Timeline for How was Jesus the Seed of David if Jesus is God who created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:56 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 4, 2016 at 16:01 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @Pam Caleb's answer, where it comes to the idea that Luke's genealogy is actually that of Mary, suffers from the same reliance on a speculative theory that has no basis in the text of the Gospel of Luke. I can't emphasize enough that there is absolutely no reason to read and interpret the Greek text of Gospel of Luke that way, except for the conflict between Luke's genealogy and Matthew's genealogy. If Matthew's conflicting genealogy did not exist, no one would read Luke as saying anything other than that Joseph is the biological son of Heli. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 15:57 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @Pam No, I'm not saying that. Right to succession is a complex business. He could certainly have claimed such a right if he had wanted to. And then the Jewish people themselves would have had to decide whether to honor his claim. But the fact of the matter is that he never made any move to make such a claim, and in fact quite clearly repudiated such a claim, as covered in my answer above. However, this really isn't the place to have this discussion. If you want to continue, we can go to Polemics and Apologetics. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 15:56 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | @LeeWoofenden I'll consider that, though my initial attempt to contact you via your web site came to naught. I also reviewed this meta post and got a better sense of what you were getting at in the other comment stream we had. I deleted my comments as they were far too grumpy and argumentative. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 15:52 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @KorvinStarmast The difference between a tri-personal God and a single person of God is vast. But this is not the place to discuss it. Here is another article from my blog that addresses the question of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you don't want to use the chatrooms here, we could carry on a conversation in the comments section of that article, or one of the other related articles on my website. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 15:02 | comment | added | Kristopher | Also Lee take a look at this and tell me your opinion on calebs bounty winning answer christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4297/… | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 14:57 | comment | added | Kristopher | Just to clarify are you saying that Jesus did not have the legal right to the throne through the marriage of Joseph and Mary? And that Jesus was not related to David through Mary's genealogy? | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 13:58 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | @LeeWoofenden Having read this again, and your other two answers on the Swedenborgian approach -- it still looks at a difference without a distinction. (Or two blind men describing the same elephant differently). Worth the read, previous comment removed as being too grumpy. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 4:25 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | @LeeWoofenden Thank you for that clarification. No, I do not use chat on SE sites. (also, I enjoyed the blog article of your that you cited.) | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 4:13 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @KorvinStarmast We can take that up in the Polemics and Apologetics chatroom if you like. My answer responds to the question, which asks for answers from "Christian theologians and denominations that affirm the Incarnation: that Jesus is fully human and fully God." Swedenborg and the Swedenborgian denominations do so affirm, and this answer is based on that Christian theologian as understood in those denominations. | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 17:27 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @Pam It is important to understand that the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah who was to come. The Jews expected a human Messiah in the dynasty of David who would be an earthly king. That is clearly the original intent of the various OT prophecies of the "anointed one" who was to come. The NT reinterprets those prophecies to refer to Jesus Christ as a spiritual king (see, for example, John 18:33-38 as quoted in my answer above), not the expected and prophesied earthly king. | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 17:09 | history | edited | Lee Woofenden | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Typo fixes, corrections to wording in a few places
|
| Feb 3, 2016 at 16:48 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | Precisely. He was not the Messiah they expected. They expected an earthly king who would throw off Roman rule and re-establish them as a sovereign nation. Jesus made no moves to do that, and (to Pilate) even specifically denied that's what he was going to do. | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 12:07 | comment | added | Kristopher | If this were true the Jews were correct in rejecting Jesus as the long foretold messiah that was promised to come thru david | |
| Aug 24, 2015 at 1:31 | history | edited | El'endia Starman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Linkified all Scripture references and added one that was missing.
|
| Aug 24, 2015 at 0:41 | history | answered | Lee Woofenden | CC BY-SA 3.0 |