quote:

---

22. And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

23 Of this man’s aseed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

---

As we were doing our family/couple nightly scripture reading, H. turned to me and asked, "Doesn't Jesus come from the seed of God, not David?" And I thought, "Yeah?! At best He comes from Mary's seed, but Christ has no Biological link to David."

Hmmm....what are we missing? What is the significance of saying Christ is from David's seed?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Mary was descended from David, as well as Joseph...so by blood and name, Jesus is David's kin.

edit: Because I know "name" isn't correct but I can't think of how else to say it.

[ July 13, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
I have heard it said that Mary was also descended from David (so in a sense Jesus did come from the seed - or descendent - of David). I think the reason for wanting to emphasize a lineage tracing back to David is to show how Jesus would fulfill all the previous prophesies that the Messiah would be a descendent of David.

[PSI beat me to that first part]

[ July 13, 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
 
Joseph and Mary's family histories were pretty close--they're pretty closely related.

In fact, in the two gospels that outline Christ's parentage, I believe one is Joseph and one is Mary's.

So he was biologically descended from David, on the mortal side.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
"On the mortal side."


 

---

Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
 
Heh. Seems you can get answers to religious questions on Hatrack.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...that makes sense! thank you!
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
I like the typos in your quote better. More entertaining.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
They aren't typos. It's from when you copy and past from a text that has footnotes.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
But THAT was a typo.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
You can find the whole lineage answer to this question if you read the first book of Matthew:

quote:

---

A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[1] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.[2]

---

quote:

---

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

---

quote:

---

Mary was descended from David, as well as Joseph

---

quote:

---

Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

---

quote:

---

"It was Jechoniah whose sins caused God to cut his seed off from ever sitting on David's throne (Jeremiah 22:24-30). ...Jechoniah's royal line of descendants is listed here [in the genealogy of Matthew 1] to show the legal right of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, to David's throne (Matthew 1:16). Neither Joseph nor any others of Jechoniah's seed could ever have the spiritual right to the throne. That right must be carried through Mary's ancestry" (Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Matt. 1:11.).

---

quote:

---

And isn't Jesus the son of G-d, not Joseph?

---

Yes, which is why Mary was in the line of David as well. However, it was important for Joseph to be a descendent of David since in those times legal inheritance came through the father. This was true even if the child was not biological kin (ie: if a kid was adopted, they legally became a part of the new father's line). While Joseph was of course not a Roman citizen, so inheritance was not important to Rome...it was biblically important.

PS...I have never seen someone censor the word God like that.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Some people are funny about blashepmy.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
It has nothing to do with blasphemy. Many Jews don't write God's names except when absolutely necessary, lest they be accidentally erased. (I am among those who don't consider the English word "God" to be one of His names.)
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
fil, the Immaculate Conception is not about Jesus' conception - it's about Mary's conception. And Luke is very clear about Jesus being conceived without any action by Joseph.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 

quote:

---

Many Jews don't write God's names except when absolutely necessary, lest they be accidentally erased

---

And Dag, what do the other 3 Gospels say about it? And if Joe wasn't involved, why isn't this considered the granddaddy of all adultery cases? Also, if Joe wasn't involved, why does another Gospel trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph so clearly?

fil
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I didn't realize Jaime was Jewish.

But I have known extreme fundamentalists who view any mention of "God" as blaspheming, or outside fairly narrowly defined contexts.

Of course, people that intense probably don't post here anyway, so the Jewish explanation is certainly better than mine.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

It has nothing to do with blasphemy. Many Jews don't write God's names except when absolutely necessary, lest they be accidentally erased. (I am among those who don't consider the English word "God" to be one of His names.)

---

quote:

---

That makes for an interesting point. I have never considered "him" as having a proper name beyond "God" and capitalize it as such when I use the word in that context.

---

quote:

---

Just the hypothetical Dag - but did the Christian god depicted ask her permission?

Could you make a case for rape in that instance? She wasn't given the option to say "no" which, as I understand isn't the same as an implicit "yes."

-Trevor

---

quote:

---

29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[3] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her. emphasis added.

---

 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Well, that kinda rules out Date-rape, don't it. There is still Statuatory.

.

Sorry, that was evil and blasphemous of me.

It was kind of funny though.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm as evil as you. I'm picturing myself as a prosecutor saying, "You're in a moment of passion, telling her how much you love her, and at the moment she actually said, 'May it be to me as you have said'? Isn't that kind of a mood-breaker?"

*Bad Dagonee! Bad!*
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Ya want evil and blasphemous?

She couldn't say no because of the custodial nature of the relationship. If she did say no, she has reason to be afraid she'd be damned to Hell.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Paula felt her hair raising as the static electricity began to build. She bolted out of the thread, searching for cover. Behind her, the screams from her electrocuted friends rang out into the night.

/bad story
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Oooh, I didn't know I am counted among your friends.

Or the Christian god's (thanks guys) aim needs work.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
 

quote:

---

PS...I have never seen someone censor the word God like that.

---

quote:

---

There is a reason that the god has a name or names, and every discussion I ever read on the reasoning behind the names has made sense.

---

Well, you have to keep in mind that a name is what one individual uses to identify another, and God predates all other individuals. So it would make sense if he had no name of his own until someone made one up.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
But even in the Christian bible, he gives his people many ones to call him besides common nouns and pronouns.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Many titles and 'nicknames' were given, but only I believe only one Proper Name.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Fil,

As I explained above, the one in Matthew was of a "Priestly Lineage" that proved Jesus' authority on earth came from legitimate blood lines. It is true that it mentions it as Joseph's and not Mary's line. However, since Mary's name was mentioned at the bottom WITH Joseph than the implication was that it would be HER bloodline that Jesus would trace, if the legal culture Mary lived in allowed for tracing the female genealogy. In fact, by mentioning other mothers, such as David's wife, it makes that female relationship implication even more apparent.

The one in Luke is less easy to understand the contextual use. It might be that, having established the reality of Jesus, it was necessary to trace his roots for complete legitimacy of his existance. In the ancient world, having a genealogy would be much like taking your fingerprints for a security check. The more you pronounce a special place in society, the more it was required you had a worthy and reliable pedigree. However, as I had said earlier, Luke did acknowledge that others supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph -- but denied that direct relationship.

This is not to say what I have said is accepted by everyone (what ever is). But, this is the explanation that seems to make more sense to me than any other theory.

Of related interest, John states a direct relationship of Jesus to God. Mark, on the other hand, doesn't mention genealogy at all in an official way.

[ July 15, 2004, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

I didn't realize Jaime was Jewish.

---

*laugh* Ok, to me his last name is kind of a give away.




PSI, I would make a distinction between blasphemy (which is disrespectful and/or inappropriate uses of God's names, or assigning actions or characteristics to Him that are) and idolatry. *shrug*




Taal, it's not a council, but yes, there is such an opinion. That is, phosphors don't count as "writing," but turning those phosphors into a printed page does.

quote:

---

Many titles and 'nicknames' were given, but only I believe only one Proper Name.

---

quote:

---

Really? There are at least two really common ones (each with multiple variants) and probably 5 somewhat common ones. Admittedly, that's in Hebrew. Surely they don't all get translated the same?

---

Not all of them, I believe. One of the many discrepencies between the original Hebrew translation and the current Christian version. Most of them are in there, though.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
And what "current Christian version" would that be?
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
That would be pretty much anything past the King James Version. Some of the newest ones may have all of them, since I haven't pored through all of the versions. Which do you use most?

I'm sorry, here is an explanation of some of the names in Hebrew. Many of them were eventually "translated" to things like "The Lord" and "On Most High" and such, when quite a few of them were either proper names or parts of proper names in the languages they were taken from. That is where the discrepencies lie. Very similar to how some words and names, when translated to another language, immediately sound either common-usage or hold less specific meaning. Many American/English names, when translated to their etymological roots, are not intended now for what they translate back to. This is the case with many instances of translation from Hebrew and some other passages in the modern Bible. As a caveat, I am aware that there now exist versions that actually include more than one translation for much of the text. One such copy is what initially created my interest in the differences of translation.

[ July 16, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Well, when I'm dealing with something where individual word choice matters, I use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Rivka and I have already established that the only substantial difference between that "Christian version" and the "Jewish version" she uses is that the footnotes are in Latin.

Perhaps you meant to say "English translation" rather than "Christian version"?
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Well, that's where it gets shaky. You see, some non-English translations, especially new ones, are more directly translated from reference, where older ones were not. They were often translated from a Latin or other base reference translation. Latin was a favorite of the Catholic church, which doesn't necessarily mean all churches, but is the largest of all the Christian churches and a good meter to measure by. It's not just English versions that have been translated "down" like that, though, because it isn't just the strict words themselves that are the issue, but keeping them in the same form (proper or common) and context as the original Hebrew.

I didn't say that the Christian versions I've seen are wrong, I said that they are missing some of the proper names attributed to the god and translated "down" to things like "The God" and "The God of Israel" and stuff like that. This, I posit, it where the difference in naming stems from between the two. Something got lost in the translation, and got picked up in another form.

Oh, and cool version. I wish I could afford one of those, but all the versions I acquired were donations. I guess the people who had that book weren't ready to let it go quickly.

[ July 16, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Justa, the text of the Biblia Hebraica isn't a translation. It's the Hebrew text, from the Lennigrad Codex.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
No, no. When I mentioned non-English translations, I wasn't talking about yours. Sorry if I seemed to be.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Okay.

The point I’ve been hinting around, btw, is that there is no such thing as a “Christian version” that can be compared to a “Jewish version” and said to be different. There are differences in translations, both in versions translated by Jewish groups and in versions translated by Christian groups. But those are caused by different languages, not different religions. (Excluding, of course, some “paraphrases” that have been written with an ideological bent. I’m talking about the straight translations here.)

It's some weird urban legend that the Christian "Old Testament" is substantially different from the Hebrew Bible. I try to dispell it whenever I can.

[ July 16, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Well, the version you use is not quite the same as the generally-used books, but I see what you mean.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I would like to point out once again that even though the Matthew version of the geneaology includes women it is the Luke version that is thought to be Mary's geneaology (due to the way it is worded at the beginning about Mary being Joseph's wife) and the Mathew one that is traditionally thought to be Joseph's.

AJ
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I love discussions about Jewish stuff and how it compares to Christian stuff. I got some "Jewish blood" (if you want to call it that) from my Dad, but I was raised Christian. I'd love to learn as much as I can about the "other half" of me. I feel frustrated that I wasn't encouraged to learn about the Jewish customs, etc. because I was a Christian. Christianity doesn't exclude Judaism, I don't think.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Wasn't YHWH the only revealed Proper Name given? You may be referring to El/Elohim - I was under the impression that was more an extension of a god-title, since other idolatrous gods are referred to (in groups, yes) as elohim, but only for the singular "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is the pluralistic Elohim used. Under the impression it was used sort of like "Head God/Ultra-God"

--

And speaking of 'Christian Version', most english translations, from the KJV forward, DO used the term LORD (in capital letters, to distinguish from Lord, a translation of 'adonai') to replace YHWH, more out of tradition than anything. (I believe even in some manuscripts the vowels for the Hebrew 'Lord', Adonai were placed above the YHWH in the text, so that it would be read as such instead of speaking the Name. That's where we get the inaccurate 'Jehovah'/YaHoWaH rendering) I believe the KJV only actually spells out JEHOVAH twice, although I may be mistaken on that point.

EL, ELOHIM and most deriviations thereof are generally translated as GOD.

A note that even the Jewish Publication Society's translation of the TANAKH uses this convention.

I'm only aware of two well-used translations that institute regularly a rendering of the Revealed Name - the decidedly Catholic 'New Jerusalem Bible' (which renders YHWH as 'Yahweh', thought to be the most correct rendering), and the Jehovah's Witness' 'New World Translation', which liberally renders 'Jehovah God' throughout (even placing it a few times in the New Testament).

[ July 16, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
PSI, do you mean Jewish religious traditions or Jewish culture?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Taalcon, read the link I gave. You missed a whole lot of names.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Most actually appear to be adjectival add-ons to the basic El/Elohim and YHWH, the additions of which to me still appear more as titles than proper names.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

PSI, do you mean Jewish religious traditions or Jewish culture?

---