Which prophecies did Jesus fulfill as to be the Messiah?

[JayJayDee]

And of course, Jesus does not come from the SEED of Joseph, which is the one conected to King David.

The genealogy of Jesus is found in Luke 3, which traces Joseph's family line back through to David. Joseph was Jesus' adoptive father, as it states in Luke 3:23..."Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph..."

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.

 

[Me Myself]

The genealogy of Jesus is found in Luke 3, which traces Joseph's family line back through to David. Joseph was Jesus' adoptive father, as it states in Luke 3:23..."Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph..."

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.

Exactly, adoptive.

Jesus does not come from Joseph's seed as Joseph's had nothing to do with his conception.

 

[Shermana]

Exactly, adoptive.

Jesus does not come from Joseph's seed as Joseph's had nothing to do with his conception.

The original Gospels most likely did not have the concept of the Virgin Birth, it was probably a later interpolation. This was a somewhat hot topic of scholars in the early 20th century but it kinda got swept under the rug during the revival period, along with other things like the Tubingen school. Early Jewish Christians like Cerinthus did not accept the concept.

Was the Virgin Birth Doctrine Part of the Original Gospels?

For instance, there is a 300 year gap in the Timeline between Salmon and Boaz. And women are not usually mentioned in geneologies. Let me know if you want it broken down in detail.

 

[Me Myself]

No it's not. The Bible says that fleshly Israel were cast off. Jesus pronounced sentence on them.....

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,—how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But you people did not want it. 38 Look! your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from henceforth until you say, ‘Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name!’” (Matt 23:37-39)

Since it's been almost two thousand years since Jesus spoke those words, do you see the Jewish nation 'blessing the one who came in Jehovah's name'? Do you think they ever will?

A new nation of 'spiritual' Israel was chosen from among the gentiles to join those of the Jewish nation who accepted Jesus as Messiah.

"Sym′e·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name." (Acts 15:14)

Paul called them "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16) So we don't expect the literal nation of Israel to feature in anything. The spiritual nation of Israel however enjoys abundant peace, with God and with each other, just as it was prophesied.

"For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and [his] circumcision is that of the heart by spirit, and not by a written code. The praise of that one comes, not from men, but from God." (Rom 2:28, 29)

You have to understand what that 'homeland' is. Since the Bible isn't talking about fleshly Jews, it is not talking about their literal 'homeland' either.
Jewish territory is meaningless as a geographical location today. The middle east is a hot bed of racial and religious hostility....what possible connection could it have to the Prince of Peace?

Christ's disciples are found in every nation and God was not racially partial once his promise to produce the Messiah was fulfilled. Gentiles were always going to be blessed in this arrangement.

"At this Peter opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34, 35)
God's relationship to Israel was symbolic of a much bigger picture.

Sorry? If the thread is about what prophesies Jesus fulfilled, why is it inappropriate to quote him? His own words are prophetic.

Yes they are, you are just looking at a few very small pixels in a much larger image. Step back.

You are cherry picking what to interpret literally and what not. He prophecies talked about israelites coming back to their homeland, and peace coming to the jews, now you are saying these are no longer important because ey dont seem to fit.

If God knew that the jews would be underserving of having peace for what they would do to the messiah, then why did he lied to them and told em the messiah would bring peace to them? Why wasnt the prophecy "He will offer you peace but you wont take it, so you will never be at peace"?

Jesus said it himself, he did not come to offer peace but a sword. He didnt cause peace in his time as the Messiah was supposed to. Two thousand years later, no peace yet still.

So it is understandable for jews to believe the Messiah hadnt come yet, in s lifetime he did nit fulfill all the prophecies and some are just being fulfillled thousands years adter his death. Not in any spectacular way either.

At the time of his life, leaders did not consider him for their choices, certainly no one in china was likely to even know he existed. He became known and worshipped globally around the same time the other religions were: around the time of the internet.

And there is still no peace, so given that GLOBAL peace was a sign of the messiah then its clear no one has fulfilled all the prophecies yet.

 

[Me Myself]

The original Gospels most likely did not have the concept of the Virgin Birth, it was probably a later interpolation. This was a somewhat hot topic of scholars in the early 20th century but it kinda got swept under the rug during the revival period, along with other things like the Tubingen school. Early Jewish Christians like Cerinthus did not accept the concept.

Was the Virgin Birth Doctrine Part of the Original Gospels?

For instance, there is a 300 year gap in the Timeline between Salmon and Boaz. And women are not usually mentioned in geneologies. Let me know if you want it broken down in detail.

Wuld pit be too much to ask for it on another read?

Which you could do and then link to it in this one?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And there is still no peace, so given that GLOBAL peace was a sign of the messiah then its clear no one has fulfilled all the prophecies yet.

It's one reason that all prophecy is bunk. There is no world in which global peace could be possible -- not unless every creature were zombified. Every rock, too, since one rock falling upon another rock could be seen as unpeaceful.

I don't believe in prophecy to start with -- seeing it just as I see tarot-card reading -- but even if it were legitimate, it's just words, and words can be interpreted by each person in a different way.

I could make a strong argument that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies, or that he fulfilled none of them.

 

[metis]

About 15 years ago, I went to a three evening seminar taught by a Christian theologian by the name of James Lyons, who passed away about five or so years ago, and this seminar was about Jesus and Judaism. One of the conclusions Dr. Lyons stated at the end of the seminar is that Jesus could not be declared to be "the messiah" at this time or before because he simply did not fulfill all of the messianic predictions, and until he does so, we'll have to wait.

The reason why he said this was important is because if only some are fulfilled, then other people could make such claims as being the messiah. Therefore, since messianic verses are there for a reason in terms of to point out who will be the messiah, one must fulfill all of them first.

Dr. Lyons did believe that Jesus likely would fulfill all when he returns, but until then...? Also, he made it clear that if Jesus, or whomever, fulfills all these predictions, then there will be more than enough evidence to end any skepticism in terms of whom that person will be, thus ending all conjecture because many of these predictions are miraculous.

 

[Me Myself]

About 15 years ago, I went to a three evening seminar taught by a Christian theologian by the name of James Lyons, who passed away about five or so years ago, and this seminar was about Jesus and Judaism. One of the conclusions Dr. Lyons stated at the end of the seminar is that Jesus could not be declared to be "the messiah" at this time or before because he simply did not fulfill all of the messianic predictions, and until he does so, we'll have to wait.

The reason why he said this was important is because if only some are fulfilled, then other people could make such claims as being the messiah. Therefore, since messianic verses are there for a reason in terms of to point out who will be the messiah, one must fulfill all of them first.

Dr. Lyons did believe that Jesus likely would fulfill all when he returns, but until then...? Also, he made it clear that if Jesus, or whomever, fulfills all these predictions, then there will be more than enough evidence to end any skepticism in terms of whom that person will be, thus ending all conjecture because many of these predictions are miraculous.

Makes some sense to me.

 

[dantech]

Let me save you some time "Me Myself" since I've had these debates so many times.
Jews will argue that he did not fulfill the prophecies.
Jesus believers will argue that he did fulfill some of them, and is still fulfilling them up to this day.

Jews will tell you that scripture (Even Christian scripture), clearly shows that he is not of the correct blood tree.
Jesus believers will tell you that although both accounts of his genealogy contradict each other, one is for his adoptive father, and one is for his mother. In which case, Jews will respond that inheritances are completely dependent on the birth father when it comes to the Torah.

Jesus believers will then give you the one time in the whole Torah where a genealogy is given by the mother's side, a case where the son didn't have any fatherly inheritance since his father was not an Israelite - which is why Jews reject this verse as an argument.

Lets see.... What else...

Ah yes! Jesus believers, to prove their point, will mention a verse from Isaiah, which when translated correctly, and actually taken into context, clearly shows (according to Jews) that this verse actually speaks of someone from a completely different time, and whose name is actually given. No surprise there, his name is NOT Jesus, yet it somehow refers to him.

We can go more into detail, but if you let this thread just keep going, you will see that all the details to exactly what I wrote will be discussed by various members. (I'm a prophet too, just watch!)

 

[Me Myself]

Let me save you some time "Me Myself" since I've had these debates so many times.
Jews will argue that he did not fulfill the prophecies.
Jesus believers will argue that he did fulfill some of them, and is still fulfilling them up to this day.

Jews will tell you that scripture (Even Christian scripture), clearly shows that he is not of the correct blood tree.
Jesus believers will tell you that although both accounts of his genealogy contradict each other, one is for his adoptive father, and one is for his mother. In which case, Jews will respond that inheritances are completely dependent on the birth father when it comes to the Torah.

Jesus believers will then give you the one time in the whole Torah where a genealogy is given by the mother's side, a case where the son didn't have any fatherly inheritance since his father was not an Israelite - which is why Jews reject this verse as an argument.

Lets see.... What else...

Ah yes! Jesus believers, to prove their point, will mention a verse from Isaiah, which when translated correctly, and actually taken into context, clearly shows (according to Jews) that this verse actually speaks of someone from a completely different time, and whose name is actually given. No surprise there, his name is NOT Jesus, yet it somehow refers to him.

We can go more into detail, but if you let this thread just keep going, you will see that all the details to exactly what I wrote will be discussed by various members. (I'm a prophet too, just watch!)

I do appreciate the summary. It should be interesting to see if anything outside of this does come along.

 

[dantech]

The genealogy of Jesus is found in Luke 3, which traces Joseph's family line back through to David. Joseph was Jesus' adoptive father, as it states in Luke 3:23..."Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph..."

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.

Care to show me in Jewish scripture one time where a genealogy is given through the mother for inheritance?Or one time where a child inherits his adoptive father's Royalty, Priesthood, etc? One example will suffice.

 

[Shermana]

Let me save you some time "Me Myself" since I've had these debates so many times.
Jews will argue that he did not fulfill the prophecies.
Jesus believers will argue that he did fulfill some of them, and is still fulfilling them up to this day.
Jesus believers will tell you that although both accounts of his genealogy contradict each other, one is for his adoptive father, and one is for his mother. In which case, Jews will respond that inheritances are completely dependent on the birth father when it comes to the Torah.
Jews will tell you that scripture (Even Christian scripture), clearly shows that he is not of the correct blood tree.

Jesus believers will then give you the one time in the whole Torah where a genealogy is given by the mother's side, a case where the son didn't have any fatherly inheritance since his father was not an Israelite - which is why Jews reject this verse as an argument.

Lets see.... What else...

Ah yes! Jesus believers, to prove their point, will mention a verse from Isaiah, which when translated correctly, and actually taken into context, clearly shows (according to Jews) that this verse actually speaks of someone from a completely different time, and whose name is actually given. No surprise there, his name is NOT Jesus, yet it somehow refers to him.

We can go more into detail, but if you let this thread just keep going, you will see that all the details to exactly what I wrote will be discussed by various members. (I'm a prophet too, just watch!)

This "Jesus believer" will tell you that the geneologies are garbage interpolations that were shoe-horned in later.

He'll also tell you that the Isaiah 7:14 thing was referring to someone else.

 

[Pegg]

Care to show me in Jewish scripture one time where a genealogy is given through the mother for inheritance?Or one time where a child inherits his adoptive father's Royalty, Priesthood, etc? One example will suffice.

women were mentioned in the geneologies of the hebrew scriptures....not many, but they were:

1Chronicles 2:1 These were the sons of Israel: Reu′ben, Sim′e·on, Le′vi and Judah, Is′sa·char and Zeb′u·lun, 2*Dan, Joseph and Benjamin, Naph′ta·li, Gad and Ash′er.
3*The sons of Judah were Er and O′nan and She′lah. The three were born to him from Shu′a’s daughter, the Ca′naan·it·ess. And Er the firstborn of Judah came to be bad in the eyes of Jehovah, so that he put him to death. 4*And Ta′mar his daughter-in-law it was that bore to him Pe′rez and Ze′rah. All the sons of Judah were five.
5*The sons of Pe′rez were Hez′ron and Ha′mul.
6*And the sons of Ze′rah were Zim′ri and E′than and He′man and Cal′col and Da′ra. There were five of them in all.
7*And the sons of Car′mi were A′char the bringer of ostracism upon Israel, who committed an act of unfaithfulness respecting the thing devoted to destruction.
8*And the sons of E′than were Az·a·ri′ah.
9*And the sons of Hez′ron that were born to him were Je·rah′me·el and Ram and Che·lu′bai.
10*As for Ram, he became father to Am·min′a·dab. Am·min′a·dab, in turn, became father to Nah′shon the chieftain of the sons of Judah. 11*Nah′shon, in turn, became father to Sal′ma. Sal′ma, in turn, became father to Bo′az. 12*Bo′az, in turn, became father to O′bed. O′bed, in turn, became father to Jes′se. 13*Jes′se, in turn, became father to his firstborn E·li′ab, and A·bin′a·dab the second, and Shim′e·a the third, 14*Ne·than′el the fourth, Rad′dai the fifth, 15*O′zem the sixth, David the seventh. 16*And their sisters were Ze·ru′iah and Ab′i·gail; and the sons of Ze·ru′iah were A·bish′ai and Jo′ab and As′a·hel, three. 17*As for Ab′i·gail, she gave birth to A·ma′sa; and the father of A·ma′sa was Je′ther the Ish′ma·el·ite.


1Chronicles 2:18*As for Ca′leb the son of Hez′ron, he became father to sons by A·zu′bah his wife and by Jer′i·oth; and these were her sons: Je′sher and Sho′bab and Ar′don. 19*Eventually A·zu′bah died. So Ca′leb took to himself Eph′rath, who in time bore Hur to him.

1Chronicles 2:26*And Je·rah′me·el came to have another wife, whose name was At′a·rah. She was the mother of O′nam. 27*And the sons of Ram the firstborn of Je·rah′me·el came to be Ma′az and Ja′min and E′ker. 28*And the sons of O′nam came to be Sham′mai and Ja′da. And the sons of Sham′mai were Na′dab and A·bi′shur. 29*And the name of A·bi′shur’s wife was Ab′i·ha·il, who in time bore him Ah′ban and Mo′lid


women are mentioned in geneologies...so there is nothing unusual about Matthew naming mary in the geneology of Jesus.... Women do actually play a small role in bringing children into the world.

 

[Shermana]

3*The sons of Judah were Er and O′nan and She′lah. The three were born to him from Shu′a’s daughter, the Ca′naan·it·ess. And Er the firstborn of Judah came to be bad in the eyes of Jehovah, so that he put him to death. 4*And Ta′mar his daughter-in-law it was that bore to him Pe′rez and Ze′rah. All the sons of Judah were five.

Considering Genesis 38 is widely considered an interpolation, I wouldn't doubt that part was added in too.

 

[dantech]

women were mentioned in the geneologies of the hebrew scriptures....not many, but they were:

1Chronicles 2:1 These were the sons of Israel: Reu′ben, Sim′e·on, Le′vi and Judah, Is′sa·char and Zeb′u·lun, 2*Dan, Joseph and Benjamin, Naph′ta·li, Gad and Ash′er.
3*The sons of Judah were Er and O′nan and She′lah. The three were born to him from Shu′a’s daughter, the Ca′naan·it·ess. And Er the firstborn of Judah came to be bad in the eyes of Jehovah, so that he put him to death. 4*And Ta′mar his daughter-in-law it was that bore to him Pe′rez and Ze′rah. All the sons of Judah were five.
5*The sons of Pe′rez were Hez′ron and Ha′mul.
6*And the sons of Ze′rah were Zim′ri and E′than and He′man and Cal′col and Da′ra. There were five of them in all.
7*And the sons of Car′mi were A′char the bringer of ostracism upon Israel, who committed an act of unfaithfulness respecting the thing devoted to destruction.
8*And the sons of E′than were Az·a·ri′ah.
9*And the sons of Hez′ron that were born to him were Je·rah′me·el and Ram and Che·lu′bai.
10*As for Ram, he became father to Am·min′a·dab. Am·min′a·dab, in turn, became father to Nah′shon the chieftain of the sons of Judah. 11*Nah′shon, in turn, became father to Sal′ma. Sal′ma, in turn, became father to Bo′az. 12*Bo′az, in turn, became father to O′bed. O′bed, in turn, became father to Jes′se. 13*Jes′se, in turn, became father to his firstborn E·li′ab, and A·bin′a·dab the second, and Shim′e·a the third, 14*Ne·than′el the fourth, Rad′dai the fifth, 15*O′zem the sixth, David the seventh. 16*And their sisters were Ze·ru′iah and Ab′i·gail; and the sons of Ze·ru′iah were A·bish′ai and Jo′ab and As′a·hel, three. 17*As for Ab′i·gail, she gave birth to A·ma′sa; and the father of A·ma′sa was Je′ther the Ish′ma·el·ite.


1Chronicles 2:18*As for Ca′leb the son of Hez′ron, he became father to sons by A·zu′bah his wife and by Jer′i·oth; and these were her sons: Je′sher and Sho′bab and Ar′don. 19*Eventually A·zu′bah died. So Ca′leb took to himself Eph′rath, who in time bore Hur to him.

1Chronicles 2:26*And Je·rah′me·el came to have another wife, whose name was At′a·rah. She was the mother of O′nam. 27*And the sons of Ram the firstborn of Je·rah′me·el came to be Ma′az and Ja′min and E′ker. 28*And the sons of O′nam came to be Sham′mai and Ja′da. And the sons of Sham′mai were Na′dab and A·bi′shur. 29*And the name of A·bi′shur’s wife was Ab′i·ha·il, who in time bore him Ah′ban and Mo′lid


women are mentioned in geneologies...so there is nothing unusual about Matthew naming mary in the geneology of Jesus.... Women do actually play a small role in bringing children into the world.

I didn't say they are never mentioned. I asked for genealogies that go by the woman (not the man), in reference to inheritance.

In the cases you showed, the genealogy is still by the father, but mentions who the mother is. "The three were born to HIM from..."
Also, this has nothing to do with inheritance.

 

[dantech]

This "Jesus believer" will tell you that the geneologies are garbage interpolations that were shoe-horned in later.

He'll also tell you that the Isaiah 7:14 thing was referring to someone else.

You know you're the exception.

I was mainly talking about Christians, but every now and then there are those who believe these things who don't consider themselves Christians, which is why I generalized by calling the group "Jesus Believers".

 

[Shermana]

You know you're the exception.

I was mainly talking about Christians, but every now and then there are those who believe these things who don't consider themselves Christians, which is why I generalized by calling the group "Jesus Believers".

Oh believe me, I'm well aware that I'm the exception.

My goal, if you haven't noticed, is to show that the mainstream view should not represent the original (i.e. the Early Chrisitans like Cerinthus did not believe in Virgin Birth or Trinity or Paul or most orthodox doctrines).. If anything, the mainstream view needs to be knocked down like a condemned building.

 

[Sleeppy]

I didn't say they are never mentioned. I asked for genealogies that go by the woman (not the man), in reference to inheritance.

In the cases you showed, the genealogy is still by the father, but mentions who the mother is. "The three were born to HIM from..."
Also, this has nothing to do with inheritance.

Let's ask a few very simple questions.

1) Why were genealogies, for the most part, paternal?

2) Is your current system the same? What has changed?

3) What is the purpose of inheritance?

4) Is genealogy writing an efficient process for this purpose?

 

[CMike]

Depends on who is compiling the list

Ezekiel 37 and Michah 4:3

 

[JayJayDee]

Care to show me in Jewish scripture one time where a genealogy is given through the mother for inheritance?Or one time where a child inherits his adoptive father's Royalty, Priesthood, etc? One example will suffice.

Hello dantech,

What I actually said was .....

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

This genealogy from both of Jesus' parents was proved that he was indeed a "son of David". Which was part of the credentials needed to prove his claim to be Messiah. It had little to do with inheritance.

The prophesy in Isaiah 9:6, 7 (CJB) says....
" For a child is born to us,
a son is given to us;
dominion will rest on his shoulders,
and he will be given the name
Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor
Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom
[Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God,
Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace],
6 (7) in order to extend the dominion
and perpetuate the peace
of the throne and kingdom of David,
to secure it and sustain it
through justice and righteousness
henceforth and forever.
The zeal of Adonai-Tzva’ot
will accomplish this."


It was the opinion of those who knew the family that Joseph was Jesus' legal father as well as his siblings, but he was the firstborn of the family.

Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.

"Adonai has sworn it,
and he will never retract —
“You are a cohen (priest) forever,
to be compared with Malki-Tzedek.” (Psalm 110:4 CJB)

Since the Messiah was prophesied to be both a king and a priest, according to the manner of "Malki-Tzedek", (Mel·chiz′e·dek, a king/priest whose genealogy is not revealed) both the prophesy in Isaiah and Psalm 110 indicate that it was only by God's declaration that this was so. The kingly tribe and the priestly tribe were separate. Messiah was to be a "son of David" (kingly tribe) as his genealogy proved but he was also to be a priest.