Was Jesus the messiah of the Hebrew bible?

[Nickman]

Cholland said he would like to debate this point so here it is.

Was Jesus the the messiah as prescribed by the Hebrew bible?

What prophecies does he fulfill and why?

Can he be shown to not fulfill the Hebrew text?

Cholland your up.....

[otseng]

How many times has this thread been done?

Atheist: No prophesies in OT fulfilled in Christ.
Christian: Here are X number of prophesies fulfilled.
Atheist: Those weren't fulfilled, but just made to look like they were.
Christian: No, they were.
Atheist: No, they weren't.

wash, rinse, repeat.

LOL

Moderator Comment

This is in violation of rule 9.

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Goat]

The Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy really narrows down the time frame the Messiah was to come to 31 A.D. And the Messiah had to come before the stoppage of sacrifice and destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D., as that clearly is stated as occurring right after the coming of the Messiah.

He was also to be peaceful and trusted by the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:1-7)

Ah yes, the good old '70 weeks' passage. Since the time frame which Daniel was written about was much longer the 70 weeks', the Christian has to take an end date, and then work backwards to try to find something they can interpret as being the starting point. As a 'prophecy' to predict Jesus, it's a total and utter failure.

Isaiah 42:1-7 is part of the '4th servant song'. If you read it in context.. .. you will see the writer of deutro Isaiah specifically identifies who the servant is.. and guess what, it's not the messiah.

Isaiah 43:9
He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

Reading in context is important, I think.

The prophecy clearly stated what the starting point was, "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem". It's not like the prophecy is at all unclear with the wording.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Nehemiah 2 clearly stated when the wall was built according to the Persian calendar too, so it's not like there's any ambiguity there, either:

Nehemiah 2:1 And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence.

Nehemiah 2:5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.

The prophecy is pretty obvious. 69 weeks from the building of Jerusalem's wall in 445 B.C. until the Messiah, and then shortly after the temple was to be destroyed and sacrifice to cease:

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Jerusalem got destroyed and the sacrifices stopped in 70 A.D. so that was your cut off point for the Messiah having come. This isn't rocket science, it's right there in black and white.

Oh boy, you have to go to another writer, by another person, to try to figure try to justify the vaguness of Daniel. That is SOOO dishonest.

You see, the book of Daniel was written in 164 BC, the events in the book are described in the 7th century bc.. and '70 weeks' , if you think 70 weeks of years, is 490 years.

That makes the people twisting the words, and working backwards to try to justify the 490 years..

Now, that is yet another explanation about how that prophecy is fulfilled from about a half a dozen or more. I have also seen it justified for when Jesus was born, for when he entered Jerusalem, and for when he was crucified as the ending point, and several different events as the starting point.

Sorry, but that justification is just not plain in the text of Daniel.

There is also the little problem with the date of the decree of Nechemiah.. that happened in 444/445 BCE, so if you added 483 years (For the 69 weeks, which is separate from the full 70 weeks), we end up in 37/38 CE.... that disqualifies that particular explanation for fitting. I mean, it's pretty tough when trying to find an arbitrary start date to what you are trying to proclaim , you can't find an event that fits, so you have to ignore the details of the prophecy. Of course, .. the 'start date' is not being justified by the text in Daniel, but rather trying to find a date that fits their prophecy ideas.

There are so many different interpretations of how Daniel's 70's weeks fits Jesus it's like 'let's through stuff at the wall, and see what sticks'.

[The Tongue]

Jzyehoshua

Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin. He goes out of his way to enforce this idea. What sense does it make if Matthew is just saying Jesus would be born of a woman? Thats a no brainer to anyone who he would tell it to. Instead he is taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context and doesn't realize that it is not a messianic prophecy. He fails to realize that Isaiah chapter 7 is fulfilled in chapter 8.

To add, the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, yet Matthew. Asserts that Jesus is the messiah and that he was born of a virgin. The gospel of Matthew shows his own ignorance of the Hebrew concept of the messiah.

That presumes a singular literalistic definition of the term "fulfilled". Could you show where Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin? Not that I necessarily disagree with that, I just would like to see the passage. Also, if you could provide the passages where the Scriptures say the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, that would be helpful.

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about [d] : His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel [g] (which means God with us).

If Matthew was trying to say that Mary was just a woman, which is the only other option, it makes no sense because this is commen sense. Matthew appeals to fulfillment. How hard is it to fulfil being born of a woman? There is no need to appeal to it as a fulfillment, but by taking Isaiah out of context he has come up with an incorrect interpretation of the text then applies it to Jesus. This is his idea that Isaiah speaks of a virgin, and in a eureka moment asserts that Jesus fulfilled it.

The Hebrew messiah is never mentioned as being born of a virgin, which if he was supposed to, would have been something that wouldn't be left out. I mean it could, but highly unlikely. So nothing says he couldn't be born of a virgin, but nothing says he is either. So there is no reason to think that he is. The Hebrew bible says many things about the messiah, being born of a virgin and being god's son is a pretty big one to leave out.

In post #127 [Nickman Wrote]..Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin. He goes out of his way to enforce this idea.

Matthew is explicit on JESUS BEING A VIRGIN? Prove that please?

[Nickman Wrote]..What sense does it make if Matthew is just saying Jesus would be born of a woman? Thats a no brainer to anyone who he would tell it to. Instead he is taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context and doesn't realize that it is not a messianic prophecy. He fails to realize that Isaiah chapter 7 is fulfilled in chapter 8.

The Lord told Isaiah to call the child born to the prophetess, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, that child did not fulfill the words of Isaiah that the child born to the young unmarried woman would be called God is with us.

The main emphasis of Matthew, who used the Septuagint that was translated by Jews some two hundred years before the birth of the man Jesus, was not that an unmarried woman would be pregnant, but that he would be and has been called, God is with us for over two thousand years, hows that for a prophecy?

[Nickman Wrote]..To add, the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin,

We all know that nothing in the Old Testament refers to Jesus having to be a virgin, why do you bother saying that? It is my belief that Rabbi Jesus was Married to Mary Magdalene, as a Rabbi in those days was expected to be married, but thats only my opinion.

[Nickman Wrote]..yet Matthew. Asserts that Jesus is the messiah and that he was born of a virgin. The gospel of Matthew shows his own ignorance of the Hebrew concept of the messiah.

Not at all matey, Matthew asserts that Jesus is the Messiah and that he was born of a Parthenos (a young woman of marriageable age) as recorded in the Septuagint, written some two hundred years before the birth of Jesus, which translation of Isaiah 7: 14; was made by Jews who expected their Messianic King to be a descendant of King David and a human being born of the seed of Adam.

Post#129 [Nickman Wrote]..18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about [d] : His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Isaac who was born of Gods promise through the Holy spirit, was the biological son of Abraham.

According to Luke, the people who knew Jesus, believed him to be the biological son of Joseph the son of Alexander Helios, a Macedonian name (Heli) who is the Father of Mary.

Jesus, who was born according to the workings of the holy promise, (My word is Spirit) is the promised seed of Abraham, and Jesus is seen as the child born of a brother and half sister relationship, as Mary is the only child believed to have been born of Anna the youngest of the three daughters of the High Priest Yehoshua (Jesus) III, while Luke makes mention of a son of Heli by the name Joseph, obviously by a previous woman.

Isaac, is seen as a prototype of Jesus, as he too was the promised seed of Abraham and was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 4: 29; Amplified version: Yet as at that time the child born according to the flesh (Ishmael), despised and persecuted him (Isaac) who was born according to the promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit, etc.

Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham.

Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father.

Terah, is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while Heli, is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers.

Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of Gods promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, and Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, TODAY I have become your Father. Or rather, Today I have begotten thee. See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, This day I have begotten thee, vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, This is my son in whom I am well pleased. Whereas the original variant was, Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.


[Nickman Wrote]..22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel [g] (which means God with us).

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The Parthenos-young unmarried woman will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means God with us). Notice that here is fulfilled what Isaiah had said, the child would be called God is with us, He was named Jesus and not Emmanuel, but he has been called God is with us. for over two thousand years.

[Nickman Wrote]..If Matthew was trying to say that Mary was just a woman, which is the only other option, it makes no sense because this is commen sense. Matthew appeals to fulfillment. How hard is it to fulfil being born of a woman?

But how many Almahs=Parthenos=unmarried women, have given birth to a child who has been called God is with us, for over two thousand years?


[Nickman Wrote]..There is no need to appeal to it as a fulfillment, but by taking Isaiah out of context he has come up with an incorrect interpretation of the text then applies it to Jesus.

Those who claim that Isaiah, the Septuagint, or Matthew, were referring to a virgin, have urgent need of enlightenment.

[Nickman Wrote]..This is his idea that Isaiah speaks of a virgin, and in a eureka moment asserts that Jesus fulfilled it.

Matthew speaks of the fulfillment of Isaiah 7: 14; in that the young unmarried Mary gave birth to a child who has been called God is with us, for over two thousand years.

[Nickman Wrote]..The Hebrew messiah is never mentioned as being born of a virgin, which if he was supposed to, would have been something that wouldn't be left out. I mean it could, but highly unlikely.

The Messiah mentioned in the Septuagint, which was translated by Hebrews in Alexandria some two thousand years before Jesus was born of a parthenos, not a virgin.

[Nickman Wrote]..So nothing says he couldn't be born of a virgin, but nothing says he is either. So there is no reason to think that he is.

Oh, he could have been born of a virgin, if Mary was artificially inseminated and the child was born of caesarean section, and if there is any truth in the unhistorical tradition that Julius Caesar was born of that operation, then perhaps he could have been, although extremely unlikely, and the child would still be the biological son of the human sperm donor.

[Nickman Wrote]..The Hebrew bible says many things about the messiah, being born of a virgin and being god's son is a pretty big one to leave out.

The Hebrew bible, nor the Septuagint or Matthew say anything about the messiah, being born of a virgin.

In reference to the promised Messianic King: Isaiah 9:6-7; "For unto us a child is born unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. His Royal power will continue to grow; his kingdom will always be at peace. He will rule as "KING DAVIDS SUCCESSOR.

[ThatGirlAgain]

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]You keep changing what you are arguing. You absolutely did start out saying that the idea started in the 5th century. But whenever evidence is presented that your current theory is wrong you claim that you never said that.

Nowhere did I ever say that the idea of the virgin birth originated in the 5th century, and anyone who would accuse me of so doing has obviously never read my posts, or were simply to blind to see what was written in those posts, which go back in this forum, to May 2010.

Either provide documentation that I had ever said that the concept of the virgin birth originated in the 5th century, or admit, that once again, you are mistaken.

I will provide that documentation one more time. Now please explain how it means something other than you saying that the idea of the virgin birth started in the 5th century. You were claiming that Luke referring to Joseph as NOT the father of Jesus was a later interpolation. Nickman asked for documentation. You never provided that documentation. Instead you claimed that The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, That is an exact quote from you as seen below. Your entire post is reproduced here to avoid any charge of quoting you out of context. In it you go on to talk about how the word should not be translated as virgin. It is painfully clear that you really and truly meant that The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate,. If you ever claimed otherwise anywhere else prior to that time please reference the post(s) where you said anything like that.

Tongue, please show me how the bracket of Luke is an interpolation. I want to believe you. The problem is the bracket plus Matthews version.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son. I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.

When will it ever sink into that blind and stubborn atheistic brain of yours that Matthew was not referring to any pregnant virgin?

I will continue to repeat this time and time again until it finally smashes the mixture of that brain of yours that is all mixed up and set as hard as concrete.

The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an Almah an unmarried female is with child and will bear a son, into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for virgin, the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew, correctly used the Greek word Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of girl, or unmarried youth, and denotes virgin only by implication.

A more accurate rendering of the Greek parthenos is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a parthenos, Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, was a widow of seven years, and is referred to as a parthenos for seven years, but she was in no way, a virgin.

Was Luke who used the Greek "Parthenos, when referring to Hanna, trying to tell you that the old woman who had lost her husband 7 years previously was still a virgin? NO! Of course not. Wake up to yourself son.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that A young woman was with child. Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, which refer to a child that had been sired by him, was, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc. Matthew 1: 23; should now read, Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc. Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

Parthenos, was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiahs words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for virgin, Bethulah which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

And as far as your professed desire to believe anything that is recorded in the Holy Scriptures, that's simply a load of old crock, you are so set in your hatred toward the biblical God and his followers, you ain't never gonna change in no hurry matey.

But others who browse these threads will at least see you for who you are.

That is what you said.

[ThatGirlAgain]

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]I have no idea what you are saying. Who is this bride of the Anti-Christ? If this is supposed to be the Catholic Church, the official Article of Faith is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which James described. Who is doing this condemning of James?

The universal church of Constantine, the mother of most of those who profess to be christians, is united with the spirit of the Anti-Christ, who refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, and who claims that he was not born of the seed of Adam, is the Bride of the Anti-Christ and the mother of all those lesser denominational daughters that were spawned of her spirit=Words/teachings, before breaking away from their mother body, and SHE, the universal church of Constantine, the bride of the Anti-Christ, has always rejected the Protoevangelium of James and to this day, the R.C.C, regards it as fraudulent.

You are mistaken on the first point. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is that Jesus became entirely human while remaining entirely divine.

III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.



IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed", in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from "one of the Trinity". The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity

Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 22a3p1.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Apocrypha says that The term apocryphal in connection with special Gospels must be understood as bearing no more unfavourable an import than "uncanonical". In discussing the Protoevangelium of James it says The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current among the faithful. To say that the Church rejects the Protoevangelium is not accurate. It is considered a work of fiction but reflecting early beliefs. The Church considers the virginity of Mary to be a very early idea and even considers the perpetual virginity of Mary to be completely factual, which idea is reflected in the Protoevangelium.

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed". The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own.

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 22a3p2.htm

[ThatGirlAgain]

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]I most definitely do NOT say that the genealogy given in Luke is Marys. I have been saying from the beginning that Matthew and Luke give different genealogies for one and the same Joseph.

No, of course you wouldnt, because you appear to believe the fraudulent Protoevangelium of James, which is the source of the erroneous claim that Anna was married to Jehochim, who was in fact the husband of her elder sister Joanah the first born daughter of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC.

The Ancestors of Jesus in First and Second Century Judea BCE
By Robert Mock M.D.
robertmockbiblesearchers.com
December 2007
Book One
Chapter Two
This young maiden, Miriam, was a child of sorrow. Her father, Heli, a Davidic and Hasmonean prince, called Alexander helios III, was apparently executed, in the world where many Davidian aspirants, as the young lions of Judah, were eliminated by the cruel and tyrannical King Herod the Great., Etc.

I Googled that up for those who wish to know from where, other than the bible, can the biological grandfather of Jesus be sourced. The families of the daughters of Yehoshua III, were very important families in Israel and should not be seen as merely peasant type people. According to Jewish traditions, the daughters of Yehoshua III, the great grandfather of Jesus were initially placed in the protective custody of the Davidian Zealots of Galilee, who were plotting to overthrow the throne of Herod.

Mary grew up in the shadows of the high priests of Israel. Her grandfather, the High Priest Yehoshua (Jesus) III, died, it is believed, prior to her birth about three years. Yet, he MAY have been living until about 16 to 13 BCE, when the pogroms were fully activated against the Davidian princes by King Herod the Great.

Yehoshua III was the ruling High Priest in Jerusalem during this chaotic Herodian period between the years of 36 to 23 BCE. A father, with no sons, he knew that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his three daughters; Jane (Joanna), Elizabeth, and Anna (Hannah) as dynastic heiress were properly placed according to the Torah with future husbands.

Anything written in blue is my own.

Because it is believed that the end of Jehoshua the thirds time as High priest, came with his death in 23 BC, and that he died three year prior to the birth of his granddaughter Mary, which would have been in 20 BC, and that her Father, Alexander Helios (Heli) was murdered at the command of Herod the Great in 13 BC, Mary would have been about seven years old when she was then placed in the protective custody of the Davidian Zealots of Galilee, who were plotting to overthrow the throne of Herod, and she would have been about 14/15, when Jesus was born in either 6 or 5BC shortly before the death of Herod the Great, in April of 4 BC around the time that he ordered the death of all the male children who were two years and below, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men, the exact time that they had seen the star that had heralded the birth of the prophecied Messianic King of Israel.

One daughter, Elizabeth, was betrothed to be the wife of a priest of a noted priestly lineage. Since Elizabeth was an heiress of the house of her father the High Priest and her husband was of the Tribe of Levi and the House of Aaron the High Priest, her son, John the Baptist, would be eligible to become the High Priest of Israel.

Two daughters, Joanna and Hannah, were betrothed to husbands of the House of David. According to the royal primogenitor law, they would be eligible to be mothers of Prince and Princesses of the House of David. According to the recent ruling of the Great Sanhedrin in 37 BCE, their sons would also be eligible to sit on the throne of David as the King of Israel. If the Lord blessed, it was possible that either one of them Joanna or Hannah, could be blessed to be the mother of the expectant messiah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanna/Anna, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) of the tribe of Levi, being a descendant of Nathan the priest who was the adopted son of King David, thereby having a legitimate claim to the throne of his adopted Father, but Nathan was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Oded-edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi.

The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b). In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the genetic lineage of David. Little is known of Joanna or Joachim, although the universal church, claim that he was the husband of Hanna, yet not the father of Mary, but the teachings of the universal church are so far removed from the revelations of scripture as to be rejected by any who are searching for the truth that is revealed through the stories recorded in the bible. The fact that the Universal church implies that Joachim is the grandfather of Jesus, simply does not gel with the bible, which states that Heli is the biological grandfather of Jesus, the promised high priest and King in the line of succession to Melchizedek.

None of the above addresses the question at hand, which is the requested documentation that there were two Josephs and that Joseph ben Heli was the actual biological father of Jesus.

I am not surprised to hear that you googled this up because this site does not support your case at all.

The family of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, came from a family of royal Davidian princes, all of whom carried the hidden dream of being the Promised One, or the father of the Promised One who would sit on the seat of their ancestral forefather, King David. In contrast, Marys family lived in the aura of the majesty and beauty of the temple culture of the Jews in Jerusalem. Josephs father flirted with the royalty from Egypt, to Rome, and to Babylon, from Davidian, Maccabean to Herodian, yet he knew that to capture the hidden love and devotion of the Jewish population, any ruler had to carry the mantle and the genetic birthright of King David.

Miriams family on the other hand, was from a family dynasty of priests. Equally regal and powerful, they carried the mantle of spiritual power, while Josephs family carried the regnal mantle of temporal power. Clothed in the regalia of the high priests, this family stood above the temporal power of the Davidian aspirants. They alone, evoked the very power of the Almighty One of Israel when yearly at the festivals of Passover, Pentecost, and Succot, they transported mentally and emotionally the Jewish pilgrims to the very portals of heaven and the throne of the God of the Universes.

http://www.biblesearchers.com/yahshua/d ... aryLineage

If the Joseph described by Matthew is not the Joseph described by Luke, then the inheritance by adoption of the temporal power of the royal Davidian princes described above does not work.

Note that Joseph " the only Joseph mentioned with respect to Jesus, is described as the foster father of Jesus. This fits in both with what Matthew says " that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus but married Mary" and with what Luke says " that Joseph was only thought to be the father of Jesus. (BTW how are you doing on the documentation that Nickman requested showing that the bracket in Luke is a later interpolation?)

And that same site also casts doubt that the supposed Talmudic support really is any kind of support after all.

This Talmudic passage appears to link the identity of Mary, the daughter of Heli with the biblical Heli in the Gospel of Luke. Yet this identity may not as close knit as it had been presumed to be. In one private written communication with the Davidian genealogical researcher, Karen Kuehn, she introduced new insight into this strange paragraph in the Book of Hagigah in the Jerusalem Talmud. As Karen Kuehn wrote:

• Karen Kuehn, Davidian genealogist " It appears that it (Talmudic passage) does not refer to Mary at all but to an earlier reference to the witches of Ashkelon. The words alei betzalim meaning something like "sprouts of onions" does not translate to "daughter of Heli". Neusner, in his translation of the Jerusalem Talmud gives the word as 'ly bslym (alei betzalim). The phrase is discussing a witch here named Miriam as one of these witches who was hanged i.e., "hanging the nipples of her breasts" a Hebrew word play on the words "sprouts of onions" (which were used for witchcraft at the time). The time period, of course, is during the Hasmonean reign (Shimon Shetah is believed to have been a brother of Queen Salome Alexander - Shlom-Zion). This woman was married to 1) Judas Aristobulus and 2) to his brother Alexander Jannaeus. Alexander Jannaeus died about 76 BCE, so it could not possibly refer to Mary (the mother of Jesus).

http://www.biblesearchers.com/yahshua/d ... MaryTalmud

[ThatGirlAgain]

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Did Matthew deliberately misquote scripture, or did he relate what he found in his version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint?
.see the parthenos in belly she shall be having and she shall be bringing forth [a] son and you shall be calling the name of him Emmanuel.

[. , ]

Matthew 1:23 copies this almost word for word:
see the parthenos in belly she shall be having and she shall be bringing forth [a] son and they shall be calling the name of him Emmanuel.

[ , ]

No! Matthew did not deliberately nor unintentionally misquote scripture, he related what he found in his version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, which was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek by Jews, who had no thoughts whatsoever of their Messiah being anything other than one, who was to be a son of David, who is born of the seed of Adam, which translation was completed some two hundred Years before the birth of the man Jesus.

The authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word Parthenos, any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiahs words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]As I have pointed out over and over, Matthew was reading the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew scriptures.

Correct! He read from the Septuagint which translation was begun in about 250 BC and completed somewhere around 200 BC, by Jews who definitly were not referring to a virgin when they were forced to translate the Hebrew term ALMAH which, according to Youngs Analytic Concordance, means, CONCEALMENT---Unmarried female with the Greek word Parthenos, because unlike the Hebrew language, which does have a particular term for VIRGIN which word if Bethulah a word that Isaiah would have used if it was his intention to refer to a virgin, the Greek language does not have a particular term for Virgin and Matthew and the authors of the Septuagint, were forced to use the Greek "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of girl, or unmarried youth, and denotes virgin only by implication,which neither Matthew or the authors of the Septuagint were implying..

Zechariah had no intention of the Messiah riding on two animals either, just poetic repetition. But Matthew doubles the number of animals to make it clear that this is a fulfillment of a scriptural prophecy.

Matthew 21

21 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.

4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5 Say to Daughter Zion,

See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.

After that misrepresentation of scripture, why should it be unreasonable that Matthew would intend parthenos to include the meaning of virgin? Especially since he makes it clear that Joseph is not the biological father and makes no mention of any other father than the Holy Spirit. What Isaiah meant is of no more relevance that what Zechariah meant. Matthew used what he found for his own purposes.

Matthew goes to great lengths to transfer the Davidic heritage of Joseph to Jesus via Mary, including her name in one of his groups of 14 (gematria for David) and sprinkling names of important wives here and there in his genealogy to smooth the way. As you yourself quoted upstream The Talmud states, Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b). In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house. By marrying Mary, Jesus inherited the lineage of Joseph that Matthew takes such great pains to document. Matthew makes this Joseph of great importance. Why would he do that if Jesus had another human biological father, whom Matthew fails to mention of course.

[ThatGirlAgain]

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Neither Matthew nor Jerome were translating from the Hebrew. Parthenos and virgo can mean virgin, there being no other word in the respective languages for it. Matthew says that Joseph was not the father and mentions no other father but the Holy Spirit, he meant virgin.

You are correct in stating that Parthenos and virgo can mean virgin, there being no other word in the respective languages for it. But let me repeat, They CAN mean Virgin. But ONLY, If that is somehow implied, such as the time that Mary, the young Parthenos=unmarried female, implied that she was still a virgin, by saying to the angel, three months before she was found to be pregnant, that she, at the time that she spoke with the angel, had never known a man.

Luke 1
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeths pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgins name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacobs descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.

34 How will this be, Mary asked the angel, since I am a virgin?

35 The angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.

Mary asks how she can conceive since she is a virgin. Gabriel tells her that The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. In other words she will get pregnant by the power of God via the Holy Spirit. This is why her child will be called Son of God " because he will literally be the Son of God.
Mary immediately goes to see Elizabeth. At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39). In speaking of the news that the angel gave her Mary says:

Luke 1
46 And Mary said:
My soul glorifies the Lord
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me"
holy is his name.

What great thing has the Mighty One already (past tense) done for her? She is already pregnant via the Holy Spirit.

Now

Please document your claim that Mary is not found to be pregnant until three months later. Also please tell us how it went down with Mary and the hypothetical Joseph ben Heli. Did he seduce her? Rape her? Did she come on to him? How did a betrothed girl get to meet his guy anyway? What exactly are you claiming that God put his blessing on?

[ThatGirlAgain]

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]And as I have also pointed out over and over, Matthew says that Joseph was not the father and makes absolutely no mention of any other father by the Holy Spirit. As James and Clement make clear, people understood parthenos to mean virgin because that was what Matthew obviously intended. The Hebrew meaning is irrelevant because Matthew was reading and writing in Greek.

In saying that Joseph the son of Jacob had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to the first of her sons, Matthew was correct, as Luke, who tells us that the people supposed that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph the son of Heli, verifies by stating in 2: 5; that he went to Bethlehem of Judaea to register with Mary, who was "promised" in marriage to him.

According to Luke, who reveals that Joseph, the son of Heli the husband of Anna the mother of Mary, was supposed to have been the biological father of Jesus, The union between the heavily pregnant Mary and Joseph the son of Jacob, had not at that time been consummated.

Luke 2:6 says that Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph. Matthew says that Mary was betrothed to Joseph (1:18) and Joseph did marry her (1:24). When exactly does your hypothetical Joseph ben Heli get to be Marys husband? And why was he hiding out in the meantime, letting Joseph ben Jacob do all the heavy lifting? And if you claim that Matthews Joseph ben Jacob did NOT marry Mary, then what has become of Matthews efforts to tie Jesus into Davidic lineage via that Joseph?

In 3:23, Luke says that Joseph, whom he calls the son of Heli, was NOT the biological father of Jesus by saying so it was thought. Or have you found that documentation that Nickman asked for way back that proves this was a later interpolation? We might note that just before this (Luke 3:22) God calls Jesus his son and expresses fatherly pride. It is obvious that Luke reveals nothing about Joseph ben Heli being the biological father of Jesus.

As to your comment on James and Clement, James who is supposed to have written the Protoevangelium of James from which Clement quoted, who had his robe of sainthood removed by the Universal church of Constantine, who to this day rejects, the Protoevangelium of James as fraudulent, only make clear, that they were lying.

I have previously documented and discussed the position of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to the Protoevangelium of James. It is considered pious fiction but as with all the Apocrypha reflects the antiquity of certain beliefs.

Your continued seeming obsession with Clement of Alexandria not being a saint in the RCC continues to be irrelevant. The official Roman Martyrology did not exist until 1583. Clement, who was present in some unofficial martyrologies, did not get included because of certain unorthodox beliefs such as the potential salvation of souls in Hell and his less than fully human view of Jesus. His belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary was not among the unorthodox beliefs. As I have previously shown this is an Article of Faith in the RCC.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Matthew did not translate almah. He used what he read, parthenos. In context it obviously meant virgin, as James and Clement understood very well.

What Clements relates from the fraudulent Protoevangelium of James is totally irrelevant, and Mathew who followed the Septuagint almost word for word "DID" translate ALMAH as Parthenos, as did the Jewish authors of the Septuagint some two hundred years before the birth of the man Jesus.

Matthew relates that which was said through the prophet Isaiah, you claim that he did not. Either provide documental proof, or admit that this is merely your opinion.

Matthew used the Greek Septuagint. He did not translate the word almah into parthenos. That had been already been done by others centuries before. I never claimed that Matthew was not referring to Isaiah. But Matthew was clearly intending the virgin sense of parthenos by making it clear that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus and mentioning no other father than the Holy Spirit. Matthew plays fast and loose with ALL of the messianic prophecies to justify Jesus as being the Messiah. Remember the two animals?

[ThatGirlAgain]

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Neither Matthew nor Jerome were translating from the Hebrew. Parthenos and virgo can mean virgin, there being no other word in the respective languages for it. Matthew says that Joseph was not the father and mentions no other father but the Holy Spirit, he meant virgin.

You are correct in stating that Parthenos and virgo can mean virgin, there being no other word in the respective languages for it. But let me repeat, They CAN mean Virgin. But ONLY, If that is somehow implied, such as the time that Mary, the young Parthenos=unmarried female, implied that she was still a virgin, by saying to the angel, three months before she was found to be pregnant, that she, at the time that she spoke with the angel, had never known a man.

As to your erroneous statement that Jerome did not translate from the Hebrew, I would advise you to do a little more research on that subject. Jeromes Latin translation of the Bible, was from the original Hebrew (see *Bible, Latin Translations). Together with his translation of the New Testament from the Greek Septuagint to Latin, this was accepted by the universal church of Constantine as the official version of the Scriptures.

I would advise you to do a little more research. Jerome only used Hebrew sources for the bulk of the Old Testament. The Gospels, including Matthew, were from Old Latin sources with reference to early Greek sources. In those Old Latin sources, Jerome would have seen the word virgo in Matthew, which I have already shown to be the correct Latin translation of the Greek parthenos,which he would have seen in the early Greek sources.

The Vulgate has a compound text that is not entirely the work of Jerome. Its components include:

Jerome's independent translation from the Hebrew: the books of the Hebrew Bible, usually not including his translation of the Psalms. This was completed in 405.

Translation from the Greek of Theodotion by Jerome: The three additions to the Book of Daniel; Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, and The Idol Bel and the Dragon. The Song of the Three Children was retained within the narrative of Daniel, the other two additions Jerome moved to the end of the book.

Translation from the Septuagint by Jerome: the Rest of Esther. Jerome gathered all these additions together at the end of the book of Esther.

Translation from the Hexaplar Septuagint by Jerome: his Gallican version of the Book of Psalms. Jerome's Hexaplaric revisions of other books of Old Testament continued to circulate in Italy for several centuries, but only Job and fragments of other books survive.

Free translation by Jerome from a secondary Aramaic version: Tobias and Judith.

Revision by Jerome of the Old Latin, corrected with reference to the oldest Greek manuscripts available: the Gospels.

Old Latin, more or less revised by a person or persons unknown: Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 3 Esdras, Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse.

Old Latin, wholly unrevised: Epistle to the Laodiceans, Prayer of Manasses, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Now, I am challenging you to provide sources for your claim that your hypothetical second Joseph is a different person from the Joseph described by Matthew as the husband of Mary and that he is the half-brother of Mary.

No my dear girl, I am challenging you to provide biblical documentation that the two completely different genealogies in the New Testament relate to the one man by the name Joseph. One being that of Joseph the son of Jacob, who is about the 24th descendant of Solomon and a descendant of the cursed Jehoiachin, the other being that of Jesus, whose mother was Mary the daughter of Heli, who is the biological grandfather of Jesus, who, according to Luke, had sired a son, who was also named Joseph, a very common name, then as now, who is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the son of Bathsheba, who was the adopted son of King David.

Now then, either reveal your evidence that the bible according to you, is speaking of the same Joseph, or admit that you are once again, only presenting your own erroneous opinion.

I could simply refer to the thousands of sources that refer to Joseph in the singular with no mention of there being more than one. But instead let us take a look at the Gospels and see if we see any indication of their being more than one other than the disparities in the genealogies.

Matthew " nope. Matthew uses his genealogy to establish Jesus as the heir of David via the marriage of Joseph ben Jacob to Mary. If there is another Joseph around who is the biological father of Jesus, a Joseph who according to Luke is also a Davidic descendent, why does Matthew need to do this? Because there is no other Joseph.

Luke " nope. Luke says that Joseph ben Heli is NOT the biological father of Jesus and stresses that God is the actual father of Jesus, this idea being completely in accordance with Matthew. Luke makes no mention of there being any Joseph prior to ben Heli. Since Luke traces the history of the family from the conception of Jesus on up, why does he not ever mention this switching of the two Josephs? Because there is no other Joseph.

As I said way back when, the Gospels writers each had their own agendas and wrote what they wrote to support those agendas. Luke wrote a rather different story from Matthew in many ways. The genealogical discrepancies are only part of that big picture.

Sowhere is your source that says there are two Josephs? The link you provided upstream does NOT say that. It talks consistently about a single Joseph as I have documented upstream.