second-born counting against them from the authority of Scripture.

If you are talking about Rehav, we have no reason to believe that she was not legitmately married to Salmon, after the fall of Yericho. What incest are you referring to? Also, the right of the firstborn is tradition, not Torah. There are several notable cases in HaTorah were the older serves the younger. So, I think you need to flesh these accusations out with references.

[StuartJ]

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her. Leviticus 18:15

Scripture is very clear here.

Genesis 38:

Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar pretends to be a prostitute.

Judah buys her services for a goat.

Tamar falls pregnant with twin boys by her father-in-law.

At the birth, Zerah thrusts his hand out of his mother's vagina.

The quick-thinking midwife ties a scarlet cord around the protruding hand and declares that this is the first-born.

However, the hand is withdrawn and there is an intrauterine kerfuffle and then Perez emerges from the vagina.

Perez is the progenitor of the David line of kings.

So there we have it on clear scriptural authority:

Harlotry

Incest

Usurpation

[bjs]

Jesus' ancestry is shown, in early biblical writings, to be illegitimate.

Yes, this is true. Jesus’ ancestry also includes a prostitute, and outsider, and an adulterer and murderer. That is the family history of our Lord, and we disciples of Jesus are certainly no better than our Lord.

That is what Christianity is. It is the religion of the outsiders, the outcasts, the homeless, the rejected, the despised, the hopeless and the worst of sinners. It is the religion of the bastards. They even let me in. Praise the name of the Lord!

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 15 by StuartJ]

But, what would be your point. Cannot God use the least as well as the best? Noah comes to mind.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 16 by bjs]

You're referring to Jesus' ancestry through Joseph.

Other folks here tell me Jesus' ancestry wasn't through Joseph ...?

However, given that not a single person of faith gives a single shred of evidence that there was a Jesus fathered by Yahweh (or the Holy Ghost) it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that we are simply dealing with the political propaganda of the followers - and supposed descendants - of the deposed David kings.

I further suggest that the writings we now have in Genesis and elsewhere are the political propaganda of the faction that ousted the Davids.

And they write them as mamzers.

I suggest the theology, doctrine and dogma of the reformers was vastly different to that of the Sons of God and human sacrifice of the David faction.

It's instructive to note that in another Scripture, Yahweh refuses to accept Moses as a sacrifice for the sins of many.

In another Scripture, Yahweh refuses Isaac as a human sacrifice.

He is written of as accepting Jephtha's daughter though ...?

And Jesus

[bjs]

[Replying to post 18 by StuartJ]

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

In this subforum, the fact that the Bible says that there is a God is sufficient evidence.

If you wish to argue that the Bible is political propaganda or what have you, make your case in the apologetics forum.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 19 by bjs]

Using nothing but the biblical writings as the primary - and indeed only - reference, I am freely discussing Christian theology.

Many - indeed most, I suggest - Christians offer that much of the biblical writings are not to be taken literally.

They offer them as myth and parable and so forth.

I see much of them as myth and parable too.

And I suspect there is also a large amount of political and historical allegory.

Perhaps much of what I say is radical and forcefully put and does not want to be heard by the establishment.

But surely that is what Christians admire in Jesus ...?