>Biblically, adopted people can inherit from their father just as a natural born son can. They are as full sons as one begotten.
When does this happen in the OT
Israel are God's adopted people, yes?
And they inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, even though they aren't literally God's only begotten?
There you go.
>GENESIS 15:2–3. Being childless, Abram complains that *Eliezer , his servant, will be his heir. Since in the ancient Near East only relatives, normally sons, could inherit, Abram had probably adopted, or contemplated adopting, Eliezer. This passage is illuminated by the ancient Near Eastern practice of childless couples adopting a son, sometimes a slave, to serve them in their lifetime and bury and mourn them when they die, in return for which the adopted son is designated their heir.
>GENESIS 16:2 and 30:3. Because of their barrenness, Sarai and Rachel give their servant girls to Abram and Jacob as concubines, hoping to "have children" (lit. "be built up") through the concubines. These words are taken as an expression of intention to adopt the children born of the husbands and concubines.
>GENESIS 29–31. It is widely held that Jacob was adopted by the originally sonless Laban, on the analogy of a Nuzi contract in which a sonless man adopts a son, makes him his heir, and gives him his daughter as a wife.
Also, Moses was adopted into the royal Egyptian family. By Pharoah himself, who obliged his daughter. From this, he attained a high position in the court.
To the Egyptians, Pharoah was a living God. As Moses was adopted by Pharoah, so too are we adopted by God. When Moses laid out the design for the housing of the Tabernacle, he modeled it after Egyptian sacred buildings.
Look, most of the explicit "adoption" theology you'll find is going to be in the NT. Becasue the NT is largely an extended commentary on the OT, and provides an image of how people thought about the OT at the time.
You don't really need an example from the OT, the reason adopted people can inherit from their adopted parents today is ultimately becuase of this biblical influence on our legal system.
>the reason adopted people can inherit from their adopted parents today is ultimately becuase of this biblical influence on our legal system.
I think the concept of adoption predates the Bible completely
Like the Roman Empire is famous for half the Emperors being adopted sons of the previous Emperor and they weren't reading the second book of Ezra to figure out how to do that
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I guess you have a point. Our legal system is influenced by Roman law too.
Still, it goes to show that idea about inheritance and adoption was relatively widespread in the ancient world.
This is an incredibly good point! It must also mean that the Catholic cope about Jesus' brothers being earlier sons of Joseph is false since then they would have been his first, and hence the inheritors instead of Jesus
Heh, idk.
I have had my doubts as to the perpetual virginity of Mary before, but I feel like there's enough of a case for it for me to accept it.
Regardless, I'm of the opinion that the question is not very important theologically. The Immaculate Conception itself is far more so.
>since then they would have been his first, and hence the inheritors instead of Jesus
Not necessarily.
See in the OT there's this theme of the younger brother usurping the eldest. Jacob and Easu, Abel and Cain, Solomon being chosen as king of Israel over his older brothers, Ephraim and Manassah, the list truly does go on.
And this theme carries over into the NT in a big way, with the Kingdom of Heaven itself being explicitly taken from the elder brother in the Pharisees and given to the younger brother, the holy church and the gentile nations bearing fruit thereof (Matthew 21).
God seems to love pulling the old switcheroo on people.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
If the answer is "eh anybody can inherit the throne" then it goes back to making the lineage irrelevant. David and Solomon were specifically chosen but otherwise the assumption is the first son inherits it. Your example with Esau for instance is an exception that proves the rule, since Esau did have the rights and Jacob had to get them by being sold. Even Solomon serves as an example since his older brother was getting hailed as king at first and Solomon wound up having to kill him super early on.
It's one of those things that while you can wiggle around with it, it's just a super awkward fit, much like that famous "until", the way people talk about Jesus' family in general, and Mary's lack of great significance in general in the New Testament and the early Christian literature (i.e. not being invoked for supernatural aid or hailed as a queen of creation second only to God himself)
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>anybody can inherit the throne
It's not "just anyone" born of Judah who can inherit the throne.
It's a specific person. That's just one of the qualifications.
[...]
Yeah, there was. People recognized that a daughter was related to her father by blood dude. That's why she is part of her father's house.
The focus of the law on matters of *inheritance* doesn't foreclose on that, there are many cultural things that simply aren't mentioned in the bible because it was assumed to be commonly understood by the audience.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It's not "just anyone" born of Judah who can inherit the throne
Right - it's a specific lineage and, within that lineage, it goes to the first son. Unless Jesus were the first son of Joseph he wouldn't be the legitimate heir to the throne
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Solomon wasn't David's eldest surviving son, but he still inherited the throne. He was younger than say, Daniel, but that didn't really matter.
The king can just do that, it's his call.
1 Chronicles 3
1 Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron; the firstborn Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess:
2 The third, Absalom the son of Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur: the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith:
3 The fifth, Shephatiah of Abital: the sixth, Ithream by Eglah his wife.
4 These six were born unto him in Hebron; and there he reigned seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years.
5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Solomon wasn't David's eldest surviving son, but he still inherited the throne. He was younger than say, Daniel, but that didn't really matter.
It very, VERY much did! His older brother Adonijah took the throne first. 1 Kings 1:11 says "Then Nathan asked Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, “Have you not heard that Adonijah, the son of Haggith, has become king, and our lord David knows nothing about it?". Solomon had to depose and kill him.
We know basically nothing about this Daniel other than his name and that he was David's son. He isn't involved in any of the events the other brothers are. By all appearances it seems like Daniel died very young.
Saying Joseph had a son before Jesus makes Jesus into a usurper against the legitimate heir to David's throne
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Solomon had to depose and kill him.
You're completely misrepresenting the story.
Adonijah tried to become king while David was still alive, so David was convinced to explicitly name Solomon as his heir instead.
Solomon didn't have to depose anyone, and the reason Adonijah was executed by Solomon later was suspicion that he was trying to seize power again.
>Saying Joseph had a son before Jesus makes Jesus into a usurper against the legitimate heir to David's throne
That's stupid. It's not just anyone from the house of Judah who is eligible for the kingship, just the Messiah.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
# >Adonijah tried to become king while David was still alive
According to Nathan he full-on did it, remember? People were hailing him as king. Very short reigns where someone very briefly gets the throne but then gets whacked are relatively common with monarchies
>That's stupid.
Jesus being the heir to David's throne is a key point emphasized over and over. If Jesus wasn't Joseph's first son then the man that was would be the legitimate heir.
His case for being David's heir goes from "I am the rightful successor in the King's line" to "...I just am, OK?".
Clearly multiple Gospels giving his genealogy and him constantly being called the son of David tells us which one scripture has in view. Catholics however have to completely throw this out and delegitimize his claim in favor of the idea, completely foreign to the narratives, that Mary was really all along the sexless highest being in creation. It elevates Mary at the expense of making Jesus a usurper.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Jesus being the heir to David's throne is a key point emphasized over and over. If Jesus wasn't Joseph's first son then the man that was would be the legitimate heir.
You're still not getting it. The Kingdom of Israel passed away with the Babylonian captivity, only the Messiah could restore it through divine intervention.
Again, only the Messiah could reestablish the kingship. It's not just anyone who happens to have Davidic lineage because that includes *many* families, not just one. Were Jesus' brothers Messiah? No, they weren't.
>According to Nathan he full-on did it, remember? People were hailing him as king.
His personal retinue, who accompanied him on his way to preform the rites. Sure, he had accumulated a warband and chariots of his own without his father's knowledge.
1 Kings 1
5 Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, I will be king: and he prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him.
...
7 And he conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah, and with Abiathar the priest: and they following Adonijah helped him.
8 But Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and Nathan the prophet, and Shimei, and Rei, and the mighty men which belonged to David, were not with Adonijah.
9 And Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoheleth, which is by Enrogel, and called all his brethren the king's sons, and all the men of Judah the king's servants:
...
14 Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm thy words.
15 And Bathsheba went in unto the king into the chamber: and the king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king.
Note that at this time David is *still alive* and is called king. That means Adonijah isn't really king yet, he's just declaring himself so. It takes more than a declaration to make yourself king. He was about to coup the throne.
cont...
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:
34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.
35 Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah.
...
38 So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule, and brought him to Gihon.
39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.
40 And all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them.
41 And Adonijah and all the guests that were with him heard it as they had made an end of eating. And when Joab heard the sound of the trumpet, he said, Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar?
...
43 And Jonathan answered and said to Adonijah, Verily our lord king David hath made Solomon king.
It's Solomon being hailed as king, not Adonijah. Adonijah was the usurper, not Solomon. If he had not made a play for the throne, he probably would have inherited it. But that's not how things went down.
A failed and unpopular coup doesn't make one king.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The Kingdom of Israel passed away with the Babylonian captivity
That's not so; what was Herod king of? What was he worried the baby in Bethlehem would become instead of him?
>only the Messiah could reestablish the kingship
I don't think it ever even says that
>It's not just anyone who happens to have Davidic lineage
Right, it's his legitimate successor. In Matthew's geneaology, the last ancestor Joseph had that we actually really know anything about other than their name is Zerubbabel, who was indeed the ruler of Judah. (Effectively a vassal-king under the Persian Empire, much as Herod was under the Roman Empire)
>That means Adonijah isn't really king yet, he's just declaring himself so.
There's a difference between who SHOULD have the throne and who DOES have the throne. David is so old and weak by this point that he's barely being listened to. Nathan explicitly says "Adonijah, the son of Haggith, has become king".
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>That's not so; what was Herod king of?
Come on man, get in the game.
The Roman Senate appointed Herod king of the province of Judaea, he didn't inherit shit.
In fact because he was an Edomite, he (or one of his sons, I don't quite remember) saw to it that the official genaeologies kept in the Temple were destroyed. So that his legitimacy couldn't be questioned.
He was never king of Israel, and didn't succeed them in any way.
>I don't think it ever even says that
Well maybe it doesn't, but it doesn't have to. The kingdom of Israel stopped existing when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, their line of succession was broken when Zedekiah was blinded after the last thing he saw was the execution of his sons.
It would take literally God sending his chosen one to reestablish it.
>There's a difference between who SHOULD have the throne and who DOES have the throne. David is so old and weak by this point that he's barely being listened to. Nathan explicitly says "Adonijah, the son of Haggith, has become king".
How can you become king without the consent of the still living king? You can if you usurp the throne, which is what Adonijah tried to do.
You're grasping at straws in a fashion I would construe as "desperate".
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The Roman Senate appointed Herod king of the province of Judaea, he didn't inherit shit.
I don't see the relevance. The whole question is who the legitimate heir is, isn't it? Herod wasn't the legitimate heir. But he was king.
>He was never king of Israel...The kingdom of Israel stopped existing when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem
What rank does Luke 1:5 say he has, and over where?
>their line of succession was broken when Zedekiah
Zedekiah was placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar, much like Herod he wasn't the legitimate heir in the first place. Hence Jesus' geneaology goes through Jeconiah, who Nebuchadnezzar replaced with Zedekiah.
>How can you become king without the consent of the still living king?
Ask Nathan, and all the officials saying "long live the king"! Kings get kicked out of power all the time. Alllllll the time! It might not be legitimate but that doesn't change anything. Like we were just looking at Zedekiah got put on the throne in place of the legitimate Jeconiah. Why? Because Nebuchadnezzar was the strongest guy in town and he said so. That's how it often works. David at this time was an extremely old and weak man practically on his death bed.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I don't see the relevance.
Well, the significance is God himeself established the kingship of Israel. Not the SPQR.
So only God himself can reestablish it.
>The whole question is who the legitimate heir is, isn't it?
There was no legitimate heir. That was the problem, which the messiah would rectify according to prophecy.
>What rank does Luke 1:5 say he has, and over where?
The same rank endowed by the Roman Senate, over the Roman province of Judaea. The Romans had a habit of installing puppet kings.
>he wasn't the legitimate heir in the first place
He actually was part of the royal family.
>David at this time was an extremely old and weak man practically on his death bed.
David was still king. Nathan's words were chosen to convey the gravity of the scene, seeing as priests were assisting his usurpation,
The rest of that paragraph, I feel like you somehow lost your train of thought.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>So only God himself can reestablish it.
Where's is say that? It calls Herod king over and over so it doesn't agree.
>There was no legitimate heir.
Matthew 1 says otherwise! It shows directly how Jesus is the legitimate heir from David.
...Unless you insert Joseph having other, older sons into the text at which point it doesn't really say much of anything
>which the messiah would rectify according to prophecy.
What prophecy are you referring to?
>The same rank endowed by the Roman Senate, over the Roman province of Judaea
It directly calls him the king of Judea. The New Testament has 0 problem with it.
>He actually was part of the royal family.
The former king's brother doesn't get the throne if he has a living son
>Nathan's words were chosen to convey the gravity of the scene
Does Nathan say that, or does Nathan say he's king? 1 Kings 1:25 has most everybody who's anybody calling him king.
What do you think makes someone a king? It isn't a physical state. If people believe you are their king, then you are their king.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Herod was an Arab. Believe me, he is not the hill you want your argument to die on.
This is an incredibly good point! It must also mean that the Catholic cope about Jesus' brothers being earlier sons of Joseph is false since then they would have been his first, and hence the inheritors instead of Jesus
>Because the kingship of Israel is inherited patrilinially.
This is irrelevant because the Torah is clear that the israeli Messiah will be a paternal descendant of Dawid. The Messiah won't be adopted, he will be a blood descendant, that's one of the characteristics of the Messiah.
"When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever."
12 And it shall come to pass when thy days shall have been fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, even thine own issue, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build for me a house to my name, and I will set up his throne even for ever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And when he happens to transgress, then will I chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men.
The LXX reads a mite differently than whichever translation you selected.
So when was Solomon ever scourged with the rod and stripes of men? Is it not written that the messiah would be counted among the transgressors?
Besides, Jesus descends from the seed of David too. Through his mother.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Holy Theotokos is a virgin forever. Mary is a virgin forver. She gave birth to God immaculately and mysteriously, and is a virgin forever.
I ought to beat on the head with a ruler.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'm sorry, did you reply to the wrong post?
What about Mary being descended from David means she isn't also the perpetual virgin?
While you're at it, mind explaining to me exactly what Matthew means by this?
23 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.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
So he didn't "know" his wife until *after* she had borne Jesus.
That implies very strongly that they had sex, since the euphemism "know" is used that way all the time in the bible, and this makes me a heretic.
Forget the ruler, I need a yardstick.
The lineage of Mary is not on the bible, two gospels have two different lineages and attribute them both to Joseph. Christians claim one of them must be from Mary but that's not proven and very unlikely. It's just another case of the new testament being full of errors and clearly not inspired by God. Nowhere in the bible is the lineage of a woman ever traced, even if Mary was descendant of David it would not matter because for Jesus to be considered a son of David he must have David's Y chromosome that is only passed down from father to son.
A man is a descendant of his Father, not mother. There are entire books in the old testament dedicated exclusively to tracing lineages, and never a single woman, mother or daughter is ever mentioned. The soil can take grow any tree, but what decides which tree will grow is the seed that is planted.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Titus 3:9-11: "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/87826/jesus-lineage-and-descent-from-david
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8026/why-is-the-genealogy-in-luke-attributed-to-mary
https://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/kjv/luke/3.html
Proverbs 3:5: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."
Why are they unprofitable and useless
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
If they are unprofitable and useless, why were they put in the Bible?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
If they are unprofitable and useless, why were they put in the Bible?
The problem isn't the geneaologies, but I've posted a reminder to not argue with people who don't want to listen. Not saying it's the case here, I've had an argument with a israeli person about the same thing and he wouldn't accept he was wrong, and that Luke records Mary's geneaology according to the Greek, and that Jesus is the Son of David.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
In his view you didn't admit you are wrong.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Luke records Mary's geneaology
this means the text is corrupted. as it reads now, it goes through joseph.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>records Mary's geneaology
That's wrong though. He explicitely records Joseph's. They just fricked up and need to explain away the differences.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Seems like something someone who cannot prove Jesus is a son of David would say.
[...]
The problem isn't the geneaologies, but I've posted a reminder to not argue with people who don't want to listen. Not saying it's the case here, I've had an argument with a israeli person about the same thing and he wouldn't accept he was wrong, and that Luke records Mary's geneaology according to the Greek, and that Jesus is the Son of David.
So why didnt the writer of Luke say that it was the genealogy of Mary and instead said it was of Joseph?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>why didnt the writer of Luke say that it was the genealogy of Mary and instead said it was of Joseph
israeli custom - geneologies are given of women's fathers. i don't know why mary's father isn't listed as joachim though.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's simply not true.
Numbers 36
6 This [is] the thing which the Lord has appointed the daughters of Salpaad, saying, Let them marry where they please, only let them marry [men] of their father’s tribe. 7 So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel go about from tribe to tribe, for the children of Israel shall steadfastly continue each in the inheritance of his family’s tribe. 8 And whatever daughter is heiress to a property of the tribes of the children Israel, [such] women shall be married each to one of her father’s tribe, that the sons of Israel may each inherit the property of his father’s tribe. 9 And the inheritance shall not go about from one tribe to another, but the children of Israel shall steadfastly continue each in his own inheritance. 10 As the Lord commanded Moses, so did they to the daughters of Salpaad.
>whatever daughter is heiress to a property of the tribes of the children Israel, [such] women shall be married each to one of her father’s tribe, that the sons of Israel may each inherit the property of his father’s tribe. 9 And the inheritance shall not go about from one tribe to another, but the children of Israel shall steadfastly continue each in his own inheritance.
Here we see that women can indeed inherit, they are called heiress. If they couldn't, there would be no need to rule that only daughter must marry within their own tribe.
>He is a blood descendant of David though
Then he's not a direct patrilineal descendant of David and thus doesn't fulfill the israeli messianic prophesy.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Adoption.
You are BTFO forever, and will remain buttangery.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Adoption
Means that he's not a direct patrilineal descendant of David. The prophesy says that he's the son of the son of the son... of David, and that David's blood flows through his veins due to patrilineal descent. If he's adopted or gets the blood from somewhere lese then he, by definition, does not fulfill the prophesy.
Jesus could still be the blood descendant of Joseph despite Mary being a virgin. Jesus is literally God, so putting some of Joseph's blood in him couldn't be too difficult
Mary and Joseph are brother and sister so it was against the rules for them to have children, but God provided them the son of the people whom they loved so much.
When the executioners are marching down your street, cant say you werent warned.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
the bible is clear israelites go into the fire
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What does it say about Bnei Yisrael?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The children of God who will be reaped by the sword of God as righteous fruit for the kingdom of heaven are blessed by the lord Christ. The rest are damned for their own defiance.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why not blessed by God and reaped by Christ? why use a sword to reap instead of sickle?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Because the sword of God, although not a physical blade, cuts abomination to restore and preserve the Kingdom of Heaven. This in addition to reaping the fruit by cleaving them whole from the world into their proper places all the peoples of the earth.
Funnily enough, Joseph isn't even mentioned in the oldest Gospel, Mark. It's almost as if he got retconned in after people started saying salacious shit about Jesus' parentage.
I don't know anon, our father made your dumass, and the rest of us morons, for a great purpose! I'm sure of one thing, his reason for all this is great.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well now you're talking about going all the way back to Genesis. I'm just saying I'm not dying to do Ancestry.com or 23 and Me
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No those sound like scams. I was talking about like checking your family records and cemeteries all the way back to Noah. Back to Babel when the tribes got dispersed with their specific languages and your last name is the key.
You are the son of, who is the son of, who is the son of.. and then we all go back to Noah and Adam and them.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't know how to tell you this but there is no way to do that
It's a remnant of the original story before they started editing it and making Jesus anything more than a man who defeated death by not sinning. Which actually makes a lot more sense than God rezzing... which is anything but miraculous.
This part of the story never sat well with me. What were they thinking? It makes much more sense if he was Mary and Joseph's son and either was adopted by the Father or just predestined to fulfill the role.
>why is this a problem unless you're an inerrantist?
I never understood the amount of mental gymnastics needed for a christian NOT to be an inerrantist. it's like chanting 'nye nye nye we don't actually believe anything'.
>"geneology"
is this a hard word to spell for christians?
besides, repeating the lie that the genealogy in Luke was meant to be that of Mary does not make it true even if you repeat it in an image.
But the israeli prophecies don't say that the messiah will inherit his father's property, they say that he will be a blood descendant of King David.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Holy shit that was a fast reply! Less than three minutes.
Is it your job to lurk threads like these hitting refresh over and over to repeat a script or something? Damn.
Mary descends from David.
Jesus descends from Mary, meaning he descends from David by blood.
Joseph descends from David.
Joseph adopted Jesus as his son, which means he inherits him. Ergo, Jesus inherits David because they are of the same house.
Even though Jesus isn't a patrilineal descendant of David by blood, that doesn't matter because he was adopted into his house and DOES descend from David by his mother's blood.
Which means, a blood descendant of David lawfully inherits the blessings of David's house through adoption.
Because he's the messiah, this means he inherits David's throne. As it is written, born of a virgin.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Joseph adopted Jesus as his son
So then Jesus isn't a patrilineal blood descendant from David as the Messiah has to be.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The mother's father counts too though - israelites ignore women in genealogies, and a father can refer to a maternal grandfather
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Your daughter did not inherit your Y chromosome so she cannot pass it down to her son. Her son will have the Y chromosome from her husband.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The mother's father counts too though
Not according to the prophesies that he's supposed to fulfill, which are clear that the Messiah goes back in a chain of fathers back to David.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Even though Jesus isn't a patrilineal descendant of David by blood
Then he's not the Messiah.
>that doesn't matter
It does, the prophesies are quite clear.
>DOES descend from David by his mother's blood.
Irrelevant, that's not what the prophesy says.
>a blood descendant of David lawfully inherits
He doesn't inherit anything, the Messiah is the Messiah because he conquers the world, drowns all adult gentiles in blood, and enslaves their children to be the eternal slaves of the israeli race. He doesn't get anything from David, he just has to be descended through him in a patrilineal chain.
definite samegay
nobody cares about your headcanon
we can all tell just how infuriated this topic makes you, it's sad
>drowns all adult gentiles in blood and enslaves their children
lmao at these optics, you make this too easy
there's nothing in the bible about God's chosen one drowning the sons of Noah in blood and enslaving them, you're criminally insane
God made a covenant with the sons of Noah
They wrote that because they wanted Jesus to be a divine son of God, and they couldnt just write that God had sex with Mary, so they invented that she was immaculately impregnated by the holy spirit. Because their goal was for Jesus to be worshipped as a god. Christians dont consider Jesus a messiah, they dont care that he did not fulfill any of the mesianic prophecies, they dont even know what the messianic prophecies say, to them Jesus is god and that is all they care about.
>Christians dont consider Jesus a messiah
The word Christ literally means messiah.
Now you're truly desperate. I must have hit a nerve, your cognitive dissonance is going into overdrive.
Only a matter of time before you snap.
Face it, the gospels were written to present Jesus of Nazareth as the biblical Messiah and the virgin birth is mentioned because at the time it was in the bible.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>messiah
And Messiah means an Israelite king. Was Jesus ever a king in Israel? The verse used to claim Jesus's virgin was a messianic prophecy doesnt even use the word virgin, it says Almah, which means a young girl who has never given birth. And it was not even about a Messiah, Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy, it was a sign given to King Ahaz about when the war would end.
The promised Messiah is not a magical guy who will come and walk on water and multiply fish, it is a King who will sit in the throne of his father David and rule the same way David rule, with an iron fist crushing all the wicked in the world.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Even though Jesus isn't a patrilineal descendant of David by blood
Then he's not the Messiah.
>that doesn't matter
It does, the prophesies are quite clear.
>DOES descend from David by his mother's blood.
Irrelevant, that's not what the prophesy says.
>a blood descendant of David lawfully inherits
He doesn't inherit anything, the Messiah is the Messiah because he conquers the world, drowns all adult gentiles in blood, and enslaves their children to be the eternal slaves of the israeli race. He doesn't get anything from David, he just has to be descended through him in a patrilineal chain.
If it wasn't originally written that the messiah would be born of a virgin, then why would the gospel writers write that Jesus actually was?
It would have been directly counter productive to their goal of convincing people that Jesus was messiah.
They wrote that Jesus was virgin borne because that's what contemporary israelites expected of the Messiah, if they didn't expect it they would have just said Jesus was Joseph's natural son instead.
But that's not what they wrote, because they were telling the truth.
They wrote that because they wanted Jesus to be a divine son of God, and they couldnt just write that God had sex with Mary, so they invented that she was immaculately impregnated by the holy spirit. Because their goal was for Jesus to be worshipped as a god. Christians dont consider Jesus a messiah, they dont care that he did not fulfill any of the mesianic prophecies, they dont even know what the messianic prophecies say, to them Jesus is god and that is all they care about.
We've already established ITT that the original reading of that prophecy really is "a virgin will concieve".
Adding onto this fact, it's a prodigious and unmistakable sign of great events. Compared to the rather uninspired "a young woman will conceive".
That's not a sign of anything unusual. It happens all the time, young women regularly give birth. But virgins don't.
So it makes no sense at all to assert that the messiah must descend from David through an unbroken male line.
Messiah *must* be related to David through his mother's line, who is a virgin. And he must therefore inherit the kingdom of Israel though adoption into the house of David.
>It's heavily implied that Sarah's conception of Issac at the age of 90 was due to God personally making it happen.
God made it happen but it was still the seed of Abraham, she was not impregnated by God without sex. Abraham impregnated her.
There is no messianic prophecy about the Messiah being born of a virgin. There is no prophecy at all in the old testament about any person being born of a virgin. Matthew's claim comes from a verse from Isaiah taken out of context and mistranslated so that it would say Virgin instead of Young Woman. There is not a single place in the old testament that says a virgin will give birth. The verse does not exist. Isaiah 7:14 says an Almah will give birth and call his son Immanuel. And when the king saw this happen he will know the war is about to end. That is all the prophecy is about. A sign to let a king know when his enemies would fall. It was not a prophecy about a messiah. The kid was not even important at all, he was just a sign.
Almah: A Hebrew word meaning a young woman ripe for marriage.
There is not a single verse in the old testament where is says a virgin will give birth. The verse is not real yet the whole religion of Christianty revolves around this non existent prophecy.
Not saying you're wrong about the prophecy being about the war.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Saying the world Almah implies that she will get married and then conceive, through sex. Replacing that word with Virgin makes it seem like she will conceive while being a virgin. As if the virginity plays an important role in the prophecy, when it does not.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
It clearly does play an important role, that's why the gospel authors included it in the first place.
They expected their contemporary audience to respond to that specific qualification.
The gospels quote the OT many, many times. Because their audience was already familiar with the content, to which they were appealing for reasons of convincing those israelites that Jesus is Christ.
You shut your fat mouf
Because the kingship of Israel is inherited patrilinially.
Joseph descends patrilinially from David. And he adopts Jesus as his own son, which means Jesus is part of Judah.
Biblically, adopted people can inherit from their father just as a natural born son can. They are as full sons as one begotten.
That means Jesus rightfully inherits the Kingship of Israel and fulfills the prophecy that the Messiah would be part of David's house.
>Biblically, adopted people can inherit from their father just as a natural born son can. They are as full sons as one begotten.
When does this happen in the OT
Israel are God's adopted people, yes?
And they inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, even though they aren't literally God's only begotten?
There you go.
>GENESIS 15:2–3. Being childless, Abram complains that *Eliezer , his servant, will be his heir. Since in the ancient Near East only relatives, normally sons, could inherit, Abram had probably adopted, or contemplated adopting, Eliezer. This passage is illuminated by the ancient Near Eastern practice of childless couples adopting a son, sometimes a slave, to serve them in their lifetime and bury and mourn them when they die, in return for which the adopted son is designated their heir.
>GENESIS 16:2 and 30:3. Because of their barrenness, Sarai and Rachel give their servant girls to Abram and Jacob as concubines, hoping to "have children" (lit. "be built up") through the concubines. These words are taken as an expression of intention to adopt the children born of the husbands and concubines.
>GENESIS 29–31. It is widely held that Jacob was adopted by the originally sonless Laban, on the analogy of a Nuzi contract in which a sonless man adopts a son, makes him his heir, and gives him his daughter as a wife.
Also, Moses was adopted into the royal Egyptian family. By Pharoah himself, who obliged his daughter. From this, he attained a high position in the court.
To the Egyptians, Pharoah was a living God. As Moses was adopted by Pharoah, so too are we adopted by God. When Moses laid out the design for the housing of the Tabernacle, he modeled it after Egyptian sacred buildings.
Look, most of the explicit "adoption" theology you'll find is going to be in the NT. Becasue the NT is largely an extended commentary on the OT, and provides an image of how people thought about the OT at the time.
You don't really need an example from the OT, the reason adopted people can inherit from their adopted parents today is ultimately becuase of this biblical influence on our legal system.
>the reason adopted people can inherit from their adopted parents today is ultimately becuase of this biblical influence on our legal system.
I think the concept of adoption predates the Bible completely
Like the Roman Empire is famous for half the Emperors being adopted sons of the previous Emperor and they weren't reading the second book of Ezra to figure out how to do that
Yeah, I guess you have a point. Our legal system is influenced by Roman law too.
Still, it goes to show that idea about inheritance and adoption was relatively widespread in the ancient world.
Heh, idk.
I have had my doubts as to the perpetual virginity of Mary before, but I feel like there's enough of a case for it for me to accept it.
Regardless, I'm of the opinion that the question is not very important theologically. The Immaculate Conception itself is far more so.
>since then they would have been his first, and hence the inheritors instead of Jesus
Not necessarily.
See in the OT there's this theme of the younger brother usurping the eldest. Jacob and Easu, Abel and Cain, Solomon being chosen as king of Israel over his older brothers, Ephraim and Manassah, the list truly does go on.
And this theme carries over into the NT in a big way, with the Kingdom of Heaven itself being explicitly taken from the elder brother in the Pharisees and given to the younger brother, the holy church and the gentile nations bearing fruit thereof (Matthew 21).
God seems to love pulling the old switcheroo on people.
If the answer is "eh anybody can inherit the throne" then it goes back to making the lineage irrelevant. David and Solomon were specifically chosen but otherwise the assumption is the first son inherits it. Your example with Esau for instance is an exception that proves the rule, since Esau did have the rights and Jacob had to get them by being sold. Even Solomon serves as an example since his older brother was getting hailed as king at first and Solomon wound up having to kill him super early on.
It's one of those things that while you can wiggle around with it, it's just a super awkward fit, much like that famous "until", the way people talk about Jesus' family in general, and Mary's lack of great significance in general in the New Testament and the early Christian literature (i.e. not being invoked for supernatural aid or hailed as a queen of creation second only to God himself)
>anybody can inherit the throne
It's not "just anyone" born of Judah who can inherit the throne.
It's a specific person. That's just one of the qualifications.
Yeah, there was. People recognized that a daughter was related to her father by blood dude. That's why she is part of her father's house.
The focus of the law on matters of *inheritance* doesn't foreclose on that, there are many cultural things that simply aren't mentioned in the bible because it was assumed to be commonly understood by the audience.
>It's not "just anyone" born of Judah who can inherit the throne
Right - it's a specific lineage and, within that lineage, it goes to the first son. Unless Jesus were the first son of Joseph he wouldn't be the legitimate heir to the throne
Solomon wasn't David's eldest surviving son, but he still inherited the throne. He was younger than say, Daniel, but that didn't really matter.
The king can just do that, it's his call.
1 Chronicles 3
1 Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron; the firstborn Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess:
2 The third, Absalom the son of Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur: the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith:
3 The fifth, Shephatiah of Abital: the sixth, Ithream by Eglah his wife.
4 These six were born unto him in Hebron; and there he reigned seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years.
5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:
>Solomon wasn't David's eldest surviving son, but he still inherited the throne. He was younger than say, Daniel, but that didn't really matter.
It very, VERY much did! His older brother Adonijah took the throne first. 1 Kings 1:11 says "Then Nathan asked Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, “Have you not heard that Adonijah, the son of Haggith, has become king, and our lord David knows nothing about it?". Solomon had to depose and kill him.
We know basically nothing about this Daniel other than his name and that he was David's son. He isn't involved in any of the events the other brothers are. By all appearances it seems like Daniel died very young.
Saying Joseph had a son before Jesus makes Jesus into a usurper against the legitimate heir to David's throne
>Solomon had to depose and kill him.
You're completely misrepresenting the story.
Adonijah tried to become king while David was still alive, so David was convinced to explicitly name Solomon as his heir instead.
Solomon didn't have to depose anyone, and the reason Adonijah was executed by Solomon later was suspicion that he was trying to seize power again.
>Saying Joseph had a son before Jesus makes Jesus into a usurper against the legitimate heir to David's throne
That's stupid. It's not just anyone from the house of Judah who is eligible for the kingship, just the Messiah.
#
>Adonijah tried to become king while David was still alive
According to Nathan he full-on did it, remember? People were hailing him as king. Very short reigns where someone very briefly gets the throne but then gets whacked are relatively common with monarchies
>That's stupid.
Jesus being the heir to David's throne is a key point emphasized over and over. If Jesus wasn't Joseph's first son then the man that was would be the legitimate heir.
His case for being David's heir goes from "I am the rightful successor in the King's line" to "...I just am, OK?".
Clearly multiple Gospels giving his genealogy and him constantly being called the son of David tells us which one scripture has in view. Catholics however have to completely throw this out and delegitimize his claim in favor of the idea, completely foreign to the narratives, that Mary was really all along the sexless highest being in creation. It elevates Mary at the expense of making Jesus a usurper.
>Jesus being the heir to David's throne is a key point emphasized over and over. If Jesus wasn't Joseph's first son then the man that was would be the legitimate heir.
You're still not getting it. The Kingdom of Israel passed away with the Babylonian captivity, only the Messiah could restore it through divine intervention.
Again, only the Messiah could reestablish the kingship. It's not just anyone who happens to have Davidic lineage because that includes *many* families, not just one. Were Jesus' brothers Messiah? No, they weren't.
>According to Nathan he full-on did it, remember? People were hailing him as king.
His personal retinue, who accompanied him on his way to preform the rites. Sure, he had accumulated a warband and chariots of his own without his father's knowledge.
1 Kings 1
5 Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, I will be king: and he prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him.
...
7 And he conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah, and with Abiathar the priest: and they following Adonijah helped him.
8 But Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and Nathan the prophet, and Shimei, and Rei, and the mighty men which belonged to David, were not with Adonijah.
9 And Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoheleth, which is by Enrogel, and called all his brethren the king's sons, and all the men of Judah the king's servants:
...
14 Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm thy words.
15 And Bathsheba went in unto the king into the chamber: and the king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king.
Note that at this time David is *still alive* and is called king. That means Adonijah isn't really king yet, he's just declaring himself so. It takes more than a declaration to make yourself king. He was about to coup the throne.
cont...
33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:
34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.
35 Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah.
...
38 So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule, and brought him to Gihon.
39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.
40 And all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them.
41 And Adonijah and all the guests that were with him heard it as they had made an end of eating. And when Joab heard the sound of the trumpet, he said, Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar?
...
43 And Jonathan answered and said to Adonijah, Verily our lord king David hath made Solomon king.
It's Solomon being hailed as king, not Adonijah. Adonijah was the usurper, not Solomon. If he had not made a play for the throne, he probably would have inherited it. But that's not how things went down.
A failed and unpopular coup doesn't make one king.
>The Kingdom of Israel passed away with the Babylonian captivity
That's not so; what was Herod king of? What was he worried the baby in Bethlehem would become instead of him?
>only the Messiah could reestablish the kingship
I don't think it ever even says that
>It's not just anyone who happens to have Davidic lineage
Right, it's his legitimate successor. In Matthew's geneaology, the last ancestor Joseph had that we actually really know anything about other than their name is Zerubbabel, who was indeed the ruler of Judah. (Effectively a vassal-king under the Persian Empire, much as Herod was under the Roman Empire)
>That means Adonijah isn't really king yet, he's just declaring himself so.
There's a difference between who SHOULD have the throne and who DOES have the throne. David is so old and weak by this point that he's barely being listened to. Nathan explicitly says "Adonijah, the son of Haggith, has become king".
>That's not so; what was Herod king of?
Come on man, get in the game.
The Roman Senate appointed Herod king of the province of Judaea, he didn't inherit shit.
In fact because he was an Edomite, he (or one of his sons, I don't quite remember) saw to it that the official genaeologies kept in the Temple were destroyed. So that his legitimacy couldn't be questioned.
He was never king of Israel, and didn't succeed them in any way.
>I don't think it ever even says that
Well maybe it doesn't, but it doesn't have to. The kingdom of Israel stopped existing when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, their line of succession was broken when Zedekiah was blinded after the last thing he saw was the execution of his sons.
It would take literally God sending his chosen one to reestablish it.
>There's a difference between who SHOULD have the throne and who DOES have the throne. David is so old and weak by this point that he's barely being listened to. Nathan explicitly says "Adonijah, the son of Haggith, has become king".
How can you become king without the consent of the still living king? You can if you usurp the throne, which is what Adonijah tried to do.
You're grasping at straws in a fashion I would construe as "desperate".
>The Roman Senate appointed Herod king of the province of Judaea, he didn't inherit shit.
I don't see the relevance. The whole question is who the legitimate heir is, isn't it? Herod wasn't the legitimate heir. But he was king.
>He was never king of Israel...The kingdom of Israel stopped existing when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem
What rank does Luke 1:5 say he has, and over where?
>their line of succession was broken when Zedekiah
Zedekiah was placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar, much like Herod he wasn't the legitimate heir in the first place. Hence Jesus' geneaology goes through Jeconiah, who Nebuchadnezzar replaced with Zedekiah.
>How can you become king without the consent of the still living king?
Ask Nathan, and all the officials saying "long live the king"! Kings get kicked out of power all the time. Alllllll the time! It might not be legitimate but that doesn't change anything. Like we were just looking at Zedekiah got put on the throne in place of the legitimate Jeconiah. Why? Because Nebuchadnezzar was the strongest guy in town and he said so. That's how it often works. David at this time was an extremely old and weak man practically on his death bed.
>I don't see the relevance.
Well, the significance is God himeself established the kingship of Israel. Not the SPQR.
So only God himself can reestablish it.
>The whole question is who the legitimate heir is, isn't it?
There was no legitimate heir. That was the problem, which the messiah would rectify according to prophecy.
>What rank does Luke 1:5 say he has, and over where?
The same rank endowed by the Roman Senate, over the Roman province of Judaea. The Romans had a habit of installing puppet kings.
>he wasn't the legitimate heir in the first place
He actually was part of the royal family.
>David at this time was an extremely old and weak man practically on his death bed.
David was still king. Nathan's words were chosen to convey the gravity of the scene, seeing as priests were assisting his usurpation,
The rest of that paragraph, I feel like you somehow lost your train of thought.
>So only God himself can reestablish it.
Where's is say that? It calls Herod king over and over so it doesn't agree.
>There was no legitimate heir.
Matthew 1 says otherwise! It shows directly how Jesus is the legitimate heir from David.
...Unless you insert Joseph having other, older sons into the text at which point it doesn't really say much of anything
>which the messiah would rectify according to prophecy.
What prophecy are you referring to?
>The same rank endowed by the Roman Senate, over the Roman province of Judaea
It directly calls him the king of Judea. The New Testament has 0 problem with it.
>He actually was part of the royal family.
The former king's brother doesn't get the throne if he has a living son
>Nathan's words were chosen to convey the gravity of the scene
Does Nathan say that, or does Nathan say he's king? 1 Kings 1:25 has most everybody who's anybody calling him king.
What do you think makes someone a king? It isn't a physical state. If people believe you are their king, then you are their king.
Herod was an Arab. Believe me, he is not the hill you want your argument to die on.
>pharoah
>pharoah
>pharoah
let me guess: accidental typo three times.
This is an incredibly good point! It must also mean that the Catholic cope about Jesus' brothers being earlier sons of Joseph is false since then they would have been his first, and hence the inheritors instead of Jesus
>Because the kingship of Israel is inherited patrilinially.
This is irrelevant because the Torah is clear that the israeli Messiah will be a paternal descendant of Dawid. The Messiah won't be adopted, he will be a blood descendant, that's one of the characteristics of the Messiah.
Yeah, it's literally prophesied in the Bible.
"When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever."
Refers to Solomon and the Mashiach
12 And it shall come to pass when thy days shall have been fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, even thine own issue, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build for me a house to my name, and I will set up his throne even for ever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And when he happens to transgress, then will I chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men.
The LXX reads a mite differently than whichever translation you selected.
So when was Solomon ever scourged with the rod and stripes of men? Is it not written that the messiah would be counted among the transgressors?
Besides, Jesus descends from the seed of David too. Through his mother.
The Holy Theotokos is a virgin forever. Mary is a virgin forver. She gave birth to God immaculately and mysteriously, and is a virgin forever.
I ought to beat on the head with a ruler.
I'm sorry, did you reply to the wrong post?
What about Mary being descended from David means she isn't also the perpetual virgin?
While you're at it, mind explaining to me exactly what Matthew means by this?
23 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.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
So he didn't "know" his wife until *after* she had borne Jesus.
That implies very strongly that they had sex, since the euphemism "know" is used that way all the time in the bible, and this makes me a heretic.
Forget the ruler, I need a yardstick.
He is a blood descendant of David though. Just not patrilinially, which is not a problem for the adoptive reasons I have already outlined ITT.
That's why both Mary's and Joseph's lineages matter.
The lineage of Mary is not on the bible, two gospels have two different lineages and attribute them both to Joseph. Christians claim one of them must be from Mary but that's not proven and very unlikely. It's just another case of the new testament being full of errors and clearly not inspired by God. Nowhere in the bible is the lineage of a woman ever traced, even if Mary was descendant of David it would not matter because for Jesus to be considered a son of David he must have David's Y chromosome that is only passed down from father to son.
A man is a descendant of his Father, not mother. There are entire books in the old testament dedicated exclusively to tracing lineages, and never a single woman, mother or daughter is ever mentioned. The soil can take grow any tree, but what decides which tree will grow is the seed that is planted.
Titus 3:9-11: "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/87826/jesus-lineage-and-descent-from-david
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8026/why-is-the-genealogy-in-luke-attributed-to-mary
https://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/kjv/luke/3.html
Proverbs 3:5: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
>"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."
Why are they unprofitable and useless
If they are unprofitable and useless, why were they put in the Bible?
The problem isn't the geneaologies, but I've posted a reminder to not argue with people who don't want to listen. Not saying it's the case here, I've had an argument with a israeli person about the same thing and he wouldn't accept he was wrong, and that Luke records Mary's geneaology according to the Greek, and that Jesus is the Son of David.
In his view you didn't admit you are wrong.
>Luke records Mary's geneaology
this means the text is corrupted. as it reads now, it goes through joseph.
>records Mary's geneaology
That's wrong though. He explicitely records Joseph's. They just fricked up and need to explain away the differences.
Seems like something someone who cannot prove Jesus is a son of David would say.
So why didnt the writer of Luke say that it was the genealogy of Mary and instead said it was of Joseph?
>why didnt the writer of Luke say that it was the genealogy of Mary and instead said it was of Joseph
israeli custom - geneologies are given of women's fathers. i don't know why mary's father isn't listed as joachim though.
That's simply not true.
Numbers 36
6 This [is] the thing which the Lord has appointed the daughters of Salpaad, saying, Let them marry where they please, only let them marry [men] of their father’s tribe. 7 So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel go about from tribe to tribe, for the children of Israel shall steadfastly continue each in the inheritance of his family’s tribe. 8 And whatever daughter is heiress to a property of the tribes of the children Israel, [such] women shall be married each to one of her father’s tribe, that the sons of Israel may each inherit the property of his father’s tribe. 9 And the inheritance shall not go about from one tribe to another, but the children of Israel shall steadfastly continue each in his own inheritance. 10 As the Lord commanded Moses, so did they to the daughters of Salpaad.
>whatever daughter is heiress to a property of the tribes of the children Israel, [such] women shall be married each to one of her father’s tribe, that the sons of Israel may each inherit the property of his father’s tribe. 9 And the inheritance shall not go about from one tribe to another, but the children of Israel shall steadfastly continue each in his own inheritance.
Here we see that women can indeed inherit, they are called heiress. If they couldn't, there would be no need to rule that only daughter must marry within their own tribe.
>He is a blood descendant of David though
Then he's not a direct patrilineal descendant of David and thus doesn't fulfill the israeli messianic prophesy.
Adoption.
You are BTFO forever, and will remain buttangery.
>Adoption
Means that he's not a direct patrilineal descendant of David. The prophesy says that he's the son of the son of the son... of David, and that David's blood flows through his veins due to patrilineal descent. If he's adopted or gets the blood from somewhere lese then he, by definition, does not fulfill the prophesy.
Jesus could still be the blood descendant of Joseph despite Mary being a virgin. Jesus is literally God, so putting some of Joseph's blood in him couldn't be too difficult
I am ready to solve the puzzle...
Mary and Joseph are brother and sister so it was against the rules for them to have children, but God provided them the son of the people whom they loved so much.
When the executioners are marching down your street, cant say you werent warned.
the bible is clear israelites go into the fire
What does it say about Bnei Yisrael?
The children of God who will be reaped by the sword of God as righteous fruit for the kingdom of heaven are blessed by the lord Christ. The rest are damned for their own defiance.
Why not blessed by God and reaped by Christ? why use a sword to reap instead of sickle?
Because the sword of God, although not a physical blade, cuts abomination to restore and preserve the Kingdom of Heaven. This in addition to reaping the fruit by cleaving them whole from the world into their proper places all the peoples of the earth.
I guess but what's even the fricking point of prophecy anymore if god can just magically put dna In people
God took Joseph's DNA to provide for the other half of Jesus's biological body
Does this mean Joseph is the bull after all? Incredible.
Cucked by himself. Truly our lord is a majestic lord
Funnily enough, Joseph isn't even mentioned in the oldest Gospel, Mark. It's almost as if he got retconned in after people started saying salacious shit about Jesus' parentage.
Don’t the oldest sources point to a Roman officer Pantera being Jesus’ father?
Pro-Tip: All the lineage shit in the Bible is edited in just to satisfy local traditions and can be completely ignored.
Why doesn't yours anon?
Who you mama?
Because I'm not born of a virgin?
>god matters more than you
Yes
Your geneology still matters though.
Why?
I don't know anon, our father made your dumass, and the rest of us morons, for a great purpose! I'm sure of one thing, his reason for all this is great.
Well now you're talking about going all the way back to Genesis. I'm just saying I'm not dying to do Ancestry.com or 23 and Me
No those sound like scams. I was talking about like checking your family records and cemeteries all the way back to Noah. Back to Babel when the tribes got dispersed with their specific languages and your last name is the key.
You are the son of, who is the son of, who is the son of.. and then we all go back to Noah and Adam and them.
I don't know how to tell you this but there is no way to do that
Never say never say never
It's a remnant of the original story before they started editing it and making Jesus anything more than a man who defeated death by not sinning. Which actually makes a lot more sense than God rezzing... which is anything but miraculous.
This part of the story never sat well with me. What were they thinking? It makes much more sense if he was Mary and Joseph's son and either was adopted by the Father or just predestined to fulfill the role.
>why is this a problem unless you're an inerrantist?
I never understood the amount of mental gymnastics needed for a christian NOT to be an inerrantist. it's like chanting 'nye nye nye we don't actually believe anything'.
MY EYES ARE GETTIN WEARY
Reasons
>"geneology"
is this a hard word to spell for christians?
besides, repeating the lie that the genealogy in Luke was meant to be that of Mary does not make it true even if you repeat it in an image.
>is this a hard word to spell for christians?
No, though it is for ESLs
>descended through his mother
So not patrilineal blood descent through his father.
>descended through his adopted dad
So not patrilineal blood descent through his father.
Hey dingus, when you get adopted you inherit your father's property.
That's legitimate patrilineal inheritance.
cope
seethe
But the israeli prophecies don't say that the messiah will inherit his father's property, they say that he will be a blood descendant of King David.
Holy shit that was a fast reply! Less than three minutes.
Is it your job to lurk threads like these hitting refresh over and over to repeat a script or something? Damn.
Mary descends from David.
Jesus descends from Mary, meaning he descends from David by blood.
Joseph descends from David.
Joseph adopted Jesus as his son, which means he inherits him. Ergo, Jesus inherits David because they are of the same house.
Even though Jesus isn't a patrilineal descendant of David by blood, that doesn't matter because he was adopted into his house and DOES descend from David by his mother's blood.
Which means, a blood descendant of David lawfully inherits the blessings of David's house through adoption.
Because he's the messiah, this means he inherits David's throne. As it is written, born of a virgin.
>Joseph adopted Jesus as his son
So then Jesus isn't a patrilineal blood descendant from David as the Messiah has to be.
The mother's father counts too though - israelites ignore women in genealogies, and a father can refer to a maternal grandfather
Your daughter did not inherit your Y chromosome so she cannot pass it down to her son. Her son will have the Y chromosome from her husband.
>The mother's father counts too though
Not according to the prophesies that he's supposed to fulfill, which are clear that the Messiah goes back in a chain of fathers back to David.
definite samegay
nobody cares about your headcanon
we can all tell just how infuriated this topic makes you, it's sad
>drowns all adult gentiles in blood and enslaves their children
lmao at these optics, you make this too easy
there's nothing in the bible about God's chosen one drowning the sons of Noah in blood and enslaving them, you're criminally insane
God made a covenant with the sons of Noah
>Christians dont consider Jesus a messiah
The word Christ literally means messiah.
Now you're truly desperate. I must have hit a nerve, your cognitive dissonance is going into overdrive.
Only a matter of time before you snap.
Face it, the gospels were written to present Jesus of Nazareth as the biblical Messiah and the virgin birth is mentioned because at the time it was in the bible.
>messiah
And Messiah means an Israelite king. Was Jesus ever a king in Israel? The verse used to claim Jesus's virgin was a messianic prophecy doesnt even use the word virgin, it says Almah, which means a young girl who has never given birth. And it was not even about a Messiah, Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy, it was a sign given to King Ahaz about when the war would end.
The promised Messiah is not a magical guy who will come and walk on water and multiply fish, it is a King who will sit in the throne of his father David and rule the same way David rule, with an iron fist crushing all the wicked in the world.
>Even though Jesus isn't a patrilineal descendant of David by blood
Then he's not the Messiah.
>that doesn't matter
It does, the prophesies are quite clear.
>DOES descend from David by his mother's blood.
Irrelevant, that's not what the prophesy says.
>a blood descendant of David lawfully inherits
He doesn't inherit anything, the Messiah is the Messiah because he conquers the world, drowns all adult gentiles in blood, and enslaves their children to be the eternal slaves of the israeli race. He doesn't get anything from David, he just has to be descended through him in a patrilineal chain.
Because he’s was the beginning you rere
>inb4 nuh uh
If it wasn't originally written that the messiah would be born of a virgin, then why would the gospel writers write that Jesus actually was?
It would have been directly counter productive to their goal of convincing people that Jesus was messiah.
They wrote that Jesus was virgin borne because that's what contemporary israelites expected of the Messiah, if they didn't expect it they would have just said Jesus was Joseph's natural son instead.
But that's not what they wrote, because they were telling the truth.
They wrote that because they wanted Jesus to be a divine son of God, and they couldnt just write that God had sex with Mary, so they invented that she was immaculately impregnated by the holy spirit. Because their goal was for Jesus to be worshipped as a god. Christians dont consider Jesus a messiah, they dont care that he did not fulfill any of the mesianic prophecies, they dont even know what the messianic prophecies say, to them Jesus is god and that is all they care about.
Scientifically, God used Joseph's DNA along with Mary's DNA
We've already established ITT that the original reading of that prophecy really is "a virgin will concieve".
Adding onto this fact, it's a prodigious and unmistakable sign of great events. Compared to the rather uninspired "a young woman will conceive".
That's not a sign of anything unusual. It happens all the time, young women regularly give birth. But virgins don't.
So it makes no sense at all to assert that the messiah must descend from David through an unbroken male line.
Messiah *must* be related to David through his mother's line, who is a virgin. And he must therefore inherit the kingdom of Israel though adoption into the house of David.
Divine conception isn't even an unusual thing to happen in the bible.
It's heavily implied that Sarah's conception of Issac at the age of 90 was due to God personally making it happen.
That's what Philo of Alexandria and Paul both testify. Source below.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/isaacs-divine-conception
None of the instances outlined in this article involve a virgin though, IIRC. That is reserved as a unique sign of the Messiah.
>It's heavily implied that Sarah's conception of Issac at the age of 90 was due to God personally making it happen.
God made it happen but it was still the seed of Abraham, she was not impregnated by God without sex. Abraham impregnated her.
There is no messianic prophecy about the Messiah being born of a virgin. There is no prophecy at all in the old testament about any person being born of a virgin. Matthew's claim comes from a verse from Isaiah taken out of context and mistranslated so that it would say Virgin instead of Young Woman. There is not a single place in the old testament that says a virgin will give birth. The verse does not exist. Isaiah 7:14 says an Almah will give birth and call his son Immanuel. And when the king saw this happen he will know the war is about to end. That is all the prophecy is about. A sign to let a king know when his enemies would fall. It was not a prophecy about a messiah. The kid was not even important at all, he was just a sign.
Almah: A Hebrew word meaning a young woman ripe for marriage.
There is not a single verse in the old testament where is says a virgin will give birth. The verse is not real yet the whole religion of Christianty revolves around this non existent prophecy.
>a young woman ripe for marriage
I.e., a virgin.
Not saying you're wrong about the prophecy being about the war.
Saying the world Almah implies that she will get married and then conceive, through sex. Replacing that word with Virgin makes it seem like she will conceive while being a virgin. As if the virginity plays an important role in the prophecy, when it does not.
It clearly does play an important role, that's why the gospel authors included it in the first place.
They expected their contemporary audience to respond to that specific qualification.
The gospels quote the OT many, many times. Because their audience was already familiar with the content, to which they were appealing for reasons of convincing those israelites that Jesus is Christ.
muh wuhuite powur.
*huwyte*
ftfy
I accept your concession.