Hobbes, in another thread asked this: Still, even if she was a virgin and was inseminated by the Holy Spirit, how does that make Jesus a figure in the Davidic and Sethian bloodline?

First no where does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit “inseminated” Mary. It simply says that she will be “overshadowed”.

But now onto the greater issue at hand.

According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of King David. (Jer 23:5, 33:17; Eze34:2324) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Matt 1:18:23)

But how could that be if Jesus was not Joseph’s offspring. He wouldn’t be able to trace His linage back to David via his father nor his mother since:

1) Mary can’t trace her linage back to David, The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s, 

2) Linage goes through the father not the mother,

3) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of David through his son Solomon. The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon,

4) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matt 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

Objection 1) Mary can’t trace her linage back to David, The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

This is simply not true, and there is evidence for this being Mary’s genealogy. First, there is no sign of any debate about the Davidic lineage of Jesus in any of the early Jewish sources, suggesting that Mary’s Davidic background was well known. Second, Luke 1:32, recounting Gabriel’s words to Mary, makes no sense if she was not a descendant of David, since she is being informed that the son to be conceived within her as a virgin will inherit the throne of his father David: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.” Third, the fact that the New Testament preserves two different genealogies lends support to the view that one is Joseph’s and the other is Mary’s. Fourth, the Greek construction of Luke 3:23 certainly allows for the genealogy to be that of Mary, stating, in effect, that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph but was actually the (grand)son of Heli:

David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995), 112, notes: “A literal translation of the Greek text starting at v. 23 would be: ‘And Yeshua himself was beginning about thirty years, being son, as was supposed, of Yosef, of the Eli, of the Mattat, of the L’vi,’ etc.” Understanding that “Luke gives the genealogy of Yeshua through his mother Miryam, the daughter of Eli,” then, “Yeshua is ‘of the Eli’ in the sense of being his grandson; while Yeshua’s relationship with Yosef is portrayed in the words, ‘son, as supposed’—implying not actually….

This would be in harmony with some of the genealogical evidence from the Tanakh. Fifth, there is no evidence that definably proves that the genealogy is not Mary’s. In light of all the arguments that can be mustered to support Luke’s genealogy as coming through Mary, unless conclusive evidence can be raised to the contrary, then the case for Davidic descent through Mary must be considered as a just a strong possibility, but a probability.

Objection 2) Linage goes through the father not the mother:

 The Hebrew Bible actually provides us with two examples that offer relevant parallels to the Messiah’s bloodline being traced through his mother. First, in terms of inheritance, the Torah teaches that if a man dies, leaving no sons but only daughters, the inheritance is passed on through the daughters and their husbands, provided that they marry within the tribe (see Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12). Thus, the daughter’s inheritance is joined with her husband’s. While this does not deal with genealogy, it does deal with the passing on of family inheritance through a daughter, certainly a related concept. This is further confirmed by Ezra 2:61, which makes reference to “Barzillai (a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by that name).”

 In the case of Jesus, Mary also married within the same tribal family, since Joseph was a Judahite and, more specifically, a descendant of David. In fact, according to U. Holzmeister, this is how Luke’s genealogy should actually be understood as that of Mary, but in connection with Joseph. As explained by John Nolland, who favors this proposal,

Holzmeister argues that Mary was an heiress (i.e., had no brothers) whose father Eli, in line with a biblical tradition concerned with the maintenance of the family line in cases where there was no male heir (Ezra 2:61 = Neh 7:63; Num 32:41 cf. 1 Chr 2:21–22, 34–35; Num 27:3–8), on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted Joseph as his own son. Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry by birth, Luke that by adoption. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 35a, Luke 1:1-9:20

Regardless of whether this proposal is accepted, it is clear that Luke’s genealogy through Jesus’ mother, Mary, is of direct relevance to the objection at hand.

Second, 1 Chronicles 2:34–36 states, “Sheshan had no sons—only daughters. He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai. Attai was the father of Nathan, Nathan the father of Zabad …” Do you see it? Sheshan’s genealogy continues through his daughter’s children, all of whom bear good Israelite names rather than Egyptian names, despite Jarha’s Egyptian background. The genealogy continues through the daughter’s children! Both of these examples—inheritance and genealogy—are helpful here, since Miriam and Joseph’s pedigrees together provide Jesus with a legitimate line to the throne, without, however, making him a mere descendant of David.

 It is also interesting to note the genealogical record found in 1 Chronicles 2:13–16:

Jesse was the father of Eliab his firstborn; the second son was Abinadab, the third Shimea, the fourth Nethanel, the fifth Raddai, the sixth Ozem and the seventh David. Their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. Zeruiah’s three sons were Abishai, Joab and Asahel.

Why no mention of Zeruiah’s husband, the father of Abishai, Joab, and Asahel? Or did these brothers have different fathers, perhaps through their mother’s widowhood and remarriage? Scripture gives us no indication. What is clear, however, is that in this genealogy as well as throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, they are only known as the “sons of Zeruiah.” Notice these phrases: “Joab son of Zeruiah” (2 Sam. 2:13, plus twelve more times); “Abishai son of Zeruiah” (1 Sam. 26:6, plus five more times); “The three sons of Zeruiah were there: Joab, Abishai and Asahel” (2 Sam. 2:18); “these sons of Zeruiah” (2 Sam. 3:39); “you sons of Zeruiah” (2 Sam. 16:10; 19:22). It seems clear that Zeruiah’s importance as the mother of these mighty men in David’s army was well known. But, for our purposes, it is more important to notice that she, and not the father, is cited in the genealogical record.

Objection 3) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of David through his son Solomon. The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon

Of all the objections raised, this is actually the easiest to refute.

Let’s review the relevant passages beginning with 2 Samuel 7:14 in its larger context. Here, Nathan the prophet is giving David a promise from the Lord:

When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.- 2 Samuel 7:12–16

First Chronicles 17:11–14 is a parallel passage to the verses in 2 Samuel 7. Note carefully the language used about Solomon: “I will establish his kingdom.… I will establish his throne forever.… I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever” This is repeated once more in 1 Chronicles 22:10b. There was, however, a divine condition clearly laid out: “I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws, as is being done at this time” (1 Chron. 28:7). Was Solomon unswerving in carrying out God’s commands and laws? Hardly! The scriptural record is very clear:

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done. On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods. - 1 Kings 11:1–8

The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord’s command. So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.” -1 Kings 11:9–13

Solomon did not meet God’s conditions, and his throne was not established forever. The Word of God states this clearly. Solomon’s throne would only be established forever if he followed God’s commands unswervingly, which he certainly did not. The fact is, Solomon’s throne was not established forever, David’s throne was. And while it is true that descendants of Solomon continued to sit on David’s throne—it was only logical that the son of a king would be the next king—this was because of the unconditional promises given to David (in contrast with Saul), not the conditional promises given to Solomon, which he violated. And, following the exile of the Davidic monarchy in 586 b.c.e., there was not a hint that future kings would have to trace their lineage through Solomon. He flagrantly sinned against the requirements of the Lord.

The Hebrew Scriptures are absolutely clear on this. Thus, there is not one single reference in the Bible to “the throne of Solomon” but many references to “the throne of David.” See 2 Samuel 3:10; 1 Kings 2:12, 24, 45; Isaiah 9:7, in a decidedly Messianic context; Jeremiah 17:25; 22:2, 30; 29:16; 36:30. Why? Because Solomon’s throne was not established forever, David’s was. All subsequent Judean kings sat on David’s throne, not Solomon’s. Similarly, there is not a single biblical reference to a future king who will be from the line of Solomon or will be called a son of Solomon or come from the seed of Solomon, while there are important references to a future king who will be from the line of David or called a son of David or come from the seed of David.Why? Because Solomon’s throne was not established forever, David’s was! Quite simply, there are no unconditional promises to Solomon to raise up royal heirs from his lineage, nor was there a requirement that the Messiah had to trace his lineage through Solomon. The Messianic line was promised to David, not Solomon.

Objection 4) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

According to Matthew 1:12, Jesus’ genealogy is traced through Jeconiah (a nickname for Jehoiachin). Of him it was said by the Lord, “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah” (Jer. 22:30). How then could the Messiah be traced through his lineage?

Because of the curse, anyone born of a human father and claims to be the Messiah will have the curse of Jeconiah to block such a claim. The Messiah of Israel cannot have a human father. Of course, I fully affirm the supernatural, virginal conception of the Messiah and this helps explain how the Messiah can be both earthly and heavenly, the son of David and yet David’s lord.

In terms of the curse on Jehoiachin, however, there is no need to point to the necessity of the virgin birth since: (1) there is, in fact, solid scriptural evidence that the curse was reversed; and (2) the curse may only have applied primarily to Jehoiachin’s immediate descendants. Let’s take a look at the passage in Jeremiah 22 in greater depth.

According to 1 Chronicles 3:16–17, Jehoiachin had seven descendants. These, however, were hauled off into Babylon and there, according to an archaeological finding on a Babylonian tablet in the famous Ishtar Gate, all seven were made eunuchs. In this manner, Jehoiachin became “as if childless,” as no man of his seed prospered, nor did any sit on David’s throne. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 310

Similarly, Jeremiah commentator John Bright explains: “The figure is that of a census list. Jehoiachin is to be entered as childless since, as far as throne succession was concerned, he was as good as that.” John Bright, Jeremiah (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1965).

Is this whole thing of a lasting curse on Jehoiachin’s descendants an exaggeration?” Let’s take a look at Jeremiah 36:30, a passage that is rarely cited in these discussions, but one that is quite relevant, since in Jeremiah 36:30, it is prophesied of Jehoiakim—the father of Jehoiachin!—that, “He will have no one to sit on the throne of David.” But his son Jehoiachin did sit on David’s throne, reigning for three months and still this prophecy was recorded as true. What then did this prophecy mean? It certainly did not mean that there was a curse on all of Jehoiakim’s future descendants, nor did it mean that none of his sons would sit on the throne at all. Rather, the fact that Jehoiachin did sit on David’s throne for three months meant that any reign of any of Jehoiakim’s sons would be fleeting at best, completely devoid of the blessing of God. According to Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, commenting on Jer. 36:30, “When the Heb. verb yašab [“sit enthroned”] is used of a king, it implies a certain degree of permanence rather than so short a time as ninety days

In reality, however, we don’t even need to debate these points at all, since the OT gives two important pieces of evidence that point to: (1) Jehoiachin’s repentance and (2) the subsequent removal of any generational curse.

The first piece of evidence is found in Jeremiah 52:31–34 which describes the special favor that was shown to Jehoiachin after decades in prison in exile:

In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah and freed him from prison on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. Day by day the king of Babylon gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death.

In light of the divine fury directed against Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:24–29, this reversal of circumstances is quite revealing, suggesting a change of heart in king Jehoiachin, he had repented. Further, explicit evidence was provided in Haggai 2:20–23, speaking of Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jehoiachin, who became the governor of Judah after the return from exile:

The word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month: “Tell Zerubbabel governor of Judah that I will shake the heavens and the earth. I will overturn royal thrones and shatter the power of the foreign kingdoms. I will overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will fall, each by the sword of his brother.‘On that day,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the Lord Almighty.”

Note carefully last words in Haggai 2:23 above: now compare this promise with the threat against Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:24: “ ‘As surely as I live,’ ” declares the Lord, ‘even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.’ ”

The Lord told Jehoiachin that even if he were as close to God and as personal to him as the signet ring on his own hand, he would be cast off—and he was. Two generations later, the Lord tells his grandson, “I will make you like my signet ring, because I have chosen you.”

Without a doubt, the curse was reversed and favor was restored

Hopefully this will give you some insight into Jesus having a legitimate Davidic lineage

Mar 7, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

A. Jesus, B.the virgin birth, and C. Jesus' genealogy

Wow ...impressive and scholarly explanation...let me try..using my KISS principles...

A. Jesus: an historical PERSON (described primarily in ancient documents) in the NT and pointed to in the OT, part of the TRI-UNE GOD.

The historicity of Jesus is something that is still very much under a cloud.

Of Jewish lineage, Jesus was naturally and humanly and humbly birthed in Bethlehem,
and was nurtured to maturity by his "legal" father Joseph and his natural "blood" mother Mary in Nazareth.
Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, the God-Man, LORD, "adonai".

B. Mary was a young (~14-16?) Jewish maiden who had never had vaginal sex....her hymen had not been penetrated by a penis...a virgin.
She was specially chosen to be the miraculous bearer of the "seed" promised in Genesis...spiritually blessed to allow pregnancy without a sperm donor.
She was "betrothed" / a formally blessed "engagement" to be married to a carpenter, Joseph (age?~25-30?).
She was waiting her year for her "bridegroom" to come and claim and consummate.

C. The Jewish nation was BIG on tracing lines of descent. They were great makers and bearers of oral and written history.
They traced their peoples' lineage two ways. LEGAL and BLOOD.
Jesus was born of the LEGAL LINE of Joseph...His "step-father"?
Jesus was born of the BLOOD LINE of Mary....His miraculous birth mother.
Jesus: True Man...True God.

Shame, then, that the genealogies given in the Bible are so inconsistent and contradictory.

While can not honestly speak of an historical Jesus, it does seem that the potential character behind the obvious mythical Jesus, as Geza Vermes' study of 'Jesus the Jew' reveals, is one of many cast in the same cultural mould. In this light, Jesus does not shine as particularly holy, nor do his teachings seem, except in some instances, commendable.

Joe

First no where does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit “inseminated” Mary. It simply says that she will be “overshadowed”.

The NT gives two different versions of Jesus as son of Yahweh.  The first is in Mark 1:10 where Jesus is an ordinary human until Yahweh adopts him.  This follows Hebrew tradition (Psalms 2:7, Isaiah 42:1).

The second is in Matthew 2:20, where Mary's said to have conceived Jesus of the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus is male, we can rule out parthenogenesis/cloning. Thus for purposes of the story, Jesus could only have obtained his Y chromosome &c from Yahweh's spermatozoon.  This style of impregnation follows Greek tradition (think of eg Zeus).

2) Linage goes through the father not the mother

Easily the most plausible explanation of the two genealogies is that they're each inventions intended to demonstrate that Jesus was qualified to be a messiah.  Paul (in one of his very few references to Jesus on earth) had earlier asserted Jesus' descent from David, which must have been for the same reason.

The NT teaches that God is not a physical being so he’d have no “spermatozoon”

The New Testament teaches a lot of things we now know to be false.

Easily the most plausible explanation of the two genealogies is that they're each true genealogies intended to demonstrate that Jesus was qualified to be a messiah.

There is no plausible explanation for the conflicting genealogies of Jesus. They were later incompetent inventions constructed in an attempt to legitimize claims made on Jesus' behalf. 

Mar 15, 2012 -- 12:00PM, Rgurley4 wrote:

a very TRUE and "plausible explanation":

Jesus was born of the LEGAL LINE of Joseph...His "step-father"?

Jesus was born of the BLOOD LINE of Mary....His miraculous birth mother.

Nah...

There isn't a scrap of evidence for any of that, and the genealogies of Jesus are irreconcilable and the obvious inventions of men desperate to give creedence to their fantasies.

The whole 'divine' Jesus fiction is just another version of that theme common to the ancient Middle East of the dying and reviving god.