Split from "born again" [Archive]

John Goddard

June 24th 2009, 10:41 AM

(Sorry Johnny, I strayed off orthodox...)

Guess you deny the virgin birth (?) John 1:14 etc clearly have the Son made flesh, and thus born of the flesh.

Of course I don't deny it. However...

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Made according to the Flesh is by Sex.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

2 Samuel 7:12-14 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son....

2 Samuel 11:5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.

2 Samuel 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

Made according to the Spirit is by Resurrection.

Ezekiel 37:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

Luke 1:31-32 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

To my knowledge there is no scriptural support for such an opinion.As for Rom 1:3 again we have Jesus the Son of God (vs4) made flesh. Of interest in orthodox teaching, it is via assimilation with Mary's flesh, that he is of the seed of David.

There is no support Mary was even descended from David, it's a wild guess. There is also no biblical support that any covenant promise passed through a woman, from Abraham on down to David.

There is more biblical support that Mary was a Levite like her cousin Elisabeth, and that Matthew's lineage is for Joseph the Carpenter who was with Jesus at his birth, while Luke's lineage is for Joseph of Arimathea who was with Jesus at his death.

Scriptures say he died once! And that he was born and remained sinless.

More accurately, he died once and for all never to die again, for the sins of all the people, as an adult.

Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

However, in my belief he died the first time as a child for the sin of his father David to save the Kingdom. Not once and for all, to save everyone of the Kingdom. So there is a difference.

What about those who have never heard of Jesus? Have a read of Ezekiel 18.

That's what I believe purgatory is for, days of death being compared to Jonah repenting in the whale.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Have a read of Ezekiel 18.

We still die physical death for the sin of Adam, the New Covenant is not fully in effect yet. Ezekiel 18 is talking about the future.

Otherwise Jesus would not have died for anyone else's sins but his own, right?

Jeremiah 31:29-31 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Obsidian

June 24th 2009, 11:10 AM

John Goddard

June 24th 2009, 11:47 AM

John Goddard, your interpretation defies scientific knowledge. Bathsheba and Mary can't both be his mother. Furthermore, the Bible makes it rather clear that Jesus never sinned. How could he possibly have been a Buddhist teenager?

Are you on drugs?

Virgins today can be impregnated by IVF from a different mother. Same type of scenario, the child was resurrected from the dead to be born from the womb a second time.

The Bible says Jesus was tempted and remained sinless, but was it his entire life? Or after he was baptized the water baptism of repentance in Matthew 4, then tempted and remained sinless after that?

It doesn't really say, and since I'm not a Trinitarian who believes he was born a perfect God, but rather that he was born a regular human made perfect through his obedience to God according to Hebrews 5, I'm not chained to any one doctrine regarding that matter.

headheart

June 25th 2009, 11:23 AM

I'm not chained to any one doctrine regarding that matter.

65608

I would agree with you. You are chained by a very old heresy, one which Jesus wants to free you from.
As I said before, your Jesus is too weak to free you from these chains.
Unless you agree with the Scritures about the identity of Jesus, then you are bound to remain trapped by this heresy. It is that simple.

Passages such as 1 John 3:5 and 1 John 4:2 compel you to let go of these chains and give to Jesus the glory that is due by you.

Sincerely,
HH.

John Goddard

June 25th 2009, 12:01 PM

65608

I would agree with you. You are chained by a very old heresy, one which Jesus wants to free you from.
As I said before, your Jesus is too weak to free you from these chains.
Unless you agree with the Scritures about the identity of Jesus, then you are bound to remain trapped by this heresy. It is that simple.

Passages such as 1 John 3:5 and 1 John 4:2 compel you to let go of these chains and give to Jesus the glory that is due by you.

Sincerely,
HH.

In Jesus IS NO SIN, presently.

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Show me a WAS NEVER SIN and explain why he felt he needed John's baptism of repentance.

Also explain who David was talking about here, since David sinned against Uriah not just God, and as far as I know, David was not conceived in sin.

Psalms 51:4-5 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalms 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

John 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

But as I indicated, I haven't decided either way, so I'm not chained to anything regarding this issue.

---------------------------

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

I confess Jesus is Messiah and existed in the flesh.

---------------------------

To claim Jesus was born a perfect God who could not sin robs him of the glory of being born a regular man who could sin but conquered it through his obedience to God.

Obsidian

June 25th 2009, 12:16 PM

John the Baptist specifically whispers in his ear right before they do the ritual and reminds Jesus that he doesn't need the baptism. Jesus did it simply to set an example -- and also to provide an illustration of the Trinity (which followed the ritual), something you obviously missed out on.

To claim Jesus was born a perfect God who could not sin robs him of the glory of being born a regular man who could sin but conquered it through his obedience to God.

Theoretically, he could sin, the same way God could theoretically lie or insult himself -- but can't bring himself to do either. But practically speaking, Jesus couldn't sin because sinning would violate his own nature.

headheart

June 25th 2009, 12:50 PM

You say...

To claim Jesus was born a perfect God who could not sin robs him of the glory of being born a regular man who could sin but conquered it through his obedience to God.

How do you interpret John 1:14 and Philippians 2:6 ?

Sincerely,
HH.

btw. We can return to 1 John 3:5 and 1 John 4:2 later .:wink:

John Goddard

June 25th 2009, 12:53 PM

John the Baptist specifically whispers in his ear right before they do the ritual and reminds Jesus that he doesn't need the baptism.

John never tells Jesus he doesn't need it, you should read it again. Jesus says he does need it to fulfill all righteousness.

Matthew 3:14-15 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Jesus did it simply to set an example -- and also to provide an illustration of the Trinity (which followed the ritual), something you obviously missed out on.

Well, that's one explanation of why Jesus needed it. But a similar thing happened at the Transfiguration.

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

So maybe Moses, Elijah, and Jesus are also an illustration of the Trinity? I think rather there is a better explanation.

Theoretically, he could sin, the same way God could theoretically lie or insult himself -- but can't bring himself to do either. But practically speaking, Jesus couldn't sin because sinning would violate his own nature.

God can't be tempted, but Jesus was.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

So your explanation is lacking, and I remain undecided about it.

I also don't see any need for a temptation to sin in the wilderness unless Jesus really did get a baptism of repentance from John. Do you think he did that as an example for Christians to follow too?

Rather I am somewhat inclined to think he got a real baptism of repentance, and that his desire to dedicate his life to God and to repent of all sin from then on was being tested by the devil. Thus, from that time on, Jesus was sinless.

But not enough is said in the Bible to know what happened before that.

headheart

June 25th 2009, 01:02 PM

But not enough is said in the Bible to know what happened before that.

:lmbo: That is why we have doctrine.

John Goddard

June 25th 2009, 03:22 PM

:lmbo: That is why we have doctrine.

Yeah, some dude just made something up that sounded good and others went with it. Like the bit about John telling Jesus he didn't need baptism when John never said it, good example.

headheart

June 25th 2009, 03:30 PM

Jesus couldn't sin because sinning would violate his own nature.

Obsidian,
The Jehovah's Witnesses and Adoptionists (of which John Goddard is one) both share the same flea infested rug. Most people who believe in this idea, reject what has been taught by the apostle John in John 1 , and 1 John as well as what was taught by the apostle Paul in Colossians 2
The Adoptionist ideas was condemned as a heresy in the 2nd century by Pope Victor, and then again though it surfaced with less venom in the 8th century by Pope Leo III. The reason for this is because those who embrace this poisonous heresy deny the pre-existence of Christ and, therefore, His deity.
I used to argue with Jehovah's Witnesses about this, until I realized that heresies have brothers and sisters (not the nice sort.)
John you are ever in my prayers, and tonight again.

Sincerely,
HH.

headheart

June 25th 2009, 03:38 PM

Yeah, some dude just made something up that sounded good and others went with it.

John,
When I refer to doctrine, I mean doctrine as it is taught by the apostles.

Like the bit about John telling Jesus he didn't need baptism when John never said it, good example.

I cannot answer for Obsidian's flamboyant comments, but you certainly can dish up a few of your own rather speculative humdingers. 'he felt he needed John's baptism of repentance'

:rofl::ale:

btw. We can return to John 1:14 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+1%3A14) , Philippians 2:6 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Philippians+2%3A6) , 1 John 3:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+John+3%3A5) , 1 John 4:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+John+4%3A2) , tommorrow.

headheart

June 25th 2009, 04:12 PM

It's my position Jesus was born to Bathsheba from the flesh, died per 2 Samuel 12:14 and Romans 1:3, then he was resurrected by the Spirit into the womb of Mary to be born a second time through the womb.

So this pertains to straight resurrection of a baby, not even a spiritual conversion. Babies don't need to be converted.

But since Jesus died again and lived to be an adult, he needed to be converted, and that's what he did with John the Baptist.

Jesus could have been a Buddhist atheist teenager for all the Bible says about it.

65613

"What have you been smokin' dude? Whatever it is, it is way to poisonous for my blood stream. Maybe some other time!"

:dizzy::shrug::huh: :noid:

John Goddard

June 25th 2009, 04:58 PM

I cannot answer for Obsidian's flamboyant comments, but you certainly can dish up a few of your own rather speculative humdingers.

Jesus did feel like he needed John's baptism of repentance to fulfill all righteousness.

Unless you say he didn't feel like it but needed it anyway, why would you say that though?

"What have you been smokin' dude? Whatever it is, it is way to poisonous for my blood stream. Maybe some other time!"

Your comments are too vague and cryptic to make any sense, you should be more specific.

Obsidian

June 25th 2009, 06:43 PM

Jesus said he needed it for some purpose. John at least suggested that Jesus did not need it the same way John's other disciples needed it. Try reading my posts more carefully.

For John, a righteous man and among the greatest of the Old Covenant, to tell Jesus that he himself needed Jesus's baptism simply testified about Jesus's pre-existing righteousness. Jesus did not need to repent.

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

So my comments might not have been an explicit, word-for-word reading of the text, but they were hardly "flamboyant."

apostoli

June 25th 2009, 07:16 PM

Hi John,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your post #3 to me. I only, just now, became aware that the other thread had been split. I won't reply to your post point by point, but will attempt to examine some of the concerns that you have expressed, so far, throughout this thread. Albeit, given time & post limits, I'll need to be succint and therefore, undoubtedly incomplete in my reponses...

I'm not sure how to relate to you, what your reference point is. I'll assume new age, influenced by a merging of Christianity & Buddhism.

Born of the flesh

Imu, there are two components. 1: origins & 2: condition.

Origins

By sex or not?

In practical terms, origins have relevence in respect of linage and thus inheritance.

Inheritence rights, in respect to the Kingdom of God, is what underlies the teaching of the OT & NT. Jesus didn't earn his position, it was his birthright! Which he confirmed! After all, he'd held his position of authority over all creation from the beginning of all things (cp. Heb 1-3; Col 1:16 etc).

In orthodox christianity, Jesus' origins are said to be of God the Father via the overshadowing of the woman Mary by the Holy Spirit. As I'm sure you know, in pagan mythology, it was required that the "god" physically copulate with the woman, and impregnate her to produce offspring (eg: the seduction of Europa by Zeus). If I recall, Vishnu incarnates periodically via the copulation of two humans, but supplants the soul of the offspring. Both these ideas conflict with the NT view. Instead, in some way, via the Spirit, Mary conceives of child. There are numerous scientific explanations to explain Mary conceiving. However, IVF is a form of impregnation so is to be eliminated. Spontaneous conception is a known fact in nature in several species, so this is an option!

That aside: the reality of science, raises the question regarding the fatherhood of God in respect of Jesus = Is it just a metaphor?.

The church addresses this via the teaching of the two births: 1. the begettal of the Son by the Father before all ages (born but not as other things are born) & 2. the transference of the Son to Mary for the purpose of assimilating flesh and born into the world as fully human in being. Your view seems to accept the two birth idea. Albeit, you ascribe to the idea that Jesus is the reinarnated Son of David & Bethsheba. Your view reuires that Jesus is not Son of God in terms of linage or right to inheritence, but Son of David, a claim to which Jesus never appeals! However, accepting Mary as of the lineage of David, in the churches view, Jesus is Son of God directly and Son of David by linage and thus has the respective inheritence rights.

Condition

Given Jesus' & A.Paul's teaching on flesh, I don't perceive this refers to origins of sexual birth but the condition of the heart/mind. This may accord with buddhist teaching where they give the example of children: all babies are by nature entirely selfish (the featus moreso being a parasite inside the mothers womb). Scientifically, it is demonstrated that the average child does not have self awareness and realisation of distinction until about aged 5 and therefore these can only have self (fleshly) orientations (the instinct for survival at all costs). As the child grows they become aware of others self and may become either more selfish or seek to gradually empty themselves of self, or at least minimise selfish inclination. I accept, though the terminology is different, that there is commonality in Jesus' and A.Paul's teaching, and Buddhist teaching. However, the objectives are different. Imo, Buddhism is isolationist, the seeking of the eventual unity of self with the cosmos. In contrast, Christianity is suppose to be corporate, the unity of selves now = the path to selflessness!

John's baptism of Repentance

Thinking this refers to corporal sin is another misnomer. The word rendered "repentance" in the Greek is "metanoia" = "a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done"

John did not challenge the Temple sacrifices so he was not teaching a replacement of the atonement sacrifices, which in Jewish thought, only could cleanse sin. John's idea was renewal, an abolution to prepare the way of the Lord. One of the reasons all those that had undergone John's baptism, were rebaptised into the death of Christ.

What we view with Jesus' participation, is an abolution, a clensing of his prior attachment to the world, in prepartion for his ministry.

The Essenes had a ritual "full immersion" cleansing practices. I've read, that in some communities the ritual was daily, before work or prayer could commence.

Of interest: I've read: in Jewish rabbinic thought, when one progesses in different callings it called for renewal, and the renwal was refered to as a new birth.

The temptation of Jesus in the desert

This is a misnomer. There is no evidence that Jesus was tempted whatsoever, in fact from Jesus' responses the exact opposite. All that Satan offered Jesus, Jesus as Son of God already possessed by birthright! What we have is Satan testing whether Jesus was just another man, claiming to be the messiah of political Israel or the prophecy of his downfall was being fulfilled, and the Son of God had come. Have a read of the Gospels and note the various demons' reaction to Jesus.

Jesus was under no threat in this account, so nothing to gain. However, Jesus much later underwent an agonising temptation, praying to his Father "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [will]". He tells the disciples who had fallen asleep "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed [is] willing, but the flesh [is] weak." He went away again, and prayed, saying, "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." (Mt 26:38-42)

Of interest: the word rendered "temptation" in the Greek is "peirasmos" = the trial of man's fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy, thus a proving.

Jesus was sinless

Sin is a relative thing. A.Paul says without the Law he would not have known sin. As you would know: sin essentially means "missing the mark".

From the pharissees viewpoint, Jesus was a sinner by nature. He broke most of their rules! When Jesus lost his temper, overthrew tables and whipped people, I'm sure the temple authorities considered him as sinning. When he rejected his mother and brethren, in some peoples eyes he breached the 5th commandment. When he and his disciples plucked grain and they walked through a field on the sabbath, in some peoples eyes he breached the 4th commandment. Yes, by the standards of man, Jesus was a sinner. But did he ever sin, miss the standard set by his Father, that all mankind should have been following? No! As the Father declared from heaven, and witnesses heard him, "this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased".

Law was made for man, not man for the Law. Without law there is no sin. Jesus was not morally subject to the law given to and by man, but the law of Love. God is love!

To claim Jesus was born a perfect God who could not sin robs him of the glory of being born a regular man who could sin but conquered it through his obedience to God.The church explains this via the kenosis of Phil 2:7 (the word used is kenoō=to empty a vessel fully). Imo, what we have is someone who had everything, no need to attain anything. And yet, he removed himself from all he had, even his birthright, and became as his vassels, with the aim to free his vassels and prove his worth to be their lord, as first amongst equals!

Better story than Buddha, who abandoned his vassels seeking absolute introspection, with the sole aim of self attainment = all is an illusion except the self.

Peace

Obsidian

June 25th 2009, 09:10 PM

headheart

June 25th 2009, 10:15 PM

Jesus did feel like he needed John's baptism of repentance to fulfill all righteousness.

Unless you say he didn't feel like it but needed it anyway, why would you say that though?

You said...
......explain why he felt he needed John's baptism of repentance.

Please explain to me how you have managed to extrapolate from the passage below that Jesus made any decisions based on how he felt , or did feel like ?

Jesus is Baptized

(Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22)

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.14But John tried to stop him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?”
15But Jesus answered him, “Let it be this way for now, because this is the proper way for us to fulfill all righteousness.”[1] (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/#_ftn1)
At this, he permitted him to be baptized.[2] (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/#_ftn2) 16When Jesus had been baptized, he immediately came up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens opened up for him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him.17Then a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with him!”

[1] (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/#_ftnref1) 3:15 Dan 9:24

[2] (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/#_ftnref2) 3:15 The Gk. lacks to be baptized

Your comments are too vague and cryptic to make any sense, you should be more specific

Your speculations about Jesus' birth are as fantastic as fiction, but in retrospect I realize that your lust for ancient heresies (ADOPTIONISM) makes you vulnerable and succeptible to every wind of doctrine.
I cannot hope for any classic observation of Scripture here (Unorthodox Theology) so I shall rather leave you to discuss matters with apostoli and Obsidian, who seems to be responding to you more favourably.

Some other time John, for now it is goodnight.
HH

apostoli

June 26th 2009, 04:18 AM

I like your analysis of the baptism, apostoli. Too often people see the word "repent" and automatically assume that it means "stop sinning." But in any case, we should still keep in mind that... As I said to John Goddard, I was being succinct so undoubtedly incomplete. My premise is based on Jesus priesly role. Thus Ex 29:4 "And Aaron and his sons you shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, and you shall wash them with water."

Note Jesus' words to John.B "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Scrivener renders "every ordinance". Weymouth New Testament "every religious duty."

John considered the baptism improper until Jesus cajoled him.Hmm. I wouldn't call the accout as "cajoled". John.B was quick to obey. Presumably he understood "the ordinance"...

I put greater emphasis on the fact that John, though being baptiser, sought baptism from Jesus. The baptism of the spirit!

Peace

John Goddard

June 26th 2009, 01:03 PM

Jesus said he needed it for some purpose. John at least suggested that Jesus did not need it the same way John's other disciples needed it. Try reading my posts more carefully.

Jesus said he needed it to fulfill all righteousness. Since John's was a baptism of repentance, that is my first consideration rather than delving far into speculation about other reasons Jesus may have wanted it.

John says he was not worthy to give it to Jesus, that's it. John never says Jesus doesn't need it, either for repentance or for any other sense, you are just reading that into it.

For John, a righteous man and among the greatest of the Old Covenant, to tell Jesus that he himself needed Jesus's baptism simply testified about Jesus's pre-existing righteousness. Jesus did not need to repent.

For example, if Apostle Paul asked me to hear his confession for some random sin, I would be in awe of his status and say, "No, you should be the one hearing mine."

But that doesn't suggest at all that Paul was an eternal deity, or that he was always sinless. As a would-be Christian killer his own sins may be worse than any I have ever committed. But I would still feel less than worthy, regardless.

So I'm not convinced by this explanation here.

So my comments might not have been an explicit, word-for-word reading of the text, but they were hardly "flamboyant."

Well, they are still much speculation to support the Trinity doctrine, not first considering the most obvious: Jesus wanted to repent of something, even if it repenting of a much more worldly life than the one he was about to undertake as a preacher. Since of course the Bible doesn't say what kind of life he lived from 12 to 30 years of age.

Which I think is hinted at in Psalms 1:4-5, Psalms 51:7, John 19:29.

John Goddard

June 26th 2009, 01:37 PM

I'm not sure how to relate to you, what your reference point is. I'll assume new age, influenced by a merging of Christianity & Buddhism.

No, just sola scriptura.

Inheritence rights, in respect to the Kingdom of God, is what underlies the teaching of the OT & NT. Jesus didn't earn his position, it was his birthright!

If Jesus inherited his Kingdom from David, there are several problems for orthodox:

1. Mary's lineage is never given, the only hint is that she may be a Levite like Elisabeth.

2. No covenant promise came through a woman, from Abraham to David.

3. David was to keep an everlasting throne through his son (2 Samuel 7:16, 1 Kings 9:5), but that chance was lost by Solomon and David's Kingdom was toppled for a long time. So the only way for David's Kingdom to remain standing through a son would be through another immediate son of David. Which would be that dead child of 2 Samuel 12:14 resurrected into the womb of Mary, Solomon's older brother. This also explains the virgin birth, Mary did not need sex to conceive since she was just a surrogate mother.

Instead, in some way, via the Spirit, Mary conceives of child. There are numerous scientific explanations to explain Mary conceiving. However, IVF is a form of impregnation so is to be eliminated. Spontaneous conception is a known fact in nature in several species, so this is an option!

IVF is not eliminated, Mary conceived, we just aren't told how.

Spontaneous conception still leaves you with a lineage/inheritance problem per the previous paragraphs, and is not know among humans.

A resurrected embryo of David's child gestated by Mary as a surrogate solves all of those problems, and is scientifically feasible as well as pertaining to that part of the process.

Albeit, you ascribe to the idea that Jesus is the reinarnated Son of David & Bethsheba.

Not reincarnated, but resurrected same flesh and spirit. While reincarnation is same spirit, different flesh. I don't believe in reincarnation at all.

Your view reuires that Jesus is not Son of God in terms of linage or right to inheritence, but Son of David, a claim to which Jesus never appeals!

Scripture says Son of David is also Son of God, and Jesus does appeal to it.

2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. (SON OF DAVID)

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son... (SON OF GOD)

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (SON OF DAVID & GOD)

However, accepting Mary as of the lineage of David, in the churches view, Jesus is Son of God directly and Son of David by linage and thus has the respective inheritence rights.

However, it's still a wild guess that Mary descended from David as I said since her lineage is not given.

If we are going to speculate, seems like my guess that Jesus is David's own son is the simplest, as well as less troublesome, since we don't need to add further speculation as to why the covenant suddenly came through a woman when it had always gone from father to son previously.

With Matthew lineage for Joseph the Carpenter at the birth of Jesus, Luke lineage for Joseph of Arimathea as the death of Jesus, and both of those men acting like next-of-kin and adoptive fathers to Jesus.

--------------------------

What we view with Jesus' participation, is an abolution, a clensing of his prior attachment to the world, in prepartion for his ministry.

I agreed with that in my last post, repenting of a more worldly way of life. That sounds reasonable.

This is a misnomer. There is no evidence that Jesus was tempted whatsoever, in fact from Jesus' responses the exact opposite.
...
Of interest: the word rendered "temptation" in the Greek is "peirasmos" = the trial of man's fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy, thus a proving.

Well, we suffer when when struggle with temptation, and it's pretty clear Jesus suffered in all ways as we do. So maybe you are watering down his struggle with sin a little.

Hebrews 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

He was suffering in Gethsemane, being tempted not to proceed. But he remained obedient to God's will, not his own.

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

What victory would Jesus really have over sin if he was a Teflon Messiah just laughing sin away as a God would? Not much.

To me his glory comes from fighting hard with it and beating it, with God's help, like any other human must do.

Obsidian

June 26th 2009, 02:27 PM

Jesus wanted to repent of something, even if it repenting of a much more worldly life than the one he was about to undertake as a preacher. Since of course the Bible doesn't say what kind of life he lived from 12 to 30 years of age.

That is what he was doing. But a "worldly life" of carpentry isn't a sin. You're reading into "repentence" a cessation from sin.

I'm having trouble arguing against you, though, because I'm confused about your definition of repentence. At one point you say that Jesus needed to repent of his Buddhist lifestyle, and then you suggest that he needed to repent even though he was already holier than John the Baptist. Something isn't adding up.

Adrift

June 26th 2009, 03:30 PM

With Matthew lineage for Joseph the Carpenter at the birth of Jesus, Luke lineage for Joseph of Arimathea as the death of Jesus, and both of those men acting like next-of-kin and adoptive fathers to Jesus.

We covered this already almost a year ago, remember? You said that the reason you believed that Joseph of Arimathea was father-like was because he gave up his tomb, which you believe only a close kin would do. I asked if you would reconsider the issue if I could find evidence that it was not uncommon for other than kin to give up a tomb. You said you would. I found that evidence and presented it to you. You told me you were tired of the topic and would look at it later and consider it. Here were some of the relevant replies to you on this issue:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2446520&postcount=1416

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2446568&postcount=1421

Below is the main gist of the second link:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/sanhedrin6.html

How was one hanged? The beam was put in the earth, and it was fastened at the top, and he tied the hands of the culprit one upon the other, and hung him up. R. Jose said: The beam was not put in the earth, but the top of it was supported by the wall, and he hung him up as the butchers do, and he took him off immediately. And should he leave him over night, he transgressed a negative commandment, as it reads [Deut. xxi. 23]: "Thou shalt not leave his corpse on the tree over night, but thou shalt surely bury him on that day (for he that is hanged) is a dishonor of God," etc. How so? "Why is this man hanged?" "He is a blasphemer." Hence the name of Heaven is violated. [Said R. Mair: When a man is in trouble, in what language does the Shekinah lament over him? Qalleni meiraushi, qalleni miz'raay. 1 Now, if the Omnipotent grieves over the blood of the wicked which was shed, so much the more about the blood of the upright!] And not only of him who was executed it was said that he should not remain over night? But even every one who leaves unburied his corpse over night transgresses the negative commandment. However, if he left it over night for the sake of its honor, as for instance to prepare for it a coffin or shroud, he does not transgress.

The one executed was not buried in the cemetery of his parents, but two cemeteries were prepared by the court, one for those who were slain with a sword and choked, and one for those who were stoned and burned. After the flesh of the corpse was consumed, the relatives gathered the bones and buried them in their right place. And the relatives came, and greeted in peace the judges, as well as the witnesses, to show they had nothing in their heart against them, as the judgment was just. The relatives also did not lament for him loudly, but mourned in their heart.

John Goddard

June 26th 2009, 04:49 PM

That is what he was doing. But a "worldly life" of carpentry isn't a sin. You're reading into "repentence" a cessation from sin.

I'm having trouble arguing against you, though, because I'm confused about your definition of repentence. At one point you say that Jesus needed to repent of his Buddhist lifestyle, and then you suggest that he needed to repent even though he was already holier than John the Baptist. Something isn't adding up.

I never said Jesus was a Buddhist. I said for all we know he could have gone to India with Arimathea and become a Buddhist. He could have been a Zealot who killed people.

Or he could have just had lukewarm faith. Something that isn't a blatant sin against anyone, but maybe just not giving his all to God until he started his ministry. Psalms 51:4-5 obviously refer to someone other than David, and when that happens in Psalms, it is often about Jesus.

He could have done a lot of things as a young adult, we just don't know, the Bible is silent about it. But observing Occam's Razor, the simplest plain text reading is that he wanted the baptism to repent from an old way of life, whatever that was.

John Goddard

June 26th 2009, 04:57 PM

We covered this already almost a year ago, remember? You said that the reason you believed that Joseph of Arimathea was father-like was because he gave up his tomb, which you believe only a close kin would do. I asked if you would reconsider the issue if I could find evidence that it was not uncommon for other than kin to give up a tomb. You said you would. I found that evidence and presented it to you. You told me you were tired of the topic and would look at it later and consider it. Here were some of the relevant replies to you on this issue:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2446520&postcount=1416

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2446568&postcount=1421

Below is the main gist of the second link:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/sanhedrin6.html

How was one hanged? The beam was put in the earth, and it was fastened at the top, and he tied the hands of the culprit one upon the other, and hung him up. R. Jose said: The beam was not put in the earth, but the top of it was supported by the wall, and he hung him up as the butchers do, and he took him off immediately. And should he leave him over night, he transgressed a negative commandment, as it reads [Deut. xxi. 23]: "Thou shalt not leave his corpse on the tree over night, but thou shalt surely bury him on that day (for he that is hanged) is a dishonor of God," etc. How so? "Why is this man hanged?" "He is a blasphemer." Hence the name of Heaven is violated. [Said R. Mair: When a man is in trouble, in what language does the Shekinah lament over him? Qalleni meiraushi, qalleni miz'raay. 1 Now, if the Omnipotent grieves over the blood of the wicked which was shed, so much the more about the blood of the upright!] And not only of him who was executed it was said that he should not remain over night? But even every one who leaves unburied his corpse over night transgresses the negative commandment. However, if he left it over night for the sake of its honor, as for instance to prepare for it a coffin or shroud, he does not transgress.

The one executed was not buried in the cemetery of his parents, but two cemeteries were prepared by the court, one for those who were slain with a sword and choked, and one for those who were stoned and burned. After the flesh of the corpse was consumed, the relatives gathered the bones and buried them in their right place. And the relatives came, and greeted in peace the judges, as well as the witnesses, to show they had nothing in their heart against them, as the judgment was just. The relatives also did not lament for him loudly, but mourned in their heart.

This supports the idea that the family of Jesus agreed he was a criminal, and following JP Holding's assertion, that his family and also Arimathea wanted to shame Jesus by not burying him in a family tomb.

I remember the exchange and considered what you offered, but I don't think you really explained why Arimathea handled the burial as a next-of-kin does, instead of Mary or one of his brothers.

So the evidence for me is still stronger that the Carpenter acted as his father at birth, Arimathea acted as his father at death, that's who Matthew/Luke lineages are for, and that Mary was a Levite like her cousin Elisabeth.

Adrift

June 26th 2009, 05:13 PM

This supports the idea that the family of Jesus agreed he was a criminal, and following JP Holding's assertion, that his family and also Arimathea wanted to shame Jesus by not burying him in a family tomb.

I remember the exchange and considered what you offered, but I don't think you really explained why Arimathea handled the burial as a next-of-kin does, instead of Mary or one of his brothers.

So the evidence for me is still stronger that the Carpenter acted as his father at birth, Arimathea acted as his father at death, that's who Matthew/Luke lineages are for, and that Mary was a Levite like her cousin Elisabeth.

It doesn't support that assertion. What it does is lay legal ground work for what was to be done with a body of one who was executed. Its not that Jesus' family thought he was a criminal, its that they would be breaking the law by moving the body and burying it in their plot immediately. The need for this law makes perfect sense especially because where one is executed may not be close to where one's family plot is located, and in this particular case it makes plenty of sense because they had to have him buried before the coming Passover Sabbath. To just hand wave this all away seems extremely intellectually dishonest to me. There is almost nothing going for your theory except a hunch.

apostoli

June 26th 2009, 09:41 PM

Hello John,

No, just sola scriptura.I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

Inheritence rights, in respect to the Kingdom of God, is what underlies the teaching of the OT & NT. Jesus didn't earn his position, it was his birthright!If Jesus inherited his Kingdom from David, there are several problems for orthodox:So the Jews often suggest ;-)

1. Mary's lineage is never given, the only hint is that she may be a Levite like Elisabeth.There are early sources external to the scriptures that trace Mary to David >> Natham >>>> Levi >> Panther >> Joachim >> Mary (eg: Doctrina Jacobi). So for what its worth there is an early tradition.

Its generally accepted that Luke gives Jesus' linage through Mary. Though I am also aware of the idea of two legal linages (two fathers via levitical marriage). The later gives a stronger case for Jesus' ascendency to the throne as it traces Joseph to both Solomon & Natham. In the Zohar the Messiah is said to arise via Nathan, whilst the Talmud has the line via Solomon. But of interest is Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-18. Given Jeremiah 33:18 it would be beneficial if Mary was from the house of Levi in some way.

It doesn't matter, whether Luke gives Mary's or Joseph's legal linage, as Jesus is the legally adopted son of Joseph and so attains full inheritance rights. I'll address the objections concerning Coniah (Jehoram) in your point 2.

2. No covenant promise came through a woman, from Abraham to David.Indeed! Though there is precedence in attribution: The Jewish Zohar has it that the messiah would arise from Natham's wife. Such makes interesting Mathew's unusual mentioning of women in the linages.

There are inheritence provisions for women in the OT, but these flowed to the husband upon marriage. So legally all goes via the male.

Mary isn't particularly important in establishing Jesus claim to the throne, but as the adopted son of Joseph he had full inheritence rights. So lets look at Joseph's inheritence rights. As he can be traced to Coniah (Jehoram) an objection is raised that...

YHWH had Jeremiah place a curse on the last king of Judah, Coniah (Joseph's ancestor), that "this man [will be as if] childless...For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah" (Jer 22:30). Note: Coniah had not lost his right to the throne, nor had his descendents. The curse merely ensured that his bloodline would not be able to sit upon the Davidic throne in Judea. The curse does not indicate "ever again" so Jer 22:26 may indicate it is limited to the duration of the exile.

Lets assume the curse stands!

The curse is limited to the bloodline of Coniah. Jesus wasn't of the bloodline of Coniah, so the curse does not apply! To reinterate, Coniah's bloodline had not lost the right to the throne, merely YHWH made provision that they could not sit on the throne of David themselves. But as the curse was not on the household but the bloodline there is no prohibition for an adopted child to legally ascend to the throne with God's sanction!

NB: All kings of Judea, are deemed appointments of YHWH. YHWH does not undo his appointments. Failures he address' by misplacement (usually exile or death).

3. David was to keep an everlasting throne through his son (2 Samuel 7:16, 1 Kings 9:5), but that chance was lost by Solomon and David's Kingdom was toppled for a long time. So the only way for David's Kingdom to remain standing through a son would be through another immediate son of David. Which would be that dead child of 2 Samuel 12:14 resurrected into the womb of Mary, Solomon's older brother. This also explains the virgin birth, Mary did not need sex to conceive since she was just a surrogate mother.Under the law, the child was illegitimate. Thus YHWH made sure he could not ascend to the throne. The child had no birthright under the law. Merely being sired by man does not give the child a birthright (cp. Isaac vs Ishmael).

So your idea, while attractive to new agers, and advocates of reincarnation has no validity. Should the child ascend to the throne, it would be an illegitimate rule, not sanctioned by YHWH. Which is why YHH did not save the child from death.

Your remark "the only way for David's Kingdom to remain standing through a son would be through another immediate son of David" has some validity. Any living, male descendent of David begot legitimately could have readily assumed the throne, should YHWH have permitted it.

IVF is not eliminated, Mary conceived, we just aren't told how.Actually we are! And it wasn't by an egg being impregnation by sperm.

Spontaneous conception still leaves you with a lineage/inheritance problem per the previous paragraphs, and is not know among humans.Actually it is - though rare. Its been under scientific investigation for sometime. Especially lately as it is occuring more frequently since fertility treatments are becoming common practice - forget whether the featus is viable or not. Even back in the 60's it was demonstrated that a human female's unfertilised egg could be induced to commence mitosis.

A resurrected embryo of David's child gestated by Mary as a surrogate solves all of those problems, and is scientifically feasible as well as pertaining to that part of the process.Actually not. As said above, the child would have no legitimate inheritence rights, and no sanction by YHWH to ascend the throne of David. However, the gestation by Mary of one without legal defect would!

I presume one of the objections you'd raise in regard to Jesus being God-man is it would make him a hybrid or more paticularly a Chimera (a genetic condition that occurs in humans), part man and part God, but not fully either. Science gives an interesting alternative: There is a rare condition in humans called mosaicism, which denotes the presence of two populations of cells with different genotypes in one individual. Thus even scientifically it can be proven that it is possible for one individual to have two complete physis, just as the Chalcedon council concluded.

Albeit, you ascribe to the idea that Jesus is the reinarnated Son of David & Bethsheba.Not reincarnated, but resurrected same flesh and spirit. While reincarnation is same spirit, different flesh. I don't believe in reincarnation at all.Seems you believe in some hybrid. Resurrection in Jewish & Christian belief requires no intermediary "gestation". They are raised complete and accountable (eg: Rev 20:12; also see all accounts of resurrection in scripture).

_______________

I agreed with that in my last post, repenting of a more worldly way of life. That sounds reasonable.From your remarks: I presume we agree that Jesus was not baptised for forgiveness or repentence of sins, but as a symbol of cleansing and renewal as indicated in Exodus for the priesthood, and as was custom amoungst Rabbi when embarking on a change of career, and that the occasion has no Buddhist overtones (?)

Well, we suffer when when struggle with temptation, and it's pretty clear Jesus suffered in all ways as we do. So maybe you are watering down his struggle with sin a little.The only sin a Christian can occasion arises from failing the law of Love. Love of God, and fellow man more than yourself. For we are not under any other Law. See A.Paul's various sermons.

There is one sin I think Jesus was very tempted to make (for obvious reasons) and that was disobedience to his Father = it would have demonstrated a lack of love for all mankind.

What victory would Jesus really have over sin if he was a Teflon Messiah just laughing sin away as a God would? Not much.Well I wouldn't call him the Teflon Messiah. Teflon scratches and wears away. There are more resilent materials that are stickless ;-)

As I said in my previous post, sin is relative. People make up unneccessay constraints in life and then get paranoid because when they are breached, the self righteous scream "sinner"! Jesus freed us from that thought pattern. The only thing that should constrain a christian is the simple rules "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" and "love your neighbour more than yourself". Do such, and there is nothing to fret about ;-)

To me his glory comes from fighting hard with it and beating it, with God's help, like any other human must do.Amen. The Law of Love is a tough master!

Peace

Obsidian

June 26th 2009, 10:01 PM

John Goddard, Psalm 51 is talking about David. Don't be ridiculous.

11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

At what point did the dead baby -- or Jesus -- receive the Holy Spirit and then worry about losing it? It's talking about David. He didn't want to end up like Saul.

John Goddard

June 27th 2009, 10:15 AM

It doesn't support that assertion. What it does is lay legal ground work for what was to be done with a body of one who was executed.

Problem is you are offering sources for Jewish Law for Jewish executions, not Roman Law for Roman executions:

"The one executed was not buried in the cemetery of his parents, but two cemeteries were prepared by the court, one for those who were slain with a sword and choked, and one for those who were stoned and burned. After the flesh of the corpse was consumed, the relatives gathered the bones and buried them in their right place..."

What you offer here is irrelevant since Arimathea got permission from Pilate to bury him in his own tomb, not a special tomb of the Jewish court.

Matthew 27:60 And laid it in his own new tomb...

Because Matthew and Luke list lineages two Josephs who are obviously not the biological fathers of Jesus, and two Josephs assisted at his birth and death as next-of-kin would, then the simplest and most obvious reading is that the lineages of Matthew and Luke are for the Carpenter and Arimathea.

And that Arimathea might also use that same tomb for all the family of Jesus.

John Goddard

June 27th 2009, 10:24 AM

John Goddard, Psalm 51 is talking about David. Don't be ridiculous.

David sinned against Uriah for one, not just God. Read again.

Psalms 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned...

At what point did the dead baby -- or Jesus -- receive the Holy Spirit and then worry about losing it? It's talking about David. He didn't want to end up like Saul.

These would seem to fit, though not exactly the way you are framing it.

Psalms 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

Psalms 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Here are some other verses in the chapter.

Psalms 51:13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

Psalms 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Jesus worked with sinners didn't he?

Obsidian

June 27th 2009, 11:19 AM

Jesus was the perfect David, and of course he worked with sinners. But you obviously don't understand hyperbole. All sins are against God, and they're almost always against someone else, too. Are you suggesting that Jesus was a sinner, but never did anything else wrong except direct blasphemy against God? You're just digging yourself into a hole with these silly theories.

John Goddard

June 27th 2009, 11:35 AM

Inheritence rights, in respect to the Kingdom of God, is what underlies the teaching of the OT & NT. Jesus didn't earn his position, it was his birthright!

Well if he failed God like Solomon did then I'm sure it would have gone to someone else, so he earned it too.

Originally posted by John Goddard
1. Mary's lineage is never given, the only hint is that she may be a Levite like Elisabeth.

There are early sources external to the scriptures that trace Mary to David >> Natham >>>> Levi >> Panther >> Joachim >> Mary (eg: Doctrina Jacobi). So for what its worth there is an early tradition.

Sure, the idea came from somewhere early on, Apocrypha tries to fill in various gaps, including lineage of Mary, early years of Jesus, etc. But it isn't in the Bible.

Its generally accepted that Luke gives Jesus' linage through Mary. Though I am also aware of the idea of two legal linages (two fathers via levitical marriage). The later gives a stronger case for Jesus' ascendency to the throne as it traces Joseph to both Solomon & Natham. In the Zohar the Messiah is said to arise via Nathan, whilst the Talmud has the line via Solomon. But of interest is Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-18. Given Jeremiah 33:18 it would be beneficial if Mary was from the house of Levi in some way.

The promise of Messiah for Solomon was halted in 1 Kings 11:11, and then nothing is shown in the Bible why it would shift to Nathan, another of Solomon's sons and it also leaves the problem of my point #2 down to Mary.

As well as the problem of many generations and years passing for David with no son on the throne, breaking God's promise.

1 Kings 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

But the son directly after the Messianic promise of 2 Samuel 7:12 was the one who died for David's sin, Solomon's older brother, which mirrors what Jesus dying for all the world.

If the child was resurrected to take the throne, then there would be no break in generations and David's promise would be kept.

Given Jeremiah 33:18 it would be beneficial if Mary was from the house of Levi in some way.

As a surrogate Levite giving birth to a new priest of Judah like Melchizedek, New Covenant coming from Old Covenant, it is very symbolic.

It doesn't matter, whether Luke gives Mary's or Joseph's legal linage, as Jesus is the legally adopted son of Joseph and so attains full inheritance rights. I'll address the objections concerning Coniah (Jehoram) in your point 2.

The promise of Messiah for Solomon was halted in 1 Kings 11:11, per 1 Kings 9:5-6. So Messianic inheritance from Solomon in Matthew's lineage isn't there. We don't need to even get to Coniah.

Originally posted by John Goddard
2. No covenant promise came through a woman, from Abraham to David.

Indeed! Though there is precedence in attribution: The Jewish Zohar has it that the messiah would arise from Natham's wife. Such makes interesting Mathew's unusual mentioning of women in the linages.

Well, Nathan is in Luke's lineage where Mary is not mentioned, so that's not quite consistent. What does it have to do with Matthew? Matthew mentions Bathsheba, does that support my idea that she is the biological mother of Jesus? See what I mean.

Matthew 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

But this can still agree with what you say. Mary could be surrogate mother of Jesus from Nathan, and Messiah would still arise from her. This is irrelevant to royal or genetic inheritance since Jesus would get it directly from David and Bathsheba, but it would agree with the Zohar.

Though I think it is more consistent that Luke's lineage is for Joseph of Arimathea.

There are inheritence provisions for women in the OT, but these flowed to the husband upon marriage. So legally all goes via the male. Mary isn't particularly important in establishing Jesus claim to the throne, but as the adopted son of Joseph he had full inheritence rights. So lets look at Joseph's inheritence rights. As he can be traced to Coniah (Jehoram) an objection is raised that...

As I said earlier Messianic inheritance through Solomon was halted in 1 Kings 11:11so we don't really need to go farther with Joseph, he had no apparent Messianic promise to pass on to Jesus.

And there is no precedent for a woman to get it from Nathan, if the Bible even said it shifted from Solomon to Nathan.

So we are right where we started.

Originally posted by John Goddard
3. David was to keep an everlasting throne through his son (2 Samuel 7:16, 1 Kings 9:5), but that chance was lost by Solomon and David's Kingdom was toppled for a long time. So the only way for David's Kingdom to remain standing through a son would be through another immediate son of David. Which would be that dead child of 2 Samuel 12:14 resurrected into the womb of Mary, Solomon's older brother. This also explains the virgin birth, Mary did not need sex to conceive since she was just a surrogate mother.

Under the law, the child was illegitimate. Thus YHWH made sure he could not ascend to the throne. The child had no birthright under the law. Merely being sired by man does not give the child a birthright (cp. Isaac vs Ishmael).

I agree that God caused the child to die because he could not take the throne without enemies accusing God of bending the rules. But only so he could be resurrected as Jesus later to rightfully take it, with resurrection erasing all mamzer status.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jeremiah 31:29-31 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

All of this saying, resurrection according to the Spirit erases sins of the fathers placed on the sons according to the Flesh, including mamzer status.

So your idea, while attractive to new agers, and advocates of reincarnation has no validity. Should the child ascend to the throne, it would be an illegitimate rule, not sanctioned by YHWH. Which is why YHH did not save the child from death.

Reincarnation is same spirit, different body, not biblical.

Resurrection is same spirit and body, entirely biblical, and my position. So you are arguing a strawman by equating it to reincarnation.

Do you think babies are going to be mamzers in the Resurrection? If so this would contradict Jeremiah 31:29-31.

Your remark "the only way for David's Kingdom to remain standing through a son would be through another immediate son of David" has some validity. Any living, male descendent of David begot legitimately could have readily assumed the throne, should YHWH have permitted it.

Except that it was lost with Solomon for many years and generations, first divided then altogether with Babylon, thus breaking the promise to David.

So an immediate son who could take a complete throne from David, the only one who had promise of an undivided Israel, would be necessary to fulfill David's promise.

This could only be accomplished by resurrection of such a son many years later. As I said, that's why there was a virgin birth, no sex was needed for Mary to be a surrogate.

Originally posted by John Goddard
IVF is not eliminated, Mary conceived, we just aren't told how.

Actually we are! And it wasn't by an egg being impregnation by sperm.

We are told the Holy Spirit made it happen, we don't know how. But resurrection is also by the Spirit. Thus resurrection into the womb is my position.

Originally posted by John Goddard
Spontaneous conception still leaves you with a lineage/inheritance problem per the previous paragraphs, and is not know among humans.

Actually it is - though rare. Its been under scientific investigation for sometime. Especially lately as it is occuring more frequently since fertility treatments are becoming common practice - forget whether the featus is viable or not. Even back in the 60's it was demonstrated that a human female's unfertilised egg could be induced to commence mitosis.

No child has ever been born from this, as I am aware, do you know of any cases? Aside from other problems with Mary being the sole parent already mentioned.

Originally posted by John Goddard
A resurrected embryo of David's child gestated by Mary as a surrogate solves all of those problems, and is scientifically feasible as well as pertaining to that part of the process.

Actually not. As said above, the child would have no legitimate inheritence rights, and no sanction by YHWH to ascend the throne of David. However, the gestation by Mary of one without legal defect would!

Already addressed, no mamzer status after resurrection.

I presume one of the objections you'd raise in regard to Jesus being God-man is it would make him a hybrid or more paticularly a Chimera (a genetic condition that occurs in humans), part man and part God, but not fully either. Science gives an interesting alternative: There is a rare condition in humans called mosaicism, which denotes the presence of two populations of cells with different genotypes in one individual. Thus even scientifically it can be proven that it is possible for one individual to have two complete physis, just as the Chalcedon council concluded.

Why would that even be a consideration for either of us, unless you believe God impregnated Mary with God-sperm?

It's nothing to do with my position, at any rate, since my Adoptionist position is that Jesus was progressively glorified with God's spirit dwelling fully in him, so that he is God in a man. So he was not born a perfect God, but made perfect through his obedience to God as an adult.

Hebrews 5:8-9 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Seems you believe in some hybrid. Resurrection in Jewish & Christian belief requires no intermediary "gestation". They are raised complete and accountable (eg: Rev 20:12; also see all accounts of resurrection in scripture).

Actually the Bible never says that people are raised at the same age they die at. This part of it is a mystery. If God wanted an infant to be raised back up as an embryo, I have no doubt God has the power to do it.

But nevertheless, some related aspects of this idea are addressed.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Isaiah 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

-----------------

From your remarks: I presume we agree that Jesus was not baptised for forgiveness or repentence of sins, but as a symbol of cleansing and renewal as indicated in Exodus for the priesthood, and as was custom amoungst Rabbi when embarking on a change of career, and that the occasion has no Buddhist overtones (?)

The only sin a Christian can occasion arises from failing the law of Love. Love of God, and fellow man more than yourself. For we are not under any other Law. See A.Paul's various sermons.

There is one sin I think Jesus was very tempted to make (for obvious reasons) and that was disobedience to his Father = it would have demonstrated a lack of love for all mankind.

I suspect Jesus had resisted a calling to full-time ministry for a while, but finally dedicated his life to it with full force at the baptism. At that point Jesus didn't run away and wasn't forced into it, like Jonah was, so Jesus was greater, Matthew 12:41.

So Psalms 51 says the person only sinned against God, no one else. Which again, could not apply to David since David sinned against other men too.

Adrift

June 27th 2009, 11:35 AM

Edited for clarity.

Problem is you are offering sources for Jewish Law for Jewish executions, not Roman Law for Roman executions:

"The one executed was not buried in the cemetery of his parents, but two cemeteries were prepared by the court, one for those who were slain with a sword and choked, and one for those who were stoned and burned. After the flesh of the corpse was consumed, the relatives gathered the bones and buried them in their right place..."

What you offer here is irrelevant since Arimathea got permission from Pilate to bury him in his own tomb, not a special tomb of the Jewish court.

Matthew 27:60 And laid it in his own new tomb...

Its ridiculous the ends you're trying to wriggle out of this to hold onto your pet theory. You're telling me that the Jews could not follow Jewish custom for burying a criminal because the Romans crucified Jesus? That's just silly. The tractate also mentions the curse that comes upon those hung upon a tree. Does this too not apply to Jesus because he was executed by Romans? Paul doesn't seem to think so:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Joseph of Arimathea is on the Sanhedrin, and its far more likely that the Sanhedrin had prepared temporary tombs close to the Roman execution areas in keeping with this law. What would the Romans care about Jewish burial rites for criminals? We're even told bluntly the reason why Jesus was buried quickly, and it doesn't seem at all to take into consideration Roman law for burying criminals, but of Jewish custom.

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

Because Matthew and Luke list lineages two Josephs who are obviously not the biological fathers of Jesus, and two Josephs assisted at his birth and death as next-of-kin would, then the simplest and most obvious reading is that the lineages of Matthew and Luke are for the Carpenter and Arimathea.

And of course, this is pure speculation on your part. Complete conjecture. We know the relationship of Joseph of Arimathea to Jesus. That has never ever been a mystery.

When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus
Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God
Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God.
After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus

And that Arimathea might also use that same tomb for all the family of Jesus.

Again, pure conjecture on your part. Its more than likely that Jesus already had a family tomb, and Arimathea's wasn't it, otherwise scripture would have told us more about it. The only thing Pilate cared about was that the "criminal" was dead, and he was surprised that he had died so soon. Other than that, the Romans apparently cared nothing at all about how to bury him. The only other thing they did was consent to have guards at the tomb when the chief priests asked.

John Goddard

June 27th 2009, 11:57 AM

Since it wasn't legal for Jews to execute criminals anyways, especially in the manner described in the Sanhedrin tractate, your point seems moot. The tractate isn't describing legal ways to kill criminals, its describing legal ways to bury one.

Read what you posted again:

The one executed was not buried in the cemetery of his parents, but two cemeteries were prepared by the court, one for those who were slain with a sword and choked, and one for those who were stoned and burned.

Was the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea a tomb prepared by any court after those methods of Jewish executions? What you posted is way off of the Gospel account, and irrelevant.

Joseph of Arimathea is on the Sanhedrin, and its far more likely that the Sanhedrin had prepared temporary tombs close to the Roman execution areas in keeping with this law.

Ok so now you are changing the Gospels to say it was the tomb of the Sanhedrin, not Joseph's own tomb, just to make your point work. Am I supposed to take that seriously?

Matthew 27:60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

What would the Romans care about Jewish burial rites for criminals? We're even told bluntly the reason why Jesus was buried quickly, and it doesn't seem at all to take into consideration Roman law for burying criminals. That's just something you're making up whole cloth because Joseph asked for Jesus' body.

I never said they cared, I said you are twisting it around to make it seem like the Sanhedrin was in charge at that point, when Pilate actually was.

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

It was also the tomb of Arimathea, and just happened to be close by. So?

And of course, this is pure speculation on your part. Complete conjecture. We know the relationship of Joseph of Arimathea to Jesus. That has never ever been a mystery.

This doesn't exclude that he could have also acted in a father role, just as the Carpenter did.

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Again, pure conjecture on your part. Its more than likely that Jesus already had a family tomb, and Arimathea's wasn't it, otherwise scripture would have told us more about it.

It doesn't say either way. We only know there are two lineages for two Josephs, and both the Carpenter and Arimathea acted like next-of-kin at his birth and death not only using his own tomb, but also preparing the body.

There is no evidence some random follower would grab the body of Jesus and prepare it with spices, when family usually did that.

The only thing Pilate cared about was that the "criminal" as dead, and he was surprised that he had died so soon. Other than that, the Romans apparently cared nothing at all about how to bury him. The only other thing they did was consent to have guards at the tomb when the chief priests asked.

Romans were still in charge of this process though. Not Jews after a Jewish execution which is what you posted from the Sanhedrin tractate.

John Goddard

June 27th 2009, 12:00 PM

All sins are against God, and they're almost always against someone else, too.

This one is only against God:

Psalms 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Doesn't fit with David since he sinned against Uriah too.

Adrift

June 27th 2009, 03:10 PM

Read what you posted again:

The one executed was not buried in the cemetery of his parents, but two cemeteries were prepared by the court, one for those who were slain with a sword and choked, and one for those who were stoned and burned.

Was the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea a tomb prepared by any court after those methods of Jewish executions? What you posted is way off of the Gospel account, and irrelevant.

Ok so now you are changing the Gospels to say it was the tomb of the Sanhedrin, not Joseph's own tomb, just to make your point work. Am I supposed to take that seriously?

Matthew 27:60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

You're needlessly splitting hairs. Joseph of Arimathea is on the Sanhedrin. It is within his rights to prepare a tomb for Jesus according to the Sanhedrin Tractate. From the wording in Matthew, this could be Joseph's personal tomb, or it could be a tomb Joseph personally had prepared, either way, Joseph is following the legal precept already laid out for what to do with the body of criminals who have been hung on a tree. If this is Joseph's personal tomb (which I believe it probably is), then it hurts your case even worse. Jesus' family tomb should be in Nazareth, not in Jerusalem.

I never said they cared, I said you are twisting it around to make it seem like the Sanhedrin was in charge at that point, when Pilate actually was.

I'm not twisting it around. You're the one who's doing all the twisting, adding all of this speculation and conjecture in the middle of a perfectly clear outline. And there is precedence in Jewish custom to take the body back from the state:

No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state.

It was also the tomb of Arimathea, and just happened to be close by. So?

So, Jesus was from Nazareth. This is not his family plot.

This doesn't exclude that he could have also acted in a father role, just as the Carpenter did.

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Your case is that Joseph of Arimathea had state legal kinship rights, remember? Therefore, according to you, Arimathea had the right to put the body in his tomb. Jesus is obviously not talking about state legal rights in Matthew 12:50, and even if for some wacky reason he was, the state wasn't about to recognize that after executing him.

It doesn't say either way. We only know there are two lineages for two Josephs, and both the Carpenter and Arimathea acted like next-of-kin at his birth and death not only using his own tomb, but also preparing the body.

You invoked Occam's Razor earlier, and now you appear to be completely ignoring it. It makes no sense at all that Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus' second step-father. None. The only reason you're desperately clinging to it is because if that domino falls then you're faced with having to rethink the rest of your unorthodox theory.

There is no evidence some random follower would grab the body of Jesus and prepare it with spices, when family usually did that.

And yet there is evidence. There's 4 books of evidence that say that's exactly what happened.

Romans were still in charge of this process though. Not Jews after a Jewish execution which is what you posted from the Sanhedrin tractate.

Tractate Semahot says that the state has no claim over the bodies of the executed.

John Goddard

June 28th 2009, 11:36 AM

You're needlessly splitting hairs. Joseph of Arimathea is on the Sanhedrin. It is within his rights to prepare a tomb for Jesus according to the Sanhedrin Tractate. From the wording in Matthew, this could be Joseph's personal tomb, or it could be a tomb Joseph personally had prepared, either way, Joseph is following the legal precept already laid out for what to do with the body of criminals who have been hung on a tree. If this is Joseph's personal tomb (which I believe it probably is), then it hurts your case even worse. Jesus' family tomb should be in Nazareth, not in Jerusalem.

Or why not Bethlehem if his family was of David? According to Jewish Encyclopedia source cited following, Arimathea acted as family elder at this point, so his own tomb would be appropriate.

And if you believe it was Arimathea's own personal tomb as I do, why bother introducing the idea that it was a tomb of the Sanhedrin?

So then, Arimathea prepared his body with spices as family would, aside from using his own tomb. Jews didn't go out of their way to handle the dead who weren't family, and other family of Jesus was present at his death.

While it was incumbent upon the relatives to bury their dead...As soon as the last breath was drawn, the eyes of the dead were closed by the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative (Gen. xlvi. 4), the mouth was shut, and kept in position by a band on the cheek-bones, and the body placed upon sand or salt on the floor to retard decomposition, metal or glass being put upon the navel to prevent swelling. Then the body was washed and anointed with aromatic unguents, and wrapped in linen clothes (Shab. xxiii. 5; Sem. i. 2, 3; Acts ix. 37; John xi. 44, xii. 7, xix. 39 et seq., xx. 6 et seq.; Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46 et seq.; Luke xxiii. 53 et seq.; Testament of Abraham, xx.). (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1607&letter=B)

Leviticus 21:1-2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people: But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother,

On this point alone I think I've shown sufficiently that Arimathea was acting as family to Jesus, and that Luke's lineage is for him. I don't see any need to quibble over the rest of your comments.

I think it's up to you now to prove Arimathea WAS NOT acting as next-of-kin, considering my cites here.

Obsidian

June 28th 2009, 02:31 PM

John Goddard, are you suggesting that Jesus sinned directly against God after he received the Holy Spirit, and thus had to worry about God taking the Holy Spirit away from him?

Adrift

June 28th 2009, 03:43 PM

Or why not Bethlehem if his family was of David? According to Jewish Encyclopedia source cited following, Arimathea acted as family elder at this point, so his own tomb would be appropriate.

And if you believe it was Arimathea's own personal tomb as I do, why bother introducing the idea that it was a tomb of the Sanhedrin?

So then, Arimathea prepared his body with spices as family would, aside from using his own tomb. Jews didn't go out of their way to handle the dead who weren't family, and other family of Jesus was present at his death.

While it was incumbent upon the relatives to bury their dead...As soon as the last breath was drawn, the eyes of the dead were closed by the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative (Gen. xlvi. 4), the mouth was shut, and kept in position by a band on the cheek-bones, and the body placed upon sand or salt on the floor to retard decomposition, metal or glass being put upon the navel to prevent swelling. Then the body was washed and anointed with aromatic unguents, and wrapped in linen clothes (Shab. xxiii. 5; Sem. i. 2, 3; Acts ix. 37; John xi. 44, xii. 7, xix. 39 et seq., xx. 6 et seq.; Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46 et seq.; Luke xxiii. 53 et seq.; Testament of Abraham, xx.). (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1607&letter=B)

Leviticus 21:1-2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people: But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother,

On this point alone I think I've shown sufficiently that Arimathea was acting as family to Jesus, and that Luke's lineage is for him. I don't see any need to quibble over the rest of your comments.

I think it's up to you now to prove Arimathea WAS NOT acting as next-of-kin, considering my cites here.

Easily. The legal custom called for initial burial of criminals executed on a cross, and then reburial in the family plot later on. Every time I show you a tractate proving the legal situation in Jewish culture you try to shift the goal. Here are the facts spread out:
1.) Jesus was executed by the state as a criminal.
2.) Criminals were buried twice, once in an area provided by the Sanhedrin, and then later in a family plot once the flesh of the corpse was consumed.
3.) According to scholar Byron McCane in the book Authenticating the Activities of Jesus edited and co-authored by Craig Evans and Bruce Chilton; the reason why criminals were not legally buried in a family tomb immediately was to indicate dishonor.
3.) Jesus' body needed to be prepared and buried immediately in the first tomb because of the coming Sabbath.
4.) Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he was a Nazarene. Matthew 2:23 And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” His family was from Nazareth confirmed in Mark 6
He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.”
5.) No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state according to tractate Semahot.
6.) Joseph of Arimathea is never described as anything more than a disciple of Jesus who was looking forward to the kingdom of God according to all four Gospels.
7.) Joseph of Arimathea was in the perfect position, as a member of the council of the Sanhedrin, to fulfill the legal obligation described in tractate Sanhedrin.
8.) Joseph of Arimathea had a tomb already prepared, probably for his own personal use, close by that he was willing to give up for his Rabbi, at least temporarily since according to law, as soon as the corpse was consumed it would be moved.
9.) Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was not in Nazareth, but nearby in, or just outside of Jerusalem which clearly indicates it was not Jesus' family tomb.
10.) Joseph of Arimathea is not alone helping to prepare the body for burial, but along with him is also another Pharisee and disciple of Jesus, Nicodemus.

That's my case. This is your case.

1.) There's two genealogy records for Joseph, one in Matthew and one in Luke.
2.) Even though both records seem to indicate the same Joseph doing the same things (Matthew within the same chapter, Luke the chapter just before and just after), you theorize that one of the records, probably Luke, must be talking about a different Joseph.
3.) The only other Joseph mentioned in the Gospel records is the member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus in his tomb.
4.) People were typically buried in family tombs, so Joseph of Arimathea must have been Jesus' unmentioned father.

Your case is so weak that I can't believe any rational person would go for it. You have so many glaring and hopeless holes in that it's impossible to reconcile. Just the fact that both genealogies in context share the same details about the same man named Joseph should clue you in, but the extra facts that executed Jews, by law, were initially buried in non-family tombs, and that Arimathea's tomb is not in Nazareth should seal the deal. I don't know John. Go on believing what you want, but I think you have to be intentionally self deceiving to ignore everything scripture and extra-Biblical legal/religious documents plainly present.

John Goddard

June 28th 2009, 06:01 PM

Easily. The legal custom called for initial burial of criminals executed on a cross, and then reburial in the family plot later on. Every time I show you a tractate proving the legal situation in Jewish culture you try to shift the goal. Here are the facts spread out:
1.) Jesus was executed by the state as a criminal.
2.) Criminals were buried twice, once in an area provided by the Sanhedrin, and then later in a family plot once the flesh of the corpse was consumed.
3.) According to scholar Byron McCane in the book Authenticating the Activities of Jesus edited and co-authored by Craig Evans and Bruce Chilton; the reason why criminals were not legally buried in a family tomb immediately was to indicate dishonor.

Again, you derive that from Laws regarding trial, execution, and burial all by Jews. The one Jesus endured was officially by Romans, Jews had no official say over any part of it. So this information is irrelevant.

3.) Jesus' body needed to be prepared and buried immediately in the first tomb because of the coming Sabbath.

Then it worked out well the new family tomb Arimathea had made was close by. Do you think Jesus could have arranged it with Joseph beforehand, since Jesus knew what was going to happen? Maybe.

4.) Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he was a Nazarene.

Jesus was a Nazarene for where he was raised. He was a man of Bethlehem Ephratah for his birth and lineage. He was a man of Jerusalem, being the King of it. Jerusalem was his final headquarters.

Do you stop to wonder why Arimathea had his new tomb in Jerusalem and not in Arimathea, assuming that was where he was from?

Since his whole family knew Jesus was Messiah, they also knew he was the leader of the family, as well as the whole world. As Messiah, his throne would be in Jerusalem, and thus possibly also the new appropriate place to bury all the family.

5.) No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state according to tractate Semahot.

No argument there.

6.) Joseph of Arimathea is never described as anything more than a disciple of Jesus who was looking forward to the kingdom of God according to all four Gospels.

The Gospels aren't all-telling, as we know. What did Jesus do from 12 to 30? This is why we have to look at context in some places and do some detective work. If only family usually handled the dead body, that says Joseph was something more than some vague random follower. You know legends say he was something more, and that's probably part of the reason, a lot of other people also think it's strange some near stranger would take over on the body.

7.) Joseph of Arimathea was in the perfect position, as a member of the council of the Sanhedrin, to fulfill the legal obligation described in tractate Sanhedrin.

8.) Joseph of Arimathea had a tomb already prepared, probably for his own personal use, close by that he was willing to give up for his Rabbi, at least temporarily since according to law, as soon as the corpse was consumed it would be moved.

Same as #1-3.

9.) Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was not in Nazareth, but nearby in, or just outside of Jerusalem which clearly indicates it was not Jesus' family tomb.

Same as #4.

10.) Joseph of Arimathea is not alone helping to prepare the body for burial, but along with him is also another Pharisee and disciple of Jesus, Nicodemus.

Where does it say Nicodemus was not also family? Why would they prepare the body of Jesus instead of his own mother and brothers, if they were not elder family members, as the source I gave says was the norm? You aren't sufficiently addressing the custom of only family members handling the body.

You are like, oh well they did it just because, and it indicates nothing of their relationship to Jesus, lalala.

Not very convincing since I know you are doing it just to preserve the church tradition of Mary from Nathan in Luke, not because it agrees biblically or with sources about Jewish burial that I gave.

Adrift

June 28th 2009, 07:09 PM

Again, you derive that from Laws regarding trial, execution, and burial all by Jews. The one Jesus endured was officially by Romans, Jews had no official say over any part of it. So this information is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant:

No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state.

The reason for this tractate is because the Roman custom was to leave the executed criminals hanging on the cross to decompose. This tractate was composed primarily in response to the Roman state according to scholars. According to Jewish/Roman agreement criminals were not denied customary Jewish legal rites.

Then it worked out well the new family tomb Arimathea had made was close by. Do you think Jesus could have arranged it with Joseph beforehand, since Jesus knew what was going to happen? Maybe.

The Bible is silent on it, so there's no need to speculate, and really it doesn't matter much in the long run unless you're basing a whole weirdo theology around it.

Jesus was a Nazarene for where he was raised. He was a man of Bethlehem Ephratah for his birth and lineage. He was a man of Jerusalem, being the King of it. Jerusalem was his final headquarters.

Nazareth would be the most likely place of his family's burial plot. Both Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth originally, and its where they continued to live after Jesus' birth.

Do you stop to wonder why Arimathea had his new tomb in Jerusalem and not in Arimathea, assuming that was where he was from?

Not really considering most folks believe that Arimathea is now in the vicinity of Neby Samwil which is only 4 or 5 miles north-west of Jerusalem proper. Current day Nazareth on the other hand is about 65 miles away from Jerusalem.

Since his whole family knew Jesus was Messiah, they also knew he was the leader of the family, as well as the whole world. As Messiah, his throne would be in Jerusalem, and thus possibly also the new appropriate place to bury all the family.

You're speculating again. Adding to the Bible by reading lines into it. We might as well wonder why Jesus' whole family didn't pack up and move to Jerusalem as soon as he was born instead of heading back to Nazareth. In the end Jesus' family didn't have to move the family tomb to Jerusalem. God provided the way through Jesus' disciple Joseph of Arimathea, not his family. God always has a way of making things come together for good.

No argument there.

But you did argue it. You argued it in you very first sentence.

The Gospels aren't all-telling, as we know. What did Jesus do from 12 to 30? This is why we have to look at context in some places and do some detective work. If only family usually handled the dead body, that says Joseph was something more than some vague random follower. You know legends say he was something more, and that's probably part of the reason, a lot of other people also think it's strange some near stranger would take over on the body.

You don't have to read into the lines when the Bible makes it clear already. And your detective work, to be blunt, sucks. None of it makes sense. Furthermore, you're forcing a very weak prompting in scripture for the burial preparation of Jesus. The Jewish encyclopedia article you cite references Genesis 46:4:

I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also surely bring you up again; and Joseph will close your eyes.

First of all, this verse isn't about preparing a body, its about shutting the eyes of the dead.
Second of all, its hardly any type of command.
Thirdly, Jesus was executed as a blasphemer and for claiming to be king of the Jews. Because he was executed and because he had to be quickly buried before the Sabbath Passover, he probably wasn't going to get the same burial treatment as someone who had passed away under fairly normal circumstances. He received the prescribed Jewish burial rites for someone under this circumstance.
Fourthly, I'm pretty sure Nicodemus wasn't related to Jesus (unless you want to make up the fact that maybe he was Jesus' long lost uncle or something). The two Mary's and Salome weren't related to Jesus either, as far as I know, and they all had a part in handling and preparing the body (or desiring to do so).

Where does it say Nicodemus was not also family? Why would they prepare the body of Jesus instead of his own mother and brothers, if they were not elder family members, as the source I gave says was the norm? You aren't sufficiently addressing the custom of only family members handling the body.

Answered.

You are like, oh well they did it just because, and it indicates nothing of their relationship to Jesus, lalala.

Dude, I've given detailed and documented answers to every one of your unsubstantiated conclusions. You're the one holding your hands over your eyes.

Not very convincing since I know you are doing it just to preserve the church tradition of Mary from Nathan in Luke, not because it agrees biblically or with sources about Jewish burial that I gave.

I'm doing it because its the most rational explanation based on scripture and based on Jewish tradition and law. You gave one source that doesn't even match the events detailed and is an extremely weak argument for family members only at that.

Obsidian

June 28th 2009, 08:04 PM

I'd still like a response to my last question, John.

apostoli

June 28th 2009, 09:48 PM

This one is only against God:

Psalms 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Doesn't fit with David since he sinned against Uriah too.Of interest: From Jewish sources, I've read of a sect in Judaism termed the Zion cult, attributed to David. Wherein the king was God on earth. If so, David could not sin against a man, only his God.

Adrift

June 28th 2009, 10:23 PM

John, I'm backing away from this thread. I find that I'm getting frustrated because, either willfully or not, you're just not getting this. When I get frustrated I become impatient, and truth be told, I don't want to impatiently debate this with you, I want you to see the truth and be convinced by it. I think I did a pretty good job of presenting all sorts of good evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion that Arimathea is not Jesus' father. I hope eventually you come to the same conclusion. God bless.

John Goddard

June 29th 2009, 11:50 AM

Not irrelevant:

No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state.

The reason for this tractate is because the Roman custom was to leave the executed criminals hanging on the cross to decompose. This tractate was composed primarily in response to the Roman state according to scholars. According to Jewish/Roman agreement criminals were not denied customary Jewish legal rites.

Well, the plea is framed more for religious Sabbath reasons, and could apply to anyone who died on the street, executed or not. So there's no evidence the burial by Arimathea followed any dictate by the Sanhedrin regarding treatment of criminals. It was done same as it would be for anyone, criminal or not.

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

The Bible is silent on it, so there's no need to speculate, and really it doesn't matter much in the long run unless you're basing a whole weirdo theology around it.

Nazareth would be the most likely place of his family's burial plot. Both Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth originally, and its where they continued to live after Jesus' birth.

I said, maybe. Yet you are speculating here that Mary and Joseph the Carpenter were originally from Nazareth. Where does the Bible say where Mary and Joseph were born? Rather, you are focusing on only one of the places all three lived, rather than their family roots which seem to be in Judea not Galilee.

Not really considering most folks believe that Arimathea is now in the vicinity of Neby Samwil which is only 4 or 5 miles north-west of Jerusalem proper. Current day Nazareth on the other hand is about 65 miles away from Jerusalem.

Still outside of the city. How do you know Mary and the Carpenter weren't born in Jerusalem and later moved to Nazareth? Mary was apparently close to Elisabeth who lived in Judea, and the Carpenter's tax interests were also in Judea.

You're speculating again. Adding to the Bible by reading lines into it. We might as well wonder why Jesus' whole family didn't pack up and move to Jerusalem as soon as he was born instead of heading back to Nazareth. In the end Jesus' family didn't have to move the family tomb to Jerusalem. God provided the way through Jesus' disciple Joseph of Arimathea, not his family. God always has a way of making things come together for good.

You are speculating why they lived in Nazareth, when I've just shown Mary and the Carpenter had more family interests in Judea than Galilee.

But you did argue it. You argued it in you very first sentence.

Religious rites for all Jews aren't the same as special Sanhedrin burial of criminals, that's what I was agreeing to. You cited that there were special criminal graveyards when the Sanhedrin was involved, and I pointed out that Joseph's own tomb was not likely located in a criminal graveyard. So it appears Jesus got to be buried in a family plot, not a criminal graveyard. Right?

First of all, this verse isn't about preparing a body, its about shutting the eyes of the dead.

You didn't "detect" that it says more than that, read again.

JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1607&letter=B): While it was incumbent upon the relatives to bury their dead...As soon as the last breath was drawn, the eyes of the dead were closed by the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative (Gen. xlvi. 4), the mouth was shut, and kept in position by a band on the cheek-bones, and the body placed upon sand or salt on the floor to retard decomposition, metal or glass being put upon the navel to prevent swelling. Then the body was washed and anointed with aromatic unguents, and wrapped in linen clothes (Shab. xxiii. 5; Sem. i. 2, 3; Acts ix. 37; John xi. 44, xii. 7, xix. 39 et seq., xx. 6 et seq.; Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46 et seq.; Luke xxiii. 53 et seq.; Testament of Abraham, xx.).

Matthew 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

Because he was executed and because he had to be quickly buried before the Sabbath Passover, he probably wasn't going to get the same burial treatment as someone who had passed away under fairly normal circumstances. He received the prescribed Jewish burial rites for someone under this circumstance.

Does "probably" imply speculation? I thought you said this was the prescribed Jewish burial rites for someone under this circumstance:

"The one executed was not buried in the cemetery of his parents, but two cemeteries were prepared by the court, one for those who were slain with a sword and choked, and one for those who were stoned and burned. After the flesh of the corpse was consumed, the relatives gathered the bones and buried them in their right place..."

So again, since Jesus was buried in Arimathea's own tomb and not a criminal's graveyard, he did not receive the prescribed Jewish burial rites for someone under this circumstance. That's because the Sanhedrin was not in charge, Pilate was, since there was no formal Jewish trial, execution, or burial by the Jewish court.

Fourthly, I'm pretty sure Nicodemus wasn't related to Jesus (unless you want to make up the fact that maybe he was Jesus' long lost uncle or something). The two Mary's and Salome weren't related to Jesus either, as far as I know, and they all had a part in handling and preparing the body (or desiring to do so).

Does "I'm pretty sure" and "as far as I know" mean you are speculating too? Does it say who actually touched the body? If there were non-relatives they could have just gone for support or to help carry spices. So you are doing a lot of speculating yourself.

I'm doing it because its the most rational explanation based on scripture and based on Jewish tradition and law. You gave one source that doesn't even match the events detailed and is an extremely weak argument for family members only at that.

I've shown your source calls for a Jewish criminal graveyard, yet Jesus was buried in Joseph's own tomb. That's because Jesus was not formally tried, executed, or buried under authority of Sanhedrin. So your source is mainly irrelevant since it places Sanhedrin at forefront, rather than Rome and Pilate who were in charge of the formal process.

My source matches the details of a distinguished and elder family member wrapping the body in cloth, you just missed it.

If you want to back away from the thread that's cool, but you are the one leaving a lot of holes in your version, not me. I guess we can leave it there.

John Goddard

June 29th 2009, 11:56 AM

John Goddard, are you suggesting that Jesus sinned directly against God after he received the Holy Spirit, and thus had to worry about God taking the Holy Spirit away from him?

No, I think he was just asking God to stay with him and not leave him alone, especially on the cross and especially after death. He was obviously afraid in Gethsemane. So it was just a prayer for God to stay with him and keep him strong through it all.

Adrift

June 29th 2009, 03:16 PM

John, I wanted to back out of this conversation for your own good, not mine. I think if we took this to a vote pretty much anyone could see how outlandish your claims are. I want to give you food for thought so that you'll change your mind. I doubt you'll change your mind though, you're far too committed to this theory of yours, so I'm just going to answer your questions because they've been put to me.

Well, the plea is framed more for religious Sabbath reasons, and could apply to anyone who died on the street, executed or not. So there's no evidence the burial by Arimathea followed any dictate by the Sanhedrin regarding treatment of criminals. It was done same as it would be for anyone, criminal or not.

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

I don't know what point you're trying to make by quoting this verse. This doesn't effect any of my argument.

I said, maybe. Yet you are speculating here that Mary and Joseph the Carpenter were originally from Nazareth. Where does the Bible say where Mary and Joseph were born? Rather, you are focusing on only one of the places all three lived, rather than their family roots which seem to be in Judea not Galilee.

Come on John... seriously? Mary and Joseph were betrothed in Nazareth. I don't know where they were born, but neither do you. Its not wild speculation to believe that they were probably from Nazareth if they were betrothed and lived in Nazareth.

Still outside of the city.

Wow. Stunning comeback. :no: Burial within Jerusalem was forbidden. Tombs were located outside of the city.

How do you know Mary and the Carpenter weren't born in Jerusalem and later moved to Nazareth?

I don't have to speculate about that. I don't have a doctrine depending on it. You do.

Mary was apparently close to Elisabeth who lived in Judea, and the Carpenter's tax interests were also in Judea.

So? If you're going to wildly speculate that Mary and Joseph absolutely must have been born in Jerusalem because they had family someplace in Judea then i can speculate that their family tomb was actually in Egypt, after all they had to live with someone when they got there... The thing is, I don't have to speculate, because I don't have some non-Biblical doctrine that hangs on that.

You are speculating why they lived in Nazareth, when I've just shown Mary and the Carpenter had more family interests in Judea than Galilee.

I'm not speculating, the Bible tells us that that's where they lived before Jesus was born, and its where they continued to live for over 30 years when Jesus started his ministry.

Religious rites for all Jews aren't the same as special Sanhedrin burial of criminals, that's what I was agreeing to. You cited that there were special criminal graveyards when the Sanhedrin was involved, and I pointed out that Joseph's own tomb was not likely located in a criminal graveyard. So it appears Jesus got to be buried in a family plot, not a criminal graveyard. Right?

You apparently keep missing the reason for the law. The purpose of the law is not so that criminals must be buried in separate cemeteries, the purpose of the law is to prevent criminals being buried in their own family tomb. That Jesus is buried in a personal tomb, on the order of a member of the Sanhedrin, that does not belong to Jesus' family, does not nullify the law. I think you know this, but are trying to purposely split hairs to deny the evidence. Its not very convincing.

You didn't "detect" that it says more than that, read again.

JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1607&letter=B): While it was incumbent upon the relatives to bury their dead...As soon as the last breath was drawn, the eyes of the dead were closed by the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative (Gen. xlvi. 4), the mouth was shut, and kept in position by a band on the cheek-bones, and the body placed upon sand or salt on the floor to retard decomposition, metal or glass being put upon the navel to prevent swelling. Then the body was washed and anointed with aromatic unguents, and wrapped in linen clothes (Shab. xxiii. 5; Sem. i. 2, 3; Acts ix. 37; John xi. 44, xii. 7, xix. 39 et seq., xx. 6 et seq.; Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46 et seq.; Luke xxiii. 53 et seq.; Testament of Abraham, xx.).

Matthew 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

Nicodemus helped. Is Nicodemus maybe Jesus' long lost uncle, or better yet, maybe Nicodemus is Jesus' eldest son. Besides, I didn't miss anything. You did.

Does "probably" imply speculation? I thought you said this was the prescribed Jewish burial rites for someone under this circumstance:

No, "probably" does not imply speculation. It implies that neither you nor I were there to know with 100 percent surety what happened, but that all the evidence leads to Jesus receiving a traditional burial based on historical legal documentation for the burial of those executed.

"The one executed was not buried in the cemetery of his parents, but two cemeteries were prepared by the court, one for those who were slain with a sword and choked, and one for those who were stoned and burned. After the flesh of the corpse was consumed, the relatives gathered the bones and buried them in their right place..."

So again, since Jesus was buried in Arimathea's own tomb and not a criminal's graveyard, he did not receive the prescribed Jewish burial rites for someone under this circumstance. That's because the Sanhedrin was not in charge, Pilate was, since there was no formal Jewish trial, execution, or burial by the Jewish court.

I've answered this so many times, that I'm not going to answer it again. Pilate was not in charge of the burial of Jews. Burial rites of Jews were left to Jews, not to the Roman State according to the tractate Semahot. I don't know how this can get any clearer.

Does "I'm pretty sure" and "as far as I know" mean you are speculating too? Does it say who actually touched the body? If there were non-relatives they could have just gone for support or to help carry spices. So you are doing a lot of speculating yourself.

No, it means that I'm not making up a whole new doctrine whole cloth with no scriptural or extra-scriptural evidence. You are. Pretty much nothing I've said can be refuted by reading the Bible or reading the historical literature, because its based on it. Just about everything you've come up with is based out of your imagination and your desire to fit puzzle pieces together with pieces that don't exist.

I've shown your source calls for a Jewish criminal graveyard, yet Jesus was buried in Joseph's own tomb. That's because Jesus was not formally tried, executed, or buried under authority of Sanhedrin. So your source is mainly irrelevant since it places Sanhedrin at forefront, rather than Rome and Pilate who were in charge of the formal process.

Again, the reason for the law is simply to prevent the criminal from being buried in his family's tomb. A member of the Sanhedrin provided a tomb per his duty. He had the right to do so based on tractate Semahot that states that the Roman state can not interfere with Jewish burial rites.

My source matches the details of a distinguished and elder family member wrapping the body in cloth, you just missed it.

The Jewish Encyclopedia does not say that, it says that the eldest son or next of kin will close the eyes of the deceased as soon as they're dead, and the source for that is specifically Joseph to Jacob. The Jewish Encyclopedia says nothing about who necessarily had to wrap the body. In fact, one of the main sources that the JE cites is Shabbat 23:5 which says nothing about mandatory family during burial rituals. The same Shabbat passage even gives us the reason why the ritual eye closing was so important. It was the responsibility of the one who closed the eyes of the deceased to ensure that the individual was dead, because if the deceased was not quite dead yet and buried alive, the eye closer was responsible. We already know Jesus was dead because a Roman centurion speared Jesus in the side to ensure he was dead before he was about to break his legs.

If you want to back away from the thread that's cool, but you are the one leaving a lot of holes in your version, not me. I guess we can leave it there.

I have no problem with continuing on in this thread. I think my case is far far stronger than yours. You still can't even get past the fact that the context of Matthew and Luke make no room for any other Joseph in the genealogy records. I was only going to back off because I hate seeing people teamed up in a thread, and because I have enough compassion for you not to want to simply win an argument but hope to convince you of obvious truth.

Obsidian

June 29th 2009, 07:06 PM

So between verse 4 and verse 11 he switches from his Buddhist, blaspheming lifestyle prior to baptism to a discussion of the end of his ministry, at Gethsemane?

apostoli

June 29th 2009, 09:32 PM

Hello John,

I had prepared a lengthy point by point response to your post #34 to me. But realised that in subsequent conversations with Adrift etc you elaborate further on some points. On an overall review I determined, a comment & response approach, will merely sink us deeper and deeper into a quagmire of speculation and argument, counter argument . So, I've attempted to isolate your major premises and will suscinctly respond directly to those. Please correct any errors in what I perceived as your premises.

Joseph of Arimathea (JA)

Premise: Uncle of Jesus

There is no supporting evidence from scripture, the NT apocrypha or NT pseudepigrapha. However, the Jewish Talmud records that Joseph was the great-uncle of Jesus, a younger brother of Mary's father! So it may be this is the source of such opinion. When and why such details were added to the Talmud is a mystery. The cites I encounter on the Web do not give references.

What we do know from Christian & Jewish tradition is that Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian and underwent persecution by the Jews, and he was a very rich and influential man. As the Jewish leaders decreed that all Christians were to be blotted from memory, it is perculiar for the Talmud to supply the details it does. What accounts are given in the Talmud have a generational discrepancy and add that Joseph remained in palestine, at least when seeing off his family as they went into exile in Gaul.

More than likely the Talmudic accounts are polemic, not necessarily factual (like Jesus was the bastard child of a Roman soldier). The only other source/s for the tale I've encountered come from the medieval tales of Glastonbury, as promoted by the British Israelites and grail enthusiasts. These lack credibility as the tales developed from the pilgrim and relic trade - a tourism gimmic so to speak. As cites on the Web parrot each other and do not give references, I've asked a friend to seek out the Talmudic references for me. So I can seek out what the Talmud actually says in full.

Prior to medieval times the Christian tradition appears to be silent on Joseph of Arimathea's relationship to Jesus.

I'm presuming your opinion that Joseph of Arimathea was a surrogate father to Jesus is derived from the speculations of Steven M. Collins and not a direct study of the underlying facts (?).

Premise: Lukes genealogy gives the linage of Joseph of Arimathea

Your theory that Luke's linage relates to Joseph of Arimathea and not Mary's is problematic. If he was the younger brother of Mary's father as the Talmud states then Mary and he share the same linage! So Luke's account would give Mary's linage as Christian tradition maintains!

Premise: Joseph of Arimathea's special relationship with Jesus

This is a dubious idea. If so it appears to have been a secret relationship. Plus JA resided a long way from Nazareth making it improbable.

Premise: Something perculiar about JA's involvement in the entombment of Jesus

Imu, nothing unusual, merely a practical and expedient response to circumstance for which JA and Nicodemus took responsibility. Remember JA was a dissident at the trial of Jesus. So, apart from anything else, he did what any pious Jew would have done, when a perceived injustice had been done. Plus, if JA was Mary's uncle, he had a legal claim on the body.

A curiousity: the scriptural account indicates the entombment as an expedient but temporary measure.

What we know of Joseph of Arimathea is that he had authority in the Sanhedrin, he opposed the condemnation of Jesus when the Sanhedrin met, he was rich, he was a secret follower of Christ, he was powerful and brave, he asked Pilate for Jesus' body and that he and Nicodemus took Jesus down from the cross, prepared Jesus for burial and placed Jesus in the tomb he had had constructed for himself, "there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews preparation day; for the sepulcher was near at hand" (Mt 27:57-59; Mark 15:43,46; Luke 23:50-53, John 19:38-42).

I see nothing strange in him taking charge of the body. He was rich, powerful and apparently had connections to Pilate. Only he (and possibly Nicodemus) amongst Jesus' followers, had the resources to stand up to the might of the Sanhedrin. Apart from a few women and A.John, all the other disciples had fled or hidden themselves fearing for their own lives. The pseudepigrapha says JA was imprisoned for his effort but miraculously released by Jesus.

Premise: Jesus spent some of his early years in Britian

Could be! But there is no evidence apart from medieval tales which apparently arose to encourage pilgrimage (tourism) to Glastonbury and a trade in relics. Of interest the same tales have Mary, mother of Jesus, residing in southern France.

The illegitate child of David & Bethsheba

Premise: David's temporal throne would last forever

This is a misnomer. The Davidic covenant is given at 2 Samuel 7:12-16. One commentator suggests "The Davidic Covenant is unconditional because God does not place any conditions of obedience upon its fulfillment. The surety of the promises made rests solely on God’s faithfulness and does not depend at all on David or Israel’s obedience."

While this is true in respect of the Messianic kingdom it is not true of the temporal kingdom. Note Solomon's words at 1 Kings 2:4 "so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel."

So the promise in regard to the temporal kingdom was conditional! Compare Samuel's words to Saul (1 Sam 13:13-4) "And Samuel said to Saul, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you. For now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has commanded him [to be] commander over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you."

Imu, a Jewish and Christian slant on this (though there is dissenting opinion) is that the throne in question is God himself = Ps 45:6 = "Your throne is like God's throne" (NEB, also see footnote in RSV)" = Heb 1:8 = "God is your throne" (see footnotes in RSV,NEB & direct translation in Jerusalem bible & several other versions). Thus imu, the temporal throne is intrinsically linked to the throne of God, which is what actually lasts forever. Cut the cord and the endurance of the temporal throne ceases.

Lets look at 2 Samuel 7:12-16 "When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever."

Though Solomon built the 1st temple, his failures proved he was not a man after YHWH's heart (1 Sam 13), therefore, as you pointed out 1 Kings 9:5-7 says "then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, 'You shall not fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.' But if you or your sons at all turn from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight. Israel will be a proverb and a byword among all peoples."

We know that until the 2nd Baylonian exile there were 20 Kings after Solomon, and at least one governor on the return who were of Davidic blood, so the temporal kingdom lasted for some time but not indefinitely.

Premise: Resurrection of the illegitate child would fullfill the promise to David

Firstly, the sex of the child is not identified. (2 Sam 11:4-12:18) It could have been female. Though 2 Sam 12:19 may indicate it is male. On a quick check the Hebrew seems to be ambiguous. Given the previous impersonal accounts of the child, 2 Sam 12:19 would readily be translated "Is the child dead? And they said, It is dead".

Your theory has numerous problems. The ascendency to the throne is dependent on YHWH's sanction. The child was accursed by YHWH, that is why he struck the child and allowed it to die despite David's pleading! (2 Sam 12:9,12,14,15)

By YHWH's law the child has no right of ascendency to the throne. The child was born illegitimate as a result of David's lust and murderous intent. A child conceived in breach of the 6th* & 9th* commandments, and born into David's house as a result of a breach of the 5th* commandment. YHWH forgave David but cursed the child (2 Sam 12:13-14)

* Catholic & Lutheran count. Otherwise, 7th, 10th & 6th commandments.

Premise: The sins of the father are not counted to the child

Whilst this is true, the impediments to the child's birth, should he/she have lived and ascended the throne, would have brought disdain upon YHWH's name (cp. 2 Sam 12:14). As it would today should the child be resurrected and ascend the throne.

So an immediate son who could take a complete throne from David, the only one who had promise of an undivided Israel, would be necessary to fulfill David's promise.There was no promise of an undivided Israel! all that was required is that Jerusalem be preserved for the promise to be fulfilled (the actual kingdom, the rest was empire). See 1 Kings 11:13 which says "I will not tear away the whole kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen."

Peace

apostoli

June 29th 2009, 10:06 PM

Again, you derive that from Laws regarding trial, execution, and burial all by Jews. The one Jesus endured was officially by Romans, Jews had no official say over any part of it. So this information is irrelevant.Actually, Pilate had washed his hands of the whole affair. So had absolved Rome of any involvement, apart from being a mechanism in the slaying. He put all responsibilty directly on the Jews. It was their show not Rome's according to scripture.

John Goddard

June 30th 2009, 10:28 AM

Come on John... seriously? Mary and Joseph were betrothed in Nazareth. I don't know where they were born, but neither do you. Its not wild speculation to believe that they were probably from Nazareth if they were betrothed and lived in Nazareth.

The Carpenter's home city is said to be Bethlehem.

Luke 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Mary's closest relatives are also only found in Judea:

Luke 1:39-40 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

So you are speculating that they had strongest family ties Galilee, while my evidence indicates they had strongest family ties in Judea.

Wow. Stunning comeback. :no: Burial within Jerusalem was forbidden. Tombs were located outside of the city.

Arimathea was considered another city. Something other than "just outside the city" as you are trying to equate.

You apparently keep missing the reason for the law. The purpose of the law is not so that criminals must be buried in separate cemeteries, the purpose of the law is to prevent criminals being buried in their own family tomb.

So you want me to read your source and focus on your assertion that it was not a family tomb, but pretend that it doesn't say these non-family tombs are also in criminal graveyards which Arimathea's is not assumed to be in. No. Your source just doesn't apply to this situation, that's all.

Nicodemus helped. Is Nicodemus maybe Jesus' long lost uncle, or better yet, maybe Nicodemus is Jesus' eldest son. Besides, I didn't miss anything. You did.

Nicodemus helped somehow, it doesn't say who actually touched the body. Matthew 27:59 does say only Arimathea touched the body.

I've answered this so many times, that I'm not going to answer it again. Pilate was not in charge of the burial of Jews.

Sure he was, they had to ask Pilate to kill the condemned to enable burial before Sabbath, ask him to get the body, and ask him to seal the tomb. Pilate was in charge through the whole affair.

The Jewish Encyclopedia does not say that, it says that the eldest son or next of kin will close the eyes of the deceased as soon as they're dead, and the source for that is specifically Joseph to Jacob. The Jewish Encyclopedia says nothing about who necessarily had to wrap the body.

Yes it does. It says the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative closes the eyes, shuts the mouth, uses sand/salt and metal/glass to prevent decomposition and swelling, washes and anoints and wraps the body. That's why Matthew xxvii is given as a reference here at the end.

JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA: While it was incumbent upon the relatives to bury their dead...As soon as the last breath was drawn, the eyes of the dead were closed by the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative (Gen. xlvi. 4), the mouth was shut, and kept in position by a band on the cheek-bones, and the body placed upon sand or salt on the floor to retard decomposition, metal or glass being put upon the navel to prevent swelling. Then the body was washed and anointed with aromatic unguents, and wrapped in linen clothes (Shab. xxiii. 5; Sem. i. 2, 3; Acts ix. 37; John xi. 44, xii. 7, xix. 39 et seq., xx. 6 et seq.; Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46 et seq.; Luke xxiii. 53 et seq.; Testament of Abraham, xx.).

Matthew 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

Where do you see any other relative doing all these things in the first sentence, then calling Arimathea in as non-family just to wrap the body in the second sentence? That's silly.

Matthew just implies Arimathea got the body and did it all, as the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative according to Jewish Encyclopedia. That's it.

John Goddard

June 30th 2009, 11:05 AM

I'm presuming your opinion that Joseph of Arimathea was a surrogate father to Jesus is derived from the speculations of Steven M. Collins and not a direct study of the underlying facts (?).

Never heard of the guy. I don't maintain Arimathea was an uncle, but just a follower who loved Jesus and wanted Jesus to inherit all his wealth, and acted as father to him when the Carpenter was apparently long out of the picture.

As I posted to Adrift, the oldest or most distinguished relative handled burial prep according to Jewish Encyclopedia. Mary's closest relative is Elisabeth, a Levite. The Carpenter was there at the birth of Jesus, and Matthew lists a lineage for that Joseph in the beginning.

But the Carpenter is nowhere to be found when Jesus is an adult in his ministry while Arimathea is, acting as family elder at the burial. This is where Luke's lineage is also located, in the adulthood of Jesus, not at the beginning where the Carpenter's and thus Mary's might be expected.

This is all part of the basis for my position that Luke's lineage is for Arimathea acting as father to Jesus. If Arimathea wanted Jesus to inherit all his riches, then such a lineage would be relevant for purposes of showing Jesus as the inheritor.

This is a dubious idea. If so it appears to have been a secret relationship. Plus JA resided a long way from Nazareth making it improbable.

I maintain that it developed in his adulthood after the Carpenter as a father figure is gone, where Luke's lineage is also located.

b]Premise: Something perculiar about JA's involvement in the entombment of Jesus[/b]

Imu, nothing unusual, merely a practical and expedient response to circumstance for which JA and Nicodemus took responsibility.

Not unusual, but usual practice for elder family members, as I cited from Jewish Encyclopedia.

The illegitate child of David & Bethsheba Premise: David's temporal throne would last forever

This is a misnomer. The Davidic covenant is given at 2 Samuel 7:12-16. One commentator suggests "The Davidic Covenant is unconditional because God does not place any conditions of obedience upon its fulfillment. The surety of the promises made rests solely on God’s faithfulness and does not depend at all on David or Israel’s obedience."

While this is true in respect of the Messianic kingdom it is not true of the temporal kingdom. Note Solomon's words at 1 Kings 2:4 "so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel."

So the promise in regard to the temporal kingdom was conditional!

It was conditional for Solomon, but not for David.

Thus imu, the temporal throne is intrinsically linked to the throne of God, which is what actually lasts forever. Cut the cord and the endurance of the temporal throne ceases.

David's throne is already back-linked to God's throne. But forward-linking to an eternal throne for his son ensuring that David's throne also stands forever is based on a seed promise, so you can't cut this fleshly cord and only consider the back link.

2 Samuel 7:12-13 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

You still have to consider both.

Though Solomon built the 1st temple, his failures proved he was not a man after YHWH's heart (1 Sam 13), therefore, as you pointed out 1 Kings 9:5-7 says "then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, 'You shall not fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.' But if you or your sons at all turn from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight. Israel will be a proverb and a byword among all peoples."

We know that until the 2nd Baylonian exile there were 20 Kings after Solomon, and at least one governor on the return who were of Davidic blood, so the temporal kingdom lasted for some time but not indefinitely.

All this says is Solomon is not the one to fulfill 2 Samuel 7. Another son is needed to do it, so that David's throne also endures from generation to generation, never failing to have a man upon it.

Premise: Resurrection of the illegitate child would fullfill the promise to David

Firstly, the sex of the child is not identified. (2 Sam 11:4-12:18) It could have been female. Though 2 Sam 12:19 may indicate it is male. On a quick check the Hebrew seems to be ambiguous. Given the previous impersonal accounts of the child, 2 Sam 12:19 would readily be translated "Is the child dead? And they said, It is dead".

It is identified as a son born.

2 Samuel 11:27 And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.

Your theory has numerous problems. The ascendency to the throne is dependent on YHWH's sanction. The child was accursed by YHWH, that is why he struck the child and allowed it to die despite David's pleading! (2 Sam 12:9,12,14,15)

By YHWH's law the child has no right of ascendency to the throne. The child was born illegitimate as a result of David's lust and murderous intent. A child conceived in breach of the 6th* & 9th* commandments, and born into David's house as a result of a breach of the 5th* commandment. YHWH forgave David but cursed the child (2 Sam 12:13-14)

* Catholic & Lutheran count. Otherwise, 7th, 10th & 6th commandments.

Premise: The sins of the father are not counted to the child

Whilst this is true, the impediments to the child's birth, should he/she have lived and ascended the throne, would have brought disdain upon YHWH's name (cp. 2 Sam 12:14). As it would today should the child be resurrected and ascend the throne.

It is no problem since resurrection clears mamzer status in the New Covenant, the child is no longer cursed for sins of the father.

Jeremiah 31:29-31 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

There was no promise of an undivided Israel! all that was required is that Jerusalem be preserved for the promise to be fulfilled (the actual kingdom, the rest was empire). See 1 Kings 11:13 which says "I will not tear away the whole kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen."

You just quoted "I will not tear away the whole kingdom" which means the rest of what was torn away was also the kingdom, the other 10 Tribes. So I don't know what you mean by "the rest was empire" except for maybe some wordplay. And even Jerusalem was torn away in the end by Babylon.

David's throne and kingdom, and thus the promise for his Messiah, included all of Israel. Not just Judah.

2nd Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.\

So not sure what your point is, Solomon's line was left with a broken conditional promise of Messiah on his end of the bargain, that's all we are told in the Bible.

EDIT:

Actually, Pilate had washed his hands of the whole affair. So had absolved Rome of any involvement, apart from being a mechanism in the slaying. He put all responsibilty directly on the Jews. It was their show not Rome's according to scripture.

Pilate was boss of the crucifixion and burial, to the sealing of the tomb, Jews had to ask his permission.

John 19:21-22 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

Matthew 27:64-65 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

Adrift

June 30th 2009, 02:30 PM

The Carpenter's home city is said to be Bethlehem.

Luke 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Mary's closest relatives are also only found in Judea:

Luke 1:39-40 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

So you are speculating that they had strongest family ties Galilee, while my evidence indicates they had strongest family ties in Judea.

So essentially what you're saying is that, rather than bury family in a nearby tomb at Nazareth, a city that Jesus' family had lived in for over 30 years, Jesus' family would instead travel 65 miles with a corpse to bury it in a family tomb there? Doesn't seem likely.

Arimathea was considered another city. Something other than "just outside the city" as you are trying to equate.

You believe Nazarenes traveled 65 miles with a corpse to bury them at Jerusalem. Arimathea is a lot closer than that. There's no reason Joseph of Arimathea could not have a tomb outside of Jerusalem when his own town was not more than 5 miles away, and apparently that's the case because, well, scripture says he has a tomb close by. What's your argument here exactly? That Joseph of Arimathea was not from Arimathea or that his tomb was not his own?

So you want me to read your source and focus on your assertion that it was not a family tomb, but pretend that it doesn't say these non-family tombs are also in criminal graveyards which Arimathea's is not assumed to be in. No. Your source just doesn't apply to this situation, that's all.

I'm not taking a novel approach by introducing this tractate John.

Jesus was indeed buried in disgrace in a criminals' tomb. Based on what we know of Roman practice and Jewish custom, one or more members of the Sanhedrin must have obtained the body of Jesus from Pilate and arranged for a dishonorable interment. From an early date the Christian tradition tried to conceal this unpleasant fact, but the best evidence clearly shows that Jesus was buried in shame.

...two defining marks of shame continue and persist: no family tomb, and no mourning. A detail added by Matthew, Luke, and John is particularly revealing in this regard. The tomb of Jesus, they all say, is new, "where not one had yet been laid" (Matt 27:60; Luke 23:3; John 19:43). Many scholars have noted that this description lends dignity to Jesus' burial, because it clearly differentiates his resting place from a criminals' burial place like the ones mentioned in the Mishnah. But as both David Daube and Josef Blinzler have pointed out, a new tomb would still be a shameful place of interment. [32] In fact a new tomb, never before used by sinner or saint, would be the only culturally acceptable alternative to a criminal's burial place, for it would be the only other way to preserve the boundary of shame which separated Jesus from his people. By putting him alone in a new tomb, Matthew, Luke, and John do not deny the shame of Jesus' burial; they merely spare him the disgrace of being placed in a criminals' tomb. A residue of shame still clings to him as an executed convict.

Even Isaiah prophesied Jesus was buried as a criminal. The prophecy even makes mention of Joseph of Arimathea's role.

And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Acts gives us another perspective on the subject and tells us who laid him in his tomb. It never mentions his family or a family tomb.

For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him. 28And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.

And Jesus' burial isn't even the only time that someone other than family buries a Biblical personality. John the Baptist received the exact same treatment from his disciples.

And his disciples came and took the body and buried it, and they went and told Jesus.

Nicodemus helped somehow, it doesn't say who actually touched the body. Matthew 27:59 does say only Arimathea touched the body.

Wrong.

Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

Sure he was, they had to ask Pilate to kill the condemned to enable burial before Sabbath, ask him to get the body, and ask him to seal the tomb. Pilate was in charge through the whole affair.

I told you I'm not going to play this game with you anymore. You can ignore the evidence if you want, but it doesn't make the evidence go away.

Yes it does. It says the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative closes the eyes, shuts the mouth, uses sand/salt and metal/glass to prevent decomposition and swelling, washes and anoints and wraps the body. That's why Matthew xxvii is given as a reference here at the end.

JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA: While it was incumbent upon the relatives to bury their dead...As soon as the last breath was drawn, the eyes of the dead were closed by the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative (Gen. xlvi. 4), the mouth was shut, and kept in position by a band on the cheek-bones, and the body placed upon sand or salt on the floor to retard decomposition, metal or glass being put upon the navel to prevent swelling. Then the body was washed and anointed with aromatic unguents, and wrapped in linen clothes (Shab. xxiii. 5; Sem. i. 2, 3; Acts ix. 37; John xi. 44, xii. 7, xix. 39 et seq., xx. 6 et seq.; Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46 et seq.; Luke xxiii. 53 et seq.; Testament of Abraham, xx.).

Matthew 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

Where do you see any other relative doing all these things in the first sentence, then calling Arimathea in as non-family just to wrap the body in the second sentence? That's silly.

I like how you combined two paragraphs and made them look like one. I'm hoping you didn't intend to do that. At any rate, we're again not talking about a typical every day burial. Jesus was crucified and had to be prepared with a quickness. You're also reading your own source wrong. The comma doesn't imply that the eldest son did everything below it, it implies that he did the one thing. He closed the eyes. This is per the citation in the parenthesis to Genesis 46:4 within the same comma'd area. This is serious weak sauce dude. I can't believe I actually have to point this stuff out to you. And then, you have to wonder, oh my gosh, did the Jewish Encyclopedia get it wrong when the scriptures say that John the Baptist was buried by his disciples!!!? And what happens when the family is just not available? Do they not bury the individual? Come on man, use some common sense here.

Matthew just implies Arimathea got the body and did it all, as the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative according to Jewish Encyclopedia. That's it.

Baloney. If Arimathea was related to Jesus one of the Gospel writers would have mentioned it within the context. Its unimaginable that they would leave something that huge out of the account.

apostoli

July 1st 2009, 03:23 AM

Whilst this is true, the impediments to the child's birth, should he/she have lived and ascended the throne, would have brought disdain upon YHWH's name (cp. 2 Sam 12:14). As it would today should the child be resurrected and ascend the throne. It is no problem since resurrection clears mamzer status in the New Covenant, the child is no longer cursed for sins of the father.The child was guitless to start with! You seem to be missing my point. The child at any time, past or present, could not ascend the throne, as the impediments of his birth would cause disdain on YHWH's name. (cp. 2 Sam 2:14)

You just quoted "I will not tear away the whole kingdom" which means the rest of what was torn away was also the kingdom, the other 10 Tribes. So I don't know what you mean by "the rest was empire" except for maybe some wordplay. And even Jerusalem was torn away in the end by Babylon.But notice YHWH preserved Jerusalem and one tribe for David's sake.

2 Sam 9-12, indicate that the temporal promise to David was conditional. Either that or YHWH went back on his word.
________________

Pilate was boss of the crucifixion and burial, to the sealing of the tomb, Jews had to ask his permission.As I said Pilate washed his hands of the whole affair. Note that when the Jew's leaders requested he position guards on the tomb, he effectively told then to p-off, and guard it yourself.
________________

I have no idea why you are persuing the Nicodemus thing. If the Talmud is correct and Nic was Mary's father's younger brother, then by default Luke is giving Mary's linage, even if via Nic.

Peace

Obsidian

July 1st 2009, 08:12 PM

John Goddard

July 2nd 2009, 04:41 PM

John Goddard, I'd like you to explain more specifically about what period of Jesus's life Psalm 51 talks about. Or does it just leap around his entire lifespan, kinda like when you're about to get killed and your life flashes before your eyes?

What do you think it talks about here, for example?

Psalms 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

John 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

Did some Jews secretly whip David with hyssop? I never saw that in that Bible.

Or here:

Psalms 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

2 Samuel 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

David sinned against Uriah, so Psalms 51:4 doesn't apply to David. Who is it about?

Maybe you can answer directly instead of posting goofy questions about jumping around. Who cares about that, I want to know who Psalms 51 is about. Answer me.

John Goddard

July 2nd 2009, 04:47 PM

The child was guitless to start with! You seem to be missing my point. The child at any time, past or present, could not ascend the throne, as the impediments of his birth would cause disdain on YHWH's name. (cp. 2 Sam 2:14)

Not after resurrection, which is birth by the Spirit, not by Flesh of mamzer status.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

You seem to be missing the point of Jesus, he is the guy who redeems. If he can redeem sinners into a new life, do you think he is powerless to wash away his own infant mamzer status?

Ridiculous some of you are, arguing just to argue.

But notice YHWH preserved Jerusalem and one tribe for David's sake.

And that was gone with Babylon too, so we need another immediate son as I said.

As I said Pilate washed his hands of the whole affair.

Of the guilt, not of the authority over the process as Matthew 27:64-65 proves since Jews still had to ask permission.

John Goddard

July 2nd 2009, 04:54 PM

So essentially what you're saying is that, rather than bury family in a nearby tomb at Nazareth, a city that Jesus' family had lived in for over 30 years, Jesus' family would instead travel 65 miles with a corpse to bury it in a family tomb there? Doesn't seem likely.

No, you are building on your own strawman applied to me.

The family of Jesus are those who do God's will, saints were resurrected and came into Jerusalem, New Jerusalem is the final resting place of saints and Jesus at the end of Revelation...

Who cares about Nazareth? Everything is all about Jerusalem and Jesus ruling it, that's where his family is prophetically.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Matthew 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

I'm backing off into the symbolic big picture and asking you to look at that for a minute before you keep harping on Nazareth, which was a launchpad for Jesus, but certainly not the most important location in terms of his final destination, and the destination of his true family as well.

I had to take a break for a day so we can hit some new angles here.

Adrift

July 2nd 2009, 04:59 PM

No, you are building on your own strawman applied to me.

The family of Jesus are those who do God's will, saints were resurrected and came into Jerusalem, New Jerusalem is the final resting place of saints and Jesus at the end of Revelation...

Who cares about Nazareth? Everything is all about Jerusalem and Jesus ruling it, that's where his family is prophetically.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Matthew 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

I'm backing off into the symbolic big picture and asking you to look at that for a minute before you keep harping on Nazareth, which was a launchpad for Jesus, but certainly not the most important location in terms of his final destination, and the destination of his true family as well.

I had to take a break for a day so we can hit some new angles here.

John, I think I'm done with the topic for now. There's so little internal support for your hypothesis, and so much incontrovertible evidence against it that it takes an act of pure willful denial to hold onto it. I'm clearly wasting my time trying to convince you of that.

John Goddard

July 2nd 2009, 06:07 PM

John, I think I'm done with the topic for now. There's so little internal support for your hypothesis, and so much incontrovertible evidence against it that it takes an act of pure willful denial to hold onto it. I'm clearly wasting my time trying to convince you of that.

Show me biblically where the final dwelling of Jesus should be Nazareth instead of Jerusalem and I'll accept your notion, conjecture, fantasy...

See, I can use fancy words for "idea" too. If I needed to prop up my argument with them, which I don't. Since the Bible says the final resting place of Jesus and his closest family is Jerusalem.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

You are the one who says, "Oh gee let's make Nazareth the big final destination" completely ignoring the Bible. So if you are really leaving the thread then go on and let someone else address biblical facts.

Obsidian

July 2nd 2009, 07:07 PM

apostoli

July 2nd 2009, 07:28 PM

Not after resurrection, which is birth by the Spirit, not by Flesh of mamzer status.]See Jewish Encyclopedia regarding mamzer status. The only thing the child would have been prohibited to do was Marry a non mamzer Jew. Nothing significant in the child's mamzer status from an earthly perspective. However, the child remains defiled before and after the resurrection as far as the kingdom is concerned. cp. Dan 12:2

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.The child wasn't born of the spirit but 100% of the flesh.

Even Jesus is born of the flesh according to scripture. cp. Rom 1:3.

You seem to be missing the point of Jesus, he is the guy who redeems. If he can redeem sinners into a new life, do you think he is powerless to wash away his own infant mamzer status?He never had one to wash away. Nor had the child any sin of its own to have washed away. However, the child had impediments of birth that would prohibit him from ascending the throne now or then. Should he do so his actions would defame YHWH.

Ridiculous some of you are, arguing just to argue.No John. I've attempted to be quite reasonable in examining your view. It doesn't work, simply because by precedent the child is impeded from ascending the throne.

And that was gone with Babylon too, so we need another immediate son as I said.Why an immediate son? Your speculations if valid, would hold true for any of Solomon's elder brothers (apart from the illegitimate one, there were three), whose claim to the throne wouldn't be impeded. As we know little about them, the presumption is they were all dead by the time solomon ascended the throne. They are much better candidates for your theory. In fact Solomon's elder brother Nathan even has a tradition in his favour.

Of the guilt, not of the authority over the process as Matthew 27:64-65 proves since Jews still had to ask permission.Pilate's role ended at the death of Jesus. Pilate was only interested in whether the sentence had been completed. After that his role was complete. Thus Joe's asking permission. The other Jews were told to p-off.

I'm not sure why you are pursuing this with Adrift. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with your main argument.

_________________

Correction to my previous post: Both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea took down, prepared and entombed Jesus' body. So I confused the two in my question. To restate:

I have no idea why you are persuing the Joseph of Arimathea thing. If the Talmud is correct and Joe was Mary's father's younger brother, then by default Luke is giving Mary's linage, even if via Joe.

Peace

xrseyre

July 3rd 2009, 08:39 AM

Apostoli:-
You wrote "Guess you deny the virgin birth (?) John 1:14 etc clearly have the Son made flesh, and thus born of the flesh."

It seems to me there are a load of better sources for "virgin birth", but hey...

John 1 has the Logos made flesh. "Made flesh" is not necessarily identical with "born of the flesh", c.f. Genesis 1:26-27. The Logos is not necessarily identical with the Son, save perhaps following the action of making the Logos flesh.

An interesting line of thinking might be that the ministry of Jesus represents a continuing action of making flesh of the Logos. No?

xrseyre

July 3rd 2009, 08:56 AM

Obsidian,
The Jehovah's Witnesses and Adoptionists (of which John Goddard is one) both share the same flea infested rug. Most people who believe in this idea, reject what has been taught by the apostle John in John 1 , and 1 John as well as what was taught by the apostle Paul in Colossians 2
The Adoptionist ideas was condemned as a heresy in the 2nd century by Pope Victor, and then again though it surfaced with less venom in the 8th century by Pope Leo III. The reason for this is because those who embrace this poisonous heresy deny the pre-existence of Christ and, therefore, His deity.
I used to argue with Jehovah's Witnesses about this, until I realized that heresies have brothers and sisters (not the nice sort.)
John you are ever in my prayers, and tonight again.

Sincerely,
HH.

I strongly doubt that you're unaware of the several texts which support an adoptionist view, so moving rapidly on, you say adoptionists "deny the pre-existence of Christ and, therefore, his deity". I don't see that this logically follows in the absence of demonstrating that any claim to deity must inescapably imply temporal infinity (in both directions). I don't think either Pope accomplished this.

I should perhaps point out that I don't personally espouse adoptionism, I just accept the scriptures which refer to a cognate of adoption as being a scriptural viewpoint, and therefore valid.

Go with God,

Chris

John Goddard

July 3rd 2009, 10:53 AM

Okay, no goofing around: Psalm 51 is about David. "Against thee and thee only" is an exaggeration.

Your detailed explanation shows the failure of your interpretation even more. You've got Jesus sinning against God (v. 4), and then getting crucified and purged with hyssop (v. 7), and then pleading with God to forgive his sins (v. 9) not take his Holy Spirit away (v. 11). The chronology is just ridiculous. Then you have Jesus pledging that he won't bring God a sacrifice (v. 16). You have Jesus asking for blessinsg on Jerusalem (v. 18) -- which Jesus repeatedly warned about the coming destruction and eventually allowed to be pillaged by Rome. Then finally you have Jesus saying that after he blesses Jerusalem, they're going to keep on sacrificing animals (v. 19)!

Absolute madness.

It's mostly about Jesus receiving a baptism of repentance from John, then teaching others to do the same. I find it hard to believe Jesus apparently did no preaching at all for thirty years without some feeling that he had to make up for lost time. As I said, his baptism appears to be repentance from a more worldly way of life into one of total dedication to God.

While all you can say is that David was exaggerating. Why would David exaggerate that he never sinned against a man, only God, when David clearly sinned against Uriah?

That doesn't even make sense, and like Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense then it's probably not true.

Psalms 51:12-13 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Psalms 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

John Goddard

July 3rd 2009, 11:14 AM

See Jewish Encyclopedia regarding mamzer status. The only thing the child would have been prohibited to do was Marry a non mamzer Jew. Nothing significant in the child's mamzer status from an earthly perspective. However, the child remains defiled before and after the resurrection as far as the kingdom is concerned. cp. Dan 12:2

The shame is for your own sins.

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

God is not going to resurrect mamzer infants into shame and everlasting contempt due to the sins of their fathers.

Jeremiah 31:29-31 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Mamzer infants are going to be resurrected anew.

Revelation 21:4-5 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new...

That's why it's called a NEW Covenant, it's different than the old one that may have shamed a mamzer forever.

The child wasn't born of the spirit but 100% of the flesh. Even Jesus is born of the flesh according to scripture. cp. Rom 1:3.

Born of Flesh with Bathsheba.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Born of Spirit as resurrected into the womb of Mary.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Why an immediate son? Your speculations if valid, would hold true for any of Solomon's elder brothers (apart from the illegitimate one, there were three), whose claim to the throne wouldn't be impeded. As we know little about them, the presumption is they were all dead by the time solomon ascended the throne. They are much better candidates for your theory. In fact Solomon's elder brother Nathan even has a tradition in his favour.

An immediate son has to be resurrected to take the throne directly from David to ensure no break between generations with a man on the throne, according to God's promise to David.

1 Kings 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

The claim is not impeded by mamzer status, it is erased in the resurrection as noted. This son was born directly after the promise made in 2 Samuel 7. The child died for David's sin through no fault of his own, and Jesus died for sins of everyone through no fault of his own. There is an obvious parallel, aside from the fact that this son was in line before Solomon to get the Messianic promise.

There are no better candidates.

Pilate's role ended at the death of Jesus. Pilate was only interested in whether the sentence had been completed. After that his role was complete. Thus Joe's asking permission. The other Jews were told to p-off.

They got Pilate's command to seal the tomb so your claim is false, his role did not end at the death, it continued until after the burial.

Matthew 27:64-65 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

I have no idea why you are persuing the Joseph of Arimathea thing. If the Talmud is correct and Joe was Mary's father's younger brother, then by default Luke is giving Mary's linage, even if via Joe.

My only position is that Arimathea adopted Jesus to be heir of his riches, and acted as eldest relative taking charge of the burial per custom as cited by Jewish Encyclopedia. I have no opinion on his being an uncle. Wouldn't matter to my position anyway.

- An immediate son of David needed to receive the throne from David, as discussed.
- No covenant promise ever came through a woman, Mary was only a surrogate.

Obsidian

July 3rd 2009, 11:45 AM

So did God require a sacrifice from Jesus?
Did Jesus bless Jerusalem and advocate the continued sacrifice of animals?

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

This verse implies that Jesus did not disappoint God the way you suggest.

apostoli

July 4th 2009, 03:41 AM

The shame is for your own sins.

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

God is not going to resurrect mamzer infants into shame and everlasting contempt due to the sins of their fathers.

Jeremiah 31:29-31 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Mamzer infants are going to be resurrected anew.

Revelation 21:4-5 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new...

That's why it's called a NEW Covenant, it's different than the old one that may have shamed a mamzer forever.As far as I am aware mamzer status is a Jewish tradition. A compromise of Moses' law/s. Under Moses' law Beth & David should have been stoned to death.

The fact remains that YHWH penalised the child. I think there are several reasons for this: chief of which is that due to the impediments of his birth, he would have more than likely have ended up an unrighteous and would have turned the people to false gods. Compare David's & Solomon's mixed attention to their duties. As you pointed out, ultimately the temporal throne was lost. So no throne for the kid to ascend to.

Born of Flesh with Bathsheba.What was the point of Mary? Why not have his familiar existence like unto Moses. Resurrect the kid and have him found by someone.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;Mary was of the seed of David.

Born of Spirit as resurrected into the womb of Mary.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.Note the text does not refer to birth but conception as Matthew 1:20 clearly says.

An immediate son has to be resurrected to take the throne directly from David to ensure no break between generations with a man on the throne, according to God's promise to David.

1 Kings 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.Historically, there hasn't been a man on David's throne since the 2nd Babylonian exile. If your theory had validity, all you'd have is a symbolism not fact.

The claim is not impeded by mamzer status, it is erased in the resurrection as noted.The claim is not valid as it was not sanctioned by YHWH, and the scriptures are silent on any reversal of that situation.

This son was born directly after the promise made in 2 Samuel 7. The child died for David's sin through no fault of his own, and Jesus died for sins of everyone through no fault of his own. There is an obvious parallel, aside from the fact that this son was in line before Solomon to get the Messianic promise.Jesus had hair on his head and was male. Thats about the only comparison i could assume. The child did not voluntarily die, YHWH struck him.

There are no better candidates.I think there is! Aka, the Jewish expection!

They got Pilate's command to seal the tomb so your claim is false, his role did not end at the death, it continued until after the burial.

Matthew 27:64-65 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can..Read it again. It was the Jews asking him to do things and he effectively replied, "none of my business, do it yourself!"

If he was concerned, he would have sent his soldiers to do something. The most that can be read into his words is that he might have been curious if Jesus would raise himself from the dead. ie: JC might do a Mythras

My only position is that Arimathea adopted Jesus to be heir of his riches, and acted as eldest relative taking charge of the burial per custom as cited by Jewish Encyclopedia. I have no opinion on his being an uncle. Wouldn't matter to my position anyway.

- An immediate son of David needed to receive the throne from David, as discussed.
- No covenant promise ever came through a woman, Mary was only a surrogate.As I said, all your theory gives is symbolism. The kid still hasn't ascended to the temporal throne of David.

Peace

apostoli

July 4th 2009, 03:54 AM

Hi xrseyre,

Apostoli:-
You wrote "Guess you deny the virgin birth (?) John 1:14 etc clearly have the Son made flesh, and thus born of the flesh."

It seems to me there are a load of better sources for "virgin birth", but hey...

John 1 has the Logos made flesh. "Made flesh" is not necessarily identical with "born of the flesh", c.f. Genesis 1:26-27. The Logos is not necessarily identical with the Son, save perhaps following the action of making the Logos flesh.

An interesting line of thinking might be that the ministry of Jesus represents a continuing action of making flesh of the Logos. No?Interestingly in Genesis neither Adam nor Eve were born. My quote of Jn 1:14 was in reference to John Goddard's claim that the flesh in question is that of David & Beth. So if Jn 1:14 is accepted the child was not flesh before its conception in Mary.

Peace

apostoli

July 4th 2009, 04:05 AM

...While all you can say is that David was exaggerating. Why would David exaggerate that he never sinned against a man, only God, when David clearly sinned against Uriah?

That doesn't even make sense, and like Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense then it's probably not true.

One Jewish thought is David was the King of Israel and the high priest of the cult of zion. He could not sin against man as he was if God = God on earth. Therefore he could only sin against God.

1 Chron 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.

Obsidian

July 4th 2009, 04:44 AM

I think apostoli's explanation is interesting, but just calling it an exaggeration would easily suffice. It's certainly a more logical interpretation of the passage than yours, John -- as I outlined above.

apostoli

July 4th 2009, 08:29 AM

What do you think it talks about here, for example?

Psalms 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

John 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

Did some Jews secretly whip David with hyssop? I never saw that in that Bible.Oh John, you are a worry.

the Schofield reference bible notes "Hyssop was the little shrub 1Ki 4:33 with which the blood and water of purification were applied. Lev 14:1-7 Num 19:1-19."

There is no immediate correspondence to john 19:29. Both hyssop & vinegar were (and still are) hebal remedies. There are numerous plant species throughout the mediterean called hyssop - some of which are considered a narcotic. In the RCC tradition Jesus was offered a narcotic and rejected it. This has nothing to do with David's reference. Also have a read about the first passover and the sprinkling of the blood on the door posts with hyssop.

Peace

apostoli

July 4th 2009, 12:25 PM

- No covenant promise ever came through a woman, Mary was only a surrogate.[/I]I was thinking on your various comments and it suddenly occured to me again (I'm sure I alluded to the following earlier) that your idea that "No covenant promise ever came through a woman" has absolutely no validity. The promise to Abraham came through Sarah!

Abraham's firstborn, his seed via Hagar, Ishmael, did not receive the covenant nor the inheritence. Isaac through whom the covenant and promise are fulfilled, and who received the inheritence had to be via Sarah!

Isaac, though the second born to Abraham, was decreed by YHWH to be Abraham's firstborn, because he was of Sarah!

John Goddard

July 4th 2009, 12:58 PM

As far as I am aware mamzer status is a Jewish tradition. A compromise of Moses' law/s. Under Moses' law Beth & David should have been stoned to death.

David also held Messianic promise of the New Covenant of mercy so we are starting to see things change.

What was the point of Mary? Why not have his familiar existence like unto Moses. Resurrect the kid and have him found by someone.

For one, Mary was prophetically symbolic of virgin/faithful Israel giving birth to Messiah.

Mary was of the seed of David.

The Bible doesn't ever specifically say anywhere who Mary descended from.

Note the text does not refer to birth but conception as Matthew 1:20 clearly says.

If Jesus was made according to the Spirit in Matthew 1:20, when was he made according to the Flesh -- by sex -- in Romans 1:3?

With David and Bathsheba. So Jesus says:

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

In order to be reborn you have to be remade, whether by resurrection or by spiritual conversion.

Historically, there hasn't been a man on David's throne since the 2nd Babylonian exile. If your theory had validity, all you'd have is a symbolism not fact.

Since Jesus receives the throne from his own father, there is no break in generations and David never fails to have a son on the throne. Years passed are irrelevant as long as generations without a king are not broken.

The claim is not valid as it was not sanctioned by YHWH, and the scriptures are silent on any reversal of that situation.

I just showed you in Jeremiah 31:29-31 where the New Covenant ends God's imposing of hardship on sons due to sins of the father. Mamzer status is a big one.

Jesus had hair on his head and was male. Thats about the only comparison i could assume. The child did not voluntarily die, YHWH struck him.

They both still suffered for the sins of others, and are both called Sons of David. Maybe you should think about it some more if all you can see is that they were male.

Heck the other day you didn't even know the child was a male until I showed you in 2 Samuel 11:27, you said, "Firstly, the sex of the child is not identified. (2 Sam 11:4-12:18) It could have been female."

I think there is! Aka, the Jewish expection!

Jews expect that Jesus is not the Messiah so what good does that do us Christians?

Read it again. It was the Jews asking him to do things and he effectively replied, "none of my business, do it yourself!"

Pilate never said that. In Matthew 27:64-65 Jews asked that Pilate command the tomb be sealed, and he commanded that it be sealed well, as sure as they could do it. Simple.

You said Pilate's role ended at the death, it didn't, so you were wrong here too. Just as you were wrong about David's child possibly being a daughter.

As I said, all your theory gives is symbolism. The kid still hasn't ascended to the temporal throne of David.

Jesus is Messiah right now because he got the throne from David, simple.

One Jewish thought is David was the King of Israel and the high priest of the cult of zion. He could not sin against man as he was if God = God on earth. Therefore he could only sin against God.

1 Chron 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.

This is talking about two entities, one the Lord God, and the other, David the King. You're just reading it wrong, the Bible doesn't say David is God haha. You're really reaching now.

David still killed Uriah and stole his wife.

2 Samuel 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

David also agreed it was an offense against the poor man.

2 Samuel 12:5-6 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

I was browsing through your various comments and it suddenly occured to me that your idea has absolutely no validity. The promise to Abraham came through Sarah! Abraham's seed via Hagar, Ishmael, did not receive the covenant nor the inheritence. Isaac through whom the covenant and promise are fulfilled, and who received the inheritence had to be via Sarah.

You're missing the point. No covenant promise ever passed to a female child. Isaac inherited it from Abraham, Jacob inherited it from Isaac, etc.

xrseyre

July 5th 2009, 03:00 AM

Hi xrseyre,

Interestingly in Genesis neither Adam nor Eve were born. My quote of Jn 1:14 was in reference to John Goddard's claim that the flesh in question is that of David & Beth. So if Jn 1:14 is accepted the child was not flesh before its conception in Mary.

Peace

That works for me, failing perhaps an excursion into human genetics. Personally I think that would be overstretching the concept of "flesh", but there's an avenue there.

GwG

Chris

apostoli

July 5th 2009, 08:16 AM

You're missing the point. No covenant promise ever passed to a female child. Isaac inherited it from Abraham, Jacob inherited it from Isaac, etc.Yes & no. The initial promise came via Sarah not Abraham. As the Ishmael vs Isaac example proves. And Jacob aquisitioned the birthright from Esau via the co-operation of his mother.

Patriarchial theology is what I term twizzer theology. Bit of Aristotle = woman is a defective man because she cannot produce sperm.

____________

Its true, that I missed the declaration that the child was male. And I admit I've never looked into your subject before. Hence my reasonableness in examining your proposition. I'm curious how/why you propose such. For me it is beyond logic.

Simple fact is YHWH struck the child and had it die. And scripture is otherwise silent.

The Moses legalism would prohibit the child from ascending the throne ever. The Mamzer status idea is a compromise (rejection) of Moses' Law. It has no recognition under YHWH's Law in scripture.

Also, the promise to David was temporal. As we know this promise was conditional on the King remaining faithful to YHWH. Which didn't happen.

The Jewish expectation has always been that the Messiah would come out of the seed of David, not a direct generation from David. as I pointed out, even if Luke's linage account is of Joe.A, as Joe.A according to Jewish tradition was Mary's father's younger brother, we have Jesus' linage = linking him as a seed of David according to the flesh (no sex required) and thus entitled to his throne.

The main reason I reject your speculation is that, imo, we'd have to discard all the books of the NT, except maybe Luke, John 2 &3 & Revelation.

Peace

apostoli

July 5th 2009, 08:20 AM

That works for me, failing perhaps an excursion into human genetics. Personally I think that would be overstretching the concept of "flesh", but there's an avenue there.

GwG

ChrisSometime ago I looked into genetics. A form of Mosaicism is a possible scientific ilustration in the explanation of the hypostatic union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaicism

I reject John Goddards speculations regarding the child born to Mary being flesh via Beth & David on the basis of legal precedent (not to mention the NT witness).

apostoli

July 5th 2009, 09:37 AM

ps John,

Patriarchial theology is what I term twizzer theology. Bit of Aristotle = woman is a defective man because she cannot produce sperm. I use to hang out with a bunch of Jews. Apparently, a male Jew can marry a gentile as he can endow his children with "Jewishness" but a female Jew can't marry a gentile as she can't endow her children with "Jewishness". And yet, these friends of mine held to a tradition that "Jewishness" came from the mother (?)

John Goddard

July 5th 2009, 02:42 PM

Yes & no. The initial promise came via Sarah not Abraham. As the Ishmael vs Isaac example proves. And Jacob aquisitioned the birthright from Esau via the co-operation of his mother.

The male children had their covenant promises from Abraham since before birth, not their wives who bore the next male in line to inherit them. Promises are inherited from male to male.

Its true, that I missed the declaration that the child was male. And I admit I've never looked into your subject before. Hence my reasonableness in examining your proposition. I'm curious how/why you propose such. For me it is beyond logic.

Ok, well you are learning as you go I guess.

Simple fact is YHWH struck the child and had it die. And scripture is otherwise silent.

Except for Jeremiah 31:29-31 regarding the New Covenant, which the NT says is mediated by the Son of David. The child killed for sins of David is a good choice to mediate a New Covenant of mercy, not sacrifice.

The Moses legalism would prohibit the child from ascending the throne ever.

If it stood forever, which the NT says it does not.

Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Also, the promise to David was temporal. As we know this promise was conditional on the King remaining faithful to YHWH. Which didn't happen.

It happened with Jesus, you are focusing on the wrong King Solomon. Resurrection makes the Kingdom of Jesus real and temporal, not just an idea.

The Jewish expectation has always been that the Messiah would come out of the seed of David, not a direct generation from David. as I pointed out, even if Luke's linage account is of Joe.A, as Joe.A according to Jewish tradition was Mary's father's younger brother, we have Jesus' linage = linking him as a seed of David according to the flesh (no sex required) and thus entitled to his throne.

The Jewish expectation does not include an incarnation and virgin birth, so much of what they expect about Messiah is also irrelevant to both of us.

The main reason I reject your speculation is that, imo, we'd have to discard all the books of the NT, except maybe Luke, John 2 &3 & Revelation.

That's apparently because you are going by interpretations trickled down from unbelieving Jews and from the Church.

ps John, I use to hang out with a bunch of Jews. Apparently, a male Jew can marry a gentile as he can endow his children with "Jewishness" but a female Jew can't marry a gentile as she can't endow her children with "Jewishness". And yet, these friends of mine held to a tradition that "Jewishness" came from the mother (?)

Well they are biblically illiterate then since Jewish precedent for a mother bestowing Jewishness on children comes precisely from verses about children of Gentile fathers and Jewish mothers.

Leviticus 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

apostoli

July 6th 2009, 12:05 AM

Hello John,

One thing I must thankyou for, is causing me to reread Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Its been years since I read them, let alone studied them.

Yes & no. The initial promise came via Sarah not Abraham. As the Ishmael vs Isaac example proves. And Jacob aquisitioned the birthright from Esau via the co-operation of his mother.The male children had their covenant promises from Abraham since before birth, not their wives who bore the next male in line to inherit them. Promises are inherited from male to male.Yes & no. By example: David had various sons by various wives and concubines before & after his first encounter with Bethsheba. At least nine of these had a legal claim to the temporal throne that preceded Solomon's. 2 Sam 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-9.

Six of these were born before the promise of 2 Sam 7:12, and the promise seems to be speaking of a future generation. So I guess we should exclude these. Though, I'm sure Adonijah as the surviving eldest child of David would protest (cp. 1 Kings 1). There may have been other claiments that had legal precedent over Jedidiah=Solomon but we aren't told about them. Jedidiah was YHWH's pick for the succession, and so he became known as Solomon, and he was the child of Bethsheba (cp 1 Chron 22:9).

As we find with Isaac and Jacob, the promise is conditional on YHWH's selection, not the sperm of their father that caused them to exist. In Isaac, Jacob's & Solomon's case their respective mother's are given prominance in the acquisition of the covenents. in Abraham's case a particular woman was deemed the posessor of the covenant. Likewise Solomon.

My major complaint concerning your theory, is that there is no indication anywhere in scripture that the illegitimate child of Beth & David was to be selected and enthroned by YHWH. As I attempt to illustrate above, such selection is a requirement of inheriting the promise and it seems that continuity occurs from YHWH selecting a particular woman, and then making a selection from her sons (often not her firstborn).

Simple fact is YHWH struck the child and had it die. And scripture is otherwise silent.Except for Jeremiah 31:29-31 regarding the New Covenant, which the NT says is mediated by the Son of David. The child killed for sins of David is a good choice to mediate a New Covenant of mercy, not sacrifice.I can't see it! The Jeremiah cite corresponds to Ezekiel 18:2. YHWH says "The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge?' [As] I live," says the Lord GOD, you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die. But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right...[If] he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully-- He [is] just; He shall surely live!" Says the Lord GOD."

Imu, Jeremiah & Ezekiel have it that the Moses Laws are replaced by a simplified set of commands cp Ezekiel 18:4-9. Its worth noting what Ezekiel says about sons and the sins of their father.

The Moses legalism would prohibit the child from ascending the throne ever.If it stood forever, which the NT says it does not.Granted. But the Law stood secure until after Jesus' death. Jesus was born under the law!

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.

Also, the promise to David was temporal. As we know this promise was conditional on the King remaining faithful to YHWH. Which didn't happen.It happened with Jesus, you are focusing on the wrong King Solomon. Resurrection makes the Kingdom of Jesus real and temporal, not just an idea.Reading your posts elsewhere, I get the impression that apart from your theory regarding the origin of Jesus, you basically have an orthodox opinion of Jesus (?)

Another reason I discount your ideas is because of the promise to David. It is very specific "He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 sam 7:13). So we have a corresponence between Solomon & Jesus. Solomon built a temporal house, Jesus an eternal one.

The Jewish expectation has always been that the Messiah would come out of the seed of David, not a direct generation from David. as I pointed out, even if Luke's linage account is of Joe.A, as Joe.A according to Jewish tradition was Mary's father's younger brother, we have Jesus' linage = linking him as a seed of David according to the flesh (no sex required) and thus entitled to his throne.The Jewish expectation does not include an incarnation and virgin birth, so much of what they expect about Messiah is also irrelevant to both of us.Yes and no. It must be remembered that the disciples were Jews, as was A.Paul, Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea and they would have had certain expectations that they found fulfilled in Jesus. One of those was that he'd have a linage linking him to David. I'm unaware of an expectation that the Messiah would be a resurrected son of David.

The main reason I reject your speculation is that, imo, we'd have to discard all the books of the NT, except maybe Luke, John 2 &3 & Revelation.That's apparently because you are going by interpretations trickled down from unbelieving Jews and from the Church.I learn a lot from examining hetero-orthodox belief, and the excuses people use for not accepting the NT witness. It is how I was lead to an orthodox opinion.

Another difficulty I find with your opinion is the teaching of John 1:1-3; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:1-3; Phil 2:6 etc. None of these things can be said of anyone born from the copulation of a man and woman, because they can't pre-exist the beginning of creation. We find A.John & A.Paul emphasing the Son of God's pre-existence and accord him function in the existence of all things created whether they be in heaven or earth.

Peace

xrseyre

July 7th 2009, 04:55 AM

Sometime ago I looked into genetics. A form of Mosaicism is a possible scientific ilustration in the explanation of the hypostatic union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaicism

I reject John Goddards speculations regarding the child born to Mary being flesh via Beth & David on the basis of legal precedent (not to mention the NT witness).

While mildly amused that Mosaicism has a name colourably making additional references, I still don't like the idea of Jesus-as-chimaera!

Mind you, I'm not comfortable with any line of thought which takes the virgin birth literally while adverting to modern conceptions of human biology and genetics. How can this be done without adverting to the "genes of the Father" and the manner of their transmission? (Neither are topics I really want to explore in a forum of this complexion!).

apostoli

July 7th 2009, 10:31 AM

While mildly amused that Mosaicism has a name colourably making additional references, I still don't like the idea of Jesus-as-chimaera!

Mind you, I'm not comfortable with any line of thought which takes the virgin birth literally while adverting to modern conceptions of human biology and genetics. How can this be done without adverting to the "genes of the Father" and the manner of their transmission? (Neither are topics I really want to explore in a forum of this complexion!).True, But there is a distinct difference between chimearaism and mosaicism. Imo, its just an idle curiousity that demonstrates possibilities which do not require sperm, merely switching chromosones on and off '-)

John Goddard

July 7th 2009, 12:02 PM

One thing I must thankyou for, is causing me to reread Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Its been years since I read them, let alone studied them.

That's good.

Yes & no. By example: David had various sons by various wives and concubines before & after his first encounter with Bethsheba. At least nine of these had a legal claim to the temporal throne that preceded Solomon's. 2 Sam 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-9.

Between 2 Samuel 7 and 2 Samuel 12:24, the child who died and his younger brother Solomon are the only ones mentioned. The child who died was first in line, had he not suffered for David's sin.

We could say the same for Jesus as an adult: he may have been earthly King in the first century, had he not suffered for sins of the Jews who rejected him.

My major complaint concerning your theory, is that there is no indication anywhere in scripture that the illegitimate child of Beth & David was to be selected and enthroned by YHWH. As I attempt to illustrate above, such selection is a requirement of inheriting the promise and it seems that continuity occurs from YHWH selecting a particular woman, and then making a selection from her sons (often not her firstborn).

I've pointed out a few indications already. As I said Psalms 51 seems to have little to do with David since he sinned against other men too (Psalms 51:4), and he was not really a preacher like Jesus who went out to convert sinners (Psalms 51:13).

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Also:

1 Corinthians 15:42-45 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Jesus had a natural body, but he was sown in incorruption and glory by the Spirit with Mary. So was Adam, made by the hand of God.

So who here would have been sown in corruption and dishonor? I say it was when Jesus was born to Bathsheba in mamzer status, then raised in glory into the womb of Mary.

And then again on an even higher level when he was resurrected from the tomb as an adult.

I can't see it! The Jeremiah cite corresponds to Ezekiel 18:2. YHWH says "The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge?' [As] I live," says the Lord GOD, you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die. But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right...[If] he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully-- He [is] just; He shall surely live!" Says the Lord GOD."

Imu, Jeremiah & Ezekiel have it that the Moses Laws are replaced by a simplified set of commands cp Ezekiel 18:4-9. Its worth noting what Ezekiel says about sons and the sins of their father.

What don't you see, if you seem to go on to agree that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 erases the father's sin (sour grape) of mamzer status (teeth on edge) for his children when they are resurrected into this New Covenant?

Granted. But the Law stood secure until after Jesus' death. Jesus was born under the law!

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.

That goes back to:

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh (Old Covenant/Flesh with Bathsheba); and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (New Covenant/Spirit with Mary).

Reading your posts elsewhere, I get the impression that apart from your theory regarding the origin of Jesus, you basically have an orthodox opinion of Jesus (?)

Pretty much except for Trinity.

Another reason I discount your ideas is because of the promise to David. It is very specific "He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 sam 7:13). So we have a corresponence between Solomon & Jesus. Solomon built a temporal house, Jesus an eternal one.

There is a parallel but Solomon didn't have anything everlasting, so he is not the son that comes from David's bowels/body.

2 Samuel 7:12-13 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy (David's) kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

The throne of David's Kingdom stands divided with Solomon so it doesn't matter if one is earthly and one is heavenly, Solomon's doesn't even qualify for either as soon as you get to 1 Kings 11:11.

Whether it is earthly or heavenly or both, it has to be everlasting from father to son. So that's why an immediate son had to receive the Kingdom from David, and never lose it in order that both of their thrones are everlasting, never failing to have a man on them. Which Jesus does.

Yes and no. It must be remembered that the disciples were Jews, as was A.Paul, Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea and they would have had certain expectations that they found fulfilled in Jesus. One of those was that he'd have a linage linking him to David. I'm unaware of an expectation that the Messiah would be a resurrected son of David.

There's not any OT indication Jesus would be incarnated as God with Mary as the only biological parent. So that's not helping your case, there's no OT precedent for that kind of birth.

While my position has a human father, and resurrection is also found in the OT. Thus it is more biblical.

Also, some Jews have even thought Daniel would be the resurrected Messiah based on Daniel 12:13.

R. Nahman said: if he [the Messiah] is of those living [to day], it might be one like myself, as it is written, And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governors shall proceed from the midst of them. Rab said: if he is of the living, it would be our holy Master; if of the dead, it would have been Daniel the most desirable man. (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_98.html#98b_34)

Another difficulty I find with your opinion is the teaching of John 1:1-3; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:1-3; Phil 2:6 etc. None of these things can be said of anyone born from the copulation of a man and woman, because they can't pre-exist the beginning of creation. We find A.John & A.Paul emphasing the Son of God's pre-existence and accord him function in the existence of all things created whether they be in heaven or earth.

The human nature and flesh of Jesus did not pre-exist before creation. Rather, the Word of God did. I don't think we disagree there.

Where we disagree is here:

You believe God's Word was united at conception with the human nature and flesh of Jesus created by the Spirit from the body of one woman, Mary.

While I believe Jesus was born a regular human with David and Bathsheba, died, and was resurrected into the womb of Mary by the Spirit. And then Jesus became increasingly stronger as God's Word went to dwell in him, to fullness at the point he went out preaching around 30.

So far all reasons stated, I think my position is more biblically sound especially with respect to precedent in the OT.

And it is also probably more agreeable to Jews who expect Messianic promise and Tribal lineage to come from a human father.

apostoli

July 13th 2009, 04:25 AM

Hi John,

Between 2 Samuel 7 and 2 Samuel 12:24, the child who died and his younger brother Solomon are the only ones mentioned. The child who died was first in line, had he not suffered for David's sin.1 Kings 1, identifies Adonijah as the oldest surviving son as claiming the throne. Adonijah was David's 4th son born in Hebron. Born long before David set eyes on Bethsheba. However, the prophet Natham had Bethsheba remind the ailing David that he had promised that Solomon would inherit the throne.

Such info puts a major dent in your theory. Not only did Adonijah have precedence, the illegimate child had no legal claim on the throne, and most importantly neither Adonijah nor he were chosen by YHWH to ascend the throne. In fact he was struck down by YHWH so that he could never make claim to the throne.

So who here would have been sown in corruption and dishonor? I say it was when Jesus was born to Bathsheba in mamzer status, then raised in glory into the womb of Mary.Well there is another problem with your proposition. the Jewish tradition of Mamzer status goes directly against Moses Laws. Both David and Bethsheba should have been stoned to death, and as a consequence the featus would die. So no mamzer's would exist! Mamzer status is a man idea, not a law sanctioned by YHWH.

What don't you see, if you seem to go on to agree that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 erases the father's sin (sour grape) of mamzer status (teeth on edge) for his children when they are resurrected into this New Covenant?Jeremiah is not talking about mamzers. If the law was obeyed there would be no mamzers! Have a close read of both Jerimiah and Ezekiel, YHWH is criticising the Jews tradition and then making his declaration in contradiction to the Jews tradition.

Jesus does much the same thing - criticing the Jews for replacing the Law with their contrived traditions.

...the Law stood secure until after Jesus' death. Jesus was born under the law! Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.That goes back to:

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh (Old Covenant/Flesh with Bathsheba); and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (New Covenant/Spirit with Mary).Imo, you are manipulating scripture. Jn 3:6 is talking about the here and now, not the resurrection, as Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus makes plain.

Another difficulty I perceive with your ideas is that you have a double resurrection. Which imu has no scriptural precedent nor prediction. Though depending on how one reads Jn 11 there maybe an analogy. I do attempt to understand your position thinking on the pros & cons.

If Jesus was born under the law, and was the resurrected/reincarnated illegitimate child of David & Beth he was comdemned by the Law (not to mention YHWH).

There is a parallel but Solomon didn't have anything everlasting, so he is not the son that comes from David's bowels/body.

2 Samuel 7:12-13 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy (David's) kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

The throne of David's Kingdom stands divided with Solomon so it doesn't matter if one is earthly and one is heavenly, Solomon's doesn't even qualify for either as soon as you get to 1 Kings 11:11.

Whether it is earthly or heavenly or both, it has to be everlasting from father to son. So that's why an immediate son had to receive the Kingdom from David, and never lose it in order that both of their thrones are everlasting, never failing to have a man on them. Which Jesus does.I agree that Jesus provides the continuity. However, "thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels" doesn't require David's direct sperm to produce an offspring. All that is required is that the promise is fulfilled in a direct descendant. If you have a think on David & Solomon, what they did do, and which has been perpetual, is to establish Jerusalem as the centre of worship (at least for the Jews). The God is your throne concept. Imo, if we take the texts too temporally, then Solomon would have had to live forever. However, it is the throne that is established forever (2 Sam 7:16). The question that arises: "was the kingdom promised temporal or heavenly". Given 2 Samuel 12:10-12 if the promise was temporal then it was going to perpetuate in a very distressed state.

.Another difficulty I find with your opinion is the teaching of John 1:1-3; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:1-3; Phil 2:6 etc. None of these things can be said of anyone born from the copulation of a man and woman, because they can't pre-exist the beginning of creation. We find A.John & A.Paul emphasing the Son of God's pre-existence and accord him function in the existence of all things created whether they be in heaven or earth.
The human nature and flesh of Jesus did not pre-exist before creation. Rather, the Word of God did. I don't think we disagree there.nice we can agree on something ;-}

Where we disagree is here:

You believe God's Word was united at conception with the human nature and flesh of Jesus created by the Spirit from the body of one woman, Mary.Specifically, I hold that the Logos became flesh, not the oration of the Father ;-)

While I believe Jesus was born a regular human with David and Bathsheba, died, and was resurrected into the womb of Mary by the Spirit. And then Jesus became increasingly stronger as God's Word went to dwell in him, to fullness at the point he went out preaching around 30.Phil 2:6-7 gives the order = the Christ was and continued to be (hyparchō) in the morph of God, emptifies himself completely (kenoō), took upon himself the morphe of a servant and finally was made in the likeness (homoiōma) of men. Homoiōma means "as in the likeness of something". vs8 tells us that being found in the schema of man he humbled himself even unto death. schema means "everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life etc."

This progession from morphe of God to schema of man, would imo negate your ideas. As would Heb 1:2-3 which depicts the Son as being that by whom God made the worlds and holds that the Son is the exact replica of the Father's hypostasis (the actual word used).

So far all reasons stated, I think my position is more biblically sound especially with respect to precedent in the OT.Hmm. In the OT the messenger of YHWH is identified as the God of the patriarchs. At Jn 8, Jesus associates himself to preceding and meeting Abraham. In the NT Jesus is allocated all things allocated to YHWH in the OT. So, biblically I feel you are on quick sand.

And it is also probably more agreeable to Jews who expect Messianic promise and Tribal lineage to come from a human father.Well...the Jews expectations have been wrong for well over 2000 years. At least going back to the Macabees, if not further. So, I wouldn't be bothered to placate the Jews.

If we go through the history of the first three centuries of the church, there seems to have been a common opinion that Jesus is the messenger of YHWH that appeared to the patriarchs and led Israel out of Egypt. He who revealed himself as YHWH. A much simpler proposition. Albeit, the NT makes personal (hypostases) distinction between the Father and the Son and in my belief the Son introduces us to the Father whom no man had experienced (cp. jn 1:18; 1 Jn 4:12-15).

Peace

John Goddard

July 13th 2009, 05:44 PM

1 Kings 1, identifies Adonijah as the oldest surviving son as claiming the throne. Adonijah was David's 4th son born in Hebron. Born long before David set eyes on Bethsheba. However, the prophet Natham had Bethsheba remind the ailing David that he had promised that Solomon would inherit the throne.

There are still no sons born between the future promise of 2nd Samuel 7:12 and the son of 2 Samuel 11:27 so I'm not sure how that matters.

Well there is another problem with your proposition. the Jewish tradition of Mamzer status goes directly against Moses Laws. Both David and Bethsheba should have been stoned to death, and as a consequence the featus would die. So no mamzer's would exist! Mamzer status is a man idea, not a law sanctioned by YHWH.

The big point you are missing is that God set aside stoning for David. How come? Because Jesus had been conceived and thus the New Covenant was in the world.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

So I would like to focus on this one point for now, and for you to explain why you think David and Bathsheba were excused from stoning.

In light of my position that Jesus is that child born to Bathsheba through illicit sex per Romans 1:3, was resurrected into the womb of Mary per Ezekiel 37:5, and who brings the New Covenant which erases stoning for adultery per John 8:7 and Matthew 9:13, and mamzer status per Jeremiah 31:29-31 and 1 Corinthians 15:42-45.

apostoli

July 14th 2009, 01:46 AM

Hi John,

There are still no sons born between the future promise of 2nd Samuel 7:12 and the son of 2 Samuel 11:27.Valid point! Though have a read of the particulars of 2 Samuel 7:12-16...

1. the seed is not established until David dies and his kingdom is not said to be everlasting (vs12)
2. This seed would build a house for YHWH's name, and there after YHWH would establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (vs13)
3. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever." (vs16)

Imo, as v13 precludes your manzer, 2 Sam 7:16 might better suit your argument than vs12.

The big point you are missing is that God set aside stoning for David. How come?David was the annointed of YHWH, the King, he could not be judged by man only God. As David demonstrated, no man can slay the anointed of YHWH and live (see 2 Sam 1:14-16).

More importantly, why didn't YHWH strike down all three? Imu, it is because David's intention was always to be loyal to YHWH. His sins were against man but not against God. Though David was chastised for putting his lusts above YHWH. He & Beth didn't get off scott free - YHWH placed a curse on his houshold (2 Sam 12:10-12).

Because Jesus had been conceived and thus the New Covenant was in the world.Actually not! The establishment of the new covenent was a long time in the future. Jerimiah forcasts one new covenant which was fulfilled in the 2nd temple. And the NT gives us another.

David was subject to the Mosaic covenent but not with the rigidity that mankind imposed. David's repentence was a big factor in YHWH's mercy.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.According to scripture the penalty for sin is death, full stop. So even if we could assume inherited sin on the part of the child, on dieing he was stuck in sheol. He needed the Logos become flesh, named Jesus, to set him free from sheol. And that is accomplished for all the dead by the obedience of Jesus to his Father.

So I would like to focus on this one point for now, and for you to explain why you think David and Bathsheba were excused from stoning.See above.

In light of my position that Jesus is that child born to Bathsheba through illicit sex per Romans 1:3,Romans 1:3 makes no mention of illicit sex nor Bethsheba. According with the scriptures usage, the seed of David would refer to any person that traces their line to David.

"according to the flesh" is a regular term in scripture that never has any sexual connotations. See Jn 8:15; Acts 2:30; Rom 1:3; 4:1; 8:1,4,5,12,13; 9:3,5; 1 Cor 1:26; 2 Cor 1:17; 5:16; 10:3; 11:18; Gal 4:23,29; Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; 1 Peter 4:6; 2 Peter 2:10.

Have an attentive read of 2 Cor 5:16 "Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know [Him thus] no longer. "

Note Gal 4:29: "But, as he [Ishmael] who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit [Isaac], even so [it is] now." A.Paul admits he is using an analogy (vs 24). As you will recall both Ishmael & Isaac came into the world in exactly the same way. Also see vs 22-23.

was resurrected into the womb of Mary per Ezekiel 37:5,Ezekiel was speaking of a general resurrection, not a particular one. Daniel 12:2 does the same thing.

No where in the OT is it predicated that there would be any person that is particularly risen. All occurances are general. Similarly, there is nowhere in scripture that speaks of a single person having multiple resurrections as your proposal requires.

As you noted earlier, the OT also does not predict that the Son of God would become man, and I add, the OT also does not predict that eternal salvation would come via one man. However, the NT does identify, he who created all things made, the Logos, became flesh and dwelt amoungst us, was named Jesus and salvation is through him. So given both the NT & OT is silent on your opinion, I can't see how you could defend your opinion from scripture.

As a speculative exercise, if one of David's sons was to be resurrected so he could perpetuate the throne, Nathan and Solomon are the only ones with scriptural connections.

and who brings the New Covenant which erases stoning for adultery per John 8:7 and Matthew 9:13The new covenant wasn't in force when Jesus prevented the stoning, as the context of Jn 8 makes clear - at the time the Mosiac law prevailed.

As we find with Jesus' sermon on the invalidity of divorce according to God's intention, the laws were given because of the hardness of heart of the Jews. This is important, as even in the OT repentence mediates the penalty for sin.

Matthew 9:13 cites Hosea 6:6 where YHWH addressing Israel (as Ephraim) says "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." It is more than evident in the scriptures that the new covenant didn't come into force until after Jesus' resurrection & ascension.

and mamzer status per Jeremiah 31:29-31 and 1 Corinthians 15:42-45.You really should drop the mamzer argument, it is 100% unscriptural. Scripture says the penalty for sin is death, so on dying any stigma of the child ceases.

Also Jeremiah 31:29-31 does not support your premise. Read vs31 attentively, the new covenant is with the houses of Israel & Judah. See vs33-37 which refers to Israel alone (presumeably the united kingdom). Here, YHWH says he would put the law in their inner parts etc. This new covenant has nothing to do with the new covenant of the NT (as the conditionality and particulatrity of 31:36-37 demonstrates).

Ezekiel 18 would probably suit your premises better as it speaks about the sins of the father not being directly placed on the son - then and future, here and now.

"The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge'? "[As] I live," says the Lord GOD, "you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die. But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right...[If] he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully-- He [is] just; He shall surely live! "

and 1 Corinthians 15:42-45See Galatians 4:22-31.

Peace