Is Jesus a Descendant of David or a false prophet?

Quote:
Most of the difficulties associated with the Virgin Birth arise from within the Bible itself. To begin with, several statements contend Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth and that Joseph did not have contact with her until afterwards (Luke 1:34-35, Matt. 1:24-25, 1:18, 20), while other verses say Jesus was Joseph's son (John 1:45, 6:42, Luke 2:27, 41, 4:22, Luke 2:33,43 in NASB, Matt. 13:55, Luke 3:23). Even Mary said Joseph was the father of Jesus (Luke 2:4, and she ought to know. Several others verses show Jesus had a natural birth, according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3, 9:5). It's hard to believe the birth was natural if one of the parents was an Unnatural Holy Spirit.

A second major problem connected with the Virgin Birth arises from some of the previously-mentioned verses which allege Joseph was the actual father of Jesus. According to the genealogies in the first chapter of Matthew (1-16) and the third chapter of Luke (23-31), Joseph was a descendant of David. Therefore, Jesus was a descendant of David, which is required of one claiming the Messiahship (Jer. 23:5, 2 Sam. 7:12-13, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11). But Joseph couldn't be the father of Jesus and Jesus couldn't be of David's seed (2 Tim. 2:8, Acts 13:22-23, Rev. 22:16) "according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3, 9:5) if he emerged from a virgin birth. Christians must abandon one of two concepts, either the Virgin Birth or Messiahship of Jesus. They are incompatible. How could he be of David's descent "according to the flesh" if Joseph was not his physical father? A virgin birth would destroy the physical chain, the link between generations.


This raises some interesting questions. If Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, then he could not be a descendant of David. If he's not a descendant of David, then he couldn't be the messiah. We have quite a little conundrum here, do we not?
_________________
Carl Sagan:
"I don't want to beLIEve. I want to know."

Quote:
Although Joseph was from the house of David (Luke 1:27, 2:4), Mary appears to have been from the house of Judah since her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron, i.e. from the house of Judah (Luke 1:5). Moreover, Mary's name is never mentioned in the genealogy of Luke 3, and only arises incidentally in that of Matthew 1. Both genealogies clearly pertain to Joseph. Both clearly trace the descent of Joseph, not Mary. In fact, none of the genealogies in either the Old or New Testament trace the lineage of a woman. Women are never given a position of such importance in the Bible as to merit a genealogy, and there is no evidence Luke 3 provides an exception.


It would appear you are mistaken. Care to give it another shot?

Quote:

Matt 1:16 - ...and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.


If Joseph was not related by blood, and Joseph was not married to Jesus' mother when he was born, there would be no reason to mention his lineage, would there?

So let's look at Luke: Here's how Luke traces Jesus' lineage:

Quote:
Lk 3:23 - Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli...


So -- to start off, it appears that the Bible says Joseph had 2 fathers (Jacob and Heli). Second, there is no mention in Luke of Mary's ancestors. All it says is that she and Elizabeth were relatives, or cousins. Now -- please be kind enough to point out how Mary was a descendant of David, as you claim. And also be a good lad and let me know how Joseph happened to get 2 different fathers.

If you want to go further into the discrepancies to be found in the Gospels (you know, part of that that inerrant book so many people like to go on about), just let me know. I'll be happy to oblige.
_________________
Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the commuinity and sow the seeds of discontent among them. That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. - Oscar Wilde

Quote:
Luke is tracing Mary’s line, showing that she was also a descendant of David, as implied in Luke 1:32.

Quote:
1:32
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:


There is no such implication here.

Quote:
Conversely Matthew traced the legal line from Joseph to David, but this line was cursed because of Jeconiah (Jer. 22:17–30). This curse means that if Joseph had been Jesus’s biological father, then Jesus would not have been eligible to sit on King David’s throne.


What do we have here? The line between Joseph and David is worthless because of a curse placed on Jeconiah? Now who would go and sabotage your god's plans like this? Well, according to the scriptures pointed out above, your god himself placed the curse. Why would he sabotage his own plans like this?

2Sam. 7:12-13, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11, 2Tim. 2:8,
Acts 13:22-23, Rev.22:16.

All of these verses explicitly state the messiah is of David's "seed".

Quote:
First, Mary's name is nowhere to be found in Luke's genealogy. Everybody's name is mentioned but hers. Imagine a genealogy in which every name is mentioned but that of the person whose lineage is being traced! Second, there is no genealogical record of any woman in the entire Bible. Are we to believe Mary is an exception? Third, Joseph's name is mentioned in Luke's genealogy so one can reasonably conclude that it's his lineage, not Mary's. Fourth, and last, according to OT prophecy, the Messiah would be a physical descendant of David.

Quote:
3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,


This is not Mary's line. It's Joseph's line and as we already know, this line is worthless because of the curse your good put on Jeconiah. Mary is not even mentioned but Joseph is.

Quote:
The word ‘virgin' in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures is a mistranslation. The Hebrew word ‘almah' (translated ‘virgin' in the passage in Isaiah in the Septuagint) is a generic term that refers to a girl or any young woman, married or unmarried, virgin or not. The Hebrew language has a specific term used to refer to a virgin, and that word is ‘betulah,' employed in many other passages, and correctly translated as ‘virgin' (this example of ‘almah' becoming ‘virgin' being that one example of when a word must be incorrectly translated for doctrinal reasons, simply because the nimble Matthew gospel used the mistranslated version as ‘a prophecy of Christ.')

This is only the first problem with Matthew's virgin birth prophecy. The passage is not only mistranslated, it is also ripped out of context. You see that passage has nothing to do with the future messiah, and certainly nothing to do with a virgin birth,


If the bible were truly the work of a god then there wouldn't be so many problems with it.