Jesus wasn't an offspring of David, was he?

[polonius]

"There is no evidence that Mary was a descendant of David, but Dennis McKinsey, the editor of Biblical Errancy [2], points out there is some evidence that she was a member of a completely separate line, a descendant of Levi, the great-grandfather of Aaron and Moses. That evidence comes from the pen of Luke, who wrote that Elisabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, was the cousin of Mary."

Luke describes Mary Elizabeth as "a daughter of Aaron" And a cousin to Mary. Not Davidic!

If Mary did not have Davidic blood, Jesus didn't either. There goes the Messiah claim!

[polonius]

It is the fallacious reasoning to believe Luke when he writes that Elizabeth was descended from Aaron, but not believe Luke when he write that Jesus was descended from David.

There was been lots of intermarriage among the tribes after the exile, and by Jesus day it was common place for relatives to be from different tribes.

RESPONSE:

Luke does not say that Jesus descended from Joseph. He wrote about a (miraculous) virgin birth don't you recall?

[Red Wolf]

Jesus not descended from David

One thing to consider,... if Jesus was the son of God, how could he be a descendant of King David, according to the flesh, from the loins of David?

If you want to believe in a Virgin Birth, then there is absolutely no way that Jesus could be the legitimate Messiah, or Christ

If God is the father of Jesus then Jesus is not a descendant of David, from the tribe of Judah. Therefore Jesus cannot be the Christ.

Israel was a patrilinear society. The lineage of a son was reckoned by the genealogy of his father.
Numbers 1:2
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;

Here is an example of how it works.

Aaron, the brother of Moses, was from the tribe of Levi as was Moses of course.

Exodus 4:14
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.

Aaron the Levite married Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nashon

Exodus 6:23
And Aaron took him Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nashon, to wife; and she bare him Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.


Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nashon, was from the tribe of Judah as was her brother Nashon, son of Amminadab.

Numbers 2:3
And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nashon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.

Aaron and Elisheba had four sons.
Exodus 6:23
And Aaron took him Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nashon, to wife; and she bare him Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

Aaron's sons all became priests, Levites, after their father Aaron's lineage, and not of the tribe of Judah as their mother was from the tribe of Judah.

Exodus 28:1
And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.

The point of this example is that a son takes the tribal designation and geneaology of his father and not his mother.
If Jesus was born of a virgin with God as his father Jesus did not have the lineage of the tribe of Judah, descendant of David. He could not be the legitimate Messiah, or Christ.

[onewithhim]

OP, they knew their genealogy back then. It was recorded and memorized. So, if Jesus' claim was false, that would have stopped the whole movement, right then.

RESPONSE: The New Testament does not list Joseph as Jesus' biological father.

Also keep in mind that the four gospels were only written between 70 and 95 AD by non-witnesses

The four gospels were written by WITNESSES. Matthew, possibly Mark, and John were witnesses to everything Jesus went through. They were very close to him, esp. John.


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

Call me dull-headed, but I don't see why Elizabeth being of the tribe of Levi negates Mary from being of the tribe of Judah. It looks to me like Jesus was "from the seed of David according to the flesh."

.

RESPONSE: Unless Joseph was Jesus' biological father, no. Keep in mind also, that inheritance passed solely along male lines. (Man provided the seed. Women only provided nourishment if she were fertile, or not if she was "barren.")

I seem to remember that if there was no male to take over the property of the father when the father died, the female(s) would inherit what their father left. Their inheritance would be legal. I feel that somehow this could be applied to Mary.


.

[Red Wolf]

OP, they knew their genealogy back then. It was recorded and memorized. So, if Jesus' claim was false, that would have stopped the whole movement, right then.

RESPONSE: The New Testament does not list Joseph as Jesus' biological father.

Also keep in mind that the four gospels were only written between 70 and 95 AD by non-witnesses

The four gospels were written by WITNESSES. Matthew, possibly Mark, and John were witnesses to everything Jesus went through. They were very close to him, esp. John.


.

The gospels were written anonymously....the names were added later

From the Catholic Encyclopedia
The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as a common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy . . . did it become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was 'according to' this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications". It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

[onewithhim]

Jesus not descended from David

One thing to consider,... if Jesus was the son of God, how could he be a descendant of King David, according to the flesh, from the loins of David?

If you want to believe in a Virgin Birth, then there is absolutely no way that Jesus could be the legitimate Messiah, or Christ

There are more reasons to believe that Jesus IS the legitimate Messiah than that he is not.

I posted how he fulfilled Daniel chapter 9---the "Seventy Weeks."


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 15 by Red Wolf]

It's rather silly to argue over who wrote the Gospels. The Catholic Church that you quote is divided within itself as to the matter. The Holy Bible/Douay Confraternity New Catholic Version says this:

(1) "St. Matthew, one of the twelve Apostles, is the author of the first Gospel. This has been the constant tradition of the Church and is confirmed by the Gospel itself." (Page 1 of the New Testament.) "Writing for his countrymen of Palestine, St. Matthew composed his Gospel in his native Aramaic, the 'Hebrew tongue' mentioned in the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles."

Pretty clear, wouldn't you say? Written by Matthew AND in Aramaic, not Greek. Oh, and the Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, 1961.

(2) "The second Gospel was written by St. Mark, who, in the New Testament, is sometimes called John Mark....It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote the second Gospel, that he wrote it in Rome sometime before the year 60 A.D." (Page 43.)

(3) "The unanimous tradition of the Church ascribes the third Gospel to St. Luke." (Page 70.)

(4) "St. John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved,' was the last to write his Gospel....At Ephesus, where he lived till about the year 100 A.D., he wrote the Gospel at the request of the Elders." (Page 114.)


Therefore, according to the former Cardinal Spellman and Church tradition, the Gospels were indeed written by the men whose names they have been carrying.


.[/u]

[polonius]

The four gospels were written by WITNESSES. Matthew, possibly Mark, and John were witnesses to everything Jesus went through. They were very close to him, esp. John.

RESPONSE:

I'm afraid not.

Lets start with Matthew's gospel which in anonymous and only named in the second century.

From the New American Bible Revised Edition, Introduction to Matthew

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke."

Question: Does "Matthew's gospel" ever list Matthew as the author? Is he ever referred to in this gospel by anyone?

I'll move on to Mark next.

[Red Wolf]

[Replying to post 16 by onewithhim]

The Seventy Weeks has been debunked....it is bogus.
And why shouldn't you expect perfection from Jesus if he really is who you think he is?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 16 by onewithhim]

The Seventy Weeks has been debunked....it is bogus.

Where and by whom? What evidence do you have?