jesus

[liter]

in the bible in matthew 1 shows us the linage of jesus to King David through Josph mary's betroved. If mary was a virgin ( which i do believe that she was)
how was jesus related to king david ? God had to fufill his promise to David stated in 1 chronicles 17: 11 says " one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. "

[£amb]

in the bible in matthew 1 shows us the linage of jesus to King David through Josph mary's betroved. If mary was a virgin ( which i do believe that she was)
how was jesus related to king david ? God had to fufill his promise to David stated in 1 chronicles 17: 11 says " one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. "

Christ was the fulfillment of the prophesy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:14-16). Jesus was the promised Messiah, which was of the seed of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus was a direct descendant of Abraham, and David through Joseph, Jesus' legal father.

I'm not sure if this helps in your answer. :)

[arunma]

The way I see it, Christ is just as much Joseph's son as he is Mary's. He might not have been concieved by a sexual union, but Joseph saw his birth, raised him in the Jewish religion, and was in every way a father to him. I don't see how we can rightly say that Joseph wasn't Jesus' father in every (human) sense of the word.

God is Christ's Father in the sense that Christ comes forth from the God, and that he was begotten in eternity. It seems to me that Jesus' usage of the word Father to describe God is somewhat different from the human way in which we understand fatherhood. For that reason, it seems clear to me that Jesus is the Son of David, and the Messiah of Israel.

Of course, if you want to use the wimp's argument, you could also say that Jesus is descended from David through Mary (not that Joseph is his father any less than Mary is his mother).

[daveleau]

in the bible in matthew 1 shows us the linage of jesus to King David through Josph mary's betroved. If mary was a virgin ( which i do believe that she was)
how was jesus related to king david ? God had to fufill his promise to David stated in 1 chronicles 17: 11 says " one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. "

Joseph was from the line of David. Adoption in Roman times was an assumption of ones geneology and full rights as a full-blooded son of the earthly father. I'm not sure if there was a legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph, but Jesus was assumed to be the son of Joseph. We don't know a whole lot about the early years of Christ except for a snapshot at 12 years of age.

[TwinCrier]

Was Jesus even biologically Mary's? Jesus was God before Mary was conceived, and since Mary isn't asexual, where did the y chromosome come from? Think about it. If Jesus is the second Adam, doesn't it make sense that He would have no real biological connection to previous humans?

[daveleau]

Interesting...

[arunma]

Was Jesus even biologically Mary's? Jesus was God before Mary was conceived, and since Mary isn't asexual, where did the y chromosome come from? Think about it. If Jesus is the second Adam, doesn't it make sense that He would have no real biological connection to previous humans?

It does make sense that he would have no biological connection to other humans (not even Mary). That's how I've always understood it, anyway. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in this thinking.

[hindsey]

Mary was also from David...

Luke 3:31 gives us the son of David from which Mary came: Nathan. Joseph came from Solomon.

[Flynmonkie]

It does make sense that he would have no biological connection to other humans (not even Mary). That's how I've always understood it, anyway. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in this thinking.
Just when I think I have got my mind wrapped around something you two go and throw a monkie wrench in it :doh: ........wow....my mind is spinning with the possibilities :scratch: ...could we go as far as to equate this with the thought that being a Christian "separates" us from biological (this body, this world)? It would make sense.... Never even thought of this....very good point!!!

Regarding Jesus Lineage.....
I actually recently ran across something about this in one of my studies.... I might be mistaken but I believe the lineage was named.... it was a side note of my study so I cannot remember for sure where I had seen this. I will try to look around for it. But someone else here might have the answer before I do for you.

[SonOfThunder]

Was Jesus even biologically Mary's? Jesus was God before Mary was conceived, and since Mary isn't asexual, where did the y chromosome come from? Think about it. If Jesus is the second Adam, doesn't it make sense that He would have no real biological connection to previous humans?

Very interesting....however, you think like a human in the confines of what we know TODAY.

Consider how the baby grows within the womb, we are so intricately made that the mother obviously plays an important part in providing nourishment and a vessle in which that baby can grow to be born. I'm not sure, but do they share blood?

Interesting thread

James

[Flynmonkie]

I'm not sure, but do they share blood?
Interesting thread
James
No. A babys blood is sometimes different than the mothers. My son is an A+ and I am O+. It is not the same blood. The only connection is the cord, for as you say nourishment...yes truly interesting thought Twin and SOT!! Thanks!

[Ginny]

This same type thread was going on not too long ago but I forget where...

Did he magically appear in the womb?
If we want to get technical, since there was no "sex" involved, then there was no sperm...if no sperm, then possibly no egg of Mary's was used (?), therefore assuming that Jesus did not look like Mary...she was just the carrier....

...descendant by family line, but not blood?

About the blood thing, if anyone that ever walked this earth since Adam and Eve came from Adam and Eve originally, then aren't we truly all related...know what I mean? We are!!!

[Flynmonkie]

...descendant by family line, but not blood?

About the blood thing, if anyone that ever walked this earth since Adam and Eve came from Adam and Eve originally, then aren't we truly all related...know what I mean? We are!!!
Ginny that is not really where I was going in my mind with this thought..... More of a spiritual discernment thing - rather than a "literal" interpretation. Of course we are all related. Genetics - DNA. But not blood. :)

[novcncy]

Mary was also from David...

Luke 3:31 gives us the son of David from which Mary came: Nathan. Joseph came from Solomon.

Thanks Hindsey. I can't believe that it got that far without being noted. Luke gives us the line of Mary. Note how completely different it is than Matthews.

It all goes back to Rehaboim (sp?). God cursed him, and said that none of his descendants would be on the throne. But the LEGAL right to the throne is still Rehaboim. And guess who Joseph came from?

But in addition to legal right, God did make the promise to David (which is why Jesus is indeed of human flesh), and so Mary is also of David's line, through Nathan. She didn't bestow the legal right, just the blood. Jesus' legal father, Joseph, gave him the technical, legal right to the throne.

Matthew was written to the Jews, and portray's Jesus as the King. So to convince them of the legality of Jesus' claims, Matthew gives us the legal proof that Jesus had the right to claim the throne.

***EDIT****

Maybe instead of blood, we should say genetics. Jesus got his genetic right to the throne, traditionally called blood right (i.e. blood relative), even though he didn't have Mary's actual blood.

[arunma]

It all goes back to Rehaboim (sp?). God cursed him, and said that none of his descendants would be on the throne. But the LEGAL right to the throne is still Rehaboim. And guess who Joseph came from?

Are you sure it was Rehoboam? I thought that Jeremiah cursed King Jeconiah by prophesying that his descendants wouldn't sit on the throne anymore. If I recall correctly, King Jeconiah was carried off into Babylon three months later.

Of course, one of the later prophets (either Haggi or Obadiah, I can't remember which) restored the right to the throne through Zerubbabel, who ruled as governor of Israel. So that takes care of keeping the Davidic line on Israel's throne.

[novcncy]

Are you sure it was Rehoboam? I thought that Jeremiah cursed King Jeconiah by prophesying that his descendants wouldn't sit on the throne anymore. If I recall correctly, King Jeconiah was carried off into Babylon three months later.

Of course, one of the later prophets (either Haggi or Obadiah, I can't remember which) restored the right to the throne through Zerubbabel, who ruled as governor of Israel. So that takes care of keeping the Davidic line on Israel's throne.

Hmmmm.....You might have the right guy. Was Zerubbabel a descendant of Jeconiah? Was Joseph?

So if two of David's descendants went to take the throne, the one who came from Jeconiah, or Reboam, or whomever (and we shall certainly make this more ironclad) as a descendant of Solomon vice another of David's sons, would have the legitimate right to the throne. But that's part of the beauty of the geneologies in Matthew and Luke, and the reason for the completely different lines.

[arunma]

Hmmmm.....You might have the right guy. Was Zerubbabel a descendant of Jeconiah? Was Joseph?

So if two of David's descendants went to take the throne, the one who came from Jeconiah, or Reboam, or whomever (and we shall certainly make this more ironclad) as a descendant of Solomon vice another of David's sons, would have the legitimate right to the throne. But that's part of the beauty of the geneologies in Matthew and Luke, and the reason for the completely different lines.

Yes, Zerubbabel and Joseph were descendants of King Jeconiah.

Anyway, you bring up an interesting point as to the reasons for the different geneologies. I always found it odd that Saint Luke would choose to describe Jesus' geneology through Mary. But this idea makes sense.

[novcncy]

Yes, Zerubbabel and Joseph were descendants of King Jeconiah.

Anyway, you bring up an interesting point as to the reasons for the different geneologies. I always found it odd that Saint Luke would choose to describe Jesus' geneology through Mary. But this idea makes sense.

Yep, you are right, I did mean Jeconiah. I don't know where Rehoboam came from, but at least my point is still the same, even though I had the wrong guy. :)

I'm pretty sure that Zerrubbabel wasn't a king. If memory serves, (and it's not too reliable judging by the Rehoboam thing ;) ), he was the governer of the city during Nehemiah's rebuilding? Also, if he was the "king", that would be in opposition to the curse in Jeremiah 22. At any rate, he certainly didn't prosper.

Anyway, quite the discussion... :)

[novcncy]

Yes, Zerubbabel and Joseph were descendants of King Jeconiah.

Anyway, you bring up an interesting point as to the reasons for the different geneologies. I always found it odd that Saint Luke would choose to describe Jesus' geneology through Mary. But this idea makes sense.

Oh yeah, some more on the Matthew/Luke Difference. It's the target audience. Matthew was writing to the Jews, emphasizing Jesus as the King.
Luke was writing to the Greeks, emphasizing Jesus as the Son of God. The legal right was good enough for the Jews, but the Greeks logically needed the royal blood of David for the guy to be considered a legitimate heir.

I know that's a crude and barely lucid post, but I'm sure you can put it all together. Gotta go....

[Crazy Liz]

Was Jesus even biologically Mary's? Jesus was God before Mary was conceived, and since Mary isn't asexual, where did the y chromosome come from? Think about it. If Jesus is the second Adam, doesn't it make sense that He would have no real biological connection to previous humans?
This is what Menno Simons and several other early Anabaptists thought. I disagree, but you are in good company holding this opinion.

[Crazy Liz]

Anyway, you bring up an interesting point as to the reasons for the different geneologies. I always found it odd that Saint Luke would choose to describe Jesus' geneology through Mary. But this idea makes sense.
But Luke does not CLAIM to give Mary's genealogy. He CLAIMS his genealogy is Joseph's.

luke 3:23-24

[novcncy]

This is what Menno Simons and several other early Anabaptists thought. I disagree, but you are in good company holding this opinion.

That seems almost like a precursor to gnosticism, or at least a parallel idea. I disagree too.

[novcncy]

But Luke does not CLAIM to give Mary's genealogy. He CLAIMS his genealogy is Joseph's.

Luke 3:23-2423 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

Yes, it does seem that way. Forgive me for a being a little shaky here, it's been a long time since I studied it but if I remember correctly, the term "son" could be used to mean "son-in-law." You know, even today, we call our inlaws mom or dad.

I"m not claiming this is the ironclad case, but I'm thinking that it's so. I need to study it again, apparantly! :)

[angela 2]

Was Jesus even biologically Mary's? Jesus was God before Mary was conceived, and since Mary isn't asexual, where did the y chromosome come from? Think about it. If Jesus is the second Adam, doesn't it make sense that He would have no real biological connection to previous humans?
Seems unlikely. For Jesus to save humanity he needed to be biologically related to us. "Second Adam" can be understood to mean that Jesus was obedient where Adam was not.

[Crazy Liz]

Yes, it does seem that way. Forgive me for a being a little shaky here, it's been a long time since I studied it but if I remember correctly, the term "son" could be used to mean "son-in-law." You know, even today, we call our inlaws mom or dad.

Possibly. However, it is important not to jump to the conclusion that since a word COULD be used in an unusual way, it necessarily WAS used in that way in a particular instance. If the word "son" means something different in Luke 3:1 than it means in the rest of the chapter, there is nothing in the context to suggest that.

I"m not claiming this is the ironclad case, but I'm thinking that it's so. I need to study it again, apparantly! :)
Most modern conservative scholars think Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, and Matthew's is that of Joseph, but some of the early Fathers said the opposite. We really don't know for sure.

[novcncy]

Possibly. However, it is important not to jump to the conclusion that since a word COULD be used in an unusual way, it necessarily WAS used in that way in a particular instance. If the word "son" means something different in Luke 3:1 than it means in the rest of the chapter, there is nothing in the context to suggest that.


Most modern conservative scholars think Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, and Matthew's is that of Joseph, but some of the early Fathers said the opposite. We really don't know for sure.

I'm good with all of that. I especially agree that COULD doesn't neccessarily mean DOES. I don't claim to be an expert on Greek (or anything else, for that matter :) ). It would seem to me that there is some sort of explanation for the discrepancy in the genealogies. It's pretty interesting how well this possibility fits in with Jeconiah's curse.