Book Plunge: 26 Reasons Jews Don't Believe in Jesus

[Apologiaphoenix]

Let's look at Asher Norman's case.

The link can be found here.

----

What do I think of Asher Norman's book published by Black, White, and Read? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Michael Brown is coming here to Atlanta in March to debate Asher Norman on if Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. In preparation, I decided to get Norman's book to go through it. (I have already gone through a number of Brown's books.) The book is divided into sections and I plan to go through a section a day.

At the start, I'll tell you this is a horribly argued book. In fact, I find it quite embarrassing that I looked at the "About the author" last night and saw that he was a lawyer. One would think a lawyer would be better studied in how to examine evidence, especially both sides of the case. Norman apparently isn't. His arguments show a lack of understanding that high school apologetics could deal with them.

You don't have to go far to find such problems. Even on the first page of the introduction, you have one. You can see Norman arguing that the concept of the Trinity means that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. The simple way to answer this is just to say "What are we adding?" If we were saying one god plus one god plus one god equals one god, then I would agree, this is nonsense. If we were saying one person plus one person plus one person equals one person, likewise. That is not what is being said.

I don't even think addition is the right way to describe it. Sometimes people speak of Jesus as part of the Trinity or a member of the Trinity. The former makes God into a composite. The latter makes God a social club. I would say we just start with God who exists as a being in three persons somehow and we throw out our assumptions that any being who exists must exist as one center of consciousness. One of the first mistakes we make with the Trinity is the assumption of unipersonalism. (I am one person, so God must be likewise.) I would expect somehow that God would be greater than I could understand.

When we get to page 5, we find Norman saying that a council of Bishops at Nicea voted that Jesus would be god by a vote of 218 to 2 and this was established by the pagan emperor Constantine. Anyone who has any clue on church history knows that this is nonsense. The full deity of Christ was the early teaching of the church. Tertullian was using the term Trinity freely one hundred years before Constantine. The council was meant to deal with the Arian problem. How would Norman have preferred they deal with the debate? Would he prefer they all play Super Smash Brothers Brawl together and let them determine the winner that way?

On page 9, Normans asks how we Christians know the Old Testament has been transmitted accurately across time. His response is we trust the testimony of the Jewish people, though we reject that testimony on the nature of Jesus. Well, no. I trust that it has been because of the textual evidence, most notably that since the Dead Sea Scrolls has been discovered. We have manuscripts of the Old Testament like the New that we can compare. I have never encountered anyone who says "I believe the Old Testament has been handed down accurately because the Jews say so." This is yet another example of how Norman really doesn't investigate the best claims that are out there.

Norman also argues that according to Christian theology, it is impossible to obey the commandments of the Law. Not at all. I don't know what Christian theology he is reading, but I think it could be because I do believe the testimony of Paul who said he was blameless before the law. Of course, this dealt with the external matters of the law. Paul was certainly still a sinner. I think we should all work at overcoming temptation in our lives every day.

Norman also says Abraham was chosen because he obeyed the commandments. Oddly, he goes to Genesis 26. He doesn't go to the start in Genesis 15 where we read this in verse 6.

"Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness."

I would instead argue that it's a both/and. Because Abraham believed the Lord, he wound up keeping the commandments. It's much like the debate about the relationship of faith and works. Works do not bring about the salvation, but works show the salvation. (In fact, I would also say that about the keeping of the Law before Jesus. One did not keep the Law to be saved, but to show that they were saved.)

We certainly don't have anything against the Law, but we have to ask with this if Norman believes what he says about the law being eternal and that we cannot change the commandments. Does he have slaves? Will he be selling his daughters? Does he build barriers around the roof of his house? Some aspects of the law were indeed cultural. God took the people where they were and gave them stepping stones as it were.

In fact, as Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank points out, some changes were being made within the time of Moses.

For example, the Passover in Exodus was supposed to be eaten in the individual homes (Ex 12), but in Deut 16, it was NOT supposed to be so--it was supposed to be eaten at the sanctuary in Jerusalem. This is a change within the period of Moses' leadership.

"This law [Lev 17.5-7] could be effective only when eating meat was a rare luxury, and when everyone lived close to the sanctuary as during the wilderness wanderings. After the settlement it was no longer feasible to insist that all slaughtering be restricted to the tabernacle. It would have compelled those who lived a long way from the sanctuary to become vegetarians. Deut. 12:20ff. therefore allows them to slaughter and eat sheep and oxen without going through the sacrificial procedures laid down in Leviticus, though the passage still insists that the regulations about blood must be observed (Deut. 12:23ff.; cf. Lev. 17: 10ff.)."

We might also point out the changes in where Israel was supposed to live: camped out around the tabernacle, or in the lands allotted at the end of Moses life. The circumstances changed--and the 'old' laws of the wilderness wanderings were annulled and new ones created. Numerous other examples can be adduced: no more following the cloud, no more laws about the manna, etc.

More of this, I will leave to specialists of Old Testament Law. I do not hesitate to point you to the works of Michael Brown. I am sure some of this will be discussed at the debate.

Finally, we'll end our look at part one with a statement Norman makes in his summary.

According to the Jewish Bible, God is one and infinite. According to Christianity, God is a triune being (the trinity) and God is finite because Jesus (a member of the Trinity) was finite.

I have to say that this is a quite honest misrepresentation. Norman can say all he wants to that he thinks our concept of God is finite, but I could read through many systematic theologies we have and have a hard time finding that. Look through the creeds and see if you can find that. If Jews have the freedom to say what they believe, so should we.

Still, that doesn't answer the objection. The problem is that Christians say that Jesus has two natures and we are not to confuse the natures together. The human nature is not divine and the divine nature is not human. The terms of Jesus and God are not interchangeable. Jesus is fully God. God is not fully Jesus. All Hondas are fully cars. Not all cars are fully Hondas. All women are fully human. Not all humans are fully women.

If Norman does not want to believe in the Trinity or the deity of Christ, that is his choice, but one wishes that he had done some basic homework. The Christianity that he presents here I do not recognize at all. It looks throughout the book like Norman takes modern Christianity and modern Judaism and compares them. While some ideas are the same, some are not.

Tomorrow, we shall go to part two.

[TheWall]

How odd considering the first volume of browns book demolishes the idea that the law saved people. He goes on to prove it was Abrahams faith that made him as the bible says " a freind of the Lord".
It is quite odd really. I despite hearing bible stories my whole life was illerate until about a year ago.

[37818]

Jesus Himself gave the reason for Jewish unbelief in Him. They do not believe Moses (John 5:47-47).

[Apologiaphoenix]

Part 2.

Is there a bad relationship between Jesus and the Torah? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We're continuing the book 26 Reasons Jews Don't Believe In Jesus today. I have to tell you as I am nearing the end of the book, that this is a horrible book. There are people who can critique Christianity who I naturally disagree with, but they know how to do research and do present arguments worthy of consideration. Asher Norman is not one of them. If I was to give a demonstration to a class in apologetics on how NOT to go after Christianity, Norman's book would be an excellent example.

At the start of this section, on page 28 in describing how Jesus answered the rich young ruler with "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone", Norman says this directly undermines the doctrine of the trinity because it implies Jesus did not believe He was God. Actually, no. In Jesus's culture, to accept a compliment in public was to put oneself in debt to the person who gave the compliment. The compliment would be redirected.

For instance, in Luke 11:27-28, we read this after Jesus has refuted the Pharisees.

27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

Or look at this in Philippians 4.

10 I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it.11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

14 Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. 15 Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; 16 for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need.17 Not that I desire your gifts; what I desire is that more be credited to your account. 18 I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. 19 And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.

20 To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Wow. Paul has just received a gift and he didn't thank them? Instead, he turned it over to God? What's going on?

In both cases, receiving a compliment or a gift and just taking it puts you in a reciprocal relationship where you're in debt to the person who said it. Everything came with strings attached. Had Paul accepted the gift, he would have been bound to help the Philippians in anything. (Hey guys. We're having a convention and Paul's in town. You know he'll be a guest speaker for us.) Had he accepted the compliment from the woman, it would have been seen as grabbing honor and thus shameful.

So what about the rich young ruler? Jesus deflects the compliment and sends it back to God, but at the same time, he is testing the ruler. He is saying "If you think I am good, you are putting me on the level of God. Are you ready for that compliment?" Jesus never denies that He is God and He never even denies that He is good.

Now I have no desire to get into issues of Jesus and Torah. I plan to save that for those who are more learned in that area, but I have to say something on Jesus being a false prophet. This is one of my favorite issues to deal with and entirely predictable.

The first prophecy Jesus gets wrong according to Norman is that Jesus would be in the Earth three days and three nights. Jesus was buried on Friday and raised on Sunday. How is that three days and three nights?

It's at times like this I know that Norman is not a good researcher. This is even shown regularly in the Old Testament.

Genesis 42:16-18.

16 Send one of you, and let him bring your brother, while you remain confined, that your words may be tested, whether there is truth in you. Or else, by the life of Pharaoh, surely you are spies.” 17 And he put them all together in custody for three days.

18 On the third day Joseph said to them, “Do this and you will live, for I fear God:

1 Sam. 30:12-13.

12 and they gave him a piece of a cake of figs and two clusters of raisins. And when he had eaten, his spirit revived, for he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights. 13 And David said to him, “To whom do you belong? And where are you from?” He said, “I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite, and my master left me behind because I fell sick three days ago.

Esther 4:16-5:1

16 “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish.” 17 Mordecai then went away and did everything as Esther had ordered him.

On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace, in front of the king's quarters, while the king was sitting on his royal throne inside the throne room opposite the entrance to the palace.

In all of these cases, something is done for three days and yet takes place on the third day. What is going on? In Jewish thought, part of a day would count as a whole day. This is a consistent reading of even these passages. Had Norman just done some basic looking he would have found this. Most any commentary on the passage in question could have included some statement on this.

Of course, Norman goes on to give his great understanding of the Trinity by asking "How can the prophet be the messenger of God and God Himself?" Of course, no reference to a passage like Genesis 18, but Norman misses a simple answer. The Son can be a messenger on behalf of the Father. Whew! That was difficult!

Still, my favorite is the one that is always gone to. Jesus was wrong about the time of His return. We wish to ask Norman where it is in the text that Jesus says anything about a return. Keep in mind, Jesus was alive and with His apostles who were not expecting a death much less a death, resurrection, and then absence. They were expecting Jesus to take His throne and the destruction of the temple would be a good sign that God was active. What did they ask for? The sign of His coming. Coming where?

Has Norman never read Daniel 7?

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Take a look. Where is it that the Son of Man is coming to? The Ancient of Days is not on Earth. He's in Heaven. The Son of Man is not coming to Earth in the Olivet Discource. He's coming to the Father. This is about Jesus's vindication. The great sign of this was the destruction of the temple which happened in 70 A.D. The language of the account is written in Jewish apocalyptic language such as Isaiah 13 where earthly political events were described in cosmic terminology.

All of this happened within one generation.

Norman also asks why Mark refers to Zechariah 13 which he says is about a false shepherd being struck and identifying Jesus as that shepherd. Unfortunately, Norman is not familiar with Jewish methods of Biblical interpretation in the time of the apostles. (I find it incredible that I, a Gentile, have to point this out to someone described as an expert in Jewish-Christian polemics.) This would have been acceptable to take one part, even a part that didn't seem to fit the context, and find a parallel in one's own time. Still, it's important to note that Zechariah 13 ends in restoration. The shepherd is struck now, yes, but in the end, the people of God will be restored.

Finally, we'll look at the section on Jesus not being a good person. The first one is that Jesus misquoted the Torah and got his facts wrong. In Matthew 23, he refers to Zechariah, son of Barchiah. Norman replies that he was the son of Jehoida. The problem is that there are a number of solutions. If any of these could work, then the problem is resolved and one gives the benefit of the doubt to the writer with the principle of charity.

Is this the Zechariah in the Old Testament? Maybe not. Perhaps there was another Zechariah killed. Is this Matthew skipping generations? That could be. That was acceptable in his time. Could Jehoida be another name for Barchiah? That's also possible. There are even more solutions than this.

There's also the error of Mark supposedly in referring to high priest Abiathar. Unfortunately, neither Abiathar or Ahimelech are described as high priests. Jesus is instead speaking about the great priest Abiathar, who is a much better known figure than Ahimelech.

Norman also says John 7 is in error since no Scripture mentions living water. This is true, and irrelevant. Jesus is not necessarily giving a chapter and verse like we do. He is instead making a paraphrase of a general theme He finds in Scripture.

Norman also looks at passages where God is said to not be a man or a Son of Man. These include Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29.

Numbers 23:19: God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

1 Samuel 15:29: 29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or changehis mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

These are statements about the moral character of God in that God is trustworthy and reliable. It's not saying anything about the incarnation. I find it odd that God is infinite to Norman, but incapable of taking on human nature at all. It's also important to note that the divine nature never became a human nature. The Son took on another nature in addition to His divine one.

In John 18:20, Jesus said He spoke openly and said nothing in secret when questioned by the high priest, but in Mark 5:43, He says that no one should know about what happened with Jairus's daughter. First off, the latter isn't an example of teaching. It's Jesus again avoiding honor-grabbing. Second, the whole point is about the style of teaching. Jesus was a teacher who spoke openly in the synagogues and the Temple. You didn't have to do something like pay to be a part of a secret class.

Norman also brings up the account of the Syro-Phoenician woman who was begging for her daughter to be healed of a demon. His reply is the story is not "godlike." (One wonders what he has to think about what God has to say about the pagans in the OT. Perhaps YHWH isn't very godlike.)

My suspicion is that Jesus is testing the prejudice of His own disciples and then seeing how far the lady is willing to go. How much does she want this healing? A much fuller look at this can be found here.

Norman then goes on to say that much of Jesus's Wisdom and teachings, isn't original with Him. It can be found elsewhere.

And?

Wow. Jesus, who was a Jew, spoke teachings from the Jewish Bible. Details at 11 everyone!

Norman also points to morally problematic statements about Jesus. Noteworthy is Luke 19:27 with the instruction to bring those who didn't want Him to be king and kill them before Him. Is that really what Jesus said? I don't think any better answer can be given than the one that David Wood gave to Sam Harris.

A couple of these statements He finds problematic are the ones about "He who is not for me is against me" and such. These I will just say that as the initiator of the covenant of God, Jesus is the breaking point. If you do not accept God's covenant, then you are against Jesus. It's really an incredible statement from Jesus showing how He viewed Himself but only a problem if He was wrong.

Norman goes to Luke 22:36 where Jesus instructed his disciples to sell their garments and buy swords. One would think if this was literal, when presented with two swords Jesus would not say "It is enough" but would say "What?! Are you crazy?! Every single one of you needs one!" I have looked at this passage here.

What about Matthew 10:34 where Jesus says He came not to bring peace but a sword? Norman says this is not allegorical since one of Jesus's disciples did have a sword. Yep. One of Jesus's disciples acting in a way Jesus immediately condemned shows that this has to be a literal message.

You can't make this kind of stuff up.

Finally, let's look at a great favorite. Luke 14. We are to hate our father and mother. Norman acknowledges that some see this as a comparative statement saying that everything else must be secondary to Jesus, but just dismisses it without an explanation. It is said to be a dubious claim. I find the claim dubious that Norman knows what he's talking about.

Norman also says that Jesus taught others to turn the other cheek, but He didn't do that in John 18. The difference is Jesus is talking about a personal insult and saying end the cycle of retaliation. He's not saying to literally turn immediately and ask for another slap. He's saying to reply peacefully.

Jesus also apparently did not bless His enemies, as in the cursings on Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. Jesus's listeners would have understood Him not as speaking personally, but as pronouncing the judgment of God as a prophet. If Norman wants to condemn this, then He needs to explain since Jesus's teachings came from the Torah why most prophets who did the same would be including in the Old Testament since they violated Torah.

When we get to the issue of the fig tree, I have to say I find a new one here entirely. Norman says Jesus sinned by destroying the fig tree. Why? Deuteronomy 20 condemns it. Let's look at verse 19 that Norman points to of the passage.

When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them?

So unless Jesus was participating in a siege, there is no condemnation in the passage against Him killing a fig tree. How is it that Norman, who should be more familiar with the OT, can misinterpret His own Bible so badly?

Jesus also sinned against the Pharisees by making publicly true negative statements about them. Again, one would have to wonder what Norman would do with much of the OT that makes publicly true negative statements about the Jews, many of them coming from God Himself. Perhaps God is not very godlike.

Jesus also sinned by ordering disciples to not bury their father and mother. The problem is that in this case, the father was still very much alive most likely. The would-be disciple was saying "Once I take care of my family duties, I'll serve the Kingdom of God." Jesus is saying God's Kingdom has to come first.

It's a shame Norman disagrees with the Kingdom of God coming first.

Norman also has Jesus being baptized as an example that He was a sinner. This is supposed to be a problem for the Trinity since God would have to be sinless, but Norman says the Gospel engaged in damage control by having John say Jesus should baptize him. (One would think the best way of damage control would be to not even mention the story altogether.) This is really simple. Jesus got baptized as a public statement of His devotion to serving God.

Jesus also said that if you call your brother a fool, you are in danger of hellfire, but Jesus called the Pharisees that in Matthew 23. Again, does Norman not read? The Pharisees are not the brothers of Jesus. He is starting His own in-group with Israel centered around Him. The Pharisees are outsiders.

Our next look will be the claim that Jesus was not the Messiah or deity.

But please, if you want to be an anti-missionary, be one. I disagree, but that's your choice. Just please don't be as bad a researcher as Asher Norman.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Apologiaphoenix]

This entry is way too long so I'll just be including a link to part three. Norman's book is only going downhill.

[KingsGambit]

Michael Brown is debating this guy? That's like LeBron James challenging me to a game of basketball.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Part 6 is again too long so here you go.

http://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/?p=10018

[One Bad Pig]

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part...6?

[hansgeorg]

When we get to the issue of the fig tree, I have to say I find a new one here entirely. Norman says Jesus sinned by destroying the fig tree. Why? Deuteronomy 20 condemns it. Let’s look at verse 19 that Norman points to of the passage.

When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them?

So unless Jesus was participating in a siege, there is no condemnation in the passage against Him killing a fig tree.

I would say that Pharisees had already disobeyed that command, and Jesus was just showing them what they had done.

Remember :

1) it was not yet season for figs to be ripe (had there been figs on the tree, they would not have had red content)
2) but there were NO fruit on the tree (not even with yellow content containing starch which had not yet turned to sugar).

What is going on here? Fruits on fig trees in South France are unripe for about a month before ripening, but unripe in a way still edible though not appetising.

If this had not been in that season (corresponding for Holy Land), Jesus would not have approached the tree at all, if hungry.

So, why were there no fruit at all on it?

Pharisees had taken away all the fruit so that poor people should NOT be able to eat from it and thank God, but should be forced to take alms from specific Pharisees and owe them thanks.

In other words, if the Pharisees had not disobeyed the letter of the law (the tree was standing, not cut down - and that part Jesus kept too) they had disobeyed its spirit, laying siege on the poor by laying siege on the fig tree, by removing fruit before they ripened. Not removing them as taking the figs to eat, but removing them so as to prevent poor from taking the figs and eat.

As for cutting it down, Jesus did not do that either.

[hansgeorg]

Jesus also said that if you call your brother a fool, you are in danger of hellfire, but Jesus called the Pharisees that in Matthew 23. Again, does Norman not read? The Pharisees are not the brothers of Jesus.

True enough.

In a sense they were, since fellow Israelites, but in a sense they are not, since heretics and called out such by Christ.

But there is another matter here.

Matthew 5 Christ mentions whoever says "thou fool" (note, here "to his brother" is NOT added), while Matthew 23, what Christ called the Pharisees is this: "Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?"

What are the differences?

A summary "thou fool" is like a psychiatric diagnosis - thrown into the face of the person.

I think it may well apply to psychiatric diagnoses given politely by shrinks as well.

BUT:

1) "ye" not "thou":

we are not concerned with diagnosing individuals but with condemning the common culture of a network;

2) "foolish and blind" (adjectives), not "fools" (noun) / Latin "fatue" (adjective meaning senseless, unfit to process information) vs "stulti et caeci" (adjective meaning clumsy in processing information + other adjective referring to lack of sight):

we are concerned with "normal but bad" rather than with "abnormal/mad";

3) "for":

the criticised are given an argument, which they could theoretically respond to (by saying "oh, you are right" or by giving some pilpul to support the pilpul He was condemning).

[Apologiaphoenix]

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part...6?

It must have been when TWeb was down.

Part 4

Part 5

[Apologiaphoenix]

And part 7 is up.

http://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/?p=10021

[hansgeorg]

"Luke’s genealogy from David to Jesus is fifteen generations longer than Matthew’s genealogy from David to Jesus. This undermines the Christian claim that the Gospels are the “Word of God” because God certainly knows the genealogy of King David. Some Christians attempt to solve this fatal problem by claiming that Luke’s genealogy is actually that of Mary, although Mary is not mentioned in Luke’s genealogy."

Norman misses two things : 1) if St Mary's Father CAN be considered as St Joseph's father in any way ("father in law" rings a bell?) the problem is resolved.

2) And either way, where stepfathers and fathers-in-law are allowed, there are different lines which can be considered patrilinear.

Now to Nick Peter's reply:

"And Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel." ... "“There remains yet the youngest, but behold, he is keeping the sheep.”

"vs" "David the seventh."

I just missed the chance of saying that David was seventh of eight. He was seventh of seven sons engendered by Jesse.

The one which 1 Kings counts (silently) but 1 Paralipomenon does not count can have some situation like:

* being a stepson
* being a son in law
* hardly even being a son who died unmarried, since

his brother (one of them) would then have married his widow (or closest one could make to such) and therefore his name would have been preserved.

Or, one of the seven sons older than King David could have been a daughter (less likely, I know).
___

Edit: 1 Paralip. 2:15 Ver. 15. Seventh. Syriac and Arabic add, "Eliu, (chap. xxvii. 18.) and the eighth David." It appears, in effect, the Isai had eight sons, and that David was the youngest, 1 Kings xvi. 10., and xvii. 12. The Rabbins suppose that one was only adopted, namely, Jonathan, the son of Samma, noted for his prudence and valour, 2 Kings xiii. 3., and xxi. 21. (Calmet) --- One might die in his youth, and be therefore omitted, (Tirinus) as he had done nothing memorable. (Du Hamel) --- The Scripture does not always specify the full number. (Abulensis)

1 Kings 16:10 Ver. 10. Seven. David was absent. Isai had eight sons, chap. xvii. 12. Yet only seven are mentioned, 1 Paralipomenon ii. 13. Perhaps one of those whom he produced on this occasion, might be a grandson, or one is omitted in Chronicles [Paralipomenon]. (Calmet)
___

"Or it could be that ancients didn’t do genealogies like we do and differences, skipped generations, etc. were allowable"

A skipped generation or other omission (like one of the seven older brothers of King David) was allowable on precisely one condition, that the person had earned a damnatio memoriae.

Like in Matthean Genealogy, the omission of the three generations associated with Athaliah. The one woman who was so bad she was not even mentioned, unlike Rahab, Ruth and the wife of Urias.