The House Of David

[YYYY]

Hello, I am looking for a forum where theology can be discussed without the interjection of people's personal faiths. Am I likely to find that here?

If so I would appreciate discussion on the subject below.

In the days of Jesus and for centuries before, the Jewish people looked to The House of David and the House of Aaron for their Kings. Was there any single event that made them turn their backs on these 2 families?

Was it the failure of Jesus and the Nazareans to over throw the Romans? Was it the dispersion of the Jewish people caused by the twice razing of Jerusalem and the fall of Masada? Was it the betrayal of Paul which led to the blasphemous deification of their Messiah and a desire to therefore distance themselves from such a perceived failure of their Kings?
It is likely that it is a combination of these events but I am curious to know.

Maybe the question should be phrased
At what point in history did the Tribe of Judah cease to have a King from the House of David and why is this so?


What proof would the Jewish people accept of a Messiah from the House of David?

Regards
Y

[YYYY]

No one have any thoughts?

I was reading the NT today and Matthew clearly starts out with a family history charting the family of Jesus back to King David and Solomon. It clearly states that he is from the House Of David, the only place that Judaic Kings can come from.
The bloody christians STILL turned him into a god, even though they fully acknowledge that he is from the Royal line of David. I just can't believe the arrogance of these people and the ignorance of the christian faith to see this.
And what about the Jews? They accepted him as the Messiah (Palm Sunday) then according to the NT took him to the Romans a few days latter to have him crucified. What a croc. The Jews would never have actually done this, but still why do they deny that he was their King?

The Romans would never have crucified a Jew for Jewish crimes anyway. They let the Jews take care of this. They punished crimanals of Roman law.

I'll take my medication now

Cheers
Y

[anglepose]

try this forum and see what you get

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by YYYY

No one have any thoughts?

I was reading the NT today and Matthew clearly starts out with a family history charting the family of Jesus back to King David and Solomon. It clearly states that he is from the House Of David, the only place that Judaic Kings can come from.
The bloody christians STILL turned him into a god, even though they fully acknowledge that he is from the Royal line of David. I just can't believe the arrogance of these people and the ignorance of the christian faith to see this.
And what about the Jews? They accepted him as the Messiah (Palm Sunday) then according to the NT took him to the Romans a few days latter to have him crucified. What a croc. The Jews would never have actually done this, but still why do they deny that he was their King?

The Romans would never have crucified a Jew for Jewish crimes anyway. They let the Jews take care of this. They punished crimanals of Roman law.

I'll take my medication now

Cheers
Y

Could you cite scholars who support this assertion? Every historian of Rome I have studied said the opposite, that the Jews needed the Roman Governor's permission to carry out a death sentence.

[YYYY]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Could you cite scholars who support this assertion? Every historian of Rome I have studied said the opposite, that the Jews needed the Roman Governor's permission to carry out a death sentence.

You could be right there Freddy, I am not absolutely sure. The Romans may have needed to give permission for the actual penalty to be carried out but Iam pretty sure that they allowed the sentencing to be carrried out by the Jews. Being self apointed gods it sems likely that they would have made such a decree. No sorry I can't cite any scholars except my self. I haven't put a bibliography together as yet

[HydrogenBond]

The Old Testament prophesies expected the Messiah to be from the house of David (descendant). If one reads the Old Testament prophesies, the Messiah was expected to rich, tough, righteous, a true King of Kings for those stormy times. But Jesus was poor, easy going, totally not what was expected or predicted. That is why the Jews could not except Jesus. The Jews are still expecting someone more like an advanced hybrid between David and his son Solomon.

In the New Testament, the temptation of Christ in the desert, before he started to preach, tells why he became different than expected. One of the temptations by Satan was offering him all the kingdoms of the world. If he had taken this offer, he would have become what the Jews expected. For a second he thought about it, and being a knowledgeable Jew he knew what was expected of the Messiah. But by not closing the deal with the Devil, he became something different than expected.

In the Old Testament, Satan was God's left hand man. If you read Job, Satan is there instigating God against Job and God is listening and doing what Satan suggests. Satan had a lot of influence at that time. When Christ did not close the deal in the desert, Christ essentually cut out the middle man, so he could deal directly with the big guy at the top. That forfilled the prophesy, because that made him higher in rank than the expected Messiah, i.e. son of God, instead of prophet/king with Satan's the vice president's, influence. Satan goes ape-sh*t, when he is demoted and eventully gets the boot for trying to consolidate his power against God.

[YYYY]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The Old Testament prophesies expected the Messiah to be from the house of David (descendant). If one reads the Old Testament prophesies, the Messiah was expected to rich, tough, righteous, a true King of Kings for those stormy times. But Jesus was poor, easy going, totally not what was expected or predicted. That is why the Jews could not except Jesus. The Jews are still expecting someone more like an advanced hybrid between David and his son Solomon.

There are many things in the nT that need to be looked at more closely. Jesus was not poor by a long strech. Consider Matthew 26:6

26:6. And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper,


26:7. There came to him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment and poured it on his head as he was at table.

26:8. And the disciples seeing it had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste?

26:9. For this might have been sold for much and given to the poor. (some bibles quote it as more that a years wages)

26:10. And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? For she hath wrought a good work upon me.

26:11. For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.*

26:12. For she in pouring this ointment on my body hath done it for my burial.

This was the annointing of a king and the oils used were not within the reach of a poor man as you suggest.

Also I don't think he was really that "easy going". If you do some research you will find that there was actually a cohort of 600 Roman soldiers that went to arrest Jesus. Not really the arrest of an easy going hippie. More of a full on civil unrest.
Like I said, the Jews did accept Jesus when he entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. The whole friggin city welcomed him as the messiah then the Romans would have us believe that 2-3 days later they ALL wanted him crucified.

You must remember that the NT was written and re wiritten to deifiey Jesus and to absolve the Romans of any guilt in his crucifiction.

The rest of your post I shall leave alone as it sounds a bit like you are clambering up on your evangelical soapbox.

Regards
Y

[HydrogenBond]

I always figured that Jesus did not own things but was willing to share in the material generosity provided by others. This may be semantics. He had wealthy benefactors who would provide for him so he could enjoy the finer things of life without really owning anything. If one was invited to a lavish party, one does not own anything at the party, but still can enjoy all the gifts offered by the hosts of the party.

I made a comment about the Old Testament being under God but mediated through Satan. This almost seems like blasphemy to suggest the Jewish traditions have a connection to Satan. But Satan in the old testament was different than in the new testament. In the old testament Satan was good and evil. While in the new testament Satan is associated with just evil. This leads to the question, what happend to the good side of Satan and the things created on earth before Satan became evil. It is like if one had a leader who is not perfect, but also does many good things. He suddenly becomes pure evil. This does not erase the good he did because he is now evil. The nice bridge over the river is still good even if the leader has become a butthead. Are there good aspects of Satan from the past, even though Satan is now Evil.

I can think of one off the top of my head. Satan's favorite tree is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Much of religious morality is still based on this Satan tree and is preached as still being good. Just because Satan is evil does that make all law sof good and evil, evil (originated when Satan was good and evil)? This is not the tree of life but stems from the good side of old testament Satan.