Embarrassing Romans 1,4

[Magdalenbrother]

Rom 1:1ff

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

And declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead...

Several troubling questions about these verses:

seed of David: according to the synoptics Joseph was a descendant of David but Mary was not. So if Jesus was conceived virginally, how can he be a descendant of David?

declared the son of God: the participle here is derived from a verb that means "to appont" or "to mark out". In orthodox trinitarian theology, Jesus is son by nature. How can Paul say that he was set apart to be God's son? "To set apart" means that he was picked up from among a crowd of other more or less suitable candidates. Even if we accept that he was "appointed", that is quite weird. One is not "appointed" "son of God" if one is the eternal son of the Father.

according to the spirit of holiness: again, according to Nicean trinitarian theories, Jesus is "son" consubstantially. Paul here says that it is his being filled with the Spirit that makes him a son (just like every ordinary Christian);

by the resurrection of the dead: according to othodoxy, Jesus was son of God even before the world was created. He was certainly "son" from his conception. But here Paul apparently says that his true sonship began at his resurrection. He was reborn a son of God on the day of the resurrection by the power of God acting through the spirit of holiness. Before he was just a son of David.

This evolutive and dynamic view of Jesus fits perfectly with what we know through some moving verses in "John", that Jesus expected his death and resurrection eagerly. Obviously something new happened there.

Conclusion: nothing in Romans 1,4 fits the Nicean theory of the eternal son of God.

[Findo]

He was declared 'the Son of God with power

1) I believe the emphasis is on 'with power'
2) This does in no way imply He was made the Son of God. He was Holy and He was ressurected, this is a bold declaration to the world that He truly was who He claimed to be.

[Magdalenbrother]

Oh yeah, I know that argument:

No, the passage doesn't say what you think, I believe it says something different...

Read Heb 2, 9. That is also an eye-opener.

Greetings !

Mb

[themuzicman]

Argument from silence? Invalid.

[Findo]

Oh yeah, I know that argument:

No, the passage doesn't say what you think, I believe it says something different...

Read Heb 2, 9. That is also an eye-opener.

Greetings !

Mb

not sure what you think it is saying..

btw MB.. I get the feeling from some of your posts that you do not accept all of scripture as authoritative? Am I wrong?

[Magdalenbrother]

And why do you accept a book that was handed down to you by the Roman Antechrist? A Church corrupted since time immemorial? So corrupted that the man Luther decided on his own authority to scrap no less than seven books from it and was within an inch of ditching also the "straw Gospel" of James (poor James teaches that faith without works is useless!) ?

Come on, answer that question honestly.

If the Church was corrupt from the beginning, why do you trust the canonical Gospels?
If it was not corrupt from the beginning, then tell me when, in what year, it fell into the clutches of the Devil. Be very precise and add the reason why, after protecting his Church from evil influences, God suddenly decided to forsake her.

Was it before or after the Canon was established?

Before the canon was established: then why did Luther not ditch the whole Bible?
After the canon was established: then why did Luther consign the last seven books of the OT to the garbage heap? Are some books of the Bible less infallible than others?

[Jaltus]

Rom 1:1ff

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

And declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead...

Several troubling questions about these verses:

seed of David: according to the synoptics Joseph was a descendant of David but Mary was not. So if Jesus was conceived virginally, how can he be a descendant of David?

Huh? Where do you get the idea that Mary was not of the line of David? The reason there are two different lines for Christ (Matthew vs. Luke) is because one is Mary's and the other is Joseph's. There is no hint that Mary is not of the house of David.

Humorously enough you skipped the "concerning His Son," which is considered to be a reference to preexistence by the majority of scholarship (exception: Dunn).


declared the son of God: the participle here is derived from a verb that means "to appont" or "to mark out". In orthodox trinitarian theology, Jesus is son by nature. How can Paul say that he was set apart to be God's son? "To set apart" means that he was picked up from among a crowd of other more or less suitable candidates. Even if we accept that he was "appointed", that is quite weird. One is not "appointed" "son of God" if one is the eternal son of the Father.

Of course a more natural reading (strangely not one picked up by many commentators) would be to see this as "set of as the son of God by power" which would closely fit the synoptic presentation of Jesus and the reason for His miracles.

Schriener (BECNT, 38-39) argues that this is reference to the post-resurrection Christ ruling in heaven, something which cannot be ruled out, especially when you take into consideration the following phrases. Therefore, it would mean that Jesus is the Son of God reigning in heaven in power over the church by the agency of the Spirit which was sent due to the resurrection and ascension. It is a decent argument, but I think it is easier to go with a more plain reading of the text.


according to the spirit of holiness: again, according to Nicean trinitarian theories, Jesus is "son" consubstantially. Paul here says that it is his being filled with the Spirit that makes him a son (just like every ordinary Christian);

No, the "according to" modifies the power. The power is that of the Holy Spirit (remember His baptism?).


by the resurrection of the dead: according to othodoxy, Jesus was son of God even before the world was created. He was certainly "son" from his conception. But here Paul apparently says that his true sonship began at his resurrection. He was reborn a son of God on the day of the resurrection by the power of God acting through the spirit of holiness. Before he was just a son of David.

Wow, now you are really grasping at straws. Part of the boundary is shown by His resurrection, which came about by the power of God (e.g. Gal 1:1) and by His own (I Thess. 4:14).


This evolutive and dynamic view of Jesus fits perfectly with what we know through some moving verses in "John", that Jesus expected his death and resurrection eagerly. Obviously something new happened there.

Conclusion: nothing in Romans 1,4 fits the Nicean theory of the eternal son of God.

Bad arguments, bad conclusion. You must not know the synoptics very well, for you seem to make fundamental mistakes in making intertextual connections across the canon.

[Jaltus]

And why do you accept a book that was handed down to you by the Roman Antechrist? A Church corrupted since time immemorial? So corrupted that the man Luther decided on his own authority to scrap no less than seven books from it and was within an inch of ditching also the "straw Gospel" of James (poor James teaches that faith without works is useless!) ?

First, the Catholic Church cannot be an Antechrist, for they came after Christ, not before Him.

Second, Luther did not reject the apocrypha as authoritative as something new, they were never considered authoritative. They were considered helpful, and he just wanted them taken out of the Bible since they did not have the same level of authority. His action was what precipitated the RCC giving them canonical status.

I agree that getting rid of James would be a big mistake.


Come on, answer that question honestly.

Learn history first.


If the Church was corrupt from the beginning, why do you trust the canonical Gospels?
If it was not corrupt from the beginning, then tell me when, in what year, it fell into the clutches of the Devil. Be very precise and add the reason why, after protecting his Church from evil influences, God suddenly decided to forsake her.

In what year? We are not omniscient, nor do I think it "fell into the clutches of the devil." Even though it is an institution of God, He allows humans to actually run it. Therefore, we do not need the devil to screw it up, we can manage messing everything up just fine on our own.


Was it before or after the Canon was established?

Irrelevent. The canon was established by the entire church, not limited to the Roman church. Canonical lists start as early as the second century. The hero of the church, Athanasius, gave a canonical list which exactly matches what is used by the majority of Protestants today.


Before the canon was established: then why did Luther not ditch the whole Bible?
After the canon was established: then why did Luther consign the last seven books of the OT to the garbage heap? Are some books of the Bible less infallible than others?

The apocrypha were not considered part of the OT. They were considered to be written at a time when there were no more prophets (see Josephus and others). The Jews did not accept the books as canonical nor did the majority of the church (though some church fathers did).

You need to learn your church history, for your questions are misleading due to being full of false information.

[Findo]

also.. God hasn't abandoned His church.. is His church a particular denomination? No it is those who have faith in Him.. one could argue that Luther and the reformation was God's preservation of His church... I don't know.

What is your authority?

[Jaltus]

Think he'll ever actually reply to one of these threads where his mishandling of scripture is clearly laid out?

[Magdalenbrother]

Say what you will, if the whole Church included the so-called apocrypha into the Canon, only the whole Church could have removed it. Not just one German monk.

Poor Luther in his zeal to be fashionable (Renaissance people thought very highly of philological finds and scholars had discovered that the apocrypha were rather late compared to the rest of the OT) apparently forgot that the only reference to creation "out of nothing" occurs in the second Book of Maccabees. Today if Protestants want to prove this tenet of Christian doctrine, they have virtually no scriptural proof for it.

Anyway, why should I be ashamed to discard some scriptural passages when Paul tells us not to pay heed to "Jewish fables" and "endless genealogies"?

[Socrates]

Anyway, why should I be ashamed to discard some scriptural passages when Paul tells us not to pay heed to "Jewish fables" and "endless genealogies"?
:dufus: Because you're begging the question majorly. Clearly Paul didn't think the Scriptures were Jewish fables but Jewish writings that were "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). The endless genealogies were proto-Gnostic.

[Jaltus]

Say what you will, if the whole Church included the so-called apocrypha into the Canon, only the whole Church could have removed it. Not just one German monk.

Again, this is historically inaccurate. Very few of the church fathers held the Apocrypha to be canonical and post-Niceae, none of them did. Origen specifically calls them helpful books not on the level of scripture, as does Eusebius. Your are just flat out wrong.


Poor Luther in his zeal to be fashionable (Renaissance people thought very highly of philological finds and scholars had discovered that the apocrypha were rather late compared to the rest of the OT) apparently forgot that the only reference to creation "out of nothing" occurs in the second Book of Maccabees. Today if Protestants want to prove this tenet of Christian doctrine, they have virtually no scriptural proof for it.

First off, Hebrews 11:3 clearly speaks of creatio ex nihilo, you cannot be any more clear than it is.

Second, the apocrypha was added to the canon in response to Luther. You are being anachronistic to say he removed what was not there! The apocrypha was NOT considered canonical until after the Diet of Worms during (IIRC) the Council of Trent, which is AFTER the beginning of the Reformation.


Anyway, why should I be ashamed to discard some scriptural passages when Paul tells us not to pay heed to "Jewish fables" and "endless genealogies"?

Because Paul is specifically talking about noncanonical works, probably things which were not even apocryphal. Still, none of this answers the arguments made above against your position on the Romans passage (post #7).

[Magdalenbrother]

Huh? Where do you get the idea that Mary was not of the line of David? The reason there are two different lines for Christ (Matthew vs. Luke) is because one is Mary's and the other is Joseph's. There is no hint that Mary is not of the house of David.



And where do you get the idea that the Gospel genealogies relate to Mary? According to Torah, tribal lineage is determined exclusively by the biological (natural) father (e.g., Num 1:18). Consequently, female genealogies are irrelevant to bloodline and, in general, are not listed in the Hebrew Bible.

[Jaltus]

Last time I checked, the NT was not the Hebrew Bible.

Look at the first verse in the genealogy of Luke 3:

Luke 3:23 23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Why did Luke put "as was supposed?" Clearly he did not think of Joseph as the biological father. Just as obvious is the understanding then that Jesus did not come from Joseph. Therefore, it is more likely that Luke is giving the lineage of Mary, though using Joseph's name in order to stay with the consistent male geneaology.

[Magdalenbrother]

I already told you that Jews did not trace their lineage through females.

As was supposed (probably a late interpolation by an overzealous scribe) : means "don't forget that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus". This comment was probably meant for idiots and amnesiacs who had already forgotten the story of the virginal birth.

Jesus is son of David legally not biologically. Obviously both Matthew and Luke thought that adoption was equivalent to procreation, words equivalent to sperm.

And Jesus did not believe that he was the son of David since he said about David

If he calls him "Lord" how can he be his son?

[Jaltus]

I already told you that Jews did not trace their lineage through females.

Luke was not a Jew.


As was supposed (probably a late interpolation by an overzealous scribe) : means "don't forget that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus". This comment was probably meant for idiots and amnesiacs who had already forgotten the story of the virginal birth.

Late interpolation? There is no textual problem there at all. Making up an "interpolation" to fit your preconceived notions is rather pathetic. TRy using some evidence.


Jesus is son of David legally not biologically. Obviously both Matthew and Luke thought that adoption was equivalent to procreation, words equivalent to sperm.

Actually, Jesus would be the son of David both ways. Anyway, according to Jewish and Roman law, adoption was a closer bond than blood was anyway, since an adopted heir could not be disinherited.


And Jesus did not believe that he was the son of David since he said about David

If he calls him "Lord" how can he be his son?

What? That is a total nonsequitur. The entire point was that David could say that to his son because his son was greater than him, i.e. Messiah. Jesus was not saying the Messiah was not the son of David, He was saying the Messiah was greater than David. Try reading some commentaries on the subject.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you Jaltus.

[AcousticJS]

:popcorn:

I'm curious to see if MB'll come back for another round...

[Magdalenbrother]

Luke may not have been a Jew but Jesus was a Jew and the readers of Luke's Gospel were Jews too (in the beginning at least). A messianic claim to the throne of David is a Jewish thing that needs to be proven by Jewish arguments through a proper Jewish genealogy. Jews trace their ancestry through their father alone.

"Son of Joseph" (with or without the definite article before Joseph in Greek) means what it means: Jesus is Joseph's son (legally not biologically). If Mary is meant where "Joseph" is written, then let me say that in "John" 1:1 "And the word was God", "Man" and not "God" is really implied because (typical Jaltus argument) Jesus calls himself "the son of Man" in verse 51.

Or "cauliflower", or "hippocampus"...Why not? If "Mary" is really "Joseph", why should I refrain from adventurous interpretations myself, huh ?

Anyway Paul (1 Ti 1:4) said it:

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do."

The risen Christ is no longer a Jew. Who cares about his carnal ancestry?

[The Creep]

I wish to post a note regarding the canon of the Old Testament though it may seem inappropriate. The Eastern Orthodox Churches accept the same canon that the Roman Catholic Church does. Do I need to point out that the Eastern Orthodox are not exactly infatuated with the magisterial descisions of the Catholic Church?
sincerely, The Creep

[7thangel]

Rom 1:1ff

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

And declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead...

Several troubling questions about these verses:

seed of David: according to the synoptics Joseph was a descendant of David but Mary was not. So if Jesus was conceived virginally, how can he be a descendant of David? Christ being a descendant of David speaks of having same spiritual nature. Likewise, the seed of Abraham is actually the Church, which does not speak of Jews alone.


declared the son of God: the participle here is derived from a verb that means "to appont" or "to mark out". In orthodox trinitarian theology, Jesus is son by nature. How can Paul say that he was set apart to be God's son? "To set apart" means that he was picked up from among a crowd of other more or less suitable candidates. Even if we accept that he was "appointed", that is quite weird. One is not "appointed" "son of God" if one is the eternal son of the Father. Hey, remember that Christ is the object of the Logos? So thus Jesus is "appointed." God planned, and he fulfills it. And Jesus was His choice to be eternal king of the eternal kingdom. See the reason why Paul said that we are saved according to predestination?


according to the spirit of holiness: again, according to Nicean trinitarian theories, Jesus is "son" consubstantially. Paul here says that it is his being filled with the Spirit that makes him a son (just like every ordinary Christian);Yet, chosen to be above his fellow brethren, of course.



by the resurrection of the dead: according to othodoxy, Jesus was son of God even before the world was created. He was certainly "son" from his conception. But here Paul apparently says that his true sonship began at his resurrection. He was reborn a son of God on the day of the resurrection by the power of God acting through the spirit of holiness. Before he was just a son of David.

This evolutive and dynamic view of Jesus fits perfectly with what we know through some moving verses in "John", that Jesus expected his death and resurrection eagerly. Obviously something new happened there.

Conclusion: nothing in Romans 1,4 fits the Nicean theory of the eternal son of God.Heb 5:9. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
33. Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

He, a prophet, was made perfect only on the third day (his ressurection) so how can Jesus be indeed the only true God?

Hmmmmnnn...... I think trinitarians must need to invent more theologies. :teeth:

[Magdalenbrother]

Wow, I had never paid attention to Luke 13,32 ! What a blow to orthodox doctrine !

How odd also to find such a quote in Luke's Gospel which claims that Jesus was born from a virgin. Apparently Luke either didn't see the contradiction or he didn't draw from the virginal birth the conclusion that Jesus must be God.

I find it also very weird that Mary in Luke's Gospel is shocked by Jesus' reaction when they find him in the Temple. Didn't she know from the start that her son was very special? In Mark it is even worse: she is presented as being an outright skeptic who wants to take her son back home because "he is out of his mind". In "John", we see a completely different picture: here Mary is a faithful disciple from the very beginning of Jesus' ministry. She even prods him to perform his first miracle...

The Gospels ARE puzzling.

[7thangel]

Wow, I had never paid attention to Luke 13,32 ! What a blow to orthodox doctrine !

How odd also to find such a quote in Luke's Gospel which claims that Jesus was born from a virgin. Apparently Luke either didn't see the contradiction or he didn't draw from the virginal birth the conclusion that Jesus must be God.

I find it also very weird that Mary in Luke's Gospel is shocked by Jesus' reaction when they find him in the Temple. Didn't she know from the start that her son was very special? In Mark it is even worse: she is presented as being an outright skeptic who wants to take her son back home because "he is out of his mind". In "John", we see a completely different picture: here Mary is a faithful disciple from the very beginning of Jesus' ministry. She even prods him to perform his first miracle...

The Gospels ARE puzzling.
Well, even nowadays, translating a single verse into plain English will go a loooong loooooong way. But nevertheless, it there are things written that confuse the readers, it is because those who are sent were the ones given the real understanding of them. If the gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. So you see, God intentionally hid things unto the lost.

Also when we are babes in Christ and being feed of milk, we are being taught of carnal things that are actually contrary to the true law of God. Perhaps Mark, Luke and John, in some instances, are presenting to us such relationships in a carnal way, in which they want us to empathize with them to capture our hearts.

[stargazers]

According to all the orthodox commentaries that I have teleioumai (I shall be made perfect) means "to finish one's work". The fact that all commentators are falling over their heads to show the right interpretation of Luke 13,32 (which can also be translated as I will be made perfect) looks somewhat suspicious to me.

[7thangel]

According to all the orthodox commentaries that I have teleioumai (I shall be made perfect) means "to finish one's work". The fact that all commentators are falling over their heads to show the right interpretation of Luke 13,32 (which can also be translated as I will be made perfect) looks somewhat suspicious to me.Perhaps, the commentators are trying to fit the interpretation to their trinitarian leanings. Unfortunately, either which way it is clear evidence of the distinction of the Son as subordinate to the Father.

A more perfect understanding of the verse is to mean of Christ as the Church (but note, trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is part of the Church). Remember him saying, "destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days, and then while on the cross he said, "It is finished?" Perhaps this is a great mystery hidden to the losts.

[AcousticJS]

Luke may not have been a Jew but Jesus was a Jew and the readers of Luke's Gospel were Jews too (in the beginning at least).

Really? Funny, 'cos I thought that Luke wrote primarily wrote his account for a guy called Theophilus. Not much is said about who or what Theophilus was, but a common conclusion is that he was some sort of Roman official, due to the way that Luke refers to him as "Most Excellent". So the primary reader of Luke's gospel weren't intended to be Jewish.

[AcousticJS]

Perhaps, the commentators are trying to fit the interpretation to their trinitarian leanings. Unfortunately, either which way it is clear evidence of the distinction of the Son as subordinate to the Father.

Subordination to the Father isn't a problem to Trinitarian theology. Trinitarians see this as a functional subordination rather than an ontological one.

[7thangel]

Really? Funny, 'cos I thought that Luke wrote primarily wrote his account for a guy called Theophilus. Not much is said about who or what Theophilus was, but a common conclusion is that he was some sort of Roman official, due to the way that Luke refers to him as "Most Excellent". So the primary reader of Luke's gospel weren't intended to be Jewish.
Luke wrote to Theophilos, but the subject of the letter is for all chosen of God.

Same as Paul's epistles, they were intended for all who are called of God.

[7thangel]

Subordination to the Father isn't a problem to Trinitarian theology. Trinitarians see this as a functional subordination rather than an ontological one.
I refer to subordination to mean of the Father "perfecting" the only begotten Son of God.

But even of what you are referring to as functional subordination, it just don't make sense to me, I mean, of it being applied to the reality of God as trinity.

[Magdalenbrother]

Really? Funny, 'cos I thought that Luke wrote primarily wrote his account for a guy called Theophilus. Not much is said about who or what Theophilus was, but a common conclusion is that he was some sort of Roman official, due to the way that Luke refers to him as "Most Excellent". So the primary reader of Luke's gospel weren't intended to be Jewish.Is Theophilus ("friend of God" in Greek) a real individual or merely a symbol for Christian or God-fearing readers?

Poor Theophilus ! If he was a pure blood Roman, he must have been quite confused by Luke's genealogy and numerous allusions to the OT. He must have wondered what David and all his ancestors had to do with Jesus at all since the Messiah is a religious figure unknown to the Romans.

And he surely couldn't have interpreted Luke's genealogy to be matrilinear since Roman society was patriarchal too. Anyway, if he had eyes to see, he could plainly see what is written in the text, namely that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc.

I wonder why some Christians are so bothered by the contradictions between the two genealogies of Jesus. There are so many other contradictions in the NT! Want an example?

According to Matthew, Jesus' father was a pure Bethlehemite who settled in Nazareth after the brief stay in Egypt only because he was afraid that Herod's succesor would persecute his family if he stayed in Judea. And to explain why Jesus was from the Galilee, he uses a spurious quote from the OT: "And he shall be called a Nazarene."

According to Luke, Joseph was a pure Nazarene who moved to Bethlehem only temporarily to get registered for a Roman census.

And of course, Trinitarians want us to believe that Matthew and Luke worked hand in hand: you Matthew write a self-defeating genealogy of Joseph containing a cursed, childless king and I Luke write for a Roman magnate Mary's genealogy through the prophet Nathan, which means that Jesus cannot claim the throne of David since Nathan is not from the royal line...

Two self-defeating genealogies !!!

No wonder Paul recommends his readers not to pay any attention to "Jewish fables" and "endless genealogies".

And of course, Luke traveled with Paul and was his companion. Apparently they didn't have the same opinion on the usefulness of genealogies !

[Jaltus]

Is Theophilus ("friend of God" in Greek) a real individual or merely a symbol for Christian or God-fearing readers?

An individual who probably paid for Luke's gospel and for Acts. The term "most excellent" usually refers to a citizen of some rank, and no generalized individual would ever be given such a title since it would mock most people. Theophilus is in fact an established name during the time.


Poor Theophilus ! If he was a pure blood Roman, he must have been quite confused by Luke's genealogy and numerous allusions to the OT. He must have wondered what David and all his ancestors had to do with Jesus at all since the Messiah is a religious figure unknown to the Romans.

Of course you are assuming he did not know anything about Judaism, which is extremely unlikely. Jews were all over the Roman empire by this time, especially prevelant in Rome (remember, Tacitus and Seutonious both mentioned Jews being expelled from Rome, and both recalling events from before Acts was written). A Roman leader of that time would in fact know about Judaism since it was in fact a protected religion. Again, Theophilus was probably a Roman official of some kind (note that "most excellent" is the same vocative attribution that Paul uses for Felix and Festus in Acts).


And he surely couldn't have interpreted Luke's genealogy to be matrilinear since Roman society was patriarchal too. Anyway, if he had eyes to see, he could plainly see what is written in the text, namely that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc.

What was written in the text was that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph. There is no textual problem at this verse.


I wonder why some Christians are so bothered by the contradictions between the two genealogies of Jesus. There are so many other contradictions in the NT! Want an example?

Now we wander off-topic. As for the differences, neither is a complete genealogy anyway, nor are necessarily any in the OT.


According to Matthew, Jesus' father was a pure Bethlehemite who settled in Nazareth after the brief stay in Egypt only because he was afraid that Herod's succesor would persecute his family if he stayed in Judea. And to explain why Jesus was from the Galilee, he uses a spurious quote from the OT: "And he shall be called a Nazarene."

According to Luke, Joseph was a pure Nazarene who moved to Bethlehem only temporarily to get registered for a Roman census.

Where does Matthew say Joseph was a Bethlehemite? All I see Matthew saying is that Jesus was born there.

As for Matthew's "spurious quote," you make at least two major mistakes.

1) Quotations during that time did not have to be verbatim to be considered valid quotations.

2) This is the one quotation which differs from all of the rest in Matthew in that it is said to be from "the prophets" instead of from a single one, which shows a typological understanding rather than a single verse being considered. This is in fact the scholarly consensus on this one (see R.T. France, Matthew: Teacher and Evangelist where he talks about the OT quotations in Matthew with a lot of depth).


And of course, Trinitarians want us to believe that Matthew and Luke worked hand in hand: you Matthew write a self-defeating genealogy of Joseph containing a cursed, childless king and I Luke write for a Roman magnate Mary's genealogy through the prophet Nathan, which means that Jesus cannot claim the throne of David since Nathan is not from the royal line...

Prophet Nathan? Like there is only one Nathan in all of creation! You must be kidding. According to 2 Samuel 5:14, David had a son named Nathan.


Two self-defeating genealogies !!! Only if you assert this by apriori arguments.


No wonder Paul recommends his readers not to pay any attention to "Jewish fables" and "endless genealogies".

Of course this could have a different contextual meaning, but you are too busy to deal with context right now, I am sure.


And of course, Luke traveled with Paul and was his companion. Apparently they didn't have the same opinion on the usefulness of genealogies !

Because, after all, Paul never wrote or said anything that had a contextual meaning. That is why he said to not eat of the food of idols to everyone, right, not just to cities which had giant temples in the middle of downtown. Oh, he only said that to cities with giant temples?

Hmmm, maybe this context thing is important.

[Magdalenbrother]

An individual who probably paid for Luke's gospel and for Acts. The term "most excellent" usually refers to a citizen of some rank, and no generalized individual would ever be given such a title since it would mock most people. Theophilus is in fact an established name during the time.I don't see why the addition of the adjective "most excellent" detracts from the goodness and merit of other believers. I don't see why it makes the character more real. Novelists describe their characters at great length and that doesn't make them more historically true.

But I understand that you are terribly afraid to admit that even one detail of the Bible might be fictitious.


What was written in the text was that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph. There is no textual problem at this verse."Supposedly(os enomizdeto) " doesn't transform Joseph into Mary, it simply reminds the lazy or oblivious reader of what has just been said before, namely that Joseph didn't sire Jesus.

Joseph is decribed as being tou Heli in Greek: the son of Heli. If Mary were the daughter of Heli, we would have tes Heli. So the argument that Luke's genealogy is really Mary's has neither an historical (no matrilineage since the end of the Neolithic in the whole Mediterranean area) nor a grammatical leg to stand on. It is pure tactical spin.


Prophet Nathan? Like there is only one Nathan in all of creation! You must be kidding. According to 2 Samuel 5:14, David had a son named Nathan.An incoherent argument. But I will try to answer it.

Yes, Jaltus, David had one son called Nathan, the only one in all of creation to bear the name "Nathan" and to have David's genetic inheritance. He also had another son called Salomon. Salomon inherited the throne: he represents the regal bloodline, the one that has a right to the throne of David. If Jesus was to be king, he must be a descendant of Salomon's.

Nathan, David's son, didn't inherit the throne. His descendants represent the non regal bloodline, the one that has no right to the throne.

You understand now why Luke's genealogy, which is through Nathan, is completely useless ?


Because, after all, Paul never wrote or said anything that had a contextual meaning.Pure nonsense. Everything has a context.


Where does Matthew say Joseph was a Bethlehemite? All I see Matthew saying is that Jesus was born there.You urgently need a pair of specs, Jaltus.

Matthew says (chapter 2:22) that Joseph was afraid to go back to Bethlehem after the brief sojourn of the holy family in Egypt since Herod's son ruled over Judea. Then an angel appeared to him in his dreams, who told him to go to a Galilean backwater called Nazareth.

It is obvious from the context :teeth: that Joseph had never set foot before in Nazareth. Yes sir.

May I kindly suggest that you read the Bible from time to time, putting aside your pc commentaries written by scholars in the pay of some Christian denomination? Read also some serious books on the history of Christian thought (I recommend Arthur McGiffert), you will avoid falling yourself in old, mouldy heresies by stating that God died on the cross. You would also realize that Trinitarian subordinationism is a heresy.

Besides, it seems to me that you have some unfinished business with Hebrews 2:9.

Are you still desperately clinging to the cataphoric relative clause and post-cedent theory to explain as referring to JX di on ta panta kai di ou ta panta ? :ahem:

[Jaltus]

I don't see why the addition of the adjective "most excellent" detracts from the goodness and merit of other believers. I don't see why it makes the character more real. Novelists describe their characters at great length and that doesn't make them more historically true.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed my later comment that "most excellent" was a way of addressing Roman officials (as Paul addressed both Felix and Festus). Nobody is going to call someone "most excellent" who does not in fact deserve such an official designation. And just so you know, that was the correct way for a Roman official to be addressed.


But I understand that you are terribly afraid to admit that even one detail of the Bible might be fictitious.

Afriad, no, just waiting for you to have a real point.


"Supposedly(os enomizdeto) " doesn't transform Joseph into Mary, it simply reminds the lazy or oblivious reader of what has just been said before, namely that Joseph didn't sire Jesus.

Good grief, I never said it changed Joseph into Mary, but I did say that it showed that Luke was not thinking of Joseph per se as the lead character in that genealogy. As I pointed out in Ruth, the female can be assumed without being named, though you clearly missed the point of that earlier as well.


Joseph is decribed as being tou Heli in Greek: the son of Heli. If Mary were the daughter of Heli, we would have tes Heli. So the argument that Luke's genealogy is really Mary's has neither an historical (no matrilineage since the end of the Neolithic in the whole Mediterranean area) nor a grammatical leg to stand on. It is pure tactical spin.

You are really beginning to annoy me. All genealogies are listed with males and traced by use of male names even when it is showing the line of the female. And grammatically, Joseph could not be followed by a feminine article anyway, so your argument there is really useless.


An incoherent argument. But I will try to answer it.

Actually, it was sarcastic, but you missed that.


Yes, Jaltus, David had one son called Nathan, the only one in all of creation to bear the name "Nathan" and to have David's genetic inheritance. He also had another son called Salomon. Salomon inherited the throne: he represents the regal bloodline, the one that has a right to the throne of David. If Jesus was to be king, he must be a descendant of Salomon's.

Someone can in fact be of the royal line without being of the inheriting son. Jesus is the Son of David, not the Son of Solomon (why are you calling him Salomon, that is not even the Hebrew name, which would be Shalomon), and therefore there is no need to be traced through Solomon. Remember, it is only showing that Jesus has the correct blood to rule, not that He is the eldest son of the eldest son all the way back, especially since that branch of the family had been killed off anyway. You are making an ill-conceived argument.


Nathan, David's son, didn't inherit the throne. His descendants represent the non regal bloodline, the one that has no right to the throne.

False. Non-regal does not mean non-royal, nor does it mean no right to the throne. That is complete nonsense. What Israelite law can you cite to back up your absurd claim? Egyptian law (which has close affinities with Israelite law) allows for the oldest male of the closest blood tie to inherit the throne. It was not ever limited to the "regal line" especially considering how many Pharaohs were cousins etc.


You understand now why Luke's genealogy, which is through Nathan, is completely useless ?

I understand why your arguments are completely useless. Have you ever read a commentary on the gospel of Luke? It would dispell your bizarre notions of inheritance at the very least.


Pure nonsense. Everything has a context.

That was my point, I was being sarcastic as your "quotation" was irrelevent because you completely discarded the context.


You urgently need a pair of specs, Jaltus.

Actually, I do wear glasses.


Matthew says (chapter 2:22) that Joseph was afraid to go back to Bethlehem after the brief sojourn of the holy family in Egypt since Herod's son ruled over Judea. Then an angel appeared to him in his dreams, who told him to go to a Galilean backwater called Nazareth.

And thus your lack of research shows through again. Did you know that there was a Bethlehem only 5 miles from Nazareth? It may very well have been the one Joseph went to. And you are wrong about Bethlehem, it says Judea and therefore he went to Galilee. It never says he was not there, nor does it say anything about where he previously had lived. You are making illegitimate inferences in order to back up your already off-base assumptions.


It is obvious from the context :teeth: that Joseph had never set foot before in Nazareth. Yes sir.

Where in the text does it say that? Again, you are making a host of unwarranted assumptions.


May I kindly suggest that you read the Bible from time to time, putting aside your pc commentaries written by scholars in the pay of some Christian denomination? Read also some serious books on the history of Christian thought (I recommend Arthur McGiffert), you will avoid falling yourself in old, mouldy heresies by stating that God died on the cross. You would also realize that Trinitarian subordinationism is a heresy.

Lol. I read the Bible and I read commentaries. Instead of assuming I personally know everything, I am willing to learn from people who know more than I do. I suggest you do the same.


Besides, it seems to me that you have some unfinished business with Hebrews 2:9.

Are you still desperately clinging to the cataphoric relative clause and post-cedent theory to explain as referring to JX di on ta panta kai di ou ta panta ? :ahem:

First off, off-topic. Secondly, I am waiting for a real response to my post before I respond. You had nothing of substance to say, so I did not bother to respond. As is your normal method, you misread my post and made claims for me which I never made. All I asked is what grammatical warrant you had for coming up with separate people for the referants in 2:10 and 2:11. Your response was that I was creating a new type of clause, which is a blatant misread and mistatement of anything I wrote.

Frankly, you are so encumbered by what you think people say and what you want them to say that you never read what they actually say. I suggest you read posts with a more open mind instead of with your "anti-Trinitarian" specs on, it might make debating with you at least coherent if not tolerable.

[Magdalenbrother]

Concerning Hebrews 2:10

BDAG, which you love to quote, page 996 entry teleioo 2a: eprepen autoi (toi theoi) dia pathematon teleiosai...

So Father Max Zerwick and now Bauer all consider the real subject of "teleiosai" in Heb 2:10 to be God and "autoi", the direct antecedent of the relative clause you claim to be referring to JX, is precisely the grammatical subject they are talking about.

Eprepen autoi (=God), dia on ta panta kai di ou ta panta, dia pathematon ton archegon(=Jesus Christ) tes soterias auton teleiosai.

How can you still say that "dia on ta panta kai di ou ta panta" refers to JX considering the obvious antecedent of the relative clause ?

It is really annoying to have to discuss the obvious again and again.



And thus your lack of research shows through again. Did you know that there was a Bethlehem only 5 miles from Nazareth? It may very well have been the one Joseph went to. And you are wrong about Bethlehem, it says Judea and therefore he went to Galilee. It never says he was not there, nor does it say anything about where he previously had lived. You are making illegitimate inferences in order to back up your already off-base assumptions.
Matthew says that Joseph wanted to go back to Bethlehem in Judea but being afraid of Herod's son Archelaus, he went to Nazareth instead. Not that he knew the place, no, for it was God who in a dream warned him to change his course and to settle in Nazareth.

"And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee.And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..."

The quote above is from the end of Matthew 2. It is perfectly clear from the wording of verse 22 that Joseph was heading for Bethlehem in Judea as this was his home but that he changed his mind because of a dream. The text says that he anechoresen: he turned aside and Thayer's lexicon explains that this verb means to withdraw "of those who through fear seek some other place". The text says further that he "came" (Greek elthon) to Nazareth, not that he returned to the place.



Of course you are assuming he did not know anything about Judaism, which is extremely unlikely. Jews were all over the Roman empire by this time, especially prevelant in Rome (remember, Tacitus and Seutonious both mentioned Jews being expelled from Rome, and both recalling events from before Acts was written). A Roman leader of that time would in fact know about Judaism since it was in fact a protected religion. Again, Theophilus was probably a Roman official of some kind (note that "most excellent" is the same vocative attribution that Paul uses for Felix and Festus in Acts).
There are millions of Muslims in France but not one pure blood Frenchman in a million has ever bothered to read the Coran. There are lots of Hispanics and Muslims in the US: have you read Cervantes or the Hadith ?


Good grief, I never said it changed Joseph into Mary, but I did say that it showed that Luke was not thinking of Joseph per se as the lead character in that genealogy. As I pointed out in Ruth, the female can be assumed without being named, though you clearly missed the point of that earlier as well.
In the book of Ruth there is only a genealogy of Obed. Your theory about a patrileneal genealogy with a focus on the female is absurd and also useless for formally there is no difference between a "normal" genealogy and what you claim to be a special case.

Anyway, enlighten me please: whom did Heli beget? Mary? Joseph? Or both?

Concerning Solomon:

The physical connection with David cannot not be established by any means but through Solomon, David's son who reigned in Judah after him. Anyone claiming to be Israel's Messiah had to descend not only from David, but from Solomon as well, through whom God had also promised David's kingdom would be established forever.

1Chron 28:4 Howbeit the LORD God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel:

5 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.
judgments, as at this day.
8 Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the LORD, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you for ever.

Matthew tells us that Joseph had, as one of his ancestors, Solomon, so the right physical connection to David is made; but unfortunately Joseph is not Jesus' father and so the physical connection is non-existent as far as Jesus is concerned. Jesus, according to both Matthew and Luke, was conceived of the Holy Ghost and thus was not Joseph's son and could therefore not be David's son through Joseph.

Even if a connection to David could be made through Mary, which I deny Luke's genealogy does, then the problems persist because Luke's genealogy goes through Nathan (Luke 1:31) who was never a king in Judah. As mentioned above, the promise of a kingdom was through Solomon; ergo, Luke's genealogy, even if it is based on Mary, which it isn't, destroys the claim that Jesus was the rightful heir to the throne of David, because it ignores the royal line of descent through Solomon.

[stargazers]

And thus your lack of research shows through again. Did you know that there was a Bethlehem only 5 miles from Nazareth? It may very well have been the one Joseph went to. And you are wrong about Bethlehem, it says Judea and therefore he went to Galilee. It never says he was not there, nor does it say anything about where he previously had lived. You are making illegitimate inferences in order to back up your already off-base assumptions.

If Joseph was a Nazarene

1) Why did he try to settle in Judea?
2) Why did he need a special dream and an angel to redirect him to Nazareth?

If instead of trying to explain away obvious contradictions in the scriptures at any price, you had paid attention to Matthew's theology, you would have understood easily that indeed for him Joseph had to be a Bethlehemite.

Matthew knew that there were no prophecies linking the Messiah, the new king of Israel, to Galilea, a backwater full of gentiles. He knew that Jesus' Galilean origin would be an embarrassment. So he arranged his narrative in order that Jesus should be not only born in Bethlehem but also from a pure-blood Judean family, as befits the royal heir of David and Solomon.

But he could not claim that Jesus had lived all his life in Bethlehem, the birthplace of David. Too many people knew that he and his disciples were Galileans. Therefore he inserted the episode of the killing of the innocents. It was Herod's cruelty and wickedness that ultimately prevented Jesus from being a full-fledged Bethlehemite.

And God himself directed Joseph to Nazareth. Who would dare to contest God's choice?

But the attentive reader would know the main point: that Jesus was a Judean born in Bethlehem from Judean parents.

[Jaltus]

I'm sorry, but isn't this thread about Romans 1? Why are you side stepping?

[Ron Macy]

Jaltus,




Someone can in fact be of the royal line without being of the inheriting son. Jesus is the Son of David, not the Son of Solomon (why are you calling him Salomon, that is not even the Hebrew name, which would be Shalomon), and therefore there is no need to be traced through Solomon. Remember, it is only showing that Jesus has the correct blood to rule, not that He is the eldest son of the eldest son all the way back, especially since that branch of the family had been killed off anyway. You are making an ill-conceived argument.

False. Non-regal does not mean non-royal, nor does it mean no right to the throne.


Let me give you a surprise about this one, Jaltus.

I completely agree with you.

Luke 3:23 makes an interesting comment about the birth of Jesus.

23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,





You understand now why Luke's genealogy, which is through Nathan, is completely useless ?


My guess is God doesn’t put anything in the Bible which is completely useless.

It is my opinion Luke’s geneology is of Mary’s line.




I suggest you read posts with a more open mind instead of with your "anti-Trinitarian" specs on, it might make debating with you at least coherent if not tolerable.



While I agree Magdalenbrother may have read things into your posts because of his anti-trinitarian bias, I am not sure you can claim (not that you have) purity in your open-minded reading of non-trinitarian posts. It might be good for you to be a little more open-minded in your thought processes as well.

Ron

[zeteo]

Perhaps, the commentators are trying to fit the interpretation to their trinitarian leanings. Unfortunately, either which way it is clear evidence of the distinction of the Son as subordinate to the Father.






7Thangel,
I think a more probable explanation is that the commentators take into consideration the way that Luke employs the Greek word teleiow.
For example. Luke does not mean to suggest that the feast would be become morally perfected in the following verse.
When the festival was ended and they started to return, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it. (Luke 2:43)

Here the word teleiow clearly mean completed or brought to an end. If you look at the occurrences of this word in Luke-Acts, you'll find that this is the way Luke consistently employs this word. So the commentators are accurate in positing this meaning.


Grace and Peace

[Magdalenbrother]

23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

Ron
This late interpolation by an overzealous scribe simply reminds the negligent reader of the fact that Joseph was only the legal father of Jesus and not his biological father. It doesn't indicate that the genealogy is through Mary. There were no matrinlineal genealogies in Israel (or elsewhere among the other peoples of the Mediterranean area) !!!

Luke's genealogy through Nathan shows that Jesus is primarily a prophet and not a king (Matthew's view). In this respect, the genealogy is not useless. But of course it flatly contradicts the genealogy established by Matthew. Obviously Matthew and Luke worked independently, as shown by the numerous other contradictions between their Gospels.

In Hebrew thought, there is a tendency to overrule biological continuity and primogeniture by election or adoption. See the telling case of Jacob putting his right hand on Ephraim's head instead of Manasseh, who was Joseph's eldest son. Consider that God instead of choosing Jesse's firstborn son, chose his youngest son instead.

This leads me to state the fundamental truth that sonship in the Bible is an interpersonal fact based on love and mutual recognition, not on mere transmission of the seed.

If Christians had known this subtle truth, they would have avoided the terrible mistake of interpreting the title "son of God" literally.



While I agree Magdalenbrother may have read things into your posts because of his anti-trinitarian bias, I am not sure you can claim (not that you have) purity in your open-minded reading of non-trinitarian posts. It might be good for you to be a little more open-minded in your thought processes as well.

I have no anti-trinitarian bias whatsoever. I was myself a staunch Trinitarian for many years.

I fully aknowledge the Trinity but without the word "consubstantial".

[7thangel]

7Thangel,
I think a more probable explanation is that the commentators take into consideration the way that Luke employs the Greek word teleiow.
For example. Luke does not mean to suggest that the feast would be become morally perfected in the following verse.
When the festival was ended and they started to return, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it. (Luke 2:43)

Here the word teleiow clearly mean completed or brought to an end. If you look at the occurrences of this word in Luke-Acts, you'll find that this is the way Luke consistently employs this word. So the commentators are accurate in positing this meaning.


Grace and Peace
I am not disagreeing of teleiow to mean completed or brought to an end. In fact, I have a perfect understanding of what it meant by Christ being perfected (completed or brought to an end) after three days.

[Magdalenbrother]

You know what Seventh angel ? My warning level has dropped to zero because i dared to write Jesus "Geezus". They find it an abominable blaspheme. As if I hadn't any respect for the son of God !

Moderators, if I had no respect for Jesus I would not be capable to write stuff like the devotional meditation on Mark 14 !!!!

I write Jesus "Geezus" because I want to make it clear that there are two ways of regarding the anointed one: the Nicean way (which for me is blasphemous and idolatrous) and the Arian and Nestorian way (which I consider the true orthodoxy). I don't deny that the Geezus spelling is ironical but it is not meant to be insulting. Just humorous.

I have been one of the most courteous posters on this board, something that my interlocutors have recognized but I get a zero warning level !

C'est trop fort !

[Jaltus]

This late interpolation by an overzealous scribe simply reminds the negligent reader of the fact that Joseph was only the legal father of Jesus and not his biological father. It doesn't indicate that the genealogy is through Mary. There were no matrinlineal genealogies in Israel (or elsewhere among the other peoples of the Mediterranean area) !!!

Late interpolation? You have zero evidence for such an absurd claim! For the second time, please state any evidence you have that this is a late interpolation. AFAIK, the only text critical problem at this point is a change in word order and nothing else (change in order is found in Alexandrinus, Theta, family 13, 0102, 33, scattered majority text readings, and one Syriac version).

It is for just this reason that I suggest that you have an anti-trinitarian bias: you make claims which have no factual support. No scholar, no manuscript evidence, nothing supports you here at all except for your own assumptions.


Luke's genealogy through Nathan shows that Jesus is primarily a prophet and not a king (Matthew's view). In this respect, the genealogy is not useless. But of course it flatly contradicts the genealogy established by Matthew. Obviously Matthew and Luke worked independently, as shown by the numerous other contradictions between their Gospels.

Good grief, this Nathan listed is not Nathan the prophet, it would be David's son who is a different Nathan. Why do you assert thhey are the same Nathan? Again, no evidence for.




I have no anti-trinitarian bias whatsoever. I was myself a staunch Trinitarian for many years.

I fully aknowledge the Trinity but without the word "consubstantial".

So Jesus is God without being consubstantial? As for no bias, you must be kidding.

[7thangel]

You know what Seventh angel ? My warning level has dropped to zero because i dared to write Jesus "Geezus". They find it an abominable blaspheme. As if I hadn't any respect for the son of God !
I do not think that they will kick you out in here. TheologyWeb debate "seriously". If they will kidk you out, their theme would become a joke.


Moderators, if I had no respect for Jesus I would not be capable to write stuff like the devotional meditation on Mark 14 !!!!
Something they should consider about you.


I write Jesus "Geezus" because I want to make it clear that there are two ways of regarding the anointed one: the Nicean way (which for me is blasphemous and idolatrous) and the Arian and Nestorian way (which I consider the true orthodoxy). I don't deny that the Geezus spelling is ironical but it is not meant to be insulting. Just humorous.
They will kick you out because of this? Are they serious?


I have been one of the most courteous posters on this board, something that my interlocutors have recognized but I get a zero warning level !
Once they kicked you out, the reputation of this website will surely be tainted.


C'est trop fort !
I guess that is French. Unfortunately, 7thangel no habla y no intiendes francais. I am not sure either if my spanish is right.:teeth:

[Magdalenbrother]

Good grief, this Nathan listed is not Nathan the prophet, it would be David's son who is a different Nathan. Why do you assert thhey are the same Nathan? Again, no evidence for.


This time I see my error: I have checked my reference books and yes Nathan the prophet and Nathan the son of David are two different guys.

I now really wonder why Luke had Jesus descend from this obscure third son of David and elder brother of Solomon. According to Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, the reason could be that he was mentioned in an eschatological prophecy in Zec 12:12

"And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart..."

So rejoice Jaltus, you were right this time. :teeth: