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).

[polonius]

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.

RESPONSE: No.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5811-ephrath
EPHRATH or EPHRATHAH ( , ):

By: Emil G. Hirsch, M. Seligsohn
1. Wife of Caleb (son of Hezron) and mother of Hur (I Chron. ii. 19, 50; iv. 4). 2. Another name for Bethlehem (Gen. xxxv. 19, xlviii. 7; Ruth i. 2, iv. 11; Ps. cxxxii. 6; Micah v. 1). The name "Ephratah" occurs once (I Chron. ii. 24) joined with "Caleb"—"Caleb-ephratah."

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q35.htm

"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." - Micah 5:2.

The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons. "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4). The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

[rikuoamero]

So in this thread, I've seen bandied about points that say children need not be the genetic offspring of their parents in order to be considered as such.
My thought is...wouldn't this make the prophecy incredibly loose? If it were meant to refer to specifically a genetic descendant of King David, then it's pretty cut and dried. That's something that you're born as, you're either a descendant or you aren't.
However, if adoptions and such are allowed to enter the picture, then technically, ANYONE can claim to be a descendant of David, even if not by birth. Just make sure you marry someone who is, or get adopted.

[polonius]

[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 man’s 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

RESPONSE: Your response has to do with "heredity" property rights only, not priesthood or kingship which required biological male descent.

[JLB32168]

RESPONSE: Adoption does not qualify one for the Jewish priesthood or kingship. [. . .]. "I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels" That's NOT adoption! Read the words!

JW has already responded to this by saying, “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.

Of course, Jacob adopted two of Joseph's sons as his own heirs, giving them and their posterity the same inheritance as Joseph's brothers, including specific domains in Israel.

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

No passage does. Why is this supposed to be important?

[polonius]

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

No passage does. Why is this supposed to be important?

RESPONSE: Because the Messiah had to be the biological ("from the loins of") David and Solomon. Not an "adopted" son.

Once again, read 2 Sam 7:14.

[polonius]

According to Matthew Joseph was a biological descendant of David and therefore entitled to sit on the throne of Israel.

If claimed that Jesus was not the literal, biological son of Joseph, then Jesus’ only genes were from Mary's genealogical line. Jesus was then a woman since a woman does not possess nor can she transmit the “Y� chromosome for maleness.

Geneology was always through the male parent, since a woman did not have "seed" (or sperm).

[JLB32168]

Because the Messiah had to be the biological ("from the loins of") David and Solomon. Not an "adopted" son. Once again, read 2 Sam 7:14.

I’ve read it. It says, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And when he happens to transgress, then will I chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men.� – II Kings 7:14 (LXX)

It doesn’t disallow adoption.

[JLB32168]

If claimed that Jesus was not the literal, biological son of Joseph, then Jesus’ only genes were from Mary's genealogical line. Jesus was then a woman since a woman does not possess nor can she transmit the “Y� chromosome for maleness.

Why would this present a problem for an omnipotent, supernatural entity who can allegedly create Abraham’s see from rocks?

Geneology was always through the male parent, since a woman did not have "seed" (or sperm).

You just stated that Luke’s Gospel has Mary’s genealogy so apparently it is of some import to the Jews since Gentiles couldn’t care less about someone’s pedigree.

[polonius]

[Replying to JLB32168]

RESPONSE:

polonius.advice wrote:
Because the Messiah had to be the biological ("from the loins of") David and Solomon. Not an "adopted" son. Once again, read 2 Sam 7:14.
I’ve read it. It says, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And when he happens to transgress, then will I chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men.� – II Kings 7:14 (LXX)

It doesn’t disallow adoption.

RESPONSE: Now try reading the reference I cited, Samual, not Kings.

[polonius]

If claimed that Jesus was not the literal, biological son of Joseph, then Jesus’ only genes were from Mary's genealogical line. Jesus was then a woman since a woman does not possess nor can she transmit the “Y� chromosome for maleness.

Why would this present a problem for an omnipotent, supernatural entity who can allegedly create Abraham’s see from rocks?

RESPONSE: It wouldn't if that's what happened.2 Sam 7 says otherwise.

Geneology was always through the male parent, since a woman did not have "seed" (or sperm).

You just stated that Luke’s Gospel has Mary’s genealogy so apparently it is of some import to the Jews since Gentiles couldn’t care less about someone’s pedigree.

RESPONSE: Lets try this one more time. The geneology is through David and Solomon. (2 Sam 7:14). So your claim is contrary to the evidence.