Is The Bible Literally True?

[JonathanL]

Another example that shows that the Bible is not literally true is Rev 22:16 “I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.” However, it is a fact that Jesus came from a virgin birth, then Jesus did not have a physical father and hence Jesus could not be a physical descendant of David.

He could be if Mary was also a descendant of David.

[JonathanL]

Hi rogue06,

Please let me clarify.

Both genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 trace Jesus' descent from David to Joseph in name as per Matt 1:16 and Luke 3:23. If Jesus did not a biological father, then Joseph was not his physical father and hence he could not be a physical descendant of David.

Even if none of the genealogies in the gospels were tracing Jesus' descent from Mary to Joseph it does not mean Mary couldn't have been a descendant of David. And since ancient Jews tended to marry within the clan/relatives it's more likely than not that Mary was a descendant of David, even if none of the genealogies are hers, which is not certain at all.

[ReformedApologist]

Joseph was not Jesus's Biological Father but his legal Father by adoption. In fact we see people in the OT of people being adopted legally Moses is one of them (Exodus 2), Esther by Mordecai (Esther 2:7). So your claim is nonsense.

[Same Hakeem]

Even if none of the genealogies in the gospels were tracing Jesus' descent from Mary to Joseph it does not mean Mary couldn't have been a descendant of David. And since ancient Jews tended to marry within the clan/relatives it's more likely than not that Mary was a descendant of David, even if none of the genealogies are hers, which is not certain at all.

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 specifically trace the descent of Joseph (not Mary) to David. However, since Jesus had no biological father, Joseph could not be the biological father of Jesus and hence Jesus could not be descendant of David.

[ReformedApologist]

Funny how you ignore responses to people. You do realize that in Hebrew Culture someone come become a Son or child by adoption legally. There are Biblical examples which were given. And you totally ignore them.

[Cow Poke]

Funny how you ignore responses to people.

He's only here to blog.

[ReformedApologist]

In addition, since the temple still existed during Christ time they could of easily checked the birth records to see if Jesus was from David. And since the temple was destroyed so were the birth records so your claim that he could not be a heir of David is also an argument from silence.

[Same Hakeem]

Funny how you ignore responses to people. You do realize that in Hebrew Culture someone come become a Son or child by adoption legally. There are Biblical examples which were given. And you totally ignore them.

Rom. 1:3 says "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh" ;however, Jesus had no biological father and hence Jesus could not be the son of David according to the flesh.

[ReformedApologist]

According to the flesh is in regards to his mother Mary and human nature. Since he was born of a women. He was a son of David by his mother and adoption by his father. Your committing the fallacy of either-or.

[rogue06]

He's only here to blog.

It's always the same from Hakeem

[Same Hakeem]

According to the flesh is in regards to his mother Mary and human nature. Since he was born of a women. He was a son of David by his mother and adoption by his father. Your committing the fallacy of either-or.

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 trace namely and only the lineage of Joseph (not Mary).

Matthew 1:16 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
The Ancestors of Jesus
23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

[JonathanL]

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 specifically trace the descent of Joseph (not Mary) to David. However, since Jesus had no biological father, Joseph could not be the biological father of Jesus and hence Jesus could not be descendant of David.

But Mary could still be a descendant of David even if none of the genealogies in the gospel trace her descent to David.

[Same Hakeem]

But Mary could still be a descendant of David even if none of the genealogies in the gospel trace her descent to David.

OK.

In anyway, it is not possible that Jesus is the son of David if both Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 namely trace the lineage of Joseph to David and Jesus had no biological father since he was born without father. Hence, Roman 1:3 is not true when saying Jesus is traced to David according to the flesh.

[Sparko]

[ReformedApologist]

Notice when he is provided answers he simply dismisses them and just repeats his claims. To me it seems like he is just trolling this thread.