The Promised Messiah

[BlaznFattyz]

I was thinking the same about missing the point... like so many stories in the bible, and without going in to all the story's details regarding Mary and Joseph, when God wants something to happen, He makes it happen. One example of stoning, was Jesus' preaching and claiming to be God, but because it wasnt his time to die the stoning never happened.

[path_of_one]

Then there are those of us who believe that Jesus was Joseph's biological son, and that the English translation of the prophency "born of a virgin" is inaccurate (the accurate translation being "born of a young woman").

The little bit (and I admit, I don't exactly trouble myself to work all these details out, just not my thing) I've looked into the translation, it is likely the prophecy was misinterpreted, and then later his early birth story was made to match. This is further evidenced by the likelihood that Mark was written first, and contains nothing of the birth story. It is more of a straight journalistic account of what happened. Matthew and Luke were written later, probably with the benefit of having Mark already, and by that time were starting to try to justify Jesus as Messiah, and so were grappling with various prophecies and needing a miraculous birth story.

I realize this puts me in the minority, but I don't think Jesus needs to be born of a virgin to be the Son of God. Regular birth is perfectly miraculous in itself, and it isn't like our soul or spirit is conceived by biology anyway, but rather is created by God. So it is perfectly reasonable to me that Jesus was born in a usual way, just like every child, from Mary and Joseph. His soul/spirit was entirely from God. Thus, he was 100% divine and 100% human- a human body with a divine spirit.

Virgin births are plastered all over the world's Pagan myths, so it's not exactly an uncommon belief. For this reason alone, I am a bit skeptical about it being a unique prophecy for our Lord.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong as well. At the end of the day, it isn't an issue I care that much about. But I've done the little thought experiment.

[flowperson]

Hi Path...you've got company in the minority.

flow....

[mee]

Jesus’

Lineage

Jesus’ lineage is the first evidence the Christian Greek Scriptures give in support of his Messiahship. The Bible foretold that the Messiah would come from the family line of King David. (Psalm 132:11, 12; Isaiah 11:1, 10) Matthew’s Gospel begins: "The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus’ descent through the line of his adoptive father, Joseph. (Matthew 1:1-16) Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’ lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense.

Even the most skeptical opponent of Jesus’ Messiahship cannot deny Jesus’ claim to be a son of David. Why? There are two reasons. One, that claim was widely repeated in Jerusalem for decades before the city was destroyed in 70 C.E. (Compare Matthew 21:9; Acts 4:27; 5:27, 28.) If the claim was false, any of Jesus’ opponents—and he had many—could have proved Jesus a fraud simply by checking his lineage in the genealogies in the public archives. But history has no record of anyone challenging Jesus’ descent from King David. Evidently, the claim was unassailable. No doubt Matthew and Luke copied the salient names for their accounts directly from the public records.
Second, sources outside the Bible confirm the general acceptance of Jesus’ lineage. For instance, the Talmud records a fourth-century rabbi as making a scurrilous attack on Mary, the mother of Jesus, for ‘playing the harlot with carpenters’; but the same passage concedes that "she was the descendant of princes and rulers." An earlier example is the second-century historian Hegesippus. He related that when the Roman Caesar Domitian wanted to exterminate any descendants of David, some enemies of the early Christians denounced the grandsons of Jude, Jesus’ half brother, "as being of the family of David." If Jude was a known descendant of David, was not Jesus as well? Undeniably!—Galatians 1:19; Jude 1.

[flowperson]

Mee... Thanks for the cut and paste literal confirmation of why it is so important to trace the lineages involved here. Look up the meaning of the name "Joseph" in your Concordance, and you will discover what it means.

It means "one who is added". Does that mean that Joseph and Jesus' lineage denotes non-earthly origins ? In addition to Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Romulus and Remus (loved that Song of the South cartoon !) etc. which mythically denotes the primeval arrangement of populating the Earth with the progeny of the "two brothers", could there be a "third" sort of being among us ? Oh my, a third type of earthly inhabitants ? Oh my, consider the possibilities.

WHAT IS YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT ALL OF THIS ?
*hint...ask Iggy, he might know*

flow....

[bob x]

Originally Posted by mee

But history has no record of anyone challenging Jesus’ descent from King David.

Quite the contrary. Jesus was widely described as the ******* son of a Roman soldier. That sounds a little like challenging his descent!

[Tao_Equus]

I find it really hard to believe that here in the 21st century we debate the virgin birth of someone who lived over 2000 years ago. It is frankly a ridiculous debate for sane and rational people to get involved in. It illustrates only one point, that theists love to get bogged down in absolutely meaningless and pointless details in avoidance of the overview, that the whole lot is an inconsistent hodge-podge of utterly unreliable old tales.

Tao

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Someone called?

Sorry, I think......it was the wrong number.

[BlaznFattyz]

Jesus was born of the virgin mary and of the spirit all of which is part of prophecy, so it is very important. what god has spoken through the prophets, what jesus has fulfilled and will fulfill and the gospel that god has kept together for generations is all important. none of it of course is safe from people with motives to try and chip away at it as evidenced by the constant attacks on christianity daily saying this part of the bible isnt important, or fashioning God to their liking, but the church and the Spirit is still here resisting evil in the world and reaching out to the four corners of the earth with the gospel doing the work of Christ until the church is taken away.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Then there are those of us who believe that Jesus was Joseph's biological son, and that the English translation of the prophency "born of a virgin" is inaccurate (the accurate translation being "born of a young woman").

...it is likely the prophecy was misinterpreted, and then later his early birth story was made to match.

...I realize this puts me in the minority, but I don't think Jesus needs to be born of a virgin to be the Son of God.

...Virgin births are plastered all over the world's Pagan myths, so it's not exactly an uncommon belief. For this reason alone, I am a bit skeptical about it being a unique prophecy for our Lord.

Yeah, what she said!

I spent some years in the unquestioning mode of "take it all on faith" and "just believe," but it never sat well in my gut. The whole idea behind everything is "truth." Now, there is the philosophical dodge that "truth is subjective"...blah, blah, blah. But the point is we *need* a truth. Non-Christians don't require a Christian truth, OK, well and good for them, surely G-d has provided a truth suitable for them. But for a Christian the Christian truth is either true or it is false, or else it is somewhere in between.

Christians tend towards "all or nothing" reasoning, and this may be to their detriment. I am growing ever more convinced that the Christian truth is tinted with modest little untruths, or side-truths, or mythologizing in order to make a very unpopular religion palatable for the Pagan masses it was foisted upon around 300 years after Jesus died. The knee-jerk response is that such cannot be because it would make G-d's Word a lie...nothing could be further from the truth!

First, it was politically motivated humans that overwrote and merged the two religious disciplines; the radical Judaism of Jesus with the Roman state Paganism (which had multiple similar cousins in and around the same region at the same time). Second, and more importantly; the underlying message of love and hope, salvation and freedom, are not lost but are clearly conveyed when we don't get hung up on all of the little insignificant idiosyncrasies.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I find it really hard to believe that here in the 21st century we debate the virgin birth of someone who lived over 2000 years ago. It is frankly a ridiculous debate for sane and rational people to get involved in. It illustrates only one point, that theists love to get bogged down in absolutely meaningless and pointless details in avoidance of the overview, that the whole lot is an inconsistent hodge-podge of utterly unreliable old tales.

But Tao, is it not human nature to pursue those strange, impossible to answer questions? Is the cat dead or alive? Wave or particle?

Same thing, only different. Just more ridiculous debate supposedly by sane and rational people.

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

what jesus has fulfilled and will fulfill and the gospel that god has kept together for generations is all important. none of it of course is safe from people with motives to try and chip away at it as evidenced by the constant attacks on christianity daily saying this part of the bible isnt important, or fashioning God to their liking, but the church and the Spirit is still here resisting evil in the world and reaching out to the four corners of the earth with the gospel doing the work of Christ until the church is taken away.

This is a very important point too!

First, it is important to see that sometimes what is being presented is not an attempt to destroy, but to clarify. I would even say an attempt to chip away the Pagan varnish that has been layered on top of the original model that Jesus built.

Sometimes it can be very difficult to see, because there *are* those with destructive motives who look for opportunities to undermine and chip away at the whole of Christianity. That is where the gift of discernment becomes crucial.

A lot can be determined by trying to understand what the conclusions of such teachings lead to...are the teachings of Jesus left intact, or is there an attempt to subvert the teachings of Jesus and justify what Christians intuit as sinful and wrong?

I mentioned that the unquestioning stance never felt right in my gut. I have long ago taken so many questions to G-d in prayer looking for answers. I don't know everything, I didn't then, I won't pretend I do now. But I do firmly believe my eyes have been opened to a lot more possibilities. Especially once everything Biblical is put into a historical and cultural context.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Yeaah, butttt...there's this little problem here that can confound some Christians...

Jesus (Yashua) is related to David by Jesse on his *earthly* daddy Joseph's side. Which, because his momma was from the Levitical side, means that either Jesus was qualified as Messiah by culmination of the line of the Kings as well as the line of Priests *through his flesh*, or else his daddy's lineage is just a happy accident that is irrelevent because Joseph isn't Jesus' sire because G-d is.

Quite the conundrum, that. In order to fulfill this prophecy, Jesus has to be *fully* human with all that entails. If on the other hand Jesus is (at least part) Divine, then the connection to the line of the Kings is forfeited, and He no longer satisfies this prophecy...

What about the fact that lineage was maternal based?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What about the fact that lineage was maternal based?

That is one argument being presented...but it hinges on the legal disposition of the mother's heritage (which Luke just previously spent a great deal of effort to establish Mary's Levitical heritage!). I am not discounting the maternal line, but in matters of heritage it seems to me the paternal line is the *official* legal determinant. Else, why are all of the Biblical geneologies (with this one exception in Luke) paternally oriented? Father to son to grandson...not mother to daughter to granddaughter. The children take the father's last name, not the mother's...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

That is one argument being presented...but it hinges on the legal disposition of the mother's heritage (which Luke just previously spent a great deal of effort to establish Mary's Levitical heritage!). I am not discounting the maternal line, but in matters of heritage it seems to me the paternal line is the *official* legal determinant. Else, why are all of the Biblical geneologies (with this one exception in Luke) paternally oriented? Father to son to grandson...not mother to daughter to granddaughter. The children take the father's last name, not the mother's...

greco/Roman influence. Luke refused to do so, because something of fact would have been lost to history, and questions about Jesus' heritage and ancestry would come into play (smart man Luke). And in Ireland, Son's took mother's names as descriptors or surnames to the formal.

God, leaves nothing to chance...

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

greco/Roman influence. Luke refused to do so, because something of fact would have been lost to history, and questions about Jesus' heritage and ancestry would come into play (smart man Luke). And in Ireland, Son's took mother's names as descriptors or surnames to the formal.

God, leaves nothing to chance...

This isn't about G-d leaving matters to chance...either Jesus fulfilled the prophecies pertaining to Messiah, or he didn't. In my mind I always viewed Isaiah 11 and Psalms 22 as the definitive prophecies, and it seems to me Jesus pretty well fulfilled them.

Roman influence may be an important point, it certainly prevails in the West to this day, and Palestine in Jesus' time was under Roman occupation and influence. Maybe that is a clue, Roman legal disposition versus Jewish cultural heritage...I don't know, merely thinking in script. What concerns me is the great dearth of maternal lineages throughout the whole rest of the Bible. It is a very rare thing where daughters are even mentioned, let alone named, going back to the early chapters of Genesis. Noah's wife had no name, and Noah's sons' wives are not named either, establishing a precedent that extends almost all the way through the Bible. So I think it is still a reasonable assumption on my part to stick with the paternal heritage argument, even though I am very aware of the maternal "you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish" cultural line of thought. Either way, I don't buy the argument of adoption when the prophecy explicitly states "from the root of."

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bob x

Quite the contrary. Jesus was widely described as the ******* son of a Roman soldier. That sounds a little like challenging his descent!

How can we be certain this is the same Jesus? That name was fairly common there at that time, or I should say the Aramaic Yashua that is commonly translated as Jesus was a fairly common name at that time and place.