genealogy of Jesus?

[NoahideHiker]

When you compare the geneology from Matthew to the geneologies given in I Chronicles 3 it is not even accurate.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16523


Of course Paul tried to wave it off in I Timothy 1:4...

"or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith."

 

[Smoke]

The question really is moote because both genealogies would render Jesus disqualified for multiple reasons.

#1)Nowhere does it say that either genealogies are Mary's.

As far as I know, no early Christians thought that either genealogy was Mary's. It sounds like something Jerome would've come up with, but the idea is apparently as recent as the Reformation. So why did the only two Gospels that claim a virgin birth include Joseph's genealogy? I don't know.

When you compare the geneology from Matthew to the geneologies given in I Chronicles 3 it is not even accurate.

Matthew's treatment of the Old Testament generally is pretty odd. I often wonder whether it was really written by a Jew, as most people seem to think, or by a Gentile who was trying to reconcile Christianity and Judaism.

Of course Paul tried to wave it off in I Timothy 1:4...

"or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith."

I doubt that Paul was concerned about the genealogies in the gospels; he probably never read them. He seems unfamiliar with most of the details of Jesus' life as recounted in the gospels, and uninterested. His Christ is a mystical Christ with soteriological and eschatological significance; he's not particularly interested in Jesus the man and teacher.

 

[Yəhošafat]

When you compare the geneology from Matthew to the geneologies given in I Chronicles 3 it is not even accurate.

Of course Paul tried to wave it off in I Timothy 1:4...

"or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith."

When you compare the geneology from Matthew to the geneologies given in I Chronicles 3 it is not even accurate.
Of course Paul tried to wave it off in I Timothy 1:4...

"or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith."

Jews have long given excuses to why they thnk Jesus is and was not the promised Messiah. Yet Jesus is the only one to ever complete 100% of the prophecy (of the 1 st Coming) of the Messiah. First of all each genealogy is of a different span of time, and made for different reasons, I have a site that will explain to you but i cannot paste it here, yet, it will not let me.

Plus, you ought to follow the advice of the Apostle Paul. He was a Jew, who tought almost the same things you did, and he found it supported by Scripture to kill the Christians, yet something happened that caused him to turn all the way around, and become that which he was before killing. Jesus appeared to him, and knocked some sense into Paul, you ought to listen to the testimony of a former Jewish Pharisee, and a Christian Apostle.

 

[NoahideHiker]

I doubt that Paul was concerned about the genealogies in the gospels; he probably never read them. He seems unfamiliar with most of the details of Jesus' life as recounted in the gospels, and uninterested. His Christ is a mystical Christ with soteriological and eschatological significance; he's not particularly interested in Jesus the man and teacher.

Were it not for Paul and Matthew I think christianity would have gained a better foothold with the Jews. Matthew is credited as one of the main reasons Jews reject christianity because the concepts he brought in were so far from Judaism. Both were horrible abusers of the Jewish scriptures through misquotes, out of context claims and general fabrications.

 

[NoahideHiker]

Jews have long given excuses to why they thnk Jesus is and was not the promised Messiah. Yet Jesus is the only one to ever complete 100% of the prophecy (of the 1 st Coming) of the Messiah.

Absolute hogwash. All of the prophecies Jesus is reported to have fulfilled can not be proven today. The Tanach is so clear on this issue. If someone comes and does all the thing prophesied in the Tanach then he is the Moshiach. If someone comes and claims to be the Moshiach but fails on but one, he is not the Moshiach.

If we examine even the shortest list of the most basic prophecies we find Jesus fulfilled none of them. World peace, in gathering of the Jews to Israel, rebuilding of the Temple, universal knowledge of G-d, ect. Jesus did none of this.

Plus, you ought to follow the advice of the Apostle Paul. He was a Jew, who tought almost the same things you did, and he found it supported by Scripture to kill the Christians, yet something happened that caused him to turn all the way around, and become that which he was before killing. Jesus appeared to him, and knocked some sense into Paul, you ought to listen to the testimony of a former Jewish Pharisee, and a Christian Apostle.

So let's see here; Paul claimed to be a Pharisee of Pharisees. The Jewish courts sent him out to kill christians, right? The question is, what would a Jewish court, controled by the Sadusees be doing dealing with a Pharisee? They wouldn't. The two groups were always at odds and would not have had anything to do each other. And if Paul was this great towering Jew why did he misquote the Jewish scriptures so much?
Paul became tired of trying to convert the Jews, whom he had no success at, so he went to the Gentiles. He took his limited knowledge of Judaism and mixed in things that were familiar to the pagans. Why do you think there is so much theology that is found in religions that predate christianity, but yet are not even found in Judaism. There are many religions that held a savior would come born of a virgin, born near Dec. 25th in a cave, was the son of G-d, died for the sins of the world and ascended to heaven. Yet none of this is found in the Jewish scriptures.

Much of what Paul teachings did was basically shoot an arrow into a tree and paint a bullseye around it.

 

[Harmonious]

Two Points:
1. Yaheshua's father was God so he has a fairly valid claim to the right of David's line (israel's kingship)

Or, his natural father was a Roman soldier, and he's got no claim but the ones manufactured for him. The only "proof" that he was born of a virgin is a belief.

2.Mary's bloodline was not of David but of Aaron and this entiteld her sister Martha's son (John the Baptist) to have rights to the priest bloodline.

Nope. For all her impressive genealogy, all that proves is that she was Jewish. Priestly bloodlines are ALSO passed on paternally. All that would matter is that a mother wouldn't disqualify the priest by being a convert, a divorcee, or a prostitute

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Rom. 1:3, Acts 2:30).

As a side note: how interesting that you would use Paul and Luke as the relevant authorities when it comes to Judaism's messiah.

 

[anotherglenda]

there is a real problem because not only does the messiah have to be from the line of David but he must be from the branch of Solomon which neither are. The one is through the line of Nathan which further disqualifies him because it is through the line of Jeconiah who was cursed to never have a descendant sit on the throne of kings thereby never being able to produce a messiah.

Yirmiyahu 22:30
30. So said the Lord: Inscribe this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling anymore in Judah.

It's further compounded because if Jesus was born of the holy spirit then he is disqualified because he is not from the line of David. It must be through the physical seed of David. Tribal lineage is always through the father and not through the mother so Mary's geneology is irrelevant anyhow.

Zerubabbel suffers exactly the same problematic genealogy (and also inconsistently recorded as being fathered by either Shealtiel, Pedaiah or Neri) as Jesus, yet we know Zerubbabel was chosen and recognized as God's anointed despite his previously cursed predecessor noted in those verses you quoted. Since Zerubbabel's problematic lineage didn't preclude him from being God's anointed, it would not be reasonable for people to preclude Jesus when he shares exactly the same lineage. Whatever theories work for deciding what parent the genealogy of Zerubbabel reflects, may also work for deciding what parent of Jesus his genealogy reflects. Personally I don't think it's worth stressing over. Zerubbabel gives us a precedent for recognizing problematic inconsistent genealogies which don't preclude someone having such heritage being God's anointed

 

[rosends]

Zerubabbel suffers exactly the same problematic genealogy (and also inconsistently recorded as being fathered by either Shealtiel, Pedaiah or Neri) as Jesus, yet we know Zerubbabel was chosen and recognized as God's anointed despite his previously cursed predecessor noted in those verses you quoted. Since Zerubbabel's problematic lineage didn't preclude him from being God's anointed, it would not be reasonable for people to preclude Jesus when he shares exactly the same lineage. Whatever theories work for deciding what parent the genealogy of Zerubbabel reflects, may also work for deciding what parent of Jesus his genealogy reflects. Personally I don't think it's worth stressing over. Zerubbabel gives us a precedent for recognizing problematic inconsistent genealogies which don't preclude someone having such heritage being God's anointed

here is some reading on the subject. Haftorah: Zerubavel Son of Shealtiel, Hamashgiach Harav Avraham Rivlin - Torah - Yeshivat Kerem B'Yavneh Jewish tradition teaches (Sanhedrin 37a) that the curse was annulled which would resolve any problem with Zerubavel for Jews. Does this mean that Christians are accepting the authority of the oral law in determining their leadership?

 

[anotherglenda]

here is some reading on the subject. Haftorah: Zerubavel Son of Shealtiel, Hamashgiach Harav Avraham Rivlin - Torah - Yeshivat Kerem B'Yavneh Jewish tradition teaches (Sanhedrin 37a) that the curse was annulled which would resolve any problem with Zerubavel for Jews. Does this mean that Christians are accepting the authority of the oral law in determining their leadership?

Thank you for that link. Interesting & much appreciated
Sorry I don't know if Christians are accepting of the oral law, since I'm not a Christian.

 

[RabbiO]

Jewish tradition teaches (Sanhedrin 37a) that the curse was annulled which would resolve any problem with Zerubavel.....

I think you meant 37b.

One of those extremely rare moments I get to correct one of your cites to text.

 

[rosends]

I think you meant 37b.

One of those extremely rare moments I get to correct one of your cites to text.

Thanks -- in truth, I copied it from Drazin and I don't check his citations.

 

[McBell]

As a side note: how interesting that you would use Paul and Luke as the relevant authorities when it comes to Judaism's messiah.

No less interesting as your assumption this thread is about Judaism's Messiah.

 

[rosends]

No less interesting as your assumption this thread is about Judaism's Messiah.

Who else had a messianic idea on the day Jesus was born?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No less interesting as your assumption this thread is about Judaism's Messiah.

Who else had a messianic idea on the day Jesus was born?

He thought it a clever retort.

 

[rosends]

He thought it a clever retort.

I should have refined my question to "what other Abrahamic religion". The original post was placed in the Abrahamic DIR so an answer referencing another religion would be irrelevant. Of course, the notion that a non-Abrahamic religion had a "messiah" would be problematic as the word and the idea surrounding it are from Jewish (Abrahamic) texts. Life goes on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I should have refined my question to "what other Abrahamic religion". The original post was placed in the Abrahamic DIR so an answer referencing another religion would be irrelevant. Of course, the notion that a non-Abrahamic religion had a "messiah" would be problematic as the word and the idea surrounding it are from Jewish (Abrahamic) texts. Life goes on.

The bottom line is this: promoting Paul and Luke as authorities when it comes to the Moshiach is a bit like appealing to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John on matters of kashrut.

People persist in viewing Judaism and Judaic concepts through a distorting Christian lens and wax indignant when they're called on it. It's all rather silly.

 

[McBell]

Interesting that you so readily reveal your bias and prejudice.

Or are you two going to claim to have never heard of Christianity?

Perhaps if you got out into the real world you would know that Judaism is not the only Abrahamic religion.

 

[anotherglenda]

The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Rom. 1:3, Acts 2:30).

• Act 2:30
  Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne,
  
  Rom 1:3
  about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father (the Virgin Birth)?

Yes Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David. Mark was supposedly the earliest gospel written and didn't mention virgin birth since that concept hadn't been formulated then.
The oldest manuscripts and complete NT's have been discovered which state in the genealogies that (Davidic) Joseph indeed physically fathered Jesus (even if variations appear in the genealogies like Zerubbabel's variations) and omit 'knew her not'. These early non-virgin accounts were modified in later western bibles where the concept of miraculous virgin birth was more popular than the scriptural necessity for the messiah to be a physical descendant of David.
These earliest sources easily account for why Mary herself called Joseph 'the father of Jesus' in Luke: LK 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
These early sources also account for why the siblings of Jesus initially didn't believe in him if his parents oddly didn't disclose to them that the birth of Jesus was miraculous so they should expect Jesus to be a miracle-working rabbi/teacher.
The earliest sources also account for John's gospel discussing the human father of Jesus, rather than even alluding to any virgin birth: Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Sadly scripture is true that sometimes scribes write lies:
Jer 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

Good link with refs on this topic is here: Virgin Birth Issues

BTW Cleopas, Clopas & Alphaeus, are Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew equivalents of the same name, meaning 'renowned father' or 'glory of the father' (eg female form 'Cleopatra') ...and could refer to (Davidic) Joseph, which could explain why Jesus ensured he appeared to Cleopas en route to Emmaus and why the siblings of Jesus were sons of Alphaeus (James, the brother of Jesus, was 'son of Alphaeus') and why Mary was the wife of Clopas. It was dangerous to be regal Jewish during Roman occupation & not popular to be considered genetic family of Jesus now.)

 

[rosends]

Interesting that you so readily reveal your bias and prejudice.

Or are you two going to claim to have never heard of Christianity?

Perhaps if you got out into the real world you would know that Judaism is not the only Abrahamic religion.

You DO see that that is non-responsive, right? The question was pretty straightforward. I'll reask:
What other Abrahamic religion had a messianic figure on the day Jesus was born