Jesus can NOT be BOTH "Son Of God" and also descendant of David.

[Druidus]

One could say that the body of Jesus was of Davidian descent, whereas the soul of Jesus was the son of God. HIs DNA was Davidian, but his spirit was of Deity. That's at least one solution...

 

[Unes]

Druidus, but why do we insist to hold on to a faulty theology?
Faulty Religious Myths can not take us far.

May God bless us all,

 

[Druidus]

I, personally don't believe in the Bible, or the Christian/Jewish God, or anything of the like, besides believing that most of the stories come from a kernel of truth. I'm just saying that some pople could say that they see it that way. What do you mean by "Faulty", however? One such as me could see much of the bible as being faulty.

 

[jewscout]

The question of Jesus's geneology is one of the many sticking points that judaism has w/ the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. For him to be the Moshiach ben David he must be a decendant through his father to David...now there are some sources that specify that it must be through Soloman to David since soloman is the one who rules after David.
Since some denominations claim that he is the son of G-d then he, in a jewish mindset, can not be the moshiach.

I agree he can't be both, if he's the son of G-d i'm not sure what the geneology is there for and if he isn't...well then that puts a big monkey wrench into many sects of christianity...
Also there is no rule that says the Moshiach HAS to be the son of G-d or divine in any way.

 

[Druidus]

Unless we say the God is a female, Jesus is the son of God, David is the father, and Mary was a surrogate carrier of the child.

 

[jewscout]

Unless we say the God is a female, Jesus is the son of God, David is the father, and Mary was a surrogate carrier of the child.

well techinically G-d has no gender
and of course jesus is the son of G-d....he's a jew!

 

[No*s]

The question of Jesus's geneology is one of the many sticking points that judaism has w/ the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. For him to be the Moshiach ben David he must be a decendant through his father to David...now there are some sources that specify that it must be through Soloman to David since soloman is the one who rules after David.
Since some denominations claim that he is the son of G-d then he, in a jewish mindset, can not be the moshiach.

I agree he can't be both, if he's the son of G-d i'm not sure what the geneology is there for and if he isn't...well then that puts a big monkey wrench into many sects of christianity...
Also there is no rule that says the Moshiach HAS to be the son of G-d or divine in any way.

That's a point where we disagree . For us (the Christian side), Joseph is Jesus' father in that he basically adopted Him. He raised Him and would have been the male present and overseeing all of Jesus' important occasions. As such, we feel He can be both.

It's just one of those things that we won't agree much on

 

[oracle]

The question of Jesus's geneology is one of the many sticking points that judaism has w/ the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. For him to be the Moshiach ben David he must be a decendant through his father to David...now there are some sources that specify that it must be through Soloman to David since soloman is the one who rules after David.
Since some denominations claim that he is the son of G-d then he, in a jewish mindset, can not be the moshiach.

I agree he can't be both, if he's the son of G-d i'm not sure what the geneology is there for and if he isn't...well then that puts a big monkey wrench into many sects of christianity...
Also there is no rule that says the Moshiach HAS to be the son of G-d or divine in any way.

What if he is actually Mechaich Ben Yoshua? Yeshua is like an alternate form of Yoshua. Perhaps Mary was from the tribe of Ephraim. I dunno. But from the Christian point of view, that may be John the Baptist. But Mochiach Ben David is not supposed to get killed, me thinks. Mochiach Ben Joshua is the one who gets killed, and everyone mourns his death.

But then I could also say that mary was not really a virgin, that is just symbolism being written into the story. Even Zoroaster was later written as a child born of virgin birth.

 

[jewscout]

What if he is actually Mechaich Ben Yoshua? Yeshua is like an alternate form of Yoshua. Perhaps Mary was from the tribe of Ephraim. I dunno. But from the Christian point of view, that may be John the Baptist. But Mochiach Ben David is not supposed to get killed, me thinks. Mochiach Ben Joshua is the one who gets killed, and everyone mourns his death.

But then I could also say that mary was not really a virgin, that is just symbolism being written into the story. Even Zoroaster was later written as a child born of virgin birth.

The Moshiach ben Yoshua is supposed to be a great military leader who will fight and defeat the enemies of Israel setting the stage for the Moshiach ben David...
Jesus was definetly not that...

 

[oracle]

Unless we say the God is a female, Jesus is the son of God, David is the father, and Mary was a surrogate carrier of the child.

There seems to be some sort of odd love triangle [or "quadrilateral"] going on here...
It's like an episode of Jerry Springer [Who's the real father]?

 

[jewscout]

That's a point where we disagree . For us (the Christian side), Joseph is Jesus' father in that he basically adopted Him. He raised Him and would have been the male present and overseeing all of Jesus' important occasions. As such, we feel He can be both.

It's just one of those things that we won't agree much on

very true No*s i don't think we can agree on it.
Personally i see Jesus as yet another messenger of G-d...but this time he was sent to speak to the Gentiles

 

[No*s]

very true No*s i don't think we can agree on it.
Personally i see Jesus as yet another messenger of G-d...but this time he was sent to speak to the Gentiles

If we could agree on it, Christianity wouldn't have grown in a separate direction from the rest of Judaism (and it was a part of Judaism in many ways in the first century, though we've gone our separate ways lol).

This is also the reason I tend not to debate Christ's fulfilling the prophecies for the Messiah on here with yall. We see things through fundamentally different lenses, and will not read the prophecies the same way. I see the Messiah as a son of David, but yall can't. I see all the other prophecies in a similar light .

 

[oracle]

We see things through fundamentally different lenses, and will not read the prophecies the same way.

Mine's the special, magic, decoder ring lenses!:woohoo: JK... ehh, just trying to add humor.

 

[No*s]

Mine's the special magic decoder ring lenses!:woohoo: JK... ehh, just trying to add humor.

Yes, well mine's better. It came from Cracker Jacks

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

That's not very biblical. You're ignoring important parts of the NT.

Was Mary made pregnant by immaculate conception? Was she a virgin? Was she untouched by ANY man? If you believe this to be true, then you must see that Joseph's blood does not flow through the body of Jesus. What part of the bible am I ignoring? The parts that make it all confusing? If Mary was a virgin. Joseph's sperm did not enter her. How then can you count Jesus' bloodline as Joseph's-osmosis? The the bible spends a lot of effort trying to convince the unbelievers. The Jews would not accept Mary's bloodline as valid. So, they had to claim Joseph's bloodline.

 

[michel]

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 <b>your descendant,</b> 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 the descendant of David.
Joseph, Jesus father, had nothing to do with Jesus genealogy!He didn't do it!

Unes, this is what happens when you don't use the correct translation.

1 Corinthians 14:33 = FOR GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION, BUT OF PEACE...

Let's take a look at your verse and compare Scripture to Scripture, rightly dividing the Word of Truth:

2 Samuel 7:12 = ...I WILL SET UP THY SEED AFTER THEE... (King James Version)

Notice it says, "thy seed" --- not "your descendant".

Now with that in mind, let's go to Genesis 3:15 --- again the King James Version:

AND I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN THEE AND THE WOMAN, AND BETWEEN THY SEED AND HER SEED.

Thus Jesus is the Son of David, as well as the Son of God.

 

[James the Persian]

Was Mary made pregnant by immaculate conception? Was she a virgin? Was she untouched by ANY man? If you believe this to be true, then you must see that Joseph's blood does not flow through the body of Jesus. What part of the bible am I ignoring? The parts that make it all confusing? If Mary was a virgin. Joseph's sperm did not enter her. How then can you count Jesus' bloodline as Joseph's-osmosis? The the bible spends a lot of effort trying to convince the unbelievers. The Jews would not accept Mary's bloodline as valid. So, they had to claim Joseph's bloodline.

One small correction. The Immaculate Conception does not refer to Mary's conception of Jesus, but Anna's conception of Mary. It's also not a general Christian belief (so I'd be very surprised if halcyon believed in it) but is peculiar to the Roman Catholics.

James

 

[Radar]

Unes, this is what happens when you don't use the correct translation.

1 Corinthians 14:33 = FOR GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION, BUT OF PEACE...

Let's take a look at your verse and compare Scripture to Scripture, rightly dividing the Word of Truth:

2 Samuel 7:12 = ...I WILL SET UP THY SEED AFTER THEE... (King James Version)

Notice it says, "thy seed" --- not "your descendant".

Now with that in mind, let's go to Genesis 3:15 --- again the King James Version:

AND I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN THEE AND THE WOMAN, AND BETWEEN THY SEED AND HER SEED.

Thus Jesus is the Son of David, as well as the Son of God.

What??? How does that clear anything up? Do know what Genesis 3:15 is saying? So god is Enmity between the man and the woman and their seeds. So there is going to be hatred or animosity between them. How does that make any point about Jesus being a descendant or of the seed of David?



Also why is Jesus named Jesus and not Immanuel?



Some people can't read the writing, for all the words are getting in the way.

 

[michel]

What??? How does that clear anything up? Do know what Genesis 3:15 is saying? So god is Enmity between the man and the woman and their seeds. So there is going to be hatred or animosity between them. How does that make any point about Jesus being a descendant or of the seed of David?

Hi Radar, compare what I said to the very first post in this thread and that should clarify.

Also why is Jesus named Jesus and not Immanuel?

Matthew 1:20-23 = BUT WHILE HE [Joseph] THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS, BEHOLD, THE ANGEL OF THE LORD APPEARED UNTO HIM IN A DREAM, SAYING, JOSEPH, THOU SON OF DAVID, FEAR NOT TO TAKE UNTO THEE MARY THY WIFE: FOR THAT WHICH IS CONCEIVED IN HER IS OF THE HOLY GHOST. AND SHE SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, AND THOU SHALT CALL HIS NAME JESUS: FOR HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS. NOW ALL THIS WAS DONE, THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED WHICH WAS SPOKEN OF THE LORD BY THE PROPHET, SAYING, BEHOLD, A VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME, EMMANUEL, WHICH BEING INTERPRETED IS, GOD WITH US.

Some people can't read the writing, for all the words are getting in the way.

Think what happens when it's the wrong words getting in the way, too!

 

[Radar]

[/color]

Hi Radar, compare what I said to the very first post in this thread and that should clarify.



Matthew 1:20-23 = BUT WHILE HE [Joseph] THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS, BEHOLD, THE ANGEL OF THE LORD APPEARED UNTO HIM IN A DREAM, SAYING, JOSEPH, THOU SON OF DAVID, FEAR NOT TO TAKE UNTO THEE MARY THY WIFE: FOR THAT WHICH IS CONCEIVED IN HER IS OF THE HOLY GHOST. AND SHE SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, AND THOU SHALT CALL HIS NAME JESUS: FOR HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS. NOW ALL THIS WAS DONE, THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED WHICH WAS SPOKEN OF THE LORD BY THE PROPHET, SAYING, BEHOLD, A VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME, EMMANUEL, WHICH BEING INTERPRETED IS, GOD WITH US.




Think what happens when it's the wrong words getting in the way, too!

See just one more contradiction that you try to explain away. But I guess god can change his mind and does so many times and contradicts himself. The Bible is supposed to be complete but it has so many holes in it. All Bibles are not the same some have more books than others (Catholic). Eight of the twelve gospels were gotten rid of by a vote some 325 years after Christ. Christians can't even agree on what to agree on. The Bible can't even agree on one genealogy for Joseph. Why are there 2, with different names and about 15 generations difference in length. Which one is correct? I bet you can't tell me. Do I believe Matthew or Luke? I guess you don't really care which one is correct if either or if any of these people existed at all as long as you believe? Why would god inspire contradictions? Why did the story of Jesus have to be told four times in a row? They should have voted on just one to get rid of any doubt. But when you are blinded by faith everything is ok as long as you believe. No one has to prove that there is any god to me I am agnostic and antagonistic. I like to see people try to explain and rationalize the irrational. Can you really answer any of the questions? Probably not or not to a point where I would be convinced.