Help me answer this question

[theroc]

Well aside from the fact that it is impossible for a being to be both finite and subjective (i.e. man) and infinite (God), the fact is that if Jesus' 'father' was God, then he was not a descendant of King David's line. While Judaism as a religion is matrilineal, things like tribal affiliation are patrilineal. Accordingly, Jesus' father would have had to have been a lineal descendant of King David. Absent that fatherly issue, he's not from the House of David - however he may otherwise be related.

[Galoutofdixie]

Here ya go Theroc,

I had this in another post but copied and pasted it here too because it's an answer for ya. :wave

The Genealogy of Mary:


Quote:
GENEAOLOGY

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary's genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

"Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).

Here's another link describing both the lines of Joseph and Mary, comparing and including both Luke and Mark:


Quote:
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/genealogy-jesus.htm

It's important to know that Jesus decended through Mary's line because she was of the line of David thru, "Nathan". If Joseph had been his natural/biological father He would have been disqualified because Joseph was decended from David through Solomon, whose line was disqualified because of the "Jeconian" curse. Thus, Mary being a Virgin and Jesus being conceived through the Holy Spirit; He was eligible for the throne of David.

Here's an interesting link by a messianic Jewish org. that speaks about the "curse of Jeconiah": It's good reading. :thumb

http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/jeconiah.htm

[Galoutofdixie]

Here's an interesting article about Jewish Matrilineal decent Vs. Patrilineal decent:

The Talmud (Kiddushin 68b), which was compiled in the 4th and 5th centuries, explains that the law of matrilineal descent derived from the Torah. The Torah passage (Deut. 7:3-4) reads: "Thy daughter thou shalt not give to his son, nor shalt thou take his daughter to thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods."

http://judaism.about.com/od/whoisajew/a/whoisjewdescent.htm

Here's another good link discusing this from "Something Jewish, ask the Rabbi".

http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/99_was_jewish_descent_o.htm

Was Jewish descent originally patrilineal? If so when and why did it change to matrilineal? What source material references cover this topic?

Answer:
Matrilineal descent is a fundamental of Judaism, and remained an unquestioned given for 3,100 years until the rise of the Reform movement in the late 18th century.

The source for matrilineal descent is from the Bible itself, where it discusses the prohibition against marrying out of the Faith. The Bible says that you may not give over your child to a non-Jewish spouse as he may turn your son away from you.

The bible, in describing the grandson as “your son” implies that he is Jewish, whereas the non-Jewish child-in-law is depicted as a male. This is understood to mean that the religion goes after the mother.

[theroc]

Thank yall!
I used a couple of yallz lines if thats ok!