Amaleq13

Neither is your alleged "only remaining possibility" so, as a criticism, it seems to cut both ways. My suggestion, however, has the advantage of obvious connections to Pauline thought. According to Paul, gentiles could essentially obtain Jewish heritage through a faith-based "adoption" by God.

Amaleq13

You must have had your cursor in the "Title" space above the "Message" space when you picked the "cool" smilie.

Lugubert

And anyway, I think I've read a post somewhere that clearly stated that adoption doesn't take precedence over natural descent.

No Robots

Brunner is saying that after Christ died his family was no longer intimidated by his fiery personality, and were in fact quite eager to pick up the mantle of leadership offered by the disciples. As for the discrepancies between the genealogies, this may be the same as other discrepancies we find between the gospel accounts.

Yeah, that's the point Brunner is making. I didn't bother quoting the whole thing. I think you bought a copy of Brunner's book a few years ago.

The evidence of embarrassment in the genealogies over Christ's illegitimate birth is evidence of historicity. My reason for quoting Brunner on this, though, was to show that there are plausible naturalistic explanations of the genealogies that do not imply a mythical Jesus.

EarlDoherty

I believe that this pinpoints the problem we are having here, and why the twain shall never meet. It is your assumption that Paul is deriving from scripture that Jesus was a physical descendant of David. Actually, this is begging the question on your part, because the very issue under debate is, what does Paul mean by 'kata sarka'? You are presenting your desired interpretation of that as though it is part of the premise that I have to answer. It is not. If I had to acknowledge that this is what Paul means, then the debate is lost before it begins--which, of course, has always been your attitude.

I have submitted, time and again, that I have demonstrated what "according to the flesh" can mean in this particular case, and it does not mean physical human descent from David. The fact that you have not given any weight to my arguments but simply maintain that it is clear what it has to mean--yes, drawing on your own passages and arguments from them--puts us at an impasse. However, I haven't exhausted my rejoinders on this score, but I prefer to do this on the other thread, "Revisiting Kata Sarka". And in fact, I have just done so, and I suggest that you and any interested observers repair to that venue. I don't think we should clog this one and overshadow Mary's place in David's sun/son with Jesus'.

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

It would possibly be begging the question if all I offered was my own private interpretation of Romans 1.3. But that is not the case. I gave you four other verses, all from Paul, all dealing with descent or kinship, two using the phrase according to the flesh, the other two using the phrase seed of so-and-so, in an attempt to pinpoint the meaning of these phrases in Romans 1.3. I have all but begged you to address these verses, but to no avail. They have not appeared even once in any of your posts since I first mentioned them.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure I understand your point or its relevance. Are you referring to Jewish sensibilities? IIUC, they would have found difficulty with just about any Christian interpretation of the geneaologies that claims to show how Jesus was both of Davidic descent and born of a virgin. Both the notion of Davidic lineage/messianic qualification magically bestowed and that of Davidic lineage/messianic qualification being obtained through adoption are concepts that, as I understand it, Jews would not likely have found credible.

We are, however, discussing how early Christians might have dealt with the apparent contradiction.

storytime

Speculations. Here's a thought.

The body of Christ [Jewish] is seen in both Levi and Judah tribal heritage. One promise was given in covenant forever to Levi, and one promise to David and his throne forever. Recognizing these two factions throughout the generations of Israel was the command - Jerusalem and Levites. God's holy city on a hill and his temple, and his mouth speaking via Levites in law of commandments.

David catered to the Levite priests. Solomon and Rehoboam did not.

Somehow, the position of authority in Levites as "the mouth of God" became disrupted as other men who were not anointed became priests. To upset this, take back the throne at Jerusalem, there was a conspiracy of sorts to overturn the kingdom of God at Jerusalem. Jesus said he came not to bring peace but division, turning fathers against sons, mothers against daughters.

Being that the Levites were the chosen covenanted people of God who were elected to speak in his name at the beginning of Israel at Sinai, the NT relates "that which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Spirit", (of God). Since God had decided the Levites to be priests forever, and God having conceived this positioning at the beginning, there seems to be a conspiracy for sure. The Jesus sect against the Pharisees? What else could it have been?

What about the part "before they came together Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit?" What would "before they came together mean?"

Before both their tribal heritages came together? Why did Joseph fear to take Mary, his wife, unto him? Did Joseph fear the Pharisees because his wife was a Levite? Why would the Jews or Pharisee priests care if a Levite married a Jew? If there was a conspiracy to take the Pharisees out and reinstall the Levites as the only priests at Jerusalem, would the Pharisees have known the risk of allowing such a marriage between Mary and Joseph? Joseph was thinking to put Mary away - probably through a bill of divorcement.

Chili

"No temple in the city" (Rev.21:22) means that there are no Jews in heaven and so Christ was not a Jew.Divorce before marriage?

storytime

"Ye are the temple of the Holy Spirit". Jews were the Temple, and in them was the city as at their beginning with Moses. Kingdom of God? The 12 tribes are listed as the New Jerusalem. Heaven. The place of God and his people Israel.

Divorce before marriage? Naa, Mary and Joseph were married but before they came together in tribal alliance of kinship Mary was found with child. Why else would Joseph been afraid to take Mary, his wife, unto him - into his own house name? Why did Joseph fear the Pharisees and not make Mary a public embarrassment?

It was meant to be, what God conceived at the beginning in the anointed Levites, He again made known in Jesus, the anointed called Christ.

I don't think there are any uncircumcised Gentiles in heaven - because none are mentioned in the final count of "sons of Jacob-Israel."