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

Quite correct. Which leaves another conumdrum that has to be explained away.To be of 'The seed of David', the person has to be of a direct line male decendent without a break in the lineage. Therefore, the lineage would have to go THROUGH Joseph. If Joseph was NOT the father, then Jesus would be the status of a Mamzer, and would not have been allowed in the temple.Combine this with the disagreement about Jesus birth date between Matthew and Luke, the two vastly differet nativity stories, the discrepency between Matthew and Lukes geneologies, you can see why the author of 2 timothy warned against being worried about endless geneologies.

The problem with trying to claim Mary's lineage for Jesus to make him the messiah that way is twofold.The first one is that BOTH matthew and Luke specificallly mention Joseph. The second one, according to Jewish expections about the Messiah, and the Jewish laws of Kingly and Priestly inheritance, the lineage has to go through the male line.

Except, the Jews were looking for the an earthy king to drive out the invaders.Messiah is a term meaning "Annointed one", and is specificaly refering to a King of Israel. There were two annointed ones in Jewish society.One was the King. The other was the High Priest of the temple. The Jews during that time period were waiting for a King of their own, not a puppet installed by the Romans, to get the Romans out of Juddah, and lead Juddah to greatness.The change about the expectations of wht the messiah was goign to be happened when Gentiles came in, and after the destruction of the temple.So, the belief you mentioned might be true from a Christian perspective, but it was not true for the Jews of the first half of the first century in Israel.

Yes, matthew did comb the Tankah for all sorts of out of context phrases to make it look like a prophecy. He also had the most silly story about Jesus ridding a donkey and a horse at the SAME TIME, as well as dead people walking around Jerusalum.Your point?

And exactly where is Jesus refered to as 'The son of david' in the New testament?And how does that matter at all when it comes to the objections that were raised about the geneologies of Jesus as presented by Matthew and Luke, and how does that relate to the fact that the 1st century Jews were looking for a direct male decendant by blood (unbroken line) from
David?

quote:

---

Where in the New Testament do the enemies of Christ and His claims raise the issue of his Davidic blood line?

---

It was not in the interest of the Christians to bring that up.. and it entirely irrelavent to the issue at hand. Mind you it is being brought up because of the descrepancies between Matthew and Luke,and the Jewish law and culture, but that is besides the point. However, you made a speccific claim. That claim is

quote:

---

Christ is refered to as the Son of David many times in the New Testament. The claim is not restricted to the geneology.

---

I am asking you to back up that claim. Chapter and verse.

How ever said that it was? You mean we can not use our OWN intelligence to see descrepancies that have to be explained away , and we can't take a look at those explainations, and see if it makes sense in the historical context of the Jewish culture at the time.As for your references about where Jesus was called the 'Son of David'.. I will review.

1) Luke does not match Matthew.
2) Matthew goes through a cursed line.
3) Both got through Joseph, who is NOT Jesus's father. That violates Jewish law when it comes to the Royal lineage.4) The trial of Jesus violates Sandahred law when it comes to the amount of time a trial should take place for a capital case, the day a trial can take place (sabbath and high holy days), the due process of law that is required of a capital case.
5) The execution method is not one that is allowed under Jewish law.
6) The character of pontius pilate is 100% at odds with the records we have about him from that time period.Other things too.

Because, the expectiation for a 'messiah' to deliever israel from oppression did not develop until later. THere were many messiah's in Israel. Solomon was one . Cyrus (a non jew) was another. The term 'messaih' means annointed one, which referes to being blessed by a ceremony with oil in the temple.The expectation of the Messiah I think developed in the second century b.c.e... when the Jews were beign oppressed by Antioch. The expectation was that the Messiah (the king of Israel from the david line,i.e. home grown), who would free israel from oppression. They expected and were looking for a HUMAN king.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Yes, there is.The bloodline as given from Joespeh is not theproper blood line. If you look at 1 Chronicals 22:9, to be of the bloodline of David, you have to be decended through Solomon.In Jeremiah 22:24, you will see that anybody who is decended from Jeconiah is cursed, and therefore can not be a 'Son of David' so to speak.The lineage of Matthew for Jesus has Joesph being decesnded from Jeconiah. Therefore, by the lineage of Jesus by Joesph, he could not have been the messiah.