"There is no evidence that Mary was a descendant of David, but Dennis McKinsey, the editor of Biblical Errancy [2], points out there is some evidence that she was a member of a completely separate line, a descendant of Levi, the great-grandfather of Aaron and Moses. That evidence comes from the pen of Luke, who wrote that Elisabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, was the cousin of Mary."
Luke describes Mary Elizabeth as "a daughter of Aaron" And a cousin to Mary. Not Davidic!
If Mary did not have Davidic blood, Jesus didn't either. There goes the Messiah claim!
Jesus wasn't an offspring of David, was he?
Moderator: Moderators
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 10889
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1537 times
- Been thanked: 434 times
Re: Jesus wasn't an offspring of David, was he?
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by polonius]
Call me dull-headed, but I don't see why Elizabeth being of the tribe of Levi negates Mary from being of the tribe of Judah. It looks to me like Jesus was "from the seed of David according to the flesh."
.
Call me dull-headed, but I don't see why Elizabeth being of the tribe of Levi negates Mary from being of the tribe of Judah. It looks to me like Jesus was "from the seed of David according to the flesh."
.
Re: Jesus wasn't an offspring of David, was he?
Post #3RESPONSE: The word is "cousin" or more specifically "blood relative."onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 1 by polonius]
Call me dull-headed, but I don't see why Elizabeth being of the tribe of Levi negates Mary from being of the tribe of Judah. It looks to me like Jesus was "from the seed of David according to the flesh."
.
The Tribe of Levi was a different tribe (or blood) than the Tribe of David from which the Messiah was to come.
Conclusion: Jesus was not a descendent of David and hence could not be the Messiah.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 10889
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1537 times
- Been thanked: 434 times
Re: Jesus wasn't an offspring of David, was he?
Post #5They could be blood relatives and yet be from different tribes.polonius wrote:RESPONSE: The word is "cousin" or more specifically "blood relative."onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 1 by polonius]
Call me dull-headed, but I don't see why Elizabeth being of the tribe of Levi negates Mary from being of the tribe of Judah. It looks to me like Jesus was "from the seed of David according to the flesh."
.
The Tribe of Levi was a different tribe (or blood) than the Tribe of David from which the Messiah was to come.
Conclusion: Jesus was not a descendent of David and hence could not be the Messiah.
.
Re: Jesus wasn't an offspring of David, was he?
Post #6I'm afraid not.onewithhim wrote:They could be blood relatives and yet be from different tribes.polonius wrote:RESPONSE: The word is "cousin" or more specifically "blood relative."onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 1 by polonius]
Call me dull-headed, but I don't see why Elizabeth being of the tribe of Levi negates Mary from being of the tribe of Judah. It looks to me like Jesus was "from the seed of David according to the flesh."
.
The Tribe of Levi was a different tribe (or blood) than the Tribe of David from which the Messiah was to come.
Conclusion: Jesus was not a descendent of David and hence could not be the Messiah.
.
NOUN
blood relative (noun)
a person related to another by birth rather than by marriage.
Post #7
Or, people could have perpetuated (aka lie) about it to support their own means.brianbbs67 wrote: OP, they knew their genealogy back then. It was recorded and memorized. So, if Jesus' claim was false, that would have stopped the whole movement, right then.
But surely that didn't happen because it's not recorded in the bible and people wouldn't lie about such a thing
Post #8
It is the fallacious reasoning to believe Luke when he writes that Elizabeth was descended from Aaron, but not believe Luke when he write that Jesus was descended from David.
There was been lots of intermarriage among the tribes after the exile, and by Jesus day it was common place for relatives to be from different tribes.
There was been lots of intermarriage among the tribes after the exile, and by Jesus day it was common place for relatives to be from different tribes.
Re: Jesus wasn't an offspring of David, was he?
Post #9RESPONSE: Unless Joseph was Jesus' biological father, no. Keep in mind also, that inheritance passed solely along male lines. (Man provided the seed. Women only provided nourishment if she were fertile, or not if she was "barren.")onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 1 by polonius]
Call me dull-headed, but I don't see why Elizabeth being of the tribe of Levi negates Mary from being of the tribe of Judah. It looks to me like Jesus was "from the seed of David according to the flesh."
.
Post #10
RESPONSE: The New Testament does not list Joseph as Jesus' biological father.brianbbs67 wrote: OP, they knew their genealogy back then. It was recorded and memorized. So, if Jesus' claim was false, that would have stopped the whole movement, right then.
Also keep in mind that the four gospels were only written between 70 and 95 AD by non-witnesses
