badger3k

So you went with the "spiritual descendant" apologetic. I thought it would be the other. I'll have to look at the Samuel quote and see the context - the essay you link to didn't give the whole thing, so I can't answer that. Anyone know the verse in question? From the website:
Although it really seems to refer to David's actual son (the "I will set up your seed" line), the "I will be his Father" bit reflects, IIRC, the idea of the King as God's son - the whole "son of god" bit that gets misused so much - it always refered to earthly humans blessed by god (IIRC) while the Son of Man is the spiritual guy, and "his throne shall be established forever" has clearly been false. I'm going to guess that the standard apologetic is to argue that there was no real time frame given, so that it can be used hundreds+ years later if needed to satisfy someone's theological ideas.

However, it still doesn't get around the whole "seed of David" bit - God promised that the descendants of David would basically be treated by God as if they were his own (as they were as the Kings were considered). This does sound a bit like the adoptionists heresy of later years, though, when I think about that. Another way to look at it is if God becomes the father to David's descendants, does that mean they are no longer descendant's of David, but take on the lineage of YHWH? (actually, I doubt that, but from an anthropological standpoint it is an interesting idea, and such a thing is not uknown, although it usually happens with priestly/religious groups, IIRC).

Edit to add: it also doesn't get around the fact that Jesus is not of the seed of Joseph, no matter how hard you slice it. Unless you are an adoptionist who believes that Jesus was born a normal man but became the Son of YHWH at his baptism?

IBelieveInHymn

I think this is where it becomes difficult. Because no one seems to know if the messiah was one of David's Sons, or was it the 'seed of David', which could possibly point to Jesus? There are several different answers to this argument.

Well, if the 'Seed of David" does in fact be the correct meaning, then that means all of David's decendants are to treated by God as his own Son. Wasn't Jesus the Son of God?

Jesus is not Joseph's biological son. Or unless is Joseph is YHWH in the flesh?

This is why I believe it's spiritual.

Johnny Skeptic

If he was, God has made certain that millions of people over many centuries died without knowing it. Even today, some people who live in remote regions have never heard of Jesus. Human effort alone is a poor and inefficient means to spread the supposedly most important and helpful message in history, but that is the method that God chose. Apparently spreading the Gospel message is not one of Gods priority, but frequently killing humans and innocent animals with hurricanes is.

What you propose is the existence of a God who wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it, and a God who wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort. That is quite odd behavior for a supposedly God.

I find it incredible that many Christians spend so much time trying to prove a God of the present with a God of thousands of years ago. My word, the main issue is where is God today, not where God was thousands of years ago. Is God so weak that he depends on debates about copies of ancient texts to reasonably prove his existence and will? I doubt that a loving God would require that people become textual experts in ancient biblical history in order to become Christians. To become reasonably competent in biblical textual criticism takes years of research, and even then there there are still lots of complex issues that are unsettled.

There is a similar situation regarding science. Many Christians try to use science to prove the Bible, and they spend decades studying science in order to try to prove the Bible. If a loving God exists, surely there would be simple, easy ways to find good evidence that he exists.

Fulfilled prophecies are some of your favorite evidence that the Bible is true, but why would a God inspire prophecies that invite dissent when he could easily inspire prophecies that are difficult to dispute?

Johnny Skeptic

How could the Bible writers have known that? Are you implying that God inspired and preserved the originals free of errors except for scribal and copyist errors? If so, based upon what evidence?

IBelieveInHymn

Well, for starters, the bible writers say Jesus' birth was a miraculous conception from God. So, I think it's safe to say they knew Joseph was not Jesus' biological father.

But I found out that Luke traces Mary's bloodline through David's son Nathan.

Either way you look at it, Jesus is a decendant of David.

Whether it's by Joseph (spiritually), or Mary's bloodline.

Dark Virtue

Who were these Bible writers and how did they know anything about his conception?

show_no_mercy

Where is Mary listed in Jesus' bloodline in Luke 3?

IBelieveInHymn

The Matthew genealogy follows Joseph's line (Jesus' legal father), through David's son Solomon. Luke follows Mary's line (Jesus' blood mother), through David's son Nathan. They both arrive at David as the common ancestor so Jesus is covered in this regard from both side of his earthy parents.

Luke 3:31. "the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David."

Heli was Mary's Father.

Joseph son of Heli", in the English translation, simply reads, "...Joseph of Eli". The word 'son' before Heli, is not in the Greek text.

2 Samuel 21:8, says Michol had five sons. In reality, they were adopted sons of Merob. Jacob was the genetic father of Joseph. Heli, the father of Mary, was Joseph's father in law, his legal father.

Either way you slice it, Jesus comes from the seed of David. Spiritually through Joseph, and blood related through Mary.

Both Matthew and Luke make this very clear. Matthew uses Joseph's bloodline, meanwhile, Luke uses Mary's, which was quite uncommon in ancient days.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to IBelieveInHymn: The Gospels were written decades after the supposed facts, the Gospels writers seldom reveal who their sources were, and firsthand, eyewitness testimonies are rare in the Gospels. Even if Mary personally told the Gospel writers that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, how could they have been reasonably certain that she was telling the truth?

There is not any credible historical evidence that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus never sinned, that Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind, and that a global flood occurred, but there is a good deal of scientific evidence that a global flood did not occur, as has been adequately proven in a thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=275891 at the Creation/Evolution Forum.

If Mary's ancestry went back to David, so what? Many people can trace their ancestry back for many generations. So what?

Failte

Is 'son of' in front of the other names? Why not this one? How is that meaningful?

I have no background in the 'begats' sections of the bible (oy, they are boring) -- but this seems a bit of a stretch to me. Just because the names are the same doesn't mean it's the same person -- I've seen my own name in other people's family trees, and it's definitely not me.

What references do you have for this? I'm curious how it works, since the bible has generally been pretty dismissive of the mother in the whole string of things.