Why Jesus must be the Messiah

[Eli G]

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.

I am amazed on your ignorance of Nehemiah writings ...

Neh. 7:61 And these went up from Tel-meʹlah, Tel-harʹsha, Cheʹrub, Adʹdon, and Imʹmer, but they were unable to verify their paternal house and their origin, as to whether they were Israelites: 62 the sons of De·laʹiah, the sons of To·biʹah, the sons of Ne·koʹda, 642. 63 And of the priests: the sons of Ha·baiʹah, the sons of Hakʹkoz, the sons of Bar·zilʹlai, who took a wife from the daughters of Bar·zilʹlai the Gilʹe·ad·ite and was called by their name. 64 These looked for their records to establish their genealogy, but they could not be found, so they were disqualified from the priesthood. 65 The governor told them that they should not eat from the most holy things until there was a priest who could consult the Uʹrim and Thumʹmim.

 

[Shaul]

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]

Did you read my post #217 where I actually reproduced the text of one of them and posted a link to others? Unlike you who never even did that much.

 

[Eli G]

The historian Josephus gives testimony to the existence of Jewish official genealogical registers when he says:

My family is no ignoble one, tracing its descent far back to priestly ancestors. . . . Not only, however, were my ancestors priests, but they belonged to the first of the twenty-four courses—a peculiar distinction—and to the most eminent of its constituent clans.

Then, after pointing out that his mother was descended from Asamonaeus, he concludes:

With such a pedigree, which I cite as I find it recorded in the public registers, I can take leave of the would-be detractors of my family.

Reference: The Life, 1, 2, 6 (1).

 

[Shaul]

I am amazed on your ignorance of Nehemiah writings ...

Neh. 7:61 And these went up from Tel-meʹlah, Tel-harʹsha, Cheʹrub, Adʹdon, and Imʹmer, but they were unable to verify their paternal house and their origin, as to whether they were Israelites: 62 the sons of De·laʹiah, the sons of To·biʹah, the sons of Ne·koʹda, 642. 63 And of the priests: the sons of Ha·baiʹah, the sons of Hakʹkoz, the sons of Bar·zilʹlai, who took a wife from the daughters of Bar·zilʹlai the Gilʹe·ad·ite and was called by their name. 64 These looked for their records to establish their genealogy, but they could not be found, so they were disqualified from the priesthood. 65 The governor told them that they should not eat from the most holy things until there was a priest who could consult the Uʹrim and Thumʹmim.

That supports my position, not yours. The records they searched were the non-Temple copies. Unfortunately these families had not maintained their copies of the familial records. Since there was no existing Temple records(!) at that time, they were disqualified until such time as a new High Priest could be installed. After a High Priest was re-established there was a mechanism (the U'rim and Thum'min) which could possibly restore them. It is ironic how you overlook the fact that the vast majority of those listed had non-Temple records confirming who they were.

I am the one that is amazed. It is amazing you would presume to lecture about things you obviously are insufficiently knowledgeable to do so.

 

[Eli G]

Yes, until that moment yes.

Let's talk about the history of the Jewish people: they were expelled from the land that God had given them, and God condemned them to live in distant lands as he had promised Moses he would if they were disloyal (Deut. 28).

They lived there for 70 years until their punishment was fulfilled and it was time for the restoration prophecy to be fulfilled in them. A new generation was born, and many of them didn't even take their past that seriously. In fact, there they began to speak a new language, did business, and created their own religious system without a temple.

When they returned, as you saw before, they could not prove their lineage, so they could not fill the positions that their relatives had according to the previous arrangements by Moses and by David. Do you think that from that moment on, neglecting genealogies was maintained among the Jews?

 

[Eli G]

... I am the one that is amazed. It is amazing you would presume to lecture about things you obviously are insufficiently knowledgeable to do so.

We have first-century records showing that Jews had to register (in a census) by secular law, and to do so they had to travel to the city where they were born and their ancestors belonged. This indicates that they had records of their paternal houses.

Besides, the record of genealogies is the logic practice shown by the statutes that were followed to inherit family land before exile, or perform marriages of relatives, or the marriage of brother-in-law, or the devolution of lands in the year of Jubilee.

I had never before heard any modern Jew deny that Jews kept family records. Is it something of all modern Jews, or just a particular idea of yours?

 

[Shaul]

We have first-century records showing that Jews had to register (in a census) by secular law, and to do so they had to travel to the city where they were born and their ancestors belonged. This indicates that they had records of their paternal houses.

Besides, the record of genealogies is the logic practice shown by the statutes that were followed to inherit family land before exile, or perform marriages of relatives, or the marriage of brother-in-law, or the devolution of lands in the year of Jubilee.

I had never before heard any modern Jew deny that Jews kept family records. Is it something of all modern Jews, or just a particular idea of yours?

Now you want to play "let's change the subject" since you have failed to prove that genealogy records for all Jews were kept in the Temple. Some putative first-century secular census has to do with whether Jews kept genealogy records of all Jews in the Temple. (Despite the dubious "New Testament" claims about Julius Caesar requiring some census in the nativity narratives) Any such putative secular census records would be worthless in establishing any pedigree for purposes of halacha. Since I stated the precise opposite of denying that Jews keep familial genealogy records by stating that they do, it is the case that you still haven't heard of a modern Jew denying such.

 

[Eli G]

I realize that now you are attempting personal attacks instead of continuing on the subject.

I wish you a beautiful day.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

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

Then why do the Jews claim they have Torah written by Moses, please, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: #68

My view is a little different.

The Jews have/had two choices, either :

1. they would have accepted him as a truthful prophet as they had accepted Moses (right?), and or
2. as it was incumbent on them to kill a false prophet (right), to kill Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, if he was a false prophet in terms of Deuteronomy.

They failed to kill him as per (2)above, right?
So, the only alternative for them, as I understand, is to revert to becoming a true Israelite instead of remaining a Jew as per (1) above, right?
paarsurrey: #134
What other alternative they had?

rejecting his teachings and living their lives. Why are the only 2 choices "accept or kill"?

They (the Jews) were to kill him ( Yeshua- s/o Mary) if they were believers of the Jewish Torah as per (2)above , else they were non-believers of Jewish-Torah, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Eli: The bible is written by men. In the case of the Tanakh, what you erroneously call the Old Testament, it was written by Jews. about Jews, for Jews. Your religion has basically misappopriated Jewish sacred tests. But you cannot change the facts.

Torah-" it was written by Jews. about Jews, for Jews. "

So, Torah was not from Moses, is that one believes in, please, right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Torah-" it was written by Jews. about Jews, for Jews. "

So, Torah was not from Moses, is that one believes in, please, right?

Regards

We don't know who wrote the Torah, but we know it was not Moses. There are at least four different authors who contribute. You can learn more about that here:

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rosends]

paarsurrey said: #68

My view is a little different.

The Jews have/had two choices, either :

1. they would have accepted him as a truthful prophet as they had accepted Moses (right?), and or
2. as it was incumbent on them to kill a false prophet (right), to kill Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, if he was a false prophet in terms of Deuteronomy.

They failed to kill him as per (2)above, right?
So, the only alternative for them, as I understand, is to revert to becoming a true Israelite instead of remaining a Jew as per (1) above, right?
paarsurrey: #134
What other alternative they had?

They (the Jews) were to kill him ( Yeshua- s/o Mary) if they were believers of the Jewish Torah as per (2)above , else they were non-believers of Jewish-Torah, right?

Regards

No, Jewish law would not have them kill him. I explained this. If you don't understand Jewish law, don't jump to conclusions.

 

[paarsurrey]

rosends said:
at the time of Jesus, the Jewish legal system was not enacting a death penalty so they couldn't kill him

There are two assumptions here:
1) That the Sanhedrin must have been involved in any attempt to kill Jesus
2) That an unlawful killing could occur given his mazal.

The account from John implies that the attempt to kill him was based on a religious imperative, not a legal one:

And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
John 11:49-51

" attempt to kill him (Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah) was based on a (Jewish)religious imperative ) "

A very good point by friend @Ebionite post #76 .
I appreciate.

Regards

 

[PureX]

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.

More importantly, why did the Romans destroy all the genealogies of the Jews except that of Jesus? Seems to me that his would be the one they would most want to destroy.

 

[paarsurrey]

• #232

We don't know who wrote the Torah, but we know it was not Moses. There are at least four different authors who contribute.

paarsurrey: #236

So, one agrees that Torah does not consist on Law given to Moses by G-d, Torah is compiled by Jewish priests/narrators/scribes, right?
If yes, then it is a Jewish book and it has got nothing to do with Israel/Israelites, right?

Regards
________________
"Hebrew Bible is not a reliable witness to the religion of ancient Israel and Judah,[46] representing instead the beliefs of only a small segment of the ancient Israelite community centered in Jerusalem and devoted to the exclusive worship of the god Yahweh.[47]*[48]**"

1. *Stackert 2014, p. 24.
2. ^ **Wright 2002, p. 52.

" The Torah (or Pentateuch) is collectively the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.[12] According to tradition they were dictated by God to Moses,[13] but when modern critical scholarship began to be applied to the Bible it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not the unified text one would expect from a single author.[14] As a result, the Mosaic authorship of the Torah had been largely rejected by leading scholars by the 17th century, with many modern scholars viewing it as a product of a long evolutionary process.[15][16][Note 1] "

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Firenze]

Jesus was not the Messiah and we know that from the undisputed experts on the Messiah - the Jews of the OT. Jewish eschatology did not even have a Messiah concept until some 200 years before Jesus became just another Messiah wannabe - who were legion in the 1st century middle east. But what they do tell us about the attributes of the Messiah is notable by what they do not include:

A virgin birth
A crucifixion
A resurrection
A birth in Bethlehem
Any divine attributes - the Messiah is to be fully man, fully human

These facts have been known for millennia now. And yet the lies of the gospel authors in inventing their own pseudo-Messiah are ignored by the adherents to this now multi trillion dollar scam.

The Messiah - Key beliefs in Judaism - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - AQA - BBC Bitesize

Learn about and revise key Jewish beliefs with BBC Bitesize Religious Studies - AQA.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[paarsurrey]

Eli G said:
The Bible reveals that when Jesus appeared on the Judean scene in the first century, the conditions for the arrival of the long-awaited Messiah were already ripe.

• #73

But as I was just saying to @paarsurrey, there was nothing about Jesus that was messiah-like. And in particular, he said out loud that he was NOT going to free the Jews from Roman rule, which is the BIG reason you'd want a messiah at that time.

" messiah-like "

paarsurrey: #238

One must say, one means by messiah-like (as mentioned above) from the point of view of the Jewish-Messiah- a lesser and worldly concept, not of the Israelite-Messiah- a spiritual one that had blessing of G-d as promised, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't see it like that. At the time the Apocalypse was in the air, the return of Enoch, God's end to Roman rule and so John the Baptist getting into political strife, interesting times. Jesus was just one more player in the religion industry, and not a very important one since there's no mention of him in any records from his time. Why would you think this particular person was the messiah, any more than you'd think anyone else was?

For a start, the first job a messiah had to undertake was getting them ******* Romans out of Judea / Galilee, and Jesus according to the NT was expressly not up for that bout. Then what was there messianic about him to persuade you he was the messiah? And that's assuming you'd ever heard of him, ever come across him, in the first place, since he didn't get to Jerusalem till act 5. And of course real messiahs don't end up crucified by the Romans before they'd actually done anything much.

On the evidence of Paul there was a cult of Jesus after his death, so he had some followers in his lifetime. Paul became an organizer for his own particular vision of Christianity ─ though again it's not clear how big a deal that was at the time, since the letters of Paul only enter the Christian story in the 2nd century when Marcion put them forward in his dispute with the other versions of Christianity.

If I were Jewish, I very much doubt I'd have noticed a messiah anywhere in all of that.

Kindly view my post #238, does it help please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
"And I can't see any reason at all why any mainstream Jew in Galilee or Judea should or would recognize Jesus as the Messiah, since he was neither a civil leader, a military leader, or a religious leader of the Jews."

My view is a little different.

The Jews have/had two choices, either :

1. they would have accepted him as a truthful prophet as they had accepted Moses (right?), and or
2. as it was incumbent on them to kill a false prophet (right), to kill Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, if he was a false prophet in terms of Deuteronomy.

They failed to kill him as per (2)above, right?
So, the only alternative for them, as I understand, is to revert to becoming a true Israelite instead of remaining a Jew as per (1) above, right?

except that at the time of Jesus, the Jewish legal system was not enacting a death penalty so they couldn't kill him. That doesn't mean that they only had the alternative of accepting him.

One must say it is not not a good plea, was it not the religious duty of every Jew in term of the Deuteronomy, please, right?

Regards