Israel (is) my son...my firstborn.

[2ndpillar]

The Messiah is not mentioned by name in many passages of prophecy. But the whole of scripture points to him!

Scripture is a parable of earth and heaven, and to limit one's understanding of scripture to the earthly story is to miss the meaning! Christ is everywhere in the scriptures, you just have to have the eyes to see him.

The shadow, or type of the Messiah, is found in the figures of the Torah. Just as the tribes of lsrael are the seed of lsrael (Jacob), the twelve apostles are the seed of Christ, spiritually.

Israel was taken out of Egypt (symbolic of the world), in order that they might enter the Promised Land (God's kingdom). Law was provided whilst in the wilderness, so as to keep the people and prepare them for entry into God's kingdom. Moses, representing the Law, was not permitted to take lsrael into the Promised Land. It fell to Joshua (the Saviour), to lead the people through the waters of the Jordan into the Promised Land.

"Joshua"/Yeshua means YHWY saves, not that "Joshua" is a savior. It is "Israel" who again will be taken out of the nations/Gentiles, and led by king David, as the "anointed"/messiah, on the land given to Jacob, as detailed in Ezekiel 37:21-28, that is regard to the coming "kingdom of God". All the kings, judges, and prophets of Israel were considered anointed (messiah) by God. David had been anointed by Samuel as an anointed prophet of God. Elijah passed down his anointing to Elisha, and both were sons of men, who were anointed by God.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Jesus genealogies, even if they could be trusted, are worthless. Although Jewish identity passes through the mother, tribal affiliation passes only through the bio-dad. That includes Davidic lineage. You can claim Jesus to be of Davidic lineage, OR you can claim a virgin birth BUT YOU CANNOT CLAIM BOTH. The lineage of any step father or adoptive father is worthless -- it does not establish Davidic descent. Nor does any genealogy of his mom -- utterly worthless.

I do not need a mediator. I go straight to God. No middle man necessary.

Interesting. Jesus seemed to think that you could not get to the Father except through the Son.
Jesus said, 'l am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'

If you know the Father, then you must have seen the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:33. Is that correct?

As regards the genealogy of Jesus, you have to look to both Matthew and Luke to see that Jesus was born of the human line of David. He gained royal legitimacy through the marriage of Joseph (royal line) to Mary.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Interesting. Jesus seemed to think that you could not get to the Father except through the Son.
Jesus said, 'l am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'

If you know the Father, then you must have seen the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:33. Is that correct?

As regards the genealogy of Jesus, you have to look to both Matthew and Luke to see that Jesus was born of the human line of David. He gained royal legitimacy through the marriage of Joseph (royal line) to Mary.

We have no idea what Jesus actually said, because all we have are collections of legends about him. I personally don't think he ever said that no one comes to the father except by him. I think that idea was inserted into his mouth by those who followed him.

The new covenant has not happened yet. When the new covenant comes, we will no longer need to teach our children right from wrong, since it will be written in our hearts -- that's not true yet. Additionally, when the new covenant comes, there will be no atheists, since ALL shall know God--that is not true yet either.

And I'm sorry, but like I already said, Davidic lineage can ONLY go through the biological father. As long as Christians continue to claim Jesus had no biological father, he is defacto excluded from Davidic lineage.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Both genealogies start with Abraham and David, and it was David who was the one given the "promise". As "Mary" is not "God", and that she does not produce "seed", then including her genealogy is a bit spurious, and reflects what someone told "Luke" (Luke 1:1-3) and has no relevance to the promise given to David whose seed would rule (have throne) forever.

Only Matthew's genealogy starts with Abraham. Mary's line starts with Adam. Both genealogies are necessary.
What's particularly interesting is that these genealogies of Jesus were seen as genuine. Josephus, a contemporary, was able to find his in the public records, so l have no doubt that these records were publicly available up until the time of the destruction of the city of Jerusalem.

 

[Redemptionsong]

We have no idea what Jesus actually said, because all we have are collections of legends about him. I personally don't think he ever said that no one comes to the father except by him. I think that idea was inserted into his mouth by those who followed him.

The new covenant has not happened yet. When the new covenant comes, we will no longer need to teach our children right from wrong, since it will be written in our hearts -- that's not true yet. Additionally, when the new covenant comes, there will be no atheists, since ALL shall know God--that is not true yet either.

And I'm sorry, but like I already said, Davidic lineage can ONLY go through the biological father. As long as Christians continue to claim Jesus had no biological father, he is defacto excluded from Davidic lineage.

To say that we have no idea what Jesus said goes against the whole notion of testimony. In this case the twelve apostles, and many other disciples, gave their honest accounts of what they saw and heard. Luke goes so far as to use the expression, 'many infallible proofs' in relation to the resurrection, and if one is to accept the multiple testimonies surrounding the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, then one cannot but believe that the Holy Spirit was present to recall the words spoken by Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Only Matthew's genealogy starts with Abraham. Mary's line starts with Adam. Both genealogies are necessary.

Both genealogies are utterly worthless, unless Joseph is the bio-dad.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

To say that we have no idea what Jesus said goes against the whole notion of testimony.

It simply acknowledges the fact that when things are transmitted orally, they change. Jesus himself never wrote a book, and none of teh gospels are eyewitness accounts. They are ONLY stories that the authors collected decades later.

 

[2ndpillar]

Only Matthew's genealogy starts with Abraham. Mary's line starts with Adam. Both genealogies are necessary.
What's particularly interesting is that these genealogies of Jesus were seen as genuine. Josephus, a contemporary, was able to find his in the public records, so l have no doubt that these records were publicly available up until the time of the destruction of the city of Jerusalem.

There was no promise with Adam, except that in the day you eat of this tree you will die. I doubt if there were any records prior to Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem. As for Matthew and Luke, they were written by Matthew and Luke, not Josephus, who became the advisor to the Roman General and Emperor Titus, and subsequently a Roman citizen. Not a hill to plant your flag or try and dig out some foundation for your shaky premise. Your line starts with Adam, yet here you are, a non ruler of Israel, and although you may claim an "anointing", your verbiage does not present that as a fact. To be a son of God, one must do the will of God.
1 John 3:24
Whoever keeps His commandments remains in God, and God in him. And by this we know that He remains in us: by the Spirit He has given us.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It simply acknowledges the fact that when things are transmitted orally, they change. Jesus himself never wrote a book, and none of teh gospels are eyewitness accounts. They are ONLY stories that the authors collected decades later.

Not true! The NT books are the testimony of the disciples of Jesus, and those who try to tell you otherwise are liars!

There is an unbroken apostolic succession, which the book of Acts records. The dating of Acts must have been before 64 CE, making the Gospel of Luke a product of the 50's.

Eyewitnesses to all the events of the Gospels would have been alive to verify the information.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not true! The NT books are the testimony of the disciples of Jesus, and those who try to tell you otherwise are liars!

There is an unbroken apostolic succession, which the book of Acts records. The dating of Acts must have been before 64 CE, making the Gospel of Luke a product of the 50's.

Eyewitnesses to all the events of the Gospels would have been alive to verify the information.

Sorry, the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts. But maybe if you say it 100x it will magically come true.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There was no promise with Adam, except that in the day you eat of this tree you will die. I doubt if there were any records prior to Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem. As for Matthew and Luke, they were written by Matthew and Luke, not Josephus, who became the advisor to the Roman General and Emperor Titus, and subsequently a Roman citizen. Not a hill to plant your flag or try and dig out some foundation for your shaky premise. Your line starts with Adam, yet here you are, a non ruler of Israel, and although you may claim an "anointing", your verbiage does not present that as a fact. To be a son of God, one must do the will of God.
1 John 3:24
Whoever keeps His commandments remains in God, and God in him. And by this we know that He remains in us: by the Spirit He has given us.

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are as sound as you can get. Luke provides the evidence to show that Jesus was born of a woman whose ancestors can be traced through David to Adam.

On Joseph's side, you have a royal line from David, cut short by the curse on Jeconiah. Jeremiah 22:30.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sorry, the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts. But maybe if you say it 100x it will magically come true.

What makes you think they are not eyewitness accounts? All the internal evidence proves that they are eyewitness accounts!

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think he is directly attacking Christianity, and he pulls no punches in doing so!

Tovia Singer does not restrict his comments to passages from the Tanakh, but argues that the New Testament is an unreliable testimony. He attacks the teachings of Paul, in particular.

I only watched one video by Tovia Singer, but I don't think he's really against Christianity. Christianity is riddled with weakness, right now. Its a retirement plan for people who want to start a little church and become lifetime pastors, to supplement or replace their incomes. Perhaps God has called men like Tovia to make it less reputable for the sake of the church. Maybe he is here to provide some heat to burn away some rotten wood. "Many are the plans in a man's heart, but..." etc. There's no telling what the big picture is. We can only guess at it, and we cannot know what is driving Tovia Singer or what he really thinks or intends. He could really like messianics a lot more than he lets on. Maybe he's trying to make you stronger. Otherwise why is he putting the screws to you? He could leave you alone and let you self destruct from ease.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What makes you think they are not eyewitness accounts? All the internal evidence proves that they are eyewitness accounts!

ROFL in your dreams.

 

[2ndpillar]

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are as sound as you can get. Luke provides the evidence to show that Jesus was born of a woman whose ancestors can be traced through David to Adam.

On Joseph's side, you have a royal line from David, cut short by the curse on Jeconiah. Jeremiah 22:30.

In general, as far as I know, there is no proof required to deem a man as being born of a woman, at least until the "woke" took over. On the other hand, if there is a break in the line from David to Yeshua, through male progenitors, then you have to fall back to David's daughters, which apparently Isaiah took some to Scotland according to the lore of Scotland. At that point, you are looking at the female DNA , with two XX chromosomes, and you would have the weak King Charles, if that line was indeed unbroken, which because of a break in that line, due to the butler in the pantry, you have the true heir living in Australia, and not wanting to be King, and Matthew's line is of no consequence, especially if Joseph is not the father of Yeshua. So where does the Davinic line and the promise end at this point? Or does Josephus know, and he will get back to you?

 

[2ndpillar]

What makes you think they are not eyewitness accounts? All the internal evidence proves that they are eyewitness accounts!

According to Luke 1:1-3, he "witnessed" nothing, and simply recited 3rd party stories, which apparently did not match other stories with respect to similar events.

 

[YoursTrue]

Both genealogies are utterly worthless, unless Joseph is the bio-dad.

You might as well say that Moses' writings are also worthless, right?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I only watched one video by Tovia Singer, but I don't think he's really against Christianity. Christianity is riddled with weakness, right now. Its a retirement plan for people who want to start a little church and become lifetime pastors, to supplement or replace their incomes. Perhaps God has called men like Tovia to make it less reputable for the sake of the church. Maybe he is here to provide some heat to burn away some rotten wood. "Many are the plans in a man's heart, but..." etc. There's no telling what the big picture is. We can only guess at it, and we cannot know what is driving Tovia Singer or what he really thinks or intends. He could really like messianics a lot more than he lets on. Maybe he's trying to make you stronger. Otherwise why is he putting the screws to you? He could leave you alone and let you self destruct from ease.

Truth does not self-destruct, and the case that Tovia Singer attempts to make is that Jesus Christ is not the Jewish Messiah!

Christianity as a religion reflects the weaknesses in man, but the head of the Church, Christ, is not deserving of the criticism He receives. Nor, might l say, are the apostles, who followed in his footsteps.

As l see it, the falling away amongst Gentiles is actually a prophetic sign of the times.

 

[Redemptionsong]

In general, as far as I know, there is no proof required to deem a man as being born of a woman, at least until the "woke" took over. On the other hand, if there is a break in the line from David to Yeshua, through male progenitors, then you have to fall back to David's daughters, which apparently Isaiah took some to Scotland according to the lore of Scotland. At that point, you are looking at the female DNA , with two XX chromosomes, and you would have the weak King Charles, if that line was indeed unbroken, which because of a break in that line, due to the butler in the pantry, you have the true heir living in Australia, and not wanting to be King, and Matthew's line is of no consequence, especially if Joseph is not the father of Yeshua. So where does the Davinic line and the promise end at this point? Or does Josephus know, and he will get back to you?

You don't t have to look beyond the Bible to see that the genealogies are sound. All the evidence exists in scripture.

The point made by Josephus is that genealogies were kept in the public records in Jerusalem. Up until the destruction of Jerusalem, it was possible to check these records.

 

[Redemptionsong]

According to Luke 1:1-3, he "witnessed" nothing, and simply recited 3rd party stories, which apparently did not match other stories with respect to similar events.

The role of an historian is to give an accurate account of events. This requires using more than one source. If Luke had relied on one source, he would have left important gaps in the account, but by gathering eyewitness accounts it was possible to corroborate the sayings and events.

When one adds the four Gospel accounts together, one has an unparalleled evidence base for the historicity of Jesus' life. In fact, the beauty and structure of scripture is itself evidence of its divine origin.

The other consideration, which seems to be lost on many, is that most of the Gospel message is a repetition of the Law, and demonstrates how orthodox Jesus was as a Jew. Jesus was a mediator between two covenants, and it was necessary to demonstrate a fulfilment of the Law in order to begin a new covenant in his own person.