.Verhaal aanpassen
.
It would have been quite natural
that any expected Messiah be retrospectively legitimized
by his followers as the Son of David.
On the other hand,
it has become clear that in Yeshu's time
there were indeed many real descendants from the family of the famous King David
[as there are today many descendants
of men like Charlemagne].
In recent years
there has even been found an ossuary designated for the bones
of one from the "House of David". So, knowledge that one was from the family of David would not necessarily legitimize a person
for messianic claims.
It is important to reiterate,
moreover, that even though there were those in the first century who could trace their lineage to David,
we cannot be certain that Yehoshua himself belonged to David's line. Since Matai and Luke provide the Davidic genealogy of Yeshua, it is no surprise that it is they
who set the place of his birth in Beth Lechem,
the city of David's birth.
Nevertheless
here the two accounts display important differences.
According to Luke 2:4, Jesus' family traveled to Beth Lechem only because of the census.
Before the birth of JC, they lived in Natseret
to which they returned.
According to Matai 2:23, however,
the family resided in Beth Lechem in Yehudah/Judea before the birth of
Jesus and settled in Natseret only
after their return from Egypt.
It would seem, then,
that both the tradition that JC was born in Beth Lechem,
and the proof of his Davidic ancestry, arose [mainly] because many believed
that the Messiah would be of David's line and would, like David,
be born in Beth Lechem.
This follows plainly
from Yochanan 7:41-42.
The passage tells of some who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, saying,
"Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended
from David, and comes from Beth Lechem,
the village where David was?"
Yochanan, therefore,
knew neither that Yeshu had been born in Beth Lechem,
nor that he was descended
from David.
At the same time,
this incident shows how
people demanded the fulfillment
of these two conditions
as legitimization of
the messianic
claim.
We
mogen dus
onderscheid leren maken
tussen bijgeloof &
'echt geloof'.
Slaap zacht,
droom zoet &
tell us all about
it if you really want
to do so: geloven
staat vrij &
't weigeren
erbij
...
It would have been quite natural
that any expected Messiah be retrospectively legitimized
by his followers as the Son of David.
On the other hand,
it has become clear that in Yeshu's time
there were indeed many real descendants from the family of the famous King David
[as there are today many descendants
of men like Charlemagne].
In recent years
there has even been found an ossuary designated for the bones
of one from the "House of David". So, knowledge that one was from the family of David would not necessarily legitimize a person
for messianic claims.
It is important to reiterate,
moreover, that even though there were those in the first century who could trace their lineage to David,
we cannot be certain that Yehoshua himself belonged to David's line. Since Matai and Luke provide the Davidic genealogy of Yeshua, it is no surprise that it is they
who set the place of his birth in Beth Lechem,
the city of David's birth.
Nevertheless
here the two accounts display important differences.
According to Luke 2:4, Jesus' family traveled to Beth Lechem only because of the census.
Before the birth of JC, they lived in Natseret
to which they returned.
According to Matai 2:23, however,
the family resided in Beth Lechem in Yehudah/Judea before the birth of
Jesus and settled in Natseret only
after their return from Egypt.
It would seem, then,
that both the tradition that JC was born in Beth Lechem,
and the proof of his Davidic ancestry, arose [mainly] because many believed
that the Messiah would be of David's line and would, like David,
be born in Beth Lechem.
This follows plainly
from Yochanan 7:41-42.
The passage tells of some who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, saying,
"Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended
from David, and comes from Beth Lechem,
the village where David was?"
Yochanan, therefore,
knew neither that Yeshu had been born in Beth Lechem,
nor that he was descended
from David.
At the same time,
this incident shows how
people demanded the fulfillment
of these two conditions
as legitimization of
the messianic
claim.
We
mogen dus
onderscheid leren maken
tussen bijgeloof &
'echt geloof'.
Slaap zacht,
droom zoet &
tell us all about
it if you really want
to do so: geloven
staat vrij &
't weigeren
erbij
...
23 aug 2009 - bewerkt op 24 aug 2009
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 27 jan 2016 26-01-'43 er is 'n heel oude boeddhistische manier
- O 27 jan 2016 jr118b deze myDinadruk o/h parabolisch karakter ~~
- O 27 jan 2016 jr117b 'de myDi~verkondiging(en) van Yehosjoea' ~~
- O 27 jan 2016 Één v/d meest archetypische symbolen v/h middel-
- O 26 jan 2016 Je kunt alleen over jezelf lezen & over niets ~~~~
- O 26 jan 2016 Niet wie weinig heeft, maar wie veel wil is arm!!!
- O 26 jan 2016 jr116b hier moet dus wèl steeds bíjgezegd worden ~
- O 26 jan 2016 jr115cd bovendien, & dàt ìs nòg véél belangrijker,
- O 25 jan 2016 jr115b 'r zijn nòg mensen die hieraan argumenten
- O 25 jan 2016 jr114b 't gaat er om de vooronderstelling, dat het
- O 25 jan 2016 jr114 't beste voorbeeld v/d oude denktrant was al
- O 25 jan 2016 jr113 we kunnen bijna, vrijwel ongewijzigd, hier ~
- O 25 jan 2016 jr112VI het nieuwe ethos: (r)evoluties i/d ethiek
- O 24 jan 2016 jr111c er ÌS, ìn íeder gevàl, nog maar heel weinig
- O 24 jan 2016 jr111b èn tòch, al zou iemand maar ÈRGENS, ook