What does it take to prove descent?

[rikuoamero]

So, the situation is problematic for me. I'm told that there are prophecies, and that among them, we are told that a descendant of the legendary King David will take his throne and drive out Israel's enemies.

I want to focus on the descent part. How does one prove descent? With Jesus, we have two Gospels (Matthew and Luke) rattling off a list of names (different lists by the way) supposedly going back to David and even further. We have Paul mentioning Jesus to be a descendant.
But...IS Jesus a descendant? What constitutes evidence for the claim that he is? Two lists of names?
I want to ask Christian apologists - imagine Jesus's first coming was in the present day. Would you believe someone to be a descendant of the legend that is King David, simply because someone else rattled off a list of names? "A is the son of B, B is the son of C, C is the son of D..."? I'm wondering why you're taking Jesus's biological credentials so...lightly. I mean, it's not like people back then had birth certs, or kept blood tests or DNA records.
How do we know Jesus IS a descendant of David? Can we verify the existence of the people in the supposed lists of ancestry? Did Jews keep absolutely meticulous genealogical records?
I can rattle off a list of names, and say I'm descended from say...the Rockefellers for instance. But does saying "Rikuoamero was the son of Adam, who was the son of Bob, who was the son of Charlie, who was the son of John Rockefellor Sr" mean that I am to be considered an heir to the Rockefeller fortune?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 29 by rikuoamero]

So your point is that ", no-one could have used DNA testing, as it was unknown as a methodology. "? That's your point? If so you are correct ancient Hebrews didn't use DNA testing.

I agree.

J W

So how does one prove descent for Jesus from the house of David? Apparently, either this isn't ringing alarm bells for you, or you honestly don't care at all that a claim, a major claim, is not being proven.
I've already had someone else earlier say they don't care to prove it. What about yourself? Haven't you argued this before? That Jesus fulfilled prophecy, that he was/is of the house of David?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 29 by rikuoamero]

So your point is that ", no-one could have used DNA testing, as it was unknown as a methodology. "? That's your point? If so you are correct ancient Hebrews didn't use DNA testing.

I agree.

J W

So how does one prove descent for Jesus from the house of David?

That would surely depend on who one is and what criteria is deemed acceptable. All societies, no matter how primitive operate according to rules. Parentage and inheritance are central components in the continuation of any group and to suggest, as has been done in this thread, that there was a people that managed to remain ethenically and culturally separate and distinct for thousands of years did so in the complete absence of any method to ensure this would happen stretches credulity to beyond the ridiculous.

The coming of a Messiah who was to be a descendent of king David was a promise that arguably beat in the heart of every Jewish family, and to suggest that it did so in the complete absence of any notion of verifification of said heritage is more than ludicrous its laughable.


JW



RELATED POSTS

How was biblical inheritance established?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 898#781898

Was biblical parentage established through blood and DNA tests?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 330#948330

Could Mary be Judean if she was related to Elisabeth?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 001#944001

Who was HELI?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 761#873761

How does the bible often refer to descendant of people? (seed)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 718#832718

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 32 by JehovahsWitness]

Parentage and inheritance are central components in the continuation of any group, to suggest as has been done in this thread that there was a people that managed to remain ethenically aand culturally separate and distinct for thousands of years did so in the complete absence of any method to ensure this would happen stretches credulity to beyond the ridiculous.

What are you saying...that it's what, more insane to think Jesus couldn't have been descended from David?
Besides, the Hebrews didn't remain separate in any sense of the term.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

And how could he be a descendant of King David if he had no biological father? He cannot be both the (literal) Son of God, and the descendant of David.

He can be a descendant of David without a biological father because he is effectively no different than Adam, who also had no biological father. He is also the son of God for the same reason. If you can believe in the creation of Adam, then there is nothing preventing the same belief in Jesus.

The Kabbala talks of this phenomena of Adam and Eve being taught how to coneive offspring without consumating their union in the normal manner. The New Testament seems to be reviving that idea with Joseph and Mary. The word "marry" and Mary would seem to be a word play here. Given that the word "marry" means "to impregnate", it seems intentional. In other words, there is a spiritual generation taking place which supercedes the physical one to such a degree that the physical becomes irrelevant.

Or are they claiming lineage through Mary?

Yes, the lineage is through Mary exclusively as that is the line that goes(through Nahum) all the way back to Adam.

Also, I agree that there was no way to prove Jesus lineage. No biological tools back then to do so. But those genealogies were the apologist's tools, perhaps fabricated.

If we view the narrative within the context of a world where everyone is a descendant of Adam, it makes little difference. Genetics has come a long way, but even today, we can see how the Levitical priest line's adherence to marrying within the tribe has left its mark. There are gene markers that are only found in people with names like Levine, Levitt, Cohen, etc. Contrary to popular opinion, these wandering tribes weren't all that large, nor did David's kingdom develop into some massive sprawling metropolis. Seen in this light, it isn't much of a stretch to say you're a descendant of David when you're biological father is in the same tribe.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

And how could he be a descendant of King David if he had no biological father? He cannot be both the (literal) Son of God, and the descendant of David.

He can be a descendant of David without a biological father because he is effectively no different than Adam, who also had no biological father. He is also the son of God for the same reason. If you can believe in the creation of Adam, then there is nothing preventing the same belief in Jesus.

The Kabbala talks of this phenomena of Adam and Eve being taught how to coneive offspring without consumating their union in the normal manner. The New Testament seems to be reviving that idea with Joseph and Mary. The word "marry" and Mary would seem to be a word play here. Given that the word "marry" means "to impregnate", it seems intentional. In other words, there is a spiritual generation taking place which supercedes the physical one to such a degree that the physical becomes irrelevant.

Or are they claiming lineage through Mary?

Yes, the lineage is through Mary exclusively as that is the line that goes(through Nahum) all the way back to Adam.

Also, I agree that there was no way to prove Jesus lineage. No biological tools back then to do so. But those genealogies were the apologist's tools, perhaps fabricated.

If we view the narrative within the context of a world where everyone is a descendant of Adam, it makes little difference. Genetics has come a long way, but even today, we can see how the Levitical priest line's adherence to marrying within the tribe has left its mark. There are gene markers that are only found in people with names like Levine, Levitt, Cohen, etc. Contrary to popular opinion, these wandering tribes weren't all that large, nor did David's kingdom develop into some massive sprawling metropolis. Seen in this light, it isn't much of a stretch to say you're a descendant of David when you're biological father is in the same tribe.