dis quest popd up in my mind. I tot of askng bible scolars in d house. If Jesus is d decendant of david. Btw mary and joseph who was linkd by blood to david. If we say joseph. Lets nt forget it was a virgin birth. Dat means biologically Jesus and joseph are nt connected. Bible scolars ova to u.

marvelito:
dis quest popd up in my mind. I tot of askng bible scolars in d house. If Jesus is d decendant of david. Btw mary and joseph who was linkd by blood to david. If we say joseph. Lets nt forget it was a virgin birth. Dat means biologically Jesus and joseph are nt connected. Bible scolars ova to u.

dude this ur question is in the bible

pls quote it for me. Thanks.

yes, He is the descendant of david. how then can we claim that GOD is his biological father?

marvelito:
dis quest popd up in my mind. I tot of askng bible scolars in d house. If Jesus is d decendant of david. Btw mary and joseph who was linkd by blood to david. If we say joseph. Lets nt forget it was a virgin birth. Dat means biologically Jesus and joseph are nt connected. Bible scolars ova to u.

gatiano:
yes, He is the descendant of david. how then can we claim that GOD is his biological father?

ask the scolars in d house. I wanna learn.

Yes, by direct descent on Mary's side and by adoption on Joseph's side.

LordReed:
Yes, by direct descent on Mary's side and by adoption on Joseph's side.

good one bro.

by adoption? Wow dats interestng. Bt i think d bible was clear abt d biological view of hw d seed of david wil come abt.

marvelito:
by adoption? Wow dats interestng. Bt i think d bible was clear abt d biological view of hw d seed of david wil come abt.

Did you see where I wrote directly by Mary? Was Joseph the virgin?

LordReed:
Yes, by direct descent on Mary's side and by adoption on Joseph's side.

And you know this how? Both Matthew and Luke explicitly attribute their different genealogies to Joseph, implying that he was either born of two fathers, or that one or both of these writers had no idea what they were talking about.

timmy2409:


And you know this how? Both Matthew and Luke explicitly attribute their different genealogies to Joseph, implying that he was either born of two fathers, or that one or both of these writers had no idea what they were talking about.

The divergent lineages are attributed both to Joseph because women's lineages were not generally recorded in the scripture. Also by marriage Joseph becomes Mary's father's son that's why Luke uses son instead of begat.

LordReed:


Did you see where I wrote directly by Mary? Was Joseph the virgin?

directly by mary. Dat means by DNA he was nt connected to david thru mary. Except u want to say mary was a leanage of king david as joseph was. And dat means mary and joseph must have been far cousins.or related to a long family background.

marvelito:
directly by mary. Dat means by DNA he was nt connected to david thru mary. Except u want to say mary was a leanage of king david as joseph was. And dat means mary and joseph must have been far cousins.or related to a long family background.

What do you mean by DNA he was not connected? Do you not carry the DNA of your mum?

Yes Joseph and Mary were relayed the same way you may be related to someone from your clan/tribe/village. They came from two separate branches of David's descendants so their relatedness was not a problem.

LordReed:


The divergent lineages are attributed both to Joseph because women's lineages were not generally recorded in the scripture. Also by marriage Joseph becomes Mary's father's son that's why Luke uses son instead of begat.

This just seems like you're twisting scriptures in order to fulfill prophecy, and I suppose this wouldn't be the first time someone has done this in relation to this topic.

The fact remains that nowhere in the book of Luke, or the entire New Testament even, does it allude to Mary being of the house of David in any form or manner. In fact, Luke actually says that Mary is a cousin of Elizabeth, who was a descendant of Aaron, effectively placing her as a member of the house of Levi.

Really, the clincher that shows your position to be unsubstantiated is that Luke states repeatedly that it is Joseph specifically that is of the house of David. Luke 1:27 says "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary."
Moreover Luke 2:4 says that the couple had to return to Bethlehem (in the tribe of Judah), because it was Joseph, and NOT Mary, who was of the lineage of David. This clearly refutes your claim that Luke was only referring to Joseph's lineage by proxy. By using "was the son of", it is most likely the author meant "was the biological son of". And do you not think that when the author mentions Joseph's lineage in these passages, as well as Elizabeth's earlier, that he'd not also explicitly mention Mary's if she was also of the line of David? It seems like an extremely useful piece of information to omit, no?

Regarding your last claim, there is nowhere in the bible at all that unambiguously shows Jews using the father-in-law/son relationship in the manner which you describe. I know David called Saul "my father" once, but that was meant as a honorific title referring to one's master or teacher, as shown in a couple other parts of the Bible.

In conclusion, you have to understand that it was necessary for the early church to adopt your current position for two reasons.
1. To reconcile the contradictions between these two differing accounts of Jesus' lineage, and
2. To make sense of what Paul had written saying that Jesus was of the line of David by flesh (Romans 1:3). Mind you that Paul knew nothing personal of Jesus himself, as shown by his writings. But that's a discussion for another day.

timmy2409:

Both Matthew and Luke explicitly attribute their different genealogies to Joseph, implying that he was either born of two fathers, or that one or both of these writers had no idea what they were talking about.

Not true. Both Matthew and Mark very clearly pointed out the fact that Joseph was not the biological father. Read the bible for evidence.

Matthew 1.1-17
"Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez....and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations."

Luke 3:23-38
"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,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph"

Romans 1:3-4
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead"

Prophesies about Jesus' Birth:

Jesus will come from the line of Abraham. Prophecy: Genesis 12:3. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1.

Jesus’ mother will be a virgin. Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:18–23.

Jesus will be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob. Prophecy: Genesis 17:19 and Numbers 24:17. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:2.

Jesus will be from the lineage of King David. Prophecy: Jeremiah 23:5. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:6.

He will be great, hand will be called the Son of the Highest; and ithe Lord God will give Him the jthrone of His father David. Luke 1:32

red101:
@timmy2409, there is no contradiction there. Read the bible for evidence.


Matthew 1.1-17
"Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez....and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations."

Luke 3:23-38
"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,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph"

Romans 1:3-4
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead"

[img]http://.net/thumbnail/114.gif[/img]

You're literally putting forth the same argument I just addressed one post ago. Please read that and then present your rebuttal.

^ Did you read the verses? if so, you will identify how the bible wrote the geneology differently when it came to the point of Joseph.
in matthew, it didn't say joseph begat Jesus. it says "jospeph was the husband of mary who begat jesus"
in luke, it says Jesus was the "supposed" son of joseph.

Both Matthew and Luke explicitly attribute their different genealogies to Joseph

unless you don't know what the definition of "explicit" is. because the bible put it implicitly.

red101:
^ Did you read the verses? if so, you will identify how the bible wrote the geneology differently when it came to the point of Joseph.
in matthew, it didn't say joseph begat Jesus. it says "jospeph was the husband of mary who begat jesus"
in luke, it says Jesus was the "supposed" son of joseph.


unless you don't know what the definition of "explicit" is. because the bible put it implicitly.

I must be blind. Where does it say "supposed"?

Please stop being dishonest.

marvelito:
dis quest popd up in my mind. I tot of askng bible scolars in d house. If Jesus is d decendant of david. Btw mary and joseph who was linkd by blood to david. If we say joseph. Lets nt forget it was a virgin birth. Dat means biologically Jesus and joseph are nt connected. Bible scolars ova to u.

Over-westernization of christianity is what is causing this kind of questions. If we understand jewish culture; which is the backdrop from which the scriptures were written; we will understand many things much faster.

Your question is how is Jesus the son of David, when He was born of a virgin birth by someone of whom nothing was said of her direct ancestory to David?

Psalm 45v10-11 -Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; FORGET ALSO THINE OWN PEOPLE, AND THY FATHER'S HOUSE. So shall the King desire thy beauty, for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

According to jewish culture and by scriptural reckoning; a woman, through marriage or bethrotal, no longer belongs to her people or her father's house but is now reckoned after the people and the Father's house of her husband or spouse.

And Joseph was of the house of David.

Luke 2v4 -And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, unto the city of David which is called Bethlehem; (BECAUSE HE WAS OF THE HOUSE AND LINEAGE OF DAVID)

Matthew 1v20 -But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel appeared unto him in a dream, saying, JOSEPH, THOU SON OF DAVID, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

So while it is indeed true that only Joseph was directly linked to the lineage of David, and nothing was said of Mary in that regard; if we understand the jewish culture and scriptural reckoning in marriage, it will be no much brainer how Mary became a daughter of David, even though that might not have been her natural descent.

Mark 10v8 -And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain but one flesh.

Jewish culture is basically paternal. And a woman becomes reckoned with the people and the Father's house of her husband.

Mary is a daughter of David as much as Joseph was; by marriage to Joseph, and that makes Jesus a seed of David, even though it was a virgin birth.

So Jesus wasn't the seed of Joseph but He is the seed of David because Mary was a daughter of David.

Romans 1v3 -Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of THE SEED OF DAVID.

That is the wisdom of God, in making the Messiah both the seed of the woman and the seed of David.

We need to study the scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit; and sometimes, through the eyes of the writers -and all of them were jews.

I've discovered that over-westernization of christianity makes some simple scriptural truths look complex and sometimes confusing.

^^^ ayoku777

Funny enough, this is the exact opposite of what your brethren before you have been proposing. In your account, Mary is the one that becomes of the lineage of David by proxy (marriage). At least you truthfully admit that nothing was mentioned about Mary's lineage. I have to ask though, which one of the two different genealogies attributed to Joseph in Matthew and Luke is the correct one? Unless you want to believe the guy had two different biological fathers...

The bible saying married couples have become one flesh is entirely anecdotal, or just plain wrong. Marriage does not make anyone become related by blood. Their DNA doesn't change one bit, although it occasionally flows in small quantities in either direction, if you know what I mean . If both Joseph and Mary were related by blood, I'm pretty sure that's some form of in-breeding anyway.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, these guys made this stuff up trying to fulfill old Jewish mythical prophecies? There's a good reason why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

timmy2409:
^^^ ayoku777

Funny enough, this is the exact opposite of what your brethren before you have been proposing. In your account, Mary is the one that becomes of the lineage of David by proxy (marriage). At least you truthfully admit that nothing was mentioned about Mary's lineage. I have to ask though, which one of the two different genealogies attributed to Joseph in Matthew and Luke is the correct one? Unless you want to believe the guy had two different biological fathers...

The bible saying married couples have become one flesh is entirely anecdotal, or just plain wrong. Marriage does not make anyone become related by blood. Their DNA doesn't change one bit, although it occasionally flows in small quantities in either direction, if you know what I mean . If both Joseph and Mary were related by blood, I'm pretty sure that's some form of in-breeding anyway.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, these guys made this stuff up trying to fulfill old Jewish mythical prophecies? There's a good reason why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

My post is directed at christians who are trying to understand how Jesus is the seed of David if he was born of a virgin birth by Mary of whom nothing was said by lineage to David.

Obviously you're not a christian and you don't hold the bible in authority as the word of God. I can't argue doctrine with someone who doesn't even believe in the bible.

The bible is the foundation of sound doctrine to a believer. You can only argue doctrine, and compare scripture with scripture with someone who already holds it in authority.

If you don't believe marriage makes two people one flesh in the eyes of God according to the scripture, then I can't rationalize this truth to you.

Your issue is not with doctrine, but with the bible in general.

timmy2409:




This just seems like you're twisting scriptures in order to fulfill prophecy, and I suppose this wouldn't be the first time someone has done this in relation to this topic.

The fact remains that nowhere in the book of Luke, or the entire New Testament even, does it allude to Mary being of the house of David in any form or manner. In fact, Luke actually says that Mary is a cousin of Elizabeth, who was a descendant of Aaron, effectively placing her as a member of the house of Levi.

Really, the clincher that shows your position to be unsubstantiated is that Luke states repeatedly that it is Joseph specifically that is of the house of David. Luke 1:27 says "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary."
Moreover Luke 2:4 says that the couple had to return to Bethlehem (in the tribe of Judah), because it was Joseph, and NOT Mary, who was of the lineage of David. This clearly refutes your claim that Luke was only referring to Joseph's lineage by proxy. By using "was the son of", it is most likely the author meant "was the biological son of". And do you not think that when the author mentions Joseph's lineage in these passages, as well as Elizabeth's earlier, that he'd not also explicitly mention Mary's if she was also of the line of David? It seems like an extremely useful piece of information to omit, no?

Regarding your last claim, there is nowhere in the bible at all that unambiguously shows Jews using the father-in-law/son relationship in the manner which you describe. I know David called Saul "my father" once, but that was meant as a honorific title referring to one's master or teacher, as shown in a couple other parts of the Bible.

In conclusion, you have to understand that it was necessary for the early church to adopt your current position for two reasons.
1. To reconcile the contradictions between these two differing accounts of Jesus' lineage, and
2. To make sense of what Paul had written saying that Jesus was of the line of David by flesh (Romans 1:3). Mind you that Paul knew nothing personal of Jesus himself, as shown by his writings. But that's a discussion for another day.

Elisabeth and Mary were female cousins so by Hebrew traditions they would fall under the lineage of their fathers. Priests were not limited to marrying only from the house of Levi neither were other tribes restricted from marrying from Levi.

We know the Hebrews are a very patriarchal society so it was not strange for Joseph to go to Bethlehem. He was of the tribe of Judah so even if by your contention he wasn't son of Heli by marriage he still would have gone to Bethlehem.

Even if you want to dispute that Mary was not of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David, the Hebrews very well recognised adoption as valid, making an adopted son legal heir would not be out of place.

The matter of reconciling the divergent genealogies has been subject to scholarly scrutiny and different views have been given as to the difference. The view I personally hold is what I have presented.

ayoku777:


My post is directed at christians who are trying to understand how Jesus is the seed of David if he was born of a virgin birth by Mary of whom nothing was said by lineage to David.

Obviously you're not a christian and you don't hold the bible in authority as the word of God. I can't argue doctrine with someone who doesn't even believe in the bible.

The bible is the foundation of sound doctrine to a believer. You can only argue doctrine, and compare scripture with scripture with someone who already holds it in authority.

If you don't believe marriage makes two people one flesh in the eyes of God according to the scripture, then I can't rationalize this truth to you.

Your issue is not with doctrine, but with the bible in general.

Oh don't worry, I know very well to whom your post was intended. However, I'm a part of this discussion just as much as you are, and my opinions here are just as open to scrutiny and criticism as yours are.

I used to be a born again Christian, and I strongly believed in comparing scripture with scripture to fathom the mind of God, but even then, I always thought it was also important to compare scripture with reality. I hope that you agree. With this said, I am optimistic, maybe naively so, that we can have discussions on the common grounds of both the bible and reality.

On the issue at hand, it seems that you and the Christians that spoke before you have fundamental disagreements on the genealogy of Mary. Unlike them, you agree that Mary had no ties to the lineage of David, up until her marriage to Joseph. You however reconcile this by citing that married couples become a single flesh in the eyes of God. And maybe this is so.

But my contention here is, if you had taken a sample of Jesus' DNA at conception, could you trace him by blood back to David?

Moreover, Mary was pregnant before Joseph even married her. Would this mean that Jesus was not of the line of David at the point of his inception into the world, but only became so by adoption after Joseph and Mary got married?

timmy2409:

I must be blind. Where does it say "supposed"?
Please stop being dishonest.

yeah, you must be blind. what bible translation do you use?
I have the kjv and the nrsv and they both have "supposed" in them when they list the genealogy in Luke 3:23
you can open the bible and read the verse to see for yourself (or google it). You haven't disputed Matthew 1 either. It states that "joseph is the husband of mary who is the mother of Jesus". and this is the explanation of how Jesus falls into the lineage of David.
Nowhere did it say in the genealogy that jesus is the biological or DNA son of Joseph.

timmy2409:

But my contention here is, if you had taken a sample of Jesus' DNA at conception, could you trace him by blood back to David?

when talking about lineage, the bible is referring to the social family lineage not DNA. clearly Jesus wasn't born of joseph biologically. this is very clear in the bible. I really don't understand what exactly your argument is.

timmy2409:


Oh don't worry, I know very well to whom your post was intended. However, I'm a part of this discussion just as much as you are, and my opinions here are just as open to scrutiny and criticism as yours are.

I used to be a born again Christian, and I strongly believed in comparing scripture with scripture to fathom the mind of God, but even then, I always thought it was also important to compare scripture with reality. I hope that you agree. With this said, I am optimistic, maybe naively so, that we can have discussions on the common grounds of both the bible and reality.

On the issue at hand, it seems that you and the Christians that spoke before you have fundamental disagreements on the genealogy of Mary. Unlike them, you agree that Mary had no ties to the lineage of David, up until her marriage to Joseph. You however reconcile this by citing that married couples become a single flesh in the eyes of God. And maybe this is so.

But my contention here is, if you had taken a sample of Jesus' DNA at conception, could you trace him by blood back to David?

Moreover, Mary was pregnant before Joseph even married her. Would this mean that Jesus was not of the line of David at the point of his inception into the world, but only became so by adoption after Joseph and Mary got married?

If God reckons something unto you, then it becomes valid. The same way Christ righteousness is reckoned by faith to people who have not done one good thing to deserve it.

If scripture reckons a woman to belong to the father's house of her husband, then Mary is a daughter of David as much as Joseph. This is not about biology and DNA, it is God's justice and jewish culture.

And Mary was already called the wife of Joseph from when she was found with child, they just have not started living together.

Matthew 1v20 -.....Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee MARY THY WIFE: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

red101:


yeah, you must be blind. what bible translation do you use?
I have the kjv and the nrsv and they both have "supposed" in them when they list the genealogy in Luke 3:23
you can open the bible and read the verse to see for yourself (or google it). You haven't disputed Matthew 1 either. It states that "joseph is the husband of mary who is the mother of Jesus". and this is the explanation of how Jesus falls into the lineage of David.
Nowhere did it say in the genealogy that jesus is the biological or DNA son of Joseph.

I offer my apologies. I missed that when I read it earlier. I'm not clear on your position though. Which one of the genealogies are you attributing to Mary, if any? Having read them again for certainty , Matthew does say that it is Joseph that is the son of Jacob and then lists on. Luke say he supposes he was the son of Heli. Did he get it wrong? It seems whoever wins here, coherence loses.

when talking about lineage, the bible is referring to the social family lineage not DNA. clearly Jesus wasn't born of joseph biologically. this is very clear in the bible. I really don't understand what exactly your argument is.

The implication of a non-biological connection to David would be that the scriptural prophecies concerning the Messiah weren't exactly fulfilled. It would also mean that Paul was wrong when he said in Romans 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"

are u a theologian? Well ur answer are logical though.

ayoku777:


Over-westernization of christianity is what is causing this kind of questions. If we understand jewish culture; which is the backdrop from which the scriptures were written; we will understand many things much faster.

Your question is how is Jesus the son of David, when He was born of a virgin birth by someone of whom nothing was said of her direct ancestory to David?

Psalm 45v10-11 -Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; FORGET ALSO THINE OWN PEOPLE, AND THY FATHER'S HOUSE. So shall the King desire thy beauty, for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

According to jewish culture and by scriptural reckoning; a woman, through marriage or bethrotal, no longer belongs to her people or her father's house but is now reckoned after the people and the Father's house of her husband or spouse.

And Joseph was of the house of David.

Luke 2v4 -And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, unto the city of David which is called Bethlehem; (BECAUSE HE WAS OF THE HOUSE AND LINEAGE OF DAVID)

Matthew 1v20 -But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel appeared unto him in a dream, saying, JOSEPH, THOU SON OF DAVID, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

So while it is indeed true that only Joseph was directly linked to the lineage of David, and nothing was said of Mary in that regard; if we understand the jewish culture and scriptural reckoning in marriage, it will be no much brainer how Mary became a daughter of David, even though that might not have been her natural descent.

Mark 10v8 -And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain but one flesh.

Jewish culture is basically paternal. And a woman becomes reckoned with the people and the Father's house of her husband.

Mary is a daughter of David as much as Joseph was; by marriage to Joseph, and that makes Jesus a seed of David, even though it was a virgin birth.

So Jesus wasn't the seed of Joseph but He is the seed of David because Mary was a daughter of David.

Romans 1v3 -Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of THE SEED OF DAVID.

That is the wisdom of God, in making the Messiah both the seed of the woman and the seed of David.

We need to study the scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit; and sometimes, through the eyes of the writers -and all of them were jews.

I've discovered that over-westernization of christianity makes some simple scriptural truths look complex and sometimes confusing.

I am not a theologian but Matthew is said to be joseph's lineage and Luke lists mary's lineage. Not completely sure though. Either Jesus is within it.

timmy2409:

The implication of a non-biological connection to David would be that the scriptural prophecies concerning the Messiah weren't exactly fulfilled. It would also mean that Paul was wrong when he said in Romans 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"

.
Jesus is the descendant of David in the flesh but the son of God according to the spirit. Verse 3 and 4 go together and are part of the same sentence.

When Paul talks about "the flesh" it is referring to the human point of view or something that contradicts the holy spirit or something in contrast to the holy spirit so you shouldn't assume that Paul made a mistake there.

Romans 1:3-4
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead"

ayoku777:


Over-westernization of christianity is what is causing this kind of questions. If we understand jewish culture; which is the backdrop from which the scriptures were written; we will understand many things much faster.

Your question is how is Jesus the son of David, when He was born of a virgin birth by someone of whom nothing was said of her direct ancestory to David?

Psalm 45v10-11 -Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; FORGET ALSO THINE OWN PEOPLE, AND THY FATHER'S HOUSE. So shall the King desire thy beauty, for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

According to jewish culture and by scriptural reckoning; a woman, through marriage or bethrotal, no longer belongs to her people or her father's house but is now reckoned after the people and the Father's house of her husband or spouse.

And Joseph was of the house of David.

Luke 2v4 -And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, unto the city of David which is called Bethlehem; (BECAUSE HE WAS OF THE HOUSE AND LINEAGE OF DAVID)

Matthew 1v20 -But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel appeared unto him in a dream, saying, JOSEPH, THOU SON OF DAVID, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

So while it is indeed true that only Joseph was directly linked to the lineage of David, and nothing was said of Mary in that regard; if we understand the jewish culture and scriptural reckoning in marriage, it will be no much brainer how Mary became a daughter of David, even though that might not have been her natural descent.

Mark 10v8 -And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain but one flesh.

Jewish culture is basically paternal. And a woman becomes reckoned with the people and the Father's house of her husband.

Mary is a daughter of David as much as Joseph was; by marriage to Joseph, and that makes Jesus a seed of David, even though it was a virgin birth.

So Jesus wasn't the seed of Joseph but He is the seed of David because Mary was a daughter of David.

Romans 1v3 -Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of THE SEED OF DAVID.

That is the wisdom of God, in making the Messiah both the seed of the woman and the seed of David.

We need to study the scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit; and sometimes, through the eyes of the writers -and all of them were jews.

I've discovered that over-westernization of christianity makes some simple scriptural truths look complex and sometimes confusing.

their is no way jesus was from the bloodline of david cus joseph didnt impregnate mary... no amount of twisting and quoting can change it

johnydon22:



their is no way jesus was from the bloodline of david cus joseph didnt impregnate mary... no amount of twisting and quoting can change it

An adopted child becomes recognised as being of his adoptive father's house so even if you want to contend Jesus' biological heritage the mere fact that Joseph acknowledged him as his son is enough to satisfy the requirement for inheritance.

LordReed:


An adopted child becomes recognised as being of his adoptive father's house so even if you want to contend Jesus' biological heritage the mere fact that Joseph acknowledged him as his son is enough to satisfy the requirement for inheritance.

we talking bloodline not adoption... whether you say it or not... jesus was not Joseph's son even christians call joseph "his guardian"

johnydon22:


we talking bloodline not adoption... whether you say it or not... jesus was not Joseph's son even christians call joseph "his guardian"

Did I say Jesus was Joseph's biological son? Maybe you should digest my last post again.