Jesus literal son of God, or son of Joseph?

[fallingblood]

The thing is that these "scholars" are atheists just like yourself. How many times have you seen these "religious epics" on the History Channel and have seen these "Bible scholars" always trying to explain away how things actually happened in biblical times to discredit God? In my opinion any Bible scholar that disbelieves everything in it is missing out.
You mentioned "evidence". Okay, how much evidence of your existence will still be around in 2000 years?

Incorrect. I'm not an atheist. I believe in god/s. I'm an agnostic theist, who happens to be a monist. Also, many Bible scholars are not atheist. L. Michael White, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Erhman (agnostic), Marcus Borg, E.P. Sanders, etc. are not atheists.

Also, I tend to take most of my research from scholarly books on the subject. Even the documentaries that I've watched haven't been fueled by atheist beliefs. Many that I've seen are filled with the opinions of Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The fact is, an atheist bias does not, for the most part, play a role in these books or documentaries. I've seen many Christian and Jewish biases somewhat getting out, but even then, it is at a minimal.

It is not about disbelieving ideas, its about the fact that they cannot be supported. After 2000 years, I will probably have more evidence about my life than Jesus. Unless there is some horrible event that wipes out everything, my life will be pretty well documented. Especially considering that I've had quite a few write ups about it. That is besides the point. The fact is, there is no evidence to suggest that the two genealogies were for anyone else than Joseph, the husband of Mary. That is what the majority, if not all scholars support, because the Bible makes this clear.

 

[fallingblood]

Anciently what has been translated into English as “virgin” meant something different than what we think in modern times. Concerning Alexander the Great, Gautama Buddha, Krishna and others with rare exception did not physically rise and “live” as an immortal physical being. As near as I can determine there is but one “living” G-d with which we can have hope to likewise live again.

Zadok

Actually, they were literally believed to be gods of sons of gods. The word virgin meant that. Trying to now claim it meant something different simply doesn't work. Those others you believed were believed to be literally gods or sons of gods.

 

[Zadok]

Actually, they were literally believed to be gods of sons of gods. The word virgin meant that. Trying to now claim it meant something different simply doesn't work. Those others you believed were believed to be literally gods or sons of gods.

In the case of Mary she was given by her mother to G-d while still a small child and was raised within the family order of priests at the temple - similar to Samuel.

Zadok

 

[fallingblood]

In the case of Mary she was given by her mother to G-d while still a small child and was raised within the family order of priests at the temple - similar to Samuel.

Zadok

Only according to tradition. There is little reason to believe that is so. In any case, it really changes nothing.

 

[Zadok]

Only according to tradition. There is little reason to believe that is so. In any case, it really changes nothing.

Not just tradition but ancient texts written before the New Testament texts were completed. Although such text may not be considered scripture canon it does give insight to the thinking and terminology of that era. And therefore, it does change something - it changes our understanding of what virgin meant at the time that title was given to Mary.

Zadok

 

[fallingblood]

Not just tradition but ancient texts written before the New Testament texts were completed. Although such text may not be considered scripture canon it does give insight to the thinking and terminology of that era. And therefore, it does change something - it changes our understanding of what virgin meant at the time that title was given to Mary.

Zadok

How? Mary was a virgin because she hadn't had sex when she gave birth to Jesus. What you said does not suggest anything else. That was the understanding of the word virgin.

 

[dogsgod]

.


Mark 1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Say no more.


.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Having two parents from the house of David satisfied the prophesy and those who were always looking to discredit Jesus.

Actually, it doesn't.

First of all, the mother's ancestry has no bearing whatsoever on what house a person is from. A person is from his father's house... so even if Mary was from David, it's absolutely irrelevant.

Second... if you don't believe that Joseph was Jesus' biological father, then Joseph being from David is absolutely irrelevant. One's tribal heritage does NOT pass through adoption.

Third... let's say for the sake of argument that my second point didn't exist... the fact that Jechoniah is listed in Joseph's genealogy disqualifies him from passing on the messianic heritage.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Actually, it doesn't.
First of all, the mother's ancestry has no bearing whatsoever on what house a person is from. A person is from his father's house... so even if Mary was from David, it's absolutely irrelevant.

In the year 70 the records at the temple at Jerusalem were destroyed.
Before that it would have been in the record that Jesus had both the biological and legal right to the throne of David. Through Mary there was the 'fleshly' connection and through Joseph there was the 'legal' connection.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It is not about disbelieving ideas, its about the fact that they cannot be supported. After 2000 years, I will probably have more evidence about my life than Jesus. Unless there is some horrible event that wipes out everything, my life will be pretty well documented. Especially considering that I've had quite a few write ups about it. That is besides the point. The fact is, there is no evidence to suggest that the two genealogies were for anyone else than Joseph, the husband of Mary. That is what the majority, if not all scholars support, because the Bible makes this clear.

Mary gave Jesus the fleshly right. Joseph gave Jesus the legal right.

Armageddon [God's war] will Not wipe out everything, but those that are executed by the words from Jesus mouth at that time will also have all memory of them wiped out. -[Isaiah 11v4; Rev 19vs11,14,15; Psalm 92v7]

Since Jesus has life and exists forever in the heavens, then in 2000 years, not only will Jesus still be alive, but so will those that are part of Jesus promise that the humble meek will inherit the earth as Psalm 37 says.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Before that it would have been in the record that Jesus had both the biological and legal right to the throne of David.

No, it wouldn't have.

Through Mary there was the 'fleshly' connection

On a superficial level, that might be impressive... but it is ultimately irrelevant.

and through Joseph there was the 'legal' connection.

Quite the opposite... any connection through Joseph would be illegal for two reasons:

1. If you don't believe Joseph was the biological father, tribal affiliation does NOT get passed through adoption.

2. Even if Joseph was Jesus' biological father, Jeconiah disqualifies him.

 

[bestway]

according to Islam:
46."(Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allâh gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allâh"
47."She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is"
the Noble Qua'an 2:46,47

 

[MurphtheSurf]

No, it wouldn't have.

On a superficial level, that might be impressive... but it is ultimately irrelevant.

Quite the opposite... any connection through Joseph would be illegal for two reasons:

1. If you don't believe Joseph was the biological father, tribal affiliation does NOT get passed through adoption.

2. Even if Joseph was Jesus' biological father, Jeconiah disqualifies him.

Naturally as a Jew you do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, that's fine. But nowhere in the Greek Christian scriptures do we read about the religious leaders even as so much questioning his line to David. They tried everything else on hundreds of occasions. And failed. If the line to David wasn't as solid as it was, the story would have been over right then and there. Could it be that your point of view comes from a different Jewish tradition than what was practiced back in the first century?

 

[fallingblood]

Naturally as a Jew you do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, that's fine. But nowhere in the Greek Christian scriptures do we read about the religious leaders even as so much questioning his line to David. They tried everything else on hundreds of occasions. And failed. If the line to David wasn't as solid as it was, the story would have been over right then and there. Could it be that your point of view comes from a different Jewish tradition than what was practiced back in the first century?

Now I'm not a Jew. However, I also do not see how it can be possible that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. It simply does not work.

The David line is extremely questionable. The genealogies themselves disagree with each other, and disagree with other records. There really is no reason to believe that the Davidic line was existent in Jesus.

 

[ThirdEyeOpen]

very well put. even though the vid is taken off the site, ive seen it before and i must say its hilarious.

 

[ThirdEyeOpen]

Why didnt he rid of other religions then, instead of preaching to his followers to do it? 46."(Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allâh gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allâh"
47."She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is"
the Noble Qua'an 2:46,47

 

[Rainbow Mage]

There are two contradicting narratives of Jesus' birth in the NT. That calls the whole virgin birth into question. There are also two contradicting family lineages for Joseph, also calling the Davidic succession into question

 

[Manasa]

LORD JESUS was GOD'S SON in heaven before he was manifest in the flesh as the SON of GOD.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There are two contradicting narratives of Jesus' birth in the NT. That calls the whole virgin birth into question. There are also two contradicting family lineages for Joseph, also calling the Davidic succession into question

Jesus lineage is broken down into three [3] sets not two.

The gospels are Not just repeats of one another.
Putting them together creates the whole picture.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Very convinient, but we all know the gospels weren't written to be put together, they were written by seperate authors using various traditions, and some of them used different traditions. That's why Luke and John have stories the other two don't have.