tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post1116358447584375560..comments2024-03-28T00:17:55.823+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Jesus was literally King of the Jews, by genealogical descent - says James E TalmageBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-84090676339410456122014-12-13T21:46:26.650+00:002014-12-13T21:46:26.650+00:00@Wm - The significance of the genealogy/s is simpl...@Wm - The significance of the genealogy/s is simply that detailed genealogy is being provided to prove Jesus's royal descent in a way that would be regarded as valid at the time - then there is joining the dots with the prophecies of the Messiah being King of the Jews. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-5073285346505916752014-12-13T21:31:39.250+00:002014-12-13T21:31:39.250+00:00Firstly, the two genealogies given in the New Test...Firstly, the two genealogies given in the New Testament differ to a considerable degree, as I'm sure you know. This is sometimes explained by supposing that the Matthean genealogy is Joseph's and the Lukan one is Mary's. <br /><br />That the Lukan genealogy is, in fact, intended to be a genealogy of Joseph is made quite clear in Luke 3:23. The "as was supposed" indicates that the Joseph in question is indeed Joseph, the husband of Mary.<br /><br />Now, I'm not sure how the divergence of genealogies affects the notion that Jesus is/was the true king of Israel, but from the standpoint of the divine inspiration of the Bible, one has to come to grips with the fact that God elected to put two largely contradictory genealogies into the New Testament. My own supposition would be that the intent is, at least in part, precisely to downplay the notion that Jesus is the rightful king of Israel in any earthly, carnal respect.<br /><br />I mention this somewhat en passant. What I really would like to draw your attention to is the fact to which the "as was supposed" draws our attention in the Lukan genealogy (and narrative) and which is every bit as evident in the Matthean genealogy and narrative. And that is--that Jesus is by no means the son of Joseph.<br /><br />Somehow you must account for this lacuna, in any attempt to substantiate the idea that the (notional) throne of David was Jesus' by right of birth.Wade McKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00505917422266320190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-76144328389648619222014-12-10T05:39:16.887+00:002014-12-10T05:39:16.887+00:00@Leo - Yes, Talmage uses the same word.
Several ...@Leo - Yes, Talmage uses the same word. <br /><br />Several aspects of the New Testament make immediate sense if Jesus really did have a credible claim to be earthly King of the Jews - which I had always tended to interpret as a misunderstanding by some overexcited Jews and ironic black humour by the Romans.<br /><br />It would explain why Jesus was regarded as a credible political threat for a start. <br /><br />I think I was misled by the false emphasis on Jesus having been born in a 'lowly' state, as if his family were poor and despised. Mary is often depicted as an utterly obscure and unremarkable young woman; Joseph as a shadowy cipher. <br /><br />I knew that this emphasis on deprivation and want wasn't accurate; but it apparently stopped me seeing that almost the opposite was true. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-4716064876884199982014-12-09T23:17:15.324+00:002014-12-09T23:17:15.324+00:00Had Judah been a free nation, Mary could have been...Had Judah been a free nation, Mary could have been recognized as a princess of royal blood through descent from David.Leonoreply@blogger.com