Scripturally, the track to David is wholly patrilineal, at least in the gospels the cite it, all the way to Joseph. I could imagine that the due heirs of kings would be expected to be ethnically correct, so a king’s wives would either have to be Hebrew or be declared so by royal edict. Nonetheless, I have yet to see the text that traces Mary to David, partly due to lack of motivation, but I should think it would have to be sanctified scripture or it would not be reliably the “word of god”.
I know. That’s what I meant by “all the time spent on begats”. As in “David begat Schlemiel, who begat Meshuggah, who begat Billy Bob…”. But as For You groks, Jesus can’t both be the patrilineal scion of David AND the haploid son of gawd born of a virgin. It’s an either/or situation.
Well, I doubt they were invented, then. But Jesus would’ve prayed with his head covered somehow.
The standard Christian belief is that he took on all the limitations of man, which would include those of the human brain. The miracles do not contradict this, as he was far from the only man to be given power by the Holy Spirit to do miracles. In fact, Jesus himself taught that his disciples would be able to do miracles if they had enough faith. He even chastised his disciples for not having enough faith to stop a storm.
Plus, Jesus flat out admits that the Father knows something he doesn’t: when he is going to return. (Matthew 24:6)
In Mark C13 V30 referring to the end of times, Jesus is quoted as as saying.“This generation will not pass away until all this has been accomplished” The Church decided he couldn’t have meant that generation, because it didn’t happen. But according to Matthew generation meant the same as today! He wrote there were 14 generations between David and Jesus!
Jesus is also quoted in Matthew and Mark (If I remember rightly), Jesus is quoted as saying he would return in His father’s glory, with his angels, while some of them standing there were still alive…It didn’t happen!
Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) was a priest, not a deity. Presumably he died believing in the stuff he’d been teaching his whole life.
Well not really. As Joseph’s adopted son, Jesus would be the legal heir to the Kingly lineage if not the genetic heir. Yes, its patriarchal, but all the genealogies in the Hebrew Bible were given in terms of male lineage.
I personally don’t lose any sleep over the accuracy of the lineage claims, but literalists don’t have any problem reconciling Jesus’ legal paternity (Joseph) and his physical paternity (the Holy Spirit).
Christianity didn’t really exist until St. Paul invented it (or re-invented as a world religion what was originally just another small Jewish sect). And since St. Paul invented Christianity well after the death of Jesus. Acts 11:26 – “It was in Antioch that the Disciples were first called Christians.” (This was after Paul began his ministry…)
I don’t know. Does the Bible say much about how much self esteem he had? Clearly he’d have to believe in himself to be Christian.
This is not what the question intended>
This further begs the question of how the “King of the Jews”, would not die a jew?
After Jesus had been born in Beth′le‧hem of Ju‧de′a in the days of Herod the king, look! astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem, 2 saying: “Where is the one born king of the Jews
Matthew 2:1,2
Jesus now stood before the governor; and the governor put the question to him: “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus replied: “You yourself say [it].”
Matthew 27:11
The Queen of Australia isn’t Australian.
The very concept of Christian would have been alien to Jesus. His followers weren’t even called by the name until after his death. I think he would have been astonished to find that he’d created a new religion. I’m sure he thought of himself as a Jewish prophet, the latest in a long line of such prophets. They didn’t start new religions, they called the Chosen People back to the correct worship of Yahweh.
Jewish Christianity, led by James the brother of Jesus and remaining true to his teachings (including adherence to the Mosaic law), was almost obliterated in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, continuing for a few centuries only as a small sect. The center of gravity shifted to Paul and his vision of Christianity as a completely new non-Mosaic religion. All the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem by Pauline Christians, retaining only a few scraps of the original Jewish teachings of Jesus.
So no, he didn’t die a Christian. He didn’t even know what a Christian was.
If one is to take the gospel account for what it claims to be, jesus’ death was transitory. The last sentence of the gospels (the end of John) reads,
And there are also many other things – as many as Jesus did – which, if they may be written one by one, not even the world itself I think to have place for the books written.
so, in terms of the account of his death (crucifiction on Golgotha), he could not have been a christian at the time, for his very death provides the key premise of the creed in the first place: his death, combined with the resurrection miracle, created christianity so he could not have adhered to a non-existing quality at the time.
One might argue that jesus was extratemporal, like some dude from Gallifrey, so he would have been christian at the time by dint of the fact that his existence continued on into christian times, except without him being truly mortal, the foundation of the religion starts to deflate. Indeed, as a divine and eternal being, what great sacrifice did he make, apart from a few hours/days of extreme discomfort and indignity?
I would think the word Christian it self would show that Jesus was not a Christian, because being a Christian (at least as I understand the word) means a follower of the Christ. Those who did not believe or accept Jesus as the Christ were not Christian, and Jesus did not become a follower of himself!
But we don’t have a clue what he taught. Zoroaster is a very obscure, half-legendary character.
(Regarding the OP, I contend that Jesus died a Jew, as Christianism hadn’t been invented by Paul yet)