|
Author
|
Topic: Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Earthly Throne
quote:
so indirectly you indicate that PaulK is wrong about God not being involved in the process and God not being the author of samuel and God not being the one that established Davids house, correct? We may be looking at some common ground. You agree that God is actually involved, correct?
Nope, not directly or indirectly. The author of Samuel is unknown. According to the text God authorized David to be king and rule over the Israelites.
quote:
Not stricly ethereal, but spiritual there is a wide difference.
I've asked you several times to explain what you mean by spiritual. You have yet to explain.
quote:
God never intended it to be a human leader
It doesn't matter what God intended. He let the people have kings. We aren't talking about God's intentions, we are talking about what the text actually says.
Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written after the time of David and Solomon. The authors are talking about earthly kingdoms.
quote:
There you go again with your blinders on, PurpleD. it not our time, its Gods time and purposes, in a pattern from the foundation of the world
And yet you don't take the text at face value. You have to add a backstory so it will fit current dogma.
quote:
goodness man its not in one passage, its in its entirity. tell me what the verse i just quoted above says to you PurpleD? So because it was past the time of Samuel, God no longer desired to reign over them?
Then show us the where it clearly states that David's kingdom mentioned in 2 Samuel 7:13 is spiritual or ethereal. We keep asking and you keep not showing. Since you listed 6 different verses, I have no idea which verse you're talking about; the verses you've shared don't make 2 Samuel 7:13 mean spiritual kingdom or that God speaks of anything but a physical nation or kingdom on the planet. Ignoring complicated explanations that have nothing to do with the text being discussed is not simplistic. 2 Samuel 7:13 is very straight forward. I'm not sure where you're going with this since Jesus isn't even in Solomon's bloodline. Please explain what you mean by spiritual.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
Message 197 of 427 (542981)
01-14-2010 8:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 193 by Peg
01-13-2010 11:46 PM
|
|
Re: Everlasting Heir Busted
quote:
The throne represents a position of authority given by God to rule.
Exactly! The person God gives that leadership authority to must behave. If David's descendants through Solomon behaved, then there would always be a descendant of David through Solomon reigning over Israel. 1 Kings 2:1-4 - 1 Kings 9:4-8 ( Message 131)
quote:
Solomon had that while he was faithful, but later lost it. So the prophecy here is not speaking about Solomon. The initial part about the builder of the temple is about Solomon, but the rest of the prophecy, the position of authority that was to be established forever, is not.
PaulK has already commented on rules of English grammar in Message 196, so I won't. As I noted in Message 173, your sticking point seems to be the forever part. You feel it means without end. It doesn't mean without end, but implies an indefinite period of time. Iblis also addressed that issue in Message 182:
Iblis writes: Once you actually search the scriptures and rightly divide them, in other words, it's pretty clear the word means "long-time". Even the translation you provided for Brian in Message 194 says indefinite, which means the end is not specified.
2 Sam 7:13 NWT
"He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly to time indefinite" 1 Kings 9:4-8 does tell when the end of the promise would be. The destruction of the temple was the end of the promise for David's line to rule. The promise in 2 Samuel 7:13 was for Solomon and his descendants. That promise ended with the destruction of Solomon's temple. I'm not sure why you're arguing this since you've already made the genealogies useless concerning the promise in 2 Samuel 7:13. Luke's is the wrong son and Matthew's goes through a cursed lineage.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 193 by Peg, posted 01-13-2010 11:46 PM | | Peg has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 198 of 427 (542982)
01-14-2010 9:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 196 by PaulK
01-14-2010 2:44 AM
|
|
Deuteronomist and Jeremiah
quote:
(I will also note that Jeremiah 18:5-10 asserts that all such promises are conditional, and it is possible that the author of 2 Samuel shared that view of prophecy).
That's interesting. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the Deuteronomist wrote Deuteronomy through 2 Kings and may have written the account of Jeremiah.
quote:
The actual identity of the Deuteronomist is less secure than the body of his editing work: scholars postulate that the author was Baruch (Neriyah's son), Jeremiah's scribe, or possibly Jeremiah, due to the similarities in style between Jeremiah, and the inclusion in Jeremiah of direct (unattributed) quotes of D, as well as the affiliation of Jeremiah to the Shiloh priests, the time period at which Jeremiah lived.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2010 2:44 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 200 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2010 10:18 AM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 199 of 427 (542988)
01-14-2010 9:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 195 by Buzsaw
01-14-2010 12:51 AM
|
|
Re: forever is a long time
quote:
(3) I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant, (4) your seed will I establish for ever, and build up your throne to all generations. Selah. Ps. 89
(35) Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie to David. (36) His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. (37) It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.
In verse 1 the writer also says he will sing of the Lord's great love forever. Obviously that is impossible. You should have kept reading.
Psalm 89
38 But you (God) have rejected, you have spurned, you have been very angry with your anointed one (David).
39 You have renounced the covenant with your servant and defiled his crown in the dust. ... In the prophets you quoted God promised the Israelites would return and be ruled by a descendant of David on earth. It didn't happen. Jesus was never a ruler. Luke is the only one who says "will not end". Interesting that the writer of Luke says he will reign over the house of Jacob instead of Israel. Of course that has nothing to do with the promise in 2 Samuel 7:13. This is another promise which didn't come to fruition. Jesus was never an anointed ruling king.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 195 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2010 12:51 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 201 of 427 (543000)
01-14-2010 11:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 200 by PaulK
01-14-2010 10:18 AM
|
|
Re: Deuteronomist and Jeremiah
quote:
13 "However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen."
That left only Judah and some of the area of Benjamin for David's descendants. Zedekiah was the last king of Judah from the line of David. God took the rest and gave it to Cyrus.
2 Chronicles 36:22-23
In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: "This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: " 'The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. The first promise ended and the promises made of reviving the kingdom didn't happen when they returned from exile.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 200 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2010 10:18 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Spiritual Kingdom
Message 204 didn't do anything to counter the argument presented by Iblis and myself, that owlam doesn't not mean without end; so I won't be responding to that message. No sense in repeating myself. Iblis has also posted concerning the idea that God didn't intend for there to be kings, so I won't be responding to that issue either since it really has nothing to do with what the text says in 2 Samuel 7:13.
quote:
PurpleDawn writes: I've asked you several times to explain what you mean by spiritual. You have yet to explain. You dont seem to be very skilled in discussion, due to t he fact that i offered PRINCIPLE and the SACRIFICAL act required by God as a principle for forgiveness of sin or attonment "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin"
It would be nice if you just gave a meaning. Since you didn't, I have to guess. The closest meaning I can find for spiritual used as an adjective to what you have described is:
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal
3 : concerned with religious values 2 Samuel 7:13 does not speak of sacrifices, forgiveness of sin, or blood. It is simply taking about David's Dynasty. Very straightforward. That Dynasty ended with the destruction of the first temple. That verse still doesn't lead to Jesus.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Spiritual Kingdom
quote:
Since I thought it would be obvious to anyone what I meant by spiritual ie, having to do with or relating to God, or God as a spirit and his plans, methods and ideas over vast periods of time, perhaps you could tell me exacally what you believe God is or is not, soo as to clear up any confusion.
You've effectively made the word spiritual meaningless. 2 Samuel 7:13 speaks of a rulership over a specific group of humans by a specific human family. That rulership ended with the destruction of Solomon's temple. This promise does not lead to Jesus.
quote:
here is a couple of simple questions. Would you say that forgiveness of sins by animal sacrifice was a plan God gave to the Irsaelites in his law to them in the old testament.
No. Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins quote:
Would you say that forgiveness of a moral principle as sin, is repleat throughout the Old and new testaments.
Forgiveness and mercy are most of the overall morals.
quote:
Would you say that because God is the one that institued such things (atleast in the old and New testaments), that these could be considered spiritual principles, since God is described as spirit?
No. Just because a man institutes something, doesn't make it manly. Just because a "spirit" institutes something doesn't make it spiritual. Sometimes a kingdom is just a kingdom.
quote:
I cant believe Im actually formulating such questions, but anywho, what would you say?
I can. Stay on topic.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 216 of 427 (543210)
01-16-2010 6:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 214 by Peg
01-15-2010 11:35 PM
|
|
Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
quote:
I guess this discussion just goes to show that there are many different ways that these passages are being read. The real test as to which way is correct is if your interpretation of the samuel verse fits in with the rest of the OT. I can tell you right now that your interpretation contradicts many other passages of scripture. And for that reason I am 100% confident that your interpretation is incorrect. I guess this discussion just goes to show that there are many different ways that these passages are being read. The real test as to which way is correct is if your interpretation of the samuel verse fits in with the rest of the OT. I can tell you right now that your interpretation contradicts many other passages of scripture. And for that reason I am 100% confident that your interpretation is incorrect.
Peg, we have shown you that our interpretation of 2 Samuel 7:13 is corroborated by scripture. Even the songs reflect what we've been arguing concerning 2 Samuel 7:13. Covenant Voided
Psalm 89:39
You have renounced the covenant with your servant and have defiled his crown in the dust. Covenant for Dynasty was Conditional
Psalm 132:11-12
The Lord sore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke: "One of your own descendants I will place on your throne--if your sons keep my covenant and the statutes I teach them, then their sons will sit on your throne for ever and ever. What you haven't shown is that any of the promises concerning David's Throne referred to something other than a physical earthly reign by a human being. You've asserted that it does based on the idea that owlam means without end, which we've shown it doesn't. Where does the text support the idea of reigning in an ethereal kingdom beyond human perception? Edited by purpledawn, : Typo
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 214 by Peg, posted 01-15-2010 11:35 PM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 223 by Peg, posted 01-16-2010 11:55 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Spiritual Kingdom
quote:
My goodness man, how in the world have I rendered the word spiritual meaningless, when that is all I have been contending for in the context. ignoring the spirituality involved in the text and topic by yourself, does not go unnoticed by your audience
By saying that spiritual refers to anything that has to do with God, anything relating to God, plans attributed to God, methods attributed to God, ideas attributed to God, and God as a spirit, you have covered everything on the planet and the heavens from a religious standpoint. This means there is no difference between a spiritual kingdom or an earthly kingdom by your definition. It doesn't explain how the kingdom manifests itself. Since you disagree with physical, then you must be talking about ethereal (of or relating to the regions beyond the earth). You haven't shown that the text refers to an ethereal kingdom.
quote:
Im sorry did I miss read something in the Old law
Yes, you did.
quote:
Its Gods kingdom and therefore spiritual.
Which (by your definition) doesn't say where the kingdom is located or how it manifests itself. In 2 Samuel 7:13 the kingdom is on the ground, with living people. David and Solomon were supposedly real living human beings governing over real living human beings day in and day out. Making laws, handling disagreements, dealing with enemies of the people and dealing with the everyday needs of real living human beings. (At least, they were supposed to be.) Show me that it isn't.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 221 of 427 (543249)
01-16-2010 5:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by Buzsaw
01-16-2010 3:47 PM
|
|
Re: Spiritual Kingdom: I don't think so.
quote:
The corroborating messianic prophecies, for the most part do not depict an ethereal kingdom. In the first place it is the kingdom of God on earth as per the Lord's prayer; i.e. thy kingdom come; thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. This corroborated by the prophets Ezekiel, Zechariah and just about all of the OT messianic prophecies; Ezekiel, for example; what in Ezekiels messianic prophecies, cited below, depict an ethereal kingdom?
I'm not arguing that the kingdom is ethereal. I contend that 2 Samuel 7:13 speaks of an Earthly kingdom. Jesus didn't rule over an Earthly kingdom. Thanks for supporting my position. 
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2010 3:47 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 9:20 AM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 228 of 427 (543302)
01-17-2010 6:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 223 by Peg
01-16-2010 11:55 PM
|
|
Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
quote:
You may think the covenent was voided. 2 Samuel was written in 1040BCE yet when Jerimiah acted as prophet over 500 years later, what was he instructed to write about the covenent God made with David?
I'm not sure how you came about that dating for the Book of Samuel, but the timeline in my NIV study Bible has the end of David's reign as 970 BCE, which means the book could not have been written in 1040 BCE (the timeline has that as the year David was born). Other signs that it was written after the kingdoms split are the references to the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Needless to say that your dating of 2 Samuel is incorrect.
In the Septuagint Samuel and Kings were treated as one continuous and complete history of Israel and Judah, and the work was divided into four books under the title Books of Kingdoms. As far as what Jeremiah writes, what is written or actually not written in the Septuagint also disagrees. Since the Septuagint is the Bible the NT writers relied upon, that is significant.
Jeremiah 33:14-26 emphasizing that God doesn't not break covenants is not in the Septuagint, but the part that explains that God can change his mind is in the Septuagint.
6 Shall I not be able, O house of Israel, to do to you as this potter? behold, as the clay of the potter are ye in my hands. 7 If I shall pronounce a decree upon a nation, or upon a kingdom, to cut them off, and to destroy them; 8 and that nation turn from all their sins, then will I repent of the evils which I purposed to do to them. 9 And if I shall pronounce a decree upon a nation and kingdom, to rebuild and to plant it; 10 and they do evil before me, so as not to hearken to my voice, then will I repent of the good which I spoke of, to do it to them. The Jeremiah scrolls found in the Qumran caves back up the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text.
The Jeremiah ScrollAmong the Qumran texts was a scroll of Jeremiah. This is very significant because the LXX version of Jeremiah is seven chapters shorter than the Masoretic, and what remains is in a different order! The Dead Sea Scrolls backs up the LXX version, not our Masoretic Bibles. I'm still not sure why you focus on the 2 Samuel promise when you have already shown that Jesus is from a cursed line. If you really believe that God does not change his mind and you really believe the adoption theory; then Jesus does not fit the bill as Messiah. No matter how you look at it, Jesus doesn't fit into the promise in 2 Samuel. Unless, of course, you do believe God can change his mind. 
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 223 by Peg, posted 01-16-2010 11:55 PM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 231 by Peg, posted 01-17-2010 6:25 AM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 238 of 427 (543315)
01-17-2010 7:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 231 by Peg
01-17-2010 6:25 AM
|
|
Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
quote:
If its incorrect to date 2nd samuel around this time, explain way.
I already did, Peg and provided a link for you. The book of Samuel was not written before the fact. It was written after events happened. As I said, the time line in my NIV study Bible has the end of David's reign as 970 BCE, so it couldn't be written before that. I also pointed out that the NIV study Bible has 1040 as the year David was born. Again, the book could not have been written before the events happened.
quote:
But he is not Josephs biological child. Therefore he is not of the cursed bloodline. Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah, thru the line of King David and because of this it gave him a legal right to the throne.
So if he is not Joseph's biological son, then he had no legal right to kinship. The legal kingship was through Solomon's line according to 2 Samuel. You haven't shown that any male descendant of David could reign. Actually, you haven't shown that Jesus reigned. As I showed you in Message 125, the mother determines Jewishness, but the father determines tribe or any royal rights. Jesus had no rights to Joseph's bloodline, which is good since it is cursed. A son adopted by a member of the royal line cannot become heir to the throne. Jesus also doesn't qualify because the genealogy in Luke is not through Solomon and it also claims to be Joseph's line. The text doesn't say it's Mary's. The text also doesn't say that Mary is from the line of Judah, let alone David. Her relative Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron. All these pieces don't fit together and are useless to support that Jesus fit the Messianic prophecies. Of course in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus himself implies that the Christ is not David's son/lineage.
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."
David himself calls him 'Lord." How then can he be his son?" Matthew and Luke didn't get their genealogies from Mark. Interesting twist.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 231 by Peg, posted 01-17-2010 6:25 AM | | Peg has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 240 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 9:36 AM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 242 of 427 (543329)
01-17-2010 11:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
01-17-2010 9:20 AM
|
|
Re: Spiritual Kingdom: I don't think so.
My position is that the text in 2 Samuel 7:13 speaks of a real kingdom on Earth, not an ethereal kingdom. The Messianic prophecies speak of an earthly kingdom ruled by a live person.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 9:20 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 243 of 427 (543334)
01-17-2010 12:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 240 by Buzsaw
01-17-2010 9:36 AM
|
|
First Fruits of His Vigor
quote:
I have cited several valid reasons why Jesus was not adopted by Joseph. The Jews at the Temple bore that out and Joseph, according to Jewish law and tradition was the patriarch of the household of Mary and the legal father of all of her children. The birthright inheritance went to the eldest son of the legal father; not the mother. Jesus was the eldest legal son of Joseph's house and was never adopted from another family/father. I eagerly await responses to this fact from you, Paulk, Brian and others who appear to be supporting your position on this aspect of the debate.
I already covered that in Message 125. Here is more.
Legal Aspects Concerning the Firstborn - Definition of PrimogenitureThe sole difference in the status of the firstborn son as compared with that of his brothers is his right to a greater share in their father's inheritance. This status is known as bekhor le-naḥalah (firstborn or primogeniture as to inheritance) and derives from the verse "he must acknowledge the firstborn the son of the unloved one, and allot to him a double portion of all he possesses; since he is the first fruit of his vigor, the birthright is his due" (Deut. 21:15—17). The firstborn in this context is the first son born to the father, even if not so to the mother, since it is written, "the first fruits of his vigor" (Bek. 8:1 and see commentators). Even if such a son is born of a prohibited union, e.g., the son of a priest and a divorced woman, or a mamzer born as first son to his father — he is included, on the strength of the words "he must acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved one" (Deut., loc. cit.), the term a "loved" or an "unloved" wife being interpreted as relating only to the question whether the wife's marriage was "loved" or "unloved," i.e., permitted or prohibited (Yev. 23a and see Rashi and Posekim ad loc.). The prerogative of the firstborn never extends to a daughter, not even in a case where she has a right of inheritance (Sif. Deut. 215; see *Inheritance). A son born to a proselyte to Judaism, who had sons before he became a proselyte, does not enjoy the prerogative of a bekhor le-naḥalah, since he is not "the first fruits of his vigor" (Yev. 62a; Bek. 47a; Posekim ad loc.); on the other hand, if an Israelite had a son by a non-Jewish woman and thereafter has a son by a Jewish woman, the latter son does enjoy the prerogative, since the former is called her, and not his, son (Maim. Yad, Naḥalot 2:12). A first son who is born after his father's death, viz., if the mother gives birth to twins, is not considered a bekhor le-naḥalah since it is written "he must acknowledge" (Deut. 21:17) and the father is no longer alive to do so (BB 142b; Rashbam and Posekim ad loc.). You have not shown evidence that supports your contention that Jesus would inherit the royal line just as a blood son would. Joseph's lineage is cursed. The lineage in Luke is not through Solomon. Neither fits the bill, whether Jesus is adopted as we know it today or not. So why the gymnastics? I also noted that in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus himself implies that the Christ is not David's son/lineage.
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."
David himself calls him 'Lord." How then can he be his son?"
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 240 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 9:36 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 244 of 427 (543404)
01-17-2010 7:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 227 by Brian
01-17-2010 5:19 AM
|
|
Bloodline to Jesus
quote:
Have we found Jesus' bloodline to David yet?
I would say no.  In the three Synoptics the authors have Jesus saying the Christ is not the son of David. Mark 12:35-37 Matthew 22:41-46 Luke 20:41-44 If that's the case why fuss with the genealogies? Although the author of Matthew was probably being satirical, the author of Luke should have fixed it. At least be consistent with what he wrote.
Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 227 by Brian, posted 01-17-2010 5:19 AM | | Brian has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2