Is David related to Jesus?

[FerventGodSeeker]

... as far as i know, Joseph wasnt the one who impregnated Mary

so how could he be related?

Mary is also part of David's bloodline...typically Matthew's geneology is seen as tracing Jospeh's ancestry, while Luke's geneology is seen as tracing Mary's

 

[Buttons*]

Mary is also part of David's bloodline...typically Matthew's geneology is seen as tracing Jospeh's ancestry, while Luke's geneology is seen as tracing Mary's

please post it here

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

please post it here

Post Luke's geneology? It's in Luke chapter 3, I don't mean to be lazy but I don't feel like writing it all out, lol. Matthew's geneology is in Matthew 1

 

[lunamoth]

please post it here

Here it is, from NIV"[url=http://www.ibs.org/niv/index.php]NIV[/url]

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God. (Luke 3, NIV)

Oh...the pitfalls of literalism...

 

[lunamoth]

The term "virgin" was a mistranslation. So it's quite possible that David was in fact, the biological father.
http://www.appliedlanguage.com/articles/virgin_birth_and_red_underpants.shtml

Hi Jeff,

I thought that the Baha'i teachings upheld the virgin birth of Jesus:

107 JESUS (Virgin Birth of)
"With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus; on this point, as on several others, the Bahá'í teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the Kitáb-i-Íqán (Book of Certitude) page 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá'u'lláh confirms, however indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also 'Abdu'l-Bahá in 'Some Answered Questions', Chap. 12, page 73, explicitly states that Christ found existence through the spirit of God which statement necessarily implies, when reviewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph."
"We believe that Christ only was conceived immaculately. His brothers and sisters would have been born in the natural way and conceived naturally."
(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 40)

(also, did you mean above that Joseph, not David, is the bio father?)

What is your understanding about how literally Baha'is are to interpret such teachings?

luna

 

[Quiddity]

The term "virgin" was a mistranslation. So it's quite possible that David was in fact, the biological father.
http://www.appliedlanguage.com/articles/virgin_birth_and_red_underpants.shtml

You could stack up scholars who advocate either position. Personally I think digging into the OT clears things up. Jewish interpretation of this was decidedly in favor of "virgin." They saw it as some kind of Messianic prophecy in the targums.

So you can go in both directions (before and after Christ) and a virgin birth had significance. Nonetheless our Tradition is heavily in favor of it. Sorry for going off on a tangent. Back to topic.

 

[Buttons*]

Here it is, from NIV"[url=http://www.ibs.org/niv/index.php]NIV[/url]



Oh...the pitfalls of literalism...

you're right, literlaism is something than make things WAY more difficult than they are.

I'm just wondering if people believe in the literalism without looking through both geneologies... that somewhat contradict....

and besides all that, Joseph would be in the line of David.
I'd like to see where it says Mary is in the line of David: This is for those who believe that Yeshua is a direct blood decendent of David

 

[lunamoth]

Huh, I did not know that there were writings on this subject matter, except for that circular debate in Some Answered Questions. For me personally, I picked up the idea a while back from a few different sources and it was something that made a heck of a lot of sense to me, so I always believe that it was a very real, and understandable possibility that the whole issue stemmed from nothing more than just a mistranslation.

However, since it is in the Baha'i Writings, I will not be so readily dismissive of the notion. So there is a very likely possibility that the birth of Christ was indeed a virgin birth or it could be just as likely that Baha'u'llah and the Gaurdians decided to go along with that school of thought because it is obviously by both faith and tradition a widely held belief.

So I don't really know what to think, but either way it doesn't really make or break my belief in the divinity of Christ. As a result, with the exception of that little bit that I threw out there, you won't see me take much of a position on the issue, once again, showing how much of a fence sitting S.O.B. I tend to be. However, if someone brought up the issue as to whether or not Jesus performed miracles, you would see me take a solid stance on such an issue.

And yes, I meant Joseph, not David, so I'll go back and edit that part as well.

It's cool Jeff, I was not trying to corner you. I have no problem at all with people accepting miracles on faith. I was just curious about this because my experience of the Baha'i Faith was that if one of the three Central Figures had said something specific about anything, then it was considered Revelation and thus factually true. I could be mistaken about this though.

luna

 

[Buttons*]

Well I know that the central figures are considered to be Infallible, as in, free from error, so I guess their written words could be considered to be factually true. But I don't know if all of it is considered to be revelation or not.

so.... about David.....

 

[lunamoth]

so.... about David.....

Sorry for the distraction there Buttons. I went off on a little tangent thinking about the Virgin Birth... maybe it's kind of related to the OP?

luna

 

[Buttons*]

Sorry for the distraction there Buttons. I went off on a little tangent thinking about the Virgin Birth... maybe it's kind of related to the OP?

luna

yeah, i know it has to do with it... but i know that it'll probably spark more of a debate if it goes too far off... and I dont want a debate about it... I just want to find out how this is all possible

*waits for the response "all is possible in the lord"*

 

[lunamoth]

OK, to make up for my naughty thread derailing ways...from Catholic Encyclopedia

How can Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?
(a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2). (b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; II Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

 

[Buttons*]

mmmm, incest

 

[SoyLeche]

I found this - but it is pretty circular. Basically, if you believe that:

a) Mary was a virgin when Christ was born, and
b) Christ was of the bloodline of David

The only possible explanation is that Mary was of the bloodline of David - regardless of whether or not it says so explicitly in the Bible. What it does say is that Joseph was a descendant of David - and Christ would have inherited that even if he were not Joseph's son.

As for the different geneologies - I've heard that one is Joseph's actual ancestors and the other is the royal line. I have no idea if that can be confimed.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=94

There is another factor inherent in the selection of the Lord's mortal parentage. He was to be born of the family of David, and be the heir to the throne of David. Hence he would literally be the king of the Jews by their own law. Isaiah touches upon this matter:
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David. and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever." (Isa. 9:6–7. See also Isa. 11:1; D&C 113:1–2.)
Since Jesus was not begotten by mortal man, his descent from David would, by necessity, be through his mother. Thus, when Mary came to earth, she was born into that royal lineage so she could transmit it to her son Jesus. That Mary was of Davidic descent is plainly set forth in the scriptures. Jesus was frequently addressed as "Son of David"; he did not disclaim that title.
Paul made it clear that Jesus was of royal blood in his earthly lineage. To the Roman saints he wrote: Jesus Christ our Lord…was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." (Rom. 1:3.) And to Timothy he said: "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead. (2 Tim. 2:8. See also Acts 13:22–23 and 2:30.)
That Joseph also was descended from David is likewise set forth in the New Testament, which states that Joseph was of Bethlehem and "of the house and lineage of David." (Luke 2:4. See also Luke 1:27; Matt. 1: 16, 20; Luke 3:23–3 1.)
So Jesus, though not a blood descendant of Joseph, inherited legal status as a son of David through him.
At that time, the Jews were ruled by Rome, and the rights of the royal Davidic family were not recognized. Herod, king of the Jews by Roman appointment, was not even an Israelite.
"Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful sovereign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the thronewould have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." (Jesus the Christ, p. 87.)

 

[Buttons*]

I found this - but it is pretty circular. Basically, if you believe that:

a) Mary was a virgin when Christ was born, and
b) Christ was of the bloodline of David

The only possible explanation is that Mary was of the bloodline of David - regardless of whether or not it says so explicitly in the Bible. What it does say is that Joseph was a descendant of David - and Christ would have inherited that even if he were not Joseph's son.

As for the different geneologies - I've heard that one is Joseph's actual ancestors and the other is the royal line. I have no idea if that can be confimed.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=94

why would you believe something that isnt directly from the Bible?

 

[SoyLeche]

mmmm, incest

If that quote is correct - that would make them what? Third cousin? That's not too bad. It's even legal most places today, isn't it?

 

[SoyLeche]

why would you believe something that isnt directly from the Bible?

You're talking to a Mormon now - remember

 

[Buttons*]

You're talking to a Mormon now - remember

your book is part of the Bible in my eyes

 

[SoyLeche]

why would you believe something that isnt directly from the Bible?

It is in the Bible. The Bible says that Mary was a virgin. The Bible says that Jesus was the "Son of David". The rest follows.

 

[SoyLeche]

your book is part of the Bible in my eyes

You do realize that I don't believe everything is in the scriptures though, right?

 

[lunamoth]

mmmm, incest

Now now, no need to be cheeky!

And Soyleche is correct, marrying one's third cousin is a far cry from incest.

luna