At least one of two possible reasons.
1. If he wasn't the boy's biological father, the son couldn't be called "the seed of David"
2. If he was the boy's biological father, he would have been disqualified by the curse of Jeconiah.
A good analogy would be thinking of it like "regardless of what state you're from, American citizens are American."
It doesn't matter what tribe you're from... if you're mother's Jewish, you're Jewish... because when the People of Israel came back from the Babylonian Exile, the place they came...
That is a very poorly worded question. Clean it up and try again.
If you believe this to be true, then you have a few problems:
1. This would make Joseph's lineage irrelevant.
2. The messiah is not God.
3. Jesus is not God.
No it does not. Mordechai (from the book of Esther) was called "ish Yehudi", a Jewish man, even though he was from the tribe of Benjamin.
If you believe in the virgin birth, Joseph's lineage is irrelavant.
If Joseph's lineage is relevant, he cannot qualify because of the curse of Jechoniah.
Nobody is disputing that Mary and Jesus (if they existed) were Jewish.
Being Jewish is entirely different from which tribe you belonged to.
If a woman from the tribe of Benjamin marries a man from the tribe of Levi, their children are Levites. It really is that simple.
While being from David is certainly one necessary qualification for the messiah, it is far from the only one.
That being said, there are certain holes in the theory that Jesus is from the line of David.
For one thing, if you believe in the virgin birth, Jesus doesn't have a paternal link to...
This is the only portion of your post that is correct.
There are so many reasons why the rest of what you said is either wrong or meaningless.... but rather than spend the energy listing them all, I'll just wait to see what else you say and determine if it's worth responding to.
The word "savior" being used in this way is wrong. I figure it was a non-Jewish person who wrote this, taking his best guess at how to describe the concept of the messiah, and failing to do so.
Find a source better than wikipedia.
Refer to my previous post... the word for Messiah and Savior...
Who the hell wears a t-shirt on picture day?
As someone who is very strongly against censorship, I'm entirely ok with the decision to edit the picture to make the shirt appear plain. To me, it's not about what's on the shirt... it's about the fact that there's anything on it at all.
Could have...
The Hebrew word for "messiah" and the Hebrew word for "'savior" may appear remarkably similar.
HOWEVER
They are not the same word. They are not interchangeable. They do not share the same root. They do not mean the same thing.
By that view, this discussion isn't worth having.
But if you list a reason, and i try to show you with facts and figures why your reason is wrong, or at the very least insufficently supportive of your position, and you attempt to defend your reason against my objections, then there is a...
Let me rephrase. It simply is a distinction without a difference. Fraud is fraud. It can happen just as easily now.
Besides, the country would notice if 60 million votes came out of California. They only have approximately 18 million registered voters. It would be wildly suspicious if even...
Not sure yet.
It sounds like what you're saying is that the often repeated claim that states like California would dominate a popular vote is based entirely on the notion that it would be easier to commit serious fraud in a single state, rather than doing it in a couple of swing states.
Like...
There are two states that proportionally assign their votes. Two small states. The other 48 plus DC are winner take all. Those two small states account for a total of 9 out of 538 electors... their impact is negligible.
The other point is a lot more interesting.
I like to talk about...