Talk:Nathan (son of David)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- I have to agree. This article is clearly written by an acolyte of Meshichist Lubavitch. Tomertalk 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- To quote a statement (Physics Bulletin, Vol. 30, p. 140) of Professor H.S. Lipson, a member of the British Institute of Physics, "We must not reject a theory that we do not like if the evidence supports it."
I wanted to read an article about Nathan, and all I found was a polemic about whether the messiah was a descenant of Nathan or Nathan's wife or Solomon, and a final comment about Jesus. This needs to be re-written entirely and with assertions in Neutral language. Otherwise I will VFD.18.104.22.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The article asserts that the Gospel of Luke "claims that Heli begot Joseph." This is incorrect. The genealogy in Luke uses the expression "son of" to link generations; there is no explicit begetting. BALawrence (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC).
I agree that the article exceeds the scope of the article's object (biography of Nathan, son of David), constitutes a diatribe against a Christian point of view and does not contain much helpful information dealing with the subject. Most of the included information should be isolated to a "child" article accessible from this one by a separate link.Higain (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to protest about the claim of Jesus' lineage in Luke as being the maternal lineage of Jesus. There's absolutely no evidence for this, biblically. The Luke Lineage does not mention Mary at all. The Luke Lineage is claimed to be a maternal lineage only by apologists trying to avoid contradiction with the lineage in Matthew. I suggest that the reference to a maternal lineage be deleted. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, after reading the entire article, I suggest deleting everything except the first and last paragraphs. The rest is just apologies for the lineages of Luke and Matthew being contradictory. I further suggest that any apologetics concerning Jesus' lineage should have an article of its own. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Please make this article more transparent
It needs to clarify from the get-go that Kings and Chronicles differ. Kings mentions only one elder brother of Solomon (the unnamed child who died shortly after birth). Also, the article presumes that Nathan is the elder brother of Solomon although this is not direct stated in the text. I suggest calling him merely the "brother" of Solomon in the opening sentence and then proceeding to describe objectively what both texts say. 188.8.131.52 (talk) Dan Fefferman —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
V.P. Wierwille on "gavra"
..This fits even better with the word used in the Aramaic (Syriac) text "gavra" (transliterated), which literally means "mighty man," and would be used of the head of a household. ref Wierwille, V. P. Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed, American Christian Press, 1982, Chapter 10 The Genealogy of Jesus Christ. ref As Mary was not yet married to Joseph, it might be supposed that the head of her house was her father. This clears up the issue of 2 missing generations from the last set of 14 in the series.
Second, third, or ?
This article states Nathan is Solomon's older brother. 1 Chronicles 3:5 lists the four surviving sons of Bathsheba as Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, as does 1 Chron 14:4. The David article appears to follow the order in Chronicles. However, the Solomon article says he was "the second born child to David and his wife Bathsheba", after the first died shortly after birth. The Jewish Encyclopedia says Solomon was their second son., as does the Catholic Encyclopedia. There appears to be an inconsistency between this article and that of his (older/younger?) brother Solomon. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)