Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Is Jesus the Messiah?


TheKnight

Recommended Posts

Nope. First of all Joseph is descended from Jeconiah, who God said that no one shall ever sit on the throne of Judah that are descendants of Jeconiah. Secondly, in the eyes of the law, in order to be in the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah, not an adopted son.

Jesus' biological father was God. As it's his law, I'm pretty sure he can nominate which tribe he wants to belong to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • TheKnight

    67

  • Llucid

    29

  • Bluefinger

    27

  • moonlit12

    26

How about 2 Samuel 7:12-13 which says:

"And when your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever"

Nope. First of all Joseph is descended from Jeconiah, who God said that no one shall ever sit on the throne of Judah that are descendants of Jeconiah. Secondly, in the eyes of the law, in order to be in the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah, not an adopted son.

And since Jesus was not a blood descendant of Joseph, he obviously can't be of the tribe of Judah. Tribal rights were not passed on through the women, it was through the BIOLOGICAL father that it was inherited. Also, according to scriptures the messiah will come from David's bloodline through Solomon (see verse above), not Nathan whom you say fulfills the prophecy through Mary.

They were not fulfilled by Mary, maybe you should get information through a non-christian based source who isn't just going to tell you what you want to hear. (no offense)

Nathan was also David's son. The scripture reference you have provided does not say Solomon. Secondly, according to the law Jesus was the "biological" son of Joseph because he Joseph claimed him as such. It was not neccessary to prove that Mary was impregnated by Joseph as that could only be substantiated by the man in question at that time in history. Joseph being descended from the line of Jeconiah in no way disproves the prophecy because Jesus was not a blood relative of Joseph. There was the natural and there was the legal - both fulfilled perfect through God's design.

Even if you were to interpret scripture in Solomon's favor it would still be that legally Jesus was royal because Joseph was royal and Mary being also a descendent of the sons of David had inherited the right to the throne by marriage to the royal line.

PS - Why would I use more non-christian sources than christian to explain christ? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, you would think a Christian who was a bit confused about what he was reading in the Bible might, just might contact a Christian college or even browse through a couple of Christian websites to find the answer, instead of starting post in here and ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, you would think a Christian who was a bit confused about what he was reading in the Bible might, just might contact a Christian college or even browse through a couple of Christian websites to find the answer, instead of starting post in here and ...

... and letting the non-beleivers see any descension in the ranks..........

Mmmmmm, seems you could have sent the lad a PM, instead of posting here.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and letting the non-beleivers see any descension in the ranks..........

Mmmmmm, seems you could have sent the lad a PM, instead of posting here.

;)

I am curious about the fear that we have about being human... if we have faith then what is there to fear if we can't prove why? Asking questions - seeking truth about God has been commended throughout scripture, so I am eager to learn and eager to be taught when the opportunity is given. If I don't know something about my faith I hope other christians will allow me my ignorance and just help me find the answer instead of being afraid that someone who isn't a believer might find out that we all have unanswered questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me Jesus (if he existed) was "the" messiah but "a" messiah, one of countless. As long as man is in spiritual slumber there is always gonna be a need for sages and enlightened ones to awaken us. Sri Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi in my (and Carl Jung's) are modern prophets. Hence Jesus, Buddha, Krisha, Lao tzu, meister eckhart etc are all the same though their context and approach to the truth is different.

Between the spiritual world and the world of substance there is a path upon which we walk in swoon of slumber. It reaches us and we are unaware of its strength, and when we return to ourselves we find that we are carrying with our real hands the seeds to be planted carefully in the good earth of our daily lives, bringing forth good deeds and words of beauty. Were it not for that path between our lives and the departed lives, no prophet or pet or learned man would have appeared among the people.

---Kahlil Gibran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a point moonlit: I am not a christian.

Further, I may be misinterpreting Iams post, but it looks to me that it was he who was concerned about revealing a believers doubts to the NB population.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and letting the non-beleivers see any descension in the ranks..........

Mmmmmm, seems you could have sent the lad a PM, instead of posting here.

;)

I'm glad I saw the winking smilie, because, it must be a joke. Obviously if I was actually concerned about "dissension in the ranks" I would have sent a PM or something.

JM, Christians, including me, do have a sense of humor, you know. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think that the two genealogies were representative of Mary's and Joseph's lineage. There is some basis in scripture for this, considering that the account of Matthew's genealogy includes 4 women, but I think it less likely, considering that nowhere else has this ever happened and apart from the 4 women mentioned in Matthew 1, there is no textual basis for this belief.

I think it is probably more likely that the authors of the two genealogies acted on another custom within writing - skipping generations for the sake of brevity. This saves on the amount of parchment used, which is considerably expensive. I don't think people today understand exactly how much a piece of parchment cost. It's not like walking down to the supermarket and buying an exercise book.

It is a common tool amongst ancient writers to establish only enough to prove the lineage, and then leave it at that. Considering that neither Matthew or Luke were written as part of Official Records (which needs to be meticulous), there was no need to write every generation down, just enough to prove that Jesus came from the line of David. This seems more likely to me than the Mary/Joseph lineage idea.

~ PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women were not respected, but Mary and the others that were with Jesus were loved and respected by the followers of Jesus. Jesus taught his disciples as well as the rest of us to care for the people that others thaough were useless or worthless. It is quite conceivable that the writers of Matthew and Luke were very interested in Mary's lineage as well as Joseph's as the prophecies related to the Messiah were well known by the Jewish population, and the disciples loved and cared for Mary after Jesus ascended. They would have wanted to know Mary's background as well as Joseph's.

Except Mary's background wouldn't have mattered. God followed customs of the Jews all the way till Jesus? Then he made a change and decided to go through women? I don't think so.

Nathan was also David's son. The scripture reference you have provided does not say Solomon. Secondly, according to the law Jesus was the "biological" son of Joseph because he Joseph claimed him as such. It was not neccessary to prove that Mary was impregnated by Joseph as that could only be substantiated by the man in question at that time in history. Joseph being descended from the line of Jeconiah in no way disproves the prophecy because Jesus was not a blood relative of Joseph. There was the natural and there was the legal - both fulfilled perfect through God's design.

Even if you were to interpret scripture in Solomon's favor it would still be that legally Jesus was royal because Joseph was royal and Mary being also a descendent of the sons of David had inherited the right to the throne by marriage to the royal line.

PS - Why would I use more non-christian sources than christian to explain christ? :huh:

God spoke to David and made his covenant with David. He said to David that the one who builds a house for God's name (Solomon's Temple) and through the one who did that (Solomon) God would preserve David's throne. If Nathan was important in that matter, Nathan would be mentioned,but Nathan's line holds no significant importance in 1 Chr. The promise in question is in 2 Samuel 7:13 "He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his Kingdom forever." I don't know about what your Bible says, but in mine, Solomon built the temple NOT Nathan.

I used to think that the two genealogies were representative of Mary's and Joseph's lineage. There is some basis in scripture for this, considering that the account of Matthew's genealogy includes 4 women, but I think it less likely, considering that nowhere else has this ever happened and apart from the 4 women mentioned in Matthew 1, there is no textual basis for this belief.

I think it is probably more likely that the authors of the two genealogies acted on another custom within writing - skipping generations for the sake of brevity. This saves on the amount of parchment used, which is considerably expensive. I don't think people today understand exactly how much a piece of parchment cost. It's not like walking down to the supermarket and buying an exercise book.

It is a common tool amongst ancient writers to establish only enough to prove the lineage, and then leave it at that. Considering that neither Matthew or Luke were written as part of Official Records (which needs to be meticulous), there was no need to write every generation down, just enough to prove that Jesus came from the line of David. This seems more likely to me than the Mary/Joseph lineage idea.

~ PA

Yes, but even so, skipping generations (which they did in fact do) is something that shouldn't be done when discussing the Messiah, I mean, that's a bit important for you to be lazy about it. The whole Mary's lineage thing is a big jump and it is the only real way that could establish Jesus's Messiahship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this does matter, for a matter of Record: If Joseph was not going to be accepted as the biological father of Jesus - then the records would still how that Mary was in the line and family of David as well, thus - Jesus was still the Son Of David - no matter which parentage you look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this does matter, for a matter of Record: If Joseph was not going to be accepted as the biological father of Jesus - then the records would still how that Mary was in the line and family of David as well, thus - Jesus was still the Son Of David - no matter which parentage you look at.

Even so, the Messiah is prophesied to come from Solomon, NOT Nathan (as Luke's Gospel proclaims Mary (if that's even her lineage) is from). Solomon and his descendants held the royal lineage for Israel, NOT Nathan or any other child of David's.

Edited by Knight of Zion (COI)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Genealogy of Jesus.

I was studying my Bible, and I came across some things in the Bible (the NT) pertaining to the Messiah-ship of Christ based on his genealogy. According to his genealogy, Jesus cannot be the Messiah. I am confused about this.

Does Jesus fit the mold of the Jewish Messiah? The Jews believe:

1. The Jewish Messiah will not be divine.

2. The Jewish Messiah will not be crucified.

3. The Jewish Messiah will not be a sin-sacrafice.

4. The Jewish Messiah will not have to go through a resurrection.

5. The Jewish Messiah will not die and return in a "second coming."

Et al.

Jewish Belief in Messiah

The Jewish Concept of Messiah and

the Jewish Response to Christian Claims

1) The word “Messiah” is an English rendering of the Hebrew word “Mashiach”, whose translation is “Anointed”. It usually refers to a person initiated into G-d’s service by being anointed with oil. (Having oil poured on his head. Cf. Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3).

2) There are many Messiahs in the Bible. Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as “an anointed one” (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: “G-d forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the L-rd’s Messiah [saul]...” I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6.

3) The Hebrew word “HaMashiach” (lit. the Messiah) describing a future anointed person to come does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Since the Bible makes no explicit reference to the Messiah, it is unlikely that it could be considered the most important concept in the Bible. Indeed, in Jewish thought, the Messianic idea is not the most crucial. However, in Christian thought, the Messiah is paramount- a difficulty in light of its conspicuous absence from scripture.

4) Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of G-d. Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34.

5) Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5.

6) Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed one as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.

7) The Bible never speaks about believing in the Messiah. Because his reign will be an historically verifiable reality, self-evident to any person, it won’t require belief or faith.

8) Because no person has ever fulfilled the picture painted in the Bible of this future King, Jewish people still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

9) The claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his “first” coming. The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance. The “second coming” theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure. The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as second coming (#5 above) don’t speak of someone returning, they have a “first coming” perspective.

10) According to Biblical tradition, Elijah the prophet will reappear before the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5-6). In the Greek Testament, Jesus claims that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-14, 17:10-13). However, when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he denied it (John 1:21). The Gospel of Luke 1:17 tries to get around this problem by claiming that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. However:

a] Malachi predicted that Elijah himself would return, and not just someone coming in his spirit.

b] When asked about his identity, John the Baptist didn’t claim to have come in the spirit of Elijah - he claimed no association with Elijah at all.

c] The prophesy about the return of Elijah says that he would restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. There is no evidence that John the Baptist accomplished this.

11) According to the Jewish Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of King David. (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

B) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14;

I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

If you have questions about what Judaism has said about the promised Messiah for the last three millenia or want to know how to answer the Christian claims, please check out our website: www.jewsforjudaism.org, drop us a line or give us a call. The concept of Messiah is Jewish. To find out about it go to the source.

SOURCE

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/gene...shresponse.html

... You must not imagine that the messiah must prove his messianity by signs and miracles, doing something unexpected, bringing the dead to life, or similar things. The principle thing is this: the statutes and precepts of our Torah remain forever, and nothing can be added to them or taken from them.

If, therefore, a descendant of David earnestly studies the Torah, observes what the written and oral Torah enjoins, causes all Israelites to act similarly, exhorts those who are lax in the performance of the commandments, and fights the wars of the L-rd, he may possibly be the messiah. If he does not succeed, or is killed in war, it is certain that he is not the messiah promised in the Torah. He is like all the other noble and good kings of the House of David who have died, and God only caused him to rise in order to try us thereby, as it is said, `And of the wise some will stumble, and through them the people will be tested, purified, and made white, till the time of the end comes; for there is yet a vision for an appointed time.' (Dan. 11:35)...

SOURCE: Jewish Belief in Messiah

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/gene...iah-belief.html

So, did Jesus even remotely meet the criteria for the Jewish Messiah? No! Not even close!

Messiah: The Criteria

Judge for yourself: Did Jesus fulfill ALL these criteria?

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/gene...criteria02.html

Kindly,

Sean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus was not the Messiah King the Jews expected. He turned out to be even more than they could comprehend, being one appearance of the ever-coming and redeeming Logos.

Peace,

RadicalGnostic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Jesus fit the mold of the Jewish Messiah? The Jews believe:

1. The Jewish Messiah will not be divine.

2. The Jewish Messiah will not be crucified.

3. The Jewish Messiah will not be a sin-sacrafice.

4. The Jewish Messiah will not have to go through a resurrection.

5. The Jewish Messiah will not die and return in a "second coming."

Et al.

Jewish Belief in Messiah

The Jewish Concept of Messiah and

the Jewish Response to Christian Claims

1) The word “Messiah” is an English rendering of the Hebrew word “Mashiach”, whose translation is “Anointed”. It usually refers to a person initiated into G-d’s service by being anointed with oil. (Having oil poured on his head. Cf. Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3).

2) There are many Messiahs in the Bible. Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as “an anointed one” (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: “G-d forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the L-rd’s Messiah [saul]...” I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6.

3) The Hebrew word “HaMashiach” (lit. the Messiah) describing a future anointed person to come does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Since the Bible makes no explicit reference to the Messiah, it is unlikely that it could be considered the most important concept in the Bible. Indeed, in Jewish thought, the Messianic idea is not the most crucial. However, in Christian thought, the Messiah is paramount- a difficulty in light of its conspicuous absence from scripture.

4) Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of G-d. Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34.

5) Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5.

6) Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed one as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.

7) The Bible never speaks about believing in the Messiah. Because his reign will be an historically verifiable reality, self-evident to any person, it won’t require belief or faith.

8) Because no person has ever fulfilled the picture painted in the Bible of this future King, Jewish people still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

9) The claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his “first” coming. The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance. The “second coming” theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure. The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as second coming (#5 above) don’t speak of someone returning, they have a “first coming” perspective.

10) According to Biblical tradition, Elijah the prophet will reappear before the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5-6). In the Greek Testament, Jesus claims that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-14, 17:10-13). However, when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he denied it (John 1:21). The Gospel of Luke 1:17 tries to get around this problem by claiming that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. However:

a] Malachi predicted that Elijah himself would return, and not just someone coming in his spirit.

b] When asked about his identity, John the Baptist didn’t claim to have come in the spirit of Elijah - he claimed no association with Elijah at all.

c] The prophesy about the return of Elijah says that he would restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. There is no evidence that John the Baptist accomplished this.

11) According to the Jewish Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of King David. (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

B) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14;

I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

If you have questions about what Judaism has said about the promised Messiah for the last three millenia or want to know how to answer the Christian claims, please check out our website: www.jewsforjudaism.org, drop us a line or give us a call. The concept of Messiah is Jewish. To find out about it go to the source.

SOURCE

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/gene...shresponse.html

... You must not imagine that the messiah must prove his messianity by signs and miracles, doing something unexpected, bringing the dead to life, or similar things. The principle thing is this: the statutes and precepts of our Torah remain forever, and nothing can be added to them or taken from them.

If, therefore, a descendant of David earnestly studies the Torah, observes what the written and oral Torah enjoins, causes all Israelites to act similarly, exhorts those who are lax in the performance of the commandments, and fights the wars of the L-rd, he may possibly be the messiah. If he does not succeed, or is killed in war, it is certain that he is not the messiah promised in the Torah. He is like all the other noble and good kings of the House of David who have died, and God only caused him to rise in order to try us thereby, as it is said, `And of the wise some will stumble, and through them the people will be tested, purified, and made white, till the time of the end comes; for there is yet a vision for an appointed time.' (Dan. 11:35)...

SOURCE: Jewish Belief in Messiah

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/gene...iah-belief.html

So, did Jesus even remotely meet the criteria for the Jewish Messiah? No! Not even close!

Messiah: The Criteria

Judge for yourself: Did Jesus fulfill ALL these criteria?

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/gene...criteria02.html

Kindly,

Sean

of course Judaist Jews are going to say he wasn't the Messiah. They killed him.

http://www.messiahrevealed.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic has been argued before, but in the end, Jesus Christ is God, not just a mere messiah, which is a saviour of the Jewish people from their enemies... Perhaps over zealous, early Christians wanted to tie in Jesus with this messiah concept to gain more followers -- who knows??? You know the old saying: "If you want it bad enough..." Thank God I'm a 21st century Christian... I'm sure if you ask seanph kindly, he'll give you enough articles to convice you why Jesus Christ is not a mere messiah for the Jewish people. Besides, they are always a good read, and logical. And regardless, Jesus Christ is God, at least to me, with or without the NT.

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me– just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." - John 10:14-16 (NIV)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course Judaist Jews are going to say he wasn't the Messiah. They killed him.

Wow, how completely wrong this statement is. The Jews did not kill Jesus, it was the Romans, and they killed him because he said he was king of the jews, which would be opposing caesar. Funny how antisemitic the NT is.

Jesus' biological father was God. As it's his law, I'm pretty sure he can nominate which tribe he wants to belong to.

True, God can do anything he wants. But why would God tell his own people that the messiah would be a descendant of David (through Solomon), and not say that it would be of God's miraculous birth to a woman?

Nathan was also David's son. The scripture reference you have provided does not say Solomon

"And when your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever"

(Solomon's temple, not Nathan's)

Secondly, according to the law Jesus was the "biological" son of Joseph because he Joseph claimed him as such.

I don't know what you are trying to get at. If I adopt a kid from China and I say he is my son, is he my biological son

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Genealogy of Jesus.

I was studying my Bible, and I came across some things in the Bible (the NT) pertaining to the Messiah-ship of Christ based on his genealogy. According to his genealogy, Jesus cannot be the Messiah. I am confused about this.

What do we say about this? The Bible says (based on genealogies) that Jesus is not the Messiah.

1. Luke's version-Jesus descended from Nathan but the Messiah MUST descend from Solomon (1 Chronicles 28:6-7), therefore according to Luke's genealogy Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

2. Matthew's version-Jesus descends from Jeconiah who is cursed to be childless (Jeremiah 22:28-30).

So based on Luke's Genealogy according to the Bible if Jesus descended from Nathan (Son of David) than he CANNOT be the Messiah. Based on Luke's genealogy if Jesus came from Jeconiah-- no wait, he can't come from Jechoniah because God cursed Jeconiah to be childless.

Now I am confused about the Messiah....

I think of this, and feel like a liar. Here on UM I have been spreading the words of Christ. However, according to the Bible I have lied....I am now confused. Yes, I follow God, but this post caused me to wonder about Christ. Because after that post I was forced to re-evaluate my relationship with God. I have come to realize that in my speaking with God Christ has not been mentioned. God and I have spoken many times before about Salvation, and he talks of himself. He says nothing to me of Jesus. Now I am beginning to feel that I have been a victim of tradition and indoctrination, that in order to remain friendly with those Christian who are my friends I have input Christ into my experiences, only to find that I have tricked myself. That this Christ has had nothing to do with my experiences. Yes, I have absolutely definitely experienced God. I KNOW that I have experienced God. But have I experienced Christ? Not directly. Now am I forced to re-evaluate and wonder.

Joseph came from Jeconiah, Mary came from Nathan. The promise of the Messiah was not solely rooted in Solomon (from whom Jeconiah descended from), but was rooted in David. David had a son called Nathan. Thus did Jesus, through Mary's Line, inherit the throne of David. Solomon was unfaithful and Jeconiah's line was cut off. Nathan's line was used instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, how completely wrong this statement is. The Jews did not kill Jesus, it was the Romans, and they killed him because he said he was king of the jews, which would be opposing caesar. Funny how antisemitic the NT is.

True, God can do anything he wants. But why would God tell his own people that the messiah would be a descendant of David (through Solomon), and not say that it would be of God's miraculous birth to a woman?

"And when your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever"

(Solomon's temple, not Nathan's)

I don't know what you are trying to get at. If I adopt a kid from China and I say he is my son, is he my biological son

Actually, the Temple of Solomon was destroyed as was Jerusalem. The Jews were exiled twice as well. Solomon's kingdom has never been the same since then because of Solomon's unfaithfulness. Notice that the promise to David that you quoted is different than the covenant made with Solomon. Observe:

"And the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, [and] wilt keep my statutes and my judgments:

Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

[but] if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments [and] my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them:

Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people:

And at this house, [which] is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and to this house?

And they shall answer, Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil."

1 Kings 9:3-9

Notice that with David was an unconditional promise to the covenant, but with Solomon was there a condition; and it was not met. So thus the Messianic promise passed from Solomon to another Son of David's; Nathan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the Temple of Solomon was destroyed as was Jerusalem. The Jews were exiled twice as well. Solomon's kingdom has never been the same since then because of Solomon's unfaithfulness. Notice that the promise to David that you quoted is different than the covenant made with Solomon. Observe:

"And the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, [and] wilt keep my statutes and my judgments:

Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

[but] if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments [and] my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them:

Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people:

And at this house, [which] is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and to this house?

And they shall answer, Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil."

1 Kings 9:3-9

Notice that with David was an unconditional promise to the covenant, but with Solomon was there a condition; and it was not met. So thus the Messianic promise passed from Solomon to another Son of David's; Nathan.

Not only was the temple rebuilt, but it was rebuilt by ancestors of Mary. Technically then, the temple that was built by Ezra, and Zerubabel could be considered the temple of which God spoke. I am not saying this is my belief, just that it is a legitimate argument.

Additonally, it is not incorrect to say that the Jews were the ones who crucified Jesus, because Pilot, of the Romans, didn't want to and instead offered to release either Jesus or a thief named Barabas back to the people. The people chose to have Barabas and they cried for Jesus to be crucified. This was not a group of Romans it was a group of Jews. That being said, it does not matter really who it was that wanted Jesus to die because we all have chosen to reject Him in some form, at some time of our lives - effectively crucifying Him.

PS It was the Jewish leadership that arrested Jesus in the first place - not the Romans.

Incidentally, to say that women were non-entities in the Bible is incorrect. Women such as Ruth, Tamar, Deborah, Rahab, Bathsheba, Esther, and more were immensely important to old and new testament scripture and were included in lineages throughout scripiture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, how completely wrong this statement is. The Jews did not kill Jesus, it was the Romans, and they killed him because he said he was king of the jews, which would be opposing caesar. Funny how antisemitic the NT is.

True, God can do anything he wants. But why would God tell his own people that the messiah would be a descendant of David (through Solomon), and not say that it would be of God's miraculous birth to a woman?

"And when your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever"

(Solomon's temple, not Nathan's)

I don't know what you are trying to get at. If I adopt a kid from China and I say he is my son, is he my biological son

Prophecy in the Old testament did refer to the virgin birth in several places. He did say a descendent of David, but not specifically of Solomon.

Joseph did not have to prove paternity - for the doctor or the judge. God sent Jesus "... not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it..." - so if Joseph said Jesus was his son, Jesus was his son. Joseph, Mary, Elizabeth, John, Zachariah, and perhaps several others knew who Jesus really was, but there is no indication of anyone outside of the family knowing his paternity until He chose to reveal it as an adult.

Jesus knew from a very young age according to scripture what His purpose on earth was, so it in no way detracts from His character that He would forsake the trade of carpentry for the work of the Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

In Luke, and in Ezra, the father of Zerubabel is Shealtiel. In Matthew the father of Zerubabel was Salathiel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, to say that women were non-entities in the Bible is incorrect. Women such as Ruth, Tamar, Deborah, Rahab, Bathsheba, Esther, and more were immensely important to old and new testament scripture and were included in lineages throughout scripiture.

They were included in lineages, but what are their own lineages?

Who was Ruths great great grandfather?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes thats what my faith teaches and what i believe! :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph came from Jeconiah, Mary came from Nathan. The promise of the Messiah was not solely rooted in Solomon (from whom Jeconiah descended from), but was rooted in David. David had a son called Nathan. Thus did Jesus, through Mary's Line, inherit the throne of David. Solomon was unfaithful and Jeconiah's line was cut off. Nathan's line was used instead.

Nathan's line was not used. In fact, with the exception of the sole mention in 1 Chronicles where he is listed as David's son there is no reference to him whatsoever let alone as a King of Israel. Not only that, Solomon's line held the royal throne until exile.

Prophecy in the Old testament did refer to the virgin birth in several places. He did say a descendent of David, but not specifically of Solomon.

Joseph did not have to prove paternity - for the doctor or the judge. God sent Jesus "... not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it..." - so if Joseph said Jesus was his son, Jesus was his son. Joseph, Mary, Elizabeth, John, Zachariah, and perhaps several others knew who Jesus really was, but there is no indication of anyone outside of the family knowing his paternity until He chose to reveal it as an adult.

Jesus knew from a very young age according to scripture what His purpose on earth was, so it in no way detracts from His character that He would forsake the trade of carpentry for the work of the Father.

Actually it did say through Solomon. 2 Samuel 7 is the covenant God made with David speaking that he would establish the throne through the one who built the temple in the name of HaShem, this was Solomon.

I am looking for clear cut Truth, which is found plenty of times in the OT. I DOUBT that (due to God's track record of being meticulous and flawless with his miracles in the OT) God would wait until the single most important event in history to be sloppy. I have received nothing more than broad jumps, speculation, assumptions, and out of context verses from Christians who seek to edify the Messiahship of Jesus, however that is not good enough as is God didn't need people to assume and speculate when he worked in the OT. All the assuming, secrecy, and speculative conclusions began in the New Testament. Realizing this, I cannot count on any Christian to provide me with concrete proof of Christ's messiahship therefore I must turn to those who with Truth of HaShem lies, the Jews. After speaking with a couple Rabbi's about the topic of Jesus's Messiahship I can at this point solely conclude that Christ is NOT the Messiah. Such conclusion will remain in effect until anyone can provide me with solid scriptural evidence that Jesus is the Messiah.

Sincerely,

The Knight (COI)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.