Talk:Jesus/Archive 66

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Comments about the Current Article

Ok. I was just going to say that though there is a lot to go into this page, obviously, some minor details are being overlooked because of all this foolish obsessing over the larger. A large basis for faith is the firm belief in what one cannot confirm, but clearly the several accounts of Jesus, the Four Gospels of Canon, are in agreeance for the most part regarding His life and ministry, so it is certainly right to site that the sources for much of this page ARE drawn from Christian Tradition. However, as for the small things, several pages capitalise "He" in reference to God, and Christ as well in certain articles. Either this needs to be 'fixed' or the main article on the Man needs to be altered to match. Also, Jesus was risen, by modern standards, TWO days after He was interred; three was reference to the Jewish calender at the time. Also, as far as pictures go, they are completely unnecessary, but if you must have them, make sure they all display a variety of perspectives, especially considering none of us know what Jesus looked like, nor will we (or ... at least, i don't think we will). [MrLigit was responsible for this section. I wasn't signed in at the time this was created]

Interred

Buried means squashed under layers of earth or least permanently placed underground. Interred means placed in a crypt or tomb.Certainly the corpse was interred (placed in THE tomb) on a TEMPORARY BASIS ONLY. Please fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.107.29 (talk • contribs) .

Oh, sorry for my poor grammar! You see, it was pretty late, i believe, when i wrote this. I don't know as if i would necessarily say that "buried" has but a singular definition and is incorrect to use here, but for the sake of killing an insignificant conflict, i will change it. [MrLigit]

Buried also can have a sub-definition meaning "interred". We had an extensive debate over this issue. Homestarmy 05:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability concern

Jesus Christ is not in my opinion notable enough to have his own wikipage. hes never written a book or signed a sponsorship deal. Thats why I suggest merging this article with one on faith healers.

Well, we can verify a great deal about the subject through external writing (and signed sponsorship deals) through authors and publications that do meet our notability criterea. Ronabop 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's nonsense. Jesus Christ is the most influential Figure in history itself. Are you saying He doesn't merit a page of His own? The vast majority of people around the world are indeed Christians, and to deny the significance of Christ is no more than naïveté on your part[MrLigit]

It was a joke! Of course hes notable. You dont think the comment above was serious do you? I am a born again Christian- so Jesus Christ is the most notable and influential person in my life!

The vast majority of people around the world are Christians  ?? Very very wrong thing to claim. Perhaps 1/10th of the people in strong "Christian" countries believe in the "son of god" claim. 2 billion in China and India dont believe in Jesus, so I only need an extra billion out of the remaining 4 to not believe in Jesus one little bit to have 50/50. So much for "vast majority". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.107.29 (talk • contribs) .

True. Figures on how many Christians there are in the world are impossible to verify because firstly it depends on how one defines 'Christian' and secondly if being a Christian is a thing of the heart how can we judge who the true believers are? It is certain that most of the world are not Christians. In fact if MrLigits comments were true then Christianity would be disproven because Jesus said that his followers would always be in the minority. Committed trinitarian Christians are a minority even within historically Christian countries like the UK. So the 2 billion figure can only be an estimate for cultural Christians. Where I do disagree with the person above is in his statement that 2 billion people in China and India dont believe in Jesus. There is a considerable growing underground church movement in China that missiologists have estimated to consist of almost 100 million people. Officially they dont exist because they are in conflict with the Chinese government who have oppressed them. India almost certainly has a Christian population that runs into several million at least. [Unsigned]

Indeed, Christianity is a matter of heart. I am sorry to say, as to the number of Christians in the world, that we can only determine this by taking claims people have made. However, in person, i'll admit it is quite simple to distinguish between true believers and those in colourful, pretty Christian masks. As for those millions i haven't met, i have my own thoughts on them, but i couldn't say for my own life whether their statements are sincere or not!

While it's been a little while since i was delved in the gospels, i am fairly sure Christ told His followers at the time they would be in the minority, but i do not recall His claim being an ongoing one. Also, i mean to measure Christians by their hearts, more so than faith, but i generally consider true Christians to be a devoted people, and Trinitarian for that matter. If this is the case, then while we're still not in the minority, we would certainly not be "vast." I really would rather not go into extensive research to prove my point, but this is a small pie chart i came across while searching the Net. According to this, as of 2005, 33 per cent of the world's religions is Christianity. It is not that we are "vast" but more along the lines that we are more in union (as one) than the others. http://www.cynicalc.com/archives/bloggraphics/rel_pie.jpg

While some, such as J*****h's Witness, are included, i believe most of this chart is representative of Trinitarians.

Judaism! My goodness! They're but a fragment ... [MrLigit]

I have a funny feeling that this "notability concern" is nothing but horseapples on purpose. To say that Jesus is not notable cannot be said without qualificiation. For anything remotely like it, it would have to be more of a statement of someone or some groups interpretation of Jesus. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and think the 'notability concern' can be taken with a grain of salt. Wesley 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Truly. But i am used to hearing baseless arguments brought against me; i am not so above them i do not put in a few minutes of my time to correct them. Frankly, this kind of stuff annoys me, so i make it a point to bring the truth to light, so as not to let others be swayed by babble as meaningless as what i have just witnessed (no offense to the stater of that comment). [Mr Ligit]

POV in the opening paragraph

The opening paragraph currently ends with the sentence:

As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.

The phrases "not written immediately after" and "little external documentation" are subjective and POV. It would be more NPOV to have just:

A small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.

grlea 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not points of view. Thee is objective documentation as to the earliest possible dates of the Gospels. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The statements are relative, but without being related to anything in particular. I.e. if there is "little" external documentation, then who or what defines the normal level of documentation? Likewise, what determines the period of time after someone's death that is considered "immediate"? The documentation is "little" and not immediate in the eyes of the author of the sentence, and that is POV.
I have a different POV, which is that there is a lot of external documentation (relative to his impact (or lack thereof) on the world outside Jerusalem during his lifetime) and that the gospels were written extremely close to the his death (relative to other records of the same period of antiquity and also relative to other religious figures). I am not asking for my POV to be put in, just for the extant POV to be removed. grlea 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The sentence was part of a long discussion. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

carbon dating implicates that the pieces were written at least something like 70 years after Jesus' death. Is there any reason why carbon dating should be respected in other articles but disregarded in this one? I can only think of religious dogma as a legitimate defense, and that has no weight in an objective article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.146.49 (talk • contribs)

What pieces? We don't have any autographs, so anything that has been carbon dated is a copy. —Wayward Talk 05:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection, how long?

...not very experienced with wikipedia, messed with a couple articles and regretted it later... but a topic like jesus will never be uncontroversial. the article can be protected from vandalism, but by doing so, insightful comments are excluded also. in a sense are "we" throwing the baby jesus out with the bath water? any comments on if, how this article could ever become unprotected? --Heavywithsediment 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this has happened before, (Over far less to boot), I wouldn't read too much into it. Homestarmy 06:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
People can always comment here as well. I know some people tend to ignore posts from anon IPs, but, I'm always willing to listen, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I was an anon IP for several months myself, before I needed to register in order to upload a picture. So it's only fair to listen to people who have not yet registered. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And nearly a week later...haven't we resolved the dispute over the templates yet? Or are there other issues? This article shouldn't stay locked forever... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is likely to remain locked (even though the 'No' vote has remained ahead for some time). When the page is unlocked I expect the template to be moved back to its original position at the top of the article. Likewise, I expect those who started this dispute to remove it. —Aiden 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, so much for that "in good faith" thing. Thanks for clarifying that, Aiden. Kevin/Last1in 12:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As for the contention that "the 'No' vote has remained ahead for some time" (as if the number of votes matters; consensus is all that matters), it has never had more than a few percentage point "lead" and the 'yes' posts are currently ahead. IMHO, the simple fact is that the Christian template should be with the Christian Views section, the Islam template in the Islam Views, etc. Since a Jesus template was created, it is the only thing that should be at the top. Kevin/Last1in 14:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Two weeks is a very long time for an article to remain protected. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What does my comment have to do with good faith, Kevin? It's realism. The dispute hasn't been resolved so an unlock is likely to see the same conflict continue. —Aiden 20:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Simple: The rule in Wiki is to assume that people are editing (and, in a talk page, discussing) in good faith. Your statement simply shows that you do not believe this. In my opinion, a lot of your posts seem to indicate the same thing. From my reading, it seems you are convinced that that no one else could be correct or even have valid points if they conflict with your very narrow interpretation of scripture; that "they" are antagonistic to your view (IMHO, very a POV view), and part of some sort of cabal or editing out of bad faith. Your response to eminently valid concerns or questions seems to be to take each statement as a frontal attack on your person or your faith.
As examples, you aver that "the people who started this dispute" are the ones who objected to the re-promotion of the Christian template. In fact, others may assume that the dispute was caused by folks who put that template in a position in which it does not belong. You say that "when the page is unlocked", no matter what the consensus of the editors, this nefarious cabal will defy the right-thinking people and move or remove the offending template regardless. That is not "realism"; to me, perhaps not to others, that shows you to have a lack of belief in the good faith of other Wikipedians.Kevin/Last1in 14:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus or Historicity of the New Testament?

As the historicity section stands, isn't there considerable overlap between this section and the article on The Bible and history (especially the section on the New Testament/Greek Bible?) Shouldn't we say more about the history of the quest for the historical Jesus and the various scholarly models that have been proposed, and what the scholarly concensus is today?

Definitely some mention should be made of (scholarly opinions of) the reliability of the texts, but as it stands the section seems to put more weight on the historical views of the Gospel texts rather than the historical views of Jesus. To put it another way, it emphasizes the deconstruction of the texts over the historical reconstruction of Jesus' life. The deconstruction is meant to remove religious bias (big conflicts over exactly what that means), but without the reconstruction stage all we're really saying is that the historical view is different than the religious view—without saying exactly what the historical views are.

I also think more could be said about the context, ie the cultral and historical background.

This has been discussed before, but not much has been done. Any other thoughts/opinions/rotten tomatoes? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the section in my opinion is more a Historicity of the New Testament than it is of Jesus. It basically implies that questining the historicity of the texts somehow draws into question the historicity of Jesus as a historical figure without directly discussing Jesus in most instances. In the sense that it isn't directly related (and noting the increasingly large size of the article), I think that some of these sections (such as Possible earlier texts) belong more in an article on the NT and the history of its development than on Jesus. However, some of the information is very informative (such as how External influences on gospel development may or may not have shaped the Christian view of Jesus) and should rightly stay. —Aiden 19:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It would seem to me that trying to examine the evidence and whatnot for Jesus's existance would essentially require taking a look at the historicity of the NT :/. Homestarmy 05:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course. It's just a matter of emphasis. The way it reads now, it leans more towards taking a look at the historicity of the NT for the sake of taking a look at the historicity of the NT, when it really should take a look at the historicity of the NT as a means for saying what the historical method can say about the human side of Jesus (and of course, there are various schools of thought on this question).
OTOH, there doesn't seem to be a historicity section for Saint Peter or Paul of Tarsus or anyone else known primarily through the NT. In some of these articles, the question of historicity is implied (for example, Paul of Tarsus#Alternative views), but it's not the main emphasis of the section. Also, Paul of Tarsus#Life mentions the question of historicity as a means to the end of reconstructing the life of Paul, not as an end in and of itself.
A related issue is that the Historical Jesus article reads more like a Q&A/FAQ than an exploration of the various historical views. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Has Anyone ever Compiled a Bibliography of Roman Records (Property Owenrship, Acereage under Cultivation, Crops Planted and Crops Harvested (Weight and Quantity, Goods Manufactured, Goods Sold, Goods Transported, Sacks of Flour Milled, Customs, Tax, Census, Conscription, Monetary, Judicial, Prison, Day to Day Administration and Other Records Which were Required to be Kept During the Reign of Augustus? If so, were the reocrds acutally kept on a regular basis and, if so, by whom? Do any of these records still exist? Were any of these records reveiwed by chorniclers and hisotrians of the time or afterward and, if so, by whom and when? Is there any information in any of these records which refers to--or from which, circumstantially, may be inferred--the presence of political or religious dissenters in Judea during the time asserted for the presence of Chirst? It would seem that a Tribune or other official would be required to make note of any rebellious clan, group or sect and how he dealt with it or planned to deal with it. If, for example, there were fairly extensive reports at the same time of rebelions and heresies in the Balkans or in North Africa or in Gaul or in the British Isles and no reports of such in Judea, that may be some indidcation. However, it would not be expected that a historian or chrnoicaller or even a government official would make mention of every minor agitator amony the goiverned populace, although miracles such as those claimed to have been performed by Jesus would almost certainly have caught the attention of one of them. But, then again, maybe not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Sociologically (and circumstantially) speaking, there were plenty of miracle workers and Messianic figures at that time and place, so the historical figure of Jesus makes sense in the context of the times. Many who do not accept the NT on faith consider it to be a founding myth, but that is not the same thing as saying that there was no historical Jesus. Many founding myths are based on historical figures.
To make an analogy with American history, George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree and confess to his father. Davy Crockett did not kill himself a bear when he was only three. Yet, both Washington and Crockett were real historical figures. OTOH, Paul Bunyan never existed. Most critical scholars consider the NT account of Jesus to be based on a real historical person like Washington and Crockett, while a minority consider the NT account to be entirely fictional, like Bunyan. Beyond that, scholars debate which details are historically based, and which are legendary. The details given in the second paragraph are those agreed to by a majority of scholars. Other details (such as the nativity account) are less widely accepted. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam as an insult to Christianity

The core of Christianity lays on the impeccable idea that we are all as one. And because of that one can say that we must do good and not evil. (This takes a little to explain but please bear with patience. We love our children as we love ourselves and we wish for them only the best things. By this extension every good deed we do will contribute for a better world for our children to live in and respectively by wrong doings we pollute the world and come in conflict with our initial preoccupation toward the wellbeing of the future generation. If we think about this backwards in time then everybody would be more or less related to the every living person. And at some point in time, we and the stranger next to us would have had a common grandparent that was wishing all his love for both. One can say that the good one does in life would comeback directly or by ones children or brothers). Islam on the other hand allow killing, and more outrageous it portraits the killing of a person as a righteous deed of justice. In my humble view this is terribly wrong and a great opposition to Christianity.

As a Christian I feel insulted by the presence of reminders and pointers to Islam on an article that tries to portray Jesus Christ. This is not a racial discrimination and perhaps there are many which disagree with my personal point of view but please think how would you feel if you would dedicate your entire life, passion and sorrow to doing good and saving people from their selves and from sin and somebody comes along and says something like “an eye for an eye” and teaches others that its ok to kill someone as long as he kills you. I strongly disagree with this and I think this article should merge Christian concept, links, references and maybe similar content but all that opposes and teaches wrong should be eliminated. The Islamic religion has many similar points of view with Christianity but one huge mistake (vengeance) makes it all wrong.

Please remove any references, links or reminders to anything related to Islam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.247.56.1 (talk • contribs) .

Im not sure what verse the "we are as one" thing you refer to means, but while I agree with you on a personal level that Islam has many very horrible faults, the thing is, Islam used Jesus when it first formed as a figure to serve as one of their prophets, and the article has to mention there views, there are a whole lot of Muslims after all. Besides, the Old Testament did feature the "eye for an eye" thing though we aren't under the old covenant anymore, though it was nowhere near anything like "murdering is good!", and God is a being of infinite justice, I think you may be digging a divide a bit too deep. Homestarmy 20:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Islam does not preach that "murdering is good." And certainly what violence as is permitted is not presented in such a manner, absent of context. Fundamentalist fanatics preach "murdering is good" the same way fundamentalists in the middle ages taught that killing jews and heretics was good. Heck, in early Christianity, followers of Arius of Alexandria, as well as Arius himself were brutally savaged at the instigation of Alexander of Alexandria on the basis of doctrinal purity. This was the whole basis for the calling of the Council of Nicea and the final establishement and cementing of the doctrine of the Trinity. You may rightly say (and I do) that this violence has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, and that such behaviour would not be sanctioned by the blessed Christ. Well, these bishops certainly thought it was justified. It's easy to criticize a faith for its followers and later scholars' actions and teachings.
What muhammad taught was about justice in the community. Killing was a defensive act only, except in certain situations where it was retalliatory - not for the sake of the individual, but the defense of a beleaguered community. The context of such writings were constant physical and violent attack of the early muslims by various tribes of pagans. You can find lots of nastiness in those areas, but they are always a result of a betrayal of the good faith of the early muslim community by some group. The true conquests for land/power - that really kicked in after the death of Muhammad, and you can hold Muhammad responsible for that as much as you can hold Jesus to account for the politically shameful behaviour of the early Christian bishops in rome with their mutual denunciations of heresy and regular physical intimidation. It's just not reasonable.
And all you have to do is look at the plagues of Egypt, the battle of Jericho (forced marriages/rapes, slaughter of enemy males, etc.), or any number of other examples from the old testament that Homestarmy refers to to see that Christianity's own scripture is far from immune to criticism. Again, he points out that Christians follow a new covenant - true. If only Christians throughout the ages had actually followed that covenant and not splintered into warring factions that continue to fight to the modern day. Islam just gets a bad rap because we in the west were its opponents in the middle-east for several hundered years. However, while some Muslim empires were helping Christians build churches and Jews build synagogues, some Christian empires were busy killing off anyone they could who were not the same brand of Christianity. Read the letter of protest by the patriarchs of the eastern church to Rome, concerning the (I believe) second crusade. It's brutal, what the western church did on its way to kill muslims.
Lastly, while a Christian may not like it, there are more references to Jesus in the Qur'an (in a positive light, I might add) than of any other prophet considered valid by Islam. Period. Jesus gets more billing than everyone, including Muhammad (not really fair, since the Qur'an was narrated by Muhammad, mind...). But seriously. Islam is greatly affected by the life of Jesus of Nazereth, and it's entirely reasonable to refer to islamic beliefs here. I'm sorry in some ways for this outburst, but the sentiment really irritated me. Insult to God's messengers by the followers of other messengers of God really really frustrate me. Especially when they're based on a view of a messenger that is rife with "common wisdom", misunderstanding, and propaganda. People really need to read more. --Christian Edward Gruber 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a chat-room and this discussion is pointless. We have an NPOV policy. This article must comply with our NPOV policy. Anyone who rejects our NPOV policy is going to run into problems editing the article and clearly has nothing constructive to ad to a conversation on ´´how to improve this article.´´ Slrubenstein

^^ Exactly. —Aiden 13:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right and I apologize for letting myself get drawn in. --Christian Edward Gruber 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Legal heir"

The article currently states that "Matthew shows that Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of Israel." But Matthew's list only says that so-and-so was the father of so-and-so; it makes no claims that anyone is the first-born son of anyone, and therefore the inheritor of a title. This sentence should be removed. Nareek 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Matthew draws the lineage from David is done solely to highlight his claim to the throne of Israel. Perhaps the sentence in question needs a secondary source, but none-the-less that is what Matthew was showing. —Aiden 14:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
But this is never explicitly claimed. I would have a problem with "the legal heir." What Matthew shows (or purports to show, really) is that Jesus is a direct agnatic descendant of David, and thus a possible legal heir to the throne of Israel. john k 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, we all know what Matthew's objective was, but as he does not explicitly state this, a second source is probably in order. —Aiden 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Matthew's claim that Jesus was a decendand of David didnt have the purpose of saying he was heir to the king, but that being a decendant was a fulfillment of he was fulfilling the prophesy that the Messiah was to be a decendant of David. —David Justi 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
True, and nice signature. —Aiden 01:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Aiden, if you "know what Matthew's objective was," may I ask what kind of telephone you used to ask him? It's certainly NOT information found what Matthew (or his later ghost writers) left us in the Gospel, so I'm guessing you went directly to the author for this knowledge? Please avoid overarching and patently untrue generalizations like "we all know" anything at all about Matthew's intentions. An article about me might trace my lineage to the Earl of Marlborough (or, more likely, to the Marquis de Sade) but that would not imply that the author is saying I am his rightful heir. Kevin/Last1in 12:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bible claims Jesus isthe only living (yes living) descendant of king David no one else is making that claim with the backing of an exhaustive list of his ancestors back to David. SO, since no one can challenge Jesus, he is the 'legal heir.'George 13:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to find any such statement in the Bible. If anyone has a specific biblical or contemporary citation showing Jesus was the last living decendant of David, please post it. I'd also be curious of your explanation for the ancestry of Rabbi Akiva and The Maharal, decendants of David who lived after Jesus. Further, even the angel who came to Joseph in Mat 1:21 doesn't claim Jesus would be a wordly leader or the King of Israel, only that the child within Mary would "save his people from their sins." In Jhn 18:36, Jesus Himself specifically denies having a "kingdom in this world." Kevin/Last1in 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bible makes the claim by

1. Showing that jesus is a decendant of david 2. says jesus is still alive

Jesus and his disciples constantly talked about the kingdom, how Jesus was God's son and how they were part of a covenant for a kingdom. The Bible also shows that the nation of Israel was God's kingdom on earth and that the kingdom would be heavenly in the future.

Since all geneological records would have been destroyed when the Romans completely razed Jerusalem in 70CE it seems incredible anyone after Jesus could claim a lineage reverting to David.George 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So, Kevin, Matthew and Luke's geaneologies were just to take up space then? "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David"? Surely Matthew was aware of this. He begins his book with "A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David..." Like I said, I'll add a secondary source when the page is unlocked. —Aiden 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That ludicrous! By your logic, Jesus Himself passes the penultimate mantle to Zacchaeus (Luk 19:8), by calling HIM a son of Abraham! Just because I am my father's son does NOT mean I'm his heir. In biblical terms, "son of xxx" means descended from. Therefore, I am my great-grandfather's son. I am the second son of a second son of a sixth son. Were there a kingship to inherit, I'd still be double-digits down the list behind all of the grandchildren of my great-grandfather's five elder boys, AND behind the innumerable kids born of my very prolific Uncle, and behind my brother and any kids he might end up with before every one of those people (and all their male issue) die. That does not mean that, if someone wrote my bio, they would ignore my lineage. It would be right to say that I was the son of Joseph, son of Otis, Son of Hiram. I would never be assumed, through that statement, to be Hiram's HEIR. Kevin/Last1in 18:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, i am not sure what that all of meant, but one point I think may help is that if you were tenth in line for the throne of England and the other nine were dead, you'd be the heir Legally, thus with no one alive to claim lineage to the throne of David, Jesus is the legal heir. sheesh George 21:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that this genelology passes the heir thing through David specifically, not Abraham? Homestarmy 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Then let me simplify it, George. No one knows how many people were alive at the time whose claims to David's throne had pre-eminence over the claim of Jesus. The statement, "I am the son of my father" is different than "I am the legal heir of my father." Lots of things in the Bible say the former, that Jesus was the son (descendent) of David; Not a single one says the latter, that Jesus was the heir to David's kingdom. I don't know how to say it any simpler. Kevin/Last1in 01:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
George, the geneologies demonstrate only that Joseph descended from the royal line; they do not imply that he was the only one. There is no reason to think that when Matthew wrote, "Abiud was the father of Eliakim," he meant that Eliakim was Abiud's FIRST son, or ONLY son, or only son whose offspring were still around when Matthew was writing. In fact, the two geneologies implicitly demonstrate that royal ancestry was not entirely rare in first century Judaea: Matthew traces Jesus' lineage to Solomon (David's "legal heir," but not his firstborn son), whereas Luke traces it to Nathan (David's biological heir, and firstborn son). If in the first generation alone Jesus' biographers had a choice of family lines that would lead to Jesus, it is ludicrous (and theologically unnecessary) to assert that all the other generations produced only one viable line! Joel Bastedo 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Kevin and Joel- Solomon was not David's first son but he was the legal heir chosen by David as was Jesus by God. George 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So there could hypothetically of been more than one legal heir, what's the problem? Jesus is the only one of however many descendents there may be who absolutly would of had to of been the heir to be the Messiah because of that prophecy about the savior being the heir, and considering Matthew and the rest of them sort of were trying to show that Jesus was the Messiah, i'd say this assumption about Matthew's intention is pretty clear. Homestarmy 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, I agree that Matthew's intentions are clear. They were to show that Jesus was (one of) David's descendents, thus fulfilling the prophesies recorded in Isaiah 11, Ezekiel 37, and Jeremiah 23: that a branch would spring up from the root of Jesse (David's father) and rule in righteousness as Israel's prince forever. These prophesies do not indicate that the messiah would be the "legal heir" (ie. first in line) for David's throne, and certainly not that he had to be David's "only living descendent" as George claimed. To prove Jesus' credentials as a claimant to the title "Messiah," it was only necessary to demonstrate that he was a descendent of David, which both Matthew and Luke try to establish.
Now, Christianity teaches that Jesus, as the Christ, did in fact inherit the throne of David, but spiritually, not "legally" as was suggested in this article. This notion of Jesus being the (or even a) legal heir to the throne is completely unfounded in scripture, tradition, and theology as far as I know. Joel Bastedo 02:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well, maybe if Aiden can give us the source he's got, we can look at it and see whether or not the claim in question is really justified?? Homestarmy 04:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • BRAVO Joel! You found a way to state it that is MUCH clearer than my attempts. Thank you for doing it, and I hope it settles the matter. (Kevn/Last1in from mobile, sorry for lack of sig)63.148.206.250 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So nobody has a problem with "Matthew's genealogy thus demonstrates that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah that a descendant of David would rule in righteousness over Israel."? —Aiden 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to say enough. Homestarmy 07:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That particular wording seems POV. Are we trying to claim in that Jesus actually fulfilled prophecies? Did Matthew really demonstrate this, or did he "try to demonstrate" or "purports to demonstrate" or "allegedly demonstrates" or "attempts to demonstrate" or something else?--Andrew c 13:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew c. I think you'd be trying to say too much with that. What you want is something like: "Matthew attempts to establish in his geneology that Jesus was a descendent of David, thus fulfilling the prophesies that the Messiah would restore David's throne." Joel Bastedo 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there are only four accounts of the events surrounding Jesus life, I think that what they say happened is what should be considered. George 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well certainly. But since those four accounts and the prophesies they claim Jesus fulfilled never once said or implied that Jesus was the only living descendent of David, or the only one with a legal claim to the throne, we have to change the wording. That's what this discussion was about. Joel Bastedo 13:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Aes I must agree, my point was that he is now the only legal heir and I should have read the paragraph first. Apologies. George 04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


I think John Locke's reply to Robert Filmer in the Two Treatises has covered some of this ground.

There are more than four gospels - but only four are recognised as canonical.

Jackiespeel 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)