Son of David?


Was Christ the son of David
or not the son of David?
Was Christ the literal
son of God? Notable
contradictions within Matthew's gospel


      In the gospel of Matthew we are told that Christ was 'the son of David'. Then again we are told that Christ was not the son of David, but rather that Christ was the literal son of God, and was born of a virgin, points made in both the story of the virgin birth of Christ, and then again in a parable denying that Christ was the son of David later in the manuscript. For their own ideological reasons, elements of the Matthew community required a ‘virgin birth', or better said, for their own reasons they required God as the Father of Joshua (literally) and a single line from Isaiah was the only prophecy they could find to twist and take out of context in the Greek Septuagint, and the fact that Mary then became a virgin in the process was actually inconsequential. You see, what was first and foremost in their minds was that God be the Father of Joshua, not that Joshua have a ‘virgin birth.'

      Now as I related in previous sections, the Matthew gospel is complex, containing both reform and reaction, and certain elements of that Matthew community had this terrible character flaw in that they were under the influence of Torah ‘Holy War' ideology and the Torah racism that went with this particular strand of tradition, and, as I pointed out, this personality characteristic was entirely unique to them, and a product of their ideological viewpoint, not to mention the result of standing outside the radical traditions of the prophets and the early church as well.

      We are told that Mary and her cousin Elizabeth were from the tribe of Levi, and were Levites (not then, children of David, which would have required them to be from the tribe of Judah). Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron the Levite, and Mary, the mother of Joshua was her cousin.

"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth ... And behold, your (Mary's) cousin Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren." (Luke 1:5, 1:36)

      Now in the Book of Romans, Paul tells us that Joshua was descended from David, of the tribe of Judah, and from the gospel accounts we know that Joseph, Joshua's father, was from the tribe of Judah, as well as being a direct descendant of King David. (If the Holy Ghost was Joshua's father, then Joshua could not have descended from King David, since Mary was a Levite.) Paul also states that Joshua was a descendant of King David, ‘according to the flesh' which indicates that Joseph was in fact his father. He then declares that Joshua was declared Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.

"The gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Joshua Messiah our Lord." (Romans 1:3)

" Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel." (2 Timothy 2:8)

      In speaking of Joshua as being ‘descended from David, according to the flesh' but being ‘declared Son of God in power' Paul is referring back to the Psalms.

"I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill." I will tell of the decree of YAHWEH: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession." (Psalm 1:6)

      So then, here we see that it was common thought in the early church that Joshua was ‘descended from David, according to the flesh.' And, in accord with streams of thought in the psalms, on the day of his rising from the dead he was taken in as God's son. Now we have already seen how isolated this one Matthew community was in some of their viewpoints in the gospel. It turns out, that once again, the Matthew gospel is found disagreeing with everybody else in the early church. Joshua was not the Son of David according to Matthew.

""What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." He said to them, "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘YAHWEH said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet'? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?" And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions." (Matthew 22:42)

      At this point I should note that the denial of David is found in Luke's gospel, but this is no surprise, since Luke practices 'harmonization' and also picked up on the Matthew communities story of non-Davidic origins and the virgin birth. Incongruously, this statement is also found in Mark's gospel, thus causing Mark to also disagree with Paul and the early church (note that the gospels accounts with all their internal inconsistencies and contradictions were not written by apostles, or eye witnesses, but were later compositions by churches. The letters of Paul are the earliest documents the church possesses.) Mark has no reason to deny David. There is no mention of a virgin birth in Mark's gospel, and Mark does not regard Joshua as a god, (indeed Joshua was offended to be called good, and would have been more offended to be called 'God'.) In Mark's gospel, Joshua was originally referred to as 'son of man', a term borrowed from the book of Daniel. In the opening line of Mark's gospel we read that this is 'the beginning of the story of Joshua Messiah, the son of God.' The phrase 'the son of God' is not present in the earliest manuscripts and was added later by the church to harmonize Mark's 'godless' account with later developments in church theology, not to mention later developments in church gospels. Similarly the denial of David has no purpose in Mark's gospel, and is unique to Matthew's gospel in its origins, something I will clarify. The denial of David was a later interpolation into Mark's gospel.

      So then, in their own inimitable way, the Matthew community finds some scripture quote, as they did in using Isaiah, this time from the psalms, (and assumes that all psalms were written by David, by the way) and then ‘proves' that Paul and everybody else in the early church was wrong and that Joshua certainly could not be the Son of David. Now we must ask why it is so important and so peculiar to this community of Matthew that Joshua not be the son of David, so important, in fact, that they will twist Isaiah and fish for other quotes to prove that this just wasn't the case. Follow the link below to the next page to find out....


The Campaign to Impeach George W. Bush
Click here for more information


Background Material
about Matthew's gospel


The racist origins of the Christmas myth

The origins of the Virgin Birth story

Was Christ a god incarnate? Differing view points in the Church Testament.

Gentile dogs in Matthew's gospel. The Canaanite and Syro-Phoenician dog parables.

Samaritans, a Roman Centurion and Jews in Matthew's gospel. Was Christ sent to the Jews only?

Contradictions in Matthew's gospel. Matthew's genealogy.

Contradictions on Torah reform in the Gospel of Matthew.

Moral hypocrisy in Matthew's gospel.


Why the Matthew community
of Jewish believers found it
necessary to insist that Christ
was born of a virgin


Did the prophet Isaiah predict the virgin birth of Christ?

Virgin birth? Son of David or Son of God?


PREVIOUS PAGE     INDEX...(text)     HOME     NEXT PAGE     EMAIL



< BR>

A Unified Field Theory

 failed_gravity_theory.gif - 10361 Bytes



The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file -> unified.zip

Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.







Principles of Evolution: A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs


A couple of years ago my bedroom was invaded by bedbugs. There were two variant genetic lines. One type of bedbug was an enlongated, thin, tubular insect, and the second genetic line was a flat, perfectly circular insect. The result of the cross breeding of these two genetically distinct variants was the production of a bedbug with charcteristics of both, an enlongated, flat bedbug with a central bulge (such that the shape of the bedbug was somewhere between 'long' and 'circular'). The long skinny bedbugs were such strange and unfamiliar looking insects that at first I did not recognize them as being bedbugs, and considered them to be a seperate species of insect. However, as the photographs of bedbugs above indicate, enlongated and skinny bedbugs are not uncommon, and the photographs also show the variants that are produced by genetic combinations that result in an insect somewhere in between 'circular' and 'enlongated'.

Therefore it is my hypothesis that evolution occurs by means of the transfer of dominate genes, with the production of such dominant genes being the product of 'biological algorithms', a genetic software program that brings physical characteristics into harmony with behavior, such that when behavior changes, and a conflict then exists, this acts as a trigger and causes the release of dominant genes. The result is rapid evolution of species. The bedbug is a relatively new insect, not the product of millions of years of evolution but rather an insect that is evolving in real time. The newly emerging dominant form of the insect is the flat, round ciruclar insect, well adapted to living in human bedrooms (it is flat, rather than tubular, thus allowing it to hide in the smallest cracks, living a stealthy lifestyle, and it is round, which gives the insect a maximum storage capacity such that it must endanger itself only a few times a month by emerging to feed.

Other examples of rapid evolution include the development of long legs in an invasive species of toad in Australia. As the toads move into the mountainous regions of Australia, and their behvaior changes, making them 'climbing toads', over the course of just a couple of decades the toads in the highlands have grown long legs specially adapted to climbing. It is worth noting here that the toads are poisonous, and are a successful invasive species because they have no natural predators in Australia, and so it would not be the case that the toads with long legs were 'the fittest survivors', because all the toads are survivors, and therefore predation does not explain the rapid emergence and spread of such well adapted, long legged toads. Once again we see evidence for the existence of biological algorithms and the rapid spread of dominant genes through a population, which once introduced proceed to overwhelm the older genes which are being replaced (making toad long legged and a bed bug round and flat).


A Theological Experiment

My interest in pursuing the Unified Field Theory is spurred on by my need to discover the theoretical explanation of a new form of propulsion (as explained on this page: Why the Unified Field Theory?). The experiment involving the bedbugs came out of nowhere.

I also believe that it is possible to justify theological propositions using experimental methods. If a thing is an objective truth then it can be verified and proven true by means of experimentation. Such a theological proposition is of more value than a ‘divine revelation’, since such revelations depend upon nothing more than establishing authority figures which requires the creation of artificial hierarchies, for the only reason why I might be encouraged to believe an authority figure who orders me to believe unsubstantiated opinions is if I could somehow be convinced that this authority possessed a mind that was somehow superior to mine, and thus was fit to express opinions as though opinions were unquestionable facts and thus worthy of being elevated to the status of absolute dogma.

There is a self evident human inequality which is visibly apparent. Some people are ‘beautiful’ and thus are the true elite on this planet, and some people are not. It is this sexual inequality and the degeneration that follows upon beauty that is the true driving force behind all the evil that happens on earth. The need for ruthless oppression and the pursuit of wealth and the consequent creation of suffering and poverty which must follow upon this practice is for the purpose of creating an artificial alpha elite.

The true elites are the young and the beautiful. The artificial elite are the rich and the wealthy. The elite aging rich artificial alpha male has no good looks, for he is physically degenerate, but he will be found escorting beauty because he has a beautiful wallet. If he loses his wallet he will be found at home with all the other unattractive aged beta males sitting in a rocking chair watching reruns of Bonanza. No money, no sex. It is for this reason that the alpha males are found to be so ruthless and so violent in pursuit of their goal. The alpha male has fallen. The beta male has arisen and now the whole planet is full of ruinous destruction for it.

We see in religion a confused and contradictory reaction to this reality. On the one hand religion preaches a sexless heaven where castration and the clitorectomy create ‘pure spirits’. Muslims throw women under sacks. On the other hand religion supports hierarchy and is the prop of the elite alpha male. It is for this reason that religion is incoherent when it comes to speaking about sex.

Now we see this same principle at work in all of nature. Guppies dance and show off their colorful tails and the guppy who dances with the most colorful tail is the sexually successful guppy. Therefore it is the doctrine of the ruthless oppressor which teaches that the solution to human sexual violence is to be found in castration and the creation of pure ghosts. This would be equivalent to damning an aardvark for having the ‘sinful aardvark nature’ or prosecuting an anteater for the high crime of ‘ant genocide’.

Therefore it was my theological hypothesis that the correct solution to this problem is to give every guppy a beautiful colorful tail. I compare this solution to the classic religious solution which is to cut off every tail since having a tail is ‘sinful’. If having a tail is sinful then God must be sinful for no human being has any choice in deciding whether or not they would be born with a colorful tail, or whether they would not.

When I was young I was a beautiful guppy with a lovely tail. So everyone seemed to think. I am older now. My nose became very badly sunburned and destroyed. It seemed good to me to test my hypothesis by using these ‘biological algorithms’ to correct this problem. I healed half my nose as you can see by the line separating the still very dark patch on the side in the photograph below.





I documented my experiment on these pages. one two t hree four fi ve six


I have confirmed to my own satisfaction that my theological proposition is correct and that religious dogma is erroneous, being based as it was upon nothing more than ‘divine revelation’ which is just a form of opinionated speculation. For the time being I am not continuing this experiment, for I must wait until the weather on this planet improves, and the dark clouds of ruthless oppression break letting a little sun shine come through so that I can show the world the truth about God, by showing people how God goes about giving an old guppy back his beautiful colorful tail.


Until then I will have to sit on the sidelines, while all my scientific breakthroughs are deliberately ignored, while I wonder to myself what ever in the world could be wrong with the human race, because what this all will prove at the end of it all is that there definitely was something wrong with the people on this planet.