It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus Was Not Descended From David?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
My gut feeling, as well as some scriptural support, tells me that Jesus was not descended from David, but from Samuel, and the line of Joseph, the true seers and representatives of God to the Israelites.

First off, David was the great-grandson of Ruth, a Moabitess.



Ruth KJV

1:3 And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.

1:4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.

4:16 And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.

4:17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David


There is nothing wrong with this, I just believe it is a little known fact of the OT, that David was the biological great-grandson of Ruth.

Secondly, the genealogies of the NT are manipulated to provide lineage from Adam to David to Jesus, with the required twelve generations between each, or something like that, to fulfill prophecy.

It was the line of Joseph that inherited the birthright of Jacob, and this carried down to Samuel, when the Israelites became dissatisfied and demanded a king. First, Samuel anointed Saul, the biggest, baddest Benjamite he could find. Then he was directed by God to anoint David.

This is where the Israelites went awry, in choosing a king whose will to follow rather than the will of God. The Ephraimites, of the line of Joseph, ended up breaking away from the other tribes of Israel due to the warlike nature they pursued. This led to the defeat of Israel and Judah at the hands of the Assyrians, the destruction of the first temple, and the captivity.

I firmly believe the birth of Jesus, the son of man and the Son of God, fully man and fully God, was God's attempt to get the Israelites back on track to having the family of Joseph, inheritors of the birthright of Jacob, lead the tribes back to following the will of God, rather than the will of earthly kings. The struggle started then continues unto this very day.

Jesus and David themselves hinted at this very truth I am attempting to elucidate here.



Luke

20:41
And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?

20:42
And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

20:43
Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

20:44
David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

20:45
Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,

20:46
Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

20:47
Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.


These last three passages are crucial, in that they intimate Jesus' foreknowledge that his legacy would be manipulated by those unscrupulous scribes, who desired earthly power over their fellow men, and turned to ends of eternal bondage and control never intended by Jesus, nor by his Father, God the Creator.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Icarus Rising]




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I'm of the opinion that modern archeology has demonstrated that the First 3 Kings of Israel are fictional. Saul, David and Solomon. Beings of legend, myths. So, obviously, I would not believe that Jesus descended from David. I think that genealogy is in Matthew because Matthew was written to a Jewish population outside old Palestine and this would raise the level of acceptability of Jesus to them. I think it was meant for Alexandrian Jews. This would also explain the trip Joseph, Mary and Jesus made to Egypt. Which I think is only reported in Matthew. An effort to equate Jesus to Moses. Or maybe a Christian precursor to the later Hajj?

I take the biblical writings more as a effort to explain origins than as a special revelation from a divine being. I have the vague recollection there are 2 genealogies in Matthew. One by Joseph and one by Mary. If that is true, then I’d be of the opinion the genealogy by Mary was added in the 4th or 5th century as the cult of Mary was coming into some prominence.


[edit on 4/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Well, there you go. All that "King of the Jews" stuff turns out to be a miscommunication. Oh, well. I guess that puts a nail into the palm of that whole Messiah business. Now we can get on with our lives.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Jesus was said to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy made in the O.T. That in itself is suspect because I have also heard that future telling was forbidden in the O.T. days, and was a stoning offense. Now there are several references to Jesus and him being of Nazareth. In fact, we have a Church of the Nazarene. But not a Church of the Bethlemite. Hmm? And did not the Romans post a sign on the cross, “I.N.R.I.” Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews? So you go figure.


[edit on 4/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
INRI

Actually, I think this Wiki entry is only half correct - the first half, I suppose. Jesus was mostly likely either a member of the Nazorite (Nazarene) sect/cult or was widely accused/assumed to be. The "of Nazareth" thing is pretty well debunked as merely a mistranslation by later scribes, editors, or translators.

and, of course, there is the question of "which Bethlehem?" as there were 2 towns of that name.

actually, I'm going to stop before I write a book about all the misinterpreted and misinformed uses of place names and how they lead to some bizarre interpretations and expansions of legends that grew with the telling...it's a fascinating subject but it is a huge subject to study and discuss.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Your post doesn't burst my bubble, don. Far from it. Once you have the Holy Spirit come into your soul, in baptism by Christ himself, as I have, all doubt and fear are removed from your life. All that is left is the quest for understanding, and the desire to spread peace and love.

That doesn't mean that I am right about everything, again, far from it. I'm just not afraid to take the risk of putting my thoughts and feelings into words, to be wrong, to seek enlightenment, and to learn from my mistakes.

I truly believe that earthly kings have earthly aims, and a return to the guidance of the house of Joseph, the inheritor of the birthright of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, is destined for all mankind. It is salvation, devotion to the will of God, the Creator.

Earthly kings have time and again failed to look after the needs of the widowed, to judge the fatherless, and minister to the poor, as mandated by God throughout the OT. If there is a theme to the OT, that is it.

The same message as taught by our Savior, Jesus Christ, whom I believe was descended from Joseph, and inherited the birthright of Abraham. He spoke in the name of "the God of our fathers." "I am in Him, and He is in me."

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

posted by Icarus Rising: “Your post doesn't burst my bubble, Don. Far from it. Once you have the Holy Spirit come into your soul, in baptism by Christ himself, as I have, all doubt and fear are removed from your life . . That doesn't mean I am right about everything. . far from it . . I truly believe . . It is devotion to the will of God, the Creator . . The message taught by our Savior, Jesus Christ, whom I believe was descended from Joseph, and inherited the birthright of Abraham. [Edited by Don W]


I often wonder just what it was that Jesus was trying to say or teach. It is unbelievable to me that the Romans or even the Jewish Temple organization - don’t know its name - would really give a whit about someone teaching love and sharing. Regardless how you view the worth of such teachings in the First Century Judea, most people then had very little or no time to speculate and debate such esoteric topics. I would think water, food, garbage and such would occupy most of their idle time. No one gets crucified for saying “when you have done this to the least, you had done it to me.”

As to genealogies. I recall my paternal grand-parents and my maternal great grand-mother. My sister called me today asking where our mother was born. It was one of those questions on computers. I had to think for a minute to recall she was born in Askins, Ky. My point? Despite modern computers, the Mormon Church and U.S. Census reports, I don’t think I could locate any ancestor 12 generations ago. And I sure don’t think a guy in 30 AD could, either. So I’m pretty much left to speculate.


[edit on 4/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
My gut feeling, as well as some scriptural support, tells me that Jesus was not descended from David, but from Samuel, and the line of Joseph, the true seers and representatives of God to the Israelites.

First off, David was the great-grandson of Ruth, a Moabitess.

From ATS Search feature: the father of mary(u know the 1..jesus`s mother)?????

In it, you will find a link that asserts quite to the contrary of what you are allegedly asserting: that indeed, Jesus was descended from David via his mother.
This may prove an interesting read?
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Through Mary







seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

posted by Seekerof


posted by Icarus Rising: “My gut feeling . . tells me Jesus was not descended from David, but from Samuel, and the line of Joseph, the true seers and representatives of God to the Israelites. [Edited by Don W]


“ . . you will find a link that asserts quite to the contrary of what you are asserting: that indeed, Jesus was descended from David via his mother. This may prove an interesting read? The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Through Mary . . “ [Edited by Don W]


I know of no secular scholar who supports that thesis. The genealogy of Mary. It is a pure theologically driven invention, IMO. You don’t have to be Columbo to figure who did it or ordered it done. Again, I have read it was done in the 4th or 5th century. As the cult of Mary gained adherents. Do you think the Catholic Church - inventor of Trinitarianism - will soon go to Quadrinarianism making Mary the fourth member of the God-head?

[edit on 4/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I know a multitude that do.
The basis for it is grounded within the link I gave.
That basis is scripture.
From the link I gave:


Since the custom was of using male genealogies only, then how could an ancestral line of Jesus be shown through Mary?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that GOD left a convenient loophole in this law that would allow women to be included in the ancestral line if they met two stringent conditions...

1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

Each condition is then explained and scripturally based--all within the link I gave.



seekerof

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
al davidson and don white have done their research.
David, almost certainly apocryphal as was Jesus, was part of the building of a history deemed appripriate by the builders of the Jewish story.
It is difficult to discuss question such as this because the average believer depends upon a simplistic, black and white description of supposed historic events. The problem arrises when scholars begin to investigate claims.
The story having been written and redacted leaves the adherent with a apparently logical progression and since the story is written in what amounts to the future of the supposed events the story can appear extreamly accurate especially when "predictions" are involved.
An interesting point is that David is agrandized to the extent that he was pure, a musician, a poet, a great general, Hell he could have run for office as a Republican with all these fake achievments.
Anyone visiting the natural History Museum in Denver, CO can view a reproduction of the 23rd psalm attributed to David in the bible.
The really interesting thing here is that the actual scroll was carbo dated to a date 200 years before the claimed birth of David and attributed to an anonymous Baal poet.
Damn! The story made such sense when I was 9 years old.
sayswho (skep by any other name)



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Ah. Mr. Hubris himself weighs in, and surprise, surprise, he deigns to disagree. Nice warpaint, btw.

I'll warrant you are right, in that it is taught that the birthright of David was passed down to Mary. Nothing like a leading question to start a thread.

Why then, did Jesus himself deny it in Luke 20, and David call the future Jesus Lord in Psalms?

Furthermore, in Mark 3:32-35, Jesus shows little faith in the birthright of David, literally giving it up for those who will follow the will of God.



Mark

3:32
And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

3:33
And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

3:34
And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

3:35
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.


What do you make of that?

As He hung upon the cross, Jesus again gave up the birthright of David, this time to John, the beloved disciple.



John 19

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.


This just before the prince of this world, whom he had not within him, came for him.

Again, I believe Jesus knew where He came from, and I believe He knew the legacy of David was a failed legacy, a warmongering legacy, destined to destroy itself and everything it came in contact with, and He wanted no part of it.

I believe He knew the only hope for mankind lay in a return to the birthright of Joseph, passed down from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, an understanding of and devotion to the will of God, the Creator. Not the will of an earthly king, for which the Israelites rejected God.



1 Samuel 8

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.


You, my friend, would do well to read (or reread, as the case may be)1 Samuel 8:9-18, to see whom it is you truly serve, thou devotee of the birthright of David.

To me, the whole idea of Mary being descended from David was to bring the kingship, and the right of leadership of the Israelites, back to God Himself, where it belongs. God spoke directly to Abraham, and through the birthright handed down to Isaac and to Jacob and to the line of Joseph.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I don't think this dispute will ever be settled to the satisfaction of everyone because, as many have pointed out, Christians believe that Jesus was the prophecied Messiah so all the references in the OT are references to Jesus according to the beliefs of Christians. For non-Christians, the OT references to "Lord" refer to G-d (Jeh-h, Yw-h, etc.) but do not apply to the Christian Jesus. Even those references to a coming Messiah are matters of dispute that can never be settled since Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah and non-Christians do not.

The question of the Davidic lineage is moot for those who do not accept the Christian beliefs and for those who do not accept that there was an actual historical figure of David and/or Jesus to begin with.

So, everybody to their own beliefs. What I believe should not influence what you believe and vice-versa.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

posted by Icarus Rising: “Mr. Hubris himself . . and . . he deigns to disagree . . I'll warrant you are right in that the birthright of David was passed down to Mary . . He hung on the cross . . again gave up the birthright of David to John, the beloved . . What do you make of that? To me, the whole idea of Mary being descended from David was to [trace] the kingship and the right of leadership of the Israelites, back to God Himself . . God spoke directly to Abraham, and the birthright was handed down to Isaac and Jacob and to the line of Joseph.” [Severely edited by Don W]


First, I think Bible readers more than a millennia after the fact put their own spin on virginity as used in the Scriptures where it probably reads - as well as we can ever know what it reads - “young maiden” which admittedly did signify to the First Century types an unsullied girl. So Joseph “bought” a young girl to be his wife. Her parents no doubt guaranteed her virginity. Her pristine condition. To be disrespectfully blunt, an intact hymen.

Now, for reasons not clear to me, the Holy Writ repeats a rumor that Mary was not a virgin. That indeed, she was pregnant. My surmise is that Joseph and Mary had already had sex before the wedding, and that is why Joseph did not make a warranty claim.

In any case, the Jupiter story of virgin birth of Apollo was popular around the Mediterranean basin - hey we call this era the Hellenistic period - and so by the 2nd century, to play to the base and to enlarge the potential for converts, various local churches began to enunciate the constant virginity of Mary which makes Jesus comparable to Apollo. Just as I have mentioned above, Matthew’s telling of the flight into Egypt equated to Jesus being a Moses reborn. For each audience, a appropriate variation on the theme.

Later, as monasticism gained credence, and we settled into that long era of arguing how many angels on a pin or whether angels were male or female, both or neither, we also got to arguing over the indestructibility of a holy hymen as well as of a holy pupice - the foreskin of a circumcised Jewish boy. Even though the Holy Writ names 3 of Jesus’ brothers and mentions his sisters but not by name - hey women did not count in those days - it just seemed to reclusive monks that Mary ought to be a perpetual virgin. Wow!


[edit on 4/11/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join