Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'

Post 71 in part says, "if joseph was the first born of his father, who was the first born of his father, all the way back to david, sure. i think matthew has it that way, but i haven't cross-checked it."Where is it verified that only the "first born" are the legitimate inheritors of kingship? Solomon wasn't David's first son. Were the other kings following Solomon all "first born?"

Arachnophilia: I understand your hesitance to construct a family tree. After all, that is exactly what we're debating from the OP ... which of the two Gospel geneologies is (or whether both are) accurate; and, of course, whether the accuracy reveals Jesus's bloodline from a "cursed" grandsire.I guess my question regarding "first born" reflects my impression that in nearly every case leading up to David and Solomon, the "chosen one" was other than the "first born."Was Abraham "first born?" Isaac certainly was not. Jacob? No. Josheph? No. Judah? No. David? No, he was the 7th son. And Solomon was somewhere way down the line with his only claim to the throne being that his horny S.O.B. daddy covetted that sassy little naked bather Bathshebah, Uriah the Hittite's wife.It seems almost as if the Hebrew God prefers other than first born sons.Furthermore, in tracing the Kings forward from Solomon in Chronicals and Kings, I really fail to see any substantiation (in the English texts) that any of the kings were necessarily "first born" sons. It may be implied to some more astute readers, but it certainly is not succinctly stated in the English texts to any clear degree to this unscholarly reader.Maybe the original Hebrew or Aramaic texts use words that confirm birth status, I have no idea. Do you? Or does any other reader know?Regards, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-06-2005 11:10 AM

Tom: You say in Post #124: "This is why the Lord put his geneologies in the Gospel of Luke, so you would know that his geneologies went thru Nathan the prophet."Whoah!Nathan the Prophet was one of five Nathans in the Tenach. Nathan, the son of David is simply another.David may have named his son after the prophet since he had such regard for Nathan the Prophet. But that is not stated or implied in verse.Nonetheless, the geneology tracing Jesus to Nathan is traced to Nathan, son of David, not to Nathan the Prophet.Regards, Abshalom

Tom:According to II Samuel 5:4, David was thirty years old when he became king of Judah, and he reigned a total of forty years.In II Samuel 5:5, we find he reigned in Hebron about seven years before moving his court to Jerusalem for the next thirty-three or so years.Therefore, David was about thirty-seven years old when he moved his court to Jerusalem.In II Samuel 7:1, we find that after David king was settled in his palace in Jerusalem, Nathan the Prophet came to call. David said to Nathan the Prophet, "Here I am, living in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent."So, this conversation between David and Nathan the Prophet occurred after David was 37 years old, right? So, how old was Nathan the Prophet at this visit, and how old was David's son Nathan? And could they be one and the same Nathan?Well, Tom, it seems in 1 Chronicles 3 we find there were six sons born to David while he reigned in Hebron: Amnon, Daniel, Absalom, Adonijah, Shephatiah, and Ithream. No Nathan there, right? These six were born to David in Hebron, where he reigned seven years or so, and during which he was apparently a very active stud!Then David moved to Jerusalem and these following children were born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon all by Bathsheba, Uriah the Hittite's widow.So, Tom, you’re saying that Nathan, son of David, who was born in Jerusalem was old enough to be a prophet at the time David moved his throne room to Jerusalem, immediately after which Nathan the Prophet appeared for the housewarming visit, and before Nathan son of David's mother Bathsheba had sex with David? Is this another example of a miraculous birth?Regards, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-09-2005 20:28 AM

Tom:I thought I referred the passage to you in my post just above your last.Again, its in First Chronicles, Chapter 3, where it's said, in modern English: (4)"David then ruled from Jerusalem for thirty-three years, (5) and during that time, he had thirteen more sons. His wife Bathsheba, daughter of Ammiel, gave birth to Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon. (6-8) David's other sons included Ibhar, Elishua, Eliphelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet. (9) David's other wives and concubines also gave birth to sons. Tamar was his daughter." (I Chronicles 3: 4 - 9)So you see, Nathan was Solomon's older brother by the same mother, Bathsheba, Uriah the Hittite's widow.I hope that is sufficient. You may look it up yourself in a translation of the Bible that suits you if you do not like the modern English version I provided.Regards, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-09-2005 22:38 AM

Can we believe Luke's geneology when his account of the census that supposedly required Joseph to travel to Bethlehem doesn't wash?According to Matthew's account of Jesus's birth, it happened during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.By contrast, the census which Luke says obliged Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, was administered by Quirinius, who according to the precise accounts of Josephus, the Jewish historian, became procurator of Syria in 7 A.D., fully a decade after Herod the Great's death.Additionally, the census administered by Quirinius was a local census in Roman Judaea, and Joseph of Nazareth would not have been required to register at Bethlehem because as a Galilaean he was not under direct Roman rule and therefore exempt from Judaean tax registration. Remember, he didn't own property in Bethlehem, or else would have had somewhere to shack up upon arrival.Furthermore, the bureacratic Romans would not have required the entire population of the Empire to pack up and travel to the place of their ancestral home for the purpose of registering to pay a tax on property they owned where they currently resided. (Can you imagine if every man in the Empire had to travel to the place where his family originated 1000 years earlier, as in Joseph returning to the town of David?) And even if they did, a man's wife would have no legal need to leave home since the man could register for his whole household.If Luke's census story is historically false, then what of his Jesus geneology?Luke's census timeline is out of kilter with Matthew's nativity story which also has Herod the Great as king. Why? And why is Luke's geneology out of kilter with Matthew's? Did Luke have some purpose behind his historically inaccuracies?What does this say about Luke's information in Acts?Is the historical error regarding the Luke's account of an empirewide census ordered by Caesar Augustus, and administered in Judaea by Quirinius (according to Josephus) a historical error that questions the inerrancy of Luke's geneology of Jesus as well as all Luke's work?

Tom:Do you take the time to read an entire post? If not, it probably is not worth the time to post a link to even more lengthy discussions of a topic.For instance, my last post said that the bureacratic Romans very likely would not have decreed a tax registration process that required male heads of household to travel to their ancestral place of origin simply to register to pay tax on what they owned or earned in their current place of residence and livelihood. Did you catch that?What it means is that the Romans were sensible enough not to require a working man to take weeks off, pack and travel, in Joseph's case to a place that his grandsire David had lived 1000 years before. If that were the case, then tens of thousands of men would be travelling here and there throughout the Empire rather than working at their trades and earning money to pay the Empirical tax to begin with, right? Rome did not work that way. Rome was practical, like "Pay your taxes on what you own and earn where you currently live. We don't give a rat's ass where your granddaddy lived. Stay put, keep working, and pay Caesar his due."Secondly, Joseph as a Galilean was exempt from the Judaean tax or a Judaean census ... he didn't live in Judaea. Galileans did not fall under the authority of the Syrian governor Quirinius who Josephus tells us is the governor who administered the same census for tax registration to which Luke refers when he says Augustus Caesar decreed. Quirinius was not governor until 6 C.E., ten years after Herod the Great died.Furthermore, there is no record of a Empire-wide taxation. Romans kept meticulous records. If there were a census whereby men had to uproot and travel to their place of ancestral origin (up to 1000 years prior as in Joseph's case), surely there would be some record of the massive disruption of society that this would have caused, right? And in the case of meticulous record keepers such as the Romans ...Again, there is no record of any worldwide census decreed by Augustus as Luke claims. The only event that remotely coincides with Luke's story is a tax registration administered by Governor Quirinius whereby Judaean males, not Galileans, were subject to a census. This most likely was about 6 - 7 C.E. during the reign of Herod the Great's son Achelaus. Herod the Great died in the spring of 4 BCE, ten years earlier.Luke tells us Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist during the reign of Herod the Great and that Mary conceived Jesus 6 months after Elizabeth's conception of J the B. So, if Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, that puts Jesus's conception no later than 3 BCE according to the Bible's timeline coincedental with historical record. That's 9 - 10 years before Quirinius's census to which Luke attaches the Bethlehem nativity story.If you wish to read more, you may visit http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/...tra/External/quirinius.htmIf I locate a good link to Josephus's account of Quirinius's census, I will include it in a later post if this topic continues.In the meantime, I think you may wish to consider Luke's intent regarding his rewriting of earlier accounts of the Jesus stories. Luke says himself that his intent is to clarify for the "uncircumsized" the earlier authors' writings which were intended for the Jews. Now, let's just assume the earlier Gospels were "inspired." Then would Luke's "clarified" alterations of "inspired" works also qualify as "inspired" modifications?This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-10-2005 11:07 AM

Tom:You say you "see no reason Luke wouldn't (have) been aware of a decree that all the world should be taxed."Luke wrote his work two to three generations after the events of which he was writing. Without first-hand knowledge of the events, he would have to rely upon historical accounts. Historical accounts refute Luke's timeline for the census.You then say, "it makes sense that all would have to go to their own city to pay this tax."Joseph's "city" was Nazareth in Galilee, not Bethlehem. Bethlehem was David's city 1000 years before Joseph's birth. It makes no sense whatsoever that all would have to go to the city of their ancient ancestors to be taxed.You also say it makes sense that Joseph would take a terminally pregnant woman on this long, arduous trip when her accompaniment was not required for tax registration purposes. That is total bunk. The only reason Mary accompanies Joseph in the Luke story is to fulfill a supposed prophesy that a Messiah is born in Bethlehem.You then say Joseph was warned to flee to Egypt until Herod the Great was dead. As pointed out previously, Herod the Great was already dead when the "great census" was administered in 6 - 7 C.E.You apparently are fixed in your fantasy and will not consider any evidence that does not coincide with "what makes sense" to you regardless of it baseless foundation.Best wishes, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-10-2005 14:24 AM

Nazarei = guardian
Notserah = watching or guarding
Nazaret may mean "the guarded one" in that there is a hill behind the town from which guards can watch the countryside.Tom is correct in that notser can mean off-shoot or branch, and sometimes carries the meaning of beautiful on account of being fruitful or multiplying.Here we again see the use of double-entendre and pun in scripture.