Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Dylan on April 02, 2008, 09:45:29 PM
-
Hi everyone,
I have come across an argument by a skeptic that he claims is "proof" that Jesus isn't the Messiah, he states:
"Jesus' royal genes must come through David's son Solomon, not through Nathan from which his mother descends.
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 (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-109' "Behold, a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever."
So Solomon's descendants were to sit on the throne over Israel forever. Any Mary did not come through Solomon, she came through David's other son, Nathan."
Could someone please provide a refutation of this claim?
Thanks.
In Christ,
Dylan.
-
If he doesn't believe in Jesus, ask him who The Saviour is.
-
Whatever the details(I am not a Biblcal scholar), the Pentacostal, Nicene, Tridentine, Vatican I Church has infallibly stated otherwise; have him read Constitution.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4 and #6
-
roscoe: If the gentleman in question denies that Our Lord is the Christ, then His Church would cease to have any authority. If that is indeed the case (in the mind of this man), proclamations from the various Councils would be considered completely invalid arguments.
Dylan: I have not studied this matter, so I must admit my ignorance. I am not capable of assisting you in this situation. If you do find more information (outside of CathInfo), please do keep us informed.
-
If he doesn't believe in Jesus, ask him who The Saviour is.
This skeptic is an atheist so he doesn't believe that there is a Saviour.
-
Well, maybe he should read Infallible Constitution of Holy Church--one cannot reject a set of beliefs until one is acquainted with them. It takes about an hour to read docuмent.
-
Dylan: I have not studied this matter, so I must admit my ignorance. I am not capable of assisting you in this situation. If you do find more information (outside of CathInfo), please do keep us informed.
I've asked several people but, haven't received any responses yet, so when I do will.
And if anyone else has anything to add to this, please do.
-
And besides that, how do you prove a negative?
-
Well basically, what this guy is saying is that the Bible say the Messiah has to be a descendant of David through Solomon and not Nathan.
-
If this person is an athiest, what is he doing interpreting the Bible in the first place?
-
If this person is an athiest, what is he doing interpreting the Bible in the first place?
Apparently, this guy thinks he's "on a mission" to debunk Christianity and convert people to atheism so, he wants to debunk the Bible, itself.
-
I would suggest looking at the particular passages he cited above and search for any good Catholic biblical commentary on them.
-
I would suggest looking at the particular passages he cited above and search for any good Catholic biblical commentary on them.
I've tried to do that but, the commentary that I've looked at (Haydock's) doesn't seem to cover this issue.
Would someone happen to know of a good apologist that I could contact online who could help me with this dilemma?
-
It is strange that an athiest would have such detailed knowledge of the Bible. A good possibility exists that this person is humoring you.
I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-christ will claim to be decended from Solomon. Has anyone read Solomon's Power Brokers by the Masons Knight and Butler? There is some interesting material on Rosslyn Castle.
-
It is strange that an athiest would have such detailed knowledge of the Bible. A good possibility exists that this person is humoring you.
I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-christ will claim to be decended from Solomon. Has anyone read Solomon's Power Brokers by the Masons Knight and Butler? There is some interesting material on Rosslyn Castle.
This person isn't talking with me, I've just been reading some of his posts on Stormfront, here is his profile there: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/member.php?find=lastposter&t=402308
-
I can't deal w/ Stormfront because they heavily censor me.
-
I have about a a lot relevant texts from Catholic Bible commentaries which I would be glad to post as soon as I gather them together.
In the mean time. I find it almost touching that this so-called atheist skeptic is old-fashioned enough to be abiding by a long-discredited ancient and medieval notion that despite appearances the Gospel of Luke gives the Virgin Mary's, and not Joseph's, line of descent. (That's where the name Nathan comes in as someone from whom SHE supposedly descended.)
Usually the "gotcha!" from Freethinkers in this area has to do with supposed contradictions between the genealogy given by St Matthew and the one given by St Luke. But it's a question of Joseph's genealogy in both cases.
So the idea that Mary descended from Nathan, not Solomon, and that therefore a jot or tittle of Scripture has fallen is just flat-out laughable. We simply don't have a genealogy for the Blessed Virgin.
And if we're going to be really Fundamentalist about Messianic prophecies, who is to say that the Blessed Virgin was not a direct descendent of David through Solomon AND Nathan AND a few of David's other children? These atheists can be so clueless. So one-track. Solomon would have had many, many hundreds of direct descendants living in Israel at the time that Christ was born. He certainly had enough wives.
-
Btw Dylan, what bible are you using? Im using the Douay Rheims.
I use the D-R, too.
-
I already know that the genealogy Luke gives is of Mary, while the one in the Gospel of Matthew is of Joseph. But, this skeptic is saying that the Messiah has be descended from King David via Solomon for which he cites 1 Chronicles 22:7-10. So, basically he is saying is that because Mary, whose genealogy is listed in Luke, is not descended from Solomon but from Nathan that this is 'proof' that Jesus isn't the Messiah.
He also claims that there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption.
I would really be appreciative if someone could provide a refutation of this guy's claims or direct me to an apologist who could.
Thanks.
-
The genealogy in Luke is NOT that of Mary.
Luke presents it as being that of Joseph and it was only a lame-brained attempt to reconcile supposed contradictions between it and Matthew's genealogy to suggest that Luke gives Mary genealogy by some sort of sleight of hand.
The atheist Fundamentalist stands refuted already. The genealogy in Luke is NOT that of Mary. She is not necessarily a decendent of Nathan. Joseph could be the descendent of both Solomon AND Nathan.
Christ was born in a marriage lawfully contracted by a son of David and Solomon. Christ was not adopted by Joseph. He was his son, lawfully conceived and born of his wife and in his house, so to speak.
It is considered an improbable but permissible opinion for Catholic exegetes to hold that all the prophecies concerning Christ as the Son of David would be fulfilled even if Jesus had not in point of physical fact been of the seed of David at all, if He had only been legally of His line.
But the more probable opinion is that Mary herself was a descendent of David.
There are some serious difficulties in reconciling the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.
The objections of our atheistic Fundamentalist about Christ's not being Christ because of his own lamely literalistic reading of prophecy are not serious and should not be taken seriously.
-
Virginal conceptions effected by the Holy Spirit, a Person unknown to the ancient Jєωs, have a way of putting ancient Messianic prophecies in a new light.
There is not always a way to refute Bible Thumper objections on Bible Thumper grounds.
The fact that St Matthew traces Jesus' royal Messianic lineage through Joseph, whom he knew did not beget him the way David begat Solomon, is enough proof for believing Christians that this makes Jesus Son of King David through King Solomon, whatever further considerations there may be about the Virgin Mary's lineage and Jesus' literally being of the seed of David.
The atheistic Bible Thumper is expecting people to quake and quail over his own personal misreading of a verse in Chronicles, as though the Holy Ghost and Saint Matthew were not well aware of that verse.
-
The phrase "royal genes" is silly.
There is no such thing as a "royal gene."
The trick here is not to answer the atheistic Bible Thumper's question. It is to point out the questions that he has already begged. Stupidly.