It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
With regard to your third question, when Christians refer to Jesus as king of the Jews, they are asserting, in essence that Jesus was the messiah, and the final heir to the throne of David. This claim, however, is self-defeating because it undermines the Christian claim that Jesus was miraculously conceived of a virgin.
According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim, however, completely shatters the core Christian claim that Jesus was a legitimate heir to David’s throne and king of the Jews. The virgin birth myth undermines this fundamental Church teaching because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father, never the mother. This principle is clearly stated in the Torah:
And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head.
According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.
With regard to your final question, Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded.
When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of... - Luke 3:23 (NASB)
There seems to be a widely held view among conservative theologians that Luke's record is actually tracing Mary's genealogy and not Joseph's. Why is that? Luke explicitly states that the lineage is through Joseph with no mention of Mary at all anywhere near the genealogy. I cannot see how Luke's original audience (who would not have had Matthew's genealogy to compare with Luke's) would have read the text and understood it to be Mary's family tree.
I understand that there are inconsistencies between the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 but it seems like rather poor exegesis to say that Luke is giving Mary's family tree when her name is conspicuously absent from the text and Joseph's name is explicitly mentioned.
Furthermore, Luke seems to stress elsewhere in his gospel that Joseph is the one who is descended from David:
... a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. - Luke 1:27
Luke mentions Mary but (unlike with Joseph) he does not include her as a descendant of David. Also...
Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. - Luke 2:4,5