Be it unto Me According to Thy Word

[wenglund]

55 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Jesus placed the Phaeisees in checkmate.

But presenting the dilemma of verse 45

“If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?”

The obvious answer to this question is -because He is not David’s son.  (The repudiation).  And the Pharisees realized their error.

For if they answer this question they would have to concede that the Messiah is God.  Thus Jesus is God. 

And if they answer with a lie, and say that the Messiah is the Son of David, then they are conceding that Jesus is their Messiah. 

Hence silence.

Wrong. They did answer that Christ (Messiah) was the Son of David, and it wasn't a lie (as attested not only by the Pharisees and Scribes, but also by an angel and at least two New Testament apostles, and multiple modern apostles). So, your "obvious answer" is based on a false premise. Sorry!

The silence and "checkmate" was because the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't rightly accept that Christ/Messiah was the Son of David while also denying that Christ/Messiah was the Son of God and Lord of David.  They obviously couldn't answer because both were  dependently true.

Care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited January 15, 2019 by wenglund

[Guest]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I didn't read all the responses, so this might have already been said.

Matthew, being a Jew, knows the proper way to trace ancestry in Jewish tradition.  But, Matthew's genealogical account is not written for the purpose of outlining Christ's descendancy from David because... Christ doesn't descend from David through Joseph (in Jewish law, Jewish ancestry follows the Mother in the case of adoption and Matthew claimed Jesus is the son of God and not the son of Joseph).  Rather, Matthew's genealogical account shows how Jesus fulfills other prophecy other than the Davidian claim, such as bringing together Gentiles and Jew and the forgiveness of sins - to which the mention of the 4 women shows Gentiles and sinners (all 4 women had soiled reputations) getting brought into the house of David within the line of Joseph (as opposed to other Davidian ancestral lines) making God's choice of Joseph being the adoptive father of Jesus and an important influence in Christ's upbringing a fulfillment of prophecy.

Luke's genealogical account is written in the proper Jewish tradition, even as Luke was not a Jew, because this is the ancestry that shows the fulfillment of the prophecy of Christ's descendancy from David. 

I like your take on Matthew.  But I disagree with the Luke statement.

This would NOT have been the proper claim.  Inheritance to the throne would NOT have come through Mary.  Jesus had (half) brothers who were literal sons of Joseph.  Thus they would have inherited the throne, not Jesus.

The claim through the famale line is only valid if there are no surviving male heirs through the male line (Jewish Tradition).  And there were.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Guest

[mikbone]

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

Wrong. They did answer that Christ (Messiah) was the Son of David, and it wasn't a lie (as attested not only by the Pharisees and Scribes, but also by an angel and at least two New Testament apostles, and multiple modern apostles). So, your "obvious answer" is based on a false premise. Sorry!

The silence and "checkmate" was because the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't rightly accept that Christ/Messiah was the Son of David while also denying that Christ/Messiah was the Son of God and Lord of David.  They obviously couldn't answer because both were  dependently true.

Care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Here is how I read it.  When Jesus asked in 42, what think ye of Christ?  The Pharisees initially assumed that Jesus was asking what think ye of the promised messiah?  Not, what think ye of me?  

Contrast this event to the question posed to Peter in Matthew 16:15-16.

But when they did identify the messiah as the Son of David they stepped into the trap.  They then realized that they had made a colossal error because the many followers of Jesus had been refering to him as the son of David and many of those followers were present in the multitude.  If I was directing a video of this event, at this point I would have asked the multitude to make an audible gasp and beging whispering to each other while direct the Pharaises to enact looks of astonishment, regret and defeat.

What is transpiring in the mind of the Pharisees and the multitude is important.

This is why they couldn’t answer the second question.  The first question, in their mind, applied to the prommised future messiah (who they refused to associate with Jesus). The second question applied to Jesus himself.

Edited January 15, 2019 by mikbone

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I like your take on Matthew.  But I disagree with the Luke statement.

This would NOT have been the proper claim.  Inheritance to the throne would NOT have come through Mary.  Jesus had (half) brothers who were literal sons of Joseph.  Thus they would have inherited the throne, not Jesus.

The claim through the famale line is only valid if there are no surviving male heirs through the male line (Jewish Tradition).  And there were.

By Jewish Tradition, although Joseph's line is the royal line, Joseph's ancestry have not ascended to the throne because of the Jeconian curse (Matthew traces Joseph's line through Jeconiah in his genealogy).  Therefore, as it follows, any son of Joseph by blood (tainted by the blood of Jeconiah) that ascend to the throne of Judah will bring a curse.  This is another reason why Jesus is the ONLY person that can fulfill that prophesy of being able to ascend to the throne as King of the Jews from the tribe of Judah and the line of David as he is a declared son of Joseph of the royal lineage and no other but does not carry his blood while still fulfilling the prophesied Messianic lineage through Mary.

Edited January 15, 2019 by anatess2

[zil]

J: What think ye of the Messiah?

P: He's the son of David.

J: Then how is it that David referred to his descendant as Lord?

P: Er, um.

Answer: He's both the son of David (by his mother and adoptive father) and the Son of God, thus Lord.  Conundrum solved.  Only difficult if you don't believe in Jesus Christ.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

By Jewish Tradition, although Joseph's line is the royal line, Joseph's ancestry have not ascended to the throne because of the Jeconian curse (Matthew traces Joseph's line through Jeconiah in his genealogy).  Therefore, as it follows, any son of Joseph by blood (tainted by the blood of Jeconiah) that ascend to the throne of Judah will bring a curse.  This is another reason why Jesus is the ONLY person that can fulfill that prophesy of being able to ascend to the throne as King of the Jews from the tribe of Judah and the line of David as he is a declared son of Joseph of the royal lineage and no other but does not carry his blood...

Yes, I'm aware of the curse.  And all this is in line with what I said.  But the following is what I had a problem with.

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

...while still fulfilling the prophesied Messianic lineage through Mary.

No.  I'm specifically saying that the right to inheritance could not have legitimately come through Mary while there were viable male inheritors.  No matter if you consider Jesus or his brothers to be the rightful heirs, no one in this situation would have had a legitimate claim through Mary.

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, mikbone said:

Therefore Jesus Christ was repudiating the Pharisees belief that the Messiah was the Son of David.  While at the same time proclaiming his divine nature.

This doesn't make sense, especially in the light of this:

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Here is how I read it.  When Jesus asked in 42, what think ye of Christ?  The Pharisees initially assumed that Jesus was asking what think ye of the promised messiah?  Not, what think ye of me?  

Contrast this event to the question posed to Peter in Matthew 16:15-16.

But when they did identify the messiah as the Son of David they stepped into the trap.  They then realized that they had made a colossal error because the many followers of Jesus had been refering to him as the son of David and many of those followers were present in the multitude.

What is transpiring in the mind of the Pharisees and the multitude is important.

This is why they couldn’t answer the second question.  The first question, in their mind, applied to the prommised future messiah (who they refused to associate with Jesus). The second question applied to Jesus himself.

Maybe you are using the word "repudiate" in a different context than I understand it?

Repudiation is a rejection of validity.  Jesus did not and cannot repudiate the title of Son of David because... he IS a Son of David.  And that title is an important prophesy to the Messianic line as you pointed out above.

Edited January 15, 2019 by anatess2

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I'm aware of the curse.  And all this is in line with what I said.  But the following is what I had a problem with.

No.  I'm specifically saying that the right to inheritance could not have legitimately come through Mary while there were viable male inheritors.  No matter if you consider Jesus or his brothers to be the rightful heirs, no one in this situation would have had a legitimate claim through Mary.

NONE of the blood descendants of Jeconiah are "viable male inheritors", therefore, nobody in the bloodline of Joseph qualifies for the King of the Jews.  The claim through Mary is not King of the Jews (royal lineage goes through the Father, that claim is through Jesus being declared the first son of Joseph).  The claim through Mary is the prophesied Son of David (messianic bloodline as prophesied).

Joseph is a King.  But he didn't ascend to the throne because he has the blood of Jeconiah.  Jesus being declared his first son is also a King (as is written on the cross).  But as he doesn't have the blood of Jeconiah, he can ascend to the throne and not bring the curse upon the Jews - a fulfillment of a Messianic prophesy.

Edited January 15, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

NONE of the blood descendants of Jeconiah are "viable male inheritors"

Not so.  You're conflating a Deific curse with legal rights.

By the Deific curse, the Lord would prevent any of the seed of Jachonias from obtaining the political power to take and possess the throne of David.  This was not a legal definition or condition.  It was God's decree and declaration of what HE was going to do.

But the legal inheritance was still spelled out by the Law.  And curse or no, there was a legal heir by blood.

The way Jesus satisfied both the curse and the prophecy was that he was the rightful heir by ADOPTION.  Thus not of Coniah's seed AND also the legal heir to Joseph.  It really had nothing to do with Mary, except that as Joseph's wife, her son was his son.

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not so.  You're conflating a Deific curse with legal rights.

By the Deific curse, the Lord would prevent any of the seed of Jachonias from obtaining the political power to take and possess the throne of David.  This was not a legal definition or condition.  It was God's decree and declaration of what HE was going to do.

But the legal inheritance was still spelled out by the Law.  And curse or no, there was a legal heir by blood.

The way Jesus satisfied both the curse and the prophecy was that he was the rightful heir by ADOPTION.  Thus not of Coniah's seed AND also the legal heir to Joseph.  It really had nothing to do with Mary, except that as Joseph's wife, her son was his son.

This is not correct.  The prophesied Messianic Line is Son of David.  This is a bloodline.  This is not fulfilled by adoption.  Declaring Jesus as the Son of God (which makes him not a son of Joseph) would not fulfill the prophesy of Son of David unless Jesus can trace his bloodline to David.

The Royal Lineage can be fulfilled by adoption.

The Messianic Line and Royal Lineage is fulfilled in Christ through the combined claim from both his mortal parents.

Edited January 15, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not correct.  The prophesied Messianic Line is Son of David.  This is a bloodline.  This is not fulfilled by adoption. 

Not necessarily so.  I'm adopted.  And I trace my LINE through my adoptive parents as well as my birth parents.

Quote

The Royal Lineage can be fulfilled by adoption.

Glad you agree.

Quote

The Messianic Line and Royal Lineage is fulfilled in Christ through the combined claim from both his mortal parents.

I get the fact you're making this interpretation.  But it completely ignores the fact that the legal claim to the throne would have come through Joseph, not Mary.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Guest

[anatess2]

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not necessarily so.  I'm adopted.  And I trace my LINE through my adoptive parents as well as my birth parents.

It is necessarily so with the Messiah.  You can't be a Jew by birth if you are adopted by your Jewish father unless your mother is a Jew.  If your mother is not a Jew, you have to go through a process of conversion to become a Jew.

If your mother is a Jew, your father doesn't have to be a Jew.  You are a Jew by birth.

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I get the fact you're making this interpretation.  But it completely ignores the fact that the legal claim to the throne would have come through Joseph, not Mary.

And you're completely ignoring the fact that the Messianic prophesy is NOT JUST a legal claim to the throne but also a claim to the Davidic bloodline (not only a Jew, but must be a Jew through David) which is not fulfilled through Joseph because the line follows the mother in the case of an adoption.

P.S.  I'm not "making this interpretation".  This is the Catholic interpretation.  This Catholic interpretation is supported by the LDS Church, or at least not contradicted.

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by anatess2

[anatess2]

dup

Edited January 15, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And you're completely ignoring the fact that the Messianic prophesy is NOT JUST a legal claim to the throne but also a claim to the Davidic bloodline (not only a Jew, but must be a Jew through David) which is not fulfilled through Joseph because the line follows the mother in the case of an adoption.

Nope.  Not ignoring it.  I agree with it.  But again, you're conflating.

Messiah:

• Must be of the line of David.  I do not accept the requirement that it necessarily means by blood or DNA.  I gave my argument.  You ignored or rejected it without explaining any reason other than: It must be so.  Not convincing.
• Must be the legal heir to the throne. You have not addressed this requirement.  This could NOT have been satisfied by Mary alone unless... conditions which did not exist at the time.*

Jew - I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Yes, he would be born into the covenant people.  And he was.  But this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

*The only conditions that I can think of that would have made Jesus the rightful heir through Mary alone was that

• Jesus' brothers were conceived but not yet born when Joseph died.  That could only be true if they were quadruplets. (there were four, right?)
• His brothers were from a different father than Joseph.  Unlikely when one of them was named Joseph as well.

[anatess2]

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Jew - I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Yes, he would be born into the covenant people.  And he was.  But this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Oh my word.  Is this the source of the confusion?  JEW - House of Judah.  You're either a Jew (belongs to the House of Judah) or a Gentile (not from the House of Judah).  You can be Jew through jus sanguine (bloodline) or a Jew through conversion (a Gentile who accepts the Jewish covenant like those women Matthew included in the genealogy).  And just to complete this picture, all Jews by birth are born into the covenant.  Therefore, even if they reject the religious and cultural practices of their Jewish ancestry, they are still bound by that covenant.  Gentiles are not bound by that covenant unless they convert.  Therefore, Jesus HAS TO BE born a Jew and be bound by that covenant from birth, and not have a period of time where he is a Gentile and then coverts to become a Jew.  Not only that, to fulfill the prophesy, he has to be a Jew through the House of David and not any other descendants of Judah.

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Nope.  Not ignoring it.  I agree with it.  But again, you're conflating.

Messiah:

• Must be of the line of David.  I do not accept the requirement that it necessarily means by blood or DNA.  I gave my argument.  You ignored or rejected it without explaining any reason other than: It must be so.  Not convincing.

I told you that's not how you become a Jew.  Orthodox Jews today still follow that same rule.  Even the Israeli Citizenship Rule of Return for Jews still follow that same rule.  I don't know why this is difficult to understand.  The Messiah is a Jew by birth.  Not a Jewish convert.  That's not something you get by adoption to a Jewish father.

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

• Must be the legal heir to the throne. You have not addressed this requirement.  This could NOT have been satisfied by Mary alone unless... conditions which did not exist at the time.*

I have.  Repeatedly.   Royal Lineage.  This is fulfilled by Joseph, of the royal lineage, declaring Jesus as his son and heir when he married pregnant Mary.  Royal inheritance is not the same as Jewish by birth.  You have royal inheritance through declaration by your royal father.  You can also lose such inheritance by your father's declaration to that effect. 

Joseph's lineage doesn't make Jesus a Jew unless Joseph denies that Jesus is the Son of God and declares Jesus as his son by blood making Jesus a Jew by birth through his father.

Therefore, Jesus declaring himself as a Son of God makes him an adopted son of Joseph that will then make Mary's lineage matter in Jesus claim to be a Jew by birth and not by conversion.

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

• *The only conditions that I can think of that would have made Jesus the rightful heir through Mary alone was that
• Jesus' brothers were conceived but not yet born when Joseph died.  That could only be true if they were quadruplets. (there were four, right?)
• His brothers were from a different father than Joseph.  Unlikely when one of them was named Joseph as well.

As I have told you repeatedly, Jesus cannot be King of the Jews through Mary alone.  At all.  Royal lineage goes through the father - by birth or adoption.  None of Joseph's biological sons could be King of the Jews due to the Jeconian curse.

If Jesus was not a Jew (through Mary's bloodline) he couldn't be King of the Jews even with Joseph's adoption into the royal lineage.  You have to be a Jew (born into the covenant, not Gentile convert) to be King of the Jews. 

Therefore, the only person who qualifies to be the King of the Jews and not bring about the curse is Jesus Christ, King of the Jews, adopted son of Joseph, son of Mary of the House of David.  This fulfills all the prophesy for Jesus being the Messiah, the Son of God that David calls Lord.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Oh my word.  Is this the source of the confusion?  JEW - House of Judah.  You're either a Jew (belongs to the House of Judah) or a Gentile (not from the House of Judah).  You can be Jew through jus sanguine (bloodline) or a Jew through conversion (a Gentile who accepts the Jewish covenant like those women Matthew included in the genealogy).  And just to complete this picture, all Jews by birth are born into the covenant.  Therefore, even if they reject the religious and cultural practices of their Jewish ancestry, they are still bound by that covenant.  Gentiles are not bound by that covenant unless they convert.  Therefore, Jesus HAS TO BE born a Jew and be bound by that covenant from birth, and not have a period of time where he is a Gentile and then coverts to become a Jew.  Not only that, to fulfill the prophesy, he has to be a Jew through the House of David and not any other descendants of Judah.

Totally missed my point.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I told you that's not how you become a Jew.  Orthodox Jews today still follow that same rule.  Even the Israeli Citizenship Rule of Return for Jews still follow that same rule.  I don't know why this is difficult to understand.  The Messiah is a Jew by birth.  Not a Jewish convert.  That's not something you get by adoption to a Jewish father.

Totally ignored my point.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I have.  Repeatedly.   Royal Lineage.  This is fulfilled by Joseph declaring Jesus as his son when he married pregnant Mary.  Royal inheritance is not the same as Jewish by birth.  You have royal inheritance through declaration by your royal father.  You can also lose such inheritance by your father's declaration to that effect. 

Totally missed my point.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Joseph's lineage doesn't make Jesus a Jew unless Joseph denies that Jesus is the Son of God and declares Jesus as his son by blood making Jesus a Jew by birth through his father.

Ignored my point again.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Therefore, Jesus declaring himself as a Son of God makes him an adopted son of Joseph that will then make Mary's lineage matter in Jesus claim to be a Jew by birth and not by conversion.

Still missing my point.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

As I have told you repeatedly, Jesus cannot be King of the Jews through Mary alone.  At all.  Royal lineage goes through the father.  None of Joseph's biological sons could be King of the Jews due to the Jeconian curse.

Ignored my point.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If Jesus was not a Jew (through Mary's bloodline) he couldn't be King of the Jews even with Joseph's adoption.  You have to be a Jew (born into the covenant, not Gentile convert) to be King of the Jews. 

Ignoring AND missed my point.  Boy, up until this point, it was perfect alternating commentary.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Therefore, the only person who qualifies to be the King of the Jews and not bring about the curse is Jesus Christ, King of the Jews, adopted son of Joseph, son of Mary of the House of David.  This fulfills all the prophesy for Jesus being the Messiah, the Son of God that David calls Lord.

Yes.  At least we agree on something.

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Totally missed my point.

Totally ignored my point.

Totally missed my point.

Ignored my point again.

Still missing my point.

Ignored my point.

Ignoring AND missed my point.  Boy, up until this point, it was perfect alternating commentary.

Yes.  At least we agree on something.

Okay, here's MY POINT summarized. 

Requirements for Messiah:

* Royal lineage - fulfilled through adoption by Joseph declaring Jesus his heir.  Matthew covers prophecies fulfilled within the royal lineage pertaining to the Messiah in his genealogical account.  The account is not written to prove bloodline as Jesus is not of Joseph's blood.  Although of royal lineage, any descendant of Jeconiah cannot ascend the throne without invoking a curse, therefore, the King is in the challenging position of being of royal lineage (House of Jeconiah) without Jeconiah's blood.  Jesus is of the royal lineage by adoption and, therefore, not tainted by the curse.

* Descendant of Abraham, Tribe of Judah, House of David - can't be fulfilled by Joseph's adoption, because in the case of adoption the claim to a House follows the mother.  Therefore, this is fulfilled by Mary's lineage as outlined in Luke's proper genealogical account proving the claim to the the title Son of David.  

 These two requirements have to be fulfilled for Jesus to be the King of the Jews, the promised Messiah.  Both Matthew and Luke's genealogies cannot stand alone in the fulfillment of the prophesy.  Both needed to be accounted for.

Now, what is YOUR point?

Edited January 15, 2019 by anatess2

[wenglund]

16 hours ago, mikbone said:

Here is how I read it.  When Jesus asked in 42, what think ye of Christ?  The Pharisees initially assumed that Jesus was asking what think ye of the promised messiah?  Not, what think ye of me?  

We are in agreement so far.

16 hours ago, mikbone said:

Contrast this event to the question posed to Peter in Matthew 16:15-16.But when they did identify the messiah as the Son of David they stepped into the trap.  

Again,  we are still in agreement.

Quote

They then realized that they had made a colossal error because the many followers of Jesus had been refering to him as the son of David and many of those followers were present in the multitude.

Yes, there were multiple instances where  disciples referred to Jesus as the Son of David--and this along with the angel Gabriel and at least two New Testament apostle in addition to the genealogies.  

And, we know from Mt 21:15, that prior to the event in question, the Chief Priests and Scribes were aware that disciples had referred to Jesus as the Son of David, and this displeased them. Presumably, they were displeased because they didn't believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and also considered it wrong for the disciples to say that he was.

Yet, in order for Scribes and Pharisees to somehow "realize they had made a colossal mistake," as you suppose, would necessitate that they agree with the disciples  and also conclude that Christ's question could only be referring to himself.  Neither was the case.

Here, once more, your perception is based on two false assumption.

Worse yet, and more to the point, even if the Scribes and Pharisees were caught in the "trap" you fallaciously suppose, it suggest nothing in terms of Christ allegedly repudiating  either that the promised Messiah was the Son of David or that Jesus Christ, himself was the Son of David, contrary to the declaration of the angel Gabriel, two New Testament apostles, various disciples,  Old Testament prophets (2 Sam 7:12-13) and ancient Jewish tradition, and modern apostles, etc. 

It appears to me that you are, against strong reason and evidence, grasping at straws in an attempt to hold tenaciously to your church-leader-rejecting belief--which is your choice. It just that when I see people standing pridefully fast in the ideational quicksand, it is time for me to leave each to their own, realizing that anything I say will be for not against the impervious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[anatess2]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

It appears to me that you are, against strong reason and evidence, grasping at straws in an attempt to hold tenaciously to your church-leader-rejecting belief--which is your choice. It just that when I see people standing pridefully fast in the ideational quicksand, it is time for me to leave each to their own, realizing that anything I say will be for not against the impervious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Wade, @mikbone I'm confused.  Does mikbone believe that Jesus is NOT a Son of David? 

[mikbone]

48 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Wade, @mikbone I'm confused.  Does mikbone believe that Jesus is NOT a Son of David? 

It is complicated.  Not sure it is worth hashing out.  I’ve already derailed the intention of the OP. 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, mikbone said:

It is complicated.  Not sure it is worth hashing out.  I’ve already derailed the intention of the OP. 

Why is it a derailment?  The OP is asking about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.  The claim to the title Son of David is the reason for one of those genealogies being written in scripture.

[mikbone]

Cliff note version.  @anatess2 

And this is total supposition...  We don’t know about the details of the conception of Jesus Christ.

Some people think that Jesus (during his 33 year mortal ministry) was 50% immortal and 50% mortal.  I don’t.  I think He was 100% God and 100% mortal.

I think that His real (genetic) parents are Heavenly Father and Mother.  And that the virgin Mary is a surrogate mother and that both Mary and Joseph were his addoptive parents during his mortality.  

The title Son of David still applies to him legally.  Much like Moses was a prince of Egypt. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by mikbone

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Cliff note version.  @anatess2 

And this is total supposition...  We don’t know about the details of the conception of Jesus Christ.

Some people think that Jesus (during his 33 year mortal ministry) was 50% immortal and 50% mortal.  I don’t.  I think He was 100% God and 100% mortal.

I think that His real (genetic) parents are Heavenly Father and Mother.  And that the virgin Mary is a surrogate mother and that both Mary and Joseph were his addoptive parents during his mortality.  

The title Son of David still applies to him legally.  Much like Moses was a prince of Egypt. 

Your total supposition contradicts doctrine.

We know exactly that Jesus is 100% God and 100% mortal.  The LDS teaching has no problem with that concept because Godhood is a State of Being whereas mortality is a Physical Estate.  This is only a conundrum in Trinitarian teaching.

Some people thinking that Jesus is 50% immortal and 50% mortal are wrong by LDS teaching.  Jesus is exactly like we are - Immortal Spirits in a Mortal Body.

His real genetic parents is MARY by Blood (which is the only relevant concern).  Heavenly Father and Mother are not mortal and therefore, are personages of Flesh and Bone and not Blood.

The title Son of David applies to him LITERALLY.  Luke's genealogical account which strictly follows the Jewish tradition of tracing a Bloodline is an account of Jesus' bloodline through Mary.  The prophesied Messiah is not a "legal" Son of David but a Son of David by Bloodline.  The title King of the Jews is the one that applies to him legally through Joseph's adoption much like Moses was the Prince of Egypt.  Joseph's line is the Royal Lineage in the House of David.

[mikbone]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

His real genetic parents is MARY by Blood (which is the only relevant concern).  Heavenly Father and Mother are not mortal and therefore, are personages of Flesh and Bone and not Blood.

The title Son of David applies to him LITERALLY.  Luke's genealogical account which strictly follows the Jewish tradition of tracing a Bloodline is an account of Jesus' bloodline through Mary.  The prophesied Messiah is not a "legal" Son of David but a Son of David by Bloodline.  The title King of the Jews is the one that applies to him legally through Joseph's adoption much like Moses was the Prince of Egypt.  Joseph's line is the Royal Lineage in the House of David.

I understand and respect your explanation.

[mikbone]

13 hours ago, wenglund said:

Yet, in order for Scribes and Pharisees to somehow "realize they had made a colossal mistake," as you suppose, would necessitate that they agree with the disciples  and also conclude that Christ's question could only be referring to himself.  Neither was the case.

Here, once more, your perception is based on two false assumption.

Worse yet, and more to the point, even if the Scribes and Pharisees were caught in the "trap" you fallaciously suppose, it suggest nothing in terms of Christ allegedly repudiating  either that the promised Messiah was the Son of David or that Jesus Christ, himself was the Son of David, contrary to the declaration of the angel Gabriel, two New Testament apostles, various disciples,  Old Testament prophets (2 Sam 7:12-13) and ancient Jewish tradition, and modern apostles, etc. 

It appears to me that you are, against strong reason and evidence, grasping at straws in an attempt to hold tenaciously to your church-leader-rejecting belief--which is your choice. It just that when I see people standing pridefully fast in the ideational quicksand, it is time for me to leave each to their own, realizing that anything I say will be for not against the impervious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The Pharisees did not have to agree with the disciples.  Their recognition that the multitude agreed with the apostles (believing or even considering that Jesus was the promised Messiah) was enough to undermine their power.  

Christ never denied that he was the Son of David.  But his question to the Pharisees alluding to Palms 110:1 and documented in Matthew 22:45  "If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" Presents us with the quandary.  What is His point?  Why is He asking this question?  and Why did Matthew feel the need to present this question in Holy Writ?  Certainly, our Savior is not asking for clarification.  He knew that the Pharisees would not dare answer the question.  We don't know.  I don't proclaim to know the mind of God.  But I am allowed to consider the question.  At the very least (in my opinion), Jesus was giving the impression to the Pharisees that He thought He was the Son of God. [which was the repudiation that I was referring to].  If Jesus had never offended the leadership of the Jews, He likely would not have been crucified...

And according to my current hypothesis, it is totally valid for God, angels, and witnesses to proclaim Jesus and the Son of David.  Jesus was the adoptive son of Joseph (if not of Mary as well).  The law of adoption itself allows the title.  

And I can understand your aggravation with my "church-leader-rejecting beliefs."

To set the record straight, I agree with the scriptures and all church leaders on all Eternal or Core Doctrine.  I hold the scriptures as the word of God, but they have been written a way that allows diverse interpretation (likely by design).  When church leaders make statement or write books on supportive or esoteric doctrine, I don't immediately accept the material.  I study it out, share the material with my loved ones, pray, and ponder the material.  I don't require you or anyone else to believe or think as I do.

I would like to thank you for our discussions though.  I have been trying to write a book about my understanding and love of our Savior, and some of your questions and perspectives have helped me to refine my presentation style.

Edited January 16, 2019 by mikbone