Talk:Davidic line

message: I did a rewrite of the Baha'i section on this page.  Hopefully the whole question of who believes what, and to what extent they claim or don't claim it should be clear.  No claim is made on behalf of the majority group, specifically the fact the the universal house of justice in haifa has not made any official statement is mentioned.  Also, I think it's a little easier to read and cleaner (I hope), without removing any information.  I did remove the reference about BUPC believing that christ means messiah, because that's not a belief, that's the common translation, and it's common to christians and linguists too.  It seemed too obvious and not to add anything, so I removed it.  Lastly, I moved the external bupc site link to a reference to the beliefs-section in the bupc wiki page in the See Also section.  The external link is redundant, since it's already on the bupc wiki page -- Christian Edward Gruber 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of Baha'i View

message: Shouldn't the bulk of the arguments presented earlier as BUPC beliefs be re-phrased into an article that's part of the BUPC set of pages?  Why it's all on this talk page I'm not really sure.  This is not the best forum to present the perspective of the BUPC, I think.  Just a thought -- Christian Edward Gruber 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I like the recent re-wording.  It seems to flow better, and clarifies the extent of what documentation can be sourced on the topic nicely. -- Christian Edward Gruber 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent re-working of Baha'i section 

message: I am suspicious of the merits of a "historical genealogy" that needs to make its home on an AOL page and has nothing to back itself up except itself.  There's also too much "if you look at this, you see this"-type of drawing conclusions from said materials, so I have removed the Hughes materials, because without the conclusions, they aren't necessary.  The argument was "verifiability, not truth", and that is precisely the concern I have here. MSJapan 19:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hughes material removed... 

message: im pretty sure that given the citation needed tag im not going to get an answer to this, but are any of you aware of the iggeret by sherrira gaon that says that hillel is only a descendent of david on his mothers side, or, to put it more succinctly, where can i find a link to it, if such exists, much thanks  g.j.g (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: The introduction as it stands reads, to someone unfamiliar with the bible, as though the article is presenting an actual royal bloodline starting with a real historic figure.  No mention is made of the fictional/mythical nature of King David, this needs to be fixed. --NEMT (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't because the common view is that he was an historic figure: in addition to the Biblical histories, there is the Tel Dan Stele (dated c. 850–835 BC) which contains the phrase  (Beit David), read as "House of David", which most scholars take as confirmation of the existence in the mid-9th century BC of a Judean royal dynasty called the House of David.. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro missing mention of myth

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Davidic line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021220182918/http://www.moshiach.com/discover/tutorials/moshiach_ben_yossef.php to http://www.moshiach.com/discover/tutorials/moshiach_ben_yossef.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under paragraph one of the Christian Tradition, the last sentence says, "One Christian interpretation of the Davidic line counts the line as continuing to Jesus son of Joseph, according to the genealogies which are written in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 through the line of Mary, who is descendant from Solomon." This is textually and Theologically inaccurate. Consider the following:
Textually, the tables in Matthew 1 trace Jesus of Nazareth's ancestry through Solomon. But the tables in Luke 3 trace His ancestry through another son of David called Nathan. From Abraham to David the tables are the same with the exception being that Matthew includes women (Tamar [Mat. 1:3], Rahab, and Ruth [Mat. 1:5]). From David to Jesus, the tables are entirely different. The reason for this is that Matthew's table is Joseph's ancestry while Luke's is of Mary's.
Theologically, consider first that it was common for a woman's genealogical tables to substitute a woman's husband in her place. Since Matthew include three women already, it's believed that if it was Mary's genealogy, the author would have no need to use her husband as a place holder. Additionally, God declared that no blood relative of Jehoiakim or Jeconiah would sit on the throne of Israel. This presents a problem for the Jewish tradition, who believe the Messiah will be a descendant of the royal line through the Kings of Judah. But, Mary's ancestry in Luke is traced through an entirely different son of David. Given that Jesus is believed by Christians to have been devinely conceived (satisfying Isaiah 7:14), He therefore is not a blood descendant of Jehoiakim (satisfying Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).
I can provide sources if needed. DGTubbs (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with Christian Tradition 

message: 's standard of the Davidic line is ipse dixit. Everyone who claims he is one, he is one. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Branch Davidians and British Israelism propounders certainly claimed the descendancy. Why is he and the other Jewish religious fundamentalist sock-puppet removing them? warshy (¥¥) 21:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I should note here that both my parents were Jewish ethnically and religiously, and I am therefore myself also Jewish ethnically (and circumcised), even though I profess no religion. I prefer to define myself as an agnostic. There is no need to discuss any historical details here regarding Branch Davidians and/or British Israelism proponents. Those links where just in the "See also" section, and seeing that they are definitely related to the general subject of this article, there is no reason whatsoever to remove the links as you did. That is why I reverted your removal of the links, and that is all there should be to it. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 22:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard 

message: I hope we can all agree on the following:
* To remove the red links to the Dayan family and Berduga family.
* "Monachrist" should probably be spelled "monarchist", with lowercase and without the hilarious "r".
* According to the website of the registrar of political parties in Israel, no Malchut Israel party exists. The Facebook page says "This is a proposal to start a new Knesset Party in Israel". So perhaps we should rephrase "the founder of the Monachrist party Malchut Israel" to ", who proposed to found a monarchist part Malchut Israel".
Debresser (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 22:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor issues