Jesus' genetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting that you quote Ps 2:7. Verse 9 of that same Psalm says that “You will rule them with an iron rod and shatter them like earthen pots”

The same language is referred to in Revelation 2:26 “To the Victor who keeps my ways to the end , I willl give them power over the nations, to rule them with an iron rod and shatter them like earther pots, **he will be like me **, who received this power from my Father.”

Obviously, this refers to someone other than Jesus.
 
passus said:
I suggest that you read this.

jimmyakin.org/2006/07/descended_from_.html
Click to expand...
I took the liberty of doing some Latin-English translation of the bible verse Jimmy gives.

In English (New American Bible), it reads:

*the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh, *

In Latin (The Vulgate), it reads:

de Filio suo, qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem,

The term “carnem” means meat/flesh; the body; pulp/flesh of plants, sapwood; soft part; low passions.

So Saint Paul means Jesus is literally descended from King David according to the flesh. If this is the case, then that means either Jesus is the son of Jospeh according to the flesh or Mary was a descendent of David. There is some speculation by the early Church Fathers that Mary was a descedant of King David, and this may have to do with her making a solemn vow of virginity.
 
Jesus may be legal descendant of Joseph, but not a natural one if we believe what the Church teaches, especially with regard to Mary’s virginity.

On the other hand, Mary may well be a descendant of David, but she can’'t pass his Y-DNA to Him. Woman don’t possess the male Y-DNA. David’s YDNA is passed only to the male line.
 
pcusack1 said:
Jesus may be legal descendant of Joseph, but not a natural one if we believe what the Church teaches, especially with regard to Mary’s virginity.

On the other hand, Mary may well be a descendant of David, but she can’'t pass his Y-DNA to Him. Woman don’t possess the male Y-DNA. David’s YDNA is passed only to the male line.
Click to expand...
I believe that either the X chromosome was created at the instant God assumed humanity, or there is no X chromosome present and Jesus’ mascularity is a mirculous image of the Divinity.
 
pcusack1 said:
Thank you for the website. However, a Kingship must be descendant form bloodline -not adoption. An adopted son can inherit possessions, but not a Throne. It bloodline determined, no?
Click to expand...
Source?
 
Psalm 132:11 The Descendant of David will always be on the Throne.

Besides, its common knowledge that a Kings son is the next King by agante succession. If Jesus weren’t the senior male heir of King David then someone else would have claim to the Throne of Israel.
 
“Thus says God, I shall never cease to sit on the Throne of Israel a man form the line of David forever.” Jerimaiah 3:17
 
Neither of those explicitly states that an adopted son is ineligible. The going hypothesis around here is that the adoptive bond is strong enough to even inherit kingship.
 
An adoptee is not a “descendant”. He’s only an heir of property -not a bloodline inheriter of a Throne.

Imagine even if Prince Charles adopted a son before William and Harry. Would he be eligidble for rising to the Throne? I personally don’t think so.You might read Salic Law which is the ancient law concerning European Royality.

I do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but I can’t show it.

My sister’s boy is certainly a descendant of my father. But my nephew doesn’t carry my father’s Y DNA. He carries his father’s Y DNA. In determining a bloodline for Kings, my nephew would not inherit. My cousins -sons of my father’s brother - would. Tha’st agnatic succession. Joseph, of course, did not pass his Y DNA on to Jesus. Therefore Jesus could not show that he is the Jewish Messiah.
 
If adoption were a valid method of passing on a Throne, then any “son-less” King in agnatic succession would simply adopt someone of his choosing to become the next King. Clearly this is not the case. Jesus’ adoption by Joseph is not valid to prove Jesus is the descendant of David and thus the Messiah. The ownus is upon Christiansto prove that Jesus is the decsendant of David in order to call him the Messiah.
 
pcusack1 said:
For more information showing that adoption is not the answer for Jesus’ lineage see the following webpage:

ujc.org/page.aspx?id=24757
Click to expand...
not to discredit anything, but you are talking about 21th century Judaism not 1st century Judaism (believe me Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism are worlds different from 1st century Judaism). In addition if you look at eternal politics of the Mediterreaen during this time period such as the Julian clan and Roman succession was not based on traditional sonship, but rather adopted sons (which may have been a nephew) would be selected over a natural son as the case entirely with the early emperors. Now this doesn’t fit within the Jewish sense and need for Jesus to be a biologic descendent of David, however it was common practice of the ancient world to do adoption among royalty
 
Did they adopt strangers? Jesus isn’t even a nephew of Joseph.

If 1 st century Judaism is so different form todyas then why did they Jews crucify Jesus in the first century for him claiming to be the Messiah God Man? They still are awing their Messiah - a human being who is a descendant of David who they clearly understood to mean David’s scion.
 
pcusack1 said:
Did they adopt strangers? Jesus isn’t even a nephew of Joseph.

If 1 st century Judaism is so different form todyas then why did they Jews crucify Jesus in the first century for him claiming to be the Messiah God Man? They still are awing their Messiah - a human being who is a descendant of David who they clearly understood to mean David’s scion.
Click to expand...
Well, I am using that as an example. in addition, many Jews (mostly Reform Jews which make up most of the world Jewry) don’t believe in the coming of a physical messiah, rather they believe in working toward the messianic age. Only the Orthodox (and some conservative) Jews seem to believe in descendent of David will be the messiah. In fact the most of modern Jews do not keep the Law, which was extremely important in 1st century Judaism
 
If the Jews belived that the Messiah was an Messianic Era and not a physical person, then why did so many first century Jews accept Jesus as their Messiah? Obviously, the Orthodox Jews are correct.
 
Why did so many reject him as the Jewish Messiah, and in fact crucify him for proclaiming himself such?

“Ins’t this Joseph the carpentar’s son?”

The Jews pray a prayer every day:
“I believe with complete faith in the coming of Mashiach. Though he tarry, nontherless I await him every day, that he will come.”
The Jews believe in a physical Messiah.
 
I brought this up specifically because you said that Jesus could not show he was the Messiah. Yet he did (if you believe the gospels) produce numerous signs that he was, and those signs resulted in people believing in him.
pcusack1 said:
Why did so many reject him as the Jewish Messiah, and in fact crucify him for proclaiming himself such?

“Ins’t this Joseph the carpentar’s son?” –

The Jews pray a prayer every day:
“I believe with complete faith in the coming of Mashiach. Though he tarry, nontherless I await him every day, that he will come.”
The Jews believe in a physical Messiah.
Click to expand...
Good questions. We could get into this deeply in another thread. The reasons why people did not believe are covered pretty clearly in the Gospel of John.

“Ins’t this Joseph the carpentar’s son?” – I understand why this objection was raised. It’s kind of ironic that you bring it up, because if this was a Pharisee’s reason for rejecting Jesus, where does it leave your geneology points?
 
Yes but we know that Jesus is not Joseph the carpentar’s son, if we believe what the Church teaches. The only irony is that Jesus is certainly not Jospeh’s son. If anything , He is God’s son.

The basic premise is that there is no proof that Jesus is the son of David. Therefore, Ctholics must show that Jesus is a dsecendant of David to get to square one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top