The answer is quite straightforward. Jesus was legally the son of Joseph. Thus since Joseph is of the House of David, Jesus is also. It is also entirely possible that Mary was a blood descendant of David and therefore Jesus was actually of blood descent from David as well as legal descent.

Only in the sense that a stepchild is a "legal" child.

Would JC still be an honorary descendant of King David even if his father had been a Roman soldier?

Hi LP

Do you have any evidence at all that anyone except Joseph was the actual father of Jesus?

Nomad

The Gospels claim that the Holy Ghost had been his biological father, and the Talmud claims that a Roman soldier named Panthera had been his biological father.

But whoever Jesus Christ's father had been, he had been an illegitimate child.

Is this your evidence? Or do you have more? Do you treat the Jewish evidence as credible? If so, why?

Well, IF Jesus' Dad was God, then I suppose He would be allowed to dispute this point. On the other hand, I agree that if Joseph (or anyone else) impregnated Mary before they were betrothed, then Jesus was illegitimate.

My question remains, what evidence do you have as to who Jesus' father was, and what level of credence do you give it?

Nomad

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lpetrich:
The Gospels claim that the Holy Ghost had been his biological father, and the Talmud claims that a Roman soldier named Panthera had been his biological father.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Is this your evidence? Or do you have more? Do you treat the Jewish evidence as credible? If so, why?

Jewish evidence is more valid than that of Jesus' followers because Jesus' fellow Jews don't make absurd claims about his conception and birth. Reasonable people have two choices here: 1) Jesus was conceived the way all humans are conceived and Miriam was pregnant before having sexual intercourse with Joseph. 2) Miriam and/or Joseph, as claimed by propagandists, were told by an angel (via a dream in Joseph's case) that Jesus' mother was made pregnant by an imaginary spirit. The choice should be clear enough.

rodahi

Hmm... do you mean to say that a source written hundreds of years after the fact by a religious group (like the Jewish Talumd authors) would not have an apologetic motive?

I asked for evidence rodahi. You are demonstrating very clearly that you do not like offering it, but I will keep asking until you do this. What evidence do the authors of the Talmud here have that Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier?

Hmm... and Mary could not have slept with Joseph before being betrothed to him because...? Just curious why you did not include this in your list of possibilities rodahi.

Right.

Just wondering why you missed one of the possible choices.

Now, put up some evidence to give credence to the Talmud's claims please.

Nomad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Jewish evidence is more valid than that of Jesus' followers because Jesus' fellow Jews don't make absurd claims about his conception and birth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Hmm... do you mean to say that a source written hundreds of years after the fact by a religious group (like the Jewish Talumd authors) would not have an apologetic motive?

If Celsus wrote around 175-180 CE, then he must have heard something from Jews BEFORE that time. Where did you get the idea that "hundreds of years" passed before Jews reported details of Jesus conception and birth? Also, why do you believe that Jesus' fellow Jews had an "apologetic motive?" Without using circular reasoning, prove your claim.

Nomad: I asked for evidence rodahi. You are demonstrating very clearly that you do not like offering it, but I will keep asking until you do this. What evidence do the authors of the Talmud here have that Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier?

Who has to rely on the Talmud? According to Origin, relating what Celsus had said around 179 CE, "But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera." Contra Celsus, I.XXXII

This is EVIDENCE, Nomad, that Jesus' fellow Jews knew of the tradition that Jesus had been illegitimate. They MUST have known of this tradition by the middle of the second century, and possibly much earlier.

rodahi

Hi rodahi

I'm still trying to see what evidence the Jews actually had. What is it? I understand your faith in your source, but I would like to know what kind of evidence you actually have to back it up.

Claiming that the Jews believed something approximately 200 years after the fact hardly serves as evidence now does it? After all, the Christians have testimony of what they believed less than 100 years after the fact and you reject it. Where are their witnesses? Who are they? Who examined them?

Why are you so credulous?

Why won't you offer us actual evidence rodahi?

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited May 02, 2001).]

Here's how I think that the Panthera story got started:

* The writers of Matthew and Luke take the concept of "Son of God" rather literally, in the sense of God having made JC's mother pregnant as if he was some pagan deity. Thus, the Virgin Birth.

* The Jews learn of that, and conclude that the virgin-birth story was a coverup of an embarrassing paternity -- and even attach a name to the story. Thus, in their view, Mary had been made pregnant by a Roman soldier named Panthera, and had covered it up by claiming that it was God who had made her pregnant. The idea that a Roman soldier had been JC's father would be something those Jews would want to believe, as an indicator that this heretic had had unsavory origins.

Origen's date is late enough for there to be plenty of time for the Roman-soldier view to get started. I wonder if any pagans had had much interest in the Roman-soldier hypothesis; perhaps virgin births were old hat to them