Nice. Now while they try to do the David link, the one in Luke they eventually conceded doesn't matter because is goes through the father (numbers 1:18 ), and while Luke doesn't say it goes through the mother, well, it contradicts Matthew, so it MUST have meant "mother", even though the maternal line is meaningless, except to prove he was Jewish. So from that point, it wouldn't matter if she went to David or not. It is suspiscious that it is sort of parternal and tries to do it. Oopsie!
Then you have Matthew, which lists some people never noted in Scripture, at least one marrige never mentioned (The madam of the brothel, for one), skips a few people, and tried to use 14 x 3 as a cute David link (the numerical value of the name "David" is 14). However, since it doesn't go through the dad of Jesus, it's moot. In greek and Roman culture, you cold genetically be inserted into a new lineage. Emperors did that often. In biblical Judaism, there isn't even a word for adoption. That concept came later, and so Joseph is pointless. There are land ownership reasons for this as well as levels of authority.
Now if you could get the lineage of Jesus' real father (God), you might have had something, but God isn't Jewish. So it is treated like an intermarriage! lol.
Now Christianity really needs this "son of David" to work, they even have an old hymn that goes:
Matthew even goes through great trouble to "prove" that the stepfather of Jesus is from the house of David, going through the genealogy from Abraham to Joseph (Matthew 1:1-1:18 ). An angel even proclaims Joseph to be a son of David. (1:20) Two blind men who are healed praise Jesus as the son of David (9:27) . A crowd calls Jesus the son of David after he performs a successful exorcism (12:23). A gentile woman calls Jesus the son of David, begging him to heal her child (15:22). Two more blind men who are healed praise Jesus twice as the son of David (20:30-31). Multitudes praise Jesus as he rides to the Temple, calling out “Hosanna to the Son of David. (The Sukot/Pesach problem - 21:9-15).” Jesus never dissuaded anyone from these praises until he meets with the Pharisees and tries to persuade them that Isaiah was a false prophet, telling them that being from the house of David is not really a requirement (21:41-46), but Jesus was wrong and as soon as Jesus makes this statement, Matthew never again mentions the “son of David”, using the euphemism “son of man” instead.
If only the person who had decided to make the first chapter of Matthew (some say it was a later addition), had made Joseph the real father, it might have worked out better. Maybe give him super-powered sperm or something.
The only way around it, and I have seen this, is to take the "son of David" metaphorically, meaning just as David was of a questional birth but was declared to be the chosen one, so too was Jesus. But then, we have a non-prophet (John the Baptist) who doesn't even recognize who he is, although Church doctirne has them as good buddies, with their respective pregnant mothers hanging out together.
It just gets weirder and weirder.
No, he didn't exist.
Then you have Matthew, which lists some people never noted in Scripture, at least one marrige never mentioned (The madam of the brothel, for one), skips a few people, and tried to use 14 x 3 as a cute David link (the numerical value of the name "David" is 14). However, since it doesn't go through the dad of Jesus, it's moot. In greek and Roman culture, you cold genetically be inserted into a new lineage. Emperors did that often. In biblical Judaism, there isn't even a word for adoption. That concept came later, and so Joseph is pointless. There are land ownership reasons for this as well as levels of authority.
Now if you could get the lineage of Jesus' real father (God), you might have had something, but God isn't Jewish. So it is treated like an intermarriage! lol.
Now Christianity really needs this "son of David" to work, they even have an old hymn that goes:
Quote:“The Son of David bowed to die,
For man’s transgression stricken;
The Father’s arm of power was nigh,
The Son of God to quicken.
etc...
Matthew even goes through great trouble to "prove" that the stepfather of Jesus is from the house of David, going through the genealogy from Abraham to Joseph (Matthew 1:1-1:18 ). An angel even proclaims Joseph to be a son of David. (1:20) Two blind men who are healed praise Jesus as the son of David (9:27) . A crowd calls Jesus the son of David after he performs a successful exorcism (12:23). A gentile woman calls Jesus the son of David, begging him to heal her child (15:22). Two more blind men who are healed praise Jesus twice as the son of David (20:30-31). Multitudes praise Jesus as he rides to the Temple, calling out “Hosanna to the Son of David. (The Sukot/Pesach problem - 21:9-15).” Jesus never dissuaded anyone from these praises until he meets with the Pharisees and tries to persuade them that Isaiah was a false prophet, telling them that being from the house of David is not really a requirement (21:41-46), but Jesus was wrong and as soon as Jesus makes this statement, Matthew never again mentions the “son of David”, using the euphemism “son of man” instead.
If only the person who had decided to make the first chapter of Matthew (some say it was a later addition), had made Joseph the real father, it might have worked out better. Maybe give him super-powered sperm or something.
The only way around it, and I have seen this, is to take the "son of David" metaphorically, meaning just as David was of a questional birth but was declared to be the chosen one, so too was Jesus. But then, we have a non-prophet (John the Baptist) who doesn't even recognize who he is, although Church doctirne has them as good buddies, with their respective pregnant mothers hanging out together.
It just gets weirder and weirder.
No, he didn't exist.
“I've done everything the Bible says — even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"— Ned Flanders
