Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

@nichodemus Perhaps you can tell me more about those debates about Jesus's brothers? Why would it be considered a discrepancy?
As for Jesus being the Son of David, I think it's agreed that Jesus is adopted by Joseph due to the fact that Mary was in fact a virgin. I don't think that defeats the purpose. He is still the Son of David. Just through adoption.
I haven't noticed any discrepancies either. Probably cuz I haven't studied anything but the NIV, ESV, and King James versions of the Bible. However, I have questioned many things about my faith and found answers to those questions so I don't think it's that people simply follow their Christian parents, pastors, or mentors blindly. If that's what you were implying.

I haven't read the book nicho is reading, but I imagine the question is, if (or since) Jesus is not Joseph's biological son, how is tracing a false lineage to David relevant in any way? If I got it right, David was an ancestor of Joseph, not Mary. So logically David has nothing to do with Jesus. Why did they go through all the trouble of tracing an ancestry that does not apply? I assume this is why it defeats the purpose.

It also raises the question to me whether Jesus is even the son of Mary. Sure, son as in, was birthed by; but son in the biological sense, as in genetically? Is he really considered half human, half deity in the Bible?

Pushing this further, what if Jesus had children? I remember hearing about a possible wife of Jesus, though I'm not sure if this is part of the canonical or apocryphal gospels.

The latter issue being the reason for all those discrepancies, as far as I know. As nicho already stated, there were a lot of different texts around in the early stages of Christianity, some with less and some with more variations. After fighting between each other, the faction that nowadays are considered orthodox won and chose those texts as canon that were closest to their own view; but minor divergences were present nonetheless, as there are nowadays still (just look at all the different denominations!).

half human, half deity in the Bible?

The Bible actually stresses that he is not half half, but both fully human and fully divine which didn't sit well with quite a lot of religious people Many heresies spawned from that, for example Nestorianism, which tried to emphasize on the distinction between Jesus' two natures:

So they basically said that it's 2 people rolled into one. Others tried to say that he is half of each but he is considered one person.

The point that the bible tries to make is that he could be one entity and yet have 2 complete natures (both his human nature and his divine nature). It's a bit of a 1 nature (Divine) + 1 nature (human) = 1 person.

Yet they then defeat this purpose by stating that Joseph is not Jesus' father due to Mary being a virgin.

I don't think that defeats the purpose. He is still the Son of David. Just through adoption.

I haven't read the book nicho is reading, but I imagine the question is, if (or since) Jesus is not Joseph's biological son, how is tracing a false lineage to David relevant in any way? If I got it right, David was an ancestor of Joseph, not Mary. So logically David has nothing to do with Jesus. Why did they go through all the trouble of tracing an ancestry that does not apply? I assume this is why it defeats the purpose.

Blood is insanely important in the bible. There were specific prophecies about lineage. This was a society where men were required to reproduce with the wives of their dead brothers in order to continue the family bloodline. Adoption doesn't cut it.

I would say look for publications/books of historians and researchers related to the Bible. The title of the book nichodemus is reading appears appropriate, though I don't know anything about it.
Me, I've read a bit about it but in the context of the Gospel of Judas; it was a small book by National Geographic, I think, written by those who analyzed the documents and also briefly explained the history of the Bible and the different groups (for example, if I remember correctly the Gospel of Judas was probably written by Sethians, who had a quite interesting but very different set of beliefs compared to orthodox Christians).

I would argue that adoption is just as important as blood. Christians are adopted by God and become full heirs to Him.

I forgot I posted here; will get back when I have time!

@HahiHa

How could Christians be adopted by God if we are supposed to be created by him?

I'm still wondering what is so important about Jesus being in some way related to David, anyway? Please excuse my asking if it is an obvious point to someone well-read in the Bible, but I'm just curious. There must have been a reason or else it wouldn't have been mentioned.

Don't worry about it. I don't believe in bad questions. It was important for the fulfillment of prophecy. 2 Samuel 7:12-16 tells the prophecy so that's why it was so important to give proof of David's lineage.

I was looking into this very question a few days ago - re: Jesus's lineage. In Luke 3, it talks about his lineage, again tracing him all the way back to Adam. But it starts with his (supposed) father, Joseph. This is where things get weird, because in the text itself, it recognises that Jesus is not the son of Joseph and then goes on to talk about Joseph's lineage. That's really, really odd to me.

I ended up asking my colleagues who do religious stuff (it's nice being in a philosophy department) about this. I didn't really understand the explanation, but there are two things going on. The first is that, in the original Greek, there seems to be a translation error (I know, right - it's always a translation error!). But the basic idea is that you can add an affect in Greek that changes the father-son relation. Sometimes that affect was there and sometimes it wasn't. It's doubly confusing because, in the tradition at that time, you are as much the son of your father as you are your grandfather. As was pointed out earlier, bloodlines were a huge deal back then.

Basically, the explanation I got was that the lineage that follows is not Joseph's lineage - it's Jesus's. After all, Heli isn't Joseph's father - Jacob is. Joseph isn't related to Heli (at least, I don't think). In the Catholic liturgy, it explicitly states that Jesus derives his pedigree from his mother, Mary. But it also recognises Joseph's role in teaching and raising Jesus and, in that sense, is Jesus's father (which, by the way, is why you're allowed to call a priest 'father' despite explicit instruction in the Bible not to do so).

As for your worry, @HahiHa that we shouldn't take the part where God is literally Jesus's father, there are two things to note. God is, in a direct sense, Jesus's father (since it's not Joseph). But also, God is a lineage ancestor. In that same chapter (Luke 3), Jesus's lineage gets traced all the way back to Adam, the original son of God. And since, as we noted earlier, you are your ancestor's son as much as your are you parents' son, the connection to God is twofold.

I will say this, though. That prophecy was well-known at the time. The Jews were looking for their Messiah and were well aware of the prophecy. Jesus rode in on a donkey through the West game of Jerusalem. It's interesting because, at the time, Jesus was just preaching in the backwoods. His disciples asked him why he didn't want to go to Jerusalem. He told them that they would kill him there (well, he was right). But he then almost immediately decides to go ahead and go to Jerusalem. And he does so in full knowledge of the prophecy. He rode in on that donkey knowing full well what that would entail.

This also explains why the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Everyone was aware of the prophecy and there were a ton of people around who could trace their lineage back to David. Being related to David was like being related Genghis Khan - tons of people were. So the fact that this guy shows up, riding through the Western gate on a donkey and destroying the money changers in the temples as soon as he got there - well, they weren't impressed, to say the least.

Interesting, but I still don't see how the prophecy mentioned in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 could apply to Jesus, because it explicitly mentions David's flesh and blood / seed from his bowels / offspring from his body; which, obviously, Jesus is not. Jesus is not of David's bloodline; unless he is through Mary, but I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, and why would they try to trace a lineage through Joseph in that case? It doesn't make sense.

Jesus is not of David's bloodline; unless he is through Mary

That was precisely my point - Jesus's lineage is traced through Mary, not Joseph. The reason I brought up Luke 3 is because that's where Jesus's lineage is traced. When you read it, it sounds like they're tracing Jesus's lineage through Joseph. But they're not - they can't be. Here's the quote I'm talking about (Luke 3:23):

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli

But Joseph is not the son of Heli - he's the son of Jacob. So, Biblical scholars will make the move here to say that Heli is Jesus's maternal grandfather. In other words, they're not talking about Joseph's ancestors, but Jesus's (on Mary's side).

It's worth noting that this lineage is radically different from the one presented in Matthew. In Matthew's version, he explicitly mentions Jacob (Joseph's father) and traces him back to David. Some people have used this inconsistency to make the move and point out yet another flaw in the Bible. But this move might be too quick, since Matthew and Luke are looking at 2 different genealogies.

"But how" you ask, "are both Mary and Joseph descended from David?". This goes back to my earlier comparison between David and Genghis Kahn. Just about every Asian person can trace their lineage back to him - much like how most Europeans can trace their lineage back to Charlemagne. King David was a super powerful king and had a ton of kids. Not only did he have 8 wives, but he also had a number of concubines, with whom he had children. And there are at least 20 generations of people, all having a ton of kids, between David and Jesus.

The upshot is that it's actually not all that surprising that Jesus could trace his lineage back to David. As I mentioned before, tons of people could do that. After 20 generations, I would imagine that most people could trace their lineage back to David. This is why we can kind of regard the prophecy in 2 Samuel as self-fulfilling. Just about anyone who decided to ride a donkey through the western gate of Jerusalem would have fulfilled that prophecy. And since the prophecy was well-known, it was just a matter of time before someone did just that. So it wasn't so much self-fulfilling, I guess, as it was inevitable.

So, in short, nothing about Jesus (or the prophecy) is all that surprising.

Of course, I'm super biased on this point. As an atheist, I obviously don't believe that Jesus was the son of God. But, until a few years ago, I doubted that Jesus was even a real person. But the historical evidence of Jesus's existence is pretty compelling, and I'm not in a position to argue with the historical consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical figure. But I can say that it's not at all surprising that Jesus was descended from David, since most people in that region would have been. As far as prophecies go, this one isn't ambiguous like so many others are, but it's one that is incredibly easy to fulfill.

@Moegreche Interesting... This might be a little off topic but I have a question that I've had since my dad talked to me about it. He would tell me that because Jesus was a real person and that no one has found his body, this is further evidence that He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. I tend to agree with him but I never heard an opinion from an atheist or anyone. Is the fact that Jesus was a real person sufficient evidence that He was resurrected?

Is the fact that Jesus was a real person sufficient evidence that He was resurrected?

Well, in a trivial sense, no. After all, if it was sufficient evidence that Jesus was resurrected, then I likely wouldn't be an atheist And keep in mind, there's other evidence, too. According to the Bible, more than 500 people saw Jesus after he died. So there would be a kind of eye-witness testimony of Jesus's resurrection, too.

But I don't consider either of these pieces of information to be evidence. The fact that a body hasn't been found just isn't all that compelling. Even if there was a place identified as Jesus's resting place and there was no body there, I wouldn't be convinced - not even remotely. This is because, in the spectrum of possible explanations for why a body hasn't found, divine intervention is amongst the least probable. In other words, I can think of probably a dozen other explanations for why Jesus's body hasn't been found that are all more plausible than assuming something supernatural.

This really comes down, I think, to what separates theists from atheists: it's all about what you count as evidence. Theists understandably accept certain things as evidence for their beliefs. Atheists either don't have this evidence available (e.g. an experience of personal revelation) or discount these things as being evidence of anything.

I do think, though, that it's important to note that Jesus's body is not an argument from ignorance fallacy. Sometimes, absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. I think it would uncharitable for the atheist to charge the theist with this sort of fallacy. But it's also important to keep in mind that the Romans who oversaw Jesus's execution went out of their way to keep the location of his body secured. That would also mean that we're not going to find a 'Here lies Jesus' plaque one day in the future and fail to find a body there. So I don't see a way that failing to find a body could count as evidence - for me, at least. What would be far more interesting is if a body did end up getting found. I wonder if that would be enough to motivate a move away from religion (or, at least, Christianity). My guess is no. But it's also incredibly unlikely that a body would be found.

The answer to this question lies in the fact that we are separated from God from the moment Adam and Eve sinned. Because we are sinners, we are enemies of God; we deserve his punishment.

He would tell me that because Jesus was a real person and that no one has found his body, this is further evidence that He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.