Johnny Skeptic

Message to reflector: Even if all that we had was Mary's genealogy, you would not be able to reliably trace her genealogy back to David. In addition, even if Mary's and Joseph's genealogies could be perfectly harmoninzed, you still could not trace Jesus back to David. At best, all that you can claim is that there is not a reasonably provable contradiction, but even if there isn't a reasonably provable contradiction, so what?

reflector

Johnny,

How do you figure that there is "at best...a reasonably provable contradiction?" What's your evidence? I'm putting the onus on you...

Eddie

Johnny Skeptic

Let's keep this simple. Even if all that we had was Mary's genealogy, how would it be useful to Christians?

reflector

Hey Johnnie,

I noticed that sometime back you began to repeat your question to another Christian over and over. I wouldn't mind conversing since this is a forum for discussion. I've asked you questions as well...I would hope that you would do some homework of your own as I am doing for you all here as well. Otherwise, I don't see a need to provide you with an answer...just everyone else that is willing to hold a discussion.

EV

Johnny Skeptic

That is because I never get an answer to my question.

Please restate your questions.

But there hasn't been any discussion at all regarding the significance or Mary's and/or Joseph's genealogy. Would you care to give it a try? I doubt it. What kind of homework are you talking about? No amount of homework can establish that Mary's and/or Joseph's genealogy is of any value to Christians EVEN IF EITHER OR BOTH OF THE GENEALOGIES ARE ACCURATE ALL OF THE WAY BACK TO ADAM. If you could trace your own genealogy back thousands of years, so what?

reflector

Hi Johnny,

Here are the questions that I did ask you...I'm sorry, but I thought that there were more since I had asked some of someone else and they never got back to me either. Here are my questions to you:

How do you figure that there is "at best...a reasonably provable contradiction?" What's your evidence?

To respond to your questions:
The reason that the genealogy is even mentioned is to prove Jesus right to the throne both through His bloodline as well as His legal standing. I think that you mention something that makes a great point...If you could trace your own genealogy back thousands of years, so what? I think that it's a great question! Let's start with a simpler example...Inheritances from just one generation to the next over something like the British monarchy. There is a certain way that the Britons will go about to show who has the right to assume the throne should the current monarch no longer reign. The next person down would be likely to be her next of kin such as a son. I don't know all the intricacies, but the point can be made that only that person who has a right to the throne may assume the position. I myself cannot assume that position because I do not meet the lineage requirements.

As for Jesus being in the proper lineage...It is important in the first place to make sure that we are placing the right person on the throne of the Kingdom of God. The fact that the Christ would be of the seed of Abraham and of the royal bloodline serves as a "fingerprint" to help single out who is the Messiah. The first genealogy in Matthew would only need the high-level points to clarify that Jesus is of royal blood. The Jews knew the bloodlines; they didn't need to hear (again) the whole bloodline again. They just hit the high parts to show his continued descendancy. It is like people who know who is my grandfather and who his grandfather was and who his grandfather was and so on...the people who knew my grandfather would understand that I descended from him when I mention that he's in my bloodline. They don't necessarily have to know (although they probably did) so Matthew hit the parts that would have more influence to point the people towards their messiah.

For Luke's side....This was written to show Jesus' relation to man. Luke wrote his gospel while on mission trips with Paul in the gentile world. He wrote to a different audience who had no idea about royal bloodlines. But Luke, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, ran the relationship of this man called Christ as to how He related to the rest of the world. If all came from one man (Adam also means "man" in Hebrew) then this would stress the humanity of Jesus.

Why is this important to Christians? This specifically shows an additional proof as to whom the Messiah is. If Jesus does not meet this criteria, then the world ought to be looking for the one that is. Matthew and Paul both learned under Jesus. Matthew wrote his gospel using first hand info and Paul taught Luke in their journeys about his own experiences.

To be honest, no amount of my homework will convert you. However, I hope that this does spur continued discussion between the two of us.

In genuine Christian love,
EV

reflector

In addition, I found some additional references at least infering that Jesus is the Son of David or of the house of David in some manner...The quotes are from the NASB...

Luke 1:26-27 "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary."

Luke 1:32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;"

and vs 69 "And has reaised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of David His servant-"

Luke 2:4 "Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,"

Matt 9:27 "And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, and saying, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"

Matt 15:22 "And behold, a Canaanite woman came out from that region, and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed."

Matt 21:9 "And the multitudes going before Him, and those who followed after were crying out, saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David; Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest!"

Matt 21:15 "And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,

Matt 22:41-46 BTW...this one is where Jesus confronts the Pharisees on this very issue...let's see how they respond...
"Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David." 43 He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying, 44 'The Lord said to my LORD, "Sit at My right hand, Until I put Thine enemies beneath Thy feet "'? 45 "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?" 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question."

Mark 12:36 "David himself said in the Holy Spirit, 'The Lord said to my LORD, "Sit at My right hand, Until I put Thine enemies beneath Thy feet.'"

We see a similar sentiment in Peter's preaching...
Acts 2: 29 - 32 ""Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 "And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.

And even in Paul's preaching (who was a former Pharisee)
Acts 13:23 ""From the offspring of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus,"

Romans 1:3 "concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,"

And in John's writing:
Rev 5:5 "and one of the elders said to me, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals."

In closing, I only am presenting the evidence as written in the Bible. I realize that you will make your own opinion concerning the matter, but understand that you have been presented with this info and you must now weigh out whether or not you will be a willing believer or not. I probably know your answer, but the scriptural witness and testimony is provided for your further research and pursuit of truth.

In genuine Christian love,

EV

Doug Shaver

Why not just "born a descendant of David"? What information is added by the phrase "according to the flesh"?

Doug Shaver

I am well aware that just because I don't want to hear something doesn't mean it isn't so.

I think I have heard it all. I was a Christian during my adolescence and early 20s. I have maintained an interest in Christianity during the many years since then. For most of the past six years I have been active in several Internet forums where Christians of all sorts have attempted to defend their beliefs.

That argument assumes several unstated premises for which I have seen no good evidence.

Do human beings have the power to prevent God from accomplishing what he wants to accomplish? Is his omnipotence limited by anything of which we are capable?

And whose definitions of righteousness, holiness, and justice are relevant here?

Does this observation tell us anything about how we should understand the concepts of righteousness, holiness, and justice?

So said one Jewish writer a very long time ago. Why must I agree with him?

In the first place, as I have already said, I am not rejecting any creator. I am rejecting (so far) what you are telling me about the creator because you are (so far) offering me no good reason to believe it, beyond the fact that it was written in some book that you seem to think is special.

In the second place, I have a real problem with the notion that for the universe's very model of ultimate moral perfection, the ethical bottom line is simple tit for tat. How sad, indeed!

If I thought your god were real, I would be more concerned about what he wants than about what you want.

The bare fact of our having different beliefs is of little consequence. Of course I think you are mistaken, but so what? I'm quite sure that I'm mistaken about a few things I believe. I don't think human beings are capable of having only true beliefs. None of is, or can be, infallible. The best we can hope for is error reduction, not error elimination.

But here is what bothers me about your version of Christianity. It involves beliefs about certain matters concerning which human beings everywhere in the world have disagreed passionately and sometimes violently throughout their history. For one small group of people to get it into their heads that all who disagree with them on those matters are deserving of eternal torment is, I think, an error of the gravest potential consequences.

Amaleq13

I disagree that it convinced anyone of anything. At best, it provided Christians a dubious basis (from a Jewish perspective) to claim that their Christ met this requirement and, IMO, should be considered an ad hoc attempt to support an existing belief (ie Jesus was the Messiah). Given the allegedly magical nature of his conception, the genealogy fails to prove anything unless one is willing to believe that the Davidic lineage requirement could be fulfilled through adoption and that belief appears to follow from an initial belief that he was the Messiah. The genealogy, like everything else in the Gospel stories, is first and foremost about expressing the faith of the author. If there is any history (in the sense "we" define it) being shared, it can only be a secondary byproduct of this primary objective.

Being raised from the dead isn't enough?

The Son of God had no bloodline. The Incarnated Son had only the ultimately irrelevant bloodline of the mother. The Risen Christ had no bloodline.

This genealogy nonsense is simply an ad hoc attempt to harmonize belief in a totally new sort of Messiah with traditional Jewish expectations. It should be no surprise that two authors independently contrived two different family trees in such an effort because it has far less to do with factual information than it does faith. The Jews didn't buy any of it precisely because they did not start with the same core belief.

That core belief is necessary to accept these incompatible stories as somehow a record of history.

Despite being raised from the dead? Please. This "criteria" was clearly secondary from the beginning (ie Paul) with belief in the resurrection held as paramount.