Why NOT Christ Lineage through Joesph's boodline, Instead of Judah's

If you check the spelling of a word at dictionary.com, and perhaps even use cut and paste, nobody expects you to give a reference for that. Nobody expects you to give a reference to your elementary school teacher for your most basic knowledge.Generally if you have to look something up when writing a message, you probably should give a reference, except in trivial cases such as looking up the spelling. Yes, there is a question of judgement as to exactly where the border is. In the case of Message 26, I agree with Brian that a reference was clearly appropriate.Don't take this as criticism. Take it as an attempt to be helpful. To those of use in universities, appropriate quoting is part of the scholarly tradition. For a lot of other people, it does not come as naturally.

Well,That basicallly is a strawman arguement. First of all, it didn't say that all messiahs were the 'son of david'. You are very much misinterpreting my words.Second of all, I was pointing out that the claim for his being of david decent is totally irrelavent, since the Jewish expectation is that the david decent would be through the unbroken male line (son to son, no daughters), and both geneologies are through Jospeh. Yet, according to those very same gospels, Jospeh was NOT Jesus's father.This puts Jesus in the predictament of not being the son of his mothers husband. This makes him ritualistically unclean, unable to go into the Temple, and unqualified to be a messiah at all.This leaves us with several options. One, the two contradictory gospels about the birth and ancestory of Jesus are both wrong. Or, if one of those stories about Joseph not being the father is right, Jesus is disqualified in Jewish eyes from being the Messiah.My personal opninon is that since there evidence that both the Author of LUke and Matthew were not from Jerusalum, I suspect they were catoring to gentile converts that use the concept of 'virgin birth' as being a sign of divinity.

or, as pd suggested a while back, matthew is actually a jewish text that's meant to be satire, taking things ridiculously out of context and purposefully "misunderstanding" certain things for humor's sake.luke simply collected gospels of the time and compiled -- this might have included matthews. out of curiosity, can you provide the standard jewish requirments for being "the" messiah, and where they come from (biblically or otherwise)?

---

אָרַח

I can give some of them.. Of course, in my opinion, just like the Christian concept of the messiah, I see the Jewish concept of the messiah being retrofitted onto earlier writings. My personal view is the concept of a 'Messiah' developed in response to the nation of Israel being taken over by outside forces, and the hope to be able to
get home rule again. The only book that the messanic asperations MIGHT not be retrofitted on woudl be the Book of Daniel, which was written/and or compiled in the second century b.c.e. in response to the oppression of Antioch against the Jews. (IMO of course)

quote:

---

The successful candidate will have attributes that must include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

​

1. Be the seed (a direct descendant through the unbroken male line) of King David, through King Solomon (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16; Is 11:1; Jer 23:5, 30:9, 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24)
2. Be a spiritual and military/political leader (e.g., Is 2:3, 11:2; Dan 7:14)
3. Be married and have children during his term (e.g., Ezek 46:16-17)

​

All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among the nations to their home in Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). The law of the Jubilee will be reinstated

---

I am sure there are others, and I am sure there is disagreement about what is 'messanic' and what isn't.

Ramoss, The Jewish expectation is one thing. What God did is something else.The Jewish expectation was that Moses would come and immediatly deliver the Israelites from Pharoah. When Pharoah's reaction was to encrease the amount of daily slave work they had to do thier expectation turned to anger toward Moses.There are many instances in the Bible where the Jewish, or Christian for that matter, expectation is full of human opinions about the way God will fulfill His will.So I don't think the major thing to consider here is what the "Jewish expectation" was. It may have some part to play. But God's word and how God fulfills His word transcends the "Jewish expectation."This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-07-2006 10:25 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-07-2006 10:26 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-07-2006 10:27 AM

Ramoss, You have to be joking of course.Jesus was the house of God. He is the man in whom God lives.
According to Isaish's prophecy God would look for the right kind of man within whom to dwell. And this man in whom God lives would suffice for the house of God:"Thus says Jehovah, Heaven is my throne, And the earth is the footstool for My feet. Where then is the house that you will build for Me, And where is the place of My rest?

​

For all these things My hand has made, ... But to this kind of man will I look, to him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word." (Isaiah 66:1,2)The house that God would have cannot be built by man of any material things. God told David the same thing, that is that He did not ask David to build Him a house of cedar.The house on earth in which God would live is the right kind of man. And that man was Jesus of Nazareth Who was God incarnated in a man. Within Him God finds a house and with Him God finds His rest.It is really sad that you are stuck on the rituals and bloodline arguments of questionable sources and seem to totally miss that Jesus was the human, living dwelling place of the Father.And He taught as much:"And He said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, You shall see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man" (John 1:51)This word of Jesus refered back to Jacob's dream of the house of God - Bethel, in Genesis 28:11-22. By this word Jesus was teaching that He was the reality of the house of God - Bethel. He was the man in whom God had a house and in Whom God found His rest.Latter He tells His opposers that if they destroy this temple in three days He would raise it up. But He spoke of the temple of His body. Being crucified He did rise on the third day.Just as God spoke through Isaiah the prophet, the house that God would have ultimately is the house with man, an in which God indwells man. Jesus Christ is the courner stone of this house that God is building with man as the dwelling place.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-07-2006 10:45 AM

That is true. However, we are not talking about what 'God' did or did not do, but rather not Christ's lineage through Joesph's bloodline, instead of Isreal.The Jewish expectations of that time period would make up a good part of the mind set of the early christians, particularly those of Jewish decent. The beliefs of those that wrote what they thought the lineage is does matter. It gives a clue on the expectations of who wrote the various passages, and the reasons for their justifications. After all, both Matthew and Luke have different lineages, but both explicitiy put the geneology through Joeseph. If you understand that the expectation was that it had to be through the unbroken male line, you will realise that trying to say one lineage is Mary's does not match the historical expections, or the historical laws dealing with what is called 'seed of David'.And of course, there will always be disagreement about what 'GOD' did or did not do.And, no, I am not joking. Your out of context quote from Isaiah is not
considered a messanic passage except by a few minority of the Jews, and does not address the issue of clean vs unclean when entering the temple at all, or the fitness of someone to become king.This message has been edited by ramoss, 01-07-2006 11:43 AM

Hi Jay, Only Jews or the Hebrews as well?What are you basing this on? Of course, God made it impossible for the pharaoh to agree to let the Hebrews go by hardening his heart. Yahweh wanted to flex a bit of divine muscle, He was intent on murdering thousands of innocent Egyptian men, women and children. But, there’s still no bloodline from Jesus to Solomon, do you think that matters or not?Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 01-07-2006 04:04 PM

Ramoss,I don't think that you are sincerely interested in Orthodox Judiasm. Are you a practicing Orthodox Jew?I think like many others you are interested in just enough Judiasm as to give an appearance of credence to your dismissal of the gospel of Jesus Christ.Well, in this short life that we have we all must eventually trust someone.Paul was a vehement opposer to the Christian church. As a trained Pharisee brought up as a pupil of Gameliel, a doctor of the law of Moses (Acts 5:34; 22:3). I don't think that you could match Saul of Tarsus in either vehemence against the claims of Jesus or in knowledge of the religion of the Jews.This man obtained mercy from God and became a Christian. The Jews had to appoint a special orator to counter him in a public trial because they knew that he was quite knowledgeable. And he had a reputation of great learning:"And as he [Paul] was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, You are insane, Paul. Much learning is driving you insane." (Acts 27:24)This man was 2,000 years closer to the events then you, or I, or any other person writing on this forum. Not one of us could match his absoluteness to defend Judaism from the newly arrived Christian faith. If there were tensions in doctrines between Judaism and the Christians I am sure that Saul of Tarsus was quite more aware of them then you will ever be.Saul of Tarsus became an apostle of the Christian church. And this is what he had to say about Christ:"Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, a called apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

​

Which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh,

​

Who was designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness out of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:1-4)Now you can trust in your Jesus Seminar, or your infidels websites, or your Passover Plot, or whatever you want to put your trust in.As for me I'm putting my trust in what this zealous, church opposing rabbinical Pharisee, turned apostle wrote. Jesus Christ "came out of the seed of David according to the flesh."You want to believe that Paul needs to sit at your feet and learn a thing or two about David's ancestry. But I trust what this Jew and Christian apostle wrote. I'm running with Jesus was "out of the seed of David according to the flesh," as is stated by God's apostle.You think you have it right and the Bible has it wrong? You go ahead and run with that. I trust the Bible.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-07-2006 06:56 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-07-2006 06:59 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-07-2006 07:00 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-07-2006 07:01 PM

uh, no. i think he's jewish. as in, by birth.

---

אָרַח

"... the gospel of God ... Concerning His Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh ..." (Romans 1:3)I trust the Apostle Paul's word over your word. That's pretty much the end of the matter for me.If it comes down to a difference between God's revelation and your opinion, I'll side with God's revelation. God knows all the facts. Whereas your opinion is just your invention.

Uh, some jews by birth practice orthodox Judiasm and some jews by birth, uh, ignore it.

quote:

---

I don't think that you are sincerely interested in Orthodox Judiasm. Are you a practicing Orthodox Jew?

​

I think like many others you are interested in just enough Judiasm as to give an appearance of credence to your dismissal of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

---

Totally irrelavent to the discussion and the evidence. Do you wish to discuss the evidence, or do you wish to discredit what I say based on my religious heritage?

quote:

---

Paul was a vehement opposer to the Christian church. As a trained Pharisee brought up as a pupil of Gameliel, a doctor of the law of Moses (Acts 5:34; 22:3). I don't think that you could match Saul of Tarsus in either vehemence against the claims of Jesus or in knowledge of the religion of the Jews.

​

This man obtained mercy from God and became a Christian. The Jews had to appoint a special orator to counter him in a public trial because they knew that he was quite knowledgeable. And he had a reputation of great learning:

​

"And as he [Paul] was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, You are insane, Paul. Much learning is driving you insane." (Acts 27:24)

---

Also totally irrelavent to the discussion at hand, and that is the issue of why is the bloodline of Jesus important to go through Jospeh.Paul also did not write the Gospel of Luke, Paul did not write the Gospel of Matthew. Supposedly Paul was executed just before the Jewish revolt (although this is not too clear exactly), and both Matthew and Luke were written after his death. So, any discussion of what Paul might or might not have said about the subject is heresy at best. His letters do not discuss that.And you might claim that it is claims that Jesus is the son of David. It might be so. However, from the examination of the Christian beliefs about jesus as written about his bloodline in Matthew and Luke, and comparing them to the Jewish laws about what someone of the Seed of David would be, there is a contradiction.

yes, that is true. but he's still jewish -- how faithful someone is is not relevant to the debate. any debate, ever.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-07-2006 09:20 PM

---

אָרַח

I've had my bar mitzvah and everything, even.So, it is more than just by birth. It was being brought up in the Jewish religion.