Jesus "the son of an ordinary carpenter" ?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
keithprosser wrote: Jesus was - allegedly - the son of an ordinary carpenter, not of a priest or prince. 

I believe this to be incorrect and simply a case of prosser being contrary for the sake it..... again.


The gospel of Matthew States explicitly that Jesus was of royal blood – a genuine king, the lineal descendant of Solomon and David. If this is the case, then Jesus would have enjoyed a legitimate claim to the throne of a united Palestine and perhaps the legitimate claim. And the inscription affixed to the cross would have been much more than mere derision, for Jesus would indeed have been ‘King of The Jews.
He had influential rich friends in very high places and most, if not all of his disciples were rich. Jesus is repeatedly called “king of the Jews”  many times when being interrogated by Pilate.
 
 Mark 15:12-15 states clearly Pilate asking those assembled dignitaries:
“What shall I do, then,with the one you call the king of the Jews?”  thus indicating at least some Jews  do actually refer to Jesus as their king. In All four gospels, Pilate also accords Jesus that title. In the fourth gospel he insists on it quite adamantly and seriously- despite the protests from the elders.
 
In three of the synoptic, Jesus Himself acknowledge his claim to the title telling Pilate he had spoken correctly when asked  “art thou king of the Jews”.
 
 
Jesus is referred to many times a teacher and rabbi indicating he was of the priesthood.
 

#2
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The Orthodox Church understands that both Joseph and Mary are from the house of David.

Joseph helped raise Jesus as a child, as his own son, but Mary is understood as being a virgin both before and after Jesus' birth. 

The flesh of Jesus is understoof as coming from Mary.



Topic's author
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Joseph helped raise Jesus as a child, as his own son, but Mary is understood as being a virgin both before and after Jesus' birth. 
 Talking out of your arse again, Mopac

The New Testament  Gospel of Mark 6:3 and the Gospel of Matthew 13:55–56  clearly state that  James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon as brothers of Jesus. Also mentioned, but not named, are sisters of Jesus. James, many scholars agree, took over as leader of the Jerusalem church after the crucifixion.,


So tell me , you clown, how could Mary remain a "virgin" after the birth of Jesus, when your own New  Testament scriptures categorically state different.  Were all these siblings immaculately conceived too? 

You really are a buffoon. 




#4
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Stephen
So tell me, how could Mary remain a "virgin" after the birth of Jesus, when your own New  Testament scriptures categorically state different.  Were all these siblings immaculately conceived too? 

I don't know of a reliable source for the precise hereditary relationship Jesus has with them.  Where in the scripture have you found the catagorical difference?
Topic's author
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Plisken
Where in the scripture have you found the catagorical difference?

i.e. the scriptures tell a C-A-T-E-G-O-R-I-C-A-L-Y different story to what mopac believes and what he will have us believe.

You obviously haven't understood what i have wrote. It was a question. You haven't even tried to address it. 

Mopac the clown, will have us believe that Mary, said Mother of the immaculate conceived Jesus , remained a "virgin" AFTER,  not just the birth of the  Jesus, "king of the Jews" Matthew 2:1-8 but also AFTER the births of Jesus' brothers and sisters.


Do you have a single piece of evidence for this being the case? More's the point does Mopac?




#6
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Stephen
That's a traditional belief that's been handed down for 2000 years, so its held in the Roman Catholic church as well as the respective protestant denominations.  I'm failing to see why this bothers you.  Logically, she must have been a Virgin after they were born, otherwise she wouldn't have always been a virgin.  
Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Plisken
I'm failing to see why this bothers you.  



Ya don't say.

Now either address the op or leave the thread.
#8
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Stephen
Joseph was in the business of carpentry and likely died before Jesus began his ministry.  I think it fits nicely assuming he was significantly older than Mary. Without a doubt, Jesus was perceived as a legitimate threat among individuals positioned in the elite establishment.

#9
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Do we know what the succession laws of ancient Israel were?
Topic's author
#10
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Plisken
Joseph was in the business of carpentry .

So I keep being told.

 According to some scholars the word -  carpenter - didn't mean what we today take it to mean. This is covered by many biblical authors such as the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes who notes that later Talmudic texts use the word for "carpenter" or "craftsman" - naggar - as a synonym for "teacher, scholar, learned man",  Geza Vermes; Jesus the Jew page 21.

Géza Vermes, FBA was a British academic, Bible scholar, and Judaist of Hungarian Jewish origin—one who also served as a Catholic priest in his youth—and writer on history of religion, particularly Judaism and early Christianity. 


And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Jesus was a poor carpenter himself in the sense that we understand the word  carpenter today.. As mentioned Jesus is called Rabbi and teacher many times in the scriptures.



Jesus was perceived as a legitimate threat among individuals positioned in the elite establishment.
And for many reasons. Herod (a puppet king)  took his birth as a serious threat to his rule and it is said that  : "he was troubled, and disturbed and all Jerusalem with him" by the news of a child born "King of the Jews", so much so that Herod wanted him dead.
Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@drafterman

"Kingship in ancient Israel was not originally hereditary. The Hebrew Bible records three varied accounts of how Saul was appointed as the first king of Israel. In 1Sam 9:1-10:16 Saul was anointed privately by the prophet and ruler Samuel. In 1Sam 10:20-24, he was selected by lots in a public gathering and lastly in 1Sam 11:1-15, his victory over the Ammonites gained him popular appeal.
God eventually rejects Saul’s kingship (1Sam 13:7-14, 1Sam 15:10-29). With Saul’s decline, Samuel anoints David, the youngest son of Jesse, as king. Later, the people anointed David as king of Judah.
Hereditary kingship began after David’s death. His son, Solomon, though not his first-born son, succeeded David on the throne.  After Solomon’s death, the kingdom split into two: Israel, or the northern kingdom and Judah, the southern kingdom.  Each kingdom, with its own monarch, followed different means of succession.  In Judah, God promised King David that his “house” or lineage would rule the United Monarchy forever (2Sam 7). The Davidic dynasty prevailed in Judah, beginning with Solomon’s son, Rehoboam until the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE.
Dynastic succession was never fully established in the north due to rebellion, warfare, and coups; Israel was ruled by an alternating series of ruling families and independent kings until its destruction in 722 BCE.  Jeroboam, who was an administrator in Solomon’s court and not a relative, was installed as first king of the northern kingdom of Israel...........".




#12
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Stephen
Ok, then, even if we establish his lineage, on what basis do we establish his heriditory rights to the kingdom of Israel?
Topic's author
#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@drafterman
on what basis do we establish his heriditory rights to the kingdom of Israel?

"We" don't have to. Because depending on how one reads these scriptures  one either believes he was a rightful heir or he wasn't. The scriptures clearly suggest he was. The question for "us" is, do we believe the scripture? 

Prosser, who I quoted in the op simply says Jesus wasn't a "priest or a prince". I say the scriptures indicate to the contrary. 
#14
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
You are very rude. Is there a reason you must be so disrespectful? Why do you think so highly of yourself? So lowly of others? I would enjoy our conversations a great deal more if you afforded myself and others a level of respect that floats around what I would call common courtesy.

There are many ways someone can be a brother to another. We believers are all brothers in Christ. Jesus himself said, "Who are my mother and brothers but those who do the will of the father?"

Tradition holds that these brothers of Jesus are actually half brothers from a prior marriage of Joseph, who was a great deal older than Mary. James, brother of Jesus, according to Church Tradition was actually the first bishop of Jerusalm.


#15
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
So tell me , you clown, how could Mary remain a "virgin" after the birth of Jesus, when your own New  Testament scriptures categorically state different.  Were all these siblings immaculately conceived too? 
Minor point - Jesus was not immaculately conceived; Mary was.


#16
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
By a mathematical quirk, there are so many generations between jesus and david that it is almost certain jesus was david's descendant - but so was every other jew alive then.

Luke indicates that jesus' family was poor in Lk 2:22-24

22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord... And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

The law relating to the purificaton of a woman after giving birth refered to is given in Lev 12:-8

6 ... she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering ...   8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons,

Luke wants to indicate that Mary was too poor to pay a lamb so she was forced to go for the cheaper option.



Topic's author
#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser

Luke indicates that jesus' family was poor in Lk 2:22-24

 Like I have said to --> @drafterman post #13 above "  depending on how one reads these scriptures  one either believes he was a rightful heir or he wasn't". Right off the bat Matthew 2:2 Jesus is referred to as "king of the Jews " by eastern kings baring royal gifts.

In his book Genesis of the Grail Kings, Sir Laurence Gardner explains; - “Gold was the traditional symbol of Kingship, while pine resin (identified with pineal secretion: Melatonin) was often used to make frankincense (in the incense of priesthood). Hence, gold and frankincense were the traditional substances of priest-kings of the messianic line, along with Myrrh (a gum resin used as a medicinal sedative), which was symbolic of death”. Sir Lawrence Gardner, Genesis of the Grail kings, Page 185.



Matthew has Jesus born of royalty and of noble birth and born in a house not a stable.. And like the word  - carpenter - one really needs to understand what is meant when the scriptures use the word  "poor" or " the poor"  and who it actually refers to. 


Topic's author
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Is there a reason you must be so disrespectful? 
Maybe it is because you  very rarely address the op or simply derail a thread with nonsense that has nothing to do with the OP.  That is "rude" that is "disrespectful". Now enough of your opinions of me . I am not interested in your opinions of me.

Why do you think so highly of yourself? 

Opinion. But I do believe I know these scriptures much better than you have been taught. And that I have read them more thorough than you and a few others here have taken the time to do for YOURSELF. For instance:

(1)Mark seems to think it is of no importance whatsoever and  makes no mention at all about the "virgin" birth.
(2) Matthew and Luke mention it with varying emphasis.
(3) John feels it isn't even worth mentioning and also ignores it all together.

Now enough of the "virgin" birth and stick to the OP.


I would enjoy our conversations a great deal more if ......

I would probably enjoy conversations with you if you would at least try to answer some of my questions. But I have given up on that ever happening when is all you do is derail the thread - my threads.

There are many ways someone can be a brother to another. 

No there isn't. You are not my brother and I don't believe I would like you as one.

We believers are all brothers in Christ.

Not in my case. I don't believe the scriptures the way you do and the way you have been taught them.



Tradition holds that these brothers of Jesus are actually half brothers from a prior marriage of Joseph,
You could be right as could the tradition. But start your own thread on the matter giving evidence of this tradition. This thread is about the royal and priestly status of Jesus.


A close read of the scriptures continually tell us that the many if not all of Jesus' disciples were rich. His close friends and other supporters and followers were also people of high office and status and also rich. This does not sound like a "poor" son of a carpenter to me, what about you?

#19
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You [ie stephen] are very rude.
I sometimes wonder if posters are as obnoxious in real life as they are on line!   Either they are and so are forced to go on line to avoid getting continually punched in the mouth or.... they aren't, I suppose. ;)



Topic's author
#20
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
That is not addressing the op prosser. Your becoming as boring and nauseating and tedious as that fawning sycophantic clown mopac.  You just don't like it when people have responses and answers to you. 

You come across as extremely conceited and very arrogant and egocentric at times that  I bet you have been "continually punched in the mouth". And so " are forced to go on line".   Now address the thread or leave it. 

You have not shown not a single piece of evidence to support your opinion that Jesus was not a Priest or  King. 
#21
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
You have not shown not a single piece of evidence to support your opinion that Jesus was not a Priest or  King.
Being a descendant of priests or kings does not make someone a priest or a king - as the linked article explains everyone in the world is descended from a king - you are a descendant of Charlemagne!

Any royal or priestly heritage seems to be lost on Jesus' parents:

Luke 2:46-49

46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.



Topic's author
#22
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Being a descendant of priests or kings does not make someone a priest or a king.

It did according to the ancient Hebrews and peoples of 1st century AD. He was making a claim to the throne and many seemed to have supported that claim. You have to remember , it wasn't only Herod who was a puppet put into place by the Romans, it was also the high priesthood: they were false priests. 

If I were a devout catholic attending the Vatican it could be said that I was in my father's house. But there again you should read the nonsense that precedes the verses you have quoted:

 43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 

So they had travelled a whole day and  it took a whole day before these dozy parents realised that their twelve year old child was missing.

And it seems the KJV is  slightly more specific about which "teachers" the child was talking with;

“And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions”. Luke 2:46.KJV

And verse 49 KJV actually states  "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business"? <<<<<<<<<<<<<< nothing there about  --  "having to be in his father's house"


So  then in these terms it makes more sense. 


And you still  have not shown not a single piece of evidence to support your opinion that Jesus was not a Priest or  King. 

BY YOU, simply saying " being a descendant of priests or kings does not make someone a priest or a king";  does not support your opinion in any way. No matter how many times you say it to yourself. 
#23
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So Stephen do you think that being a descendant of David and being the son of a carpenter must be mutually exclusive? 

How do you draw such a conclusion? Scriptures please. 
Topic's author
#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
How do you draw such a conclusion?

I haven't. You are saying I have. You should go up page and  read what it is that I have actually wrote.

Particularly>>

According to some scholars the word -  carpenter - didn't mean what we today take it to mean. This is covered by many biblical authors such as the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes who notes that later Talmudic texts use the word for "carpenter" or "craftsman" - naggar - as a synonym for "teacher, scholar, learned man".





#25
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Pleased you did not draw that conclusion. Yes I read what you wrote above. I don't agree with that position. And surprisingly I find it difficult to believe that you do as well.  From previous discussions with you - you seem stuck on the literal word from the version of the bible you read - and wont look at anything from any other source even if it is genuine. 

Still it is pleasing you don't the two as being mutually exclusive. I think Jesus was both of the royal line of David - and a carpenter. Joseph was not just an ordinary carpenter in any event - he was known as "the carpenter" which seems to indicate he was quite specialised and known for his work. Articles are useful tools of grammar. 

Yet neither does it mean that his family were necessarily wealthy. Keithprosser is correct about the usage of certain birds rather than larger animals for the sacrifice. It is significant - even as you were correct about certain gifts being given to his family at the age of two by the men who came from the East.  Jesus was born king - although I suspect this was talking about his status as divine king rather than of the lineage of David. 
#26
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
you seem stuck on the literal word from the version of the bible
Never rely on the literal word of god. LOL

#27
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
you were correct about certain gifts being given to his family at the age of two by the men who came from the East. 
I doubt that actually happened!  

When i wrote that jesus was not a priest or prince I certainly did not mean that there was no royalty nor priests anywhere in his ancestry because that is a logical impossibility!  

What I meant - and what I stand by - is that Jesus' genetic/bloodline link to kings and priests was probably not noticeably closer than any other random Jewish male.  If he was a king or priest then so was his next-door neighbour and the guy Mary bought camel milk from.

Almost everyone on DA has Chalemagne as a direct ancestor, but none of us can claim to be rightful King of the Franks.



Topic's author
#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Pleased you did not draw that conclusion.
And I am pleased that you failed to put words into my mouth.