Interesting Article

[norwegen]

Once I learned something from a 12 year old girl. For a long time I had been puzzled by the elaborate geneology of Joseph in Matthew Chapter 1. It didn’t make sense. How was it relevant if Jesus was virgin born. That is when the 12 year old girl directed me to Mary’s lineage in the book of Luke. Apparently Christ is a descendant of David. Mary and Joseph were both descendants of David.

Don't quote me on this, but I've heard that as long as one's mother was a Jew, he/she was also a Jew.

 

[DudleySmith]

‘The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'”

“Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity?”

- Maimonides on Christianity

Maimonides was a bigot and an hypocrite, and one of the Jews who benefitted from the Islamic invasions of Europe and mass murders of Christians. He ended up having to flee from his Islamist 'allies' in Spain and hide out in Egypt, where he and other Jews spent their time plottimg how to foment riots and killings of Christians and screwing up their holiday feasts.

 

[DudleySmith]

Don't quote me on this, but I've heard that as long as one's mother was a Jew, he/she was also Jewish.

That started with Ezra, and isn't part of the original Hebrew theology re who was or wasn't Jewish. But yes, the two genealogies are to establish both Mary and Joseph as descendants of David. Joachim Jeremias has analyzed that extensively in several books and articles.

Before Ezra, lineage was through the father.

 

[norwegen]

Its hard to argue with scripture. Buuuuuuuuut Christians do.

Yes, they sure do. They try so desperately to make the New Testament jibe with the Old (which it does, to be sure, but not as an addendum).

One can think of Jesus's ministry as a return to 'original intent' of the written Torah, before the Babylonian Scam backed by Cyrus rewrote the original Hebrew theology to suit themselves and line their pockets.

I'm not sure I would call Torah the original intent. Torah came long after the original creation, and was just written code that did not change the heart of man. For Christians, codification is unnecessary, as we read in Galatians Chapter 5 (and in Romans), because in the heart of the believer resides the Holy Spirit and the fulfillment of the Law.

 

[TNHarley]

Why Don't Jews Believe In Jesus | The difference between Judaism and Christianity (simpletoremember.com)
Interesting article. It goes into detail why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah
1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.


B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David! (2)

a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

Many more at link
What do the Christians say to this article?
The only argument i can come up with is, "jews have their own religion wrong"

Once I learned something from a 12 year old girl. For a long time I had been puzzled by the elaborate geneology of Joseph in Matthew Chapter 1. It didn’t make sense. How was it relevant if Jesus was virgin born. That is when the 12 year old girl directed me to Mary’s lineage in the book of Luke. Apparently Christ is a descendant of David. Mary and Joseph were both descendants of David.

They addressed that in the OP.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David! (2)
and
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

 

[TNHarley]

All I saw was a bunch of half-assed false claims

So scripture is false?

 

[DudleySmith]

Its hard to argue with scripture. Buuuuuuuuut Christians do.

Yes, they sure do. They try so desperately to make the New Testament jibe with the Old (which it does, to be sure, but not as an addendum).

One can think of Jesus's ministry as a return to 'original intent' of the written Torah, before the Babylonian Scam backed by Cyrus rewrote the original Hebrew theology to suit themselves and line their pockets.

I'm not sure I would call Torah the original intent. Torah came long after the original creation, and was just written code that did not change the heart of man. For Christians, codification is unnecessary, as we read in Galatians Chapter 5 (and in Romans), because in the heart of the believer resides the Holy Spirit and the fulfillment of the Law.

The written Torah is the books of Moses; Jesus entire ministry was based on the Torah, so yes, it's critical to Christianity as well. When Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees it is over their obsession with 'The Law' over the meaning of the spirit and intent; the Pharisees and rabbinical Judaism obsess over the Mishnahs and Talmud, the 'Oral Torah', a fabrication that began with the Babylonians return and culminated in the invention of rabbinical Judaism some 100 years or so after the events in the Gospels; Christianity is older than rabbinical Judaism.

 

[TNHarley]

Once I learned something from a 12 year old girl. For a long time I had been puzzled by the elaborate geneology of Joseph in Matthew Chapter 1. It didn’t make sense. How was it relevant if Jesus was virgin born. That is when the 12 year old girl directed me to Mary’s lineage in the book of Luke. Apparently Christ is a descendant of David. Mary and Joseph were both descendants of David.

Don't quote me on this, but I've heard that as long as one's mother was a Jew, he/she was also a Jew.

I have heard that as well. However, in this context, it is irrelevant.

 

[DudleySmith]

All I saw was a bunch of half-assed false claims

So scripture is false?

You aren't discussing scripture. you're making up false claims and strawmen based on some web page you found.

 

[TNHarley]

‘The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'”

“Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity?”

- Maimonides on Christianity

Maimonides was a bigot and an hypocrite, and one of the Jews who benefitted from the Islamic invasions of Europe and mass murders of Christians. He ended up having to flee from his Islamist 'allies' in Spain and hide out in Egypt, where he and other Jews spent their time plottimg how to foment riots and killings of Christians and screwing up their holiday feasts.

He got exiled because he refused to convert to Islam. Then he spent his time helping other jews from christian oppression.

 

[norwegen]

They addressed that in the OP.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David! (2)
and
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

I see in Genesis 49:10 that the scepter passes from Judah, but not specifically to male progeny. Same with Isaiah 11:1.

Am I missing something?

 

[TNHarley]

All I saw was a bunch of half-assed false claims

So scripture is false?

You aren't discussing scripture. you're making up false claims and strawmen based on some web page you found.

So the scripture they quote doesnt exist?

 

[DudleySmith]

All I saw was a bunch of half-assed false claims

So scripture is false?

You aren't discussing scripture. you're making up false claims and strawmen based on some web page you found.

So the scripture they quote doesnt exist?

Make up whatever you want. I don't play 'I Touched You Last!!!' with people who never read the books and just pull stuff out of their asses.

 

[TNHarley]

They addressed that in the OP.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David! (2)
and
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

I see in Genesis 49:10 that the scepter passes from Judah, but not specifically to male progeny. Same with Isaiah 11:1.

Am I missing something?

b) 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. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

 

[TNHarley]

All I saw was a bunch of half-assed false claims

So scripture is false?

You aren't discussing scripture. you're making up false claims and strawmen based on some web page you found.

So the scripture they quote doesnt exist?

Make up whatever you want. I don't 'I Touched You Last!!!' with people who never read the books and just pull stuff out of their asses.

I checked several of the scriptures then checked context.
I am sorry if this doesnt fit your narrative.
"the jews got there own religion wrong!"

 

[DudleySmith]

‘The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'”

“Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity?”

- Maimonides on Christianity

Maimonides was a bigot and an hypocrite, and one of the Jews who benefitted from the Islamic invasions of Europe and mass murders of Christians. He ended up having to flee from his Islamist 'allies' in Spain and hide out in Egypt, where he and other Jews spent their time plottimg how to foment riots and killings of Christians and screwing up their holiday feasts.

He got exiled because he refused to convert to Islam. Then he spent his time helping other jews from christian oppression.

lol rubbish; he got demoted and run off; Jews and Jewish soldiers were administrators and garrison troops for the Muslim rulers of Spain. The local Jews aided them in theri invasions, which is why they were never trusted when the Christian kings reconquered Spain.

 

[norwegen]

Its hard to argue with scripture. Buuuuuuuuut Christians do.

Yes, they sure do. They try so desperately to make the New Testament jibe with the Old (which it does, to be sure, but not as an addendum).

One can think of Jesus's ministry as a return to 'original intent' of the written Torah, before the Babylonian Scam backed by Cyrus rewrote the original Hebrew theology to suit themselves and line their pockets.

I'm not sure I would call Torah the original intent. Torah came long after the original creation, and was just written code that did not change the heart of man. For Christians, codification is unnecessary, as we read in Galatians Chapter 5 (and in Romans), because in the heart of the believer resides the Holy Spirit and the fulfillment of the Law.

The written Torah is the books of Moses; Jesus entire ministry was based on the Torah, so yes, it's critical to Christianity as well. When Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees it is over their obsession with 'The Law' over the meaning of the spirit and intent; the Pharisees and rabbinical Judaism obsess over the Mishnahs and Talmud, the 'Oral Torah', a fabrication that began with the Babylonians return and culminated in the invention of rabbinical Judaism some 100 years or so after the events in the Gospels; Christianity is older than rabbinical Judaism.

Well, Torah is not for me; I'm not of the house of Israel. Who is, right? It was Israel's law; only Israel was subject to it. And even if I were of that house, I wouldn't be now; that law burned up in the fire.

Are you subject to Torah? Do you sacrifice animals and stone women to death? Or can you find some Levites who will do that for you?

The scribes and Pharisees abided their law, as Jesus knew they would until its demise (Mt 5:18). Therefore abiding that law was the least his apostles should do as well, for they were more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees. The apostles abided it until the end.

 

[DudleySmith]

They addressed that in the OP.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David! (2)
and
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

I see in Genesis 49:10 that the scepter passes from Judah, but not specifically to male progeny. Same with Isaiah 11:1.

Am I missing something?

b) 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. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

Ezra is a late book, the first to make the mother's lineage the line. That was because the Babylonian Jews needed some way to shut out Jews who weren't exiled from political power and priesthoods, and since many of them had married 'goy' women they settled on that method of exclusion. Solomn was married to a goy as well, so his lineage was also questionable by the fake standards set up by Ezra and the other Babylonians. They were setting themselves up as 'the real Jews', a 'pure' master race not much different than what Hitler was trying to do.

 

[DudleySmith]

Its hard to argue with scripture. Buuuuuuuuut Christians do.

Yes, they sure do. They try so desperately to make the New Testament jibe with the Old (which it does, to be sure, but not as an addendum).

One can think of Jesus's ministry as a return to 'original intent' of the written Torah, before the Babylonian Scam backed by Cyrus rewrote the original Hebrew theology to suit themselves and line their pockets.

I'm not sure I would call Torah the original intent. Torah came long after the original creation, and was just written code that did not change the heart of man. For Christians, codification is unnecessary, as we read in Galatians Chapter 5 (and in Romans), because in the heart of the believer resides the Holy Spirit and the fulfillment of the Law.

The written Torah is the books of Moses; Jesus entire ministry was based on the Torah, so yes, it's critical to Christianity as well. When Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees it is over their obsession with 'The Law' over the meaning of the spirit and intent; the Pharisees and rabbinical Judaism obsess over the Mishnahs and Talmud, the 'Oral Torah', a fabrication that began with the Babylonians return and culminated in the invention of rabbinical Judaism some 100 years or so after the events in the Gospels; Christianity is older than rabbinical Judaism.

Well, Torah is not for me; I'm not of the house of Israel. Who is, right? It was Israel's law; only Israel was subject to it. And even if I were of that house, I wouldn't be now; that law burned up in the fire.

Are you subject to Torah? Do you sacrifice animals and stone women to death? Or can you find some Levites who will do that for you?

The scribes and Pharisees abided their law, as Jesus knew they would until its demise (Mt 5:18). Therefore abiding that law was the least his apostles should do as well, for they were more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees. The apostles abided it until the end.

Gentiles aren't required to follow Jewish laws, and the Temple was destroyed. Whether or not you like the Torah, it is part of Christian theology and much of Jesus's teachings derive from it. The Talmud rubbish is a different story; Jews aren't required to follow the Oral Torah either.; it's a fabrication, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. The only Torah is the one of Moses, and it is complete as written, as he also stated clearly.

 

[norwegen]

They addressed that in the OP.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David! (2)
and
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

I see in Genesis 49:10 that the scepter passes from Judah, but not specifically to male progeny. Same with Isaiah 11:1.

Am I missing something?

b) 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. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

You'd think that the author of Matthew's gospel would have abandoned that project if that were the case. Same with the author of Luke's gospel. I suspect that they, being Israelites, knew more than we do.

To my mind, Levitical law has some inconsistencies, and sometimes is instituted for specific purposes, such as seems to be the case with Numbers 1:18 and an assembling of an army.

Ultimately, Jesus had no genealogy (Heb 7:3). Of course that means he was not of the clan of Levi, but apparently, that's irrelevant. Jesus changed the priesthood. He was not what Israel expected.