spin

Are we supposed to imagine David, with a face like the portrait of Dorian Gray, in bed with Mary??


spin

spin

Symbolic of the fact that it can't be real.


spin

avi

Why not?

They had no internet.

They had no cinema.

They had no television.

What to do for entertainment?

Tell stories. Good stories. Elaborate stories.

Stories with themes that meander about, and then, suddenly, thrust wildly forward, a virtual waterfall of imagination.

This prophet, Jesus, had to be related to David, else the prophecy would not have been believable, and the story would have lost one of its main foci: harmony with ancient, written traditions. So, the story tellers added a bit of spice, as they sat around the fire, snow falling, dreams of warmer times ahead, or, maybe even, thoughts of a pretty, young, teenage lass of their own, waiting to snuggle up, next to the old codger, as the fire's embers began to fade.



avi

sschlichter

Geneologies themselves can be tricky. they do not necessarily mean the same thing to them that they mean to us. It is not always meant to be a list of fathers and direct children. The geneology in matthew has a lot of symbolism in it. Davids name represents the number 14 when you add up the hebrew characters that make up his name and the geneology in Matthew is written in a way that there are sets of 14 names pivoting on David. It provides a poetic symmetry and focuses the meaning of the passage related to the promises God made to David being fulfilled. To do this, it is necessary to skip names of inconsequential characters (ie. begetting can be generational - not necessary direct father / son relationships as in my great grandfather begot my son especially if everyone in between was boring or did not serve the immediate purposes of the author.

of course their are those that differ in opinion and see direct literal relationships. here is one such argument that seems well laid out to me.

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

there are some that see the geneology in Luke as Mary's which has some support in Luke 3:23 He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph.

~Steve

show_no_mercy

The whole thing is even trickier if David never existed

Solo

Consider it possible that Paul actually was the first one who propagated the idea of Jesus the Messiah. The way I read the texts, it was Paul who countered the Jesus' missions from Jerusalem who would have continued the Jesus message - likely the coming of the kingdom through an apocalyptic collapse. Jesus was very unlikely a Messiah figure for the Jacobite congregation but a martyred prophet who - in heaven - prepared the way for a conquering messiah to come.
So, if my little theory should hold then, there was no-one in Paul's time who had any interest in Jesus' Davidic descent. Paul's Christ was a man of heaven, homo spiritus, and the Davidic pedigree was not only superfluous to Jesus' messianic credentials, but running directly against the Paul's description of a messiah as the suffering servant of God, someone who is not powerful, and not wise in this world. So, Rom 1:3 would be a later insert.

sschlichter

it appears to me that NT authors besides Paul were concerned about Davidic descent.

Matt 1:1
Mark 12:35-36
Luke 1:69
John 7:42
Rev 5:5
Rev 22:16

There also does not appear to be any evidence whatsoever that Rom 1:3 was a later addition.

Solo

Please disregard post # 136, it flew off my keyboard unfinished: this is a replacement.

Consider it possible that Paul actually was the first one who propagated the idea of Jesus the Messiah. The way I read the texts, it was Paul who countered the Jesus' missions from Jerusalem who would have continued the Jesus message - the coming of the kingdom through an apocalyptic collapse. Jesus was very unlikely a Messiah figure for the Jacobite congregation but a martyred prophet who - as a high priest in heaven - prepared the way for a conquering messiah to come.

So, if my little theory should hold then, there was no-one in Paul's time who had any interest in Jesus' Davidic descent. Paul's Christ was a man of heaven, homo spiritus, and the Davidic pedigree was not only superfluous to Jesus' messianic credentials, but running directly against the Paul's description of a messiah as the suffering servant of God, someone who is not powerful, and not wise in this world. So, Rom 1:3 would be most likely a later insert.

After Paul's death, and during / after the Jewish War of 66-70 CE, as some of the Nazarene groups came into contact with Pauline churches in the diaspora, they became persuaded that Jesus indeed was Messiah, and began to assert his Davidic pedigree to "prove" that he was the chosen one to whom they had a direct link through apostolic succession. This idea was opposed by the Pauline churches, as essentially flesh-mongering of the Jesus idolaters. Mark, in the spirit of the Pauline teachings, has Jesus himself, in arguing with the interpreters of the scriptures, nix the idea of the messiah's Davidic descent (12:37) by invoking Psalm 110:1. This is received by the crowd (representing the church of the faithful) with gladness. Though, most commentators on Mark note the denial, most will not entertain the idea that the Davidic descent of Jesus, was work in progress at the time and favouring ideas which ran athwart Paul's groundwork. Vincent Taylor e.g. believed that the passage was to expose 'the futility of messianic hopes which do not rise above the earthly and human plane' but sees in Jesus' denying the Davidic line a rejection of OT testimony.

Here is a sketch of possible a development of the messianic status of Jesus.

30-35 CE Galilean Jesus adopted by the Nazarenes as a martyr of last days. Connected to Jesus of Zechariah 3 vision, becomes apostle and heavenly intercessor of the church for the coming of messiah.

37-64 Paul asserts resurrected Jesus as the Christ with the transparent motive to combat "earthly messianism".

65-80 After Paul's death, and at the time of the Jewish War of 66-70, groups of exiled Nazarenes come into contact with Paul's congregations in the diaspora. Some realignments ensue. Some Pauline churches open up to the traditions of the earthly Jesus but assert primacy of Paul's gnosis of the Lord. The Nazarenes for their part, in seeking converts, begin to proclaim Jesus as messiah, assert his Davidic descent and accept the cross (on cue by Mark) as the messianic symbol.

80-130 With four gospels and Acts, Jesus 'dual' nature is more or less established and ready for its test against Marcion's challenge.

Regards,
Jiri

Solo

2 Cr 5:16 (KJV) Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know [Him thus] no longer.

Romans 1:3 contradicts this, don't you think ?

Regards,
Jiri

sschlichter

I do not see them as even talking about similar enough topics to be able to contradict. the context of 2 cor 5 is a charge to those who fear the Lord (v11) to view people not from an outward external point of view but to see all people as potential objects of reconciliation ( whose sins do not have to be counted against them).

it seems similar to Rom 8:5 - an appeal to not let your outlook be shaped by your own carnal desires. the word sarx is used in this manner often not referring to anything genetic or even material. Rom 8:8, for example is referring to carnality and is not an appeal to jump out of your skin.

In contrast, the context of Rom 1:3 is Jesus' origins. appointed son of God promised beforehand but a descendant of David according to his flesh (in contrast to his Spirit).