A Christmas time contradiction.

[polonius]

I am always puzzled by the alternating scriptures for Christmas, the writings of Matthew and the writings of Luke.

Matthew tells us that Jesus was born while Herod was king (who died in 4 BC). Luke tells us that Jesus was born during the census of Syria conducted by Quirinus in 6 AD.

Luke tells us that John’s parents came from a priestly family of Aaron, not David, This is what is meant by ‘daughter of Aaron,’ (not a daughter of David).

So if Mary were the cousin of Elizabeth or any blood relative, she would also be of Aaron’s bloodline, not David’s.

And, of course, women lack a Y chromosome so they can’t transmit the DNA for maleness.

So if Jesus was of virgin birth he would not have been of Davidic ancestry and would be a woman.

Are we to consider both Matthew’s and Luke’s scripture to be inspired on these points?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 19 by polonius]

Ok so what did you mean by the statement below?

The issue is if Mary is of the same blood as Elizabeth, she is Aaronic in descent

RESPONSE: If she wasn't Davidic and had a virgin birth, Jesus could't be Davidic.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 19 by polonius]

Ok so what did you mean by the statement below?

The issue is if Mary is of the same blood as Elizabeth, she is Aaronic in descent

RESPONSE: If she wasn't Davidic and had a virgin birth, Jesus could't be Davidic.

Ok but why did you mention her relation with Elizabeth, I don't think anyone is suggesting Elizabeth was Mary's mother so why did you mention Elizabeth?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 19 by polonius]

Ok so what did you mean by the statement below?

The issue is if Mary is of the same blood as Elizabeth, she is Aaronic in descent

RESPONSE: If she wasn't Davidic and had a virgin birth, Jesus wpuld not be Davidic.

JW asked again:

Ok but why did you mention her relation with Elizabeth, I don't think anyone is suggesting Elizabeth was Mary's mother so why did you mention Elizabeth?

You don’t seem to be following the argument.

Luke claims that Mary was going to visit her “cousin� “ kinswomen� or (blood) relative.

Elizabeth is a “daughter “ or offspring of Aaron, not David.

If Mary is blood relative of Elizabeth she too is daughter of Arron and not a daughter of David.

Hence she has no Davidic decent. If Jesus had a virgin birth through her, where did Jesus acquire the blood of David and Solomon to fulfill the prophecy of being the Messiah?

It's very simple. If Jesus had a virgin birth via Mary. she must be of David descent from both David and Solomon (not Aaron or Levi) for him to be in the Davidic line of the Messiah's succession.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by polonius]

Luke claims that Mary was going to visit her “cousin� “ kinswomen� or (blood) relative.

Elizabeth is a “daughter “ or offspring of Aaron, not David.

Maybe it's because it's late, I'm tired and I'm forgetting something but is there any reason why Mary can't be a descendant of both Aaron and David? I mean...we're talking about Aaron, brother of Moses right? And David, the king selected by God to rule after Saul? There would have been a few centuries between Aaron and David, & between David and Mary. What makes it implausible for someone to be descended from both? At the moment, it's like arguing that someone can't be a descendant of both Henry VIII and Henry V.

[JehovahsWitness]

If Mary is blood relative of Elizabeth she too is daughter of Arron and not a daughter of David.

You are contradicting yourself

Okay so we are agreed that if Mary's mother was a Levite, but she married a Judean, then all the children from that union would be considered Judean right?

RESPONSE: Yes, as long as the Judean father was the physical parent.

If Mary's mother was a Levite but she married a Judean, what would all their children be?

... the Judean father was the physical parent.

If Mary's father was a Judean what would Mary be?

... the Judean father was the physical parent.

[polonius]

"So when we put all of this together, it makes sense that when you go and compare this genealogy in Luke 3 with the genealogy in Matthew 1, you notice many differences. Matthew is trying to show that Jesus was the perfect Jew and the legal heir to the throne of David."


"Matthew wants to show that Jesus is the heir to the Davidic throne. Jesus is the King. Luke, on the other hand, wants to show that Jesus was a man. That He was fully human.

And so he can’t draw the royal lineage through Joseph, because Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. Jesus was, however, the biological son of Mary. And so that is what he does. He draws the physical lineage through Mary, back to David, Abraham, and the first man, Adam."

Royal lineage was always passed down through the male since only the male had seed (sperm),Women never did. They were either barren or fertile and nourished the seed;

But his first problem is that he begins with Nathan who was one of the sons of David but not in the guaranteed David – Solomon ancestry whom would sit on the throne of David


JW’s admission “__NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

Perhaps you should use a more accurate source and be a witness to the facts of history.
______________________________________

[brianbbs67]

I think I have stated before that in Isrealite tradition , once adopted, you are of that line. That is not inclusive of the fact God could have given Yeshua the DNA to match. After all, He is God.


https://www.westernseminary.edu/transfo ... nt-israel/

[JehovahsWitness]

Perhaps you should use a more accurate source and be a witness to the facts of history

Are you suggesting there is something inaccurate about what I have posted, if so please point it out.

I notice you haven't responded to accusation that you are contradicting yourself in , post # 25 can I take that as an admission that you are?

JW

[polonius]

Perhaps you should use a more accurate source and be a witness to the facts of history

Are you suggesting there is something inaccurate about what I have posted, if so please point it out.

I notice you haven't responded to accusation that you are contradicting yourself in , post # 25 can I take that as an admission that you are?

JW

RESPONSE:

1. Evidently you have become confused again. Post 25 is yours, not mine

2. Please point out the precise contradiction you accuse me of making.

Here is the essence of the argument:

1. Jesus is supposed to have descended from both King David and King Solomon. Nathan was never a king.

2. Jesus is supposed to have had a virgin birth through Mary (not biologically of Joseph's "seed.")

3 "Seed" (Sperm is never from the woman, she only provides nutrients and an environment for the seed to develop). So the only linage is male.

4. Luke claims that Mary was a cousin or relative of Elizabeth who was a "daughter of Aaron" Hence neither Elizabeth or Mary had Davidic blood but the same blood as Elizabeth.

5. Thus if Joseph was not Jesus biological father, and Jesus had a virgin birth, he was not a biological descendant of David or Solomon and hence not the Messiah.

Which part of this are you challenging? Please be specific.

[JehovahsWitness]

Please point out the precise contradiction you accuse me of making.

If Mary is blood relative of Elizabeth she too is daughter of Arron and not a daughter of David.

Here, correct me if I am wrong you assert that if Mary was a blood relative of Elzabeth she could not also be Davidic. However ....

Okay so we are agreed that if Mary's mother was a Levite, but she married a Judean, then all the children from that union would be considered Judean right?

RESPONSE: Yes, as long as the Judean father was the physical parent.

Here you agree that Mary would have obtained her tribal recognition through her biological father irrespective of what tribe her mother was, because tribe was determined through the father and not through the mother.



Now perhaps I misunderstood your point, so I will ask you the following questions:

• - Was Mary of the tribe of her mother or of the tribe of her father?
  
  - If Mary's father was a descendent of David ( but her mother was not) would Mary be considered a descendent of David (by reason of her of her father being a descendent of David), yes or No?

JW