Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

It is most likely Hebrews 7:14 statement about Jesus being a Judahite stems from the belief he was a descendant of David (Ro 1:3). That belief was due mostly to Jewish scriptures: the ideal Messiah had to be from David's lineage.
Was Jesus a descendant of David (assuming David existed, which I think he did)?
There are two ways to look at it:
a) In these days, there was no official record existing in order to establish the long term ancestry of a Jew, especially for the ones of lower class. Anyone then could be said to be a descendant of David, without any evidence to show otherwise.
Note: when in Jerusalem, I met a rabbi who claimed to be a descendant of Moses. And nobody was laughing at that.
b) However, considering David and his royal descendants had many wives and concubines, and therefore generated many children, it has been calculated that most Jews of Palestine would have some David's blood in them during Jesus' times.

Regardless, for me, that claim in Heb 7:14, could not have been made if Jesus was not known then to have been a regular human earthly man.

My post on the same topic (dated January 2013): http://historical-jesus.info/40.html

Cordially, Bernard

Just like people argue to edify a contentious or controversial point in forums like this one today the same thing happened in antiquity and in the early Christian writings. Bernard I never understand this 'finality' you speak of. I think the argument runs something like this:

because someone in antiquity said that Jesus wore flowers in his hair the only way this could be true is if Jesus really wore flowers in his hair

Give me a fucking break

If that's true then the fact that there are documents which take it as given that Jesus was from outer space can only mean that Jesus really came from outer space.

Secret Alias wrote:because someone in antiquity said that Jesus wore flowers in his hair the only way this could be true is if Jesus really wore flowers in his hair

Secret Alias wrote:If that's true then the fact that there are documents which take it as given that Jesus was from outer space can only mean that Jesus really came from outer space.

Well now that we found pictures it's REALLY settled!

But now that I have your attention Bernard you are capable of acknowledging that the fact that things are SAID TO BE TRUE is not an indication of their truthfulness? If someone tries to sell you a used car, the odometer might not be a true indication of how many miles are on the car or even that there is a car.

But now that I have your attention Bernard you are capable of acknowledging that the fact that things are SAID TO BE TRUE is not an indication of their truthfulness? If someone tries to sell you a used car, the odometer might not be a true indication of how many miles are on the car or even that there is a car.

I would say the odds that the odometer on an used car for sale in Canada gives the true indication are at least 10 to 1.
I would say the odds that an used car for sale on the internet in Canada is existing are at least 10 to 1.
So your examples can only show what is claimed has only a small chance to be false.
That does not mean that claim is likely to be wrong.
Same thing for the existence on a historical Jesus: what I see from mythicists are series of weak, convoluted, remote, ill-evidenced, indirect arguments. All they can do is to bring some doubts but cannot dispel the existence of a minimal Jesus (with no God, not a teacher, no parables, very few authentic sayings, no extraordinary miracles, not itinerant, etc ...).
Any attempts of a reconstruction of the beginning of Christianity without a historical Jesus are either non-existent or highly controversial, requiring post-dating or thrashing most early relevant documents or parts of them.

No just an observation from a book I am reading entitled Why People Who Post in Internet Forums Drive You Crazy.

It appears that book does not exist. If so, I am quite sure you'll be making a point on that. I can also.

Cordially, Bernard

So you are saying that you can calculate the probability of something being true or untrue 2000 years ago as accurately as you can used car sales in Canada today. Pray tell how you propose such accuracy.

If you would simply admit that we can't know whether or not something removed from us by 2000 years ago with any reasonable degree of certainty I'd be willing to drop this conversation amicably. But that's the absurdity. You actually believe that because our text of the Epistle to the Hebrews has this bit about Jesus being 'from Judah' that we can be certain that Jesus actually was 'from Judah.' This is laughable.