Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Alleged Sons of God


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#61    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:57 PM

View Postdside, on 10 May 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

Well, personally I believe the genealogy in Luke is Mary's bypassing the cursed bloodline of Coniah/Jeconiah (Royal lineage through Solomon, ending with Jeconiah). When is the last time Israel had a Jewish king? Where is the Royal lineage? Did the Royal Lineage cease? Remember, the Royal Lineages passes from father to son from generation to generation. Strengthens the case of Jesus and the fact his throne is eternal and will never pass on to any "son". His kingship will never cease and he will never cease to exist.

Oh, Dside, for heaven's sake, what kind of king was Jesus? Do you know something? You remind me of those followers of Jesus who were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem of all places. What did they really want, that Jesus be caught and crucified? No doubt about it. They got it. That's exactly what happened. And Pilate made sure they all saw the reason why Jesus was crucified; because they had acclaimed him king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at that time. The plaque was up there on Jesus' cross: INRI.

And now, about the issue of Mary's genealogy, even if you proved to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that she was from the Tribe of Judah, it would not at all help in the case of Jesus. According to Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus, Tribal genealogy could never be passed down through the mother. Only through the father. Therefore, Jesus had to be a biological son of Joseph's.
Ben


#62    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 11 May 2012 - 07:52 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 09 May 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

However, of the three probabilities: This one of yours, the one of the rape by a Roman soldier and that of a normal conception as a result of Mary's legal relationship with Joseph, I am more in favor of the last. As you can see, I have no malicious intention to mar the reputation of Mary.
Ben

Vatic: Well Ben. That is your perogative. As for myself, knowing the person and identity of the Lord of Glory, I have no reason to doubt Him being incarnate as a child from the Virgin.


#63    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 11 May 2012 - 01:16 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 10 May 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

~~~ ...



And now, about the issue of Mary's genealogy, even if you proved to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that she was from the Tribe of Judah, it would not at all help in the case of Jesus. According to Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus, Tribal genealogy could never be passed down through the mother. Only through the father. Therefore, Jesus had to be a biological son of Joseph's.
Ben
Ben, what is your stance on the following:
In 1983, the Central Conference of American Rabbis -- CCAR -- took one of its most controversial stands and formally affirmed that a Jewish identity can be passed down through either the mother or the father, if the child is raised with a Jewish identity.
http://en.wikipedia....American_Rabbis


#64    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 May 2012 - 07:57 PM

View PostVatic, on 11 May 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Vatic: Well Ben. That is your perogative. As for myself, knowing the person and identity of the Lord of Glory, I have no reason to doubt Him being incarnate as a child from the Virgin.

Base on what, Christian preconceived notions or you have a Biblical quotation as an evidence for your assertion? To me, it sounds like the hellenistic myth of the Greek demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Jesus was a loyal Jew whose Faith was Judaism; and in Judaism there is no such a thing.
Ben


#65    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 May 2012 - 08:18 PM

View PostKarlis, on 11 May 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Ben, what is your stance on the following:
In 1983, the Central Conference of American Rabbis -- CCAR -- took one of its most controversial stands and formally affirmed that a Jewish identity can be passed down through either the mother or the father, if the child is raised with a Jewish identity.
http://en.wikipedia....American_Rabbis

I would say that the case is a non-sequitur. The issue here is not about the passing down of the Jewish identity, but the inheritance of Tribal affiliation. Jesus could not be of the Tribe of Judah if he was not a biological son of Joseph's. Nevertheless, he was Jewish even if he was the son of Panthera. But, there is something else about the Jewish identity, since you have mentioned it above, it was conventionalized to be through the mother only after the New Covenant was established by Ezra/Nehemiah after the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon. Till then, even the Jewish identity was passed down through the father also.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 15 May 2012 - 08:19 PM.


#66    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:14 AM

Vatic: Well Ben. That is your perogative. As for myself, knowing the person and identity of the Lord of Glory, I have no reason to doubt Him being incarnate as a child from the Virgin.

View PostBen Masada, on 15 May 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

Base on what, Christian preconceived notions or you have a Biblical quotation as an evidence for your assertion? To me, it sounds like the hellenistic myth of the Greek demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Jesus was a loyal Jew whose Faith was Judaism; and in Judaism there is no such a thing.
Ben

Vatic: Like I said Ben, based upon KNOWING the person and identity of the Lord of Glory, I have no reason to doubt his incarnation through the Virgin. But in a sense it really is the mutuality of the testomonies showing inspiration that I relate to concerning the Lord of Glory, that persuades me certain details are true. I base it therefore on all I know and understand about the Lord of Glory and therefore trust the testimony. You might enjoy reading the text called: "The Proto Gospel of Mary".


#67    SCFan

SCFan

    ISA 62:2; 65:15; HOS 1:10; 2:23; MATT 21:43; ACTS 11:26

  • Member
  • 2,621 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2012 - 06:26 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 10 May 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Oh, Dside, for heaven's sake, what kind of king was Jesus? Do you know something? You remind me of those followers of Jesus who were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem of all places. What did they really want, that Jesus be caught and crucified? No doubt about it. They got it. That's exactly what happened. And Pilate made sure they all saw the reason why Jesus was crucified; because they had acclaimed him king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at that time. The plaque was up there on Jesus' cross: INRI.

Isaiah 53 states it quite plainly. This was an act of love and blood atonement that Jesus was crucified. The Christ bore the sins of the world and was resurrected from the dead that we can also be resurrected into life. Jesus is the Lamb of God -- let the imagery evoked by "Lamb" sink in, a meek creature that is often sheared and butchered, a creature whose death provides for sustenance and life. The Christ is not meant to rule this world until His kingdom comes nor even play His hand in these corrupt systems of government. Why would the Christ rule this present age of the world? So is this other Jewish Christ going to be a politician?????

Quote

And now, about the issue of Mary's genealogy, even if you proved to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that she was from the Tribe of Judah, it would not at all help in the case of Jesus. According to Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus, Tribal genealogy could never be passed down through the mother. Only through the father. Therefore, Jesus had to be a biological son of Joseph's.
Ben

Does it matter? Because Mary is a descendent of David through Nathan and God is the Father of Christ. Joseph adopted Jesus nonetheless.

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall show, WHO IS THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTE, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (I Tim 6:13-16).

#68    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 19 May 2012 - 06:04 PM

View PostVatic, on 16 May 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

Vatic: Well Ben. That is your perogative. As for myself, knowing the person and identity of the Lord of Glory, I have no reason to doubt Him being incarnate as a child from the Virgin.

Vatic: Like I said Ben, based upon KNOWING the person and identity of the Lord of Glory, I have no reason to doubt his incarnation through the Virgin. But in a sense it really is the mutuality of the testomonies showing inspiration that I relate to concerning the Lord of Glory, that persuades me certain details are true. I base it therefore on all I know and understand about the Lord of Glory and therefore trust the testimony. You might enjoy reading the text called: "The Proto Gospel of Mary".

Yes, you have said twice that you know the person and identity of the Lord of Glory. Do you know that faith never goes hand-in-hand with knowledge? You said twice that you know, and twice, you missed to say that's by faith. First of all, we cannot refer to the Lord as a person. Jesus himself said that God is Spirit. (John 4:24) Spirits cannot be referred to as  persons.
Ben


#69    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 19 May 2012 - 06:21 PM

View Postdside, on 16 May 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

Isaiah 53 states it quite plainly. This was an act of love and blood atonement that Jesus was crucified. The Christ bore the sins of the world and was resurrected from the dead that we can also be resurrected into life. Jesus is the Lamb of God -- let the imagery evoked by "Lamb" sink in, a meek creature that is often sheared and butchered, a creature whose death provides for sustenance and life. The Christ is not meant to rule this world until His kingdom comes nor even play His hand in these corrupt systems of government. Why would the Christ rule this present age of the world? So is this other Jewish Christ going to be a politician?????

Does it matter? Because Mary is a descendent of David through Nathan and God is the Father of Christ. Joseph adopted Jesus nonetheless.

Isaiah 53 says nothing about Jesus or some one dying for the sins of the world. There is a consensus that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. I too subscribe myself to that consensus. It happens that the Prophet identifies that Servant as Israel by name, if you read Isaiah 41:8,9 and 44:1,2,21. But then, plagiarizers with Christian preconceived notions distort that chapter so as to point to Jesus on an individual basis and not to Israel. They are the promoters of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Jesus was a Jewish man and, according to Halacha or Jewish law, tribal affiliation could not be passed down through adoption. To try to fit Judaism to the tenets of Christianity is nothing but vandalism of one religion by another.
Ben


#70    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 19 May 2012 - 06:56 PM

Ben Masada: But then, plagiarizers with Christian preconceived notions distort that chapter so as to point to Jesus on an individual basis and not to Israel.

Vatic: The whole content of Isaiah 52 and 53 is a message to Israel (Zion). You should notice that in describing the suffering servant, that is describes a relationship between Israel and the suffering servant.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,  
yet we considered him punished by God,  
stricken by him, and afflicted.  

"We" and "Our" is Israel and it is "We" who counted "He" the suffering servant (an individual) as cursed by "him" which is God. It also shows that Israel was wrong about the suffering servant, and that the suffering servant was actually interceeding for Israel's pain and suffering.

Your reading comprehension is not up to par. The suffering servant is a befactor to Israel, who in turn thinks he is accursed. This is totally in alignment with the reality between Jesus and Israel right now.


#71    SCFan

SCFan

    ISA 62:2; 65:15; HOS 1:10; 2:23; MATT 21:43; ACTS 11:26

  • Member
  • 2,621 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 May 2012 - 07:29 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 19 May 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Isaiah 53 says nothing about Jesus or some one dying for the sins of the world. There is a consensus that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. I too subscribe myself to that consensus. It happens that the Prophet identifies that Servant as Israel by name, if you read Isaiah 41:8,9 and 44:1,2,21. But then, plagiarizers with Christian preconceived notions distort that chapter so as to point to Jesus on an individual basis and not to Israel. They are the promoters of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Jesus was a Jewish man and, according to Halacha or Jewish law, tribal affiliation could not be passed down through adoption. To try to fit Judaism to the tenets of Christianity is nothing but vandalism of one religion by another.
Ben

Are you forgetting that Saul, David, and Solomon were all anointed to be King without any primogeniture?

Likewise God took the kingship from  Jehoiachin and gave it to his brother Zedekiah!

And lets look at a clause in inheritance concerning fathers without sons see Numbers 27:1-11 that the inheritance should pass unto the daughter(s) and more importantly see vrs 4 that his name can not be removed from among his surviving family.

So see, the Gospel of Matthew is genealogy of Joseph, the son of Jacob and the Gospel of Luke is the genealogy of Mary, daughter (son) of Heli.

And Jesus is legally Joseph's son anyways!!!!! Obviously there was no claim of adoption, it was 100% legal!!!!!

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall show, WHO IS THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTE, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (I Tim 6:13-16).

#72    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 21 May 2012 - 04:39 PM

View PostVatic, on 19 May 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

Ben Masada: But then, plagiarizers with Christian preconceived notions distort that chapter so as to point to Jesus on an individual basis and not to Israel.

Vatic: The whole content of Isaiah 52 and 53 is a message to Israel (Zion). You should notice that in describing the suffering servant, that is describes a relationship between Israel and the suffering servant.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,  
yet we considered him punished by God,  
stricken by him, and afflicted.  

"We" and "Our" is Israel and it is "We" who counted "He" the suffering servant (an individual) as cursed by "him" which is God. It also shows that Israel was wrong about the suffering servant, and that the suffering servant was actually interceeding for Israel's pain and suffering.

Your reading comprehension is not up to par. The suffering servant is a befactor to Israel, who in turn thinks he is accursed. This is totally in alignment with the reality between Jesus and Israel right now.

Isaiah was the Prophet with the mission to Israel, the Ten Tribes. Isaiah was a Judahite from Tecoa, in Judah. "We" is the people of Judah represented by Isaiah. "He" is Israel. If you have problem understanding that a people could be referred to in the singular or third person "he," read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My son; so, let My son go, that "he" - Israel - may serve Me."
Ben


#73    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 21 May 2012 - 04:53 PM

View Postdside, on 19 May 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Are you forgetting that Saul, David, and Solomon were all anointed to be King without any primogeniture?

Likewise God took the kingship from  Jehoiachin and gave it to his brother Zedekiah!

And lets look at a clause in inheritance concerning fathers without sons see Numbers 27:1-11 that the inheritance should pass unto the daughter(s) and more importantly see vrs 4 that his name can not be removed from among his surviving family.

So see, the Gospel of Matthew is genealogy of Joseph, the son of Jacob and the Gospel of Luke is the genealogy of Mary, daughter (son) of Heli.

And Jesus is legally Joseph's son anyways!!!!! Obviously there was no claim of adoption, it was 100% legal!!!!!

You have not understood the thread. I am not talking about the passing down of kingship or inheritance of assets from father to son. The issue here is about Tribal genealogy, which is passed down ONLY through the father. And that, according to Halachah or Jewish law, adoption does not give that right to an adopted child. I do believe that Jesus was a legitimate son of Joseph's, but you don't. Jesus must have been a biological son of Joseph's to be claimed of being from the Tribe of Judah. If he was not Joseph's biological son, I am sorry. He was a Jew without a Tribe in Israel. And with regards to Mary, The genealogy in Luke is NOT about her. But since you  insist that it was, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, although it won't help Jesus. The mother cannot define Tribal genealogy. ONLY THE FATHER.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 21 May 2012 - 04:55 PM.


#74    SCFan

SCFan

    ISA 62:2; 65:15; HOS 1:10; 2:23; MATT 21:43; ACTS 11:26

  • Member
  • 2,621 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 May 2012 - 01:26 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 21 May 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

You have not understood the thread. I am not talking about the passing down of kingship or inheritance of assets from father to son. The issue here is about Tribal genealogy, which is passed down ONLY through the father. And that, according to Halachah or Jewish law, adoption does not give that right to an adopted child. I do believe that Jesus was a legitimate son of Joseph's, but you don't. Jesus must have been a biological son of Joseph's to be claimed of being from the Tribe of Judah. If he was not Joseph's biological son, I am sorry. He was a Jew without a Tribe in Israel. And with regards to Mary, The genealogy in Luke is NOT about her. But since you  insist that it was, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, although it won't help Jesus. The mother cannot define Tribal genealogy. ONLY THE FATHER.
Ben

With the exception if the father has no son but only daughters, in that daughters are allowed to carrying on the family name. Read Numbers chapter 27:1-11.

Also, in the Matthew genealogy, passes from King David through Solomon. And states Joseph's OWN father was named Jacob.

But in the Luke genealogy, passes from King David through Nathan (a relatively unknown biological son). And states allegedly "Joseph's" OWN father was named Heli.

I believe Mary simply did not have any brothers with intertribal parents (Levi/Judah), Elizabeth is an in-law in that Mary's mother was Levite and Mary's father was Heli the Judahite, and she is the alleged "Joseph" in Luke's genealogy.

EDIT: Jesus was not Joseph's biological son neither was he Joseph's adopted son but rather was Joseph's legal son.

Edited by dside, 22 May 2012 - 01:29 AM.

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall show, WHO IS THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTE, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (I Tim 6:13-16).

#75    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 22 May 2012 - 05:25 PM

View Postdside, on 22 May 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

With the exception if the father has no son but only daughters, in that daughters are allowed to carrying on the family name. Read Numbers chapter 27:1-11.

Also, in the Matthew genealogy, passes from King David through Solomon. And states Joseph's OWN father was named Jacob.

But in the Luke genealogy, passes from King David through Nathan (a relatively unknown biological son). And states allegedly "Joseph's" OWN father was named Heli.

I believe Mary simply did not have any brothers with intertribal parents (Levi/Judah), Elizabeth is an in-law in that Mary's mother was Levite and Mary's father was Heli the Judahite, and she is the alleged "Joseph" in Luke's genealogy.

EDIT: Jesus was not Joseph's biological son neither was he Joseph's adopted son but rather was Joseph's legal son.

There is no exception to Halacha or Jewish law. And names had nothing to do with tribal genealogy. How many "Josephs" were there in the Tribe of Judah? Many. And so, there were many "Josephs" in all other tribes. And just for one more time, to repeat here what I have said more than several times, the mother had nothing to do with passing down tribal genealogy.
Ben





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users