You've said it all sir.

FRANCISTOWN:


Whether documented or not ain't the point here. You are here again with blind argument.

No one in those days in Isreal was addressed by their mother's ancestral name.

They were a addressed by their father's ancestral name. In fact, when we talk about ancestral and lineage, we are only referring to the paternity household.
Not just in Isreal but also in most African cultures
E.G
David of the household of Jesse
Josiah of the household of David.
The remnants of the household of Jeroboam
'Of the household of Judah
' of the household of Isreal
Eleazar the son of Aaron
Nahshon the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah
Eliab son of Helon
Nethaneel the son of Zuar, prince of Issachar.
Eliasaph the son of Deuel and so many of them like that.

See the words of your God himself

Numbers 1:2-46
“Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head from twenty years old and upward, whoever is able to go out to war in Israel, you and Aaron shall number them by their armies. With you, moreover, there shall be a man of each tribe, each one head of his father’s household.
Numbers 26:2-4
“Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel from twenty years old and upward, by their fathers’ households, whoever is able to go out to war in Israel.” So Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying, “Take a census of the people from twenty years old and upward, as the Lord has commanded Moses.”Now the sons of Israel who came out of the land of Egypt were

1 Chronicles 27:1-24
Now this is the enumeration of the sons of Israel, the heads of fathers’ households...

Exodus 1:1 Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob.

Joshua 2:18 Behold, when we come into the land, thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down by: and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father's household, home unto thee.

Leviticus 17:8 And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice...

And so much more.

In those days in Isreal, they were addressed by the name of their household, and that house hold was their father's household.

The "Thou son of David " was because they thought Joseph real fathered Jesus. You cannot be addressed by your mother's ancestral name

You agitates easily.
Mary and Joseph were both indigenes of Bethlehem Ephrata as in real descendants of King David so Jesus is from that lineage whether the Jews accepted his credential as the scriptures foretold that he will be born by a virgin or they concluded that Joseph actually impregnate Mary.
That's the point Sir!

FRANCISTOWN:

Whether documented or not ain't the point here. You are here again with blind argument.
No one in those days in Isreal was addressed by their mother's ancestral name.
They were a addressed by their father's ancestral name. In fact, when we talk about ancestral and lineage, we are only referring to the paternity household.
Not just in Isreal but also in most African cultures
E.G
David of the household of Jesse
Josiah of the household of David.
The remnants of the household of Jeroboam
'Of the household of Judah
' of the household of Isreal
Eleazar the son of Aaron
Nahshon the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah
Eliab son of Helon
Nethaneel the son of Zuar, prince of Issachar.
Eliasaph the son of Deuel and so many of them like that.

See the words of your God himself

Numbers 1:2-46
“Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head from twenty years old and upward, whoever is able to go out to war in Israel, you and Aaron shall number them by their armies. With you, moreover, there shall be a man of each tribe, each one head of his father’s household.
Numbers 26:2-4
“Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel from twenty years old and upward, by their fathers’ households, whoever is able to go out to war in Israel.” So Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying, “Take a census of the people from twenty years old and upward, as the Lord has commanded Moses.”Now the sons of Israel who came out of the land of Egypt were

1 Chronicles 27:1-24
Now this is the enumeration of the sons of Israel, the heads of fathers’ households...

Exodus 1:1 Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob.

Joshua 2:18 Behold, when we come into the land, thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down by: and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father's household, home unto thee.

Leviticus 17:8 And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice...

And so much more.

In those days in Isreal, they were addressed by the name of their household, and that house hold was their father's household.

The "Thou son of David " was because they thought Joseph real fathered Jesus. You cannot be addressed by your mother's ancestral name

FRANCISTOWN:

This one will just download erroneous theories from the atmosphere and rush to nairaland to state them to people. That lie you just posted up there, where is a reference text or literals backing it up?

What exactly are you saying?
Is it the tradition of first century Jews you're asking or the couple were direct descendants of King David?

FRANCISTOWN:

King of lies, you've started again.
No one except Mary and Joseph knew that Jesus was not fathered by Joseph. So everyone who addressed Jesus thought he was the son of Joseph. Also, Joseph was already from the house of Jesse and was practicing the religion of the jews, so whatever nonsense theory you quoted is useless. There was nothing like adoption by marriage in the case of Joseph.
Also, where did you see that stupid theory that you posted? Was Jacob called "Jacob the son of Laban" because he married Leah and Rachel?
You need to start using your head FR

Ọmọ traditions aren't just what people do but ADOPTED as time goes so calm down and reason the first century Jews were children of returnees from Babylon so they were ready to adopt children based on marriage alliance with a faithful worshiper of their God.
Joseph was married to Mary so whether the child was born through biological means or supernatural it still boils down to the fact that both parents were descendants of King David!

Go and read Adoption in Judaism on Wikipedia!

I would advice you read that your self for clarity sake!

MaxInDHouse:
Go and read Adoption in Judaism on Wikipedia!

Busybrain2233:
So this means Jesus parents where related, and YAWH chose to bring his/her/it only begotten son from persons practicing Incest. Yet he/she/it is against incest.

So if a Yoruba man marries Yoruba woman they have committed incest? Which dictionary are you using

Not what I meant though, perhaps you don't even know how Josesph and Mary were related.

Not just being of the same tribe, it's beyond that.

But that's not my main argument anyway, I only said that in response to kobojunkie's comment.

petra1:


So if a Yoruba marries Yoruba they have committed incest? Which dictionary are you using

Busybrain2233:
■ Not what I meant though, perhaps you don't even know how Josesph and Mary was related.
Not just being of the same tribe, it's beyond that.But that's not my main argument anyway, I only said that in response to kobojunkie's comment.

It was a very silly response given it was a supposed rebuttal to the following comment from my person

Kobojunkie:
via His mother, of course!

The prophecy given to David insisted that the King forever to come would be from David's own bloodline. Clearly, the connection to David had to come from His mother, and not Joseph, the man she married.

In Judaism, a child is not addressed with his/her maternal family name.

Or have you seen where they addressed someone with his/her maternal family name in the bible amidst the era of Judaism

Kobojunkie:
It was a very silly response given it was a supposed rebuttal to the following comment from my person The prophecy given to David insisted that the King forever to come would be from David's own bloodline. Clearly, the connection to David had to come from His mother, and not Joseph, the man she married.

Busybrain2233:
■ In Judaism, a child is not addressed with his/her maternal family name.
■ Or have you seen where they addressed someone with his/her maternal family name in the bible amidst the era of Judaism

This isn't merely about how a child was or is addressed but of the actual lineage/ancestry of said child. So, I don't understand why you keep harping on and on about how a child should be addressed when we are instead interested in the bloodline of the child in question.

Again, the prophecy that was given to the people of Israel clearly stated that the King forever to come would be from the blood of David, and so the people expected an individual from the bloodline of David and not someone addressed as one from the line of David. So, when they refer to the Messiah as the son of David, they do so not because of tradition or whatever ideas you imagine there but because they in fact believe the one to come was to come from the blood of David. Same as almost every one of the Kings in the land of Judah.

Okay here is a quick question.

Jews who acknowledged Jesus to be from the lineage of David, who do they think made Jesus to be from the lineage of David?

Kobojunkie:
This isn't about how a child is to be addressed but of the lineage/ancestry of said child. So, I don't understand why you keep harping on and on about how a child should be addressed when we are instead interested in the bloodline of the child in question.

Again, the prophecy that was given to the people of Israel clearly stated that the King forever to come would be from the blood of David, and so the people expected an individual from the bloodline of David and not someone addressed as one from the line of David. So, when they refer to the Messiah as the son of David, they do so not because of tradition or whatever ideas you imagine there but because they in fact believe the one to come was to come from the blood of David. Same as almost every one of the Kings in the land of Judah.

Busybrain2233:
■ Okay here is a quick question. Jews who acknowledged Jesus to be from the lineage of David, who do they think made Jesus to be from the lineage of David?

I am not the least bit concerned about the opinions of Jews. Rather, I like to stick to what is in fact written in Scripture of these things. And in Scripture, it is written that the Forever King would be a descendant of David, and also He could not be descended from Solomon because God took the opportunity away from Solomon after Solomon sinned.

Below is the detail of the prayer David had prayed to God desiring a King forever from His own family. David clearly, didn't just want anyone from Israel but Kings from His own bloodline to be on the throne forever.

23 “And there is no nation on earth like your people, Israel. They are a special people. They were slaves, but you took them out of Egypt and made them free. You made them your people. You did great and wonderful things for the Israelites and for your land.
24 You made the people of Israel your very own people forever, and Lord, you became their God.
25 “Now, Lord God, you promised to do something for me, your servant, and for my family. Now please do what you promised—make my family a family of kings forever!
26 Then your name will be honored forever. People will say, ‘The Lord God All-Powerful rules Israel! And may the family of your servant David continue to be strong in serving you.’
27 “You, Lord All-Powerful, the God of Israel, have shown things to me. You said, ‘I will make your family great.’ That is why I, your servant, decided to pray this prayer to you.
28 Lord God, you are God, and I can trust what you say. And you said that these good things would happen to me, your servant.
29 Now, please, bless my family. Let them stand before you and serve you forever. Lord God, you yourself said these things. You yourself blessed my family with a blessing that will continue forever.” - 2nd Samuel 7 vs 23 - 29

And God did answer David.

By the way, the notion that ancestry in the land was determined by the father of the child is not of truth because the foreign-born Israelites in the land — particularly those of them born to foreign fathers — were still recognized as Israelites. In the Law of Moses, there are laws that were given on how to deal with such cases, and they were in no way spared by God on the grounds that they were born to foreign men.

Even the said prophecy addressed Jesus to be from the lineage of David. But here you're claiming not to be concerned about him being addressed.

If the prophecy had not addressed him as a descendant of David lineage, we wouldn't have been digging this that much.

So the prophecy did not clarify the claim but rather makes it intricated.

Kobojunkie:
I am not the least bit concerned about the opinions of Jews. Rather, I like to stick to what is in fact written in Scripture of these things. And in Scripture, it is written that the Forever King would be a descendant of David, and also He could not be descended from Solomon because God took the opportunity away from Solomon after Solomon sinned.

By the way, the notion that ancestry in the land was determined by the father of the child is not of truth because the foreign-born Israelites in the land — particularly those of them born to foreign fathers — were still recognized as Israelites. In the Law of Moses, there are laws that were given on how to deal with such cases, and they were in no way spared by God on the grounds that they were born to foreign men.

Was Joseph a foreign man/father in the land of Israel

Kobojunkie:
I
By the way, the notion that ancestry in the land was determined by the father of the child is not of truth because the foreign-born Israelites in the land — particularly those of them born to foreign fathers — were still recognized as Israelites. In the Law of Moses, there are laws that were given on how to deal with such cases, and they were in no way spared by God on the grounds that they were born to foreign men.

Busybrain2233:
■ Even the said prophecy addressed Jesus to be from the lineage of David. But here you're claiming not to be concerned about him being addressed. If the prophecy had not addressed him as a descendant of David lineage, we wouldn't have been digging this that much. So the prophecy did not clarify the claim but rather makes it intricated.

Stop trying to twist my words abeg!

Your claim has all along been that even though Jesus Christ was not directly connected by blood to Joseph that He, Jesus Christ, was regarded as the Son of David because the census has Joseph listed as His father. To this, I clearly responded that the prophecy which all of the Nation of Judah was aware of even at the time was instead that the Messiah had to come directly from the bloodline of David. Mary is the only connection to David Jesus Christ could have had.

Busybrain2233:
Was Joseph a foreign man/father in the land of Israel

I used the foreigner case to illustrate the fact that the Law of Moses ties directly to a person's bloodline rather than census records.

MaxInDHouse:


Ọmọ traditions aren't just what people do but ADOPTED as time goes so calm down and reason the first century Jews were children of returnees from Babylon so they were ready to adopt children based on marriage alliance with a faithful worshiper of their God.
Joseph was married to Mary so whether the child was born through biological means or supernatural it still boils down to the fact that both parents were descendants of King David!

Calm down and read your comments. No, read it again. Does it make any sense?
I think it's high time I stopped quoting you on NL. You lack the ability to reason logically.
You just talk nonsense up and down

And I'm still of the opinion that in those days, people don't address people from their maternal family name. Even the bearer of the prophecy should have known this.

Kobojunkie:
Stop trying to twist my words abeg!

Your claim has all along been that even though Jesus Christ was not directly connected by blood to Joseph that He, Jesus Christ, was regarded as the Son of David because the census has Joseph listed as His father. To this, I clearly responded that the prophecy which all of the Nation of Judah was aware of even at the time was instead that the Messiah had to come directly from the bloodline of David. Mary is the only connection to David Jesus Christ could have had.

MaxInDHouse:
You agitates easily.
Mary and Joseph were both indigenes of Bethlehem Ephrata as in real descendants of King David so Jesus is from that lineage whether the Jews accepted his credential as the scriptures foretold that he will be born by a virgin or they concluded that Joseph actually impregnate Mary.
That's the point Sir!

You first said Joseph became a member of the household of David thru your atmospheric theory of "adoption by marriage". Now that you've been schooled, you opted for a change of post. Mtcheeeew.

I maintain this. Your fictitious Jesus was never and will never be a member of the household of David.

This thing is common sense, a son of a daughter of a king(a princess' son) can't be a heir to the throne. Why? Because he is not a member of the household of the king's house. He belongs to the household of his own father. He is a female's child.

Even in citizenship, those days in Isreal, citizenship by hereditary. You inherit your father's citizenship.

Mention one woman that your God gave any instructions concerning her household. Women didn't have household then, they were only members of their husbands' household after marriage, if not married, they'd be members of their father's household.
And up till now, women still don't have household.

If not for the western culture which has crept into our civilisation recently. A woman will answer her husband's last name to show she is a member of the man's household.

Anyways I don't know whether you guys at JW address a family by the wife's last name.

Lemme advise you, you just don't talk because you feel like talking. A wise man must talk when he knows about what he wants to say and not just some "Unverified Theories".

Jesus was never and will never be a member of the household of David. You can say he was of the household of your imaginary god which is fine and correct, but of David? Never.

Jesus was not a root and offspring of David. Let him claim his father's household

Busybrain2233:
And I'm still of the opinion that in those days, people don't address people from their maternal family name. Even the bearer of the prophecy should have known this.

Regardless of what you may think, Scripture makes clear the King Forever is meant to be of the blood of David and the people of the Land knew and expected this. They may not have known the details of the birth of Jesus Christ but they at least knew enough that the requirement was that the King, like so many of the Kings in the land of Judah at the time, come from the royal bloodline of David.

MaxInDHouse:


Ọmọ traditions aren't just what people do but ADOPTED as time goes so calm down and reason the first century Jews were children of returnees from Babylon so they were ready to adopt children based on marriage alliance with a faithful worshiper of their God.

Joseph was married to Mary so whether the child was born through biological means or supernatural it still boils down to the fact that both parents were descendants of King David!

@The Italicized: That was the most incorrigible thing I'd ever see on this forum. What are you talking about? How would a anyone link the first century Jews with returnees from Babylon? It doesn't correlate. Didnt you see the year difference? There was more than 530 years difference.

Isreal was already stabilized.

@The coloured. Stop quoting silly theories. Where did you get that unheavenly theory? You've started again with your lies. The same way you lied to be an intelligent agent at an undisclosed atheists' debate who were ensued in arguments about God and terrorists bombing the premise?

Yes, both parents were descendants of King David but Jesus being a female's child was not qualified to be associated with the household of David. You can only be associated with the household of your father.

Joseph was not Jesus' father so, tell him to look for his father's household and rep it.

Oya answer this.

If Jesus was a farmer that seriously needs land for farming, assuming he doesn't have money to aquire a land of his own and he's sure his maternal family has some spare lands, can he go and drag lands with his maternal family, claiming legality of their resources and wealth

Kobojunkie:
I used the foreigner case to illustrate the fact that the Law of Moses ties directly to a person's bloodline rather than census records.

petra1:


So if a Yoruba man marries Yoruba woman they have committed incest? Which dictionary are you using

He was not talking about tribe.
Read your Bible.
The twelve tribes of Isreal came from Jacob.
And David was of the tribe of Judah.
He was talking about the household.

Both Mary and Joseph were from the household of David the King.

Yoruba is a tribe, not a household

Was it that difficult to understand?

The guy would have gone to sleep rejoicing that he has made a sensible comment.

FRANCISTOWN:

He was not talking about tribe.
Read your Bible.
The twelve tribes of Isreal came from Jacob.
And David was of the tribe of Judah.
He was talking about the household.

Both Mary and Joseph were from the household of David the King.

Yoruba is a tribe, not a household

Was it that difficult to understand?

Busybrain2233:
Okay here is a quick question.

Jews who acknowledged Jesus to be from the lineage of David, who do they think made Jesus to be from the lineage of David?

At least, a few of us know that the Bible is nothing but a book of gaffes.

David's prayer and God's promises to David that he'll forever have a heir on his throne was in fact one of the fatal error in the Bible.
God was talking about the throne of David (obviously the person should be a king). For anyone who doubts let them read the Bible again Isaiah 9:7.

That was the reason, according to the Bible, many Jews didn't believe in Jesus because they were expecting a mighty king after the order of David but Jesus was a carpenter's son who loved screaming in the streets.

Yes, Jesus was a bloodline of David thru Mary but in those days, a descendant from a female was not counted as a bloodline of that family.

Everyone thought Jesus was the carpenter's son, hence "Son of David".

Busybrain2233:
The guy would have gone to sleep rejoicing that he has made a sensible comment.

🤣🤣🤣. I saw this somewhere.
Someone said one has to be very foolish to be a christian. I guess he was correct.

Busybrain2233:
Oya answer this. If Jesus was a farmer that seriously needs land for farming, assuming he doesn't have money to aquire a land of his own and he's sure his maternal family has some spare lands, can he go and drag lands with his maternal family, claiming legality of their resources and wealth

The following is equally whar the Law of Moses says.

1 Zelophehad was the son of Hepher. Hepher was the son of Gilead. Gilead was the son of Makir. Makir was the son of Manasseh. Manasseh was the son of Joseph. Zelophehad had five daughters. Their names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
2 These five women went to the Meeting Tent and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders, and all the Israelites. The five daughters said,
3 “Our father died while we were traveling through the desert. He died a natural death. He was not one of the men who joined Korah’s group. (Korah was the man who turned against the Lord.) But our father had no sons.
4 This means that our father’s name will not continue. It is not fair that our father’s name will not continue. His name will end because he had no sons. So we ask you to give us some of the land that our father’s brothers will get.”
5 So Moses asked the Lord what he should do.
6 The Lord said to him,
7 “The daughters of Zelophehad are right. They should share the land with their father’s brothers. So give them the land that you would have given to their father.
8 “So tell the Israelites, ‘If a man has no son, when he dies everything he owns will be given to his daughter.
9 If he has no daughter, everything he owns will be given to his brothers.
10 If he has no brothers, everything he owns will be given to his father’s brothers.
11 If his father had no brothers, everything he owns will be given to the closest relative in his family. This will be a law among the Israelites. The Lord has given this command to Moses.’” - Numbers 27 vs 1 - 11

Inheritance and ancestry can be determined either through the father or the mother. The above is contained right there in the Law of Moses and is hence the Law as far as God's Israel is concerned.

Going by the above Law, it is safe to conclude that the Law in Israel at the time stipulates that if a King should fail to have a son, his Kingdom is passed to the son of His daughter, and so on.

FRANCISTOWN:

Calm down and read your comments. No, read it again. Does it make any sense?
I think it's high time I stopped quoting you on NL. You lack the ability to reason logically.
You just talk nonsense up and down

The highlighted is impossible because you can't wish the truth away no matter how furious you are it will continue to hunt you!

FRANCISTOWN:

You first said Joseph became a member of the household of David thru your atmospheric theory of "adoption by marriage".

Is Joseph the biological father of Jesus? NO!
But through the tradition of adoption in first century Jewish community he (Joseph) became the son of Mary's father.
That's what Matthew meant when he said:

Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ...........But this is how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united. Matthew 1:16 & 18

So it's simple if you're willing to reason!

Okay, in this regard let's assume Mary had male siblings.

Mary is no doubt from the lineage of David through her biological father Joachim.

But Jesus isn't regarded to be from the lineage of David because his biological father isn't a descendant of David.

On the other hand, if Joachim had no son, Jesus can inherit Mary's Father's wealth, but his ancestral lineage would still be traced from the father's side not the mother's.

Or do you care to show me anywhere that a Jew's lineage was traced from his/her maternal lineage?

Kobojunkie:
The following is what the Law says. Inheritance and ancestry can be determined either through the father or the mother. The above is contained right there in the Law of Moses and is hence the Law as far as God's Israel is concerned.

Going by the above Law, it is safe to conclude that the Law in Israel at the time stipulates that if a King should fail to have a son, his Kingdom is passed to the son of His daughter, and so on.

Busybrain2233:

But Jesus isn't regarded to be from the lineage of David because his biological father isn't a descendant of David.

Matthew narrated the ancestral lineage of Mary {Matthew 1:1-16} but Luke narrated the ancestral lineage of Joseph! Luke 3:23-38
Both of them were descendants of King David!
Matthew 1:6; Luke 3:31
You're free to hold onto whatever rocks your boat but know that both Mary and Joseph are descendants of King David!