Why was Jesus called Son of David? Another view

[mitzi]

John Goddard and I had an argument about this point of view -Jesus is the Son of David who God caused to die for David's sin with Bathsheba, then Jesus was resurrected into Mary to die for the sins of the world.

To Quote John Goddard: Me: The firstborn paid the price for David's sin through no fault of his own, resurrected and became Jesus who was sinless and only followed God, then paid the price for everyone's sin. Thus, Jesus has promise of Messiah.

I don't believe this view point nor the reasons for assuming that Jesus was re-resurrected into Mary and then re-died all over again - I believe that the passage that was given when Nathan approached David did set the tone for the future Messiah on forgiveness and on sacrificing himself for the sins of all but in a symbolic way. (**add on: and what I mean in a symbolic way* - I'm referring to the nature of the Messiah - and that Nathan had set the tone for the future (ist) Messiah - and how He will pay for the price of our sins)

In John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." Does this passage seem like a simple case of a biblical resurrection? I am addressing John Goddard to this and giving some clarification to the the phrase:

"I AM" - according to Jewish Study Bible states that there is a divine name in Exodus 3:14, but he doesn’t identify what part of the verse it is[42]. He proffers “I Will Be What I Will Be” as the translation for ehyeh asher ehyeh, and interprets the meaning of this phrase as “My nature will become evident from My actions”, which is very similar to the first of the six interpretations in Exodus Rabbah, and to the interpretation espoused by Buber and Rosenzweig. He regards ehyeh asher ehyeh as the explanation of the name YHWH - as did Maimonides - and the ehyeh of 3:14b as a shortened form of ehyeh asher ehyeh - as did Halevi - and the first person form of the verb root hayah meaning “I Will Be”. He regards YHWH as the corresponding third-person form of hayah - as does Sarna amongst others - and so to mean “He Will Be”. His interpretation thus appears to draw from a wide variety of sources and from diverse exegetical approaches to the verse, as would be appropriate for a study Bible. LINK


So again I don't know how you can continue to explain your thoughts on David’s son who died and was then (since John wants to use this view point) biblically resurrected and then reborn to Mary –and also you're correct, this may not be a Trinitarian position, John, but then I only commit to one resurrection and for a second coming. Now was it possible that Jesus existed prior to the birth? Perhaps - we read this in John 1:1 when the passage explicitly states "He was with Gd"....


John 8:19 So they said to him, "Where is your father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also."

[Tanakh Keeper]

John Goddard and I had an argument about this point of view -Jesus is the Son of David ....

Another ignorant statement from Goddard, this is a non-starter. King David died over 900 hundred years before the Christian deity was allegedly born. I don't know of any sperm banks at the time.

[THIEF]

Another ignorant statement from Goddard, this is a non-starter. King David died over 900 hundred years before the Christian deity was allegedly born. I don't know of any sperm banks at the time.

That's not the reason Goddard's theory is implausible. God is omnipotent, so presumably if He really wanted to He could have "taken" the baby (a little like Enoch or Elijah?) and then placed in Mary's womb at the appropriate time. Or, since He is also omniscient, He could have simply recalled all of its attributes and created an appropriate sperm/zygote/blastocyst/fetus in Mary's womb. God is very capable of doing many ridiculous-sounding things, impossible in nature's normal course, assuming they are His will.

No, the reason Goddard's theory is implausible is because it is wholly unsupported by any respectable interpretation of Scriptural evidence, requires assumptions and stretches that are similarly unsupported, solves no pressing problem but creates others, and is spectacularly inferior to more orthodox explanations that don't have anything close to that kind of improbability. In other words, if we're trying to infer to the best explanation, Goddard's theory fails the criteria in spectacular fashion.

[mitzi]

That's not the reason Goddard's theory is implausible. God is omnipotent, so presumably if He really wanted to He could have "taken" the baby (a little like Enoch or Elijah?) and then placed in Mary's womb at the appropriate time. Or, since He is also omniscient, He could have simply recalled all of its attributes and created an appropriate sperm/zygote/blastocyst/fetus in Mary's womb. God is very capable of doing many ridiculous-sounding things, impossible in nature's normal course, assuming they are His will.

No, the reason Goddard's theory is implausible is because it is wholly unsupported by any respectable interpretation of Scriptural evidence, requires assumptions and stretches that are similarly unsupported, solves no pressing problem but creates others, and is spectacularly inferior to more orthodox explanations that don't have anything close to that kind of improbability. In other words, if we're trying to infer to the best explanation, Goddard's theory fails the criteria in spectacular fashion.

so presumably if He really wanted to He could have

This is where the trouble begins….if He wanted to He (Gd) could have. The possibilities of what Gd is capable of doing versus if He really did them. Sometimes I think some have expanded the circumstance to work around difficulties in scripture and accept them as being the truth. Isn’t that where the trouble begins – our own uncertainties on what Gd did create and what situations were His doings (will). I would think this leads to an unrealistic understanding of Gd and man’s relationship to each other – even in the Tanach when Gd introduces Himself to the Major Prophets (using Moses) He (always) identifies himself “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” but when God identifies Himself to the Israelites He use the term “I AM” and then as scripture notes He follows with identifying Himself as being the Gd of their ancestors:

Shemot - Exodus - Chapter 3
4. God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'" יד. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ־לֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם: 15. And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.

Gd (always) speaks to the prophets (giving them strength) about what will proceed or in other words; Why He (Gd) has chosen a certain person to demonstrate His will… along with the actions that will take place. There is a sense of order ….and reasoning's.

[mitzi]

Another ignorant statement from Goddard, this is a non-starter. King David died over 900 hundred years before the Christian deity was allegedly born. I don't know of any sperm banks at the time.

Tanakh I did check out the sources on his statement: Why was Jesus called Son of David? (another view)

LINK

But I still think it's a very far stretch because (as John has done) the explanation completely voids out the lineage of Jesus found in the N.T:

Originally posted by mitzi

So how will you discuss the passages in Luke and Matthew? John like I said in a previous post - prove your work (if the theory) isn't in the NT or the Tanakh then I would stop. There's already been a theory close to this argument but it's unfounded in order to show a direct lineage between Jesus and David - personally if the passage in Luke and in Matthew can not show a correlation (without showing either Solomon (Joseph side: Joseph's lineage is thru Solomon in Matthew's Gospel.) and Nathan (Mary's side: Luke traces the lineage through Nathan) than how will this argument show any stability or truth.

John Goddard:

The Luke lineage for Mary theory isn't stated as such in the NT, it's only speculation.

The Matthew lineage is Joseph the Carpenter and not the biological father, he only acted as a father to Jesus at his birth. I think Luke lineage is for Joseph of Arimathea who acted as next of kin at his burial, while Mary was a Levitt like her cousin Elizabeth.

And since all the promises from Abraham down were inherited by men, there is no precedence for them to go through a woman Mary. As Jews probably tell you.

[THIEF]

That's not the reason Goddard's theory is implausible. God is omnipotent, so presumably if He really wanted to He could have "taken" the baby (a little like Enoch or Elijah?) and then placed in Mary's womb at the appropriate time. Or, since He is also omniscient, He could have simply recalled all of its attributes and created an appropriate sperm/zygote/blastocyst/fetus in Mary's womb. God is very capable of doing many ridiculous-sounding things, impossible in nature's normal course, assuming they are His will.

No, the reason Goddard's theory is implausible is because it is wholly unsupported by any respectable interpretation of Scriptural evidence, requires assumptions and stretches that are similarly unsupported, solves no pressing problem but creates others, and is spectacularly inferior to more orthodox explanations that don't have anything close to that kind of improbability. In other words, if we're trying to infer to the best explanation, Goddard's theory fails the criteria in spectacular fashion.

so presumably if He really wanted to He could have

This is where the trouble begins….if He wanted to He (Gd) could have. The possibilities of what Gd is capable of doing versus if He really did them. Sometimes I think some have expanded the circumstance to work around difficulties in scripture and accept them as being the truth. Isn’t that where the trouble begins – our own uncertainties on what Gd did create and what situations were His doings (will). I would think this leads to an unrealistic understanding of Gd and man’s relationship to each other [...]

This is where an understanding of logic and philosophy makes things much clearer. Take hypotheticals: "If it were the case that God had wanted to do X, then Y" does have some meaning, but only if X does not create a logical contradiction, that is, only if X is not logically impossible. For example, I think we can agree that "If God were not omniscient, then..." "If God were not omnipotent, then..." "If God were not morally perfect, then..." are, regardless of their consequents, not true in any meaningful sense. The reason is that omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection are necessary attributes of God, so "God exists" (an implied premise of all three of the above) and "God is not omniscient/omnipotent/morally perfect" are contradictory and therefore untrue in every possible world; and in this context, possible worlds are what we're talking about in the first place.

On the other hand, if the antecedent is logically possible, we can talk meaningfully of those possible worlds in which that antecedent is true. "If it were the case that God wanted for Mary to bear Bathsheba's dead (supposedly-dead?) firstborn" is not, I think, logically impossible. I just don't think it's true of our actual world.

As for thinking "this seems to be a possible explanation for this difficulty, I'll just stop right now and accept it," that is of course not the way to go about studying the Bible. Possibility does not imply actuality (except in the case of "if possibly necessarily X, then necessarily X" which probably doesn't apply). Rather, I'd say the right method for resolving difficulties is to infer to the best explanation: Assemble a pool of live options; analyze their explanatory scope and power, coherence with other accepted truths, how many new suppositions they require, etc.; compare their merits, and make a decision.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Tanakh I did check out the sources on his statement: Why was Jesus called Son of David? (another view)

LINK

Mitzi, as this is the Judaism board, there really wasn't any point to posting links that use Christian thought or the Christian bible in their explanations.

However, you and THIEF have myriad other reasons showing the total collapse of Goddard’s latest trash.

[mitzi]

Mitzi, as this is the Judaism board, there really wasn't any point to posting links that use Christian thought or the Christian bible in their explanations.

However, you and THIEF have myriad other reasons showing the total collapse of Goddard’s latest trash.

O.K. I agree on the link but it was to only show that there were speculations on the topic. Even though, I don't agree with the logic.

[mitzi]

This is where an understanding of logic and philosophy makes things much clearer. Take hypotheticals: "If it were the case that God had wanted to do X, then Y" does have some meaning, but only if X does not create a logical contradiction, that is, only if X is not logically impossible. For example, I think we can agree that "If God were not omniscient, then..." "If God were not omnipotent, then..." "If God were not morally perfect, then..." are, regardless of their consequents, not true in any meaningful sense. The reason is that omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection are necessary attributes of God, so "God exists" (an implied premise of all three of the above) and "God is not omniscient/omnipotent/morally perfect" are contradictory and therefore untrue in every possible world; and in this context, possible worlds are what we're talking about in the first place.

On the other hand, if the antecedent is logically possible, we can talk meaningfully of those possible worlds in which that antecedent is true. "If it were the case that God wanted for Mary to bear Bathsheba's dead (supposedly-dead?) firstborn" is not, I think, logically impossible. I just don't think it's true of our actual world.

As for thinking "this seems to be a possible explanation for this difficulty, I'll just stop right now and accept it," that is of course not the way to go about studying the Bible. Possibility does not imply actuality (except in the case of "if possibly necessarily X, then necessarily X" which probably doesn't apply). Rather, I'd say the right method for resolving difficulties is to infer to the best explanation: Assemble a pool of live options; analyze their explanatory scope and power, coherence with other accepted truths, how many new suppositions they require, etc.; compare their merits, and make a decision.

...as we could find ourselves heading in another direction other than what might be according to the event. We understood Gd in one way from Genesis as to create man and woman but in the Exodus we then knew Him as having the ability to be -

The israelites (not a nation but as a people) from the time of Abraham to Moses grew into a more defined relationship with Gd, that is, from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to a Gd who had identified himself as being "I AM" - (as to quote) that there is a divine name in Exodus 3:14, but he doesn’t identify what part of the verse it is[42]. He proffers “I Will Be What I Will Be” as the translation for ehyeh asher ehyeh, and interprets the meaning of this phrase as “My nature will become evident from My actions”

There are always possibilities of what might be there (perhaps) but are they "what" we perceive versus what really happened at the time. I agree, there are many passages in the Tanakh that could point toward this direction when actually the passage might be pointing somewhere else. Our judgment of the event along with our knowledge of the language, the area of the country, the time period - and it's culture are just as important - which when critical thinking comes into play than we can take "all" supportive information together to make a correct analysis but the most important aspect and ingredient is our faith - and - relationship with Gd - Gd is omniscient

Theological representations: LINK

The concepts of omniscience can be defined naively as follows (using the notation of modal logic):

x is omniscient =def \forall p(p \Rightarrow Kxp)

In words, for total omniscience:

x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is true), then x knows that p (is true)

For inherent omniscience one interprets Kxp in this and the following as x can know that p is true, so for inherent omniscience this proposition reads:

x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is true), then x can know that p (is true)

But a critical logical analysis shows that this definition is too naive to be proper, and so it must be qualified as follows:

x is omniscient =def \forall p((p \land \Diamond Kp) \Rightarrow Kxp)

In words:

x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is true) and p is (logically) knowable, then x knows [/can know] that p (is true)

The latter definition is necessary, because there are logically true but logically unknowable propositions such as "Nobody knows that this sentence is true":

N = "Nobody knows that N is true"


If N is true, then nobody knows that N is true; and if N is false, then it is not the case that nobody knows that N is true, which means that somebody knows that N is true. And if somebody knows that N is true, then N is true; therefore, N is true in any case. But if N is true in any case, then it is logically true and nobody knows it.

**This must have been the reason why Maimonides wrote the The Guide to the Perplexed***