Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

[I Am Hugh]

Well then who in the hell are you to tell me to check Jewish scripture? You think you know more about it then I do?

I'm the guy who saying that your rejection of Jesus is based upon post Biblical Jewish tradition rather that scripture. In that I'm not responding to your personal opinion, vaguely given in the OP, I'm providing scriptural support without the influence of tradition. Generally speaking, a traditional religious (Judaism/Christianity) perspective either comes from ignorance or misinterpretation designed to support the tradition. Put simply, the data is wrong. I don't consider tradition unless it contradicts my understanding of scripture. I don't care if it comes from a "Rabbi" "saint" or Spongebob Squarepants. The immortal soul, for example, (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 28:10) So, what I'm doing is offering the reader an alternative perspective. What I "know" or more accurately have learned so far. The last 30 plus years.

It doesn't negate your own perspective or anyone else's, it's just an alternative for consideration. You know yours and I know mine.

Jews do not accept the Christian bible so it's meaningless to cite it, nor did the Jews keep Christian scriptures in the temple. Jewish people aren't allowed to go into a non-Jewish building of worship, not even to admire the craftmanship of the building.

All the first Christians - all them in the lifetime of Jesus, and all of the writers of the Christian Greek scriptures, and all Christians until Cornealius, the first gentile, in 36 CE - were Jews. The records of genealogy, as well as the scriptures and laws, were kept in the temple. Meticulously copied by the scribes. If the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day could have refuted his claim of Messiah they would have. Only one person who ever lived could have been the expected messiah. According to the records of the temple which was destroyed in 70 CE.

There's no way we'd keep pagan scriptures in our temple. HaShem ordered things like that to be destroyed. The Christian bible wasn't even written in Hebrew, it was written in Greek by non-Jews.

The records and prophecy didn't name a messiah, but they did prophecy a messiah. The first prophecy of God's plan was Gensis 3:15. which I explain in this thread. Which you won't read, like you won't read the Christian scriptures, because of your tradition. And that's great. I'm just giving the reader my two cents.

Jesus isn't even in the Jewish bible so how on earth would his genealogy be there? The most recent part of the Tanakh is Daniel written in 200 BCE and if Jesus' genealogy were in there, especially since it includes his decedents AFTER Daniel was written, every Jewish person would be a Christian because that's blatant prophecy.

Matthew was the first gospel written, and it was in Hebrew and the entire Christian scripture was written exclusively by Jews. Those scriptures weren't in the temple as the Hebrew scripture was, but the genealogy was, and was used by the Christian writers of the genealogies were copied from those. You're thinking tradition. Jew and Christian because the Pharisees abandoned true worship and became Judaism just as the Christians did after Constantine. That's what religious tradition does. It becomes mythology. Syncretism.

Insulting me doesn't compel me to answer, especially a question asked in bad faith. I posted a link outlining plainly what Jewish Messianic prophecy is. Every question I see here that is already answered in said link, I ignore. If people can't be bothered to read then I can't be bothered to answer. You also obviously don't know jack squat about Jewish law (halakha) or Jewish traditions.

I'm not insulting you; I'm disagreeing with your vague analysis and I'm simply asking about your beliefs because I'm interested in that sort of thing.

So here is my answer to some of your ill-informed questions:

I don't give a rat's fat behind what the bible says, because I'm not a Christian. Try and ram that through your skull. I already told you a person does not inherit their adoptive father's tribe. As a matter of fact, if you are born to a Jewish mother and your father is not a Jew you have no tribe at all. That's Jewish law and I don't care if you like it or not.

Check the link

Don't answer with links. I can look anything up myself. If you offer a link offer the relevant excerpts. Like I did with the link I provided which you didn't read.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When I say Jewish, I mean a Torah observant Jew, which he certainly wasn't.

Interesting .. the NT did not exist in the time of Jesus, and he preached as a Rabbi in synagogues,
and was known as 'King of the Jews' in the Holy land where he resided.
..so what else could Jesus be, other than a Jew, believing in the God of Abraham?
..despite him contesting some of the exaggeration of the Sanhedrin at the time.

I don't care. Non-trinitarian theology is fringe in Christianity but at the end of the day I couldn't care less either way.

That's not the right attitude of a believer .. just caring about your own.

 

[I Am Hugh]

The simple answer to this question is that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4)

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31; Matthew 1:6-7) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David. Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Matthew departs from his style when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) He doesn't say that 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke says that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) that "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli." Luke 3:23.

Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit 1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan. (Matthew 1:6; Luke 3:31) They come together again in two persons; Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri - he was then the "son of Neri." or Neri's son-in-law. It is also possible that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son." ( Compare Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27; 1 Chronicles 3:17-19)

So, Acts 2:30; 13:23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 22:16 all of which are used by the SAB in support of Joseph being the father of Joseph and the seed of David are accurate in that Joseph was through David's line and legal father to Jesus.

Hebrews 2:16 which refers to Jesus as seed of Abraham refers to the covenant God had with Abraham, which was for a "seed" which many nations would bless themselves. (Genesis 22:17-18; Galatians 3:8) The Jews were all of the seed of Abraham (John 8:39; Matthew 3:9) but they rejected it when they rejected the Messiah. Even in Genesis 22:17-18 it mentions Abraham's seed as being a blessing to all the nations. A spiritual seed that would surpass the fleshly inheritance of the people of Israel.

Matthew 1:8 and Luke 1:31-35 is given as a contradiction but Mary was from the Davidic line and Joseph was Jesus' legal father, so there is no contradiction.

At Matthew 22:45 and Mark 12:35-37 Jesus quotes David in Psalm 110. Jesus never denied that he was a descendant of David, he only points out something the Pharisees were not aware of. Jesus existed in heaven as God's first born only begotten son before the earth was made and before Abraham. (John 1:1; 8:58)

Explanation Of Difficulties in the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke
The first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke chapter 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 - 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists - Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. (Luke 3:35-36)

From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. One needs to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.

Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important.

Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.

The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. (Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6)

Both the lists made by Matthew and Luke would have been publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The Pharisees as well as the Sadducees - bitter enemies of Christianity didn't challenge these genealogies. They could have done so up until 70 C.E. when the records were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Problems in Matthew's Genealogy?
Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. There is a name count of 41 rather than 42. By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last and finally by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah and his sons. (Matthew 1:17)

There is an omission of three kings of David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) because Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel bringing this God condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1 Kings 21:20-26 / 2 Kings 8:25-27) Matthew named Jehoram as first in this wicked alliance, but left out the next three kings to the fourth generation - Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.

Where Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Matthew 1:12) it coincides with other references (Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Hagai 1:14; Luke 3:27) but at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah. This is because Zarubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage or possibly after Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and so legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.

Problems With Lukes Genealogy?
Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second "Cainan" between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35 Compare Genesis 10:24 / 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24) Most scholars take it to be a copyist's error. "Cainan" is not found in this position in the Hebrew genealogical listings in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions except the Septuagint. It doesn't seem to be in earlier copies of the Septuagint because Josephus - who almost always uses the Septuagint - lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad) - (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Africanus, Irenaeus, Jerome and Eusebius all rejected "Cainan" in Luke's account as an interpolation.

Bible Lists of Jesus' Genealogy
Genesis And Ruth - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jered, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram (Abraham), Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Judan (and Tamar), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David.

1 Chronicles chapters 1, 2, 3. - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (Salma, 1 Chronicles 2:11), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), Shealtiel (Pedaiah) (See Footnote # 1), Zerubbabel (see Footnote # 2).

Matthew Chapter 1 - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and Tamur), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (and Salmon Rahab), Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David (and Bath-sheba), Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekia, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Jusus (foster son).

Luke chapter 3 - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni (Ram?), Amminadab, Nahshon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan (See Footnote # 3), Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judas, Symeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jesus, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel (See Footnote # 4), Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli (father of Mary), Joseph (Heli's son-in-law), Jesus (Mary's son).

Footnotes
Footnote # 1. Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiahs death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel (1 Chronicles 3:17-19 / Ezra 3:2 / Luke 3:27).

Footnote # 2. The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.

Footnote # 3. At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.

Footnote #4. Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri. (1 Chronicles 3:17 / Luke 3:2

 

[I Am Hugh]

Well, so much for Rambam and ibn Ezra and Ramban and Rashi and Karo and the Baal Shem Tov and Geiger and Buber and Rosenzweig and ...

Correct. And Ambrose, Augustine, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement, Martyr, etc. From a scriptural perspective they are irrelevant. From a theological perspective they aren't.

 

[metis]

The simple answer to this question is that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4)

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31; Matthew 1:6-7) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David. Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Matthew departs from his style when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) He doesn't say that 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke says that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) that "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli." Luke 3:23.

Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit 1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan. (Matthew 1:6; Luke 3:31) They come together again in two persons; Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri - he was then the "son of Neri." or Neri's son-in-law. It is also possible that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son." ( Compare Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27; 1 Chronicles 3:17-19)

So, Acts 2:30; 13:23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 22:16 all of which are used by the SAB in support of Joseph being the father of Joseph and the seed of David are accurate in that Joseph was through David's line and legal father to Jesus.

Hebrews 2:16 which refers to Jesus as seed of Abraham refers to the covenant God had with Abraham, which was for a "seed" which many nations would bless themselves. (Genesis 22:17-18; Galatians 3:8) The Jews were all of the seed of Abraham (John 8:39; Matthew 3:9) but they rejected it when they rejected the Messiah. Even in Genesis 22:17-18 it mentions Abraham's seed as being a blessing to all the nations. A spiritual seed that would surpass the fleshly inheritance of the people of Israel.

Matthew 1:8 and Luke 1:31-35 is given as a contradiction but Mary was from the Davidic line and Joseph was Jesus' legal father, so there is no contradiction.

At Matthew 22:45 and Mark 12:35-37 Jesus quotes David in Psalm 110. Jesus never denied that he was a descendant of David, he only points out something the Pharisees were not aware of. Jesus existed in heaven as God's first born only begotten son before the earth was made and before Abraham. (John 1:1; 8:58)

Explanation Of Difficulties in the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke
The first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke chapter 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 - 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists - Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. (Luke 3:35-36)

From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. One needs to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.

Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important.

Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.

The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. (Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6)

Both the lists made by Matthew and Luke would have been publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The Pharisees as well as the Sadducees - bitter enemies of Christianity didn't challenge these genealogies. They could have done so up until 70 C.E. when the records were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Problems in Matthew's Genealogy?
Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. There is a name count of 41 rather than 42. By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last and finally by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah and his sons. (Matthew 1:17)

There is an omission of three kings of David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) because Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel bringing this God condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1 Kings 21:20-26 / 2 Kings 8:25-27) Matthew named Jehoram as first in this wicked alliance, but left out the next three kings to the fourth generation - Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.

Where Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Matthew 1:12) it coincides with other references (Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Hagai 1:14; Luke 3:27) but at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah. This is because Zarubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage or possibly after Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and so legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.

Problems With Lukes Genealogy?
Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second "Cainan" between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35 Compare Genesis 10:24 / 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24) Most scholars take it to be a copyist's error. "Cainan" is not found in this position in the Hebrew genealogical listings in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions except the Septuagint. It doesn't seem to be in earlier copies of the Septuagint because Josephus - who almost always uses the Septuagint - lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad) - (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Africanus, Irenaeus, Jerome and Eusebius all rejected "Cainan" in Luke's account as an interpolation.

Bible Lists of Jesus' Genealogy
Genesis And Ruth - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jered, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram (Abraham), Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Judan (and Tamar), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David.

1 Chronicles chapters 1, 2, 3. - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (Salma, 1 Chronicles 2:11), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), Shealtiel (Pedaiah) (See Footnote # 1), Zerubbabel (see Footnote # 2).

Matthew Chapter 1 - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and Tamur), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (and Salmon Rahab), Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David (and Bath-sheba), Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekia, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Jusus (foster son).

Luke chapter 3 - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni (Ram?), Amminadab, Nahshon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan (See Footnote # 3), Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judas, Symeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jesus, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel (See Footnote # 4), Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli (father of Mary), Joseph (Heli's son-in-law), Jesus (Mary's son).

Footnotes
Footnote # 1. Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiahs death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel (1 Chronicles 3:17-19 / Ezra 3:2 / Luke 3:27).

Footnote # 2. The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.

Footnote # 3. At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.

Footnote #4. Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri. (1 Chronicles 3:17 / Luke 3:2

It seems to me that the above is a copy & paste, whereas it's "kosher" to cite where you got this from?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan..

Why be 'hung up' on genealogy?
We are all children of G-d .. some believers and some disbelievers .. some black, some white etc.

It is our intentions and deeds that count, and G-d gives Sovereignty to whom He wills.

 

[Muffled]

I've seen this discussed here a bit and there is a lot of misinformation so here are some of the key (but not all) reasons Jews do not believe in Jesus.

The Messiah must be from David's line and from the tribe of Judah, Jesus was not.
The Messiah must rebuild the temple, the temple still stood when Jesus lived.
The Messiah must reunite the Jews, the Jews were not even scattered when Jesus lived.
The Messiah must be Jewish... duh.
The Messiah will establish world peace and rule justly, Jesus did not do this.
The Messiah will rule when the Torah is written in everyone's heart and all people acknowledge Hashem as G-d, Jesus did not do this.

In addition Jews do not accept the notion of a trinity or original sin. We do not believe G-d will assume a human form. Nowhere in Messianic prophecy is the Messiah G-d in human form or otherwise. Jews also do not believe anyone can assume responsibility for the sins of another. G-d also calls human sacrifice an abomination and condemns it in the strongest possible terms. There is nothing in Messianic prophecy about the Messiah dying and coming back at a later date, it says he will finish the job.

There's more, but that's a primer for anyone interested.

The genealogies show otherwise.

It is in process but not on earth.

I don't know where this comes from but we will all be united in the end.

Jesus is Jewish.

This coming after His return.

There is no basis for that belief and there is supposedly one occurrence in a visitation with Abraham.

Isa. 9

Isa. 53.

 

[Muffled]

I believe there are many Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah. Perhaps the problem is that Christianity is viewed as a competing religion rather than as a progression from Jewish belief.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Think about it. Why was the genealogy omitted from Mark if they had it? Why don't the genealogies match?

Already had them. Genealogies don't have to match. They link names. There are lots of names. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15.

It's as if the Church fathers didn't even know that the Jewish Moshiach needed to be "the branch of Jesse". Then the missionaries went out with the first original Gospel of Mark, and no one bought it. The missionaries report back to HQ, "They need his lineage. Everyone's asking."
Then, in the next version of the Gospels which came out after Mark, they magically have the lineage. In Matthew it's right at the beginning. And most agree, Matthew is a book written to convince Jews.

That, to me, is plausible. The genealogies were added, not because they're true. They're added because no one would believe it otherwise.

Matthew was the first. I know most scholars don't think so, but it was. First written in Hebrew for the Jews. Data suggesting this goes back to Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century CE. Eusebius wrote: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (Source: The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16) Eusebius quoted Origen: “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (Source: The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6) Jerome wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.” (Source: translation from the Latin text edited by EC Richardson from Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9.

 

[Muffled]

Why be 'hung up' on genealogy?
We are all children of G-d .. some believers and some disbelievers .. some black, some white etc.

It is our intentions and deeds that count, and G-d gives Sovereignty to whom He wills.

I believe it is because the Messiah should fulfill prophecy.

 

[I Am Hugh]

It's Yisrael.

In English it's Israel. And Jesus instead of Iēsous or Aramaic Yeshua or Hebrew Yehoshua. I speak English so Yahweh is Jehovah. If I spoke Irish it would be Iehova, in Indonesian it would be Yehuwa, in Italian it would be Geova, Polish Jehowa, Russian Иегова et cetera.

Why? To reveal the wisdom of The Most High God by living a balanced life of inclusion, not exclusion. Doing so, all of us Jews, all at the same time will be a real and undeniable miracle. Thus proving God's existence once and for all.

Was Adam Jewish? Job? Melchizedek? Israel was formed by God to do this:

1. Select a group of people.
2. Form a nation for those people.
3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature; their lack of the aforementioned maturity.
4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So, Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ.
(See What is the Meaning of the Bible? my post, here)

Achieving this lofty ambition will require more than love. We Jews will struggle and suffer, but, we will eventually triumph, just as Jacob triumphed after battling all night with Esau's angel which is the origin story of our name: Yisrael.

Spiritual Israel and the promise of everlasting life in paradise earth was extended to the gentile when the Jews broke their covenant with Jehovah God. This is made available through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. IMO.

 

[Betho_br]

Ai Waiters carefully analyzes the contested claims about messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are questions about whether the Qumran community expected one or two messiahs.

Ai Waiters is a scholar who has thoroughly examined the messianic expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered near the Dead Sea. These findings are crucial for understanding messianic expectations during the Second Temple period in Israel.

One of the main issues discussed is whether the community anticipated one or two messiahs. According to studies, there was a complex and ambiguous messianic vision among the Essenes, who were likely the authors of these scrolls. The analysis of the texts reveals two possible interpretations:

1. Priestly Messiah and Royal Messiah: Some texts suggest that the community expected two different messiahs: a priestly messiah (or from Aaron) and a royal messiah (or from David). The priestly messiah would be responsible for religious and sacerdotal functions, while the royal messiah would govern politically. This duality may reflect the community's view on the need for both spiritual and secular leadership.

2. One Messiah with Two Roles: Another interpretation is that the community expected a single messiah who would perform both functions—priestly and royal. This view would integrate the roles into one messianic figure, responsible for both governance and religious purification.

The confusion over whether the texts refer to one or two messiahs reflects broader debates about messianic expectations at the time. The interpretation of the sources is complex, as the texts are often fragmented and subject to different readings. Waiters' analysis highlights the diversity of beliefs and expectations within Second Temple Judaism, showing that messianic views were not uniform and varied significantly among different groups and texts.

John Collins, in his analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient literatures, provides a detailed account of the different messianic paradigms found in these ancient texts. Collins identifies four distinct messianic paradigms present in the Dead Sea Scrolls, each associated with different messianic figures:

1. The Messianic King: This paradigm sees the messiah as a king who will restore the kingdom of Israel and bring about a just and divinely ordained government. This messiah is often associated with the Davidic dynasty and is expected to gather the tribes of Israel, establish peace and justice, and rule over the nations.

2. The Messianic Priest: Another paradigm presents the messiah as a priest who plays a crucial role in religious purity and the performance of rituals in the temple. This messiah is seen as someone who will restore true worship and mediate between God and the people.

3. The Messianic Prophet: In this paradigm, the messiah is a prophet who brings the word of God and guides the people. He is viewed as having a direct connection to the divine and revealing new revelations or interpretations of the Scriptures.

4. The Heavenly Messiah: This paradigm describes the messiah as a celestial or supernatural figure who operates in a more transcendent manner beyond normal human limits. He may be associated with cosmic events or direct divine intervention in human history.

These paradigms reflect the diversity of messianic expectations within the Second Temple Jewish context, where different groups and texts had varied views on what the messianic figure should represent and accomplish. Collins examines these expectations to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of the messiah in the literature of the period.

source: Stanj.ey K. Porter McMaster "The-messiah-in-the-old-and-new-testaments-mcmaster-new-testament-studies_compress"

 

[dybmh]

Already had them

Why didn't they include them?

Genealogies don't have to match

Why don't they match?

 

[dybmh]

In English

That's not the original language. You're not reading the word of The Most High. In fact, you seem to be running away from it.

 

[dybmh]

because the word sin is vague

The word 'sin' is not in the Torah. The concept you're referring to is not vague if you read the Torah in Hebrew. Your community doesn't teach its members Hebrew, right?

 

[dybmh]

I'm the guy who saying that your rejection of Jesus is based upon post Biblical Jewish tradition

You're wrong. You don't know the Torah or the post Biblical tradition. You're parroting man-made anti-Jewish doctrine.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Original sin" has been very controversial since how could a newborn have "original sin" if it's never made immoral choices?

In my Christian congregation, we were taught that the original sin occurred in the garden, the punishment for which was visited on the sinners and their progeny. Infants were born sinners because their original ancestors disobeyed God. Originally, this punishment was limited to the loss of paradise and to mortal status, but this evolved to include the loss of one's soul and the need for redemption to avoid perdition, and this we have the imagery of the lamb and the cleansing blood of Christ.

Many think the Creation and Fall narratives are myths for teaching purposes, thus not falsehoods.

We would never call anything in the Bible wrong or error for obvious reasons. Other creation myths were understood as wrong guesses invented by primitive people, but this one was believed to have come from God, so other words like allegory or metaphor were used by non-literalists.

We also never called contradictory scripture that.

 

[I Am Hugh]

It seems to me that the above is a copy & paste, whereas it's "kosher" to cite where you got this from?

I already have. It's from my website. I wrote it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I believe it is because the Messiah should fulfill prophecy.

..so if we believe that Armageddon is a true prophecy, should we encourage it,
by differentiating between black & white, Western or Eastern, Christian or Jew?

 

[dybmh]

It's from my website. I wrote it.

^^ Self-Promotion ^^