Evidently, Jesus did not fulfill the birth prophecies

[polonius]

Jesus was supposed to be born of the virgin Mary. Therefore, he was not the biological son of Joseph and would not have been of David and Solomon’s blood line.

And the messiah had to be a descendent of David and Solomon, so the story was that he had Davidic blood through his mother, Mary. But Mary’s lineage according to Luke came through Nathan who was never a king of Israel, rather than through Solomon to fulfill the prophecy.

"The Messiah must be from the seed of Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-16,Psalms 89:29-38,1 Chronicles 17:11-14,22:9-10,28:6-7). Matthew indeed claims that Jesus was descended through Solomon.

However, Luke claimed that Jesus descended through Nathan, David’s other son (who was not king). This eliminates Jesus’ genealogy through Luke. The problem with the claim that Luke’s genealogy is actually that of Mary is that Mary is not mentioned in Luke’s genealogy. Even if it was the genealogy of Mary this is meaningless as Jewish law only recognizes tribal affiliation through the father (Numbers1:18)." http://evidenceforchristianity.org/can- ... al-father/

And it seems quite probably that Mary was a descendent of Aaron, not David, as her relative Elizabeth was.

Luke chapter 1
5 In the days of Herod, King of Judea,[c] there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth….. 36 And behold, Elizabeth, your relative ( syggenḗs Strong’s Lexicon 4773), has also conceived[ a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; 37 for nothing will be impossible for God.�

4773 syggenḗs (from 4862 /sýn, "identified with" and 1085 /génos, "offspring") – properly, offspring, a relation; a relative, kinsman (of the same stock).

[JLB32168]

As you pointed out tribal affiliation is through the father. So, let's look at this in that light. Myriam need not be a descendent of Aharon. True Elizabeth's husband was a Cohen and this requires he marry a Levite. Therefore, Elizabeth was a Levite. However, this meant that Elizabeth's father was a Levite. If Elizabeth's father was not a Cohen, he need not marry a Levite. Therefore, her mother may not have been a Levite and therefore her uncle, Yacov, need not have been a Levite. In fact, we see in Matthew's account that Myriam's father, Yacov, was not a Levite, but from the tribe of Yehudah. So, Yeshua was a descendant of David through Myriam and, by adoption, through Yoseph.

I'm going to anticipate PA's rebuttal, which will be that adoption doesn't count - that one must be biologically linked to the father, which wouldn't be the case of an adopted child.

Now PA needs to establish why adopted children are excluded since clearly adoption is an ancient practice mentioned often in the Torah, which means it wouldn't be an issue or isn't the big deal breaker that I foresee PA alleging it is.

[JehovahsWitness]

I take it that since the original questions are bible based and refer to scripture, it is acceptable to present the answers on the same premise. Without first having to scientifically prove the existence of a God or that said scriptures represent the original text. I'll stand corrected if the OP would like to state otherwise

Jesus was supposed to be born of the virgin Mary. Therefore, he was not the biological son of Joseph and would not have been of David and Solomon’s blood line.

The Mosaic Hereditary laws were not based on biological parenthood but on legal family rights, thus when for example, a man died before he could father a child with his wife there was the provision for his brother or closest relative to marry the widow. Any children born to as a result would bear the name of the first husband.

Thus a child would legally carry the name (and inherit the property) of a man that was not his biological father.

[JehovahsWitness]

I take it that since the original questions are bible based and refer to scripture, it is acceptable to present the answers on the same premise. Without first having to scientifically prove the existence of a God or that said scriptures represent the original text. I'll stand corrected if the OP would like to state otherwise

And the messiah had to be a descendent of David and Solomon, so the story was that he had Davidic blood through his mother, Mary. But Mary’s lineage according to Luke came through Nathan who was never a king of Israel, rather than through Solomon to fulfill the prophecy..

The Messiah did not have to be a descendant of David AND SOLOMON. The Messianic promise was to David alone, so the Messiah would have to be a descendant of David. The Kingship was promised to Solomon but (ie Solomon was promised to become king after his Father David died) but that is different from the Messianic promises.

[JehovahsWitness]

I take it that since the original questions are bible based and refer to scripture, it is acceptable to present the answers on the same premise. Without first having to scientifically prove the existence of a God or that said scriptures represent the original text. I'll stand corrected if the OP would like to state otherwise

And it seems quite probably that Mary was a descendent of Aaron, not David, as her relative Elizabeth was.

The bible does not identify John as Jesus "cousin" (or Mary and Elizabeth as sisters) it only says Mary and Elisabeth were RELATED;

LUKE 1:36
"And, look! Elizabeth your relative has also herself conceived a son"

According to tradition, Mary’s mother and Elizabeth’s mother were fleshly sisters of the tribe of Levi. That would mean that Mary and Elizabeth were first cousins and John the Baptist and Jesus were second cousins. The Bible, however, does not reveal just HOW Mary and Elizabeth were related.

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Is it appropriate to ask why an almighty god needs to resort to something much worse than racism; personal geneticism, to accomplish whatever his goals are?

Isn't it more likely this is a failing of the super-ego and insecurity of the writers of the OT?

Is there any way lineage could be a germane factor, this side of fairy tales? As David is sometimes described as a mythical king, and if that IS the case, then there is no problem with him being related to Jesus, another mythical king, with a mythical kingdom lost in future.

Just laying some perspective-foundation - just sayin'.

[JehovahsWitness]

Is it appropriate to ask why an almighty god needs to resort to something much worse than racism; personal geneticism, to accomplish whatever his goals are?

I'm not a moderator but I don't think it's inappropriate to ask. Hopefully you'll find someone interested in answering.

Have a nice day,

JW

[Goat]

And the messiah had to be a descendent of David and Solomon, so the story was that he had Davidic blood through his mother, Mary. But Mary’s lineage according to Luke came through Nathan who was never a king of Israel, rather than through Solomon to fulfill the prophecy.

What evidence is there that Luke contains Mary’s lineage?

However, Luke claimed that Jesus descended through Nathan, David’s other son (who was not king). This eliminates Jesus’ genealogy through Luke. The problem with the claim that Luke’s genealogy is actually that of Mary is that Mary is not mentioned in Luke’s genealogy. Even if it was the genealogy of Mary this is meaningless as Jewish law only recognizes tribal affiliation through the father (Numbers1:18).

The LXX says, “And they assembled all the congregation on the first day of the month in the second year; and they registered them after their lineage, after their families, after the number of their names, from twenty years old and upwards, every male according to their number.� It says “families� and not “fathers,� which overthrows your point.

Why should one defer to the Hebrew over the Greek?

Well, for being the 'seed of David', which seems to be a requirement, the lineage of the biological father is what matters. Since Jesus did not have a biological father, according to the New Testament, he did not qualify to be a '"Seed of David". So, when it comes to Jewish law and Tradition, he did not fill the requirement for the Jewish Messiah.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, for being the 'seed of David', which seems to be a requirement, the lineage of the biological father is what matters. Since Jesus did not have a biological father, according to the New Testament, he did not qualify to be a '"Seed of David".

The Mosaic Hereditary laws were not based on biological parenthood but on legal family rights.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

that sounds more Egyptian, so either they copied it from them, which wouldn't be at all surprising since Noah's flood was originally a Greek, comedy, Cain and Able we Set and Osirus, or the position you are holding, is in fact contrary to what was the belief of those proto-Jewish of the time.

Just sayin'.

[Goat]

Well, for being the 'seed of David', which seems to be a requirement, the lineage of the biological father is what matters. Since Jesus did not have a biological father, according to the New Testament, he did not qualify to be a '"Seed of David".

Bible geneology is not concerned with "bloodlines" but with names (legal rights ).


[for example "brother in law" marriage allowed an inheritance of a name to which there was no direct link] Thus the name and any assets a man, whose literal bloodline had died out, continue. Adopted sons had full inheritance rights.

That might be true as the Christians view it, but it goes against Jewish custom and law. As for inheritance rights.. that is find for material goods, but that does not affect a persons bloodline.