House of David

[ShatterSphere]

Actually, Jesus did not descend from David. Remember, Joseph descended from David but Joseph was not Jesus' natural father. Jesus was born of immaculate conception to the virgin mary. Being genealogical, the descendent, who is Joseph, must be Jesus' natural father. Therefore, Jesus is not descended from Joseph or David.

Logic proves once again.

 

[jamiel]

Paul in Romans 1:3 notes that:

regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

Mary had to be of Davidic descent or how else could he say this?

In Luke 1:32, the angel Gabriel announces to Mary:

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

So, are both Paul and Gabriel wrong about Mary being of Davidic descent?

Actually, I have read elsewhere that both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. I can't cite any other verses, but to my knowledge Mary's ancestry hasn't been disputed.

Logic proves once again.

Uh, try again. LOL.



God Bless.

 

[ReverendDG]

Paul in Romans 1:3 notes that:



Mary had to be of Davidic descent or how else could he say this?

In Luke 1:32, the angel Gabriel announces to Mary:

more than likely the whole being born of a virgin wasn't part of the text, when it was written but added
or was written by people who didn't have a clue about how a person qualifies for being the messiah
both genealogies are about joseph, it says the husband of mary the mother of god in luke,
notice paul says of the flesh, which means to me that he was not born of a virgin
being the son of god doesn't mean you have to be born of a virgin, but a lot of people believed this and still do, this is very pagan

So, are both Paul and Gabriel wrong about Mary being of Davidic descent?

the problem is i don't see paul saying jesus was not joseph's son, after all the gospels were written after paul's writings. it could very well be that to a lot of people being born from a miracle birth involving a virgin is the only way people would believe in a son of god

Actually, I have read elsewhere that both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. I can't cite any other verses, but to my knowledge Mary's ancestry hasn't been disputed.

[/quote]
maybe christians who don't want to admit that both luke and matthew point to joseph as the one's decent being listed and try to alter it so it seems to include mary
but they can only ignore the fact that even if mary was related to david it doesn't matter
messiah ship is only through the male line, which if jesus is not the son of joseph means hes not the messiah
if you want to argue mary's line, shes descended from nathan, who is the second son, you have to be descended from solomon to be king

another problem is, even if you could count jesus under joseph's line he couldn't sit on the throne since god cursed joseph's ancestors
to never be able to do so
too many issues.
people try to say jesus could be adopted by joseph but i think you have to be blood related to sit on the throne

 

[ShatterSphere]

Paul in Romans 1:3 notes that:



Mary had to be of Davidic descent or how else could he say this?

In Luke 1:32, the angel Gabriel announces to Mary:



So, are both Paul and Gabriel wrong about Mary being of Davidic descent?

Actually, I have read elsewhere that both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. I can't cite any other verses, but to my knowledge Mary's ancestry hasn't been disputed.



Uh, try again. LOL.



God Bless.

First of all if one jew is of Davidic descent and another is of Davidic descent, as in the sense that you are describing then all Jews are of Davidic descent. Therefore, they all become sons of David, sons of Abraham.

...But that is besides the point. To place my argument into context I will use Matthew 1:

1: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2: Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
3: And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
4: And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
5: And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6: And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7: And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
8: And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
9: And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10: And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
11: And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13: And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14: And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15: And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

This passage from scripture is genealogical, meaning it is describing the bloodline in relationship from Abraham to David to Joseph, saying that all are related. Now if this passage is true then it must not be taken out of context. Genealogically speaking, as this passage proves in genealogical order, if what the author is trying to describe as in the bloodline that links Jesus to Abraham (and David) then Jesus must be blood-related as it is commonly assumed that Jesus came from the bloodline of kings. However, this is not the case, either Jesus was immaculately concieved by a virgin (of the holy ghost); and therefore, completely unrelated to Joseph (as Joseph descended from David) or Joseph is Jesus' natural father; and therefore, Mary never had an immaculate conception (of the holy ghost).

...But if we look further in the text of Matthew 1 we find the passage:

18: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Logically, if this passage is true then Jesus did not descend from a blood-line of kings; as Jesus was concieved before they came together.

Ergo, Jesus is not descended from a blood-line of kings and not the son of David or the son of Abraham. spiritually, yes; but aren't we all?

(Whether Mary is of ancestry to David is an invalid point since you have no proof in support of such a thing).

Once again logic proves true.

To further support my claim, if Jesus is descended (blood-related) to a line of kings (as in any genealogical argument that is enticed by scripture to relate Jesus to Joseph) but in further scriptural passage the claim is made that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. So either Jesus was born of a bloodline of kings (or) was immaculately concieved by a virgin, born of the holy ghost. Any attempt to link the two (assumptions) or tie them together is not sound in logical argument. One or the other, if one is true then the other is false, and vice versa. If both are true then they prove eachother in negation and is therefore necessarily false.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This prophetic scripture seems to indicate that the genealogical requirements end with the birth of Christ. The monarchal reign of Jewish-blood kings is being replaced, along with the Levitical priesthood. It is fitting and logical that this legalistic Jewish genealogy ended with Joseph. Jesus didn't have to have a 'Jewish' father to inherit the now spiritual throne of David, as that throne always belonged to him.

Genesis 49:

10The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Shiloh means "the one to whom it belongs".

Jesus said that he was born to be a king, but not of the Jewish people sitting on a physical throne. Neither the Jews or the Romans understood this, and they mocked his 'kingship'. Because the Jews were about to cease as a nation they had no further need for a blood-born king.

So the Davidic throne became a spiritual office, over a spiritual nation, not a physical one.

However, Jeremiah 33 reveals that the sceptre promise will be restored to the descendants of Judah in the millenium, as well as the Levitical priesthood.

owg

 

[DailyBlessings]

I note that Jesus himself was none too impressed with the Davidic claim and the importance his followers put on it: in all three of the synoptic gospels, he ridicules the people who are calling him the son of David (Mk 12).