Messiah will be a patrilineal descendant of david

I know, I'm saying the important thing is who they trace it back to. Matthew traces it back to jewish nobility to show that Jesus was of noble blood, Luke traces it back to the first man to show that Jesus shares blood with everyone, including non-jews.

The Holy Spirit replicates Joseph's chromosomes.

that has nothing to do with what is being discussed tho

I've read something which stated the reason the magi visited Christ is because they look for claimants to the Persian throne. Most of the immediate challengers to the current king were killed. Christ could have become king of Persia if he wanted.

Joseph is legally Jesus father and thus Jesus inherits his right to rule

Yes it does. The whole point of the thread is the jewish prophecy which Matthew kind of implies is not all that important

Completely apocryphal, ever notice that the conception and birth of christ (and the resurrection interestingly enough) don't appear in Mark? Early versions of Matthew don't have the first 2 chapters either, it was only added about 30 years later. Probably due to concerns that jesus needed to have a special birth like all the pagan heroes.

>jewish prophecy
>important
No more important then Mormon prophecy desu. What matters is what Christ taught (which leads us to transcendence) and what Christ did (which made reparations for our sins and allows us to have a relationship with him).

>Matthew traces it back to jewish nobility to show that Jesus was of noble blood
Not just any noble blood, but Davids. The Christ was prophecized to restore the line of David to the throne.

>Luke traces it back to the first man to show that Jesus shares blood with everyone, including non-jews
Why would that even be relevant?

Two genealogy? Literally why? I thought the Bible have no contradiction?

and it implies this by saying that Jesus patrilineally descended from Dacid through Joseph?

Exactly, and makes it seem irrelevant by going even further saying all man is of the same lineage.

the claim is that Luke's genealogy is somehow not through Joseph but through Mary

I really don't follow. that seems to be saying the exact opposite

youtube.com/watch?v=UWq3fVQuSuA

>doesn't think the Virgin Mary's father was St.Joachim
Wew

Is there a bigger cuck than Joseph?

You

Both Mary and Joseph were of the Davidic line. Where does it say patrilineal?

Well, according to the Bible everybody descends from Adam and Eve; what point are you trying to make?

Excellent point you bring up, friend. How is Jesus related to David?

Well, both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies for Jesus. One goes back to David through Nathan, and one goes back to David through Solomon. Needless to say, this cannot be the same genealogy of the same person, so who is it?

Well, Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy through Joseph via Solomon, and Luke traces Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam, but connected to David through Nathan.

So Jesus' mother descends from David, through the priestly side, and Jesus' adopted father traces back to David through Solomon, the kingly line.

But there was a catch. Joseph could not claim the throne of Israel because he is of the line of Jeconiah, and that line was cursed by God to never sit on the throne of David.

As Jesus is not biologically related to Joseph, this curse does not attach to him.

Further, we see Jesus is both King of Kings and High Priest; both sides of his parentage are fully expressed, as both sides of his nature are fully expressed: Son of God, and Son of Man.

Finally, as Mary had no brothers, she stood in line to take her family's inheritance so long as she married within her tribe, which she did. Both Mary and Joseph are of Judah. The ruling tribe. And the scepter will never leave the tribe of Judah, for it is in the hands of the Almighty.

Yes, any cuck as Joseph did not allow anyone to have sex with his betrothed.

By the way, when the pharisees asked this question, this is the answer Jesus gave:

Luke 20
And He said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? 42 Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms:

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’
Therefore David calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”

(No king would call an heir of his "lord", as that heir would never be "lord" over him while he yet lived.)

>>messiah will be a patrilineal descendant of david
>>jesus is born of a virgin

Judea at the time was a Roman province. Under Roman law and custom, adoption of a son switched him from his borth0father's gens to that of his adoptive father.

Would that have been true under Jewish law and custom? Or would it have been at least a concept that would have been familiar, given Roman dominance at the time?

Yes. In fact, adopted children had more rights than natural born children under the Law, in that a man cannot disinherit an adopted child. The thought is that the natural born child was a crap shoot, but if you select a child to be yours after observing it, it's yours forever.

Hence Jesus the natural born son can be forsaken, but not any adopted sons. Hence eternal salvation is eternal.

>Yes. In fact, adopted children had more rights than natural born children under the Law, in that a man cannot disinherit an adopted child. The thought is that the natural born child was a crap shoot, but if you select a child to be yours after observing it, it's yours forever.

Can you clarify -- are you discussing Roman or Jewish law here?

I know a little bit about the former, almost nothing of the later -- I had not come across the concept of an adopted Roman being un-disinheritable, but off the top of my head cannot think of instances where one was, although that's based on 10 seconds of thinking while typing this.

Jewish.

Goddamn the Jews were some incestuous sons of bitches.

Unlike the attempts by the Selucids, the Romans basically let the occupied Jews practice Judaism as they saw fit.

The Land of Israel is divided into 12 portions, and each tribe gets a portion.

The tribes apportion the land to the families of their tribes.

It's all about inheriting land, the basis of all wealth.

Just to buttress the point, when a Hebrew genealogy was given for a woman, an article was always used.

The David begat the Nathan begat....etc. The use of the article always indicates that we're talking about the heirs of a woman. Luke's has the article; Matthew does not. Luke is giving the genealogy of a woman; Matthew is not.

Matthew is making the case for Jesus being the rightful heir to David's throne through Solomon, and Luke is making the case for Jesus being the Son of Man dating all the way back to Adam.

In fact, Jesus is referred to as the "second Adam" in the bible. The first Adam caused humanity to fall and be condemned; but the second Adam provided a means of escape.

Site a single source that supports this.

Pro-tip, you can't.

Thank you. Interesting.

Mostly, yes. Like almost everything else in history, that varied over time. The policies of the very late Republic differed from those of Hadrian, those of Augustus from those of Nero, and everybody's from the "let's rebuild the Temple" ploy of Julian, when it came to how to govern the stubborn monotheists of Judea.

“The Roman-Syrian Law-Book…where a formerly prevalent Greek law had persisted under the Roman Empire—well illustrates this passage of the Epistle. It actually lays down the principle that a man can never put away an adopted son, and that he cannot put away a real son without good ground. It is remarkable that the adopted son should have a stronger position than the son by birth, yet it was so.”

W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, reprinted 1979; p. 353.

Note: Jews were under Roman occupation at all relevant times.

When God himself says a people are stubborn and stiff-necked, those people are stubborn and stiff-necked.

...

Yeah, no.

Jesus did not inherit Joseph's DNA or his sin nature or any sins that would have been generational, because the Father is the father of the Son.

>original sin
Numbers 14:18
The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.'

Jesus is tempted by the Devil, and is thus susceptible to sin. It is much more likely that Jesus has overcome the sin of Cain, and likewise original sin. His sacrifice as the Lamb washes the same sins from mankind, giving them equal ground against temptation.

Not sure original sin is coded into DNA.

>Jesus is tempted by the Devi
It is not necessary for Jesus to be tainted by sin for the Devil to make the effort. Theologically speaking. Personally, i take that passage to be a parable on how Jesus did not use the power he might have commanded in the world selfishly or sinfully.