Could Jesus be rightful David descendant?

[Maxell]

I borrow a little from site:
http://www.messiahtruth.com/genealogy.html

Because this is one question that confuse me. Can Jesus be rightful David descendant and so claim David throne.

I have heard some opinions that could defend opinion that Jesus is rightful to David descendant. But no one could be tell firm reasons. Jewish arguments sound better what i heard.


...
Christians agree that the Matthew genealogy is that of Jesus through Joseph. However, Christians do not agree on whose the Luke genealogy is. Some say it is Mary's genealogy, even though her name does not appear anywhere in it; others say that it is the lineage of Jesus through Joseph by Law, and the Matthew genealogy is his lineage through Joseph by Nature.



¤ Complicating the problem created with the Luke genealogy leading to David through Nathan and not Solomon, is the dilemma for the Luke genealogy being that of Mary. According to Torah, Tribal lineage is determined exclusively by the biological (natural) father (e.g., Num 1:18). Consequently, female genealogies are irrelevant to bloodline and, in general, are not listed in the Hebrew Bible.



¤ Several serious problems plague the other claim, that both are genealogies of Jesus – Matthew's being by Nature and Luke's being by Law:



! If, according to the New Testament, the Holy Spirit was the natural father of Jesus, then he cannot be the natural son of Joseph; and, since tribal lineage is a blood-right, the claim to David's throne cannot be passed from Joseph to Jesus merely through "adoption".



! On the other hand, if Joseph was the natural father of Jesus, then the Curse of Jeconiah (see Sec. IV.E) is passed on from Joseph to Jesus along with the tribal lineage and any other blood-rights.



! One class of arguments being offered to explain the convergence of the two genealogies at Zorobabel, Salathiel, and Joseph, and ending at Jesus, involves the notion of a Levirate Marriage[2] taking place at various points along the way. An analysis of such explanations reveals that at least the latest such marital union, which resulted in the birth of Joseph, was not a valid Levirate Marriage.

Another class of arguments being offered to explain the convergence of the two genealogies at Zorobabel, Salathiel, and Joseph, and ending at Jesus, combines the notion of a Levirate Marriage taking place in the last stage, of which Joseph was the product, with an assumption that the Zorobabel and Salathiel in the Matthew genealogy were different persons from the Zorobabel and Salathiel in the Luke genealogy. In view of the fact that these two names are rare in the Hebrew Bible – they belong to only a single pair of individuals – it is rather unlikely that they represent persons in the Luke genealogy who are different from those bearing the same names in both the Matthew and 1st Chronicles 3 genealogies.


...


[2] The Law of Levirate Marriage is stated in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. This Law states that, when a married man dies and leaves no heirs to carry on his name, and if the deceased has an unmarried brother, then this brother must marry the widow and (attempt to) have children. In the absence of an eligible brother, a close male relative on the father's side may qualify (as was the case of Boaz, a kinsman of Elimelech, who married Ruth [see Book of Ruth]). The first-born son of such a marriage is regarded as if he was the son of the deceased brother, and is named accordingly. It is important to note that, in the case of the two brothers, they must have at least a common father, i.e., they must be paternal brothers. The Law of Levirate Marriage does not apply to uterine brothers, i.e., brothers who share only a mother, and children born of such a union are considered illegitimate. The Law also has provisions for the case when the surviving eligible brother refuses to fulfill his obligation. [Note: The term "levir" is a Latin word that means 'a husband's brother', thus it is not used in the Hebrew Bible.]

[Maxell]

Interesting little piece of information:

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/messiah.htm

The perceived problems with Yeshua's records

There are two records of Yeshua's lineage through Joseph recorded in the Gospels. They are found in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. But they are very different from each other. This fact has led those who would argue against Yeshua's Messiahship to claim that the records are fabricated. If one desires to be truly objective on this issue, there is a perfectly plausible, if not beautiful explanation for the differing genealogies.

There are a number of good reasons to believe that the genealogical records differ due to the reason that Matthew recorded a list of Joseph's ancestors, while Luke records the genealogy of Mary's ancestors through her father Heli. In Luke's record, it says that "Joseph was the son of Heli, who was the son of...." and so on. The entire genealogy works from Joseph back in time all the way to Adam while Matthew's account begins with Abraham and works forward in time stating that each father "begot" the next. If in Luke's account, Heli is actually Joseph's father in law, it could be said that Joseph was Heli's son in that he was a son -n-law, but it could not be said that Heli "begot" Joseph. This referring to a son-in-law as a son is not without Scriptural precedence. King Saul referred to his son-in-law David as "my son David". (See 1Samuel 24:16) It was necessary that if Joseph was not the physical father of Yeshua that someone demonstrate Yeshua's physical bloodlines were still Davidic. This is where Luke's record delivers in showing Mary's genealogy through her father Heli. Through her fathers, she also was a descendant of David.

Now here is another interesting part of the puzzle. Joseph's ancestry as recorded in Matthew is unquestionably that of the kingly descendants of David through Solomon and on, so that Yeshua was in line as heir to the throne as the adopted eldest son of Joseph, born to him after he wed Mary, but before having any physical relations with her. But there is a problem with this lineage. One of Joseph's fathers, Jeconiah, was so evil in God's eyes that God pronounced a curse on his physical descendants saying that no son of Jeconiah would ever sit on the throne of David again. See Jeremiah 22:24-30. Since Yeshua was adopted by Joseph, he had no physical blood of Jeconiah in him. And as a physical descendant of David through his mother and grandfather Heli, Yeshua fulfills all the prophecies concerning the Messiah's being a physical descendant of David. If we had only Matthew's record, Yeshua would be rejected as Messiah on the grounds that as a descendant of Jeconiah he could not be the Messiah. And if we had only Luke's record, Yeshua could be rejected as the Messiah on the grounds that the lineage recorded is not of the line of kings. In giving us both records YHWH has shown that both problems are solved in Yeshua. He is both the physical descendant of David and heir to the throne without their being any blood of Jeconiah in him.

Now this is far from being the end of the story concerning the significance of Yeshua's ancestry. There is another very important aspect concerning his bloodlines and certain prophecies concerning the Messiah. This aspect is mentioned in my chapter concerning the book of Hebrews, but it must be reiterated here again.

There are numerous prophecies concerning the Messiah that indicate he will not only be a king sitting on the throne of David as David's son, but he will also be a priest, being both king and priest together in one. But it is required in the Law of Moses that the priests be descendants of Aaron. David was of the tribe of Judah, but Aaron and the priests were of the tribe of Levi. In Jeremiah, it is clear that that the Messiah who brings both offices together in one person is a descendant of both Judah through David and Levi through Aaron.

"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute (both) judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely, And this is the name by which she will be called; THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." For thus says the Lord; "David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually." Jeremiah 33:14-18

When YHWH says, "lack a man" concerning David, He obviously means a descendant. Therefore, when the identical phrase is used concerning the Levites, it must also mean a physical descendant. The only possible way the two can come together in one is if the Messiah is a perfect half-blood mixture of both tribes. His father's blood lines must be that of David, and his mother's blood lines must be that of Aaron of the tribe of Levi. In Judaism it was taught that Levite women are the ones who carried down the priestly bloodlines because the Levite priests were required by God to marry only Levite women. (Leviticus 21:13-15) It is this law that is most responsible for the modern day Jewish teaching that a person's Jewish-ness is derived from one's mother. Since Yeshua had no physical bloodlines through an earthly father, it would logically flow that his physical bloodlines would be 100% identical to that of his mother Mary. This fact also fulfills the first prophecy made concerning the Messiah (Genesis 3:15) in that he is referred to as the "seed" of a "woman". Every other place the "seed" of a person is mentioned in the Bible it is as the seed of a man. Now here is the fascinating part that few have put together. Mary was just such a perfect half-blood mixture of both the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Levi! We have her father Heli's lineage to David as recorded in Luke. But it apparently has gone unnoticed that Mary's mother had to have been a full-blooded daughter of Aaron. Luke 1:36 records that a certain woman named Elizabeth was a close relative to Mary. It is also recorded that this same Elizabeth was "of the daughters of Aaron", and married to a priest named Zacharias. (Luke 1:5) Some translations say that Elizabeth was Mary's "cousin", but the actual Greek word used, which means 'close relative', also allows for 'aunt'. Considering the age difference between Mary and Elizabeth, it is more likely that Elizabeth was Mary's aunt. But either way, whether Elizabeth was Mary's cousin or aunt, it must mean that Mary's mother had to be a full-blooded Levite, and one of the following in relationship to Elizabeth: She was either a sister to Elizabeth, or her husband/priest Zacharias, or, if Elizabeth was Mary's "cousin", Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elizabeth's or Zacharias' parents... all of whom also had to be full-blooded Levites. These are the only possibilities if Mary was a close relative to Elizabeth, and it implicitly means that Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite woman! Though Levite men were required to marry only full-blooded Levite women, Levite women were permitted to marry outside the tribe (Leviticus 22:12) as did Mary's mother when she married Heli, a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah. That union made Mary's and subsequently Yeshua's physical bloodlines a perfect half-blood mixture of the Davidic and Levitical bloodlines of Israel.

Since Yeshua has these astounding ancestral credentials for Messiahship that are documented in many millions of copies of the Bible all over the world, how can any Messiah wannabe possibly come along with documented credentials that could even begin to rival his?

[shunyadragon]

Interesting little piece of information:

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/messiah.htm

The perceived problems with Yeshua's records

There are two records of Yeshua's lineage through Joseph recorded in the Gospels. They are found in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. But they are very different from each other. This fact has led those who would argue against Yeshua's Messiahship to claim that the records are fabricated. If one desires to be truly objective on this issue, there is a perfectly plausible, if not beautiful explanation for the differing genealogies.

Since Yeshua has these astounding ancestral credentials for Messiahship that are documented in many millions of copies of the Bible all over the world, how can any Messiah wannabe possibly come along with documented credentials that could even begin to rival his?First of all Jesus never took the throne of David and restored the Kingdom and the capital in Jeruselum. The genologies for Joeseph mean nothing if Jesus was immaculately concieved.

I do not think that the geneology through Mary is that easily accepted.

[Sacrificial Ram]

First of all Jesus never took the throne of David and restored the Kingdom and the capital in Jeruselum. The genologies for Joeseph mean nothing if Jesus was immaculately concieved.

I do not think that the geneology through Mary is that easily accepted.

Furthermore, being decended via Mary would be irrelavent, since it is the
decendant of David via the MALE LINE exclusively.

[Richbee]

Furthermore, being decended via Mary would be irrelavent, since it is the
decendant of David via the MALE LINE exclusively.


Jesus is descended physically and by the bloodline of Mary, and legally through Joseph.

[Timothy Leary]

Jesus is descended physically and by the bloodline of Mary, and legally through Joseph.

Please cite a scripture that indicates that one becomes part of a certain tribe if he is adopted by a new father.

[Drashi]

Mary problem: There is no instance in the Tanach of anyone inheriting through the mother. In fact the Torah clearly states "You shall count them according to the houses of their fathers". There is one instance in Torah where women were permitted to acquire inheritance to pass down, but only if they married within their same tribe, since the tribal property and inheritance is still patriarchal.

Joseph Problem: There is no Biblical Hebrew word for "step-son". "Guest" is typically used, and the Aramaic for "family" had the root "seed" at it's foundation. When a census was taken, the "guest" would have to be counted among the tribe of the birth-father, not the male who is the head of the family where the child lives. And if his father was not Jewish, he was not included in any count until later in the Torah as part of a general census, but not part of any tribal census.

In Greek culture, there was not such a problem, and children, being property could be inserted into any lineage, even retroactively. Hence the support for Greek authorship.

As far as could he be the "rightful heir"...

Yehudah HaTzaddik in 50CE was a descendant. he led the Jews against Rome, defeat a garrison, saved Jewish lives, and had tens of thousands of followers. He was captured and killed before he could do anything else.

JC, who had far fewer followers and did far less died barely a generation before (supposedly). So the qal v'chomer (if it is true for the greater, is is CERTAINLY true for the lesser) is if Yehudah HaTzaddik was not the Moshiach, certainly JC was not.

And Bar Kochba 1/2 century later had even more followers and was crowned as the rightful heir by the leader of the Jewish people (R' Akiva) and had the title far longer than the combined "on-the-scene" period of Jesus and Yehudah HaTzaddik combined! So the qal v'chomer is if Bar Kochba was not the Moshiach, certainly JC was not.

Why? Because they all failed. And if the one who did the most and was the most quallified and acknowledged by the greatest Rabbis of that time to fulfill all of the requirements was a failure, how much moreso was jesus?

Interesting to note, the other characters were well documented in their day by Jewish and non-Jewish historians. But not the least of them (JC).

[Notsri]

Interesting to note, the other characters were well documented in their day by Jewish and non-Jewish historians. But not the least of them (JC). Drashi, which Jewish historian(s) of "their day" mentioned Yehudah ha-Tzaddik and Bar Kochba? And which of the non-Jewish historians does? I know Dio Cassius writes of the Jewish revolt yet never refers to Bar Kochba at any point. Jesus, on the other hand, as you may know, was mentioned by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, the second-century Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, etc.

Also, with regard to the OP, why was Yehudah ha-Nasi eligible to act as (Davidic) Nasi, even though he was descended from David only through his mother, not his father (so Bereshit Rabbah 33:3)? Would this have relevance to the question of Jesus' eligibility for the messianic office, or no?

[Menachem]

Drashi, which Jewish historian(s) of "their day" mentioned Yehudah ha-Tzaddik and Bar Kochba? And which of the non-Jewish historians does? I know Dio Cassius writes of the Jewish revolt yet never refers to Bar Kochba at any point. Jesus, on the other hand, as you may know, was mentioned by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, the second-century Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, etc.

Also, with regard to the OP, why was Yehudah ha-Nasi eligible to act as (Davidic) Nasi, even though he was descended from David only through his mother, not his father (so Bereshit Rabbah 33:3)? Would this have relevance to the question of Jesus' eligibility for the messianic office, or no?


Bereshit Rabbah is not talking about Rabbi Yehudah ha'Nasi being descendaed fromt he tribe of yehudah on the mothers side...Rabbi Yehudah was descended from the Father's side directly to King david..

The section of Bereshit Rabbah has to do with Rabbi Tanchuma whos mother was a Judahite and his father was a Benjaminite. PLus his reference to a person of descent to the tribe of Judah in that section was not to Rabbi Yehudah but to Rabbi Chuna..read for yourself here:

Bereshit Rabbah 33:3:

Upon this R. Tanchuma turned his face upward and exclaimed: "Sovereign of the Universe! This man, upon whom this woman has no claim for sustenance, yet saw her in distress and was filled with pity for her. Seeing then that of Thee it is written, The Lord is full of compassion and gracious , while we are Thy children, the children of Thy beloved ones, the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, how much the more shouldst Thou be filled with compassion for us!" immediately the rain descended and the world enjoyed relief. Our Teacher was sitting and studying the Torah in front of the Babylonian Synagogue in Sepphoris, when a calf passed before him on its way to the slaughter and began to cry out, as though pleading, "Save me!" Said he to it, "What can I do for you? for this you were fashioned." [As a punishment for his heartlessness] our Teacher suffered toothache for thirteen years. During these thirteen years no woman miscarried in Eretz Israel, and none suffered pain in childbirth. After this period a creeping thing ran past his daughter. She was about to kill it, when he said to her, "My daughter, let it be, for it is written, And His tender mercies are over all his works." Our Teacher was very modest, and he used to say, " I am prepared to do whatever any person tells me, except what the Family of Bathyra did for my ancestor [Hillel], for they relinquished their high office and promoted him. And if R. Huna, the Resh Galutha, were to come up here [Israel], I would rise before him, for he is descended from Judah, whereas I am from Benjamin; he is descended on the male side, while I am descended [from Judah] on the female side."

[Notsri]

Bereshit Rabbah is not talking about Rabbi Yehudah ha'Nasi being descendaed fromt he tribe of yehudah on the mothers side...The section of Bereshit Rabbah has to do with Rabbi Tanchuma whos mother was a Judahite and his father was a Benjaminite. PLus his reference to a person of descent to the tribe of Judah in that section was not to Rabbi Yehudah but to Rabbi Chuna..read for yourself here:

Bereshit Rabbah 33:3:

Upon this R. Tanchuma turned his face upward and exclaimed: "Sovereign of the Universe! This man, upon whom this woman has no claim for sustenance, yet saw her in distress and was filled with pity for her. Seeing then that of Thee it is written, The Lord is full of compassion and gracious , while we are Thy children, the children of Thy beloved ones, the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, how much the more shouldst Thou be filled with compassion for us!" immediately the rain descended and the world enjoyed relief.

Our Teacher was sitting and studying the Torah in front of the Babylonian Synagogue in Sepphoris, when a calf passed before him on its way to the slaughter and began to cry out, as though pleading, "Save me!" Said he to it, "What can I do for you? for this you were fashioned." [As a punishment for his heartlessness] our Teacher suffered toothache for thirteen years. During these thirteen years no woman miscarried in Eretz Israel, and none suffered pain in childbirth. After this period a creeping thing ran past his daughter. She was about to kill it, when he said to her, "My daughter, let it be, for it is written, And His tender mercies are over all his works." Our Teacher was very modest, and he used to say, " I am prepared to do whatever any person tells me, except what the Family of Bathyra did for my ancestor [Hillel], for they relinquished their high office and promoted him. And if R. Huna, the Resh Galutha, were to come up here , I would rise before him, for he is descended from Judah, whereas I am from Benjamin; [i][as Resh Galutha] he is descended [from David] on the male side, while [as Nasi] I am descended on the female side." I'm a little reluctant to comment, Eli, since I'm away from home and my books (and will be for some time now). Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, the Soncino edition of Midrash Rabbah identifies "our Teacher" in the above excerpt as Yehudah ha'Nasi. In fact, I was originally led to the passage from a footnote in one of the Artscroll Gemaras, which said the same. The note explained that the Resh Galutha had to be a descendant of David through his father, while the Nasi (it mentioned Yehudah) need only descend from David through his mother (note the italic text in the quote above). This paternal pedigree apparently gave the Resh Galutha even greater authority than the Nasi, which explains why Yehudah "would rise before [R. Huna]," if ever he "were to come up [to the Land of Israel]." I would also point out, incidentally, that there seems to be a clear shift in focus in the midrash, from the words of R. Tanhuma, to the words of "Our Teacher," R. Yehudah. I've tried to emphasize that by dividing your quote from Bereshit Rabbah above into the two discrete sections, as I'm sure you've already noticed. In any event, I think it shows to some extent that part of the excerpt (the second part) doesn't concern R. Tanhuma.

[kofh2u]

I'm a little reluctant to comment, Eli, since I'm away from home and my books (and will be for some time now). Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, the Soncino edition of Midrash Rabbah identifies "our Teacher" in the above excerpt as Yehudah ha'Nasi. In fact, I was originally led to the passage from a footnote in one of the Artscroll Gemaras, which said the same. The note explained that the Resh Galutha had to be a descendant of David through his father, while the Nasi (it mentioned Yehudah) need only descend from David through his mother (note the italic text in the quote above). This paternal pedigree apparently gave the Resh Galutha even greater authority than the Nasi, which explains why Yehudah "would rise before [R. Huna]," if ever he "were to come up [to the Land of Israel]." I would also point out, incidentally, that there seems to be a clear shift in focus in the midrash, from the words of R. Tanhuma, to the words of "Our Teacher," R. Yehudah. I've tried to emphasize that by dividing your quote from Bereshit Rabbah above into the two discrete sections, as I'm sure you've already noticed. In any event, I think it shows to some extent that part of the excerpt (the second part) doesn't concern R. Tanhuma.


It is very disconcerting to Christians to question whether Jesus was from the line of David. He was sort of from the house of Joseph, his adoptive father.
Both Matt 1 and Luke 3 say that God was they father of het child, just as the hippies claimed during the '60's. God is the fsther of all children, they said..

Christians insist on Mary' s honor, and immacuate conception is mandatory to their faith.

Yet, the Hebrew terms used for "virgin" are vague Many critics insist Mary was all too normal an unmarried girl.

NOTE: I won't say one way or the other. (Some inquisitors on tweb have alrrady questioned my orthodoxy for much less than this. I am not saying, here, what I believe.)

However, (1) the tradition of messiah ben joseph, (2) the NT direct denial of impregnation by a son in the line of David, and (3) the fact that Jesus didn't say he was the king, all make for a Christian re-evaluation.

But, the Jews are not off the hook if they win this protest.

The suffering messiah of Psalm 22 was in their midst then, for sure... and... the king IS coming,...

Rev. 5:5 ... behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof

[shunyadragon]

It is very disconcerting to Christians to question whether Jesus was from the line of David. He was sort of from the house of Joseph, his adoptive father.
Both Matt 1 and Luke 3 say that God was they father of het child, just as the hippies claimed during the '60's. God is the fsther of all children, they said..

Christians insist on Mary' s honor, and immacuate conception is mandatory to their faith.

Yet, the Hebrew terms used for "virgin" are vague Many critics insist Mary was all too normal an unmarried girl.

NOTE: I won't say one way or the other. (Some inquisitors on tweb have alrrady questioned my orthodoxy for much less than this. I am not saying, here, what I believe.)

However, (1) the tradition of messiah ben joseph, (2) the NT direct denial of impregnation by a son in the line of David, and (3) the fact that Jesus didn't say he was the king, all make for a Christian re-evaluation.

But, the Jews are not off the hook if they win this protest.

The suffering messiah of Psalm 22 was in their midst then, for sure... and... the king IS coming,...

Rev. 5:5 ... behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof
I think it is better if Jesus is considered a Jewish messiah and Joseph is the legitamate husband and father of Jesus. The NT gospels are essentially a patchwork of a collection of writen and oral traditions collected after Christ died to create a Greco-Roman God.

[Drashi]

Concerning the midrash that has:
And if R. Huna, the Resh Galutha, were to come up here , I would rise before him, for he is descended from Judah, whereas I am from Benjamin; [i][as Resh Galutha] he is descended [from David] on the male side, while [as Nasi] I am descended on the female side."
After the event of Bar Kochba around 110, before the period of Yehuda HaNasi, the Romans decreed that no Jew who was the male descendant from David would ever be permitted to take the position of Nasi in order to prevent another Messianic rebellion. Yehudah HaNasi was permitted because his line was matriarchal, and from the Roman position that he would not be of any threat (plus he made great friends with the Emperor who had no need to fear that he would be proclaimed Moshiach) he we permitted his post.

The Midrash quoted was speaking of this period, and how the Nasi considered that the head of the Babylonian Jewry who was actually descended from David as superior to him in lineage, that he and not YeHudah, had the potential to be proclaimed Moshiach, and for that he would rise before him, because his matriarchal lineage invalidated him as Moshiach.

[Richbee]

I think it is better if Jesus is considered a Jewish messiah and Joseph is the legitamate husband and father of Jesus. The NT gospels are essentially a patchwork of a collection of writen and oral traditions collected after Christ died to create a Greco-Roman God.

Boy, that one was a post full, and might explain and expose your a priori argument from silence.

The only record that we have of Mary, and Joseph is in the New Testament, and outside of the Gospels, you have nothing but empty conjecture and Postmodern fictions or lies. (Circular logic, etc.)

BTW, no Greco-Roman god was born of a virgin, and have no real comparrison to the birth of Jesus Christ.

The Gospel genealogies present a fourfold portrait of the messianic person through four titles.

[size=2]In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham.

In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God.

* As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king.

* As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew.

* As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man.

* As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God.

This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King.

Could the Jewish Messiah be anyone less?

[Pythagoras]

Hi,



Please cite a scripture that indicates that one becomes part of a certain tribe if he is adopted by a new father.With refrence to any person other than Jesus yours would be a very good question, but with refrence to Jesus it's just a red herring . You see, Jesus didn't have a human father. In the gospels it's stated Jesus was conceieved through the Holy Spirit of God and also He's from the tribe of Judah.Thus He is of the tribe of Judah through God, through the miracle of the virgin birth.

[InChristAlways]

kofh2u But, the Jews are not off the hook if they win this protest.

The suffering messiah of Psalm 22 was in their midst then, for sure... and... the king IS coming,...

Rev. 5:5 ... behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof Hi kofh2u. Revelation does show Jesus as the Lion of the tribe of Judah and Root of David after His crucifixion, but looking at Hosea 13, it appears that God as the "Lion" is going to devour Judah/Israel for crucifying "Him". Interesting study. God bless.

reve 11:17 saying: "We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come, Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.

Hosea 13:7 "So I will be to them like a LION; Like a leopard by the road I will lurk; 8 I will meet them like a bear deprived [of her cubs;] I will tear open their rib cage, And there I will devour them like a LION. The wild beast shall tear them. 9 " O Israel, you are destroyed, But your help from Me.

reve 5: 5 But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the LION of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals." 6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain,


[i]reve 12:5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

Daniel 9:26 "Andafter the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it [shall be] with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Revelation 11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

[Theoferrum]

1) One person said that because Yshua didn't claim to be King thus the Christians must re-evaluate their position, to which I say that he responded in the affiramtive to this very question at the trial, further, he also claimed to be the Messiah son of David when he asked the still unanswered question about whose son was the Messiah.

2) The Geneology of Matthew is to prove his right to the Throne. Adoption is sufficient for the claimant as the story of Boaz and Ruth prove where Naomi adopted Obed who was David's grandfather. The lineage in Luke is per Mary showing, again, physical descent.

It should be remembered that, though Y'shua had many enemies, NONE of them questioned his legal right to the Throne of David. If he was not a legal heir, they would have brought this contention up time and time again, which they never did except when they insinuated, like some still do today, that he was illegitimate.

This fact alone proves that he was a legal claimant to the Throne and was recognized as such by the crowds at the Triumphal entry and, further, after his ascension, his brother James was then considered the Crown Prince to the Throne or Son of David which the crowd called out just before the Priests through him off the Temple (for those who want the source it would be the Eccliesiastical History by Eusebius).