If the Messiah is from David's lineage, but Mary was a virgin and Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, then was Jesus from David's lineage?

Comments

• the immaculate conception is about Mary, not Jesus' virgin birth.

  • Report
  

  by yoho05 reminds you to DYOH on August 3rd, 2006

• True. According to the New Testament, Jesus was matrilineally descended from David.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on October 2nd, 2006

• Doesn't tracing the lineage through the mother follow Jewish tradition anyways?

  • Report
  

  by sariskyfire on September 18th, 2009

• Yes, Sarisky, it does indeed. Today, just as it did in the year 1. But both genealogies trace it through Joseph, not Mary.

  • Report
  

  by Sandman on September 25th, 2009

• "Immaculate Conception" has nothing to do with sex or virginity, or the loss thereof. It quite literally means that Mary was born without Original Sin.

  • Report
  

  by Sandman on September 25th, 2009

• Does it mean that Mary or her mother was born without orginal sin. What says the Catholic Church? I think it may mean Mary's mother

  • Report
  

  by coachgreene on October 4th, 2009

Comments

• great answer!

  • Report
  

  by davoomac on August 3rd, 2006

• A great answer!

  • Report
  

  by AnaContessa on November 7th, 2007

Comments

• Thanks!

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 26th, 2009

Comments

• Thanks Jim!

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 26th, 2009

• You're welcome.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on May 26th, 2009

Comments

• Thanks Hyperion!

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 26th, 2009

• Were you there?

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on May 26th, 2009

• Randoley - no I wasn't but the other three gospel authors supposedly were and they didn't seem to know anything about Jesus lineage through Joseph or the massacre of the innocents. If it's a three to one majority I'll go with the three.

  • Report
  

  by Hyperion is back in China on May 26th, 2009

• Four different people can write four biographies about George Washington and not all of them are going to be the same. They will have similar parts and then each author will focus on something that they think is important that the others didn't. It doesn't invalidate what the others wrote.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on May 26th, 2009

• Randoley: You make a great point, and if it were simply a matter of Matthew omiting something that Mark felt was important, I would be behind you 100%. However, there are things stated as fact in one gospel that contradict facts in another gospel (ie. Herod and Quirinius did not rule at the same time).

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 26th, 2009

• Quirinius? where is he mentioned? I can't find it.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on May 26th, 2009

• Quirinius is mentioned in Luke chapter 2.

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 26th, 2009

• I typed it in my bible program and nothing came up. When were each of them in power?

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on May 26th, 2009

• Herod died in 4BC and Quirinius took up his office in 6AD, which I believe is when the famous census took place.

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 26th, 2009

• Randoley - were the gospel authors not supposed to writing under Gods inspiration? So what you are saying is that God, not the human authors, had four different perspectives of the same events.
  .
  I've never heard a satisfactory explanation as to how any authoral perspective would justify or benefit from the omitting of Jesus' greatest miracle (the raising of Lazarus) from an account of his life. Yet 3 out of 4 of the gospels don't mention it.

  • Report
  

  by Hyperion is back in China on May 26th, 2009

• You sat that Jesus' greatest miracle was bringing Lazarus back all the time, but that is just your opinion on which one was His greatest. Jesus brought other people back too. He also walked on water, which I think is pretty big.
  .
  We all have different personalities and different perspectives. God did lead the men while writing, but their writing styles and personalities came out too. God uses our abilities to His will. They just didn't go into a trance like on "Heroes" with their eyes turning white then wake up and see what they wrote. They were under the direction of God, but still in control of how things got put on paper.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on May 26th, 2009

• "We all have different personalities and different perspectives. God did lead the men while writing, but their writing styles and personalities came out too"... Were you there?
  .
  The raising of Lazarus happened at the height of Jesus' ministry in front of a crowd of people and demostrates power over life and death. The walking on water incident was not thought important enough by Luke to even include in it his gospel, that said, neither was the raising of Lazarus. Luke must have damn high standards for miracles.

  • Report
  

  by Hyperion is back in China on May 26th, 2009

• I guess luke does. On the other point, I was not there but I have experienced it that is how I know God uses us that way.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on May 26th, 2009

• And did your experience also tell you specifically that this was the same way that he used the gospel authors, or are you just assuming that it was the same way?

  • Report
  

  by Hyperion is back in China on May 27th, 2009

• I have known enough people who have had the same experience to know that is the way God does it. When you get to know a friend very good for a long time can't you anticipate how they will react or know how they do things? It's the same with God.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on May 27th, 2009

• So you are just assuming then. It's incredibly presumptuous of you to think that you can know how an omnipotent eternal entity acted in a specific case 1900 years ago because a few people you know today say they have had similar experiences to you.

  • Report
  

  by Hyperion is back in China on May 27th, 2009

• It's incredibly presumptuous of you to call the person who wrote Mathew a liar, so I guess we are even.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on May 27th, 2009

• Hyperion: "the other three gospel authors supposedly were" present at the time of Jesus' conception and birth?
  No, they weren't. They weren't associated with him or his family until he was a mature adult. And they didn't write that stuff until 50 years after he was dead.

  • Report
  

  by Sandman on August 31st, 2009

• Mr Josh: Quirinus (who is not named in any extant version of the Christian Bible) did not "take up the office" of Herod. He (Quirinus/Cyrenius) was the Roman governor (hegemon) of a large province called Greater Syria. And the Great Census was in 6-4 BC, not AD.

  • Report
  

  by Sandman on August 31st, 2009

• Actually, the book of Luke traces the lineage of Mary, Jesus' mother, back to David. So, Jesus is a blood descendant of David.

  • Report
  

  by jefmwols on September 24th, 2009

• And of Joseph.

  • Report
  

  by Sandman on September 24th, 2009

• @Sandman "the other three gospel authors supposedly were" present at the time of Jesus' conception and birth?
  .
  I wasn't suggesting that the other 3 gospel authors were present at Jesus' birth - the author of Matthew wasn't present either. I was meaning that all the gospel authors were contemporary with Matthew (or whoever the gospel author was) yet they did not seem to be aware of the events that Matthew describes.

  • Report
  

  by Hyperion is back in China on September 24th, 2009

• @jefmwols
  .
  Where does Luke say that his genealogy is through Mary's line. It would have been very unusual to show a mother's lineage in those days. It would certainly warrant as specific note or comment from Luke to say what he had done.

  • Report
  

  by Hyperion is back in China on September 24th, 2009

• Start with the 38th verse of Chapter 3 in Luke and read the verses backwards 37, 36, 35, and so on until you arrive at verse 23 --it says here that Joseph was the son of Heli. Joseph was Jacob's son by birth and Heli's son by marriage. This is the linage of Mary the mother of Jesus traced back through her daddy.

  • Report
  

  by coachgreene on October 4th, 2009

• I'm waiting with bated breath to hear how Hyperion will spin this to be a lie made up by the author. He is so creative in that way.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on October 5th, 2009

• Hey Randy - that hurts man!
  .
  However, you have got me stumped here I have to admit. We have had many disagreements on AB and while our positions differ significantly on most subjects I have never considered you to be unintelligent.
  .
  
  .
  I'll go with my first impression I think and see what happens;
  .
  OK, you know that I believe that both Mathew and Luke’s genealogies for Jesus are simply fabrications made up by the authors to serve a purpose. One of the reasons that I think this is because the two genealogies diverge when it comes to who the father of Joseph was. In Matt it's Jacob and in Luke it's Heli.

  • Report
  

  by Hyperion is back in China on October 5th, 2009

• Some people try to explain this by claiming that Luke is writing about Mary's line rather than Josephs - to which my response is to ask where in Luke does the author say that his genealogy is based on Mary’s line.
  .
  Coachgreene’s answer to this is to re-state both the discrepancy and the claim that lead me to ask the question in the first place.
  .
  So I have two questions;
  .
  1. Where does Luke say that his genealogy is through Mary's line? – This is my original question that hasn’t been answered yet.
  
  2. What did you think that Coachgreene’s comment was saying that caused you to wait with baited breath for my response ?
  
  Come on Randy – you can do better than this.
  
  .

  • Report
  

  by Hyperion is back in China on October 5th, 2009

• I would say since the names listed in Matthew and Luke are different then one is for Joseph and one is for Mary. All Luke says is Jesus' family goes back to Adam, there is no where that is says Mary or Joseph. I wouldn't say both gemologies are fact because they are different. They are different because they are different people.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on October 5th, 2009

Comments

• Correct!

  • Report
  

  by davoomac on August 3rd, 2006

Comments

• How is Idne doing?

  • Report
  

  by Perryman on March 4th, 2010

• What do I know about your wife?

  • Report
  

  by Nabihigh on March 7th, 2010

Comments

• That's a good point, I've never thought of it like that before. Thank you for that. My only problem with your perspective is that the prophesy said that the messiah would be BORN in the line of David.

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 26th, 2009

• The word in the original is not "carpenter." It's Tekton, which means "Mason." And it doesn't mean a stonecutter; it means a Freemason.

  • Report
  

  by Sandman on September 25th, 2009

Comments

• More to the point, Joseph claimed Jesus as his son. For all legal/social purposes, Joseph was considered to be Jesus' father.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 1st, 2006

Comments

Comments

• Look again. Luke 3:23 traces the lineage of Joseph. not Mary, and so does Luke 1:1.

  • Report
  

  by Sandman on September 25th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments