Reasons Jews Reject Jesus

[Mr E]

See post 223.

I made references to Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 20:17, and Ezekiel 22:11, Romans 8; Galatians 4; Ephesians 1:5, etc.

Ah- thank you.... I did read it and dismissed it on it's face. I'll look now at the references-- I generally skip over copy/paste insertions from others, along with 2 hour-long videos.

Here is why I so quickly dismissed what you were proposing below-- it doesn't apply.

APOLOGY. Many times in Scripture the issues of step-children or illegitimate children are implied to qualify as children of the parent. If not for God, Sara's plan to have Abraham father a child illegitimately would have worked from a certain point of view. Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah when he consented to marry Rachel. This fraud did not invalidate the marriage or the children that came from that fraudulent union. Moses was adopted by Pharaoh. And we can detail the many other times the issue of step-children or illegitimate children are implied to qualify as children of the parent.

Consider this. Scripture says that a man may not have sex with a stepdaughter for that would be incest, even though she is not of his own blood. The passages are Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 20:17, and Ezekiel 22:11. Those who are saved are adopted by God (Romans 8; Galatians 4; Ephesians 1:5), then it is clear that God treats the adopted children (and one would presume stepchildren if it were possible) the same as the natural son. If God treats us that way, then we ought to treat children who are not our birth-children the same as if they were.

Your examples:

Sara did have Hagar father children through Abraham. The mother was Hagar, an Egyptian. The children were never considered to be Jewish (Hebrew) even though their Father was what we loosely refer to today as Jewish-- direct descendants from the man they call 'our Father Abraham.' Why? Because the Father seeded an Egyptian. Only the line that came from Abraham through Sara were the children of the promise as far as Jews are concerned. These were not adopted children through Hagar-- they were his actual sons--- but the line of David doesn't trace back to any of them. Abraham, Issac, Jacob- and then the 12, and of these 12, only through one son- Judah does David's lineage follow.

Jacob had those 12 sons-- through 4 different women. The one's through handmaidens were every bit as much his sons as the ones through his two wives. The Davidic line comes only through Judah-- one of Leah's sons, the wife he was tricked into marrying. It doesn't affect anything other than history and the future. In other words, from the Jewish perspective it's ALL that matters. A messiah MUST come from that bloodline. Adoptions don't count. Foster parents don't count.

Moses was of the tribe of Levi-- Leah and Jacob's third son. One would think that the holy bloodline would come through Moses-- who was adopted by Pharoah's daughter, became Pharoah's grandson, and saved the people of Israel (the descendants of Jacob, who's name was changed to Israel) from slavery and who acted as God on earth as scripture says and led the people out. But it doesn't. Not through the Levites. Or maybe through the line of Joseph, hundreds of years before Moses-- Joseph who was sold off by his brothers, enslaved, imprisoned and ultimately who saved the people of Israel- the entire family, from starvation and became second only to Pharoah in all of Egypt. Joseph afterall was the firstborn son of Jacob's true love- Rebecca. Surely that would be the favored blood line back to Jacob and those before him all the way back to Adam? No. Maybe through Jacob's firstborn son-- Reuben? Nope.

The bloodline comes through Judah-- the son who hatched the plan sold Joseph for a few pieces of silver, just the way another Judah sold out Jesus himself. The important point is that IT IS a bloodline and nothing else matters. It has to be directly from David and those after him to those before him.

How can you start a thread stressing the importance of the Jewish perspective only to then suggest ignoring it?

Lev 18:17- a law of Moses-- it doesn't apply. The whole chapter is about sexual relations, not patrilineal bloodlines. Interestingly- Moses made a law Lev 18:18 that would have prohibited Jacob from marrying Rebecca.... the line of Judah would have remained.

Lev 20:17- you think this verse applies in any way? Maybe you are not familiar, or you are forgetful of the 'Davidic bloodline).

At that time Judah left his brothers and stayed with an Adullamite man named Hirah. There Judah saw the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. Judah acquired her as a wife and slept with her. She became pregnant and had a son. Judah named him Er. She became pregnant again and had another son, whom she named Onan. Then she had yet another son, whom she named Shelah.

Judah acquired a wife for Er his firstborn; her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the LORD’s sight, so the LORD killed him.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her so that you may raise up a descendant for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be considered his. So whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he wasted his emission on the ground so as not to give his brother a descendant. What he did was evil in the LORD’s sight, so the LORD killed him too.

Did you notice that? If Onan sleeps with his brother's wife to continue a bloodline- the child wouldn't even be considered his, it would be considered his brother's son. So Onan sleeps with his dead brother Er's wife -Tamar.... and well, you just read the story above.

Even so, --None of those three sons born to the Canaanite wife of Judah are in the Davidic line. Only the son born to him through his own daughter-in-law, this same Tamar. What>>??? Yes. Tamar the evil son Er's wife, who his brother (Judah's second son) Onan then slept with became the mother of the Davidic bloodline through Judah who slept with her, thinking her to be a temple/cult prostitute.



And all this above is exactly where I would start a conversation with any Jew who tells me how critical it is that Jesus must come from the line of David- of the tribe of Judah.

Can you begin to understand?

 

[Johann]

Regarding Jehoiachin....is there any way to find out if he had adopted children and heirs once he had been cursed to be childless.....could Zerubbabel have been the offspring of an adopted child of Jehoiachin's and that is why he was legitimately part of the genealogy of Jesus and considered to be Jehoiachin's grandson? (If I was following and remembering that part of the discussion aright.) Does it seem reasonable that a childless king would adopt an heir or even more children? Someone with the right skills and know-how would probably would need to go outside the bible to Jewish historical sources to find out that information.

Today, centuries after the destruction of the temple and all the
genealogical scrolls, the Rabbis keep trying to restart the discussion by claiming
that Jesus is not from David’s line.

See an example from Rabbi Michael Skobac
who makes the following claim:

“It turns out that Yeshu(a)’s ancestry on
Joseph’s side associated to King David, goes through a King with the name
Jehoiachin. The problem is that in Jeremiah chapter 22 this king is being cursed
by God. ‘Thus says the Lord: Write this man down as childless, a man who shall
not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the
throne of David and ruling again in Judah.’ From this passage in Jeremiah we
understand that every descendant of Jehoiachin is disqualified from being the
Messiah and therefore Yeshu(a) is disqualified” (Rabbi Michael Skobac).


And indeed, the Rabbi is right. King Coniah, known also as Jehoiachin, was
cursed. But what the Rabbi forgot to mention, or might not know himself, is that
in the book Haggai, chapter 2, verse 23, Zerubbabel, Jehoiachin’s grandson,
reigns over the tribe of Judah. And at the end of the chapter God tells him: “… [I
will] make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you…” (Haggai 2:23). This
means that although God cursed Jehoiachin, God later reversed the curse and his
descendent, Zerubbabel, reigned once again over Judah. Another source agrees:
Rabbi David Ben Yosef Kimhi’s commentary on Jehoiachin. He too states that
God forgave and withdrew the curse from Jehoiachin’s lineage.

I think this should answer your question @Lizbeth--Refuting Rabbinic Objections--and this thread is not coherent, so we should read "between the lines" one at a time.

Should you need resources on how to refute rabbinical doctrines see Dr. Brown and Eithan.

J.

 

[Mr E]

This OP is now 14 pages long--you have caught on what is going on here sister and we have @Gaffer-- and @Mr E going strong, introducing the teachings of Singer--as if he is the only "apologist" that can "take on Christianity"--yet refusing to hear the rebuttals against Jews for Judaism, none other than Dr. Michael brown and One for Israel, and many more Messianics.
Shalom
J.

Yer barking up the wrong tree there Sherlock. But you sure are barking.

 

[Johann]

Ah- thank you.... I did read it and dismissed it on it's face. I'll look now at the references-- I generally skip over copy/paste insertions from others, along with 2 hour-long videos.

Here is why I so quickly dismissed what you were proposing below-- it doesn't apply.



Your examples:

Sara did have Hagar father children through Abraham. The mother was Hagar, an Egyptian. The children were never considered to be Jewish (Hebrew) even though their Father was what we loosely refer to today as Jewish-- direct descendants from the man they call 'our Father Abraham.' Why? Because the Father seeded an Egyptian. Only the line that came from Abraham through Sara were the children of the promise as far as Jews are concerned. These were not adopted children through Hagar-- they were his actual sons--- but the line of David doesn't trace back to any of them. Abraham, Issac, Jacob- and then the 12, and of these 12, only through one son- Judah does David's lineage follow.

Jacob had those 12 sons-- through 4 different women. The one's through handmaidens were every bit as much his sons as the ones through his two wives. The Davidic line comes only through Judah-- one of Leah's sons, the wife he was tricked into marrying. It doesn't affect anything other than history and the future. In other words, from the Jewish perspective it's ALL that matters. A messiah MUST come from that bloodline. Adoptions don't count. Foster parents don't count.

Moses was of the tribe of Levi-- Leah and Jacob's third son. One would think that the holy bloodline would come through Moses-- who was adopted by Pharoah's daughter, became Pharoah's grandson, and saved the people of Israel (the descendants of Jacob, who's name was changed to Israel) from slavery and who acted as God on earth as scripture says and led the people out. But it doesn't. Not through the Levites. Or maybe through the line of Joseph, hundreds of years before Moses-- Joseph who was sold off by his brothers, enslaved, imprisoned and ultimately who saved the people of Israel- the entire family, from starvation and became second only to Pharoah in all of Egypt. Joseph afterall was the firstborn son of Jacob's true love- Rebecca. Surely that would be the favored blood line back to Jacob and those before him all the way back to Adam? No. Maybe through Jacob's firstborn son-- Reuben? Nope.

The bloodline comes through Judah-- the son who hatched the plan sold Joseph for a few pieces of silver, just the way another Judah sold out Jesus himself. The important point is that IT IS a bloodline and nothing else matters. It has to be directly from David and those after him to those before him.

How can you start a thread stressing the importance of the Jewish perspective only to then suggest ignoring it?

Lev 18:17- a law of Moses-- it doesn't apply. The whole chapter is about sexual relations, not patrilineal bloodlines. Interestingly- Moses made a law Lev 18:18 that would have prohibited Jacob from marrying Rebecca.... the line of Judah would have remained.

Lev 20:17- you think this verse applies in any way? Maybe you are not familiar, or you are forgetful of the 'Davidic bloodline).

At that time Judah left his brothers and stayed with an Adullamite man named Hirah. There Judah saw the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. Judah acquired her as a wife and slept with her. She became pregnant and had a son. Judah named him Er. She became pregnant again and had another son, whom she named Onan. Then she had yet another son, whom she named Shelah.

Judah acquired a wife for Er his firstborn; her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the LORD’s sight, so the LORD killed him.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her so that you may raise up a descendant for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be considered his. So whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he wasted his emission on the ground so as not to give his brother a descendant. What he did was evil in the LORD’s sight, so the LORD killed him too.

Did you notice that? If Onan sleeps with his brother's wife to continue a bloodline- the child wouldn't even be considered his, it would be considered his brother's son. So Onan sleeps with his dead brother Er's wife -Tamar.... and well, you just read the story above.

Even so, --None of those three sons born to the Canaanite wife of Judah are in the Davidic line. Only the son born to him through his own daughter-in-law, this same Tamar. What>>??? Yes. Tamar the evil son Er's wife, who his brother (Judah's second son) Onan then slept with became the mother of the Davidic bloodline through Judah who slept with her, thinking her to be a temple/cult prostitute.



And all this above is exactly where I would start a conversation with any Jew who tells me how critical it is that Jesus must come from the line of David- of the tribe of Judah.

Can you begin to understand?

According to several prophecies in the Old Testament, the Messiah must be
a descendant of David. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul starts his letter to
the church in Rome: “Jesus the Messiah, our Lord, who was descended from
David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3).

Son of David: In the past, nobody questioned that Jesus was a descendant of
David, neither historians nor the Sages.

This was because the genealogical
scrolls of the people of Israel were accessible in the Temple. If somebody
disagreed he would have speedily pointed out the mistake by referring to those
documents.

Everyone knew that Jesus was indeed a descendant of David. If
Jesus was not from the Davidic line, both the priests and the Rabbis during
Jesus’ time, not to mention the Talmud, would have pointed this out.

However,
in the Talmud Jesus is referred to as somebody who was considered a
descendant of David. Had they known that it was not true they would have used
the opportunity to point this out. However, that never happened.

Rather, in the
Talmud, Sanhedrin 43, page 1, it is said that Jesus was “close to the Kingdom.”
The line of a King and the line of a Priest: Indeed, according to the New
Testament documents, Jesus was not only a branch from the royal line but also
the priesthood.

The New Testament says that Jesus was a descendant of David
from both sides of his parents, both in regard to his biological mother’s ancestry
and of his adoptive father, Joseph. In Judaism, an adoptive father was always
considered father in every respect. Based upon this, among the nations as well
the notion of “apotropos” (guardianship) evolved.

The following rabbinical
commentary supports this: “On what basis do we relate Aaron’s sons with
Moses? Since he taught them Torah. And it is written about him as if he begot
them. And therefore it is said that on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses at
Sinai: Who made the sons of Aaron be called by Moses? The Torah that God
spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai. Thus you should teach that whoever teaches his
friend’s son Torah the scriptures say that he has begotten him” (Midrash
Aggada, Numbers 3, A).


Simply put, the commentary states that Moses was the father of Aaron’s sons
only because he taught them Torah. And next to that, the Jewish tradition itself
states that the Messiah should not have a biological father.

In addition, to quote Professor Hananel Mak, Talmud Department University
of Bar Ilan from his work on Rashi’s Rabbi, Rav Moshe HaDarshan: “The
commentary is based on the combination of the human character of the Messiah
who does not have a father of flesh and blood, the prophecy of the suffering and
servile servant of Isaiah 53, which is the section “My servant will act wisely”
and Psalm 110, that describes the relationship of God with the one sitting at his
right and with Melchizedek” (Professor Hananel Mak).

Therefore, Professor Hananel Mak acknowledges that Rabbi Moshe
HaDarshan, admired by Rashi, interpreted from Isaiah 53 that the Messiah
would not have a biological father.

Something you may have missed, Sherlock.........

With the destruction of the second temple the genealogical scrolls were also
destroyed. Therefore, in our days, there is no way to know someone’s exact
ancestry. This is a lethal blow to the current rabbinical tradition because it is no
longer possible to know for sure if someone is from the line of David since the
time of the temple destruction some 2,000 years ago.

J.

 

[Johann]

Yer barking up the wrong tree there Sherlock. But you sure are barking.

I don't think so--and my name is Johann, not Sherlock, get that?

 

[Mr E]

Continuing on--

The passages are Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 20:17, and Ezekiel 22:11. Those who are saved are adopted by God (Romans 8; Galatians 4; Ephesians 1:5), then it is clear that God treats the adopted children (and one would presume stepchildren if it were possible) the same as the natural son. If God treats us that way, then we ought to treat children who are not our birth-children the same as if they were.

Ezekiel 22:11-- Surely you can now see that this passage is precisely about Judah and Tamar. (Obejcts in mirror are closer than they appear)

Rom 8-- This passage makes the point that I'm making here regarding the futility of the very idea that the Jews hold dearly-- that the flesh matters. It does not. They cling to an absurd idea, but cling to it they do. You have to be willing and able to appeal to the thing they cling to in order to make any headway. Ask them what Paul is asking-- Why does it matter? Why is the bloodline important? Is it special? It is not. But SINCE it matters to them, it has to matter to us, and it must matter to God.

Gal 4- Paul makes the exact same point that I alluded to previously regarding Abraham's two sons. Maybe you missed the point? Both were natural- blood sons.... the line comes only through one. Secondly, no NT mansplaining will be of interest to Jews. They reject it as fabricated. If you can't make your argument with the OT, you won't hit the target. Fortunately- Paul here does refer back to that OT story to make the case. Try to understand the point he is making. He's appealing directly to this idea of sonship and what it means.

Eph 1:5-- the capstone. This is for us, not for Jews. It makes the point once and for all that it doesn't matter a lick how messed up the earthly bloodline is. Jesus was a branch on a tree..... the distinction is made between the earthly tree-- a bloodline, and the heavenly/spiritual tree of which we are all a part, sealed with the spirit who is the downpayment of our inheritance. We will either remain a part of that heavenly tree, or be cut off from it. It's the basis for Paul's instructions to Timothy in 1Tim 1. Yet, the tree matters. On earth as it is in heaven. Thy Kingdom come.

 

[Wrangler]

Here is why I so quickly dismissed what you were proposing below-- it doesn't apply.

Wow! What you wrote after shows how lost in the weeds are.

To the end of your sentence, you need to add ‘from a certain point of view.’ Otherwise, you are locked into the same legalism the Jews are.

The point is Sara thought her plan of an illegitimate child would work. Abraham also must have thought this plan would work based on the fact he went along with it.

God did not condemn them for thinking the illegitimate child angle would work; he merely said his plan would be carried out through Sara’s womb, through the legitimate heir.

That Sara and Abraham thought this scheme would work is CRUCIAL to understanding the acceptance of non-biological children as rightful children of the parents, allowed to take on the parents inheritance.

You really owe it to yourself to ponder this and the many other example in Scripture. Only by recognizing the Millenia old precedents, will the Jewish argument of strict bloodline be understood as being annihilated.

 

[Wrangler]

The one's through handmaidens were every bit as much his sons as the ones through his two wives. The Davidic line comes only through Judah-- one of Leah's sons, the wife he was tricked into marrying. It doesn't affect anything

<sigh> Fraud affects everything that flows from it. This is a basic legal concept.

Yet, Scripture is so open to considering children legitimate heirs to the parents even from fraudulent unions, it makes the claim that children from legitimate unions, which Jesus was, all the more of an untenable position to hold.

I’m curious. Why do you say The Davidic line comes only through Judah?

 

[Wrangler]

The important point is that IT IS a bloodline and nothing else matters.

If this were true, Sara and Abraham never would have come up with the idea to circumvent the legitimate line through Sara.

 

[Wrangler]

How can you start a thread stressing the importance of the Jewish perspective only to then suggest ignoring it?

Friend, I am embracing all criticism against our lord and find them wanting. My apology is to show how the Jewish perspective does not hold up to Scriptural scrutiny.

If you have a better way to address REASON #1, let’s have it.

 

[APAK]

Sure don't want to sidetrack this thread, but just want to put this to rest....to start with there is no reincarnation...the bible says explicitly, that "it is appointed unto men but ONCE to die and after that the judgment".

John the Baptist wasn't a reincarnation of Elijah and neither did he have to be a descendant of Elijah in order to simply have Elijah's mantle upon him, like Elisha did. John came in the spirit and power of Elijah...that same mantle of authority and power that Elijah had, given to him by God. That is all, and let us not go beyond what is written:

Luk 1:17

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

The subject of possessing different types of spirits within a birthed human being by God for his specific purpose is still a human mystery. And it definitely was not via any incarnation of Elijah. Elijah's TYPE spirit was given to John the Baptist as Jesus also concurred. The Spirit of God required this type of spirit for John's purpose, as he was required to make way for the Lord.....

 

[Johann]

<sigh> Fraud affects everything that flows from it. This is a basic legal concept.

Yet, Scripture is so open to considering children legitimate heirs to the parents even from fraudulent unions, it makes the claim that children from legitimate unions, which Jesus was, all the more of an untenable position to hold.

I’m curious. Why do you say The Davidic line comes only through Judah?

Dr. Brown answers this beautifully--but you guys ain't interested in listening to video clips.

 

[APAK]

Friend, I am embracing all criticism against our lord and find them wanting. My apology is to show how the Jewish perspective does not hold up to Scriptural scrutiny.

If you have a better way to address REASON #1, let’s have it.

Regarding REASON raison #1: The Messiah must be from the Tribe of Judah and a Descendant of King David AND King Solomon – Jesus did not qualify.

Now you did not stipulate only one parent or both human parents of Mary and Joseph had to a direct line to Solomon...according to Jews. I do not know the source where both parents had to be directly through David to Solomon only.

Late update into Post: I see where this source comes from at least in part...

2 Sam 7:12-16; 1 Chron 17:11-14, 2 Chron 7:17-18. I need to discover more....

Both Mary and Joseph as we read in scripture are both direct descendants of David (a ggxxx grandfather) and Mary related to Solomon (as a ggxxx uncle) as David was the father of Solomon.

The intent of God in scripture was that Yahshua must be of the physical human lineage/ descendent of David only not directly from Solomon.

And Mary and Joseph were both direct descendants of King David - see Luke 3:23-24, 31-32 and Matthew 1:6, 17-18.

Now since Joseph did not partake of the creation of the Son we call Yahshua, he was at least the legal adopted Father recognized my custom and Law. He legally bound Yahshua as the official descendent of the royal line of David as required by scripture and the Law.

And so Mary provided the human biological requirement, whilst God, his Spirit provided the non-human descendent gene(ome) requirement of procreation and thus the eventual birth of the Son of God.

 

[Johann]

Today, centuries after the destruction of the temple and all the
genealogical scrolls, the Rabbis keep trying to restart the discussion by claiming
that Jesus is not from David’s line.

See an example from Rabbi Michael Skobac
who makes the following claim:

“It turns out that Yeshu(a)’s ancestry on
Joseph’s side associated to King David, goes through a King with the name
Jehoiachin. The problem is that in Jeremiah chapter 22 this king is being cursed
by God. ‘Thus says the Lord: Write this man down as childless, a man who shall
not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the
throne of David and ruling again in Judah.’ From this passage in Jeremiah we
understand that every descendant of Jehoiachin is disqualified from being the
Messiah and therefore Yeshu(a) is disqualified” (Rabbi Michael Skobac).


And indeed, the Rabbi is right. King Coniah, known also as Jehoiachin, was
cursed. But what the Rabbi forgot to mention, or might not know himself, is that
in the book Haggai, chapter 2, verse 23, Zerubbabel, Jehoiachin’s grandson,
reigns over the tribe of Judah. And at the end of the chapter God tells him: “… [I
will] make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you…” (Haggai 2:23). This
means that although God cursed Jehoiachin, God later reversed the curse and his
descendent, Zerubbabel, reigned once again over Judah. Another source agrees:
Rabbi David Ben Yosef Kimhi’s commentary on Jehoiachin. He too states that
God forgave and withdrew the curse from Jehoiachin’s lineage.

I think this should answer your question @Lizbeth--Refuting Rabbinic Objections--and this thread is not coherent, so we should read "between the lines" one at a time.

Should you need resources on how to refute rabbinical doctrines see Dr. Brown and Eithan.

J.

Oh, and @Lizbeth I have a feeling these guys don't know what they are talking about.
They are not here to debate, just sound "philosophical" and don't even know how to rebut--or read rabbinical commentaries--so our faith in Yeshua and the fundamental doctrines is sound, I was concerned, but not any more.

 

[APAK]

Regarding REASON raison #1: The Messiah must be from the Tribe of Judah and a Descendant of King David AND King Solomon – Jesus did not qualify.

Now you did not stipulate only one parent or both human parents of Mary and Joseph had to a direct line to Solomon...according to Jews. I do not know the source where both parents had to be directly through David to Solomon only.

Late update into Post: I see where this source comes from at least in part...

2 Sam 7:12-16; 1 Chron 17:11-14, 2 Chron 7:17-18. I need to discover more....

Both Mary and Joseph as we read in scripture are both direct descendants of David (a ggxxx grandfather) and Mary related to Solomon (as a ggxxx uncle) as David was the father of Solomon.

The intent of God in scripture was that Yahshua must be of the physical human lineage/ descendent of David only not directly from Solomon.

And Mary and Joseph were both direct descendants of King David - see Luke 3:23-24, 31-32 and Matthew 1:6, 17-18.

Now since Joseph did not partake of the creation of the Son we call Yahshua, he was at least the legal adopted Father recognized my custom and Law. He legally bound Yahshua as the official descendent of the royal line of David as required by scripture and the Law.

And so Mary provided the human biological requirement, whilst God, his Spirit provided the non-human descendent gene(ome) requirement of procreation and thus the eventual birth of the Son of God.

I believe that Joseph as a direct descendant of both David and Solomon gave Yahshua the legal right and custody of the Davidic throne as him being a direct descendent of Solomon. That is the answer and the Jews do not want to see this legal fact starring them in the faces...

 

[Lizbeth]

I believe that Joseph as a direct descendant of both David and Solomon gave Yahshua the legal right and custody of the Davidic throne as him being a direct descendent of Solomon. That is the answer and the Jews do not want to see this legal fact starring them in the faces...

I think all the bases are covered, adoption through Joseph, biologically through Mary..... AND I have to think the fact that Mary had known no other man but her husband Joseph must mean something as well. Also there is no case to be made that Jesus had a biological father who was NOT from the line of David.

 

[Johann]

I think all the bases are covered, adoption through Joseph, biologically through Mary..... AND I have to think the fact that Mary had known no other man but her husband Joseph must mean something as well. Also there is no case to be made that Jesus had a biological father who was NOT from the line of David.

Lol! Amen and amen dear sister.
J.

 

[APAK]

Reason #2...one way to show Yahshua did in fact fulfilled it.

Yahshua fulfilled this promise and released all the exiles in the world that were possible to freedom - spiritual and not physical however ( predestined to be saved) by them eventually becoming Christians, believers in the Son God no matter where they lived in the world. The Son of God would free then from the bondage of sin and so they could walk in the righteousness of the Son and his Father in the New Jerusalem.

The Israelites/Judahites and the real Jews were looking for a warrior King and conqueror to arrive with an immense army and kill their enemies. How naïve when we look as the themes and the purposes in scripture especially in the OT. They painted blood over their doors to cover and escape the physical wrath of God whilst they were in bondage. They must have know it was a very significant foreshadowing of things to come, the next phase of God's plan of our redemption?!

The Jews then and those calling themselves Jews today understood the “world” in terms of their nation of people only. Yet, Scripture (ex. Isaiah 56: 6-7) recognized and includes foreigners and not just their tribes.

"And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant- these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."

 

[Lizbeth]

I think all the bases are covered, adoption through Joseph, biologically through Mary..... AND I have to think the fact that Mary had known no other man but her husband Joseph must mean something as well. Also there is no case to be made that Jesus had a biological father who was NOT from the line of David.

...just by way of explaining a bit....I think it all makes Joseph's adoption of Mary's child something even stronger than adoption in a conventional situation, if that were possible.

 

[APAK]

@Wrangler I thought you wanted a bible scripture location for Mary's lineage to David. I cannot find it on your thread.

Anyway to answer the query anyway...

3 areas to consider concerning Mary's direct linkage the King David

1. Luke 3:23b " ... being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of (H)Eli....."

Many believe that Luke is saying that Yahshua was the grandson of (H)Eli or (E)Heli through Mary.

Eli was Mary’s father and Yahshua's grandfather.

And then it says that Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew Chapter 1.


2. Luke records the conversation of Gabriel with Mary. Gabriel tells Mary that the “Lord God shall give to Him the throne of David His father” (Luke 1:32).

Mary does not dispute this Davidic lineage at all.

Now Gabriel responds to Mary after she says she is not with a man, that the child will not be born of a man, but of the Holy Spirit.

By strong implication, Gabriel is suggesting regardless of any affiliation with a man, the child would be of the lineage of David. And Mary does not raise an eyebrow or questions how could her son be of the Davidic line. She was thinking of her own lineage.

3. After Mary spent three months with Elizabeth and Zacharias, John the Baptist was born.

Zechariah, John's father, (Luke 1:29) voices that salvation is being raised in the house of David. He knew that Joseph was not the father and therefore the relationship to the house of David was not through Joseph. Yet, he concurs that salvation was being raised in the house of David. This makes Mary the sole direct link to King David.