Reasons Jews Reject Jesus

[Lambano]

Well, we've beaten the ancestry issue into the ground. What about some of the other issues?

Regarding reason #6 – Universal Knowledge of God - Jewish theology prof Pamela Eisenbaum argues in her book provocatively titled St. Paul Was Not a Christian that Paul saw his mission to the Gentiles in terms of the Messianic "ingathering of the nations". As a Christian, I would see this mission as still in progress, but I would say that Jesus through His followers has been quite successful in bringing knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the ends of the world.

However, the Jewish counter-argument (as Matthias and Johann noted above) would be that the Christian triune god is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That's the real issue, and I don't see any way around it.

 

[Lambano]

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

This one is interesting because the Second Temple was already in existence during Jesus's day; are they arguing that the destruction of the Temple that Jesus Himself prophesied disqualifies Him as Messiah?

I'm reminded of Jesus's prophesy, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. As Christians, we can argue that the prophesy of rebuilding of the Holy Temple is a symbolic metaphor for Messiah Jesus's resurrection, but I strongly suspect the counter-move would be to call B.S. on arguing metaphor. They will also argue that our own scriptures are contradictory as to whether Jesus actually said this; compare John 2:19 with Mark 14:57-59.

Also, referring to Jesus's body as "The Temple", the dwelling place for the Most High, brushes close to the subject we can't discuss.

 

[Wrangler]

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

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.

<sigh> There is no need to explain again what failed to convince the first time. Repeating yourself is not edifying. Sadly, you are COMPLETELY ignoring my point (on the grounds that the Jews would). Ignoring an argument does not invalidate it.

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).

I know the story of Abraham and Sara comes BEFORE the Davidic line. That is why I cite it. The story of Abraham and Sara sets the precedent of adoption (by Sara) to be a valid means of descent. I consider it more than a little silly of adoption being a valid means of receiving inheritance for millenia only for the Jews to discount this in the case of the Messiah.

In Leviticus, having sex with a stepdaughter was prohibited as incest even though not biologically related, reinforces the adoption as the child becoming a legitimate heir precedent.

I'll type this part slowly so you may understand it better. I know the Jews were expecting a lot of things regarding the Messiah that were wrong, including biological descent from David. To apologize, I am using their own sacred text to refute their claim.

And again, if you have a better way to refute REASON #1, let's have it.

 

[Wrangler]

You might be curious, but you can't be serious.

???

 

[Johann]

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

This one is interesting because the Second Temple was already in existence during Jesus's day; are they arguing that the destruction of the Temple that Jesus Himself prophesied disqualifies Him as Messiah?

I'm reminded of Jesus's prophesy, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. As Christians, we can argue that the prophesy of rebuilding of the Holy Temple is a symbolic metaphor for Messiah Jesus's resurrection, but I strongly suspect the counter-move would be to call B.S. on arguing metaphor. They will also argue that our own scriptures are contradictory as to whether Jesus actually said this; compare John 2:19 with Mark 14:57-59.

Also, referring to Jesus's body as "The Temple", the dwelling place for the Most High, brushes close to the subject we can't discuss.

Although in many ways, Rabbinic Judaism has functioned well without a
Temple, traditional Jews still pray daily for the rebuilding of the Temple and for the
restoration of the sacrificial system, recognizing that, until such time, something on
some level is missing, since, at the very least, they are unable to fulfill certain
commandments (cf. vol. 2, 3.9)


Followers of Jesus, however, experience no such
lack, since he has already fulfilled these relevant parts of the Torah and the
Prophets.395 In saying this, I am not casting stones at Rabbinic Judaism, a system of
religion that I deeply admire, despite my fundamental differences with some of its
foundations and practices (see vol. 5, 6.8–6.9).

However, I am saying that the
Messiah’s way is best, since: (1) his followers have experienced no spiritual lack
because of the Temple’s absence during the last two thousand years, actually coming
into a richer spiritual experience without the Temple, and (2) Jesus explained in
advance how the Torah and Prophets found their ultimate meaning in him and even
prophesied the destruction of the Temple. Doesn’t it make sense, then, to trust the
one who predicted that all this was going to happen and who set things in motion
beforehand so that, for all those who would look to him, there would be no lack in
their relationship with God or service for God? (For the key prophetic role fulfilled
by Yeshua, see above, 5.22.)


We also recognize that Yeshua is the fulfillment of the biblical calendar, as
explained in volume 1, 2.1, with Passover pointing to his death as the Lamb of God,
paving the way for a greater exodus, Firstfruits pointing to his resurrection, Shavuot
(Pentecost) corresponding to the outpouring of the Spirit, and then, still in the future,
Trumpets (in Jewish tradition, Rosh HaShanah) pointing to his return, Yom Kippur
to national atonement for Israel, and Sukkot (Tabernacles) to the final ingathering of
the nations. Even the calendar ultimately points to Messiah, and all this is part of his
fulfilling the Torah and Prophets.
M.Brown

 

[Wrangler]

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

I once shared with my boss 5 reasons why I filed for divorce. After the 1st reason, he stopped my continuing enumeration. One only needs one valid reason to support a conclusion. He is right. My 1st reason was valid and I was over-thinking it.

With all due respect, Mr E, conceding is no kind of apology. It is the exact opposite of a defense.

P1. Defendant must meet Criteria A to be X.
P2. Defendent does not meet Criteria A.
C. Defendent is not X.

 

[APAK]

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.

I see you point(s) and no I'm not 100% on my claims...as you also indicated

 

[Johann]

Well, we've beaten the ancestry issue into the ground. What about some of the other issues?

Regarding reason #6 – Universal Knowledge of God - Jewish theology prof Pamela Eisenbaum argues in her book provocatively titled St. Paul Was Not a Christian that Paul saw his mission to the Gentiles in terms of the Messianic "ingathering of the nations". As a Christian, I would see this mission as still in progress, but I would say that Jesus through His followers has been quite successful in bringing knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the ends of the world.

However, the Jewish counter-argument (as Matthias and Johann noted above) would be that the Christian triune god is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That's the real issue, and I don't see any way around it

I can show you from rabbinical writings that the early Sages believed in Two Powers--but the topic that Yeshua is Theos is closed, not allowed.

 

[Adam]

Yall are missing the forest for the trees

Matthew 22
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

If you cannot answer this, you must examine your beliefs. So far I have not seen anyone attempt to solve this riddle except myself.

Why did David write this psalm in the first person:

Psalm 22
22 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

[...]

16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

 

[Johann]

Psalm 22
22 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Don't forget Isaiah 53

Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering; when Thou shalt make his nefesh an asham offering for sin, he (Moshiach) shall see zera [see Psalm 16 and Yn 1:12 OJBC], He shall prolong his yamim (days) and the chefetz Hashem (pleasure, will of Hashem) shall prosper in his [Moshiach's] hand.

He [Hashem] shall see of the travail of his [Moshiach's] nefesh, and shall be satisfied; by knowledge of him [Moshiach] shall Tzadik Avdi ["My Righteous Servant," Moshiach, Zecharyah 3:8, Yirmeyah 23:5; Zecharyah 6:11-12, Ezra 3:8 Yehoshua, Yeshua shmo] justify many (Ro 5:1); for he [Moshiach] shall bear their avon (iniquities).

 

[Mr E]

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

I didn't think that this could be a serious question. I'm not the one who says that- I quote it- It's the basis of the Jews understanding of a coming messiah. The Jews are not ambiguous. They aren't pointing to a kind of prophecy that gets inferred and related after the fact. They are firm in their belief, that is- they are faithfully awaiting someone like Moses because they were told that one like Moses would come. And they were told also that the one coming would also be like David as well as from David. From his line through his prodigy, specifically through his line (interestingly) through his son Solomon, the second son born to him and the woman Bathsheba, the woman with whom he committed adultery and whose husband he had murdered after impregnating her to cover it up.

King David rose to his feet and said: “Listen to me, my brothers and my people. I wanted to build a temple where the ark of the LORD’s covenant could be placed as a footstool for our God. I have made the preparations for building it. But God said to me, ‘You must not build a temple to honor me, for you are a warrior and have spilled blood.’ The LORD God of Israel chose me out of my father’s entire family to become king over Israel and have a permanent dynasty. Indeed, he chose Judah as leader, and my father’s family within Judah, and then he picked me out from among my father’s sons and made me king over all Israel. From all the many sons the LORD has given me, he chose Solomon my son to rule on his behalf over Israel. He said to me, ‘Solomon your son is the one who will build my temple and my courts, for I have chosen him to become my son and I will become his father. I will establish his kingdom permanently, if he remains committed to obeying my commands and regulations, as you are doing this day.’

Sadly, you are COMPLETELY ignoring my point (on the grounds that the Jews would). Ignoring an argument does not invalidate it.

This, the Jewish perspective, was the premise you established for this thread. Remember? Something about---

I believe a bridge to fellowship begins by saying we can understand how they can look at it this way

Just because you have forgotten the original premise, doesn't mean I have. -'course you can ignore it.

I know the story of Abraham and Sara comes BEFORE the Davidic line. That is why I cite it. The story of Abraham and Sara sets the precedent of adoption (by Sara) to be a valid means of descent. I consider it more than a little silly of adoption being a valid means of receiving inheritance for millenia only for the Jews to discount this in the case of the Messiah.

Go ahead and provide the scripture that says Sara adopted Ishmael. Quite the opposite. Hagar and Abraham's firstborn were hated and sent away. Ishmael is a legitimate son of Abraham by birth, not by adoption. He was a direct descendant. Sorry, but you aren't even in the ballpark with this idea. Secondly, I already explained that becoming an heir is not akin (pun intended) to being a descendant.

I'll type this part slowly so you may understand it better. I know the Jews were expecting a lot of things regarding the Messiah that were wrong, including biological descent from David. To apologize, I am using their own sacred text to refute their claim.

You aren't arguing the point only with Jews here. You are directly opposing scripture that the Jews trust. Do you trust scripture, or not? If you don't, you should be more open to possibilities. If you do, then you should be conceding this point to the Jews. I happen to trust scripture for what it says.

With all due respect, Mr E, conceding is no kind of apology. It is the exact opposite of a defense.

For someone who considers himself a master of debate the way you do, you should have a better understanding of the tactic. You started a whole thread based on the idea of first understanding the Jewish perspective, then approaching the subject with that perspective at top of mind. Conceding a point is merely an argumentative strategy. I suppose if all you were trying to do is score a point, you'd put all your eggs in one basket and swing it with all your might. But if you have foresight you might concede a point here and there, acknowledging validity where it exists as a mark of intellectual honesty, but a point here and there do not win a match. Maybe you've never played sport. There's a long game.

 

[Mr E]

And again, if you have a better way to refute REASON #1, let's have it.

Let me explain...

I'm saying-- Don't. Don't refute it. Concede the point. They are right.

The promise to David through Nathan the prophet to whom the word of the Lord came, was that one of his sons would build the temple and establish a line of anointed Kings to lead the people of Jacob -- a dynasty and permanent kingdom that would last forever- IF and for as long as that/those Kings would remain committed to God in obedience. They didn't. That's one thing.

Secondly, through various prophets including Ezekiel and Jeremiah among others-- the Jews were promised that even if, and since those leaders were not faithful to the promise at that time, a future leader from that same line of David would rise to redeem the people of Jacob and set things right. Something @Adam will like-- long after the death and decay of David, Ezekiel prophesied of a future time-- ch 37

“‘My servant David will be king over them; there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow my regulations and carefully observe my statutes. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your fathers lived; they will live in it—they and their children and their grandchildren forever. David my servant will be prince over them forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be a perpetual covenant with them. I will establish them, increase their numbers, and place my sanctuary among them forever. My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. Then, when my sanctuary is among them forever, the nations will know that I, the LORD, sanctify Israel.’

What is Ezekiel talking about? Well, the important thing to note is the point I suggest conceding because it's incredibly clear. It will be who follows Joseph in the line of messiah figures. Huh? -from the same passage-

The LORD’s message came to me: “As for you, son of man, take one branch and write on it, ‘For Judah and for the Israelites associated with him.’ Then take another branch and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the branch of Ephraim, and all the house of Israel associated with him.’ Join them as one stick; they will be as one in your hand. When your people say to you, ‘Will you not tell us what these things mean?’ tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Look, I am about to take the branch of Joseph that is in the hand of Ephraim and the tribes of Israel associated with him, and I will place them on the stick of Judah and make them into one stick—they will be one in my hand.’ The sticks you write on will be in your hand in front of them. Then tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Look, I am about to take the Israelites from among the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from round about and bring them to their land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel, and one king will rule over them all. They will never again be two nations and never again be divided into two kingdoms. They will not defile themselves with their idols, their detestable things, and all their rebellious deeds. I will save them from all their unfaithfulness by which they sinned. I will purify them; they will become my people, and I will become their God.

Two "branches" from the same tree- which is Jacob (Israel). A reunification and a gathering of people who had become divided kingdoms and scattered to become one nation in the land with one King to rule them all. Jews and a great many Christians believe that this is yet to be fulfilled and happening now, in this generation, but who does scripture say will be that King?

It's not a trick question, neither is it rhetorical.

 

[Jim B]

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.

So why not start another thread?

 

[Johann]

Something @Adam will like-- long after the death and decay of David, Ezekiel prophesied of a future time-- ch 37

and my servant David shall be their prince for ever; or their king, as the Targum; and which cannot be understood of any temporal prince, but of the King Messiah, whose throne is for ever and ever; whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom; and who shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever and ever, Psa_45:6 and to whom it is applied by several Jewish writers (k).
(k) T. Bab. Sanhedrin. fol. 98. 2. Ben Melech in Psal. cxliv. 14. Abendana Not. in Miclol Yophi in Hagg. ii. 23. Abarbinel, Mashmiah Jeshuah, fol. 8. 4. & 26. 1.

 

[Johann]

but who does scripture say will be that King?

and one king shall be king to them all, not Zerubbabel, nor Nehemiah, nor Judas Maccabaeus; for these were neither of them kings; and much less such as reigned for ever, as it is said this king shall, Eze_37:25, besides, he is expressly said to be David, that is, the Messiah the son of David; and this clause is by a modern Jewish (f) writer applied to him:
and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all; which is the very thing the two sticks made one were an emblem of.
(e) Zohar in Gen. fol. 85. 4. (f) R. Abendana, Not. in Miclol Yophi in 1 Kings xi. 39.

 

[Wrangler]

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

It's the basis of the Jews understanding of a coming messiah.

The more we engage, the more difficult communication is proving itself to be. You keep twisting things to some kind of rigid legalism.

If your point was about the Messiah, that you only were referring to the Messiah ancestry, then fine.

However, I took your sentence to mean none of David's descendants survived outside of his one son, Judah. These are different points.

This, the Jewish perspective, was the premise you established for this thread. Remember?

Again, more unreasonable rigidity. With this line of reasoning, why entertain an apology in light of the 6 REASON's the Jew's have; why not concede them all - as some kind of debate strategy?

Go ahead and provide the scripture that says Sara adopted Ishmael.

Never my point and I think you know it. The point is the precedent was set by their plan to create a legal heir through adoption. Just because God altered their plan is beside the point.

You aren't arguing the point only with Jews here. You are directly opposing scripture that the Jews trust.

No sir. I'm not opposing Scripture at all. Throughout the OT, God repeatedly emphasized deference to widow's and orphans. David, himself, should have been the last of Jesse's children selected to be king. It is only by circumventing the established hierarchy that God's will was achieved.

It is not that much of a stretch, in the light of 1,000's of years of considering step children as one's own children that this could possibly apply also to the Messiah. Repeating "but the Jews's dont' think like that' is circular reasoning, at best.

Conceding a point is merely an argumentative strategy.

A point, yes; not THE reason (among 6 given) stated to deny the premise.

Bottom line. You think it best to concede that Jesus is not the Messiah, period. To you, REASON #1 is a perfectly sufficient reason to deny the Gosples, that Jesus is the Christ. I reject any claim against my lord.

Have a nice day.

 

[Wrangler]

Let me explain...

I'm saying-- Don't. Don't refute it. Concede the point. They are right.

Such thinking is wholly outside the point of this thread.

They are wrong and I explained why.

Their point IF biological descent was required is conceded. Yet, I deny that IF for the reasons already cited.

 

[Mr E]

The more we engage, the more difficult communication is proving itself to be. You keep twisting things to some kind of rigid legalism.

If your point was about the Messiah, that you only were referring to the Messiah ancestry, then fine.

However, I took your sentence to mean none of David's descendants survived outside of his one son, Judah. These are different points.



Again, more unreasonable rigidity. With this line of reasoning, why entertain an apology in light of the 6 REASON's the Jew's have; why not concede them all - as some kind of debate strategy?



Never my point and I think you know it. The point is the precedent was set by their plan to create a legal heir through adoption. Just because God altered their plan is beside the point.



No sir. I'm not opposing Scripture at all. Throughout the OT, God repeatedly emphasized deference to widow's and orphans. David, himself, should have been the last of Jesse's children selected to be king. It is only by circumventing the established hierarchy that God's will was achieved.

It is not that much of a stretch, in the light of 1,000's of years of considering step children as one's own children that this could possibly apply also to the Messiah. Repeating "but the Jews's dont' think like that' is circular reasoning, at best.


A point, yes; not THE reason (among 6 given) stated to deny the premise.

Bottom line. You think it best to concede that Jesus is not the Messiah, period. To you, REASON #1 is a perfectly sufficient reason to deny the Gosples, that Jesus is the Christ. I reject any claim against my lord.

Have a nice day.

Have a nice day.

Take your ball and go home.


Jesus is the messiah. That's not what I was conceding (and you know it). The point and only point I was making regarding your point # 1 is that the Jews are correct in asserting that the messiah has to be a direct descendant of David (blood/DNA/seed) of the tribe of Judah. PER SCRIPTURE

Ask--does your faith hinge on a virgin birth? If so you should be intensely focused on it. @Johann posted videos that argue that Christian faith doesn't need a virgin birth and there it was also suggested that one might concede that point because having Joseph as an actual, biological father doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't the messiah. He was the messiah with or without a virgin birth.

IF you want to understand and appeal to the Jewish mindset-- you must concede that their perspective actually aligns better with scripture concerning what it means to be a descendant (from the bowels) of David.

 

[Johann]

Take your ball and go home.


Jesus is the messiah. That's not what I was conceding (and you know it). The point and only point I was making regarding your point # 1 is that the Jews are correct in asserting that the messiah has to be a direct descendant of David (blood/DNA/seed) of the tribe of Judah. PER SCRIPTURE

Ask--does your faith hinge on a virgin birth? If so you should be intensely focused on it. @Johann posted videos that argue that Christian faith doesn't need a virgin birth and there it was also suggested that one might concede that point because having Joseph as an actual, biological father doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't the messiah. He was the messiah with or without a virgin birth.

IF you want to understand and appeal to the Jewish mindset-- you must concede that their perspective actually aligns better with scripture concerning what it means to be a descendant (from the bowels) of David.

The messianic genealogy of King David
In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David.

The Jewish Scriptures as background to the New Covenant
The pattern of genealogy in the Hebrew Scriptures is followed by the New Testament pattern where two genealogies are found: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Of the four gospel accounts, only those two deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John begin their accounts with Jesus as an adult, so it is natural that only Matthew and Luke would have a genealogy. While they both provide an account of the birth and early life of Jesus, each tells the story from a different perspective.

In Matthew, Joseph plays an active role, but Miriam (Mary) plays a passive role. Matthew records angels appearing to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Miriam. Matthew records Joseph’s thoughts but nothing is recorded about Miriam’s thoughts. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel tells the same story from Miriam’s perspective. From the context of each Gospel, it should be very evident that the genealogy of Matthew is that of Joseph, and the genealogy of Luke is that of Miriam.

The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Yeshua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew’s Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke’s Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David’s throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David’s throne. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel gives the real line, showing that Yeshua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David’s throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.
Read further.....

The Genealogy of the Messiah - Jews for Jesus

The New Testament says from the first page that it’s the story of the Jewish Messiah, the Son of David and Son of Abraham.

jewsforjesus.org

 

[Mr E]

The messianic genealogy of King David
In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David.

The Jewish Scriptures as background to the New Covenant
The pattern of genealogy in the Hebrew Scriptures is followed by the New Testament pattern where two genealogies are found: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Of the four gospel accounts, only those two deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John begin their accounts with Jesus as an adult, so it is natural that only Matthew and Luke would have a genealogy. While they both provide an account of the birth and early life of Jesus, each tells the story from a different perspective.

In Matthew, Joseph plays an active role, but Miriam (Mary) plays a passive role. Matthew records angels appearing to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Miriam. Matthew records Joseph’s thoughts but nothing is recorded about Miriam’s thoughts. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel tells the same story from Miriam’s perspective. From the context of each Gospel, it should be very evident that the genealogy of Matthew is that of Joseph, and the genealogy of Luke is that of Miriam.

The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Yeshua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew’s Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke’s Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David’s throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David’s throne. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel gives the real line, showing that Yeshua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David’s throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.
Read further.....

The Genealogy of the Messiah - Jews for Jesus

The New Testament says from the first page that it’s the story of the Jewish Messiah, the Son of David and Son of Abraham.

jewsforjesus.org

Is everything you post a cut and paste effort? Do you have any original thoughts of your own that you aren't simply regurgitating from some other source? I do appreciate your diligence to cite sources, but your posts become tiresome in that you link lengthy articles, multiples of such, sometimes hours-long videos and so forth. Are you capable of having an actual conversation?

I didn't intend to be mean-spirited in calling you 'Sherlock' --it was at best a flippant remark and I apologize for offending you. What I mean with that moniker is directly related to your posts, like this above- in addition to your earlier attempts to somehow 'expose' my motives and/or beliefs as something nefarious. God examines the heart.

I see you grasping at straws. Like Sherlock Holmes, you are suggesting that everything must be deduced, and the clues must be followed to get beyond the evidence. I disagree. I think the evidence should certainly be examined and understood, not ignored or 'staged' somehow in order to support whatever case you are trying to make.

I'll offer an example. No where does Luke (or anyone in scripture) say that the genealogy he records is that of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You throw that out there as many do, as an idea to be considered. There's some good evidence of that, but it's nowhere stated. However, following that trail of clues to a logical conclusion, you would still be left with the 'monumental problem' (as Singer calls it) of Joseph not being a biological father, and thus Jesus, though the son of Mary, NOT being the actual son of Joseph and having no blood trail back to David. Jesus wouldn't be from David's seed, having received no Y chromosome (Mary doesn't have one to offer- she is XX) from a father in that dynastic line. The second problem is that, even if Joseph was adopted (again- never even inferred in scripture) by Mary's father Heli, the direct seed is not passed down through adoption. Lastly, and fatally to the idea-- is that the line recorded in Luke doesn't trace back to David through Solomon, rather it follows back to David's son Nathan. The Davidic line is firmly established in scripture as descending from David to and through his son Solomon.