tim_from_pa said:
Joseph was the supposed father of Jesus, who was (i.e. Jesus) the son of Heli....etc. etc That's what I mean. But let's get off this particular passage for a moment.
Let's look at some other bible quotes. What do you think of the apostle Paul, who by the way was the theological Einstein of the day?
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.... (Romans 1:1-3)
and again....
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.... (II Timothy 2:8)
Gee.... I wonder where such a learned man got such a bizarre idea?
As I stated, the idea that the messiah would be from the line of David was well known to those of the Jewish faith, which Paul was at one time. Just because Paul (who was not anywhere near Enistein by the way) says that he was from this line, does not mean that he was. Paul never met Jesus, never heard him speak, never followed him anywhere. In fact, the quotes above only show that Jesus was
thought to come from the line of David, so, since those who wrote after Paul, namely the gospel wrriters, would have already had this information, it would have been nothing to dig into the Hebrew scriptures and pull out the line of David, attaching Jesus to the end.
Now you don't suppose some esoteric genealogy was floating around that captivated Paul I wonder? Certainly just another quirky guy.
Actually the line of David would have been readily available within the OT. See here in 1 Chronicles 3 and you will find what I'm talking about. No need for esoteric (i.e. hidden) genealogies, its there in black and white available to any who read the Hebrew scriptures, as Paul assuredly did, he quotes from them enough.
Oh but wait, look at what the multitude said.....
And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. Matthew 21:9
Certainly that must have been a cultural quirk. It's kinda like you said about a person of another nationality doing my own genealogy they would get it straight, right? So let's see what a foreigner to the Jews called Jesus. Certainly they would get this straight.
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. Matthew 15:22
Dang! Can't anyone get this straight like you have it? You need a time machine to go back and set them straight. Unless you doubt the historical veracity of the New Testament, my question is where did the people get this idea that Jesus was the son of David? (genealogies aside).
Actually, I do doubt the historical veractiy of the New Testament. We have no idea if these stories are true or if the writer of the gospel is writing hearsay or even making this up. We have no idea if the writer is trying to be accurate to what he has heard or just writing what he believes happened. We don't know any of this. We don't even know who the writer is. Just because someone wrote what they thought happened a generation or two before them does not make it historically accurate. Tales and legends are added to such stories.
What if it was only a rumor? I tend to believe that rumors and fables have a basis in truth. Reminds me of the rumors that the place where I worked would close down. They held special meetings making the rumors sound ridiculous and that "one needs to have their facts present to believe something". Guess what? It shut down. It was fact---- someone who was not supposed to mouthed off and the word got out. Same with Jesus. People do not create complex genealogies by going to bed one night and just dreaming them up--- they have to come from somewhere. Especially considering Luke was a precise sort of individual being a physician.
No, they don't just go to bed one night and dream them up. As I stated before, the messiah was supposed to come from the line of David, so they took the line of David from the OT and added Jesus in thereby creating their messiah. This gives him the presteige of royalty, the fullfillment of supposed prophecy, and the ability to be worthy of the term Messiah in their minds. It does not mean that it was true.
Again, the two genealogies do not necessarily contradict--- I will concede to the fact that maybe Luke's genealogy is not worded the way we would word it, but I believe a very reasonalbe and plausible explanation was offered, as it is possible based on tons of other supporting scripture.
Any two contridictions found within the Bible can easily be reconciled if enough work and imagination is brought in. The genealogy in Luke may not be worded the way you would want it worded, but it is worded that way and that is the way it should be taken. If the gospel writer intended to word it any other way, then it more than likely would have been. But, since we are not priviliged to the what the writer
intended but only what he wrote, then that is what we have to go on.
As for the "tons" of supporting scripture, you have only shown that Paul thought Jesus from the line of David, being a Jew who would have though this if he belived Jesus was the Messiah. You have shown that once this idea was introduced into the Christian community through Paul, the gospel writers who followed found the genealogies in the OT used them for their own purposes. This still does not mean that Jesus was from the line of David, only that the writers of the NT thought he was.
Bob
: