Evidence that Jesus was the Messiah

[Kelloggs]

Matthew's genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names. He traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, by going back into history and working toward his own time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David's many sons, Solomon is chosen (verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (verse 16). Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The "Jeconiah link" is significant in Matthew's genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30:

As I live," declares the LORD,
"even though Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim
king of Judah were a signet ring on my right
hand, yet I would pull you off...
"Is this man Jeconiah a despised, shattered jar?
Or is he an undesirable vessel?
Why have he and his descendants been hurled out
and cast into a land that they had not known?
"O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD!!
"Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man [Jeconiah] down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David, Or ruling again in Judah.'​

No descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited still further. Now one had to be not only of the house of David, but apart from Jeconiah.

According to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David's throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David's throne. Neither could he claim the right to David's throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

The purpose of Matthew's genealogy, then, is to show why Y'shua could not be king if he were really Joseph's son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew's viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph's son, he could not claim to sit on David's throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph's son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/issues/05-06/genealogy.htm

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jewish lineage supposedly to be from the father's side? Was this not a problem when Matittyahu (Matthew) presented this in his writing to his readers?
Thanks in advance.

 

[ukok102nak]

How do you correlate rising from the dead to saving the world?

The other prophecies that were fullfiled..which ones specfically have anything to do with the proposed final days? and why?

~;> what kind of world without your loved one rising on the proposed final days

. ... just for a thought
if we may say so ... .


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> actually joseph is christjesus poster father and not even his biological father
becaused
christjesus is the only begotten son of god our lord and saviour
if some people were really talkin about what the scripture says
they probably knew this now
as it is written


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

Matthew's genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names. He traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, by going back into history and working toward his own time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David's many sons, Solomon is chosen (verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (verse 16). Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The "Jeconiah link" is significant in Matthew's genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30:

As I live," declares the LORD,
"even though Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim
king of Judah were a signet ring on my right
hand, yet I would pull you off...
"Is this man Jeconiah a despised, shattered jar?
Or is he an undesirable vessel?
Why have he and his descendants been hurled out
and cast into a land that they had not known?
"O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD!!
"Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man [Jeconiah] down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David, Or ruling again in Judah.'​

No descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited still further. Now one had to be not only of the house of David, but apart from Jeconiah.

According to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David's throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David's throne. Neither could he claim the right to David's throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

The purpose of Matthew's genealogy, then, is to show why Y'shua could not be king if he were really Joseph's son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew's viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph's son, he could not claim to sit on David's throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph's son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/issues/05-06/genealogy.htm

 

[rosends]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jewish lineage supposedly to be from the father's side? Was this not a problem when Matittyahu (Matthew) presented this in his writing to his readers?
Thanks in advance.

Yes and no. Tribal position is through the father but religious identity is through the mother.

 

[rusra02]

I'm just curious on what grounds do people believe Jesus was the Messiah? When i say Messiah i'm talking about the Jewish Messiah and the role he is supposed to play in the Jewish tradition of the coming Messianic Era.



.....................and go!

Messiah means anointed one. The Hebrew Scriptures serve to identify the one who would be anointed as King of God's Kingdom. Jesus lineage was from Abraham through David, making him heir to the promises for him to be a blessing, and heir to David's throne. (Genesis 22:18, 2 Samuel 7:16) The time of Messiah's appearance fulfills the prophesy of Daniel 9:24-26, as his death fulfills the prophesy in verse 26 that "Mes·siʹah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.“ I believe Jesus life, ministry, and death fulfilled scores of prophesies in the Hebrew Scriptures, thus unmistakeably identifying Jesus as the Christ or Messiah. The Jews, wrongly looking for the messiah to be their savior from the Roman occupation , failed to discern Jesus true position and rejected him.

 

[rosends]

Messiah means anointed one. The Hebrew Scriptures serve to identify the one who would be anointed as King of God's Kingdom. Jesus lineage was from Abraham through David, making him heir to the promises for him to be a blessing, and heir to David's throne. (Genesis 22:18, 2 Samuel 7:16) The time of Messiah's appearance fulfills the prophesy of Daniel 9:24-26, as his death fulfills the prophesy in verse 26 that "Mes·siʹah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.“ I believe Jesus life, ministry, and death fulfilled scores of prophesies in the Hebrew Scriptures, thus unmistakeably identifying Jesus as the Christ or Messiah. The Jews, wrongly looking for the messiah to be their savior from the Roman occupation , failed to discern Jesus true position and rejected him.

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> an actual effort of a spiritual discerned persona if we may say so


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> as it is written
:read:
Revelation of John 21:22
I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb, are its temple.
23 The city has no need for the sun, neither of the moon, to shine, for the very glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
24 The nations will walk in its light. The kings of the earth bring their splendor into it.
25 Its gates will in no way be shut by day (for there will be no night there),
26 and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it so that they may enter.
27 There will in no way enter into it anything profane, or one who causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I like matthew.. I like it a lot.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I like matthew.. I like it a lot.

So do I, but not for the same reason. You because you believe he wrote the gospel attributed to him. In my case, because he was a loyal Jew disciple of a Jewish Rabbi called Yeshua ben Yoseph.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

So do I, but not for the same reason. You because you believe he wrote the gospel attributed to him. In my case, because he was a loyal Jew disciple of a Jewish Rabbi called Yeshua ben Yoseph.

I have multiple reasons and not every piece of it or every phrase per say.
I think it was written while paul and peter were in rome.
And according Irenaeus it was. And probably was one of the most copied given where it was;.
Whether it was written by a person of a different name I don't know, but I'll look into it.
It was like someone was knowledgeable of things in that area and persons of interests; how they were viewed and by testimony.

 

[roger1440]

...The Jews, wrongly looking for the messiah to be their savior from the Roman occupation , failed to discern Jesus true position and rejected him.

You are implying Jews don't understand there own scripture and it takes a non-Jew to explain it to them. Is God the author of confusion? Or could it be we are confused about the meaning of the the Messianic prophecies and/or the meaning of the Gospels?

Saying the the Jews reject there own Messiah and accepted by non-Jews makes as much sense as saying the president of the United States is rejected by his own people as being there leader but accepted by the Europeans.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

You are implying Jews don't understand there own scripture and it takes a non-Jew to explain it to them. Is God the author of confusion? Or could it be we are confused about the meaning of the the Messianic prophecies and/or the meaning of the Gospels?

Saying the the Jews reject there own Messiah and accepted by non-Jews makes as much sense as saying the president of the United States is rejected by his own people as being there leader but accepted by the Europeans.

lol.. maybe later

 

[Ben Avraham]

I have multiple reasons and not every piece of it or every phrase per say. I think it was written while paul and peter were in rome. And according Irenaeus it was. And probably was one of the most copied given where it was;. Whether it was written by a person of a different name I don't know, but I'll look into it. It was like someone was knowledgeable of things in that area and persons of interests; how they were viewed and by testimony.

You think it was written by Matthew. It means you believe by faith as Paul expected you to. (II Cor. 5:7) Since I walk by
sight, I don't have to think, I am sure Matthew did not write that gospel attributed to him for two reasons. 1) Mat. 9:9; and 2) Matthew the Apostle was a loyal Jew. If you focus when reading Mat. 9:9, Matthew could have never written that gospel. And for the second reason, the book is so Hellenist that a Jew could have never written such a thing. If you read Mat. 1:18, you will get familiar with the Hellenistic doctrine of the Greek demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. That could never be possible in Judaism. In fact, not a single Jew wrote a single page of the NT. Jews don't write against
their own Faith.

 

[rosends]

well, some disagree...
http://www.geocities.ws/ffbrosends/dikdukei2.JPG

 

[rusra02]

You are implying Jews don't understand there own scripture and it takes a non-Jew to explain it to them. Is God the author of confusion? Or could it be we are confused about the meaning of the the Messianic prophecies and/or the meaning of the Gospels?

Saying the the Jews reject there own Messiah and accepted by non-Jews makes as much sense as saying the president of the United States is rejected by his own people as being there leader but accepted by the Europeans.

And yet that is what the Bible says. The Jews as a nation rejected the Messiah. The religious leaders, in particular, felt their authority and position challenged by Jesus, who roundly condemned them for replacing God's Word with their man-made traditions. He told them ; "It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” Despite all the evidence that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the religious leaders caused his murder. There were a relatively few Jews who did accept Jesus as the Messiah. Like their master, they became targets of persecution by their unbelieving countrymen.

 

[Tumah]

You think it was written by Matthew. It means you believe by faith as Paul expected you to. (II Cor. 5:7) Since I walk by
sight, I don't have to think, I am sure Matthew did not write that gospel attributed to him for two reasons. 1) Mat. 9:9; and 2) Matthew the Apostle was a loyal Jew. If you focus when reading Mat. 9:9, Matthew could have never written that gospel. And for the second reason, the book is so Hellenist that a Jew could have never written such a thing. If you read Mat. 1:18, you will get familiar with the Hellenistic doctrine of the Greek demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. That could never be possible in Judaism. In fact, not a single Jew wrote a single page of the NT. Jews don't write against
their own Faith.

Jews don't write against their own faith?
Have you heard of Petrus Alphonsi? Johannes Pfefferkorn? Johannes Eisenmenger? Samuel Brenz?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Jews don't write against their own faith?
Have you heard of Petrus Alphonsi? Johannes Pfefferkorn? Johannes Eisenmenger? Samuel Brenz?

Certainly they were not loyal Jews to their Faith but phony Jews for Baal.

 

[Tumah]

Certainly they were not loyal Jews to their Faith but phony Jews for Baal.

Ok, so what's your argument that that couldn't have been true of Matthew.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

You think it was written by Matthew. It means you believe by faith as Paul expected you to. (II Cor. 5:7) Since I walk by
sight, I don't have to think, I am sure Matthew did not write that gospel attributed to him for two reasons. 1) Mat. 9:9; and 2) Matthew the Apostle was a loyal Jew. If you focus when reading Mat. 9:9, Matthew could have never written that gospel. And for the second reason, the book is so Hellenist that a Jew could have never written such a thing. If you read Mat. 1:18, you will get familiar with the Hellenistic doctrine of the Greek demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. That could never be possible in Judaism. In fact, not a single Jew wrote a single page of the NT. Jews don't write against
their own Faith.

matthew is a loyal jew that you also believe could have been Ben Yosef.
It cant be Hellenistic/or even moonistic (lol) because even you said that matthew was a loyal jew.
"In fact, not a single Jew wrote a single page of the NT.
Jews don't write against..their own Faith."
Since I walk by
sight..
if Jews don't write against their faith they walk by sight not by faith?
Then also again on top of their own Faith.
Would be possible to do both?