Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jesus can not be both

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
According to Bible Jesus supposed to the descendant of David, and also according to Bible Jesus also is the "Son of God".

2 Samuel 7:8 "So now, say this to my servant David: This is what the Lord of hosts says: . . . . 7:12 When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom.

Luke 1:27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.


Jesus can NOT be BOTH "Son Of God" and also descendant of David.
Joseph, Jesus father, had nothing to do with Jesus genealogy! He didn't do it!

May God bless us all,


MOD EDIT: CAPS TITLE

[edit on 24-3-2005 by RANT]




posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unes
According to Bible Jesus supposed to the descendant of David, and also according to Bible Jesus also is the "Son of God".

2 Samuel 7:8 "So now, say this to my servant David: This is what the Lord of hosts says: . . . . 7:12 When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom.

Luke 1:27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.


Jesus can NOT be BOTH "Son Of God" and also descendant of David.
Joseph, Jesus father, had nothing to do with Jesus genealogy! He didn't do it!

May God bless us all,


There are some things better left unanswered....God works in mysterious ways, God does'nt have to folow the "laws" of nature, geneology and man....he's God



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Think of him more like an adopted descendant.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

as posted by Unes
According to Bible Jesus supposed to the descendant of David, and also according to Bible Jesus also is the "Son of God".


Through theological interpretation, yes, Jesus can be both.
The line of David is by route of Mary (by way of her father, Heli)
The "Son of God" is based on immaculate conception by the Holy Spirit.




seekerof

[edit on 23-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally quoted by Seekerof:
The line of David is by route of Mary (by way of her father, Heli)

Luke 1:27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.

When Luke referes to Joseph as descendant of David, at that point Mary was NOT his wife, they were only engaged. So Luke clearly points out that Joseph was "a descendant of David,". and later on Luke defined the genealogy tree of Joseph by way of his father, Heli.

In the whole Bible there is not a single reference to any woman's genealogy.

May God bless us all,



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
What you witness is a decided late 1st century addition of his genealogy to show the Jews that Jesus was their messiah. It was not until well into the 2nd century that Jesus was actually being painted as the begotten son of god, and, or, word. Hence, the conflicting account. The majority of Jews did not fall for the Davidic line, so the redactors and church fathers carried on with his divine conception to woo the gentiles outside of Jerusalem.

When one follows the writings of the early church fathers, where one is well acquainted with the NT, it can clearly be seen the additions to the 4 gospels, as well as a correlation to the surfacing of the epistles addressing the issues as the debate raged.

The whole thing is a farce.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally quoted by Croat56:
Think of him more like an adopted descendant.


According to bible; descendant means having the bloodline of father to his son. And there is no other way around it.

Jesus can not be descendent of David, because Joseph was not Jesus' biological father.

May God bless us all,



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Actually Unes,


wasnt Rahab or Rabab and Obed mentioned in the Genealogy of David? I know there were a few scripture stories about those two in the bible a few times.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dev_add

Originally posted by Unes
According to Bible Jesus supposed to the descendant of David, and also according to Bible Jesus also is the "Son of God".

2 Samuel 7:8 "So now, say this to my servant David: This is what the Lord of hosts says: . . . . 7:12 When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom.

Luke 1:27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.


Jesus can NOT be BOTH "Son Of God" and also descendant of David.
Joseph, Jesus father, had nothing to do with Jesus genealogy! He didn't do it!

May God bless us all,


There are some things better left unanswered....God works in mysterious ways, God does'nt have to folow the "laws" of nature, geneology and man....he's God


Once Again, I repeat myself and give the answer....I do not claim to know the bible inside and out, but I do understand what I've written above....

God is God...Jesus is the Son of God because God says so...that's enough for me



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally quoted by dev_add:
. . .that's enough for me.


dev_add, I understand that you are happy and content with your beliefs. That is fine.
But why do you waste your time reading these materials?

May God bless us all,



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unes
Luke 1:27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.

When Luke referes to Joseph as descendant of David, at that point Mary was NOT his wife, they were only engaged. So Luke clearly points out that Joseph was "a descendant of David,". and later on Luke defined the genealogy tree of Joseph by way of his father, Heli.

In the whole Bible there is not a single reference to any woman's genealogy.

May God bless us all,



Unes, did you hit the link for Heli?
Did you then hit the associated links in that topic on Mary's father?
If you did, you will notice that there are clarifications made concerning that which you quote, in regards to Joseph.
That might have helped in your objective or subjective attitude of sticking with Joseph, perhaps?
Mary's father and bloodline is of David, my friend.
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Through Mary...

Jesus can and is both, theologically.
Both ways as I originally posted.





seekerof

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Hi Seekerof,
Yes I am very much familiar with that argument, that some Christian Scholar they tried to use Mary as the bloodline for Jesus. They have provided a very clever theory that the genealogy in Luke Gospel is the genealogy of Mary. Since Mary had no brother then by some Jewish tradition Joseph would inherit the Mary genealogy.

Now let me pose this question; if a Jewish man would marry five girls from five families (you know the Jewish men are allowed to have as many wives as they can afford). And let assume that the girls do not have any brothers then that man should have SIX different genealogies; one of his own and five of the girls' families! Maybe this works out somehow!
But let's assume this was the case in Joseph situation, Luke who is very careful to write an accurate account of all the issues would not have made such confusing assertion! My guess is the issue of Jesus being descendent of David was introduced first, and later on when the issue "Son of God" was introduced the writers were stucked with the contradiction.

But let me repeat what I said before; When Luke refers to Joseph as descendant of David, at that point Mary was NOT his wife, they were only engaged. At that point they were not married yet, so the story of inheriting the Mary's genealogy has not yet been activated. So when Luke assert "Joseph, a descendant of David," and later on Luke defined the genealogy tree of Joseph by way of his father, Heli, Luke clearly is talking about the genealogy of Joseph and not Mary.

The Gospel writers had few major problems writing the story of Jesus. In the beginning, they were writing the Gospels for Jewish communities. So they tried to fulfilled the prophesies of the Old Testament regarding the genealogy of Messiah. Messiah should have been descendent of David, he supposed to be borne in Bethlehem, and to a virgin. That was one set of prophesies that needed to be fulfilled.

Jesus was crucified and his body was destroyed on the Cross; since that was the Roman way of terrorizing the people. Jesus did not have any tomb, and then inventing the Resurrection story was a powerful story; which boosted deity image of Jesus tremendously.

Then the story of Three Magi was produced, which by its own assertion had major flaws in it; A star as bright of a moon which rises from east and sets on the west. So the star on its journey through the sky it over passes through lots of territories, cities, and villages. So in that journey it does not point to any city, village, house, or manger. So how could the three kings by following the bright star which moved from east to west could find the MANGER? That beats me!

The story that Jesus walked on the water is only told in John gospel.

Since different sections of Jesus story was introduced by different people and different time, and they were only using bits of information from word of mouth then it is natural that the story would have serious flaws in it.

May God bless us all,



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
all i add is how convenet mary and joseph engaged and she turns up preggers and is a virgen . Just who comfermed her vergian statas?
I mean realy how manny girls even today would use this if they thought it may work.
Im preggers mom but I never did it. The more out rages the lie the easer it is to get people to belive it. I would think even the most religis diehard would want some proff with a clam like that lol.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Unes Hey! Wake up!
Seekerof, told you the story of Mary's father, just because it blows your little theory of the bible is wrong, is no reason to go into denial.

Secondly, James the brother of the Lord, son of Joseph, from a previous marriage, an apostle of Christ wrote many letters about the Life of the Virgin Mary, and her father was from the line of David. Your twisted little idea, of the Bible is wrong, in attempt to destroy peoples faith in God, is very flawed.

Good job Seekerof, scary avatar....were friends right....? you wont hurt me?

Somewhereinbetween, what are you talking about? I have read volumes of the Early Church Fathers, they say no such thing, if you have to lie, to promote your idea, maybe you should give it up? Maybe you could cite your references for us all?



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
sorry if i sound a bit stupid or if this has been said but i heard somewhere that mary was also an indirect descendant of david



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
The answer is simple David is "jesus" father ,uncle or another family member. Jesus did many things he may have invented "marriage" but he wasnt the son of god and he didnt walk on water and perform miracles.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
What the F***


All manner of crazy talk on this thread that I don't possibly have the time to go into but let's get things into perspective folks and deal with the facts rather then "God working in mysterious ways"

If there is on thing I can't stand it's blind Faith and it seems that's as rife as chicken pox in a playground where this subject was concerned.

Joesph is probably the most vague character in the history of Jesus...incidental even due to the fact that he wasn't Jesus Natural father (cough)

Joseph was a decedent of David but as none of his blood flows through Christs veins that would mean old JC was not the messiah of prophecy.

Then again...becuase there was an exisiting prophecy the parentage, birth and life Of Jesus might have been manufactured in order to fit the prophecy...and that my friends is much more likely then an Immaculate conception...that's just common sense.

I find it difficult to accept the opinions of someone who is speaking from a position of faith...your mind is already clouded by your beliefs and therefore your arguements carry less weight then individuals with much broader ideas.

Angels, Miracles, Ressurections, parables, Magi, Martyrdom, God, Temptations by the devil and holy spirits...

Take the faith away from it and it sounds like a Fairy story...Now I'm not saying it is...but it's more then likely to be...and I have no problem with people believing in God/Jesus...They symbolise hope to the hopeless, a friend to the lonely and many human beings need that in order to get them through the day.

Christianity is a Fantastic idea in principle...but that doesn't mean it's foundations are true...and it damn sure doesn't mean that the Son of God ( I'll say that again...THE SON OF GOD!!) walked the earth 2000 years ago and sacrificed himself for the benefit of all of us.

More blood has been spilit in the name of this Man who may or may not have existed then would fill a hundred Seas and I for one can't justify basing my life on a Rumour...a Legend, whose boundaries of fact and fiction where blurred long before I came into the world.



[edit on 24-3-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 24-3-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 24-3-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 24-3-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 24-3-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 24-3-2005 by BobDylan]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   


There are some things better left unanswered....God works in mysterious ways, God does'nt have to folow the "laws" of nature, geneology and man....he's God


I have to agree with Bob Dylan regarding this post......Blind Faith is pitiful. You have no real answer so you say "It's okay because God says so?"....That would be like believing what our government tells us because "It's our government and that's what they say so it must be true..."

Hasn't anyone figured out that the Bible is mostly BS anyway? All these debates on this site based on the Bible.....and the Bible is what? A text written by who? For what purpose?



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Balaams donkey, maybe if you listen to BobDylan then your donkey might find his way to the Truth. But I doubt that your donkey could ever sense what BobDylan was talking about!

May God bless us all,



[edit on 24-3-2005 by Unes]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balaams donkey
Unes Hey! Wake up!
Somewhereinbetween, what are you talking about? I have read volumes of the Early Church Fathers, they say no such thing, if you have to lie, to promote your idea, maybe you should give it up? Maybe you could cite your references for us all?
What did I claim the early church fathers said? I will provide my post in full again for your viewing pleasure, and this hopefully you will take the time out to understand what it says:

What you witness is a decided late 1st century addition of his genealogy to show the Jews that Jesus was their messiah. It was not until well into the 2nd century that Jesus was actually being painted as the begotten son of god, and, or, word. Hence, the conflicting account. The majority of Jews did not fall for the Davidic line, so the redactors and church fathers carried on with his divine conception to woo the gentiles outside of Jerusalem.

When one follows the writings of the early church fathers, where one is well acquainted with the NT, it can clearly be seen the additions to the 4 gospels, as well as a correlation to the surfacing of the epistles addressing the issues as the debate raged.

The whole thing is a farce.


Somehow I doubt you have read volumes of the church fathers, and if you have you certainly did not understand them, for if you can find something in just my few lines that IS NOT THERE, then you definitely do not understand one iota of anything the church fathers wrote. So I say to you, that it is you who should wake up!

In a nutshell once more: The gospels were late arrivals changed by the redactors to fit the arguments of the Christian sect who held the most clout as they were being called on the carpet with regard their ridiculous assertions of Jesus being the messiah. This is made obvious by the fact that the very earliest such as Clement and Igneteus spoke as God the creator as the one to whom we should be worshipping, did not speak of Jesus as having a divine status and spent their time quoting OT text and a few of Paul's lines, along with a host of quotes the majority of which are nowhere to be found, and some in those very banned books and Nag Hammadi papyri. What does that tell you then?

They knew nothing of the 4 gospels obviously, and quotations belonging to those started to creep in to the debate as the years went on, where even John's pronouncement of "the word" or even mention of his gospel did not surface in their dialogue until well after Iraneaus started spouting such nonsense. They were forged writings attributed to be of eyewitnesses for the purpose of trying to silence the opposition.

Further, If Jesus were divine there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have to present his genealogy back to David, and certainly not through a man who supposedly never even touched his mother, is there? The fact that it is there, where the two genealogies do not agree, is not only evidence that the writers knew nothing about this Jesus' lineage; they placed it there to gain a following of Jews, because they were daft non-thinking men. Besides which, the Jewish line of descendancy was NEVER traced through women.

Finally, to place it up front and centre again: I, even I , am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

That statment resulted in the machinactions of the church fathers, for they had no way to make their Jesus believable with their failed messiah bid, than to concoct a story that he was God himself.

He was a thief, killer and leader of an outlaw band of vagabonds (barjona) attacking other Jewish sects as well as the Romans.






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join