Bible Discussion Thread

Is it possible since they say Jesus is the son of David that his son Nathan is really Jesus possibly because he didn't get to become king so how do we know that he wasn't Jesus in Jesus wasn't a made up name. Sorry to ask

Hi Fred A few of Jesus Christ born titles is King of Kings , where is he that is born King of the jews, also in his regal lineage he was the son of david through genealogy and of course Son of God.

Gift of god means Nathan could this be for shadowing that Nathan be name of Jesus in his second coming

Thx but still could it be Nathan as second coming and if Jesus was David's then that would make them step brothers to jesus

I'm sorry that I can't take this matter further as I have no better answer to give than what I just shared. I don't see any biological connection to any of mankind - the only connection is the ancestral one only because of Mary bearing this Holy Spirit prepared embryo. Christ had to come this way, rather than mysteriously popping up somewhere, so as to fulfil the prophecies that went before Him & to become a Man for ultimately the suffering of death. It is my belief that this embryo was wholly from God & Mary provided the sustenance for it & to be the means for its presentation.

I can't see anything in the Scriptures showing that David's son, Nathan or his name, will have anything to do with the Lord's Coming. Acts 1:10,11, "And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." The Jesus Who was crucified & ascended into Heaven, will return again in like manner still with the nail prints in His Hand. I'm sorry to disappoint - no Nathan or his namesake - only Jesus.

Hello Fred. In Matthew 22:41-46, we receive a great answer from Jesus on this:

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."

Quoting from Psalm 110:1, Jesus points out to the Pharisees that even though He came in David's lineage (Matthew chapter 1 & Luke chapter 3 reveal this), His position before God & man, had its roots way back in eternity than what they supposed him to be. The Pharisees were left dumb-founded with Jesus' answer, because they knew the Scripture ( Psalm 110:1); how could David infer in this Psalm that his biological son would sit on the throne, when he (David) spoke of him as his Lord?

Even if David, Solomon, Nathan, etc. would have been mentioned in the Psalm, the fact remained that though Jesus had his ancestral roots through Mary (she bearing the Child) & Joseph, thus fulfilling prophecy, His coming to Earth was wholly from God & therefore had no biological connection to King David's sons. If there was a biological connection, then the sin nature in man would have been transmitted as well to Jesus, which refutes other Scriptures. Also, Psalm 110:4 states, "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek", and this position no man on Earth could ever fulfil, as Jesus had no beginning or ending of days, resembling King Melchizedek, for whom there was no record known ( Hebrews 7:3).

Chris, well stated. I have recently studied and thought deeply on the matter of Jesus' DNA. For a long time I thought he had his Y chromosome from the Holy Spirit and the X chromosome from Mary, but upon diving into this, I realized that all of Jesus' DNA was from the God, as Adam's was. This is the only way that Jesus could be conceived without sin or the sin nature, as you said. If, for argument's sake, we say that Jesus' DNA was half from the Holy Spirit and half from Mary, He would have the sin nature, but would it have been possible for Him to live a sin-free live with this nature? I couldn't really say, since He was fully God and fully man, which none of us are or will ever be. So, genetics is an interesting way to view this idea from, but that, Jesus never passed His DNA, which is physical matter, on to anyone. he never fathered any children. I know that you agree with this, but I have read so many people's ideas that think he married Mary of Magdala and had children. (This such an idea is a heresy and is reflected in the stories of the "Holy Grail" of the Knights of Templar.) I just wanted to put this out there because it think it is important to identify false doctrines and refute them, as you do so often in your posts. Thank you for your diligence and adherence to sound doctrine. As Christians, following sound doctrine is important in our mortal life and many people have not been taught about the historical Christian doctrines that have undergirded the church since the beginning or have been taught that doctrines don't matter, or who do not have much desire to discover these sound doctrines. Paul commended Timothy for having been nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed. (Ep:4:6)

Thank you for those thoughts, GiGi. I too have been blessed by your writings. I can't seem to get away from the fact that Paul spoke of Jesus as the "last Adam" ( 1 Corinthians 15:45).

There is so much to learn & absorb in that tiny verse & so excuse my few thoughts here. In that phrase, 'last Adam', we see that Jesus was brought forth wholly from God Almighty without human contribution:

1. The first Adam was made from the dust of the Earth by God, the last Adam was begotten from the Essence of God by God. Not created, but begotten.

2. The first was pure & then fell into deception & sin instead of standing on the spoken Word of God to him; the second was also pure but resisted all the thrusts of Satan, using the Word of God against him, even by His Own Authority.

3. The first received the sin nature as a result of disobedience & fall, & passed that corruption to all his progeny; the second had no sin nature that Satan could call upon to commit sin but that Satan had to use every deceivable means to make Jesus succumb to become like the first Adam, who earned sin's nature & separation from God.

4. The first could never provide the righteous example or extend Grace for his descendants to receive & live by; the second gave us both His Example & Salvation's Grace to change us inwardly & live forever in His Presence.

5. Of necessity or probability, the first's coming necessitated the coming of another; but by giving & naming Jesus 'the last', there can be no other after Him. This being our Heavenly Father's only & perfect solution to bring sinful man back to Himself - if this Sacrifice failed in life or at the Cross, God had no other option for our redemption.

Can we even comprehend the great worth & incalculable extent of God's love for us to give us so great salvation?

Thank you,

Excellent break down of this topic! Especially the aspect of Jesus being begotten, not created, as is stated in our creed of old.

Chris Since Adams original make up was body soul and spirit i.e. created in Gods Image which is spirit then body and soul, then became corrupt after the downfall because the sin contaminated the blood line what made our Saviour the perfect sacrifice is that he never committed an act of sin but also He had sinless blood because bloodline is passed from the Father in the sperm and God created that life in Mary and in leviticus 17:11 the life of the flesh is in the blood and Jesus christ had perfect sinless blood. Adam had that originally but lost it when he trangressed.

Well written brother & point taken. But consider the other part of it. If the sin nature came only through the male, & if the female is also so afflicted, then doesn't it also become a case of 'a little leaven leavening the whole lump'? Can a babe not also be tarnished by the woman who is also a sinner & contributes to the creation of the embryo?

This becomes an important aspect of the Doctrine of Christ, because what we believe determines whether Christ came in sinful flesh as ours & resisted sin's entrance or He came in sinless flesh as Adam's was, to which Satan tried to create the sin nature even as he succeeded with the first Adam. Christians can be found in both camps.

Chris I agree the nature of sin was also in eve because she also took the bait so to speak, the only point I was making is that Jesus Christ never broke fellowship or committed an act of sin which is the flesh His life in the blood was pure and he walked by the spirit perfectly jesus christ Had innocent blood that's why judas said I have betrayed innocent blood what I see scripturally the act in Genesis corrupted even the blood. In genetics that side dominant is Father. Jesus Christ Sacrifice the song there's power in the blood not flesh reminds me of original passover lamb and many other old testament actions before Jesus Christ came. My understanding bro.

Thank you brother for those added comments.

Hi Chris We are discussing two different matters in understanding.

Thank you, Rick, for your contribution to our discussion.