Robert said

Steefen said

That is an interpretation that allows no mystery;

Thank you. You may not intend this as a compliment, but in effect it is. A proper translation and exegesis of the original psalm should indeed make its meaning clear, not render it more obscure.

and, later, we get a second criticism of Jesus not using that interpretation in his moment of triumph against the Pharisees. In the back of Jesus’ mind is not King David was listening to his co-prophet. What is the moral of the story? The story is about the Messiah being a pre-existing entity going back to King David such that the then present-day Messiah is a descendant of King David. The pre-existing Messiah entity is a Son of David but King David calls him Lord. Jesus asks, why is that?

If you have an objection that my translation of the Hebrew psalm no longer works as the point of Mark’s story about Jesus, I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t think Mark read the psalm in Hebrew, certainly not in the same way that I do.

How would Professor Jesus answer the question he posed for an audience that was not antagonizing him?

A. The pre-existing Messiah entity continually goes back in time, he is not just a son of David, he is a son of the Moses, the deliverer as well.

B. The Messiah is not a descendant of David because David calls him Lord.

C. “The Lord God says to my lord, King David” shows any messianic activity ultimately comes from God. God alone is salvation.

I’d say, the answer is A or C, not B.

Mzejum, in the original post, is putting forth only the B interpretation. That interpretation is not the best answer.

mzejum also seems to understand the words of Jesus in the gospels as actually being spoken by Jesus in a very literal sense, thus ignoring the historical perspective and literary activity of Mark or the creativity of the earlier tradition.

  

Its very Unfortunate to see that people are only referring to the Jewish Scriptures in regards for the Messiah to be son of David.

Fact 1: The Samaritans who are also children of Israel and comprising of about 10 tribes of israel, seems to have a different view in regards to the Messiah and by them Quoting Deuteronomy 18:18 seems to believe that the Messiah will be a Levite. and that fact is equally supported in the Bible where Mary is called a descendant of Aaron because of her being mentioned as a cousin of Elizabeth in Luke 1:35 , who is referred  to be a descendant of Aaron in Luke 1:5.

Fact 2: Another fact from the bible is the Jews in John 7:42 who clearly say that their scriptures say the Messiah will be from the house of David or from the town of David, this also shows that the Jews Denied Jesus because he was not from the house of David. 

Fact 3: Another fact is that Paul mentions that Jesus was a High priest. That alone should tell any thinking Christian that According to the children of israelites all their Priests are Descendants of Aaron , according to Exodus 28:1

Fact 4: Lastly From the Quran , Mary is addressed by the Jews as a Sister of Aaron , meaning a descendant of Aaron, and daughter of Imran. 

4 facts to prove to you the Messiah could not be the son of David, it is only Christians that think Adoption of Jesus by Joseph in the bible can change the Genealogy of Jesus even when its clear that Jesus had not Biological father. 

If a white man adopts a Black Child, does that Child Change its genealogy to be white? 

Robert said

mzejum said

Its very Unfortunate to see that people are only referring to the Jewish Scriptures in regards for the Messiah to be son of David.

Fact 1: The Samaritans who are also children of Israel and comprising of about 10 tribes of israel, seems to have a different view in regards to the Messiah and by them Quoting Deuteronomy 18:18 seems to believe that the Messiah will be a Levite. and that fact is equally supported in the Bible where Mary is called a descendant of Aaron because of her being mentioned as a cousin of Elizabeth in Luke 1:35 , who is referred  to be a descendant of Aaron in Luke 1:5.

Fact 2: Another fact from the bible is the Jews in John 7:42 who clearly say that their scriptures say the Messiah will be from the house of David or from the town of David, this also shows that the Jews Denied Jesus because he was not from the house of David. 

Fact 3: Another fact is that Paul mentions that Jesus was a High priest. That alone should tell any thinking Christian that According to the children of israelites all their Priests are Descendants of Aaron , according to Exodus 28:1

Fact 4: Lastly From the Quran , Mary is addressed by the Jews as a Sister of Aaron , meaning a descendant of Aaron, and daughter of Imran. 

4 facts to prove to you the Messiah could not be the son of David, it is only Christians that think Adoption of Jesus by Joseph in the bible can change the Genealogy of Jesus even when its clear that Jesus had not Biological father. 

If a white man adopts a Black Child, does that Child Change its genealogy to be white? 

I do not have an opinion as to whether Jesus of Nazareth was of priestly or Davidic descent, both, or neither. Not only are our sources unreliable with respect to such details, but it is also a question of no religious significance for me. But I do believe in accurately quoting and translating the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Nothing unfortunate about that. 

You reference Dt 18,18 as if it is a messianic prophecy but the passage does not even speak of an anointed let alone a Messiah. That is merely your desired religious interpretation, hardly a fact. You cite Jn 7,42 as part of your ‘factual’ evidence, but ignore Jn 7,40-41, which clearly distinguishes between the prophet foretold in Dt 18,18 and the Messiah. 

You cite Luke’s belief that Mary was of priestly lineage but ignore Luke’s account that Jesus was born in in Bethlehem, the city of David, and was adopted as Joseph’s son and thus also considered to be of Davidic descent. 

You claim that Jn 7,42 denies that Jesus was from the House of David, but that is not at all clear. It does portray the crowd as divided, with some opposed to Jesus because he is from Galilee. It is also an open question as to whether or not the author of the gospel of John was aware of the stories from Matthew and Luke whereby Jesus was born in Jerusalem and thus merely portrays these opposed to Jesus as merely ignorant of this particular detail. John’s larger perspective is that Jesus is from God. 

You mistakenly think that Paul wrote the book to the Hebrews, and believe that it portrays Jesus as of priestly descent, but it refers to the priesthood of Jesus as being of the the order of Melchezedek, not of Aaron or Moses. More importantly, you completely ignore Paul’s actual belief that Jesus was indeed descended from David. 

You accept the virgin birth as historical fact rather than as a matter of Christian and Muslim religious belief. 

You are welcome to believe as you wish, of course, but these forums are for the discussion of history, whereas as your ‘facts’ seem to be nothing more than a religiously motivated selective and poor reading of religious texts. I would encourage you to engage in a less reliously biased discussion of history. 

  

I thought the word messiah means any one anointed? It is Only scriptures and people that have made the word Messiah a great deal but by Definition it just means Anyone anointed or chosen By God and that includes Cyrus.  

You mentioned John 7:41-42 , but read it well again it says. Some of the people in the crowd heard him say this and said, “This man is really the Prophet!”

do you see that Jesus had said he was the Prophet, and people heard him and acknowledged it that That man Jesus was really the Prophet? so Jesus actually said he was the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18. Therefore we have Jesus being heard saying he is the Prophet and we have quoted saying he is the Messiah. 

Infact John 7:41, refutes All claims from the Jewish scriptures and Christian teachings that the messiah is a descendant of David because Jesus was heard saying he was that Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18 and some people believed him too..

it seems you ignored the Part in John 7:41 where it mentioned “some of the People HEARD HIM SAY THIS and said, “This man is Really the Prophet”.

English is not my Mother tongue but i know i have interpreted John 7:41 well.

brenmcg said

Omar6741 said

This is incorrect. I will explain.

In Semitic languages, such as Hebrew and Arabic, terms like “sister of Aaron” and “brother of Aaron” can easily be used to refer to members of the clan consisting of the descendants of Aaron. This is well known to experts in these languages, and can be ascertained by going to standard reference works.

Here is one way to see this: the name ‘Aaron’ can refer, not just to the historical figure by that name, but also to his descendants i.e. it can be used as an abbreviation for “children of Aaron”. So “sister of Aaron”, on this usage, would mean “sister of/from the children of Aaron”.

Although a bit off-topic for this forum, I want to explore what is going on in the Quranic nativity story, the narrative context in which this term is used…

In the Quran, one can easily see that “sister of Aaron” is used for the sake of clarity and to avoid awkwardness. Here is the sentence: “O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot.” In the Quranic view of things, Mary’s father was named “Imran” and not “Aaron”: so calling her daughter of Aaron in this case would be a clumsy and confusing way to address her, since it might lead listeners to think that her father was named ‘Aaron’. Hence the alternative, and well known expression “sister of Aaron” makes sense here, as a reference to her membership in a certain clan, and hence to her lineage.

The reason for mentioning “Aaron” at all here, in this version of the nativity story (quite different from the well known Christian accounts), is worth thinking about: Mary is unmarried and accused of adultery, and it is a hard accusation to refute, since she has just turned up with her new-born baby son; as we know from the book of Leviticus, the punishment for the daughter of a priest who was guilty of sexual immorality was to be burned to death; so in this case, the address “sister of Aaron” functions not just as a reminder of her preistly lineage, but also as a threat, as if to say: “Mary, you had better be able to explain showing up here as an unmarried woman with a baby, or else we will put you to death in a horrible way….”

  

 

I can’t find any other example in the bible or quran where “sister of” or “brother of” is used to mean a descendant of.

Surah 3:33 says “Allah preferred Adam and Noah and the Family of Abraham and the Family of ‘Imran above (all His) creatures” and the wife of this Imran then goes on to give birth to Mary the mother of Jesus.

Later in the chapter it states

Surah 3:84 “We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord.“

As the family of Abraham is Abraham Ishmael Isaac and Jacob, isn’t the best explanation here that the author of the quran thinks the “family of Imran” consists of Moses, Aaron, his sister Mary and her son Jesus?

  

When the Jews said Abraham is their father , did they Mean Abraham Slept with their Mothers? I really do not understand why people like applying double standards to suit their intentions. If you disagree with the use of Sister of Aaron, that showed she is a descendant of Aaron. secondly she was Given the same name as the sister of Aaron. Lastly, Why do People deny what they cannot prove, can you Prove Mary had no Brother called Aaron for instance? i bet you cant. so we can assume that your argument is just based on assumptions.