Can Jesus be Messiah with David line?

[Maxell]

Howdy.

In Deuteronomy 23:2-3 says:

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:


Now when we look Jesus genealogy we see that there are some problems with it.

How could David be rightful king, if he's kingship is against Mosaic law?

There are mention of Tamar (Genesis 38) which give birth Pharez. Which was one of Jesus ancestors. Now Deut 23 says that bastard shall not enter into congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth generation.

Also there is problem with Ruth. Ruth was Moabite and her child could not be part of congregation of the Lord.

And then there is with Coniah (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

this man Coniah a despised broken idol? a vessel wherein no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD

Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.


So how could God make Jesus king of his genea line?



That three persons make some difficulties to me. Thanks for your help and answers beforehand.

[Ron Macy]

Maxell,

In Deuteronomy 23:2-3 says:

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

I have noticed the reference to a bastard not entering into the congregation before. I have understood it was with the thought of "until" the tenth generation. I could be wrong. If you start counting from Pharez I believe you will find David is the tenth generation.

As far as the Moabites or Ammonites, I hadn't noticed. It isn't 10 generations between Ruth and David, more like 4 or 5. I don't have a good answer.



And then there is with Coniah (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

this man Coniah a despised broken idol? a vessel wherein no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD

Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

I believe the significant differences in the geneologies found in Matthew and Luke center around this problem.

Matthew's geneology goes through Coniah (or Jechoniah). That is the reason I believe Matthew's geneology is for Joseph. Since Jesus is not Joseph's biological son, I don't believe the curse on Coniah applies.

The geneology in Luke goes through David's son, Nathan, and not Solomon (Matthew). I believe Luke's geneology is that of Mary and represents the true line of descent from David.

Ron

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I agree with Ron about the 10 generations being a fixed limit, this seems not to say "they can never ever enter, for all time."

An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Ruth was Moabite and her child could not be part of congregation of the Lord.

I think with Ruth, she became an Israelite! She gave up her home, her countries, and her gods.

Le 19:34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself...

Eze 47:22 You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.
And then there is with Coniah (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

So how could God make Jesus king of his genea line?

"Sitting and ruling anymore" I think refers to present rule, implying that the rule would stop, but not that it would never be again...

Blessings,
Lee

[Menachem]

An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:


Also there is problem with Ruth. Ruth was Moabite and her child could not be part of congregation of the Lord.


Actually there is no problem with Ruth or King David because the prohibition is only for males. the hebrew words Ammoni and Moavi are the ones used not Ammonit or Moavit for the females...this prohibition is against moabite males and ammonite males not against the women...

And then there is with Coniah (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

this man Coniah a despised broken idol? a vessel wherein no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD

Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Isnt it funny how christians seem to ignore this and try to squirm around it you will see a lot of it as this discussion continues....the only problem is that it gets them along with some other things as well...

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

"Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

Isnt it funny how christians seem to ignore this and try to squirm around it ...
But note "in his days" here, which indicates that this statement is referencing the lifetime of Jeconiah...

Blessings,
Lee

[Timothy Leary]

Howdy.

In Deuteronomy 23:2-3 says:

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Does it? Are you sure about that? What if I said that's a horrible mistranslation, and it is about a specific nation?


How could David be rightful king, if he's kingship is against Mosaic law?

There are mention of Tamar (Genesis 38) which give birth Pharez. Which was one of Jesus ancestors. Now Deut 23 says that bastard shall not enter into congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth generation.

Also there is problem with Ruth. Ruth was Moabite and her child could not be part of congregation of the Lord.

What is the Congregation of the Lord?


And then there is with Coniah (Jeremiah 22:28-30)
<snip>
So how could God make Jesus king of his genea line?


Biblically, Jeconiah's curse was reversed. See http://www.messiahtruth.com/curse.html

The problem with Jesus' geneology is that he wasn't of David's tribe, that is if the NT is correct.

[Menachem]

Hi everyone,


But note "in his days" here, which indicates that this statement is referencing the lifetime of Jeconiah...

Blessings,
Lee

"Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

Jeconiah "will not succeed/prosper in all of his days." (pause) כי לא יצלח מזרעו איש ישב על-כסא דוד ומשל עוד ביהודה For no one of his offspring shall succeed/prosper sitting on the throne of David, or ruling in Judah anymore....

in the Hebrew it sounds to me this is very clear...It is not talking about Jeconiah but about his descendants to come...that none of them will prosper/succeed sitting on the throne of King David or ruling in Judah at all.....

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

in the Hebrew it sounds to me this is very clear...It is not talking about Jeconiah but about his descendants to come...that none of them will prosper/succeed sitting on the throne of King David or ruling in Judah at all.....Yes, I agree that this verse is talking about his descendants, but a connection is made: "He will not prosper in his days because…"

Thus I think the reasons given, about his descendants, have Jehoiachin's lifetime in view, and may be possibly restricted to that time-frame.

I found the article of the reversed curse interesting! There does seem to be an indication of some change in God's view of Jehoiachin, in the way Jehoiachin's names are used. Also, can't "childless" have a meaning of "stripped," usually "childless," but not necessarily that, specifically?

Blessings,
Lee

[Magdalenbrother]

Maxell,

I believe the significant differences in the geneologies found in Matthew and Luke center around this problem.

Matthew's geneology goes through Coniah (or Jechoniah). That is the reason I believe Matthew's geneology is for Joseph. Since Jesus is not Joseph's biological son, I don't believe the curse on Coniah applies.

The geneology in Luke goes through David's son, Nathan, and not Solomon (Matthew). I believe Luke's geneology is that of Mary and represents the true line of descent from David.

RonJews never make matrilineal genealogies. Jewish society is stricly patriarchal. Luke's genealogy is about Joseph too. Some people say-and it may be true- that according to Luke Mary was a descendant of Levi since her cousin Elizabeth was married to a priest.

Why would "Matthew" (nobody knows who wrote the Gospels, these names were added in the second century) go to all the trouble of writing a lengthy genealogy, one which is totally useless since Joseph didn't beget Jesus at all?

Jesus probably didn't have a single droplet of Davidic blood in his veins. He never mentioned it when people objected to his humble origins. His appointment, his role had been given him by election, not by flesh and blood.

Jesus is David's son only metaphorically.

Anyway, God had promised David that his throne would endure forever, but the fact is that kingship in Juda was totally destroyed a few hundred years later, never to reappear.

Isn't it obvious that all this Davidic stuff is pure Jewish nationalistic sentimentalism? Can't God keep his promises? Does God make false prophecies?

Do we have to go through all these very old stories again and again? How is this folklore relevant to us today?

Suppose Jesus is from David's bloodline. Or that he is not. So what? Will that solve OUR problems? Will that make YOU a better man?

Besides, I don't know if you mainstream Christians who follow Paul in claiming that He was from David's seed (he is the one who started the identification), I don't know if Paul realizes that by having Jesus descend from David, he, you are making His Messiahship thoroughly earthly and "this-wordly", the very opposite of what you and Paul want to make Jesus into: an other-worldly Saviour who loves the Gentiles.

A Davidic Jesus must be a warrior king who liberates the Jews from their Roman oppressors. That is the meaning of being a rightful descendant of David. That is how the Jews understood the term. When the crowd acclaimed Jesus on his joyous entry in Jerusalem, they expected Him to free them from the Roman yoke and from their Jewish collaborators (Sadducees and Pharisees). Because they feared a revolt, the Roman prefect, with the help of the priestly elite, proceeded to execute Jesus, the "king of the Jews".

This is a completely political affair. But in a Jewish perspective this is also a completely religious affair because they didn't separate the two at all, as we, who have completely despaired of improving our world through politics because of a certain kind of Christianity, do.

Obviously the recipients of Paul's epistles and the Gospels, those innocent Gentiles unacquainted with Jewish scriptures, folklore and politics, didn't know what was behind the title of "Messiah". "Christos" is not quite the same thing as the Hebrew "mashiah". So, by changing the language, Paul also changed the meaning: his Jesus was palatable to the Romans, the Herodians (of whom Paul was probably a member besides being a Roman citizen) and other non-Jews, and no danger for the authorities (whom he boldly declares to be appointed by God himself !!!).

Paul...

Paul was a Roman citizen...

Just think about what that means. Translate this in modern terms. Become aware of how thoroughly ignorant of first century Palestine you really are. How people felt and thought at that time. Realize how profoundly pro-Roman you are (because of the Gospels):

Imagine a Frenchman in 1942 who got the German nationality for services rendered to the Third Reich.

This is what Paul was for the Jews in Palestine. And he wasn't ashamed of it at all. On the contrary.

Now you should understand how the switch from the Jewish Messiah to the Graeco-Roman Christ happened and why it had to happen.

[adampastor]

... Luke's genealogy is about Joseph too.Hmmm. There actually might be some truth in that!!
Nevertheless, both Genealogies are given to show Jesus' legal and biological right to the throne.
Why would "Matthew" (nobody knows who wrote the Gospels, these names were added in the second century) go to all the trouble of writing a lengthy genealogy, one which is totally useless since Joseph didn't beget Jesus at all?To show that since Jesus is legally Joseph's firstborn son [John 1.45] he has right to the throne. Joseph's genealogy(ies) are not totally useless ... they are paramount in showing Jesus of Nazareth's right to the throne.

Jesus probably didn't have a single droplet of Davidic blood in his veins. He never mentioned it when people objected to his humble origins. ... Jesus is David's son only metaphorically. Not so my friend. Otherwise GOD would be a liar. This He is NOT!

(Titus 1:2) .. God, that cannot lie ...
(Heb 6:18) ... in which it was impossible for God to lie ...
(Rom 3:4) God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

GOD who cannot lie, swore with an oath to David, that the Messiah would come through his lineage.
Jesus of Nazareth is that Messiah
If Jesus didn't have a single droplet of Davidic blood in his veins, than GOD would have indeed broken His promise or made a false promise to David.
This cannot be so. GOD's word cannot be broken.
Jesus is David's son, biologically

Jesus didn't need to mention his Davidic lineage. It was common knowledge. Anyone could have check his genealogy for themselves. They were still extant in the time of Christ. The common people, acknowledged him as the Son of David because that is who he is, biologically. In fact, neither did his enemies, deny the fact that Jesus was indeed the Son of David

(2 Sam 7:12) And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
(2 Sam 7:14) I will be his father, and he shall be my son. ...
(Psa 89:3-4) I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, 4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
(Psa 89:29) His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
(Psa 89:36-37) His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. 37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.
(Psa 132:11) YAHWEH hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
(Isa 11:1) And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
(Isa 11:10) And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
(Jer 23:5) Behold, the days come, saith YAHWEH, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
(Jer 33:15) In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
(Mat 1:1) The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
(Mat 21:9-11) And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord [YAHWEH]; Hosanna in the highest. 10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? 11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
(Luke 1:31-33) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God [YAHWEH GOD] shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
(Luke 1:69) And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
(John 7:42) Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
(Acts 2:30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
(Acts 13:22-23) And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. 23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
(Rom 1:3) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
(Rom 15:12) And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, ...
(2 Tim 2:8) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David ...
(Rev 5:5) ... the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David ...
(Rev 22:16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.
[u]I am the root and the offspring of David, ...
Anyway, God had promised David that his throne would endure forever, but the fact is that kingship in Juda was totally destroyed a few hundred years later, never to reappear.

Isn't it obvious that all this Davidic stuff is pure Jewish nationalistic sentimentalism? Can't God keep his promises? Does God make false prophecies?

It appears that you do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
The Davidic stuff is based solely on GOD's promises to David (and before that to Abraham, hence Matt 1:1). GOD can keep His promises despite mankind's weaknesses, shortcomings & sins.
Yes, the kingship in Juda was definitely destroyed [Ezek 21.26-27] however it definitely is going to reappear [Acts 1.6-7, 3.21]. THAT IS WHAT GOD PROMISED!! That is what the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD [Matt 24.14, Mark 1.14-15, etc] is all about!! In fact, Jesus proclaimed everywhere that men ought to take heed to GOD's Coming [Davidic 2 Chr 13.8, 1 Chr 28.5, Mark 11.10] Kingdom, and Repent and prepare for its coming! [Mark 1.14-15, Matt 3.2, 4.17, Luke 4.43, etc]
Jesus in fact came to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: [Rom 15.8; see also Luke 1:69-73]

(Isa 9:7) Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of YAHWEH of hosts will perform this.
Note:
(Ezek 21:26-27) Thus saith the Lord YAHWEH; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. 27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.
GOD has overturn the Davidic throne and Kingdom until he come whose right it is; i.e. Jesus the Messiah. At his Second Coming, it is THEN that he will sit upon the throne [Matt 25.31, 19.28].
GOD promised to give it him!
(Luke 1:31-33) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God [YAHWEH GOD] shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
The Coming of GOD's Kingdom is not a question of IF it will come ... it is just a question of WHEN!!
(Acts 1:6-7) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
(Acts 3:20-21) And he [GOD] shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive [RETAIN] until the times of restitution [RESTORATION, REGENERATION] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
The prophets all spoke principally of the restoration of David's Kingdom & Throne. David's Kingdom was & will be GOD's Kingdom. [2 Chr 13.8, 1 Chr 28.5] David's throne was & will be GOD's throne [1 Chr 29.23,
2 Chr 9.8, 1 Kings 10.9] seeing that the King of Israel will sit upon it as King for GOD [2 Chr 9.8]. The King of Israel/Judah was & will be GOD's Representative upon the earth, upon the throne of David. There is solely one King who will fit all the requirements as prophesied and promised by GOD. The King Messiah, namely Jesus of Nazareth.
Suppose Jesus is from David's bloodline. Or that he is not. So what? Will that solve OUR problems? Will that make YOU a better man? OH YES IT WILL! Because it is proof that GOD has kept His promises to the fathers of the past including David therefore He will keep all His promises concerning mankind's & this planet's future.

The Coming of the Messiah will usher in GOD's grand restoration of the entire planet [e.g. Isa chaps. 11 & 65, etc] All problems will be solved. The meek shall inherit the earth & be heirs of the world. The Coming Son of David will rule this world in righteousness & justice. Until then, we must pray for the Coming Kingdom [Matt 6.10, Luke 11.2] and prepare our lifestyle & conversation accordingly, so that we may be worthy to enter GOD's Kingdom & Glory. [1 Th 2.12, 2 Pet 3.10-11]

Besides, I don't know if you mainstream Christians who follow Paul in claiming that He was from David's seed (he is the one who started the identification), I don't know if Paul realizes that by having Jesus descend from David, he, you are making His Messiahship thoroughly earthly and "this-wordly", the very opposite of what you and Paul want to make Jesus into: an other-worldly Saviour who loves the Gentiles.Can't speaks for mainstream Christians, however the Christians who have believed and accept the Gospel of the Kingdom according to the Scriptures [Matt 24.14, Acts 8.12] indeed believe that the Messiah is literally of David's seed according to the Scriptures. It was not Paul who started the identification. It was Scripture.
(John 7:42) Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, ... [Plus all the other verses shown above, etc]

The Messiah & the Messiahship is most definitely not other-worldly but is indeed this-worldly in the sense that the prophets were speaking of the Coming of a literal king, the restoration of a literal kingdom and throne, based in the geographical Land of Promise, its capital city being Jerusalem, the city of the Great King, upon Planet Earth [Psa 48.2, Mt 5.35]

It will be both GOD's and an Heavenly Kingdom upon the earth; because the GOD of Heaven will set up this everlasting Kingdom. [Dan 2.44, 7.27, Rev 11.15] Hence it is the Kingdom of Heaven/GOD not the Kingdom in Heaven.
This Kingdom will come from GOD/Heaven however it will be definitely established upon this earth.


(Dan 2:35) Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
(Dan 2:44) And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
(Dan 7:27) And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven,...
BTW, Jesus died for all, including both Jews and Gentiles ... and he is Lord of all ... hence,

(Gal 3:26-29) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Gal 6:15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
A Davidic Jesus must be a warrior king who liberates the Jews from their Roman oppressors. That is the meaning of being a rightful descendant of David. That is how the Jews understood the term. When the crowd acclaimed Jesus on his joyous entry in Jerusalem, they expected Him to free them from the Roman yoke and from their Jewish collaborators (Sadducees and Pharisees). Because they feared a revolt, the Roman prefect, with the help of the priestly elite, proceeded to execute Jesus, the "king of the Jews".

This is a completely political affair. But in a Jewish perspective this is also a completely religious affair because they didn't separate the two at all, ...All that you say is true. However, the Jews refused to accept the Scriptures that speak first of the suffering, death and crucifixion of the long-awaited King of the Jews before his return as the warrior-king & triumphant King of Israel.
It is still a political affair as well as a religious affair. Nothing as changed that.
GOD's Politics, GOD's Government will indeed be established upon the world when He sends His Messiah back to earth to inaugurate the Kingdom of GOD. It is at his return that the Messiah will destroy the wicked He will indeed be a warrior-king. [Psa 2.6-12, Rev 19.15, 12.5]

Obviously the recipients of Paul's epistles and the Gospels, those innocent Gentiles unacquainted with Jewish scriptures, folklore and politics, didn't know what was behind the title of "Messiah". "Christos" is not quite the same thing as the Hebrew "mashiah". So, by changing the language, Paul also changed the meaning: his Jesus was palatable to the Romans, the Herodians (of whom Paul was probably a member besides being a Roman citizen) and other non-Jews, and no danger for the authorities (whom he boldly declares to be appointed by God himself !!!).Again, you do err. You accuse Paul falsely. Paul preached and taught the same Gospel that Jesus, is Lord & Master, preached & taught, [Acts 19.8, 20.25, 28.23,30-31] using the very same Scriptures. It was long after Paul had died, as history shows, that pure Apostolic Christianity became gentilized, hellenistic and Platonic. Paul is not to be blamed. He was a faithful witness of the Message of Christ and his Kingdom. ... the switch from the Jewish Messiah to the Graeco-Roman Christ has nothing to do with Paul. In fact, he as good as warned it would happen ...

(Acts 20:29-30) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
(Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [i]and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
(1 Tim 4:1) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(2 Pet 2:1) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
(Jude 1:3-4) Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Magdalenbrother, hope this post helps to correct some misconceptions.

[Magdalenbrother]

Your comments are in ordinary script, mine are in bold. You started your post by saying that both genealogies in the NT might refer to Joseph, to which I reply:


Can Joseph be the son of both Heli (Luke) and Jacob (Mat.)?


Nevertheless, both Genealogies are given to show Jesus' legal and biological right to the throne.



How can one have the biology thing without procreation?





To show that since Jesus is legally Joseph's firstborn son [John 1.45] he has right to the throne. Joseph's genealogy(ies) are not totally useless ... they are paramount in showing Jesus of Nazareth's right to the throne.



If I'm not mistaken, Matthew's genealogy mentions a king who was declared cursed and childless, Jehoiakim. How can Jesus, who is supposedly one of his descendants(!!!) still claim the Davidic throne? Who cancelled the curse?



Not so my friend. Otherwise GOD would be a liar. This He is NOT!



God is not a (malicious) liar but some of the prophets in the Bible did rave from time to time. Nathan promised David that his throne would endure for ever and we all know what happened to Juda. For me, the Bible is a product of human minds more or less inspired by God, not the word of God. Just check what Stephen says in Acts 7:15-16 about the place where the patriarchs have their resting place. This is a gross error. Does God ignore what is written in his own book?



(Titus 1:2) .. God, that cannot lie ...



Jesus once told his brothers that he wouldn't go up to Jerusalem but later he went secretely. Did Jesus tell a lie?



Jesus didn't need to mention his Davidic lineage.

It was common knowledge.



Really? Then why did his audience object that he couldn't possibly be the man promised by God since he had been born in Nazareth? The Messiah was not supposed to come from Galilea. Jesus never corrected the people who made this objection. When people accused him of being a Samaritan (!!!), he simply said: "I'm not." Why didn't he remind his hearers of his noble ancestor?



Anyone could have check his genealogy for themselves.



Obviously, his genealogy was available on the Internet and there were huge public libraries with registers tracing everybody's genealogy for hundreds and hundreds of years (David lived in the tenth century before Christ).



They were still extant in the time of Christ.



Were they? Any proof of that? How come Luke and Matthew couldn't copy the same genealogy?



The common people, acknowledged him as the Son of David because that is who he is, biologically. In fact, neither did his enemies, deny the fact that Jesus was indeed the Son of David

Is the son of a bitch really a dog? "Son of David" was a title given to people who were perceived as liberators and heroes by the populace.

(2 Sam 7:12) And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
(2 Sam 7:14) I will be his father, and he shall be my son. ...
(Psa 89:3-4) I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, 4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
(Psa 89:29) His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
(Psa 89:36-37) His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. 37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.
(Psa 132:11) YAHWEH hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
(Isa 11:1) And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
(Isa 11:10) And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
(Jer 23:5) Behold, the days come, saith YAHWEH, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
(Jer 33:15) In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
Old Jacob said that from Ephraim the fullness of the nations would come. I wonder why this prophecy was never taken seriously. I guess it's because Israel, the Kingdom of the North was destroyed, so only the traditions of Juda prevailed and came to be considered divine truth.



(John 7:42) Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?


In context it is clear that the Judeans who were asking this question were invoking the prophecies in order to refute Jesus' messianic claims: he was not from Juda but from Galilea. This quote is an argument for my side.

(Acts 2:30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
(Acts 13:22-23) And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. 23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
(Rom 1:3) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
(Rom 15:12) And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, ...
(2 Tim 2:8) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David ...
(Rev 5:5) ... the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David ...
(Rev 22:16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.
[u]I am the root and the offspring of David, ...
In my mind so much worthless propaganda, sorry...



It appears that you do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

The Davidic stuff is based solely on GOD's promises to David (and before that to Abraham, hence Matt 1:1). GOD can keep His promises despite mankind's weaknesses, shortcomings & sins.



God also made promises to Ephraim.



Yes, the kingship in Juda was definitely destroyed [Ezek 21.26-27] however it definitely is going to reappear [Acts 1.6-7, 3.21]. THAT IS WHAT GOD PROMISED!! That is what the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD [Matt 24.14, Mark 1.14-15, etc] is all about!! In fact, Jesus proclaimed everywhere that men ought to take heed to GOD's Coming [Davidic 2 Chr 13.8, 1 Chr 28.5, Mark 11.10] Kingdom, and Repent and prepare for its coming! [Mark 1.14-15, Matt 3.2, 4.17, Luke 4.43, etc]

Jesus in fact came to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: [Rom 15.8; see also Luke 1:69-73]


(Isa 9:7) Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of YAHWEH of hosts will perform this.
Note:
(Ezek 21:26-27) Thus saith the Lord YAHWEH; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. 27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.
GOD has overturn the Davidic throne and Kingdom until he come whose right it is; i.e. Jesus the Messiah. At his Second Coming, it is THEN that he will sit upon the throne [Matt 25.31, 19.28].
GOD promised to give it him!
In my opinion pathetic attempts by late Jewish prophets to make sense of the disasters visited upon the Jewish nation. Nathan's prophecy didn't speak of a shaky, on and off kingdom for David. Who would want such a wretched throne anyway?

Something I would like to ask the Jews is why their god was capable of saving them from the hand of Pharao but not from the hand of their other oppressors. Were the Jews more worthy of salvation in the time of Moses than in the 2Oth century?

Can't speaks for mainstream Christians, however the Christians who have believed and accept the Gospel of the Kingdom according to the Scriptures [Matt 24.14, Acts 8.12] indeed believe that the Messiah is literally of David's seed according to the Scriptures. It was not Paul who started the identification. It was Scripture.



The OT never said that the Messiah would be a poor Galilean carpenter who would die at the hands of a foreign power. The disbelief of some Jews (many did believe that Jess was the Messiah) is quite understandable.





The Messiah & the Messiahship is most definitely not other-worldly but is indeed this-worldly in the sense that the prophets were speaking of the Coming of a literal king, the restoration of a literal kingdom and throne, based in the geographical Land of Promise, its capital city being Jerusalem, the city of the Great King, upon Planet Earth [Psa 48.2, Mt 5.35]



How can one still believe all this narrow ethnocentric stuff? Why Jerusalem and not Kathmandu?





All that you say is true. However, the Jews refused to accept the Scriptures that speak first of the suffering, death and crucifixion of the long-awaited King of the Jews before his return as the warrior-king & triumphant King of Israel.



The pro-Roman elites rejected Jesus but the rest of the population welcomed him. They loved this wonderful healer and preacher. It is simply not true that all the Jews turned their backs on Jesus. Acts speaks of "myriads of converts zealous for the Torah". Paul's accusations against his own people are slanderous.



Again, you do err. You accuse Paul falsely. Paul preached and taught the same Gospel that Jesus, is Lord & Master, preached & taught, [Acts 19.8, 20.25, 28.23,30-31] using the very same Scriptures.



Paul knew nothing of the Galilean preacher, the person he knew was a disincarnated entity who appeared to him once in a vision of light. Paul keeps saying that he didn't receive the Gospel from "flesh and blood". After the revelation on the way to Damascus, he didn't even bother to consult the Apostles, whom he derisively calls "those who deem themselves to be something"!



Magdalenbrother, hope this post helps to correct some misconceptions.



You showed remarkable patience and compassion in setting forth your point of view. Thank you and be blessed!



My last word is from Paul:



Put everything to the test, panta dokimazete.



This for me includes the Scriptures.

[porter]

One simple explanation about the two geneologies is that Matthew's was incorrect and Luke made the correction later.

Most Christians do not like this explanation because they view the Bible as being inerrant.

Porter

[lee_merrill]

One simple explanation about the two geneologies is that Matthew's was incorrect and Luke made the correction later.
Another explanation is that Jesus was adopted! And thus he has two lineages...

Blessings,
Lee

[adampastor]

...



God is not a (malicious) liar but some of the prophets in the Bible did rave from time to time. ... For me, the Bible is a product of human minds more or less inspired by God, not the word of God. ... In my opinion pathetic attempts by late Jewish prophets to make sense of the disasters visited upon the Jewish nation.

I didn't realize that this was your views concerning the Scriptures.
I, like all the prophets, all the apostles, and Rabbi Jesus the Lord himself, ...
believe that the Bible ... the Scriptures ... are indeed GOD's word ... and GOD's word cannot be broken.
[2 Pet 1.21, 2 Tim 3.16, John 10.35]
Therefore there really isn't any reason for me to continue this post since I would solely quote Scripture to prove my points.

Nathan's prophecy didn't speak of a shaky, on and off kingdom for David. Who would want such a wretched throne anyway?



Something I would like to ask the Jews is why their god was capable of saving them from the hand of Pharaoh but not from the hand of their other oppressors. Were the Jews more worthy of salvation in the time of Moses than in the 2Oth century?

WOW! You really DO ERR & NO NOT THE POWER OF GOD.
The Davidic Kingdom of GOD will indeed be restored ... it will indeed have no end ... it will not be consume by another ... GOD promised this ... His zeal will accomplish this

BTW, GOD promised David that the Messiah would sit on the throne.
You may call it wretched, but to GOD and His Anointed One, it will be a most blessed & glorious throne.

(Psa 132:11) YAHWEH hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
(Psa 2:6-7) Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: YAHWEH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
(Isa 9:7) Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of YAHWEH of hosts will perform this.
(Luke 1:31-33) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord [YAHWEH] God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
(Mat 25:31) WHEN the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
(Mat 19:28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


Also many of the Jews that came out of Egypt (the majority even) did not enter the land because of disobedience and unbelief. [Num 32.10-13, Heb 4.1-3]
Likewise, from the time of Christ, there is blindness in part is happened to Israel [Rom 11.25] .... again because of their unbelief in GOD's Messiah and their disobedience ... and the days of vengeance are yet to come! [Luke 21.20ff] ... in other words, you ain't seen nothing yet, therefore ...
consider the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. [Rom 11:22]
When you see how GOD has dealt with the natural branches and do you think he will deal with the Gentiles, even disobedient, unbelieving ones.
We ought to consider this.

The OT never said that the Messiah would be a poor Galilean carpenter who would die at the hands of a foreign power. The disbelief of some Jews (many did believe that Jess was the Messiah) is quite understandable.

Hmmm ... I guess you haven't read the OT lately ... his death had indeed been prophesied. As for unbelief, Jesus reproved his own disciples for not believing the OT Scriptures. There is no excuse.
(Luke 24:25-27) Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
(Luke 24:45-46) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:


(Acts 17:2-3) And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.



How can one still believe all this narrow ethnocentric stuff? Why Jerusalem and not Kathmandu?


Because GOD has chosen Jerusalem (Zion) to be the Capital City of His Kingdom. It's that simple.

(Psa 132:13-14) For YAHWEH hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. 14 This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.(Mat 5:35) Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
(Psa 87:2-3) YAHWEH loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob. 3 Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah.
(2 Chr 6:6) But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; ...
(2 Chr 12:13) ... Jerusalem, the city which YAHWEH had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. ...
(1 Ki 11:13) Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.
(1 Ki 11:35-36) But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. 36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.
(Jer 3:17) At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of YAHWEH; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of YAHWEH, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.
(Jer 33:15-16) In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this [i]is the name wherewith she shall be called, YAHWEH our righteousness.

[adampastor]

To those who consider the Bible, to be GOD's word ... you may find the following concerning the Genealogies of Christ interesting ...

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm

http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/Genealogy/gindex.htm

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/lineage/fulfill.html

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/genealgy.html

[Prakk]

Here's a thought.

Jesus is Joseph's son thus he is the male line descendant of David through Solomon. Inheritance is through the male, not through the female. Jesus is also the son of the literal virgin Mary. You're clouding your view with western thought. Through betrothal Joseph and Mary are one flesh. This is proven by Joseph's attempt to divorce Mary when he knew he had not had relations with her, yet she was pregnant. Marriage makes one flesh, betrothal by the law was equivalent to marriage. Mary's womb is the heriditary territory of Joseph and thus the product of her womb is Joseph's son. Jesus who is God treats Joseph as his father and that is because Joseph is Jesus father. God is also Jesus father. Hence he is fully God and fully Man. By tracing inheritance through Solomon you bypass thorny issues like Ruth being a Moabitess, it doesn't matter.

Hugh McBryde

[Menachem]

Here's a thought.

Jesus is Joseph's son thus he is the male line descendant of David through Solomon. Inheritance is through the male, not through the female. Jesus is also the son of the literal virgin Mary. You're clouding your view with western thought. Through betrothal Joseph and Mary are one flesh. This is proven by Joseph's attempt to divorce Mary when he knew he had not had relations with her, yet she was pregnant. Marriage makes one flesh, betrothal by the law was equivalent to marriage. Mary's womb is the heriditary territory of Joseph and thus the product of her womb is Joseph's son. Jesus who is God treats Joseph as his father and that is because Joseph is Jesus father. God is also Jesus father. Hence he is fully God and fully Man. By tracing inheritance through Solomon you bypass thorny issues like Ruth being a Moabitess, it doesn't matter.

Hugh McBryde



Tribal pedigree and lineage are passed through the biological father's side. Joseph was not his biological father, therefore Jesus had no line to lead to king David.


"Mary's womb is the heriditary territory of Joseph and thus the product of her womb is Joseph's son."

too bad it doesnt work this way with Jewish law....lol....I would like you to try and say that to a woman today...she would probably tell you "No, I don't think so!"

[Prakk]

To this statement in my original post;"Mary's womb is the heriditary territory of Joseph and thus the product of her womb is Joseph's son."You say;"Tribal pedigree and lineage are passed through the biological father's side. Joseph was not his biological father, therefore Jesus had no line to lead to king David. Too bad it doesnt work this way with Jewish law....lol...."Just what I need in a serious discussion, someone who regards laughter as an argument. A word of caution, it is said in Proverbs that a foolish man responds in one of two ways to a wise man. I'll give you a hint, one of them is to laugh. Furthermore, it does work that way in "Jewish law" which is actually the law of God as given to Moses. This particular reference to the law is from Josiah's time. Specificly the concept that says a man can have a son or heir that he contributed no genetic material to is called Levarite Law. Deuteronomy 25:5 & 6;"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. (6) And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel."There you have it. The notion that the product of a woman's womb is the son and heir of her husband, in this case, a husband who is dead and who's DNA has nothing to do with his heir's.'I would like you to try and say that to a woman today...she would probably tell you "No, I don't think so!" 'I don't care what this "woman of today" thinks. It's irrelevant. The notion that "Modern Circumstance" somehow voids ancient truth is a common but nonetheless evil error.

Hugh McBryde

[Menachem]

To this statement in my original post;You say;Just what I need in a serious discussion, someone who regards laughter as an argument. A word of caution, it is said in Proverbs that a foolish man responds in one of two ways to a wise man. I'll give you a hint, one of them is to laugh.

Proverbs 29:9. If a wise man disputes with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.


seems to me the Mise man is the one who laughs or rages at the foolish man...in fact the Hebrew indicates that as well....

So are you saying I am the wise man?

Furthermore, it does work that way in "Jewish law" which is actually the law of God as given to Moses. This particular reference to the law is from Josiah's time. Specificly the concept that says a man can have a son or heir that he contributed no genetic material to is called Levarite Law. Deuteronomy 25:5 & 6;There you have it.

Honestly you just misunderstood Levirate marriage...

Here is what the scripture says....

Deuteronomy 25:5. If brothers live together, and one of them dies, and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her to him for a wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
6. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

Which brother dies that Joseph should take over the household...None..... Strike one

arguing virginity makes your claim to this all the more ludicrous than it already is....since there is no brother of the father if there is no father to begin with.... Strike Two

also it says to the effect the first-born will succeed to the name of the brother who is dead.... what does that mean.....The Child assumes the line of the Brother who died... Strike Three

There you have it..... Your out


Levirate marriage not only doesnt apply to jesus' situation in any way shape or form but you just misunderstood completely what levirate marriage means....



The notion that the product of a woman's womb is the son and heir of her husband, in this case, a husband who is dead and who's DNA has nothing to do with his heir's.I don't care what this "woman of today" thinks. It's irrelevant. The notion that "Modern Circumstance" somehow voids ancient truth is a common but nonetheless evil error.

Hugh McBryde

actually it does see above...

[kofh2u]

Howdy.

In Deuteronomy 23:2-3 says:

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:


Now when we look Jesus genealogy we see that there are some problems with it.

How could David be rightful king, if he's kingship is against Mosaic law?

There are mention of Tamar (Genesis 38) which give birth Pharez. Which was one of Jesus ancestors. Now Deut 23 says that bastard shall not enter into congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth generation.

Also there is problem with Ruth. Ruth was Moabite and her child could not be part of congregation of the Lord.

And then there is with Coniah (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

this man Coniah a despised broken idol? a vessel wherein no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD

Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.


So how could God make Jesus king of his genea line?



That three persons make some difficulties to me. Thanks for your help and answers beforehand.


1) I'm not saying that the question isn't a good one.
2) I'm not saying that the answer to it is prophetic in nature.
3) I'm not saying the God, the Father, has provided legal excuses for the Jews whom he says he will forgive.
4) I'm not saying that God, Himself, with his own son, applied Torah even to God.
5) I'm not saying that this question is all so easily answered by the fact that, indeed, Jesus has not entered into the congregation.

But, the tenth generation has long passed, and his advent is expected soon.









Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):

[Prakk]

Proverbs 29:9"If a wise man disputes with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.""seems to me the Mise (sic) man is the one who laughs or rages at the foolish man...in fact the Hebrew indicates that as well....So are you saying I am the wise man?"Except the NASB says this;"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest."The NKJV this;"If a wise man contends with a foolish man, Whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace."The RSV this;"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."And the Hebrew Names Version this;"If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man, The fool rages or scoffs, and there is no shalom."It sounds like your grasp of Hebrew is not strong. I would remark that contextually it's hard to imagine the "wise" man would be doing the raging. Most translations assign the laughing and raging to the foolish man, including the HNV. Is "Mise" a new Hebrew word for foolish? Ball one. Then you say;"Honestly you just misunderstood Levirate marriage..."You missed the point entirely on Levarite law. The point was simple. Genetic parentage was not necessary for actual parentage in the Law. This is proved. Ball two."arguing virginity makes your claim to this all the more ludicrous than it already is....since there is no brother of the father if there is no father to begin with...."I don't recall making this argument. Ball THREE."also it says to the effect the first-born will succeed to the name of the brother who is dead.... what does that mean.....The Child assumes the line of the Brother who died..."or that one either..."Ball Four, I'm Crash Davis, I'm your new catcher, and you just got lesson number one. Don't think, it can only hurt the ball club."

Crash

[Maxell]

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Messiah/Curse_Naz.html

I. Problems with Jesus' Geneology


These are some of the most serious problems the Jewish-anti--missionaries raise agaisnt Jesus as Messiah.


A. Curse on Jehoachin's line


Jehoacin was a direct ancesstor of Joseph (Matt's geneology) which means that he is a vital link in Jesus asscent to the throne of David. The throne of David is the whole point of the Messiah, so he has to asscent to it to be the Messaiah (Christ). Yet in Jeremaiah 22:20 Jehoachin is removed from the throne and exiled to Babylon because of his sins. God tells him "if you were a signant ring yet would I remove you." He also pronounces "record this man childless" and says that "he will not propser in his life time" and none of his children will sit on the throne of David or rule over Judah and none of his decendents. That let's out Jesus! Or does it?


B. Jesus couldn't inherit throne of David.



1) Throne can only come through male; let's out Mary and Luke's geneology


2) Throne cannot be adopted.

Since Jesus is only adopted by the male, (Joseph) he is not ellageable to inherit the throne.



C. The curse was removed because Jehoachin rependted in exile
1) Jehoachin's prosperity disproves curse.

He never got to be king of Judah again, but he was taken out of prison, given fine clothes, sat at the King's table, and was given a pension and honors "abvoe all the kings of Babylon." This is recorded in 2 Chronicles the last chapter. These things are indicative of forgiveness, his fortunes imporoves as much as possible while the exile still lasted.M


2) He had further offspring in exile.

Though the curse said "record him childless" which could just mean either pretend he is childless for the purposes of the throne, or that he really wouldn't have children. Since it says he will not prosper in his life time, and since in the ancient world of the OT children were a sign of prosparity, having children indicates that he prospered. The Jews have an oral tradition that Shealtiel, his son, was born in the exile, and that he was concieved in prison where they allowed Jehoachin's wife to go to him (but in a rather humarous fashion as will be seen). The birth of Sehaltiel indicates the curse was removed and that's how the ancient rabbis saw it. The geneology of Matt. also takes not of Shealtiel's birth not in Judah but after the exile. (see Metthew ch. 1).

We find rabbinic sources which also agree that God reversed the curse on Jeconiah, which they attribute to repentance on Jeconiah's part. We even find the idea that the Messiah will descend from Jeconiah--exactly the opposite of what some say is impossible! Some of these sources are as follows:



a. Sources stating that Jeconiah repented and so God reversed the curse. Note: these quotes also record rabbinical opinion that the curse was removed.

Sanhedrin 37b-38a

R. Johanan said: "Exile atones for everything, for it is written, Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. Whereas after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of Jechoniah, -- the same is Assir -- Shealtiel his son etc.(1) [He was called] Assir, because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, because God did not plant him in the way that others are planted. We know by tradition that a woman cannot conceive in a standing position. [yet she] did conceive standing. Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because God obtained [of the Heavenly court] absolution from His oath."(2)

(1) I Ch. III, 17. "Notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven.(2) Which He had made, to punish Jechoniah with childlessness."

--Soncino Talmud edition, with selected footnotes


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pesikta de-Rab Kahana (5th c.)

"I accepted the repentance of Jeconiah: shall I not accept your repentance? A cruel decree had been imposed upon Jeconiah: Scripture says, This man Coniah is a despised, shattered image ('sb) (Jer. 22:28), for Jeconiah, according to R. Abba bar Kahana, was like a man's skull ('sm) which once shattered is utterly useless, or according to R. Helbo, like a wrapper of reed matting that dates are packed in, which, once emptied, is utterly useless. And Scripture goes on to say of Jeconiah: He is a vessel that none reaches for with delight (ibid.), a vessel, said R. Hama bar R. Hanina, such as a urinal; or a vessel, said R. Samuel bar Nahman, such as is used for drawing off blood. [These comments on Jeconiah derive from] R. Meir's statement: The Holy One swore that He would raise up no king out of Jeconiah king of Judah. Thus Scripture: As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim . . . were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24), words by which God was saying, explained R. Hanina bar R. Isaac, "Beginning with thee, Jeconiah, I pluck out the kingship of the house of David." It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew for "pluck thee" is not as one would expect 'tkk, but the fuller and less usual 'tknk, which may also be rendered "mend thee"--that is, mend thee by thy repentance. Thus in the very place, [the kingship], whence Jeconiah was plucked, amends would be made to him: [his line would be renewed]."


R. Ze'era said: "I heard the voice of R. Samuel bar Isaac expounding from the teacher's chair a specific point concerning Jeconiah, but I just cannot remember what it was. R. Aha Arika asked: Did it perhaps have some connection with this particular verse -- Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, a man [who] will not prosper in his days (Jer. 22:30)? "Yes, that's it!" said R. Ze'era. Thereupon R. Aha Arika went on to give R. Samuel bar Isaac's interpretation of the verse: In his days Jeconiah, so long as he is childless, will not prosper, but when he has a son, then he will prosper by his son's prosperity."

R Aha bar Abun bar Benjamin, citing R. Abba bar R. Papi, said: "Great is the power of repentance, which led God to set aside an oath even as it led Him to set aside a decree. Whence the proof that a man's repentance led Him to set aside the oath He made in the verse As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says [of one of Jeconiah's descendants] In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). And the proof that a man's repentance led God to set aside a decree He issued in the verse Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, etc. (Jer. 22:30)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says, The sons of Jeconiah -- the same is Asir -- Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron. 3:17). R. Tanhum bar Jeremiah said: Jeconiah was called Asir, "one imprisoned," because he had been in prison ('asurim); and his sons called "Shealtiel" because he was like a sapling, newly set out (hustelah), through whom David's line would be continued."

R. Tanhuma said: "Jeconiah was called Asir, 'imprisoned,' because God imprisoned Himself by His oath in regard to him; and Jeconiah's son was called Shealtiel, "God consulted," because God consulted the heavenly court, and they released Him from His oath."

--Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975), pp. 376-77. Bracketed portions are Braude and Kapstein's explanations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leviticus Rabbah XIX:6 (5th-6th c.)

"The Holy One, blessed be He, then said: 'In Jerusalem you did not observe the precept relating to issues, but now you are fulfilling it,' as it is said, As for thee also, because of the blood of thy covenant I send forth thy prisoners out of the pit (Zech. IX, 11) [which means], You have remembered the blood at Sinai, and for this do 'I send forth thy prisoners'. R. Shabbethai said: He [Jeconiah] did not move thence before the Holy One, blessed be He, pardoned him all his sins. Referring to this occasion Scripture has said: Thou art all fair, my love, and there is no blemish in thee (S.S. IV, 7). A Heavenly Voice went forth and said to them: 'Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings'" (Jer. III, 22).

--Soncino Midrash Rabbah vol. 4, p. 249

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pesikta Rabbati, Piska 47 (6th-7th c.)

R. Joshua ben Levi, however, argued as follows: "Repentance sets aside the entire decree, and prayer half the decree. You find that it was so with Jeconiah, king of Judah. For the Holy One, blessed be He, swore in His anger, As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim kind of Judah were the signet on a hand, yet by My right -- note, as R. Meir said, that it was by His right hand that God swore -- I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24). And what was decreed against Jeconiah? That he die childless. As is said Write ye this man childless (Jer. 22:30). But as soon as he avowed penitence, the Holy One, blessed be He, set aside the decree, as is shown by Scripture's reference to The sons of Jeconiah"

-- the same is Assir -- Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron. 3:17). And Scripture says further: In that day . . . will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). Behold, then how penitence can set aside the entire decree!

--Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), vol. 2, p. 797.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Numbers Rabbah XX:20 (date uncertain; 9th c.?)

"...no sooner had they repented, than the danger was averted, And the Lord repented of the evil (ib. XXXII, 14). And so in many places. For example, He said about Jekoniah: For no man of his seed shall prosper (Jer. XXII, 30) and it says, I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations . . . In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, My servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet (Hag. II, 22 f.). Thus was annulled that which He had said to his forefather, viz. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were the signet upon My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence" (Jer. XXII, 24).

--Soncino Midrash Rabbah vol 6, pp. 812-13

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg, on Jeremiah 22:30 (20th c.)

"In this, too, no man of his seed shall prosper, namely that no one will occupy the throne of David nor rule in Judah. Although we find that Zerubbabel, his great grandson, did rule over Judah upon the return of the exiles, the Rabbis (Pesikta d'Rav Kahana p. 163a) state that this was because Jehoiachin repented while in prison. They state further: Repentance is great, for it nullifies a person's sentence, as it is stated: 'Inscribe this man childless.' But since he repented, his sentence was revoked and turned to the good, and he said to him, "I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you a signet" (Haggai 2:23). They state further: Said Rabbi Johanan: Exile expiates all sins, as it is said: Inscribe this man childless," and after he was exiled, it is written: ' (1 Chron. 3:17) And the sons of Jeconiah, Assir, Shealtiel his son'"--[Redak].

--A. J. Rosenberg, Jeremiah: A New English Translation (New York:Judaica Press, 1985), vol. 1 p. 185. "Redak" is an acronym for RabbiDavid Kimchi (13th c.), whose opinion Rosenberg cites.

3) Messiah to come through Zerubbabel

Zerubbabel was Jehoachin's greandson and also a direct ancesstor of Joseph according to the Matt. geneology. That the Messiah comes through him is obvious proof that the curse is removed, and increases the probablity of Jesus as Messiah.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Sources stating that the Messiah will descend from Jeconiah.

Tanhuma Genesis, Toledot (8th-9th c.)

"Scripture alludes here to the verse Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain (Zech. 4:7). This verse refers to the Messiah, the descendant of David. . . .From whom will the Messiah descend? From Zerubbabel."

--Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, translated by Samuel A. Berman (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996), p. 182.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg on Jeremiah 22:24 (20th c.)

"Malbim calls to our attention that in the prophecy of Haggai (2:23), God says, "On that day I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you like a signet," for the King Messiah will be like a signet ring on God's right hand, so to speak. Just as the name of the owner of the ring is engraved on his signet ring, through which he makes himself known, so will God's name be known in the world through the King Messiah, through whom His miracles will be known. He says here that, though, in the future, Coniah will be the signet on My right hand, for the Messiah will spring from his seed, now I will remove him from there."

--Ibid., p. 183. Malbim is an acronym for Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michale, a 19th c. rabbi and commentator. 22:24.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jewish Encyclopedia

"Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah"

(Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).--Louis Ginzberg, "Jehoiachin," vol. 7 p. 84.

3. Zereubbabel arguemnt: Probablility of Jesus as Messiah increased.


The probablity of Jesus being Messiah greatly increased casue now he's not just the root of Jessey, not just the Son of DAvid, but also of Z and that narrows it more, and he qualifies as Jo's adopted son. (Zerubbabel is Jesus' adopted ancestory through the line of Joseph in Matt 1).

Haggi 2:23, after describing how their supplies and harvest yeilds were low the Lord would take them back and an abundant harvest will come. He makes an apocylpitic statemtn about nations being saken and armies being defeated and then prounces that Z is his choice and he will "use you like a signant ring" Why does the book end with this statement, after building up to it through description of Messianich times and forgiveness for Israel. Zerubbabel becomes the final focual point. He is the line of the Messiah.


Zechariah 4:7 "What are you O mighty Mountain before Zerubbabel you will become level ground, then he will bring out the capstone..." IT goes on to say Z will lay the foundation for the temple. That really happened. So that's not so amazing, but it is linked to Messianic prophesy as the language of the captone is seen by Rabbis Quoted by Edersheim as a reference to Messiah, and in Gospels of course that is what is meant when Jesus speaks of Himself as "the stone that the builders rejected."


In 3:8 God tells Joshua the priest that he will bring a branch. In the Notes to the Oxford Bible (RSV), of Messianic prophesy, it says "8 Branch a Davidic figure who is to usher in the Messianic age (compare Psalm 132:17...) here refurs to Zerubbabel (see 6:9-15n) Now that note says "This section abounds with difficulties. ORiginally it probablly directed crowning of Zerubbabel as Messianich King but was revised to refur to Joshua."

Zech. 3:8 "The designation 'Branch' is expressly applied to King MEssiah in the Targum. Indeep this is one of the Messiah's peculiar names." Thus these branch references link Z to Messiah in some fundamental way.

Now look again at 4:7 where it speaks of Z and the Capstone. Zech 4:7 is generally applied to the Messiah, expressly in the Targum and also in several of the Midrashim, thus as reguards both clauses of it Tanchuma (Par. Toledoth 14 ed. Warsh p. 56 at the top.) --Edersheim, 735).

So Z is clearly linked to Messiah. And as he lays the corner stone, which, though it was litterally something he did do in history, can also have a double meaning, especially since that very verse is linked Messianichally. So the Messiah comes through Z's line, which links Jesus closer and removes the curse a priori.

[Menachem]

Except the NASB says this;The NKJV this;The RSV this;And the Hebrew Names Version this;It sounds like your grasp of Hebrew is not strong.

Actually my grasp of hebrew is much stronger since I dont have to rely on english translations which in your case dont represent the Hebrew faithfully in the first place...

I would remark that contextually it's hard to imagine the "wise" man would be doing the raging. Most translations assign the laughing and raging to the foolish man, including the HNV. Is "Mise" a new Hebrew word for foolish? Ball one.

And most translations are innacurate with lots of grammatical errors. since they cannot faithfully reproduce, one must look at the Hebrew for the true answer to this equation....Strike one

the wise man would enraged or laugh at how foolish the fool was in the discussion....

"Mise" was a spelling error it should read "Wise."

[quote=prakk]Then you say;You missed the point entirely on Levarite law. The point was simple. Genetic parentage was not necessary for actual parentage in the Law. This is proved. [b]Ball two.

No I didnt miss the point, I corrected you and not only did I correct you but I showed exactly how jesus' situation does not apply for this as shown by the passage.... Strike two

And tribal pedigree and lineage are not part of parenting they are genetic...from ones Biological Father...



I don't recall making this argument. Ball THREE.or that one either..."Ball Four, I'm Crash Davis, I'm your new catcher, and you just got lesson number one. Don't think, it can only hurt the ball club."

actually making this argument would hurt the ball club as the requirements needed for a levirate marriage to be performed are not fulfilled...and this was to show you that future making of this argument was futile as it would disqualify him from this from the get go....strike three




Crash

yes you did on this one....Your out

You still havent answered as to why jesus' situation doesnt fulfill the requirements for a levirate marriage to be performed....

[Prakk]

And most translations are innacurate with lots of grammatical errors. since they cannot faithfully reproduce, one must look at the Hebrew for the true answer to this equation....Strike oneFirst, don't start the baseball thing again. We've done that. Second, you're overly concerned with a sidebar. Even if you were proved right, it's a sidebar, not the argument itself. Next, all translations I know of either leave the question open as to who laughs and rages, or they assign it to the fool. Contextually I find it unlikely that the wise man rages and the fool sits backs and watches. Lastly to quote Job"No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." You're the "Mise" one, you figure it out.

Yes, you did miss the point, my point is for the last time, Levarite law proves that sexual intercourse and the creation of a zygote is not the only way to be an actual parent. THIS IS MY ONLY POINT. On that point hangs the secondary speculation on my part which is, that as one flesh, by vow of marriage and betrothal, Jesus is the son of Joseph. We can debate that one all day long. I have some anecdotal evidence to back up the assertion. David's first son by Bathsheba was conceived while she was still married to Uriah. Interesting then that he DIED. I speculate that one of the reasons, beyond punishing David was that someone would have done the math and figured out the reality that child being Uriah's. If my speculation is correct, God already knows that this child would have been a pretender to the throne, thus he must die. Remember it is Bathsheba's son that ascends to the throne, the first child was her first born. Also, I know of no instance of an illegitimate birth being recorded to a patriarch in scripture. All those women stayed close to home, throughout the Bible? Odds are strong that there was hanky panky and illegitimacy by our standards in every bloodline in Isreal. But nothing is mentioned, specificly anyway, but the prophets and proverbs rail against adulteresses all the time. C'mon Pooh, THINK, THINK, THINK. The concept of adoption, if I recall correctly, doesn't even come up in the old testament, at least not with that word. Neither is there a concept of a "step father" or "step son." The closet I know of it is Abraham proposing that Eliezar of Damascus was in line to be his heir. Those last two I'd have to research a bit, but nothing comes to mind right off the top of my head. The rest of your arguments depend on the straw man premise you've set up in the last two posts. I don't think you heard me.

Hugh McBryde

[Menachem]

First, don't start the baseball thing again. We've done that. Second, you're overly concerned with a sidebar. Even if you were proved right, it's a sidebar, not the argument itself. Next, all translations I know of either leave the question open as to who laughs and rages, or they assign it to the fool. Contextually I find it unlikely that the wise man rages and the fool sits backs and watches. Lastly to quote Job You're the "Mise" one, you figure it out.


LoL....so in other words your gonna leave that one alone because it proves you wrong ok ...next...

Quoting Job... What was the context of that quotation again??? oh thats right, you left it out so you could use it to your advantage I see...If you hadn't you might see it was the response to a question posed in the chapter beforehand...

Yes, you did miss the point, my point is for the last time, Levarite law proves that sexual intercourse and the creation of a zygote is not the only way to be an actual parent. THIS IS MY ONLY POINT.

and your point is in error as I have shown....jesus' situation never qualified for a levirate marriage. The stipulations for that are specific..

If you are going to argue that Levirate marriage was what happened then who was the brother of Joseph that he had to take over for??? Also, that would rule out the "virgin birth" story...You leave this begging the questions above!

So your application of such is in error with many problems...


On that point hangs the secondary speculation on my part which is, that as one flesh, by vow of marriage and betrothal, Jesus is the son of Joseph. We can debate that one all day long. I have some anecdotal evidence to back up the assertion.

again by the rules of Levirate marriage jesus' situation does not apply as sepcified by the passage in Deuteronomy....Am I the Only one who read the verse????

In order for a levirate marriage to happen the Father must die and his brother must take his place as the husband of the woman....That didnt happen in jesus' situation..

The child who is the product would then take the line of the Dead brother....Which didnt happen either.....

So trying to prove this(Levirate marriage theory for jesus) you are caught in between a rock and a hard place with no way out....

David's first son by Bathsheba was conceived while she was still married to Uriah.

Actually she wasnt married to Uriah if you know anything about Jewish Law and the way they did things..The person going to War has to issue a Ghet(Divorce document) to the wife before going to war. Knowing this Uriah had to do this... So there is question as to whether they were married or not...

secondly the Levirate marriage would not apply to this either since David was not the brother of Uriah, if you take the position that Uriah was still married to Bathsheeva.


Interesting then that he DIED. I speculate that one of the reasons, beyond punishing David was that someone would have done the math and figured out the reality that child being Uriah's. If my speculation is correct, God already knows that this child would have been a pretender to the throne, thus he must die. Remember it is Bathsheba's son that ascends to the throne, the first child was her first born.

Actually the child was David's since Uriah according to Jewish Law had to Give Bathsheva a Ghet in order to go to war...So the child is still David's and would be legitimate since he married her...

Also, I know of no instance of an illegitimate birth being recorded to a patriarch in scripture. All those women stayed close to home, throughout the Bible? Odds are strong that there was hanky panky and illegitimacy by our standards in every bloodline in Isreal. But nothing is mentioned, specificly anyway, but the prophets and proverbs rail against adulteresses all the time. C'mon Pooh, THINK, THINK, THINK. The concept of adoption, if I recall correctly, doesn't even come up in the old testament, at least not with that word. Neither is there a concept of a "step father" or "step son." The closet I know of it is Abraham proposing that Eliezar of Damascus was in line to be his heir. Those last two I'd have to research a bit, but nothing comes to mind right off the top of my head.

Ok then what are you saying...Through all of that babbling nonsense did you even have a point????

Which "Closet" was that again?

The rest of your arguments depend on the straw man premise you've set up in the last two posts. I don't think you heard me.

Hugh McBryde


Really, then why is it that I have had to correct you every step of the way....Your argument of levirate marriage was a straw Man argument since you deliberately distorted the text and tried to twist it to fit jesus' situation in there.....I simply showed you where your inaccuracy was and corrected it with the context of the passage and the actual reading of it....No straw man there...

So are you going to throw the rest of your straw man in there or what???

[Prakk]

"Actually she wasnt married to Uriah if you know anything about Jewish Law and the way they did things..The person going to War has to issue a Ghet(Divorce document) to the wife before going to war. Knowing this Uriah had to do this."And this is WHERE in the Law of God as given to Moses?

Hugh McBryde

[kofh2u]

Tribal pedigree and lineage are passed through the biological father's side. Joseph was not his biological father, therefore Jesus had no line to lead to king David.


"Mary's womb is the heriditary territory of Joseph and thus the product of her womb is Joseph's son."

too bad it doesnt work this way with Jewish law....lol....I would like you to try and say that to a woman today...she would probably tell you "No, I don't think so!"


Jesus was accused of the crime of saying he was king of the Jews. He didn't argue the point, but neither did he say it.

I wonder how t is discussion fits in with the two messiah ideas that Jews have long held, because the suffering messiah, ben Joseph, wasn't to be in the line of David.

This implies that the awaited messiah is he who needs be from the tribe of Judah.

Even though matthew one and luje 3 st concise genealogies, they also deny a direct messiah benDavid link to Christ just because God is the father here, as he truky is in all births, ultimately, and especially those of unconfessed dads.







1.5 million abortions each year are performed upon single, white girls between the ages of 14 and 24 who.

[Prakk]

kofh2u,

The purpose of asserting Mary's womb to be the hereditary "one flesh" territory of Joseph, by betrothal/marriage is to confine the discussion of his male line lineage to Joseph's ancestry.

Hugh McBryde

[kofh2u]

kofh2u,

The purpose of asserting Mary's womb to be the hereditary "one flesh" territory of Joseph, by betrothal/marriage is to confine the discussion of his male line lineage to Joseph's ancestry.

Hugh McBryde


The assertion seems less convincing than merely stating the faith based argument that God's intervention included a conception that posited genetic continuity with the line of David.

This makes the miracle of miraculous conception no less unbelievable to those who already believe.

My point was that perhaps the conception story is not related to the matter of continuity in the line of David at all. The two messiah concept long held by the Jews even suggests that Christ might need be from the house of Joseph.

The MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH was to appear before the MESSIAH SON OF DAVID. In some sources the MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH is called “The First Redeemer.” The “Second Redeemer” will be the Messiah son of David.


Though I am not supporting these points of view, it does seem that the statement in Matthew 1, that as supposed, Joseph was the father of Jesus, denies the biological fact that his Y-chromosome, Joseph's, was not directly past on to Jesus.

[Prakk]

"The assertion seems less convincing than merely stating the faith based argument that God's intervention included a conception that posited genetic continuity with the line of David."I am only focusing on Christ's human parentage. His divine unassisted conception in the womb of a virgin is a given. There is an argument about who's son Jesus is, I contend without discounting his divine Father, that he is actually, really, truly and undeniably Joseph's son. He is also actually, truly God's son as well.

The continuity of Joseph's line is important. The stumbling block in all of this is that no one would have figured this solution out in advance, so it was hard to accept, and is still hard to accept. Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of Man and the Son of David.

Hugh McBryde

[kofh2u]

I am only focusing on Christ's human parentage. His divine unassisted conception in the womb of a virgin is a given. There is an argument about who's son Jesus is, I contend without discounting his divine Father, that he is actually, really, truly and undeniably Joseph's son. He is also actually, truly God's son as well.

The continuity of Joseph's line is important. The stumbling block in all of this is that no one would have figured this solution out in advance, so it was hard to accept, and is still hard to accept. Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of Man and the Son of David.

Hugh McBryde


I guess I understand your point. On the social and civil level, in the legal sense, you Mean Jesus was the son of Joseph, just as everyone knew him to be, the carpenter's son.

The biology of the conception as told to us long after the fact to the side, you mean?

As you are aware, I am sure, people have taken the position that Mary was not a virgin at all, that the Hebrew word meaning an "unmarried woman" has merely been twisted to infer she was virginal.

Coupled to the posts on this thread, the matter gets complicated even more. But, it seems if the line up to Joseph was direct through David, then part of the intervention of God was directed at maintaining genetic continuity by divine grace.

Nevertheless, I am unconvinced, totally, because Jesus obviously was the suffering messiah. A second coming of a messiah from the house of David would sure give pause to our understanding.


Here is an excerpt from a www site:

The MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH was to appear before the MESSIAH SON OF DAVID. In some sources the MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH is called “The First Redeemer.” The “Second Redeemer” will be the Messiah son of David.

[Prakk]

I guess I understand your point. On the social and civil level, in the legal sense, you Mean Jesus was the son of Joseph, just as everyone knew him to be, the carpenter's son.....As you are aware, I am sure, people have taken the position that Mary was not a virgin at all, that the Hebrew word meaning an "unmarried woman" has merely been twisted to infer she was virginal.I maintain that when God says it is so, just as when he said, "Let there be Light" that it was so. If God says the son of a man need not be conceived by that man to be his son, then it is so. The product for instance of a Levirate Marriage would be the dead husbands ACTUAL SON. It is western thought that gets us confused and we say, "Oh no, that can't be, he's not actually a son because Dad wasn't the genetic father." We then go on to say "well, LEGALLY he was his son." He's both, he's both legally the son of that man and actually, by Godly decree. I also affirm that Mary was in every sense a virgin. To be graphic, no sperm ever entered her reproductive tract. You also say this;"The biology of the conception as told to us long after the fact to the side, you mean?"Which I am not sure how to respond to, as I am not sure what you mean.

I don't think there are "two" Messiahs though the role Jesus plays in his coming and then his second coming are different.

Hugh McBryde

[kofh2u]

Prak:
I maintain that when God says it is so, just as when he said, "Let there be Light" that it was so. If God says the son of a man need not be conceived by that man to be his son, then it is so.

KOFHY:
I do not disagree with you in concept.
I find that God seems for the most part to operate in the world of reality, though.
By this I mean, the magic and wonder of our world, reality just as it is, is all so amazing and miracleous as it operates now. I see God as operating via his orderly Natural Laws.
In regard to the immaculate conception I understand the what we once tagged as some metaphysical intervention we can now understand as a genetic mutation. Christ was an evolved steo forward, improving upon Modern Homo sapiens, becoming a first new species, Homoiousian sapiens, called the son of God.

These genetic mutations and hybridings are part of a long history of subtle changes:

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men (hominoids) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) saw the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


Prak:
The product for instance of a Levirate Marriage would be the dead husbands ACTUAL SON. It is western thought that gets us confused and we say, "Oh no, that can't be, he's not actually a son because Dad wasn't the genetic father." We then go on to say "well, LEGALLY he was his son." He's both, he's both legally the son of that man and actually, by Godly decree.

KOFHY:
I agree with you. I believe an adopted son is a true son, he's both legally the son of that man and actually, by Godly decree.


Prak:
I also affirm that Mary was in every sense a virgin. To be graphic, no sperm ever entered her reproductive tract.

KOFHY:
I would avoid any offense to Mary, and I would prefer not to say anything about the whole subject.
Nevertheless, I point out that many girls get pregnant every year without losing their virginity in the defined meaning of that term.

So, I take so reservation with your statement about sperm.

I also am willing for argument sake to agrue with you that the literal bible story, though metaphysical and beyond rational belief, is true just as the bible says.

Prak:
I don't think there are "two" Messiahs though the role Jesus plays in his coming and then his second coming are different.

KOFHY:
I take no issue with you on this, either.
Those who fault the line of Jesus from David as a genetic impossibility ask for logic, not you. To them, the non-sperm birth is also unbelievable. Perhaps too close a relationship with Joseph's kin, maybe a brother, might make the whole idea more palatable for them. Too hot, too close, too much sperm without vaginal entry, who knows?
I do not argue one side or another, but merely say, "don't ridicule the story."
I do not say what I believe on these matters, either.

The Hebrew tradition of two different messiahs is ancient. That some would deny Christ the genetic link to David, this idea of messiah ben Joseph seems clearly a response to them. For you, none seems necessary.

The kings were ALSO anointed. The idea of an anointed savior, of a “Mashiah” i.e. Messiah, is contained in the Prophets. The “Messiah” was to be descended from King David. He was to be the “Messiah, son of David.” In addition to the MESSIAH SON OF DAVID, a tradition existed that there would also be a “Messiah, son of Joseph” who would come shortly before the “Messiah, son of David.” The MESSIAH, SON OF JOSEPH was to be a descendant of Joseph, from the Tribe of Ephraim.


Please do not labor the matter because the issues discussed here seem a matter of faith. Regardless of all the points of view, I believe they all, in the end, sum to Christ is king.


Rev. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: 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.

[Prakk]

"I find that God seems for the most part to operate in the world of reality, though."The first reality is the Lord, all "Natural" laws exist by his word. Literally. If he states that the surviving relative creates for his deceased brother a natural hier then it's so. When God defines such a person as the dead man's son, that means he is. There is no "miraculous" departure from natural law. The problem is in us thinking we know what that natural law is. We've declared that the direct genetic descendant of a man is his only possible son. We've declared that any other son or daughter is only one "legally." This is both a cultural blindness and a sly insistance that something is "made up" and not real. We give lip service to the notion that if God says it, we have to go along with it, but we're really holding back from acknowledgement of something. It's a philosophy of language. In our culture which is "modern" and "scientific" we've parsed what a son or daughter is to exclude those people God says really are."In regard to the immaculate conception I understand the what we once tagged as some metaphysical intervention we can now understand as a genetic mutation. Christ was an evolved ste(p) forward, improving upon Modern Homo sapiens, becoming a first new species, Homoiousian sapiens, called the son of God."This, I cannot agree with. Christ is not a mutant. He is the son of God, my Christian belief is quite literal. It is based in scripture, AKA the Bible. Mary was a virgin, conception was miraculous, Jesus is God, and Son of God, Jesus is my Savior, Jesus is the Son of David, the Son of man. These are all who he is, and they represent accurately who I believe in.

Hugh McBryde

[kofh2u]

Prakk:

The first reality is the Lord, all "Natural" laws exist by his word. Literally.

KOFHY:
Agreed.

Prakk:
If he states that the surviving relative creates for his deceased brother a natural hier then it's so. When God defines such a person as the dead man's son, that means he is. There is no "miraculous" departure from natural law.

KOFHY:
True.

Prakk:
The problem is in us thinking we know what that natural law is.

KOFHY:
Well, I must differ with you about the nature of the problem. I believe people have always read into scripture fixed ideas that were part of the paradigm of the "supposed reality" of their own times. For instance, when people already believed the Sun moved around the Earth it was merely common sense that the Garden of Eden was the center of the Universe.
Scripture was misinterpreted to fit what we believed and the unrealistic and obviously wrong conclusions were stuck to as man's doctrine. This made God seem either capricious or foolish as more and more evidence prove man's inte pretation of the Bible was at fault, not God.

Rev. 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich (a large denominational
church), and increased with goods (accumulated art treasure, land, and
income from tithes), and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched (without secularly acceptable scripture confirmations), and miserable, (entrapped in erroneous doctrine and blind dogma), and poor (in a declining membership), and nake (and unprotected from the ever growing Age of Enlightment):


Prakk:
We've declared that the direct genetic descendant of a man is his only possible son. We've declared that any other son or daughter is only one "legally."

KOFHY:
Educated people would agreed this makes sense in the rational, logical empiricism of our modern times.

Prakk:
This is both a cultural blindness and a sly insistance that something is "made up" and not real.

KOFHY:
True. The secular community is very more direct, though once subtle and sly during thed days of the Catholic Inquisition.
They confronted the teachings of the established Theocracy of Universal Roman Catholicism with telescopes and rational proofs, but until we Protestants rose up and forced them to be reasonable, they burned us at the stake!

Zech. 13:3 And it shall come to pass (for 1000 years), that when any shall yet prophesy, then his (Catholic) father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.


Prakk:
We give lip service to the notion that if God says it, we have to go along with it, but we're really holding back from acknowledgement of something. It's a philosophy of language. In our culture which is "modern" and "scientific.
" we've parsed what a son or daughter is to exclude those people God says really are.

KOFHY:
I think we can find reasonable agreement with what w believe is the Truth, what we read in the Bible, and what in the real world we know... KNOW as fact, empirically. It seems essential to the meaning of scripture that we believe what oir minds perceive about the Creation, because in understanding the Creation, the Creator is revealed.

Gen. 1:27 So God, (The Universal Force), created man (as a conscious mind enabled to image The Universal Reality, abstractly and mathematically), so created God, (the external Universal Force) him; male and female created he them

Prakk:
This, I cannot agree with. Christ is not a mutant. He is the son of God, my Christian belief is quite literal.

KOFHY:
Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).

Prakk:
Mary was a virgin, conception was miraculous,...

KOFHY:
As I said before, in courtesy to even a mere mortal, it behoves all to agree with you in stating belief in what Mary confessed to Joseph before marriage.

Prakk:
Jesus is God, and Son of God,
KOFHY:
Yes. Nd I believe he was the first born of God, too. And further, that "we all have the power to become the sons of God," and will all, in a twinkling, be transfigured.

Matt. 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud (within their
their own minds), overshadowed them, (psychologically): and behold a voice, (an involuntary realization), out of the cloud (of the mass hysteria that had encompassed them), from within their psyches, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him, (for the transfiguration from Homo Sapiens to Homoiousian sapiens is before you).

Prakk:
Jesus is my Savior, Jesus is the Son of David, the Son of man.

KOFHY:
Mine too!






1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (that sounds from our own awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (as in the Transfiguration), and the dead, (genetically preserved, Collective Unconscious Minds stored in our brain), shall be raised (mentally) incorruptible (as spirit-like thoughts), and we shall be changed (into Homoiousian beings).

[Poisonshady313]

The geneology in Luke goes through David's son, Nathan, and not Solomon (Matthew). I believe Luke's geneology is that of Mary and represents the true line of descent from David.

Ron

Though the Luke genealogy says it's of David... and let's not forget the fact that Luke 1 identifies Mary as a Levite... i.e. she couldn't possibly come from David, if David came from Judah, and Mary came from Levi.