Reasons Jews Reject Jesus

[Mr E]

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

Yes. Concede the point. The Jews got this one right.

Jesus, in order to be a direct descendant of David-- a "branch" of that family tree... has to have been fathered by Joseph.

How can that be, without violating new testament scripture? Well-- there's actually a little bit of evidence for it, but before even looking at that, you'd have to set down certain beliefs about what "virgin" means and what Isaiah wrote.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I am a Jew and a Christian. I have accepted the Jewish Yeshua as my Savior, as have many other Jews. The first Christians were all Jews and the entire Bible was written by Jews (with one exception: Luke-Acts).

Your anti-Semitism is contrary to God's truth!

I don’t think you understood her. I thought she was saying the reason the Jews (not all, but a lot of them) reject Jesus is for the same reasons believers do. Then she spoke of all the trouble you run into with believers if you talk of spiritual things rather than temporal things (ex: mammon vs. true and everlasting riches). That whole long paragraph was saying, it’s the rejection of spirit and truth, just as with believers today who see only the temporal (just as the Jews back then looked for a temporal kingdom).
I could be wrong. It’s happened before much to my surprise. But…that’s what I understood her to be saying.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I am a Jew and a Christian. I have accepted the Jewish Yeshua as my Savior, as have many other Jews.

Praise God!

 

[Lizbeth]

I agree 100%.

Is their usage unclear?

I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels

(bowels is the polite way of saying 'your seat of generation' -- please don't make me illustrate)

Does that sound like adoption, or legal jargon?

No, I agree that verse is talking about a biological descendant. And Jesus' mother was a biological descendant of David, so that verse is fulfilled through her lineage.

 

[APAK]

It's a nice thought, but it isn't true. Nor does @APAK "legal claim" bear any weight in the conversation. Why?

Adoption doesn't make someone a descendant.

It can make them a dependant. It can make them an heir. It can make them a part of the family. It cannot make them a descendant. --This isn't hard.

Please. I'm appealing to anyone with any intellectual honesty. Use a dictionary. Webster's even uses King David as their example of what a descendant must be.

Definition of DESCENDANT

moving or directed downward; proceeding from an ancestor or source… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Well I see you continue to dismiss Yahshua as the natural son of David or his direct descendent ..I'm sure it occurred through Mary for sure....for the reasons I previously posted a few to Wrangler earlier.

Well can you also so easily dismiss and explain why scripture agrees me on this subject and you do not or will not produce evidence thus far?

There is no need to consult any dictionary at all. Dictionaries tend not to show understanding and context. They just spit out usually innocuous facts in ignorance of the variables and context required to bring to bear on a subject.

Isaiah 9:6-7 Jeremiah 23:5....Messiah sits on the throne of David
Psalms 132:11 and Acts 13:22-23 ..Messiah is born of the direct line of David.. a descendant of David
Matt 1:1 ..son of David
Matt 15:22 ..son of David
Matt 21:9 ..son of David
Mark 10:48, 12:35 ...son of David
Romans 1:3 ...a descendant of David
2 Tim 2:8 ..descendant of David
Rev 5:5 ..root of David

Can you explain this..?

 

[Lizbeth]

I'm thinking with the mind of the spirit, I would rather have greater hardship in this life and greater reward in the next.

Why not make everyone a prophet, if it is possible to make any child a prophet in the womb? But for some reason, some children are favored and others are not. In fact, some children are killed before they are born - why? That is the fundamental question here - if there is only one life, then - why are some children prophets in the womb and others aborted? There cannot be only one life or else some lives would have never had a chance to evolve in understanding, while others were simply created with perfect understanding.


The spirit of Elijah is Elijah. The spirit of John the Baptist is Elijah.

Was Jesus alive before he was born? If Jesus was alive before he was born, then it is possible for spirits to incarnate as flesh.


It has nothing to do with OP's topic, but it is advice on good conduct.

But "Who are you o man to talk back to God?" He chooses who He wills, in fact He creates according to His own will. He is God, we are not, He created us for His purposes, and "fairness" has nothing to do with it. In the kingdom of God there are greater and lesser just like in earthly life, and we shouldn't be jealous of those who we consider to be greater than we are. And under the new covenant we may and are even encouraged to "earnestly desire" and seek greater gifts if we want to.

Also, remember that God doesn't judge the way we do, by outward appearance of things. Eg, the first will be last and the last will be first. Someone may have a greater gift but not be faithful in it...remember Balaam the prophet for example. Someone else may be a more lowly part of the body of Christ but be more faithful in their sphere than a prophet gone awry, and so potentially receive greater reward.

If someone believes in reincarnation....I don't know where a "next life" (heavenly) and receiving of rewards would fit in anyhow. Scripture just doesn't reach reincarnation.

Anyway, as Jim B. just pointed out this is all off topic, and doesn't belong on this thread.

 

[Mr E]

No, I agree that verse is talking about a biological descendant. And Jesus' mother was a biological descendant of David, so that verse is fulfilled through her lineage.

But it isn't. Scripture is clear even in the genealogy listed in the NT that it is through the Father. No father from that line through Joseph and back to David-- no Y chromosome. No son of man. No link from father to son.

Patrilineality, also known as the male line, the spear side[1] or agnatic kinship, is a common kinship system in which an individual's family membership derives from and is recorded through their father's lineage. It generally involves the inheritance of property, rights, names, or titles by persons related through male kin. This is sometimes distinguished from cognate [2] kinship, through the mother's lineage, also called the spindle side or the distaff side.

A patriline ("father line") is a person's father, and additional ancestors, as traced only through males.

Traditionally and historically people would identify the person's ethnicity with the father's heritage and ignore the maternal ancestry in the ethnic factor.

 

[Adam]

But "Who are you o man to talk back to God?"

You are not God. If I refute your doctrines it is not a refutation of God, only of the doctrines of a man.

He chooses who He wills, in fact He creates according to His own will. He is God, we are not, He created us for His purposes, and "fairness" has nothing to do with it.

It absolutely does because God represents the highest ideals of understanding and benevolence and therefore God's actions must be just.

In the kingdom of God there are greater and lesser just like in earthly life, and we shouldn't be jealous of those who we consider to be greater than we are. And under the new covenant we may and are even encouraged to "earnestly desire" and seek greater gifts if we want to.

Also, remember that God doesn't judge the way we do, by outward appearance of things. Eg, the first will be last and the last will be first. Someone may have a greater gift but not be faithful in it...remember Balaam the prophet for example. Someone else may be a more lowly part of the body of Christ but be more faithful in their sphere than a prophet gone awry, and so potentially receive greater reward.

If one can be born with unearned spiritual power, then this undermines the entire purpose of existence - because then, why didn't God create everyone with spiritual power? Aborted infants have in fact no potential to do anything at all. How can they seek greater gifts?

If someone believes in reincarnation....I don't know where a "next life" (heavenly) and receiving of rewards would fit in anyhow. Scripture just doesn't reach reincarnation.

Whatsoever a man sows, that is what he will reap. Heaven is not the end - it is a state of existence, as is Earth and hell. And if Jesus can descend from heaven to earth then from earth to hell, then again to ascend from hell to earth to heaven, then it proves they can be migrated across. They are states of consciousness which the soul traverses in order to contemplate existence. Whether happy or painful, they each serve the purpose of reaching ultimate salvation, of oneness with God.

1 Corinthians 15
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Anyway, as Jim B. just pointed out this is all off topic, and doesn't belong on this thread.

It absolutely does because Jesus even references it in his riddle to the saducees, which directly answers the question of how Jesus is related to David, if the riddle can be answered.

 

[Lizbeth]

You are not God. If I refute your doctrines it is not a refutation of God, only of the doctrines of a man.


It absolutely does because God represents the highest ideals of understanding and benevolence and therefore God's actions must be just.


If one can be born with unearned spiritual power, then this undermines the entire purpose of existence - because then, why didn't God create everyone with spiritual power? Aborted infants have in fact no potential to do anything at all. How can they seek greater gifts?


Whatsoever a man sows, that is what he will reap. Heaven is not the end - it is a state of existence, as is Earth and hell. And if Jesus can descend from heaven to earth then from earth to hell, then again to ascend from hell to earth to heaven, then it proves they can be migrated across. They are states of consciousness which the soul traverses in order to contemplate existence. Whether happy or painful, they each serve the purpose of reaching ultimate salvation, of oneness with God.

1 Corinthians 15
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


It absolutely does because Jesus even references it in his riddle to the saducees, which directly answers the question of how Jesus is related to David, if the riddle can be answered.

I guess you are not familiar with this passage:

Rom 9:17-21

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


Utter nonsense that Jesus is a reincarnation of David! Jesus was in the "form of God" before He was found in the form of a man. He is the Lord God Almighty, the Word made flesh, the Word that was God, not a reincarnation of anybody! The only begotten Son of God!

 

[Mr E]

Well I see you continue to dismiss Yahshua as the natural son of David or his direct descendent ..I'm sure it occurred through Mary for sure....for the reasons I previously posted a few to Wrangler earlier.

Well can you also so easily dismiss and explain why scripture agrees me on this subject and you do not or will not produce evidence thus far?

There is no need to consult any dictionary at all. Dictionaries tend not to show understanding and context. They just spit out usually innocuous facts in ignorance of the variables and context required to bring to bear on a subject.

Isaiah 9:6-7 Jeremiah 23:5....Messiah sits on the throne of David
Psalms 132:11 and Acts 13:22-23 ..Messiah is born of the direct line of David.. a descendant of David
Matt 1:1 ..son of David
Matt 15:22 ..son of David
Matt 21:9 ..son of David
Mark 10:48, 12:35 ...son of David
Romans 1:3 ...a descendant of David
2 Tim 2:8 ..descendant of David
Rev 5:5 ..root of David

Can you explain this..?

You completely miss my point. I'm arguing that Jesus WAS a direct descendant of David in the most natural and biblical way.

All those verses you reference say the same thing. Descendant, from the ROOT of David, a branch of David's tree. Just read the record-- Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.... and it begins---- Abraham, the father of, the father of, the father of- right up to AND INCLUDING Joseph.

There is just so much speculation involved to be able to insist otherwise. You might believe otherwise, but you can't honestly insist. You can't say "I'm sure" as you claim. There are many who insist that Mary was a Levite, and not even from the tribe of Judah- which would deflate your theory instantly. Elizabeth-- Mary's cousin was a Levite- a descendant of Aaron.... it's therefore at least 50% likely that Mary too was a Levite. You only have a 1/12 probability that she was from the tribe of Judah- because it's unknown. We know her cousin's line-- that's 100% more evidence than you can offer.

Look.... I know this is a difficult, uncomfortable conversation. But seed means one thing only. The messiah had to come from David's nutsack. That's scripture. The seed (semen) or Y chromosome or manhood is only passed from father to son. That's biology. It's also scripture. The two are in agreement. It matters nothing to me that you are not in agreement with either.

I entered the discussion reluctantly. It only gets more difficult from here. Maybe it's not for you. Maybe you should sit this one out.

 

[Adam]

I guess you are not familiar with this passage:

Rom 9:17-21

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Same chapter that I quoted earlier answers that question

1 Corinthians 15
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

First comes the natural, then the spiritual. One cannot have the spiritual without the natural.

Utter nonsense that Jesus is a reincarnation of David! Jesus was in the "form of God" before He was found in the form of a man. He is the Lord God Almighty, the Word made flesh, the Word that was God, not a reincarnation of anybody! The only begotten Son of God!

Jesus was in the form of God before he became a man, then he became Adam, then David, then Jesus. Since by the first Adam came sin, by the last Adam came redemption.

 

[Lizbeth]

But it isn't. Scripture is clear even in the genealogy listed in the NT that it is through the Father. No father from that line through Joseph and back to David-- no Y chromosome. No son of man. No link from father to son.

Patrilineality, also known as the male line, the spear side[1] or agnatic kinship, is a common kinship system in which an individual's family membership derives from and is recorded through their father's lineage. It generally involves the inheritance of property, rights, names, or titles by persons related through male kin. This is sometimes distinguished from cognate [2] kinship, through the mother's lineage, also called the spindle side or the distaff side.

A patriline ("father line") is a person's father, and additional ancestors, as traced only through males.

Traditionally and historically people would identify the person's ethnicity with the father's heritage and ignore the maternal ancestry in the ethnic factor.

It's getting late and don't know how reliable my thinking is at the moment, but a father can give either a y or x chromosome...whether resulting offspring are male or female they are still that father's offspring/descendants. GOD didn't specify patrilinear lineage in those verses talking about David's seed. I can't think where in the prophecies and promises made to David that GOD specified that the one who would sit on his throne had to be from a patrilinear line.

I understand that the religious Jews won't accept any other lineage but patrilinear, but that doesn't mean that is what GOD said it had to be in the prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. If you know of some please feel free to bring them, and I need to refresh my memory, but I can't remember off the top of my head anywhere He specified that...?

 

[Mr E]

It's getting late and don't know how reliable my thinking is at the moment, but a father can give either a y or x chromosome...whether resulting offspring are male or female they are still that father's offspring/descendants. GOD didn't specify patrilinear lineage in those verses talking about David's seed. I can't think where in the prophecies and promises made to David that GOD specified that the one who would sit on his throne had to be from a patrilinear line.

I understand that the religious Jews won't accept any other lineage but patrilinear, but that doesn't mean that is what GOD said it had to be in the prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. If you know of some please feel free to bring them, and I need to refresh my memory, but I can't remember off the top of my head anywhere He specified that...?

Study up on it when you are refreshed and clear-headed. Both the biology and the scriptures. A son must have a Y chromosome from his father and never the X from him. If a child gets an X from the Father, the child will be female.

ALL the scriptures and prophecies specify David’s seed, his descendants, the fruit of his loin. The messiah must be a direct descendant of David of the tribe of Judah.

Tribal identity is ONLY passed down through the father- NEVER the mother. If a Levite woman marries a Benjamite man and they have a child the child is a Benjamite. Only and always.

If a Moabite woman marries a man from the tribe of Judah— the child will be a Jew. Always. And so on.

 

[Johann]

No, I agree that verse is talking about a biological descendant. And Jesus' mother was a biological descendant of David, so that verse is fulfilled through her lineage.

Tribal identity is ONLY passed down through the father- NEVER the mother.

Yep, listening way too much on Jews for Judaism--and not the rebuttals from Eithan and Mr. Brown.

 

[Johann]

It's getting late and don't know how reliable my thinking is at the moment, but a father can give either a y or x chromosome...whether resulting offspring are male or female they are still that father's offspring/descendants. GOD didn't specify patrilinear lineage in those verses talking about David's seed. I can't think where in the prophecies and promises made to David that GOD specified that the one who would sit on his throne had to be from a patrilinear line.

I understand that the religious Jews won't accept any other lineage but patrilinear, but that doesn't mean that is what GOD said it had to be in the prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. If you know of some please feel free to bring them, and I need to refresh my memory, but I can't remember off the top of my head anywhere He specified that...?

@Lizbeth
Rabbi Asor claims that Matthew and Luke both present the genealogy of Jesus in their gospels, but that the genealogies contradict each other, since they list completely different names. He bases this on his understanding that Joseph’s name is mentioned as the father of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke’s gospels, but the rest of the names are very different. It’s true that the genealogies are different from one another, and they do have completely different names, but this is because they are not the same genealogy.

Matthew presents Jesus’ paternal genealogy, while Luke presents Jesus’ maternal genealogy. These are two different genealogies, and not the same one.
Rabbi Asor’s mistake is a due to the fact that he doesn’t know ancient Greek, the language of the New Testament, so he’s basing his claims on translations he reads. The fact that the rabbi incorrectly quotes in his book the name “Eli” instead of “Heli”, proves it. And as for the “contradiction”, the answer lies in the grammatical rules of ancient Greek, in which the text was written. In Hebrew (and English) we don’t use “the” in front of a person’s name.

We don’t say ‘the’ Moti or ‘the’ Eitan. In ancient Greek the case is different. Every name in the Greek text of the genealogy presented by Luke appears with the prefix ‘the’, except for one name: the name of Joseph. From this, the reader understands that this is not the genealogy of Joseph, but of Mary.

To remind you, Jesus was Jewish, and according to Jewish rules, the name of the husband is mentioned here, after all, in Judaism, only male names are mentioned in genealogies. Do you think we just made this up? Go check and you will find that the same phenomenon existed in Judaism and in the Old Testament. For example, in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.

Additional support can be found in Luke’s words, who wrote: “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli…” (Luke 3:23)
In other words, we can understand that although Jesus was considered a “descendant” of Joseph, but in reality, he was a descendant of Heli. By the way, it’s interesting that even the Jerusalem Talmud, in Hagiga 2, refers to Heli as being the father of Mary.
To conclude, Heli was Mary’s father, while Jacob was Joseph’s father. Both were Jesus’ grandfathers, one from his mother’s side and the other from his father’s side. Both are descendants of King David.

Are there Mistakes in the Geneology of Jesus? - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

One of the ways that some modern rabbis to try to contradict the Messiahship of Jesus is to claim that there are contradictions between the two different genealogies given about his ancestry. For two thousand years there has been no documentation of the lineages of the house of Israel, which...

www.oneforisrael.org

Clearly @Mr E don't listen to the rebuttals from Messianics TO Jews for Judaism, hence a rather "lob sided" one-sided version from his end.

Should you wish, Dr. Michael Brown's 4 volume rebuttals to Jews for Judaism is a must read in a "debate" on this thread, ESP on the genealogies' 'that from Matthew and of Luke"

Hope this would be helpful
J.

 

[Johann]

I'll try to explain it once more. Slowly.

The Jews are awaiting a messiah/king specifically a direct descendant of David as promised in scripture. Not adopted. Descended. It's very much a sticking point that can't be avoided no matter how much, or how many Christians wish it differently.

Scripture tells you specifically why Sara did what she did concerning her handmaiden, the Egyptian woman Hagar, and her husband.... It has nothing to do with the Davidic line (which comes LATER).

It wasn't to create a line for her husband-- it was to create a family for herself--

Now Sarai Abram’s wife, had not given birth to any children, but she had an Egyptian servant named Hagar. So Sarai said to Abram, “Since the LORD has prevented me from having children, please sleep with my servant. Perhaps I can have a family by her. ”Abram did what Sarai told him.

181
Let’s tackle these points one at a time. As we do, you will see that none of them
have any substance and all of them can easily be refuted. (The next answer, 5.12,
deals specifically with objections and [d], namely, the issue of descent through
“the cursed Jeconiah.”)
The first claim is that “there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing
on his tribal line by adoption.” Actually, that is not an issue in these genealogies
since: (1) A good case can be made for Luke’s genealogy coming through Yeshua’s
mother, Miriam, in which case he would be a blood descendant of David (more on
that point shortly). (2) A good case can be made for genealogical descent through a

180 Cf. the similar claim of Uri Yosef on the Messiah Truth website: “Thus, the Jewish Messiah may emerge
from ANY royal branch that leads to Solomon” (his emphasis); “Genealogical Scams and Flimflams,”
Messiah Truth Project, http://www.messiahtruth.com/genealogy.html.
181 “Jewish Belief in Messiah: The Jewish Concept of Messiah and the Jewish Response to Christian Claims,”
Jews for Judaism, http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-messiah-jewishresponse.html.
www.DIFA3IAT.com ࢫʏوتࢫالدفاڤɸقࢫاللاʈفر
woman when there were no male heirs (again, we will return to this point shortly).
(3) The Messiah was both David’s son—and therefore a physical descendant—and
yet David’s lord—and therefore more than just a physical descendant.182 Let’s take
this up in a little more depth before returning to the question of genealogical descent
through the mother.
In Sanhedrin 98a, the Talmud asks an important question: Will the Messiah, the
son of David, come with the clouds of heaven, as indicated in Daniel 7:13–14, or
will he come riding on a donkey, as written in Zechariah 9:9? The Talmud says if
we are worthy, he will come in the clouds, but if we are unworthy, he will come
riding on a donkey.183 The problem is that the Hebrew Scriptures do not present these
two events as either-or options. Rather, they are both explicit prophecies that must
be fulfilled (see also the discussion in vol. 1, 2.1). How then can these two opposing
statements be reconciled? The New Covenant Scriptures provide us with the
solution. The virgin birth is the key!

The Gospels make two things perfectly clear: The Messiah is the son of David
and the Messiah is greater than David, both earthly and heavenly. These facts are
also seen through a careful reading of the Tanakh. First, there are prophecies that are
universally recognized as Messianic which indicate that the Messiah was to be “the
son of David” (see, e.g., Isa. 11:1–16; sometimes the Messiah is actually called
“David”; cf. Ezek. 34:23).

Second, the Tanakh indicates that the Messiah would be
highly exalted and greater than David, as recognized also by certain Rabbinic
traditions (see vol. 2, 3.22). Daniel 7:13–14, cited above by the Talmud, teaches that
the Messiah will be a heavenly figure who will be served and worshiped by all
peoples and nations, sitting enthroned in the heavens. Another important passage is
Psalm 110, beginning with the well-known words, “YHWH said to my lord, ‘Sit at
My right hand…’ ” (NJPSV). Although some Rabbinic commentaries dispute that
David wrote this about the Messiah, other Rabbinic sources (e.g., Midrash Tehillim
2:9; 18:29) follow the Messianic interpretation, indicating that they had no trouble
with David calling the Messiah “lord” or “master” (this interpretation was so
common that it is presupposed by the New Testament; see further vol. 3, 4.29). There
are also Rabbinic traditions that speak of the Messiah’s preexistence and his

182 Keener also notes that, “… MaƩhew probably believes this to be Jesus’ legal rather than blood line (1:18–
25), but such an observation in no way detracts from the importance of that line; MaƩhew lived in a world
where adoption lines were significant and frequently qualified sons for royalty (e.g., Augustus with
Tiberius, Suet. Tib. 23).” Matthew, 80.
183 According to Rashi, the phrase “with the clouds of heaven” means “swiftly” (bimhirut). But that is
certainly not what the phrase means in Daniel 7:13–14, and we cannot be certain that such a meaning
was intended by the Talmudic rabbi (named Alexandri) who raised the point in the text under discussion
in Sanhedrin.
www.DIFA3IAT.com ࢫʏوتࢫالدفاڤɸقࢫاللاʈفر
heavenly dialogues with God, indicating that he was not your everyday, run-of-themill, physical descendant of David (see vol. 2, 3.22).184 Note also the midrash to
Isaiah 52:13, which states that the Messiah, who will come forth out of David, will
be higher than Abraham, lifted up above Moses, and loftier than the ministering
angels (see Yalqut Shim‘oni 2:571).185

Maybe off topic on your X and Y chromosomes--but you really need to read all the sources--and the fact that our Bible is the infallible D'var of YHVH--and don't mess with my Bible!

 

[Johann]

Yep, listening way too much on Jews for Judaism--and not the rebuttals from Eithan and Mr. Brown.

As noted above, however, Jews for Judaism has an answer for this as well: “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.”191
Once more, this statement only tells part of the story, since the Hebrew Bible actually
provides us with two examples that offer relevant parallels to the Messiah’s
bloodline being traced through his mother. First, in terms of inheritance, the Torah
teaches that if a man dies, leaving no sons but only daughters, the inheritance is
passed on through the daughters and their husbands, provided that they marry within
the tribe (see Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12).192 Thus, the daughter’s inheritance is joined
with her husband’s. While this does not deal with genealogy, it does deal with the
passing on of family inheritance through a daughter, certainly a related concept.193
This is further confirmed by Ezra 2:61 (= Neh. 7:63), which makes reference to

genealogy of Yeshua through his mother Miryam, the daughter of Eli,” then, “Yeshua is ‘of the Eli’ in the
sense of being his grandson; while Yeshua’s relationship with Yosef is portrayed in the words, ‘son, as
supposed’—implying not actually.…” (This work is henceforth cited as JNTC.)
191 See above, n. 181.
192 For ancient Near Eastern parallels, cf. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the
New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish PublicaƟon Society, 1990), 416, who notes, “Ancient Sumerian
law ordains that an unmarried daughter may inherit when there are no sons, and so also do decrees of
Gudea (ca. 2150 B.C.E.), ruler of Lagash. Thus, the concession made by the Bible to Zelophehad’s
daughters was anticipated in Mesopotamia by a millennium. It is also clear from documents of Nuzi and
Ugarit (i.e., in places as far apart as the Tigris River and the Mediterranean coast during the middle and
second half of the second millennium) that daughters inherited in the absence of sons.” See ibid., 416–
418, for discussion of the applicaƟon of this principle in Rabbinic law (m. B. B. 8:1–2).
193 Sigal notes that, “Biblically, the right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are exclusively
passed on through the male line. The incident regarding the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad
(Numbers, chapters 27 and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of physical property
and not privileges of lineage.” See Jews for Judaism,
hƩp://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq013.html. Of course, he fails to observe that these two
concepts are related—in fact, there is a principle to be deduced from this legislation regarding
inheritance—and he does not deal at all with the genealogical evidence of 1 Chronicles 2:34–35 which we
also discuss here.
www.DIFA3IAT.com ࢫʏوتࢫالدفاڤɸقࢫاللاʈفر
“Barzillai (a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite and was
called by that name).”194
In the case of Jesus, Miriam also married within the same tribal family, since
Joseph was a Judahite and, more specifically, a descendant of David. In fact,
according to U. Holzmeister,195 this is how Luke’s genealogy should actually be
understood as that of Miriam, but in connection with Joseph. As explained by John
Nolland, who favors this proposal,
Holzmeister argues that Mary was an heiress (i.e., had no brothers) whose father Eli,
in line with a biblical tradition concerned with the maintenance of the family line in
cases where there was no male heir (Ezra 2:61 = Neh 7:63; Num 32:41 cf. 1 Chr
2:21–22, 34–35; Num 27:3–8), on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted
Joseph as his own son. Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry by birth, Luke that by
adoption.196

 

[Johann]

It's getting late and don't know how reliable my thinking is at the moment, but a father can give either a y or x chromosome...whether resulting offspring are male or female they are still that father's offspring/descendants. GOD didn't specify patrilinear lineage in those verses talking about David's seed. I can't think where in the prophecies and promises made to David that GOD specified that the one who would sit on his throne had to be from a patrilinear line.

I understand that the religious Jews won't accept any other lineage but patrilinear, but that doesn't mean that is what GOD said it had to be in the prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. If you know of some please feel free to bring them, and I need to refresh my memory, but I can't remember off the top of my head anywhere He specified that...?

1st question: Was Jesus Genealogy Traced Through Mary - Rabbi TOVIA SINGER - 1442

Listen to this--and after that, never listen to any rabbi @Lizbeth


Counter rebuttal [Hebrew Roots Movement--but an excellent rebuttal]

Stay strong.
J.

 

[Johann]

#1 reason in my experience - the thing which by policy must not be discussed on this board.

And I fully concur with you.

 

[Johann]

I thought an excellent topic for Apologetics is how to counter the reason the Jews reject Jesus. Form SIX REASONS WHY JEWS DON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS:

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

Reason #2 – Ingathering of the Jewish Exiles – Jesus did not do this.​

Reason #3– Rebuilding of the Holy Temple – Jesus failed to achieve this.​

Reason #4– Worldwide Reign of Peace – Jesus did not accomplish this.​

Reason #5 – Observance of the Torah Embraced by All Jews – Jesus didn’t bring this about.​

Reason #6 – Universal Knowledge of G-d – Jesus clearly failed here also.​

​

I believe a bridge to fellowship begins by saying we can understand how they can look at it this way. However, there is another sense in which the story of Jesus qualifies as the true Jewish Messiah. Thoughts?

Brother, I think you have inadvertently opened a can of worms that should have stayed closed.
You didn't give the source--and I know from where you got it.
Just expressing my thoughts and concern for both my Jewish brethren and Christianity.
J.