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 Solomons 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 Marys 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, Davids other son (who was not king). This eliminates Jesus genealogy through Luke. The problem with the claim that Lukes genealogy is actually that of Mary is that Mary is not mentioned in Lukes 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 ( syggens Strongs 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 syggens (from 4862 /sn, "identified with" and 1085 /gnos, "offspring") " properly, offspring, a relation; a relative, kinsman (of the same stock).

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 20 by Goat]



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 legally bear the name, not of his biological father, but of the dead first husband.

DEUTERONOMY 25:5, 6
In case brothers dwell together and one of them has died without his having a son, the wife of the dead one should not become a strange mans outside. Her brother-in-law should go to her, and he must take her as his wife and perform brother-in-law marriage with her. And it must occur that the firstborn whom she will bear should succeed to THE NAME OF HIS DEAD BROTHER*, that his name may not be wiped out of Israel.

*He that says "name" says "ancestral rights

That this is the case is proven by the example in scripture of the Naomi whose husband and two sons (although married) died before fathering offspring. At that point the bloodline of Naomi's husbend (Elimelech) came to an end.

However, as stated, the he bible has a provision to continue the family name (and pass on all inheritance) through the the closest male relative of the dead man, referred to as the law of "repurchase". When Boaz married Ruth (Naomi's daughter in law), their child replaced Elimelech's dead son (although having no link to his original ancestral family. The child therefore would, as a legitimate son of Israel, (Deut 23:3)

*Le 25:48, 49; Nu 27:5-11










RELATED POSTS

VIRGIN Does the writer of Matthew "mistranslate" or "misapply" Isaiah 7:14?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#p763618

Did Mary lie about her pregnancy to avoid being stoned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p898401

Are biblical hereditary rights based on biology?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p781898

When does Luke indicate Jesus was born?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 63#p831863

Was Jesus a wicked baby?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p980517

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JESUS CHRIST, APPEARANCE, and ...CONCEPTION & BIRTH

[Goat]

[Replying to post 20 by Goat]



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 legally bear the name, not of his biological father, but of the dead first husband.

DEUTERONOMY 25:5, 6
In case brothers dwell together and one of them has died without his having a son, the wife of the dead one should not become a strange mans outside. Her brother-in-law should go to her, and he must take her as his wife and perform brother-in-law marriage with her. And it must occur that the firstborn whom she will bear should succeed to THE NAME OF HIS DEAD BROTHER*, that his name may not be wiped out of Israel.

*He that says "name" says "ancestral rights

That this is the case is proven by the example in scripture of the Naomi whose husband and two sons (although married) died before fathering offspring. At that point the bloodline of Naomi's husbend (Elimelech) came to an end.

However, as stated, the he bible has a provision to continue the family name (and pass on all inheritance) through the the closest male relative of the dead man, referred to as the "repurchaser". When Boaz married Ruth (Naomi's daughter in law), their child replaced Elimelech's dead son (although having no link though to of his original ancestral family (that of Elimelech). The child therefore would, as a legitimate son of Israel, (Deut 23:3)

*Le 25:48, 49; Nu 27:5-11

Not at all. You are not reading it right. That is taking about the leverite marriage, which means that the common grandfather would be the blood line. The brother of the dead man would be the father .. if they shared a common father themselves.

[JehovahsWitness]

That is taking about the leverite marriage, which means that the common grandfather would be the blood line. The brother of the dead man would be the father .. if they shared a common father themselves.

In the case of Ruth and Boaz they could not have had a common grandfather because Ruth was a Moabitess. She had no blood link to anyone in Israel.

[bluethread]

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.

I think this is one of those cases where we will not see a response. That said, rabbinically, that is beyond question. Just as a naturalized citizen has all the rights and responsibilities of a hereditary citizen, so an adopted son is treated just like an hereditary one.

[polonius]

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.

RESPONSE: No. Reread Micah's prophecy. Micah wrote that the messiah would be of the clan (subdivision of a tribe) of Bethlehem, not the geographical place named Bethlehem. Matthew got it wrong as he frequently does with prophecies.

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 (/hrd/; Hebrew: "", Hordos, Greek: -, H"rd"s; 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

RESPONSE:
No. Luke says that Mary (and her relative Elizabelth) would become pregnant during the lifetime of Herod. But in his chapter 2 Luke has Jesus actually born ten years after Herod's death during the 6 AD census of Quirinius conducted after the exile of Archelaus, Herod's son and inheritor of Judea. See Josephus' History of the Jews confirming the 6 AD date of the census of Judea (but not of Galilee).

Curiously, Luke, but not Matthew, describes Quirinius' census making Herod's "slaughter of the Innocent" chronologically imposible since Herod had been dead for ten years at the time of the census. Also, Luke doesn't explain why Joseph and Mary, residents of Nazareth in Galilee, not Judea, were counted in the Judean census. Judea was not ruled or taxed by Quirinius as was Judea. It remained under Herod Antipas, another of Herod's sons, until 37 AD. Another of the many blunders in the nativity accounts!

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.

Response: And in which Judeans, but not Galileens were counted by Quirinius.

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

RESPONSE: One has to learn to tell historical fact from the many fictions in the New Testament!


Incidentally, if you carefully reread Luke 1 and the first part of Luke 2, you will find that Mary was pregnant with Jesus for ten years. That is, from before 4 BC, Herod's death, until Jesus birth at the time of the 6 AD census.

Also note Matthew's claim of the prophecy "He (jesus) shall be called a Nazoreen!" There is no such prophecy and Nazareth is not even mentioned in the Old Testament.

One just has to love such inerrant and "God breathed" accounts!!!!

[polonius]

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.

I think this is one of those cases where we will not see a response. That said, rabbinically, that is beyond question. Just as a naturalized citizen has all the rights and responsibilities of a hereditary citizen, so an adopted son is treated just like an hereditary one.

RESPONSE: Adoption does not qualify one for the Jewish priesthood or kingship.

2 Samual 7 " [12] And when thy days shall be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. [13] He shall build a house to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever." (DR Bible0

"I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels"

That's NOT adoption! Read the words!


By the way, in which passage of the New Testament do you claim reports that Joseph "adopted" Jesus?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

RESPONSE: No. Reread Micah's prophecy. Micah wrote that the messiah would be of the clan (subdivision of a tribe) of Bethlehem, not the geographical place named Bethlehem.

Micah does not mention the word "clan", "family" or "tribe". Although the bible does identify an individual named Bethlehem and mentions the family group of Ephrathites there was never a clan (or tribe) of BETHLEHEM-EPHRATAH. The only times the two names are associated, is when refering to Bethlehem as a physical location : the names of Bethlehem and Ephrathah are used jointly in several texts refering to a region in Judah and sometimes interchangably so (Ge 35:16, 19; 48:7; Ps 132:6)

CONCLUSIOIN Since no tribe or sub-tribe (clan) "Bethlehem Ephrathah" has ever been proven to exist, but the names Bethlehem and/or Ephrathah are frequently used in scripture to refer to a physical location, it seems reasonable to conclude the prophecy in Micah is indeed refering to the town/region of Bethlehem.

[JehovahsWitness]

RESPONSE:

[...] in his chapter 2 Luke has Jesus actually born ten years after Herod's death during the 6 AD census of Quirinius conducted after the exile of Archelaus, Herod's son and inheritor of Judea.[...] making Herod's "slaughter of the Innocent" chronologically imposible since Herod had been dead for ten years at the time of the census.

Evidence indicates that the governorship of Syria by Quirinius in 6 CE was not his only one.

It seems he served as the emperors legate in Syria during TWO distinct periods. The Lapis Tiburtinus inscription, which is acknowledge by most scholars to apply only to Quirinius, affirms that on going to Syria he became governor (or, legate) for the second time. -- see Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by H. Dessau, Berlin, 1887, Vol. 14, p. 397, No. 3613 (also see "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291.)

The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98 ) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria. -- The Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampons French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360

While the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite, Luke's reference to This first registration" may well refer to a governship EARLIER than 6 CE thus aligning chronologically the events reported.

[JehovahsWitness]

Also note Matthew's claim of the prophecy "He (jesus) shall be called a Nazoreen!" There is no such prophecy and Nazareth is not even mentioned in the Old Testament.

QUESTION: Why did Matthew say there was a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene (Mat 2:23)?

Regarding the Hebrew scripures, the name Narareth literally in Hebrew means "Sprout Town" (from the hebrew 'sprout': Netser). Matthew may well have been linking this with scriptures that refer to the Messiah being of the "sprout" of Jesse as well as Zechariah who describes the prophecied king saying "his name is Sprout" (see Matthew 2: 19 - 23 , Zech 3: 8, 6: 12, 13)

Regarding the substantive nature of Matthew's reference the Pulpit Commentary state:

... the phrase " -" suggests personality rather than writing, and implies either that two or more prophets were the agents by whom the words were spoken, or, better, that in some way the whole company of the prophets (cf. Acts 3:25; Hebrews 1:1) spoke the message now summarized. In this way the phrase will indicate that [the words] represent a phase of teaching common to all
http://biblehub.com/matthew/2-23.htm

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by JehovahsWitness]

Or, like anyone caught in their own inconsistencies, they flail desperately to make an incorrect befuddle into something cogent by making something else up.

This is not a harsh statement, merely an observation of human nature. The issue I anticipate you having, is assuming any written work, by man, if not, of man, will be subject to inconsistencies and egos of the writers.

I think everyone involved understands that even had given us the "perfect word," imperfections of men would creep in. Attempting to make the paradoxes of God's reality into the imperfect logic of mens'.

By analogy, and not for discussion are the paradoxes we observed at the turn of the century in modern physics. Science flailed desperately until Scrodenger, Bohr etc., gave us a picture.