Initially, David was king over the Tribe of Judah only and ruled from Hebron, but after seven years the other Israelite tribes chose him to be their king as well: Then came all the tribes of Israel to David to Hebron, and spoke, saying: 'Behold, we are your bone and your flesh. In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you that did lead out and bring in Israel; and the Lord said to you: You shalt feed my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel.' So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord; and they anointed David king over Israel… (2 Samuel 5:1-3).
Kind David was from the tribe of Judah, not a Levite. "Then the men of Judah came to Hebron and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. When David was told that it was the men of Jabesh Gilead who had buried Saul," Source(s): 2 Samuel 2:4
You are right. David was son of Jesse who was of Judah, but this is according to the book of Matthew. I couldn't find anything about Mary's lineage at all except that she was a cousin to Elizabeth of the daughters of Aaron son of Kohath son of Levi. So that could indicate that she was a Levite and it would make sense because the Levites were chosen not to be numbered among the 12 tribes but to be the keepers of the tabernacle. Yet the angel who appeared to Mary in Luke said the Lord shall give unto Jesus the throne of his father, David. Perhaps, since Jacob had the biggest blessing of old, it was a metaphor for being given the throne of the greatest king and the people of the largest blessing.
I have no idea why I am even discussing this with you. No one can prove one way or the other. But;
Little is known of her personal history. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3. She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Psalm 132:11; Luke 1:32). She was connected by marriage with Elisabeth, who was of the lineage of Aaron (Luke 1:36).
I got that off of the internet. I'm sure you can find something on the internet to refute it.
No one can prove, or disprove, anything at this point. So, you are arguing for argument's sake. All of your arguments are somewhat flat. I doubt you've even read the text. Why not simply enjoy being a Muslim, let the Christians enjoy being Christian and call it a day?
Emile - There is no lineage for Mary in Luke 3 or Luke 1. Nothing in Psalm 132:11 either. It was supposed (at the time) that Joseph was Jesus' father, and Luke states that Joseph is of David but that has nothing to do with Jesus.
Yeah, I'm not necessarily refuting it, just trying to find it. I did go to a KJ version but it should be in there even if the wording is a little different but there was absolutely nothing referring to this. Pretty scary when the Internet is wrong. OMG
You are kidding? I'm sure. Faulty information on the internet is what keeps half these conversations going. Anyway, it has always been a muddled up mess on that front. Two different accounts in two different books. Some say the account in Luke follows Mary's line, but it doesn't appear that way in a simple read.
I always heard it was impossible to know because the primary genealogical records were in the second temple which was destroyed so early on. 70 AD. I think the movement was too young at that point to have organized itself well enough to document everything it felt needed to be known. Even had they wanted accuracy, could a Christian have gained access to a Jewish temple to review official records?
The text does say (in Luke 1) that Elisabeth is of the priestly line. Mary is her cousin, so if that is a blood relationship Mary would be of the same line. Even though they immediately start with the premise that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, they also label Joseph the father at various places. So, I guess maybe they were trying to convince skeptical first century Jews that he was the promised messiah by Joseph's lineage.
The Jews were waiting for good royal days of David to come again in the time of Messiah; and thought that he would be from the lineage of David.
The Gospel writers attempted to convince Jews that Jesus was from the line of David; while Jesus was not.
A frustrated attempt.
NT Bible is errant; written by errant scribes; neither authored by the Creator god nor by Jesus; nor dictated by Jesus; not even written by men authorised in writing by Jesus to write it on his behalf.
As one could see; it is not work of an inpiration either.
I can't dispute this, not according to what I've read anyway. Matthew links Jesus with David but only through Joseph. I can't find any real lineage through Mary. Not that I'm a scholar but I can read. Sorry, guys, but paars has a good point in disputing this. I thought perhaps Matthew may have used the 'throne of David' as a metaphor for being the greatest king but he actually sites a lineage which is supposed to be from David. I'd like to see some written evidence to the contrary.
paars - I've just gone to your hubs. I don't like to disrespect anyone but after seeing your writing regarding Jesus not dying, I'm scratching my head. The piece is completely taken out of context and lacks historical placement. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the actual resurrection and death, but according to the local customs of the time, the body of anyone would have had to be properly bound and entombed. They revered this man, a poor man who had no tomb, so the rich man Jos. nee Arimithea, offered his own tomb. Perhaps it would be helpful to the world if you would convey the wonderful teachings of the peaceful and completely unflawed Quran instead of breaking down the Bible. Or is it possible that you do not know it well enough?
The gospels don't claim to be inspired. They are simply an accounting of the words and actions of Jesus; the crucifixion and the resurrection. Eye witness accounts; not claims that an angel no one else could see had said it. Just simple recording of events.
Yo, Mark, dude, (puff, puff) - did you hear about that Jesus guy? Man, let's go check it out. I hear he's got some wicked stuff. The dude can walk on water, man!
Hey, Luke, sup? Me and Mark are going to see the sideshow in the valley. It's like Woodstock all over again, man. You know, Woodstock. Oh right, that's not supposed to happen for another 2000 years. Write that down so we don't forget.
Mark, you write your part and I'll write mine, my man. Word, Matt. Dude!!!.....you said Word!
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Notice it says Joseph's father is Heli. Heli is actually Joseph's father in law. Joseph's actual father was Jacob. Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Virgil - that was a different Jacob. The Jacob known as Israel born of Isaac was several generations back from that. Doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong because lines were often named after ancestors just as today.
I am confused. Look at each scripture individually. Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, This one says he is the son of Heli.
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. This one says Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. This is not the same Jacob that was renamed Israel.
Actually, it does matter when investigating the genealogy of Jesus. What version of the bible do you have? All that I have mention Heli, except for 1 which mentions Eli. The young's literal translation mentions Eli but in Luke 3:24 instead of 3:23.
I believe the Bible was written by men inspired by a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Why is it so hard for people to see the scripture as applicable for now? Especially those scripture that clearly...
When asked what the greatest commandment was; Jesus did not mention about belief in him or belief in his prophesized Resurrection, but he simply stated the greatest commandment was that ‘the Lord our God, the Lord...
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
Some say the Bible can't be relied on to speak for God because it was written by man and It contaradicts itself.Can anyone point out; a specific instance(s) or passage(s) in the Bible that is contadictory, to another...