Chili

You might consider that if this makes reference to Joseph's rebirth it was not a human placenta that nourished the child but that it was in fact Joseph's shriveled up or long lost woman identity that first gave birth and later nourished the child. Hence the manger in the empty stable (no room at the Inn) wherein he was born as shown in Luke but not in Matthew.

sschlichter

I believe you were right on both counts. 1) that Christians do believe Mary to be a descendant of david and 2) that it is important and adoption is not sufficient.

Here is some treatment on the issue that also addresses spin's objection related to Elizabeth.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/lk1-36.html

~steve

avi

I rest my case...

sschlichter

and he did...whose case are you resting?

John 8:39 Abraham is our father

Rom 4:12 our father Abraham.

avi

I am not buying it, Steve.
Even if Mary were David's daughter, that would not be sufficient, according to Jewish law, for Jesus to claim descent from the house of David. Descent was traced via the paternal link, exclusively. The mother is only there to nourish, in the Jewish idea of society. There is a reason for gender segregation at a Jewish temple. Men supply the brains, the brawn, and the genetic information. Women simply nurture.

The only way to claim Davidic heritage is if David or one of his offspring furnished the sperm needed for conception to occur....Since God is omnipotent, what is so difficult to understand? David was resurrected by the Holy Spirit, to furnish the sperm, in the traditional manner. Mary's virginity, after the "holy spirit" intervened, was history. Mary could not have both given birth in the customary fashion, as acknowledged in Galatians 4:4, and also have remained a virgin. If you have never participated in a live birth, take it from me, the birth canal is torn and shredded by that 3 kg infant, struggling to exit. It is not a pretty sight...

avi

Chili

. . . with the song "Father Jacob, father Jacob are you sleeping" still ringing in our ears.

Chili

. . . but" born of woman, born under the law" means to stand convicted by the law that was give to Moses so that the inner man could convict the outer man of sin (that others may call his wretchedness) and so have the inner man reborn to get a new lease on life.

sschlichter

according to Jewish law, he was Joseph's son and that requirement is fulfilled through him. Are you suggesting that Jewish law had a clause that covered immaculate conception? he was David's descendant according to Jewish law by Joseph (the concern of Matthew) and he was the genetic descendant through Mary (the concern of Luke - not being concerned with Jewish law).

I think you will find that the bible and jewish tradition do not always agree. the inclusion of Rahab the prostitute and Bathsheba the foreigner are indication of this.

I have plenty of children and have no problem with your premise. I do not believe she remained a virgin and have no reason to care if she remained one.

~steve

Imnotspecial

Is there any reason to believe that at that time a formal adoption was made? Or was it just presumed because Joseph took care of the illegitimate son?

sschlichter

I believe the adequacy of law breaks down here. I am not sure what steps are needed legally to adopt a son born to your virgin wife in any culture. it seems he is presumed to be Joseph's son. (John 1:45, John 6:42, Luke 4:22)

~steve