Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

You guys are still trying to set the Church Jesus Christ established straight by explaining to it how you have learned to better interpret the bible than the Church that gave it to you.

I went back and attempted to read this entire thread. An exercise in humility to be sure. I am humbled by my lack of detailed knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek. I am embarrassed by my lack of studying all the different translations of the Bible. I am chagrined by my failure to realize the importance of these weighty matters. I am filled with trepidations that my ignorance will be scorned. I am confounded by my simplistic adherence to focusing on the message Jesus gave rather than building a knowledge of scripture in the tradition of the Pharisee who questioned Jesus so eloquently. I am secure in following that which He gave us even as I study these points and counter points for insights. I am....I am...I am only a simple sister trying to keep preeminent in my heart my the focus of the way. I am also hopeful that I do not offend by not engaging in justifications of beliefs about Mary's pregnancy. I found the answer to that long ago without relying on text of any sort. Is that heresy? Hardly for I sought the answer in the manner Jesus commanded.

For He combined it all into one, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy mind, thy soul; thy neighbor as thyself." For this is the WHOLE law the WHOLE law.

[John Goddard]

If there is any miraculous birth in the New Testament it would have to be that of John the Baptist. His mother was said to be barren.

I think the prophecy implies Mary was barren too, Messiah being like a root from dry ground.

Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

The generally held idea that the New Testament says that Yeshua was born of a “virgin” is not only erroneous but actually contradictory of the Biblical record.
If correct it would actually invalidate Yeshua’s claim to messiahship for the following reasons:

Firstly. Mary is a Levite, a blood relative Elizabeth. The messiah was to be “born of the seed of David according to the flesh” and have a legitimate claim to the throne of David.

If he was the son of Mary by “virgin birth” Yeshua
1. was not descended from David,
2. had no claim to David’s throne,
3. could not have been the messiah,
4. would have been a Levite, a member of the priestly tribe.

With my belief Jesus is the immediate son of David, Mary's status wouldn't affect Jesus if she acted as a surrogate.

Thirdly. Two different genealogies are given. One is the supposed descent through Joseph (Matthew). The other is the real descent through Heli (Luke).
Heli is actually named as the biological father of Yeshua Hanotzri. (“Being son, as it was supposed of Joseph, but really of Heli...”
Heli by genealogy does meet the essential criteria.

No man of Mary's time would meet criteria since that would mean David's throne was empty for many generations, breaking God's promise for David to always have a man on the throne.

It's more likely that Matthew's lineage is for the Carpenter and Luke's is for Arimathea, the men who acted as fathers to Jesus. Nothing to do with his biological lineage.

[one_lost_coin]

I went back and attempted to read this entire thread. An exercise in humility to be sure. I am humbled by my lack of detailed knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek. I am embarrassed by my lack of studying all the different translations of the Bible. I am chagrined by my failure to realize the importance of these weighty matters. I am filled with trepidations that my ignorance will be scorned. I am confounded by my simplistic adherence to focusing on the message Jesus gave rather than building a knowledge of scripture in the tradition of the Pharisee who questioned Jesus so eloquently. I am secure in following that which He gave us even as I study these points and counter points for insights. I am....I am...I am only a simple sister trying to keep preeminent in my heart my the focus of the way. I am also hopeful that I do not offend by not engaging in justifications of beliefs about Mary's pregnancy. I found the answer to that long ago without relying on text of any sort. Is that heresy? Hardly for I sought the answer in the manner Jesus commanded.

For He combined it all into one, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy mind, thy soul; thy neighbor as thyself." For this is the WHOLE law the WHOLE law.

Whether or not it is heresy depends on the answer you received and whether or not it is consistant with the truth?

I have met people who believe they are living out those commandments and support abortion an answer they sought in the manner Jesus commanded in the way they interpret Jesus command.

Is it love of God not to accept the truth of what He has done?

Is it love of neighbor not to rebuke one who teaches error and let that one teach that error to others or tear down anothers faith by such teaching?

After all there are those here who are in actuallity desiring that I should abandon all that has been received, protected and passed down for over 2,000 years of constant Christian witness in defference to their "true" teaching. Don't I have a right to know by what authority they have to teach me this new faith? The scriptures do say to test the spirits and that I can know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error by whether or not is agrees with the Church at least according to St. John. If there is any truth in these fellows words it will stand up to such questioning but if they are the theives and robbers and not God's messengers who knows what all I may forsake for this new teaching. One could loose their very life. If they are of God they will be able to answer my challenges of their authority being greater than the Churches. Yet they never answer only try and chip away and erode what is established and will last forever.

"born of the virgin Mary" is included in the creed so that we should never forget its truth. It is essential part of Christian faith necessary for a proper understanding of who Jesus is and what God has done to save us.

[one_lost_coin]

Why is this wrong and you are right?

By James Akin

Ever since the Gospels were written, people have been puzzled by the two differing genealogies of Christ contained in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Neither genealogy attempts to give a full family tree, identifying all his lines of ancestry. Even so, people are often perplexed. The most obvious difference between the two genealogies is that Matthew’s begins with Abraham and moves forward to Christ, while Luke’s begins with Christ and traces the line backward to Adam.

The next obvious difference is that both genealogies trace Jesus’ lineage back to David, but through different sons. Matthew has Christ descending from David through Solomon, while Luke has him descending from David through Nathan. This is not odd. David had more than one son, and a later individual can be descended from more than one of them.

The question arises, when did the two lines meet up again? The Solomon line runs parallel to the Nathan line until the time of Shealtiel, when they intersect. In Matthew, Shealtiel is described as the son of Jechoniah, and in Luke his father is said to be Neri. How can he have two fathers?

After Shealtiel, both genealogies state that Christ was descended from Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, who was governor of Israel after the Babylonian Exile. Then they diverge again. Matthew traces Christ’s lineage through Zerubbabel’s son Abiud, while Luke traces it through a different son, Rhesa. Again, this is not odd. Zerubbabel simply had more than one son, and Christ was descended from both.

The two lines converge once more in Jesus’ foster father, Joseph. In Matthew, Joseph is said to be the son of Jacob, of the Abiud line, while in Luke Joseph is said to be the son of Heli, of the Rhesa line. So why is Joseph said to have two fathers?

Some have tried to answer this by saying that Luke doesn’t give Jesus’ lineage through Joseph at all, but through Mary. This is not supported by the text. Luke states that Joseph was the son of Heli, not that Mary was the daughter of Heli. In any event, this does not account for Shealtiel’s two fathers.

To explain that issue, one needs to know something about how ancient Jewish genealogies work. Adoption, whether of a child or an adult, was common and affected which genealogical line one was ascribed to. For example, the faithful spy Caleb was biologically the son of a non-Jew named Jephunneh (Num. 32:12), but he was adopted into the tribe of Judah and ascribed to the line of Hezron (1 Chron. 2:18).

Adoption could take place posthumously. The most striking example is what is known as the levirate marriage (from the Latin levir = brother-in-law). If a man died childless, it was the duty of his brother to marry the widow and father a son on behalf of his brother. This son then would be posthumously "adopted" by the dead man and reckoned as his son in the family genealogy.

Adoption is the most probable explanation of Shealtiel’s two fathers. Jeremiah had prophesied that Jechoniah’s (biological) descendants would never sit on the throne of Judah (Jer. 22:30). Thus the legal succession passed to the line of Nathan and Shealtiel. Though biologically the son of Neri, Shealtiel was reckoned as Jechoniah’s son for purposes of the kingly line. It appears that Shealtiel died childless and that his brother Pedaiah fulfilled the obligations of a brother and fathered Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3:17–19 with Ezra 3:2, etc.).

This solves the first case of two fathers. But what about Jesus’ foster father, Joseph? Here we have more direct information. The second-century historian Julius Africanus, a native of Israel, records information given by Christ’s remaining family in his day. According to their family genealogy, Joseph’s grandfather Matthan (mentioned in Matthew) married a woman named Estha, who bore him a son named Jacob. After Matthan died, Estha married his relative Melchi (mentioned in Luke) and bore him a son named Heli (marrying relatives was common among Jews at this time). Jacob and Heli were thus half-brothers. Heli died childless, so Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

There are other ways to reconcile the genealogies. The problem isn’t finding a way to reconcile them but—given the flexibility of ancient Hebrew genealogies—finding which way is correct. More interesting is why the genealogies are different. Matthew stresses Christ as the successor of David and follows the line of kings. Luke stresses Christ as the Son of God and traces the line back to "Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3:38).

[one_lost_coin]

I have cousins and they have blood relations that I have absolutely no connection to. If I am not a bus driver because my sister married one why is Mary a levite because her cousin married one?

I am going to require more than the arbitrary speculation of yours would you be so kind as to show me the genealogy of Mary that you have to prove your claim.

Both genealogies point out Jesus is the Son of David. Because you establish an arbitrary criteria of what it takes to prove Jesus is the Son of David does not obligate the writers of Sacred Scripture to conform to how you decide they are to be used?

How can Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?

(a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2).

(b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenæus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

[John Goddard]

Some have tried to answer this by saying that Luke doesn’t give Jesus’ lineage through Joseph at all, but through Mary. This is not supported by the text. Luke states that Joseph was the son of Heli, not that Mary was the daughter of Heli.

Adoption doesn't work for the promise of Messiah for David since royalty is passed by seed not adoption per 2 Samuel 7:12. Thus all the rest is much of a red herring.

[one_lost_coin]

Adoption doesn't work for the promise of Messiah for David since royalty is passed by seed not adoption per 2 Samuel 7:12. Thus all the rest is much of a red herring.

If you had taken the time to reflect on that section dealing with adoption you would have realized that it was addressing Joseph's seemingly having two fathers and is solely dealing with Joseph's possible adoption. If you keep reading Mr. Akin further clarifies this distinction by referring to Joseph as Jesus foster father.

Jesus is physically descended from David by receiving His flesh from His Mother alone, through His Virgin Birth. That is addressed in the post that followed the post in discussion here and can be read above, in it is addressed the genealogy of Mary to David.

Jesus Christ is the Son of David.

[John Goddard]

Jesus is physically descended from David by receiving His flesh from His Mother alone, through His Virgin Birth. That is addressed in the post that followed the post in discussion here and can be read above, in it is addressed the genealogy of Mary to David.

I didn't refresh to see the next post, which only seems to say it is just assumed Mary descends from David.

You said yourself, "Some have tried to answer this by saying that Luke doesn’t give Jesus’ lineage through Joseph at all, but through Mary. This is not supported by the text."

I go with other views here that Mary was a Levite like Elizabeth. Nothing in the Bible says she was descended from David.

Jesus Christ is the Son of David.

Unless he is David's real immediate son the promise to David is not fulfilled.

[one_lost_coin]

I didn't refresh to see the next post, which only seems to say it is just assumed Mary descends from David.

You said yourself, "Some have tried to answer this by saying that Luke doesn’t give Jesus’ lineage through Joseph at all, but through Mary. This is not supported by the text."

I go with other views here that Mary was a Levite like Elizabeth. Nothing in the Bible says she was descended from David.

Saying that Mary is descended from David through Nathan seems to me to be more of a claim than an assumption and Mary line isn't derived from the bible. She still had a lineage. She did have a mother and a father St. Anne and St. Joachim. Thats not in the bible either.

Do you know how typology works in the bible?

"The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New." - St. Augustine

A type (typos in Greek), or "archetype," often called a "shadow," "parable," "allegory," or "figure" in Scripture, is a person, thing, or action that precedes and prefigures a greater person, thing, or action. That which is prefigured is referred to as an "antitype." The concept is summarized in Scripture itself:

Solomon is Davids immediate son and and is an archetype for Jesus Christ who is the antitype.

Luke 11:30For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. 32The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. - examples of achetypes-antitypes for Jesus.

"Hosanna to the Son of David! they cried out, /"Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!"/ concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh/ And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

even the children and the blind guy knew it.

Do you think the early Church might have wanted to tell us something. Maybe that Jesus is the Son of David.

Unless he is David's real immediate son the promise to David is not fulfilled

the terms are not set by what arbitrary criteria we decide. The message is to be received by how it was understood and intended to be communicated by the persons who wrote it and conscious of the culture and understanding in which it was written. We best understand the depth of meaning they wished to convey by entering in with them

If I have learned anything from the Sacred Scripture is that God definitely is a God of surprises a God of depth. I never would have picked up on John the Baptist as the return of Elijah had not Jesus pointed it out.

[John Goddard]

She did have a mother and a father St. Anne and St. Joachim. Thats not in the bible either.

Namely from The Book of James which is apocrypha not considered valid enough for the Bible.

Solomon is Davids immediate son and and is an archetype for Jesus Christ who is the antitype.

It's my belief Solomon is the younger brother of Jesus who died for David's sin with Uriah, and that the promise of Messiah was really for Jesus, and finally claimed when he was resurrected into the womb of Mary.

So then David's promise to have an everlasting throne for his own son was fulfilled that way.

All this eliminates the need for Mary or Joseph to have any particular lineage in order to show Jesus is from David, since he would be David's own son. Mary would just be a surrogate.

[Ben Lomond]

I see I have overlooked this from the days of yore.

If you have a question for Luke ask him but do not bother me with pointless speculations. St. John clearly states that not everything about Jesus can be contained in even an entire library of books. You are just going to have to live with it. I will add the rest of St. Augustine's sentence "But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed."

But to throw you a bone this story predates St. Augustine as I am sure you are already aware. It can be found in the Protoevangelium of James http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
an apochraphal work written about 150ad some say earlier just to address and preserve the commonly taught and held belief of the Virgin Mary.

At the Annunciation Mary's question, "How can this be" (Lk 1:34) makes no sense except in the concept of a vow of lifelong virginity. This is the understanding from the earliest interpretations of this passage. Mary and Joseph were betrothed, that is, legally married at the time of the Annunciation. It's hardly sensible to suppose that Mary's question was an inquiry regarding the biological process of how children were conceived.

You persist with advocating the traditional line of the Roman Catholic Church apologetics that: "At the Annunciation Mary's question, "How can this be" (Lk 1:34) makes no sense except in the concept of a vow of lifelong virginity. "
You also took this line in your post #105 quoting Augustine.

I reply:
I am sorry One-Lost-Coin, but Augustine's mind, like the other church Fathers you quote, was projecting pagan concepts dressed up as "Christian".

This traditional teaching by the Roman Catholic Church that Mary, with the approval of Joseph, took a lifelong vow of virginity to God finds absolutely no support in either spoken or written word of any disciple in the New Testament.

Neither does it find any support in recorded Jewish writings as being a Jewish concept.

It is a totally Pagan Greek / Latin mentality.

Mary's question to Gabriel in Luke 1:34 is addressed in the official RC works “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture” in paragraph 748d.

This supposed “compact with Joseph” being at variance with accepted Jewish thought is explained by a reference to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

CCHS 748d reads:
"Such sentiments as here manifested by Mary (and it is to be concluded that Joseph was of the same mind) were shared by other Jews, such as the well known sect of the Essenes as Josephus makes plain, Ant 18,1.

Any person familiar with Josephus' works knows that his references usually have three elements - Book, chapter and verse, so the reference given here by A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture looks a little loose with only two reference elements.

When one goes and checks out the reference in Josephus’ The Antiquity of the Jews, book 18, chapter 1 we find in verse 5 Josephus makes a reference to the Essenes who allow neither women or servants in their communes.
He says:
"There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking that the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels, but as they live by themselves they minister one to another."

So there we have it short and sweet.
Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews says absolutely NOTHING about Jews observing of “a vow of lifelong virginity”.
What he does say is that the Essenes do not allow marriage to women to in their commune as women cause domestic quarrels.

If one takes the time to follow other threads used in traditional Roman Catholic “apologetics” they too will frequently been seen equally as spurious as this reference in CCHS 748d when it quoted Josephus.

So I add my voice to Anthony who in his post #114 asked where in the Gospel of Luke or anywhere else in the NT does any disciple speak of "Mary's vow of perpetual virginity".

As for Protestants - who do not hold to the doctrine of "Mary's perpetual virginity", - well her question in Luke 1:34 presents them with their own dilemma.

Ben Lomond.

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to Eeset’s post #151,

I simply say "Eeset your point is well taken".

Many times I have noted within my posts that all the creeds and doctrines of ANY religion aren’t worth a cracker if one overlooks common sense and common courtesy as a basis of everyday social interaction.

I have affirmed positively that Jesus in his life manifested, imitated, personified God’s values in his everyday conduct and thus became one with God – Jesus in God, and God in Jesus.

The disciples in their lives manifested, imitated, personified the values of Jesus in their everyday conduct and thus became one with Jesus – they in Jesus and Jesus in them.

Paul in turn exhorted his followers to extend this principle by imitating his values and becoming one with him – they in him and he in then.

Jesus by living God’s values personified God. His disciples or any other people - even today, - by living the same values also manifest or personify God and Jesus, - “I am in my Father, and you in me and I in you” (John 14:20).

By accepting and living God’s values people become adopted as “children / sons of God.” (John 1:12; Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26) and thus manifest their faith in the ultimate triumph of the crucified / resurrected Jesus as the anointed agent of the living God. As Paul said our bodies then become temples of God and God’s spirit dwells in us (1Cor 3:16.)

To live God’s values in a spirit of true love is the underlying theme of all that Jesus and his disciples lived and preached. As I said previously, it all comes down to altruistic common sense and common decency as a basis of everyday human interaction. These values like the kingdom of God become innate within you (Luke 17:21; Romans 10:8;).

The issues of compassionate, ethical living have absolutely nothing to do with theological creeds or doctrines.

My reason for posting on this thread is to expose the pagan myths that have become attached to Jesus of Nazareth over the centuries.

Ben Lomond.

[Antony]

PART A — WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE TWO GENEALOGIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?


The Greek and Latin “Church Fathers” read a virgin birth into the gospels of Luke and Matthew, although these writings say no such thing. It then became incumbent on them to interpret the particular biblical passages that spoke of the birth of Jesus in a way that supported their virgin birth story.


The result of trying to fit these passages into their virgin birth story led to some quite extraordinary and bizarre results. That these interpretations have prevailed for almost two millenniums reminds one of Hans Christian Andersen’s story about the Emperor that had no clothes http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html . (If only there would come a day when an innocent simply states the obvious about the NT passages, and in doing so removes the blinkers from the eyes of those about him!)


One example of these bizarre interpretations, which we have already dealt with, is how Mary’s question has been interpreted. The traditional interpretation has this young Jewess, who is about to be married, not understanding how she could conceive a child in the future because she is currently a virgin. Inadvertently, this interpretation portrays Mary as completely naïve or not very bright. (See Posts 132, 138.)


However, this post is not to do with Mary’s question, but with the two genealogies in the NT. The traditional interpretation is that they are both Joseph’s genealogy. (Mt 1:2-16, Lk 3:23-38)


This, the first of my several posts in a series about the two genealogies, starts by asking some questions of the traditional interpretation to see whether it fits into the biblical narrative, or whether it introduces extra-biblical suppositions to make the biblical narrative fit into the virgin birth story.


First, some relevant biblical information


It was a condition of messiahship that the anointed would be a direct physical descendant of David and entitled to the throne of David. (2Sam 7:12-13, etc)


The Jews in Jesus’ time understood this, as evident from references in the NT, such as when people were amazed at Jesus’ works, and said, “Is not this the son of David?” or when others said, “Hath not scripture said, that Christ cometh out of the seed of David?", or when Jesus entered Jerusalem to the cries of, “Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.” (Mt 12:23, Jn 7:40-42, 12:13)


Followers of Jesus had the same understanding. When the first disciples were drawn to Jesus, one of the appellations they accorded him was “King of Israel”. Elsewhere NT writers refer to Jesus as the “son of David”, the “seed of David”, and the “fruit of his (David’s) loins”. Paul states explicitly, "Jesus… was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh” (Jn 1:49, Mt 1:1, 2 Tim 2:8, Acts 2:30, etc, Rom 1:3)


The above rules out the participation of a “foster-father” in the linkage between Jesus and David.


Matthew and Luke are the only NT writers that give details of Jesus’ birth. Each states Joseph is not the physical father of Jesus. Each gives a genealogy. The genealogies are different.


Second, what the theologians claim


Theologians have usually taken the view that the two genealogies in the NT are both of Joseph, even though they are clearly different. The favourite explanation for the discrepancy between the two genealogies first appeared in the third century. It proposes that the one in Matthew’s gospel gives the biological descent of Joseph, while the one in Luke’s gospel gives his legal descent.


Some preliminary questions about the genealogies

1. What do you think is the purpose of the two genealogies?

2. Why would the NT give two genealogies of Joseph, and none of Jesus?

3. Do you think that because the two genealogies are different, they might be about different people?

4. Do you think Joseph is relevant to proving Jesus is “of the seed of David, according to the flesh”? What is the reason for your answer?


to be continued …

[John Goddard]

1. What do you think is the purpose of the two genealogies?

2. Why would the NT give two genealogies of Joseph, and none of Jesus?

3. Do you think that because the two genealogies are different, they might be about different people?

4. Do you think Joseph is relevant to proving Jesus is “of the seed of David, according to the flesh”? What is the reason for your answer?

They are for the Carpenter present at the birth of Jesus, and Arimathea present at his death, both acting as fathers to him at birth and death. Their worldly inheritance for Jesus being wood for a cross and rock for a tomb. Versus a heavenly kingdom.

They don't have anything to do with his true lineage as I've said.

[Ben Lomond]

John, here as in your previous posts you have introduced some "new" approaches to Jesus' messiahship.

You have introduced ideas that I can’t remember encountering anywhere previously - such as assertions of Joseph of Arimathea being a foster father to Jesus, and some form of IVF of Jesus took place between Bathsheba in the OT and Mary in the NT.

I reaffirm that I am happy to see a compenetrative connection between David's liaison with Bathsheba and Mary's liaison with Heli in terms of Jesus’ life being a re-enactment of the history of Israel. That far and no more!

However your story of "virgin Mary" being impregnated with the fruit of David’s liaison with Bathsheba is to say the least bizarre and is not recorded in the Bible. Consequently as I fail to see the sense in it I have no option but to reject it.
We will simply have to agree to differ.

In your last post #164 you said of the genealogies recorded in Matthew and Luke:
“They don't have anything to do with his (Jesus) true lineage as I've said.”
Do I read you right???
Are you saying that both Matthew and Luke went to the trouble of recording irrelevant genealogies of Jesus of Nazareth???


Regarding David’s throne:
King David’s name was often used as an epithet by Jews for their expected messiah in view of the expectation that messiah would rule as king of Israel.
In a similar vein Moses’ name was associated with Israel’s messiah with priestly and covenant connotations.

Regarding Joseph of Arimathea:
You attribute much more to Joseph of Arimathea than the NT records.

Each of the four Gospels contain a reference to Joseph of Arimathea which are quite similar and uncomplicated, with reference to Joseph making an unused tomb available for the burial of Jesus' body.
There is also reference to Joseph being a member of the Council and secret follower of Jesus (like Nicodemus) but absolutely no reference – either explicit or implied - to Joseph being a “foster father to Jesus” in the four Gospel references.
Mt 27:57,
Mk 15:43,
Lk 23:50,
Jn 19:38.

Re my expressed intent in post #145 to comment on the OT reference of 2Samuel 7:12-13 regarding David’s throne, well I think Anthony has covered it quite well in his post #163.

Ben Lomond.