The new thread

[chakham]

This is a continuation of another thread which started getting off topic. At the request of Sinthesis "start a new thread" I started a new thread. Hopefully this is in the right place to do it, if not, I hope the mods will move to the appropriate slot. I present a recap of posts leading up to the new thread.


Originally Posted by Kumi Ori

Ok here goes, please dont burn me at the stake or accuse me of beong a heretic and banish me. I honestly believe this needs to be discussed.

The lineage you gave goes only so far as David. As for the assertion about Jesus he was not a descendant of David, but merely affiliated to him through Joseph, as is testified in Matthew 1: "that Jesus was born of Mary during her virginity, and that Joseph knew her not until she had given birth to Jesus" Now according to this statement, the lineage of Joseph can be of no avail to Jesus. It is evident too the lineage of Mary was unknown to the authors.

Even the relationship of Joseph to David is wanting in proof because there is a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke which appears clearly when we compare Matthew 1 with Luke at the end of chapter 3. I see conflicting testimonies and I belive where that is the case no belief can be attached to either statement.

The prophets on the other hand predicted the expected Messiah should be no other than a descendant of David.


Originally posted by Synthesis

I don't want to derail this thread, so if anyone wants to know how your objections are dealt with, then here are some answers:
http://www.abideinchrist.com/message...temessiah.html
http://www.abideinchrist.com/selah/dec23.html
http://www.hebrewroot.com/Articles/David_v_Solomon.htm
http://mysterysolvedwithmessiahjesus...tegory/nathan/


Originally posted by Kumi Ori

Ive read those before. By this reasoning the writers basically are acknowledging that Jesus is not of the seed of David but was adopted instead in order to fit their idea of the coming messiah.

But I am always drawn back to these words

Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause an offshoot of righteousness to grow up to David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name by which she shall be called, Yehovah is our righteousness.

For thus says Yehovah; David shall never lack a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites lack a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meal offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, Thus says the Lord; If you can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be counted, nor the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites who minister to me.

It is David's seed which will be multiplied in order that he (David) will have a son who reign and execute judgement and righteousness in the land.

If Jesus was adopted then yes, he may be called a son of Joseph but he is not of the seed of David nor Joseph. Something of which the internet links themselves acknowledge.


Originally posted by Synthesis

It is obvious you did not read the linked articles. 2 Start a new thread.


START OF NEW THREAD

I did read the articles, by saying Jesus was adopted by Joseph they then I believe just admitted Jesus was not of the seed of David. Honestly for me thats as far as I can really go with those articles. Because according to Yehovah's Torah the lineage of Am Yisrael is determined by the fathers house not the mothers house.

And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they registered by families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.
As Yehovah commanded Moses, so he counted them in the wilderness of Sinai. Bemidbar 1:18

It is I think only according to christianity in order to suit the idea a god having intercourse with a woman and the laws and traditions of rabbinic Judiasim that the mother is belived to determine ones seed line. But I will say this I can to an extent agree with rabbis dececisions to allow this because it stemmed from compassion after what evil was done to the women of Israel in times past. But regardless neither is based on Torah.

But if one insists that Jesus seed line was determined by his mother. If that is the case, I have to ask. What use does this long list of ancestors leading up to and including Joseph serve? As none of that holds any benefit nor is it any relation to Jesus. Why not then, in order to allivate all problems and suspicions, didnt they record Mary's lineage back to David and Abraham?

 

[Sinthesis]

Why not then, in order to allivate all problems and suspicions, didnt they record Mary's lineage back to David and Abraham?

So you still have not read the articles to which I provided links?
If you had, then you would not have asked such a misinformed question as that above.2

 

[chakham]

Synthesis, have you read it? Seriously I am to believe Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samson, Samuel were also of miraculous conception? 2

My desire was to discuss Torah and Gods promise to David and explore His word as my faith is in that. Not supposition from cut and paste internet links which struggles to make ends meet.

 

[heymikey80]

Even the relationship of Joseph to David is wanting in proof because there is a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke which appears clearly when we compare Matthew 1 with Luke at the end of chapter 3. I see conflicting testimonies and I belive where that is the case no belief can be attached to either statement.

People who work with genealogies wouldn't be concerned. Genealogies do not represent single lines -- if y'check, you'll find you have two parents, and each of them has two parents (and so on, and so on). So variations along a genealogical line are to be expected.

 

[heymikey80]

If Jesus was adopted then yes, he may be called a son of Joseph but he is not of the seed of David nor Joseph. Something of which the internet links themselves acknowledge.

I doubt this assertion. The idea that "seed" must inevitably mean genetic descent is not accurate for the day, nor accurate for, say, Paul:

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:29

According to Paul, if you're adopted through being Christ's you're Abraham's seed.

And so the idea does not carry that this requires genetic descent.

 

[chakham]

I doubt this assertion. The idea that "seed" must inevitably mean genetic descent is not accurate for the day, nor accurate for, say, Paul:

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:29

According to Paul, if you're adopted through being Christ's you're Abraham's seed.

And so the idea does not carry that this requires genetic descent.

This idea of a genetic descent comes from Yehovahs promise to David that a son of 'his' seed will one day reign as king to execute judgement and righteouness. A royal line to the throne starting with David's seed.

To explain better, I hope. I was born to Gentile parents, I am not a literal seed of Abraham, or David for that matter, but a sojourner grafted in to the true vine (Israel). "One law shall be for him who is native born, and for the stranger who sojourns among you.". There should be no difference between us other than some are native born and others, like me, are not. Which would most deffinately exclude someone like me from being this particular king as I am not native born nor am I especially of the tribe of Judah.

The problem I have with Jesus being adopted is it cannot prove his lineage is of the house of David. Yehovah's own breathed words recorded in Torah states " Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by families following their fathers' houses; a head count of every male according to the number of their names.". What this means is, if one’s father was from one tribe and his mother from another tribe, he is counted with his father’s tribe whether the father be dead or alive.

Personally, I believe Jesus really did exist but I cannot honestly deny or just ignore the obvious elephant in the room which is that Jesus had a father. And according to Gods own breathed/inspired words instructing how males were to be counted, it leaves me three alternatives. a. Jesus is the son of his father Joseph. b. Jesus is the son of an unknown interloper. c. Or his father is God.

If God is his father the linage is broken as God is not ofthe house of David. Choose the interloper who knows what house he is numbered with additionally he was conceived in an adulterous affair as Mary was supposedly already betrothed to Joseph. Or it was Joseph and Jesus is what he himself has always and only ever claimed himself to be, a son of man.

Then there are some who say there is a fourth, choose to ignore Gods inspired word and count him according to his mothers house.

Thats my take on it.

 

[chakham]

I doubt this assertion. The idea that "seed" must inevitably mean genetic descent is not accurate for the day, nor accurate for, say, Paul:

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:29

According to Paul, if you're adopted through being Christ's you're Abraham's seed.

And so the idea does not carry that this requires genetic descent.

The seed spoken of here is in regards to Abraham. As I mentioned above there are two kinds of people, the natural born and the sojourner who is grafted in. ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאר ונברכו בך כל משפחת האדמה: "Ve'nivrechu bekah kol mishpachot ha-adamah. "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth shall be grafted. The wild branch (gentile) is grafted into the Natural branch (Israel). So I do not think it is speaking of Davids royal line to the throne.

 

[Sinthesis]

Synthesis, have you read it? Seriously I am to believe Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samson, Samuel were also of miraculous conception? 2

My desire was to discuss Torah and Gods promise to David and explore His word as my faith is in that. Not supposition from cut and paste internet links which struggles to make ends meet.

Read your scriptures again. God used extraordinary circumstances in the births of many biblical figures. The miraculous conceptions of these others prefigure and culminate in the unique virgin conception of Jesus.

 

[chakham]

Just and FYI, The Tanakh (what you call the old testement) is an acronymn which stands for Torah (teachings), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Kevutim (writings).

If Im not mistaken somewhere in the 'new' testement Jesus said he did not come to destroy the torah and the prophets which means to me they are still applicable. Jesus was a Jew and like all Jews then and today tend to regard the torah and the prophets as the inspired words of God, the writings are not. The reason for this, for which I wholly agree, they are the only place in the Tanakh where we can read Yehovah speaking in first person. These words which He spoke were recorded and eventully cannonized by men.

The writings are I think thought as men's writings about and not so much recording God's words.

So with that in mind I think I did read God's inspired words and presented, I hope, a halfway decent thought regarding how Jesus should be counted in Israel. Which according to Gods own words says he is to be counted according to house fathers house not his mothers. One cannot ignore he had a father and it by that seed he is to be counted. So if he is as some claim divine he cannot be the messiah. If he is of the interlopers seed we have no lineage. If he is of Josephs seed then he is as I said before simply that which Jesus always claimed to be, a son of man sent by God.

Then there is the question of adultery. I am to believe God would go against His own commandment and take a women already betrothed to Joseph?

 

[westtexas]

Because according to Yehovah's Torah the lineage of Am Yisrael is determined by the fathers house not the mothers house.



But if one insists that Jesus seed line was determined by his mother. If that is the case, I have to ask. What use does this long list of ancestors leading up to and including Joseph serve? As none of that holds any benefit nor is it any relation to Jesus.

Kumi Ori, I missed most of y'alls conversation so forgive me if this has been discussed. I pulled 2 lines from your post.

The first line is not always correct according to Torah. If you confer with Numbers 27:1-11 you will find that God gives the inheritance of the father to the DAUGHTER if he has no sons. Thus Luke 3 traces Jesus' lineage from Judah-David-Nathan-Heli (Mary's father)-and then to Mary.

As for your second question-Joseph's lineage was also necessary and is important. If you confer with Numbers 36:1-12 you will find that if Mary had married outside of the tribe of Judah, her inheritance would have passed to whatever tribe her husband came from. But this did not happen. Judah-David-Solomon-Joseph. Thus, Joseph and Mary were rightful heirs. Mary by blood, Joseph by marriage and the birth of our Lord fulfilled scripture. He came from the tribe of Judah and the house of David.

Westtexas

 

[chakham]

Hi westexas,

I understand your explanation. But again, I cannot agree. As you stated the case of distributing the fathers inheritence to the daughters is when permitted when a father has no sons

This is I think the big elephant in the room many seem to ignore. Someone inseminated the egg in Mary's womb and the centerpiece to christian doctrine is that god did it and if I've heard once I've heard it a thousand times that Jesus is the Son of God! It is even written in the new testement god makes a verbal statement claiming him as his son. Where is it written God gave him up for adoption to Joseph?

Jesus, a male of the children of Israel and a the son of a father, according to God's commandments ought to be counted accordong to the tribe of his fathers house. According to christian doctrine God is the father of Jesus and no matter how you slice it God is not of the tribe of Judah.

As for the lineage of Mary and Joseph recorded in Matthew and Luke. They differ by several generatons. There are forty-two generations, going back to Abraham and there are twenty-six according to the names mentioned in Luke.

Besides this, the list of names given in Matthew is not correct knowledge of the descendants of David, for three generations, Ahaziah, Jaos, and Amaziah, are omitted, and Uzziah is represented to be the son of Joram.

See the correct genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3, and in the historical part of the Second Book of Chronicles beginning at chapter 22, etc.

Because of such difference, errors and ommissions in Matthew and Luke I cannot place my faith in those words.

 

[heymikey80]

The seed spoken of here is in regards to Abraham. As I mentioned above there are two kinds of people, the natural born and the sojourner who is grafted in. ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאר ונברכו בך כל משפחת האדמה: "Ve'nivrechu bekah kol mishpachot ha-adamah. "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth shall be grafted. The wild branch (gentile) is grafted into the Natural branch (Israel). So I do not think it is speaking of Davids royal line to the throne.

... then are ye Abraham's seed

The point I again reiterate that this is not genetic descent. The idea of "natural" and "spiritual" descent being separated from one another simply doesn't wash. Paul actually pointed out that those of natural descent were not legitimate sons of Abraham, and the natural the illegitimate -- "Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for the castration. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" Pp 3:2-3

The legitimate sons are the spiritual sons, rightful heirs by the Spirit of God. David received the spiritual blessing of pre-receipt of Jesus' throne, a foreshadow of God's reign. To push this to force genetic descent is both a modern (genetic, not familial) concept and not in keeping with the spiritual design of God.

And finally -- there is no assertion that Marian wasn't descended from David. So even on the natural argument, the argument doesn't wash.

 

[westtexas]

Besides this, the list of names given in Matthew is not correct knowledge of the descendants of David, for three generations, Ahaziah, Jaos, and Amaziah, are omitted, and Uzziah is represented to be the son of Joram.

Because of such difference, errors and ommissions in Matthew and Luke I cannot place my faith in those words.

You're going to discredit scripture because the style of writing is different from your own? You have referenced 1 Chronicles.

"1 Chronicles 4:1--The sons of Judah were Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, and Shobal."KJV

In this verse only Perez is a son of Judah . Hezron is his grandson. Carmi is his nephew(2:5-6). Hur is the grandson of Hezron(2:18-19). And Shobal is the grandson of Hur(2:50). 7 generations from Judah are in this one verse. Maybe if you admit that in the Hebrew style of writing "son" can also be a descendant-- then biblical genealogy and the prophecy of the Messiah will make more sense. Or have you now lost your faith in the book of 1 Chronicles as well?

Westtexas

 

[stormcloud]

Two things to take into consideration here (highlighting not just an understanding of translation, but of sociological issues involved).

In the times of the OT (and probably still today) among the Jews, adopted children were seen as equally a part of lineage as biological children.

Jewish genealogies didn't necessarily list every person in a line, but highlighted the important ones.

 

[chakham]

Two things to take into consideration here (highlighting not just an understanding of translation, but of sociological issues involved).

In the times of the OT (and probably still today) among the Jews, adopted children were seen as equally a part of lineage as biological children.

Jewish genealogies didn't necessarily list every person in a line, but highlighted the important ones.

The geneologies which should be taken into consideration are I think the ones found in 1 Chronicles 3, and in part of the 2nd Chronicles beginning at chapter 22, etc.

Again the big elephant in the room, for me atleast, is that Jesus did have a father and he is the son of that father. Its not like he was found under a rock or on someones doorstep. According to christianities own doctrine and religion, Jesus is the only begotton son of God and according to that same doctrine and relgion God even went so far as to verbally claim him as His son. Yet in order to make ends meet in regards to messiahship that is completely ignored. In its place a story not found anywhere in the texts of Jesus being given up for adoption to Joseph and or Jesus as being counted amongst his mothers tribe.

Here again are Yehovahs own words which He breathed and Moses recorded that a male child is to be counted according to the fathers tribe.