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).

[Willum]

It's really hard to say - it seems to me the Romans re-wrote the OT and actually wrote the NT. Isaiah clearly refers to Caesar Augustus. Perhaps when they re-wrote the OT, replacing the Elohim Pantheon with Jove,* they also replaced the prophesy.

How can we know? When opportunistic Jew, imperial Romans and who knows what else re-writes the book when they have the power and it suites them.

How can we know if Jesus fulfilled the prophesy or not? Men have muddled any truth that may have been had.

[JLB32168]

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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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).

Jesus WILL fulfill the birth prophesies, even if it requires some good bit of creativity to make it so. For example, Jesus was well known to have been from Nazareth, near the sea of Galilee. Yet the prophet Micah foretold that the new king of Israel would be born in the city of Bethlehem, as had been David the king.

Mic5:
[2] But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

In a little known fact however, it turns out that Jesus of Nazareth WAS actually born in the city of Bethlehem. Gospel Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem at the end of the reign of Herod the great, at a time while Herod was still alive. Herod died at a known time, 4 BC, which would mean that Jesus was born about 5 BC. Luke also indicates that Jesus was born during the rule of Herod the great.

Herod (/ˈhɛrəd/; Hebrew: הוֹרְדוֹס, Hordos, Greek: Ἡ�ῴδης, Hēr�dēs; 74/73 BCE – 4 BCE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Gospel Luke goes on to explain that the reason Joseph was forced to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem with his heavily pregnant wife was to fulfill the census law of Cyrenius (Roman governor of Judea Publius Sulpicius Quirinius) which required everyone to return to the city of their birth to be counted as part of a census. This occurred in 6 AD.

Luke.2
[1] And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
[2] (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
[3] And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
[4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
[5] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
[6] And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
[7] And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

The census in fact took place about ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

So Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the end of the reign of Herod the great, who died in 4 AD, and the reason Joseph and his heavily pregnant wife were in Bethlehem in the first place was to fulfill the census law of Quirinius which wouldn't occur for another tens years yet.

Truly, the Lord works in mysterious ways. Often, downright unbelievable ways.

[polonius]

[Replying to Willum]

RESPONSE:

Thank you for your reply. First things first. What are you saying when you state that the Romans rewrote the NT. Do you have a reference you can cite?

Regards,

Polonius

[polonius]

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?

RESPONSE:

I am responding to your post with foreboding, but Ill give it a try.

(1) The male progenitor established the name of the family.

(2) "What evidence is there that Luke contains Mary’s lineage?" It isn't Joseph's because it begins with Nathan.

[1213]

...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). ...

2 Samuel 7:12-16 is really about Solomon.

Psalms 89:29-38 tells that David’s seed endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven. It doesn’t speak that Messiah will be biological son of David. It tells that the thrown will be long lasting.

1 Chronicles 17:11-14, also about Solomon.

1 Chronicles 22:9-10, also about Solomon.

1 Chronicles 28:6-7, also about Solomon.

There is no word Messiah used in those.

I think people have greatly misunderstood those scriptures, if they think it is about the Messiah.

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, "What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "Of David." He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, Until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?' "If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" No one was able to answer him a word, neither dared any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
Matt. 22:41-46

[bluethread]

Even if it was the genealogy of Mary this is meaningless as Jewish law only recognizes tribal affiliation through the father (Numbers1:18).[/b]" 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.

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 descendent of David through Myriam and, by adoption, through Yoseph.

[Willum]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

They did re-write the NT, they wrote it. They re-wrote the OT.

Easy:
Jesus has just a handful of temporal claims.
Pay Roman tithes to the Pagan God Augustus, via the son of this god Tiberius.
Don't molest tax collectors.
Obey Rome.
Turn the other cheek on your oppressors.

Jesus had a handful of temporal claims, and they all support the pagan government of Rome.

Augustus was made divine by the power of Jove, he gave Palestine food, water law and protection. In return the God Augustus wanted tithes.
It's not such a stretch, the god God wants tithes as well, and in return he provides... well he doesn't provide anything, but he still wants money.

How could Jesus advocate the support of the divine Augustus, when it it better to pluck an eye out than to lust after a woman?

Now the OT was re-written as mentioned; Jove, if you pronounce it in proper Latin, that means pronouncing all the letters, is (J --> Y) Y ou (ow) ay, or alternatively Ee oo vah.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

Affiliation used to be through the mother, but that changed... I forget when.

In any case, are you saying that hald of Jesus DNA was Mary's, the other half sparkling magic dust?

So Jesus was not related to Joseph anyway... just another fallacy to trip over.