Evidently, Jesus did not fulfill the birth prophecies

[polonius]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JLB32168]

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

Do you mean, “Defer to the Hebrew over the Greek (where Samuel is called kings because the book is mainly about the Hebrew kings)?�
I see no reason to defer to the Hebrew over the Greek since both were written by Jews.

[JLB32168]

The geneology [sic] is through David and Solomon. (2 Sam 7:14). So your claim is contrary to the evidence.

My 2 Samuel 7:14 – to use your terminology – doesn’t comport with my 2 Samuel 7:14 and thus far I see no reason to defer to yours over mine. That’s especially true since the oldest 2 Samuel/2 Kings isn’t a Hebrew one but a Greek one.

[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.

RESPONSE: No.

No what?

The reference you posted only supports what I said.

[Goat]

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

Do you mean, “Defer to the Hebrew over the Greek (where Samuel is called kings because the book is mainly about the Hebrew kings)?�
I see no reason to defer to the Hebrew over the Greek since both were written by Jews.

Not quite. The first 5 books were translated by the Jews , initially, but the history of the Septuagint is very complicated.. and it was revised over the years too. Samel and 1 Kings are not part of the Torah, and therefore were not part of the original translation by the Jewish scholars. Plus, it was retranslated a few times, and I am sure that we would be hard pressed to figure out which translation is the actual one that was the original Septuagint. And, translation is interpretation.

[Student]

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?

[font=Times New Roman]While I don't agree with him, that is what Sextus Julius Africanus claimed.[/font]

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.

[font=Times New Roman]Does it, really?

LXX Numbers 1:2 λάβετε ἀ�χὴν πάσης συναγωγῆς ᾿Ισ�αὴλ κατὰ συγγενείας, κατ’ οἴκους πατ�ιῶν α�τῶν, κατ’ ἀ�ιθμὸν �ξ ὀνόματος α�τῶν, κατὰ κεφαλὴν α�τῶν.

Brenton translates κατὰ συγγενείας [kata sungeneias] as "according to their kindreds"; I prefer "according to their family".

And while Brenton translates κατ’ οἴκους πατ�ιῶν α�τῶν [kat' oikous patri�n aut�n] literally as "according to the house of their fathers", I think "their lineage" [by the father's side] is more in keeping with LSJ.[/font]

Why should one defer to the Hebrew over the Greek?

[font=Times New Roman]The Greek and the Hebrew stand in harmony.[/font]

[Student]

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 emperor’s 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 Crampon’s 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.

[font=Times New Roman]Strange to say, quite by chance, I discovered that someone called "Sunshine", posted exactly the same information*, verbatim, some 4 years ago on Yahoo answers.

You, or Sunshine, have been entirely misinformed and/or are willing to peddle misinformation.

The surviving text of the Lapis Tiburtinus does not include the name Quirinius. The claim that the inscription refers to Quirinius is therefore simply wishful thinking. Furthermore, although the inscription states that the un-named individual held the post of governor twice there is absolutely no reference to him being governor of Syria twice. The inscription states that he [whoever] first held the post of governor of the province of Asia and that his second appointment as governor [i.e. he was appointed governor again] was when he was appointed governor of Syria.

There is no record of any individual, ever, being appointed as the governor of the same province twice, in the entire history of the Roman Empire.

As for your / Sunshine's reference to "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291", in relation to the Lapis Tiburtinus, this is entirely spurious. Firstly, the book was not published in 1979, but rather in 1915 - Ramsey died in 1939 so he would be very hard pressed to write anything in 1979. [unless of course, the resurrection wasn't an unique event.]

Secondly, there are no references to the Lapis Tiburtinus on pages 285 and 291.

In fact, as far as I can ascertain, Ramsay doesn't even mention the Lapis Tiburtinus at all. Never, in all 460 pages, not once, not at all. What do you suppose that makes Sunshine and his/her/your claims to be?

*I use the term "information" in its loosest possible sense; in fact, I am somewhat guilty of perpetrating a terminological in-exactitude in order to avoid censure by the mods.[/font]

[polonius]

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

Do you mean, “Defer to the Hebrew over the Greek (where Samuel is called kings because the book is mainly about the Hebrew kings)?�
I see no reason to defer to the Hebrew over the Greek since both were written by Jews.

RESPONSE:

Here is the correct reference.

2 Samuel 7:12-14 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.....

JLB posted:

I see no reason to defer to the Hebrew over the Greek since both were written by Jews.

RESPONSE: This is the translation used by the World Council of Churches in their New Revised Standard Version.

You are free to maintain "no reason" as much as you want.

[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. What you posted is in error.

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.

No what?

The reference you posted only supports what I said.

RESPONSE: No. You are in error.

"But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah,
who are one of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to rule in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days."
[Micah 5, New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), World Council of Churches]

[polonius]

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 emperor’s 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.)

1. Please cite your "evidentius" that Quirinius was governor of Syria two different times. Keep in mind we are only interested in his 6 AD census which he conducted of Judea (not Galilee) following the exile of Archelaus.

2. Please provide a correct translation in which it is claimed that the figure is that of Quirinius in The Lapis Tiburtinus inscription. We'd be particlarly interested how Quirinius' name is listed. We understand that Quirinius' name is not listed. Still, apologists trying to prove that there was no 6 AD Roman census try this ploy.

3. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R ... s_of_Syria

List of Roman governors of Syria

1 BC – 4 AD Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus

4 – 5 Lucius Volusius Saturninus

6 – 12 Publius Sulpicius Quirinius

We are only interested in the 6-12 AD governor of Syria and Judea.

4. http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Jesus_and_the_Gospels/JosephusAndLukeOnTheCensus.pdf

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1-4

Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respects, arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar to be governor of the nation and to make an assessment of their property. Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, was sent along with him to rule over the Jews with full authority. Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus.

Josephus, War 2.117-118

The territory of Archelaus was now reduced to a province, and Coponius, a Roman of the equestrian order, was sent out as procurator, entrusted by Augustus with full powers, including the infliction of capital punishment. Under his administration, a Galilean named Judas incited his countrymen to revolt, upbraiding them as cowards for consenting to pay tribute to the Romans and tolerating mortal masters, after having God for their lord. This man was a sophist who founded a sect of his own, having nothing in common with the others.

Acts 5:37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census

[bluethread]

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.

If there were such a thing as a Jewish priesthood, Yeshua would qualify, because He is of the tribe of Yehudah. However, there is no such priesthood. Yeshua is not a Levitical priest either. As Paul points out, His is the priesthood of Melchizedek, king of Salem. He never claimed to be "The King of the Jews". He did refer to Himself as the son of David, but that is indeed correct, as the two genealogies show.