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

[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 <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]

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.

 

[Sunstone]

I think you just put your finger on one of those charming paradoxes that make the bible such an interesting book.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Not only that the lineage is through Joseph. I think I heard that Mary and Joseph were cousins, so they could have the same lineage.

 

[cvipertooth]

The geneology of Matthew is the geneology from Abraham to David to the Babylonian captivity to Joseph. Theologians have theorized that Mary was also a descendant of David, through Nathan, instead of through the line of Soloman, which is the case of Joseph. They also theorize that the author of Luke traced the geneology through Nathan to Joseph because society, at the time, was Patriarchal and the woman's line would also be that of the man. Therefore, mary is the descendant of David who, bore Jesus.

 

[Unes]

I was wondering if we are reading the same Bible?

Genealogy, according to Gospel of Matthew 1:1 . . . :

Christ, 2-Joseph, 3-Jacob, 4-Matthan, 5-Eleazer, 6-Eliud, 7-Achim, 8-Sadoc, 9-Azor, 10-Eliakim, 11-Abiud,12-Zorobabel, 13-Salathiel, 14-Jechonias, 15-Josias, 16-Amon, 17-Manasses, 18-Ezekias, 19-Achaz, 20-Joatham, 21-Ozias, 22-Joram, 23-Josaphat, 24-Asa, 25-Abia, 26-Roboam, 27-Solomon, 28-David.

Genealogy according to Gospel of Luke 3:23 . . . :

Christ, 2-Joseph, 3-Heli, 4-Matthat, 5-Levi, 6-Melchl, 7-Janna, 8-Joseph, 9-Mattathias, 10-Amos, 11-Naum, 12-Esli, 13-Nagge, 14-Maath, 15-Mattathias, 16-Semei, 17-Joseph, 18-Juda, 19-Joanna, 20-Rhesa, 21-Zorobabel, 22-Salathiel, 23-Neri, 24-Melchi, 25-Addi, 26-Cosam, 27-Elmodam, 28-Er, 29-Jose, 30-Eliezer, 31-Jorim, 32-Matthat, 33-Levi, 34-Simeon, 35-Juda, 36-Joseph, 37-Jonan, 38-Eliakim, 39-Melea, 40-Menan, 41-Mattatha, 42-Nathan, 43-David. "

Where do you see Mary's genealogy?
In the whole Bible there is not a single reference to any woman's genealogy.

May God bless us all,

 

[cvipertooth]

But don't you find it odd that Joseph seems to be a member of two complete geneologies, each descending from David? In that society, a woman's geneology would be denoted by their husband's name. you are correct that women's geneologies are not used in the Bible, that is because their geneologies are denoted by the patriarchal figures of their family. I have a Bible commentary by J. Vernon McGee that explains this very well, but I have seemed to have misplaced it and, unfortunately, i am not a theologean and obviously cannot adequately explain this in order for you to understand.

 

[No*s]

I've always been taught that Jesus was basically adopted by Joseph, and it hasn't been contradicted by Orthodoxy. He was adopted and a Son of Joseph by adoption in every practical way, and according to Eusebius Joseph himself was adopted, and one represents his biological geneology and the other his adopted geneology.

 

[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 for Joseph through 42-Nathan.

This point was raised by Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809) in his book entitled "The Age of Reason". He pointed out to this discrepency as one of the major mistakes of the Bible.

Besides, in the first century AD the writers of the Matthew and Luke Gospels did not write these two Gospels to complement each other ; that is, one to offer the genealogy of Joseph and the other to offer the genealogy of Mary. On the contrary, in the first century AD these two Gospels were in strong competition with each other for attracting more followers. These writers tried hard to out-do each other and to boost their own versions of the Jesus story.

May God bless us all,

 

[Unes]

Well, the adoption theory that No*s raised is very interesting one, and it is very plausible. But where in Bible mentions of such claim. The Church Orthodoxy in one hand they claim that the Bible, WORD BY WORD, is word of God, and in the other hand they change the content of the Bible to suit their argument!

May God bless us all,

 

[No*s]

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 for Joseph through 42-Nathan.

This point was raised by Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809) in his book entitled "The Age of Reason". He pointed out to this discrepency as one of the major mistakes of the Bible.

Besides, in the first century AD the writers of the Matthew and Luke Gospels did not write these two Gospels to complement each other ; that is, one to offer the genealogy of Joseph and the other to offer the genealogy of Mary. On the contrary, in the first century AD these two Gospels were in strong competition with each other for attracting more followers. These writers tried hard to out-do each other and to boost their own versions of the Jesus story.

May God bless us all,

That objection overlooks the fact that Joseph was going to have to legally put her away. He was, for all intents and purposes, married to her but without the benefit. Mt. 1.20 even calls Mary his wife; she was for all practical purposes. As a result, I don't think that the fact that they hadn't had sex yet affects the implications of adoption very much.

 

[No*s]

Well, the adoption theory that No*s raised is very interesting one, and it is very plausible. But where in Bible mentions of such claim. The Church Orthodoxy in one hand they claim that the Bible, WORD BY WORD, is word of God, and in the other hand they change the content of the Bible to suit their argument!

May God bless us all,

Now this wasn't present when I made my response, but was posted in the interem. It makes some rather strong accusations against my argument without ever really addressing the argument, simply calling it "interesting" and "plausible."

First you have asserted that I made an interesting point. Then you proceed to make allegations to undermine that point without substantiating them.

First, "where in Bible mentions of such claim" needs to be addressed. Orthodoxy doesn't consider the Bible the sole authority. As such, I can appeal to Tradition or Early Church Fathers.

Next you say "Church Orthodoxy in one hand they claim that the Bible, WORD BY WORD, is word of God." I assume you mean that Orthodoxy believes the Bible absolutely and literally true in all respects and inerrant in every fact. Orthodoxy makes no such claim.

Finally you allege "they change the content of the Bible to suit their argument!" This is a blatant slander if you don't back up what you're saying. Point out where I have changed the contents of the Bible or please refrain from making such allegations. It is only a common corteousy.

 

[Unes]

N*o, but I did ask you to provide us with your claim of adoption in the Bible : "But where in Bible mentions of such claim"

I am NOT familiar with specific meaning of Orthodoxy. I am going by the Christian Church doctrine as it is spelled out in the Bible.

May God bless us all,

 

[No*s]

N*o, but I did ask you to provide us with your claim of adoption in the Bible : "But where in Bible mentions of such claim"

You can't simultaneously ask people to prove something while alleging they are changing the Bible. If I differ from your reading of the Bible, it doesn't mean I'm changing it. It means I'm not reading it like you do.

As for evidence, you have already cited it. There are two geneologies of Jesus. In both of them, Jesus is referred to as a son of Joseph. This understanding would not be possible if Jesus weren't adopted by Joseph. Simply the act of citing Jesus as a son of Joseph when Christ is not His biological Son is proof in itself.

On the adoption of Joseph, the Bible provides no comment beyond the geneologies. It says very little about him in fact. Just as Scripture doesn't outright teach it, it doesn't give any clue of denying it. You don't know if Joseph was adopted or not from Scripture, and you also don't know whether either or both geneologies would treat it that way.

I am NOT familiar with specific meaning of Orthodoxy. I am going by the Christian Church doctrine as it is spelled out in the Bible.

Then I suggest that you don't attempt to convict a religion about which you know nothing of changing the Bible. There is a forum under the Christian board labelled "Eastern Orthodoxy" if you should choose to learn about us; it's off-topic here.

Simply make note of this principle in the future: don't accuse people about whom you know nothing. It is simply a matter of respect both for yourself and the other person.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

SIDENOTE: Some people argue that because Mary is not mentioned in the Luke geneology-that there is no evidence that this is the geneology of Mary. Remember: women are not mentioned at all in these geneologies due to Jewish tradition- that is why Luke says at the begining of his geneology "He [Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph." This seems to imply that Luke is listing Jesus' true physical geneology and not that of Joseph. Luke said this with full knowlege that Jesus was born of a virgin.(see Luke 1:34)

 

[Unes]

Originally quoted by N*o:
As for evidence, you have already cited it. There are two geneologies of Jesus. In both of them, Jesus is referred to as a son of Joseph. This understanding would not be possible if Jesus weren't adopted by Joseph. Simply the act of citing Jesus as a son of Joseph when Christ is not His biological Son is proof in itself.

Well, I read your answer, but I do have a better answer for you; the Gospel writers made up these asertions on their own without any basis. On first century AD the two gospels of Mathew and Luke were competiting with each other, so they were trying to outdo each other. As a result the two genealogies in Mathew and Luke differs drastically with each other.

Originally quoted by N*o:
On the adoption of Joseph, the Bible provides no comment beyond the genealogies. It says very little about him in fact. Just as Scripture doesn't outright teach it, it doesn't give any clue of denying it. You don't know if Joseph was adopted or not from Scripture, and you also don't know whether either or both genealogies would treat it that way.

I think I need to quote you again: 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.

Luke is very clear about "Joseph, a descendant of David,". There is NO mention of adoption here. So why should we bother with a non existing issue. If you claim Joseph was adopted then the burden of proof is on you. You keep repeating there is no evidence, so from these mistakes it is reasonable to conclude that Gospels were written without any factual foundations.

N*o, from the Bible it is crystal clear that: "Joseph, a descendant of David," so if "Eastern Orthodoxy" contradicts this Bible statement then according to Established Christian Church then those other materials are void.

May God bless us all,

 

[patronkerr]

I call it 'Selective Believing.' EVERY religion with a Book suffers from it. That's why there is a good living in Theology.

Well, the adoption theory that No*s raised is very interesting one, and it is very plausible. But where in Bible mentions of such claim. The Church Orthodoxy in one hand they claim that the Bible, WORD BY WORD, is word of God, and in the other hand they change the content of the Bible to suit their argument!

May God bless us all,

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Luke is very clear about "Joseph, a descendant of David,". There is NO mention of adoption here. So why should we bother with a non existing issue. If you claim Joseph was adopted then the burden of proof is on you. You keep repeating there is no evidence, so from these mistakes it is reasonable to conclude that Gospels were written without any factual foundations.

If Jesus was born of Mary by God. Joseph's bloodline does not even matter, because Jesus was not part of Joseph's bloodline. We can only count his mother's bloodline.

 

[Halcyon]

If Jesus was born of Mary by God. Joseph's bloodline does not even matter, because Jesus was not part of Joseph's bloodline. We can only count his mother's bloodline.

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

 

[Unes]

Originally quoted by EnhancedSpirit:
If Jesus was born of Mary by God. Joseph's bloodline does not even matter, because Jesus was not part of Joseph's bloodline. We can only count his mother's bloodline.

EnhancedSpirit, God bless you, THAT IS exactly one of my argument. And since there is no genealogy for Holy Mother Mary then Bible can not claim that Jesus was descendent of David.

May God bless us all,