Why Jesus must be the Messiah

[Shaul]

Among the Jews, the family tree is very important, which can be seen just from the fact that the OT contains many family trees. For Jews family trees are identification, they show who a person is, to whom he belongs. Family trees are also proof for heirs, because in order to inherit something from an ancestor, the descendant must prove that he is the rightful heir and this is proven by a family tree. And that is the point, for we know that the Messiah is the rightful heir of King David and thus ascends the throne of David. Now the fact is that all the genealogical records of the Jews were destroyed by the Romans during the destruction of the temple. Only one family tree survived, the family tree of Jesus in the NT which goes from David to him. With this family tree one can prove that Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore has the right to the kingship of David. He is the only one who can do this, all other Jews living today have no family tree that leads up to David. If a Jew shows up and claims to be the Messiah but is not Jesus, he cannot prove that he is the descendant of David because he has no family tree.

Ask yourself, why did God destroy all the genealogies of the Jews except that of Jesus. He did it so that the world would know that there can be no other Messiah except Jesus.

That is not a fact at all. The Temple never contained all the genealogical records of the Jews, ever. Furthermore, if that were the case and only such records could be used, then that would eliminate Jesus as the "Messiah" too, as follows: The First Temple was destroyed during the Babylonian conquest. This happened hundreds of years before Jesus' time. If only Temple genealogical records applied then Jesus' genealogical pedigree would also be worthless. In addition Jesus would be eliminated because one or the other, or both, of the genealogical records given in the gospels would be at variance from your putative Temple records. Therefore one of the gospels that claimed to present his genealogy would be in error. But the gospels are claimed to be inerrant. The discrepancy would nullify the claims of the gospels and destroy the basis of Christianity.

You might find the following interesting: Jewish genealogy-Outreach Judaism

 

[John D. Brey]

You might find the following interesting: Jewish genealogy-Outreach Judaism

In the thread-seeder (first message), aChristian focuses on the idea that only Jesus can trace his lineage back to David. He (aChristian) appears to imply that the existence of the written lineage of Jesus (as found in the Gospels) somehow dispels the idea that anyone but Jesus can be the Jewish messiah. He bases this idea on the fact that purportedly no other Jew can produce a written lineage proving their line goes back to David. On the other hand, you've provided a link to Rabbi Tovia Singer's sound argumentation (for those who don't know, Rabbi Singer is a famous anti-missionary debater) showing, correctly, that aChristian's argumentation isn't really so sound after all.

The scripture is filled with amazing paradoxes. Contrary to the idea that the two lineages in the Gospels prove that Jesus is Messiah ---based on his being able to prove his primogeniture (agnatic) is the line of David ----quite the opposite is the case. In irony beyond irony, Jesus' two genealogical lines in the Gospels are designed not to prove that Jesus' claim to messianic-pedigree is based on his primogeniture through David, but, quite the opposite. The two lineages in the Gospels are designed to prove that no Jew whose patrilineal/agnatic primogeniture is the line of David (to include Jesus) can, or will, ever be Messiah.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The scripture is filled with amazing paradoxes. Contrary to the idea that the two lineages in the Gospels prove that Jesus is Messiah ---based on his being able to prove his primogeniture is the line of David ----quite the opposite is the case. In irony beyond irony, Jesus' two genealogical lines in the Gospels are designed not to prove that Jesus' claim to messianic-pedigree is based on his primogeniture through David, but, quite the opposite. The two lineages in the Gospels are designed to prove that no Jew whose primogeniture is the line of David (to include Jesus) can, or will, ever be Messiah.

There's an even greater paradox here than the fact that Jesus' two genealogical lines are given not to prove Jesus is entitled to the throne of David through patriarchal primogeniture, but to prove precisely the opposite (i.e., that no son of David, through primogeniture ---agnatic primogeniture --will ever be Messiah). The paradox greater even than that, is that Mary's genealogical line (found in Luke) isn't the matriarchal primogeniture (as all would presuppose), while Matthew's genealogical line is not the agnatic, or patriarchal line, that all but appears to be the case? Paradox beyond paradox, Mary's genealogy goes back to Jesus' father, and is thus the agnatic/patrilineal line, while Matthew's genealogy begins with the beginning of Jewish matriarchal-primogeniture (Abraham). Abraham is the beginning of Jesus' matriarchal line, while God is the end and the beginning of Jesus' patriarchal line.

How these truisms play out through Jewish history, and law, is, if not the greatest story ever told, then at least the second greatest story ever told.



John

 

[rosends]

Because English is the language of communication on this forum.

I disagree. The language in any conversation is the one that is most meaningful and precise. When people discuss the gospels, they often use Greek. Why avoid Hebrew?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Jesus must be the Messiah | Hellenist Christ v Jewish Messiah* (earthly, political, delivers from oppression) v Israelite Messiah , all different concepts?


"Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. Until the early Muslim conquests of the eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria (now in southern Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa region, both founded in the end of the fourth century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was a conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists."
"The Hebrews were Jewish Christians who spoke almost exclusively Aramaic, and the Hellenists were also Jewish Christians whose mother tongue was Greek. They were Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, who returned to settle in Jerusalem. To identify them, Luke uses the term Hellenistai."

Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hellenisation of Christianity is described as the emergence of “dogmas,” i.e., imperious (high handed) teachings promulgated by the church as the condition for salvation.

Embodiment, Heresy, and the Hellenization of Christianity: The Descent of the Soul in Plato and Origen* | Harvard Theological Review | Cambridge Core

Embodiment, Heresy, and the Hellenization of Christianity: The Descent of the Soul in Plato and Origen* - Volume 108 Issue 4

www.cambridge.org

The Greeks believed that the gods had children, and in Christianity, God has a child.

Compare and Contrast

I will be comparing and contrasting the Greek Religion with Christianity.

ancientgreeksbypeta.weebly.com

Pauline Hellenist Christ had got nothing to do with the Jewish Messiah and or with Yeshua (Isa s/o Mary)- the truthful Israelite Messiah, right?

Regards
______________
* "The Messiah in Judaism (Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ, romanized: māšīaḥ) is a savior and liberator figure in Jewish eschatology, who is believed to be the future redeemer of the Jewish people. The concept of messianism originated in Judaism,[1][2] and in the Hebrew Bible a messiah is a king or High Priest of Israel traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil.[3]"

Messiah in Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Pauline Christ" - mentioned in Pauline Letters

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25610187

• #50 How Many Christian Denominations Are There?

 

[rosends]

Why Jesus must be the Messiah | Hellenist Christ v Jewish Messiah v Israelite Messiah , all different concepts?


"Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. Until the early Muslim conquests of the eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria (now in southern Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa region, both founded in the end of the fourth century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was a conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists."
"The Hebrews were Jewish Christians who spoke almost exclusively Aramaic, and the Hellenists were also Jewish Christians whose mother tongue was Greek. They were Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, who returned to settle in Jerusalem. To identify them, Luke uses the term Hellenistai."

Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hellenisation of Christianity is described as the emergence of “dogmas,” i.e., imperious (high handed) teachings promulgated by the church as the condition for salvation.

Embodiment, Heresy, and the Hellenization of Christianity: The Descent of the Soul in Plato and Origen* | Harvard Theological Review | Cambridge Core

Embodiment, Heresy, and the Hellenization of Christianity: The Descent of the Soul in Plato and Origen* - Volume 108 Issue 4

www.cambridge.org

The Greeks believed that the gods had children, and in Christianity, God has a child.

Compare and Contrast

I will be comparing and contrasting the Greek Religion with Christianity.

ancientgreeksbypeta.weebly.com

Pauline Hellenist Christ had got nothing to do with the Jewish Messiah and or with Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, right?

Regards

except that there is no such thing as "Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah" unless you subscribe to Black Israelite theology.

 

[Eli G]

I disagree. The language in any conversation is the one that is most meaningful and precise. When people discuss the gospels, they often use Greek. Why avoid Hebrew?

Most people here don't speak Hebrew or have any way to ... Why are you trying to insist on people to use Hebrew here?

Not even Jewish people 2 centuries before Christ though everyone need to know Hebrew to understand the Bible. They make a pretty impressive translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures to Greek. There were a few of these Greek versions created by other Jews.

Furthermore, modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew, and even in Ezra's time, he had to help those who returned from exile in Babylon to understand the book of the Law, because many of them did not even understand the language in which it was written. they had originally been written.

Neh. 8:8 And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.

 

[Shaul]

Most people here don't speak Hebrew or have any way to ... Why are you trying to insist on people to use Hebrew here?

Not even Jewish people 2 centuries before Christ though everyone need to know Hebrew to understand the Bible. They make a pretty impressive translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures to Greek. There were a few of these Greek versions created by other Jews.

Furthermore, modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew, and even in Ezra's time, he had to help those who returned from exile in Babylon to understand the book of the Law, because many of them did not even understand the language in which it was written. they had originally been written.

Neh. 8:8 And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.

Why are you talking about learning Hebrew as if it is something onerous? If someone believes that the "Old Testament" is holy writ, then that someone should have a strong motivation and desire to read it in its original language. It isn't a burden to learn Hebrew, it is an opportunity and privilege.

 

[Eli G]

First: The Scriptures are a legacy from God to the world, not just to those who speak Hebrew.

Second: Modern Jews do not read the Law in the Hebrew in which Moses wrote it.

Third: Have you ever read in the Scriptures that to get closer to God we have to speak in Hebrew?

Fourth: don't put words I didn't say in my mouth. Thank you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

First: The Scriptures are a legacy from God to the world, not just to those who speak Hebrew.

The Tanakh, what you mistakenly call the Old Testament, is a book written by Jews, about Jews, for Jews. If you find inspiration in it, that's fantastic. But it is our sacred texts.

Second: Modern Jews do not read the Law in the Hebrew in which Moses wrote it.

This is not true. While certainly many Jews do not speak Hebrew and are dependent on translations, MANY Jews read directly from the Hebrew text. Indeed, Jews do not consider translations to be canon, only the Hebrew text.

Third: Have you ever read in the Scriptures that to get closer to God we have to speak in Hebrew?

Our relationship with God can be amplified by many things. Prayer. Service. Study. Knowing Hebrew helps with the study part.

 

[Eli G]

When did I call "The Old Testament" the Hebrew Scriptures? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Good night and until another time. I hope that in the following dialogue you will not make things up about me that I have never said.

 

[Eli G]

That is not a fact at all. The Temple never contained all the genealogical records of the Jews, ever. ...

The official genealogies of the Jews were destroyed by the Romans at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (Against Apion, by F. Josephus, I, 30-38 [7]; The Jewish War, II, 426-428 [xvii, 6]; VI, 354 [vi, 3])

 

[rosends]

Most people here don't speak Hebrew or have any way to ... Why are you trying to insist on people to use Hebrew here?

Because the person I commented to was complaining about ambiguity which creeps in when relying on a translation. If that person is dissatisfied with the translated rendering then I suggest not working with a translation. If you prefer ambiguity then good for you.

Not even Jewish people 2 centuries before Christ though everyone need to know Hebrew to understand the Bible. They make a pretty impressive translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures to Greek. There were a few of these Greek versions created by other Jews.

So? What does that have to do with another poster's raising the ambiguity in the English?

Furthermore, modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew, and even in Ezra's time, he had to help those who returned from exile in Babylon to understand the book of the Law, because many of them did not even understand the language in which it was written. they had originally been written.

Again, so what? There do happen to be a variety of chronologically separated forms of Hebrew with different vocabularies and differences in grammar. When we study Bible we do so by learning biblical Hebrew.

Neh. 8:8 And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.

So they translated it and gave explanation and context because the populace needed that guidance. And today, many printed texts have translation and commentary. So? If one is unhappy with that translation (as the poster to whom I was responding was) then learn the Hebrew.

 

[Eli G]

Ezra and others explained the book because most Jews no longer understood the ancient Hebrew that Moses used in writing the book. Not even the Hebrew letters were the same anymore, because they adopted the Aramaic letters that they used in Babylon.

One thing is certain: knowing the original languages helps to disambiguate a bit, but it doesn't always work. There are words used in the Bible that modern Jews don't know what they mean, because it's ancient Hebrew, for example one of the stones the high priest used on his breastplate.

The ancient Jews in general did not give the Scriptures the value they had. Many only knew it by hearsay, mechanical repetitions, but they did not have copies of the books. Only kings, prophets and priests had copies. So the idea that the Hebrew Scriptures were something that the ancient Jews valued highly is fanciful. Even King Jehoiakim of Judah cut a portion off the scroll of Jeremiah's writings and threw it into the fire. (Jer 36:23).

 

[metis]

So the idea that the Hebrew Scriptures were something that the ancient Jews valued highly is fanciful.

That's simply not true even though all Jews historically and currently were and are not on the same page. Since most Jews in the ancient age did not have their own person Torah, nevertheless they met at the Temple or in synagogues on Shabbat to hear readings in Hebrew. With the Pharisees at least, it was commonplace for even some commentary [the basis for sermons] and discussion. It's hard to say whether Hebrew or Aramaic were used with these commentaries and discussions, but if I was a gambling man, I would place my bets on both being used at times.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The ancient Jews in general did not give the Scriptures the value they had.

Wow. It amazes me how you get the basics so wrong.

 

[Shaul]

The official genealogies of the Jews were destroyed by the Romans at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (Against Apion, by F. Josephus, I, 30-38 [7]; The Jewish War, II, 426-428 [xvii, 6]; VI, 354 [vi, 3])

Josephus never wrote that official genealogy records for its kings or any prospective moschiach("messiah") were kept in the Temple.

Josephus Against Apion sections 30-38 (that you referenced) do not mention Temple archives. A copy of Against Apion may be found here,
https://www.philipharland.com/Courses/Readings/5025/Josephus, Against Apion.pdf
Sections 6-7 describe the keeping of copies of genealogy records of the priests. But only copies and only those of the priests.

A copy of Josephus’ Wars of the Jews Book II may be found here, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm Josephus Wars of the Jews Book II XVII 6 (your other reference) reads:
"Now the next day was the festival of Xylophory; upon which the custom was for everyone to bring wood for the altar [that there might never be a want of fuel for that fire which was unquenchable and always burning]. Upon that day they excluded the opposite party from the observation of this part of religion. And when they had joined to themselves many of the Sicarii, who crowded in among the weaker people, [that was the name for such robbers as had under their bosoms swords called Sicae,] they grew bolder, and carried their undertaking further; insomuch that the king's soldiers were overpowered by their multitude and boldness; and so they gave way, and were driven out of the upper city by force. The others then set fire to the house of Ananias the high priest, and to the palaces of Agrippa and Bernice; after which they carried the fire to the place where the archives were reposited, and made haste to burn the contracts belonging to their creditors, and thereby to dissolve their obligations for paying their debts; and this was done in order to gain the multitude of those who had been debtors, and that they might persuade the poorer sort to join in their insurrection with safety against the more wealthy; so the keepers of the records fled away, and the rest set fire to them. And when they had thus burnt down the nerves of the city, they fell upon their enemies; at which time some of the men of power, and of the high priests, went into the vaults underground, and concealed themselves, while others fled with the king's soldiers to the upper palace, and shut the gates immediately; among whom were Ananias the high priest, and the ambassadors that had been sent to Agrippa. And now the seditious were contented with the victory they had gotten, and the buildings they had burnt down, and proceeded no further."
The “archives” mentioned in that section were commercial records as is clear in the text. They were not genealogical records. They certainly have nothing to do with any putative genealogical records for moshiachs.

You have provided no evidence that the Jews keep official genealogies for determining pedigree of kings or a moshiach.

 

[Eli G]

Josephus said that there were official records.

Did you know that when the exiled Jews returned to their lands in 537 BC, many were unable to prove their lineage and were unable to serve as priests for that reason?

From then on, where do you think the genealogies were recorded? I assume if you are a Jew you will be aware of the information recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah about their return to the land and how they had to reorganize. Are you?

 

[Shaul]

Josephus said that there were official records.

Did you know that when the exiled Jews returned to their lands in 537 BC, many were unable to prove their lineage and were unable to serve as priests for that reason?

From then on, where do you think the genealogies were recorded? I assume if you are a Jew you will be aware of the information recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah about their return to the land and how they had to reorganize. Are you?

No, they are official copies. And only for the priests. That has nothing to do with establishing pedigree of the Davidic moshiach. Stop trying to put words into Josephus' mouth.

As you note during the Babylonian exile there was no Temple and no Temple copies of priestly genealogical records. Yet Ezra was able to determine who was and wasn't a priest. That's because there were records besides the copies in the Temple. The fact that Ezra was able to correctly determine who was or was not a priest without using Temple records shatters your argument. Indeed Ezra used Jewish genealogical records from other sources to recreate the copies for the Second Temple.

Jewish genealogical records are recorded in multiple locations. One is in scripture, of course, for genealogies up to the time a scripture was written. There are also genealogies records in the Talmuds. Also individual families were commanded to maintain records. This is often done in a Sefer Yuchsin. Jewish genealogical sources are among the most (if not the single most) complete of any people.

 

[Eli G]

Did you read all the quotes I cited from Josephus?

Against Apion, I, 30-38 [7];
The Jewish War, II, 426-428 [xvii, 6];
The Jewish War, VI, 354 [vi, 3]