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).

[polonius]

Jehovahs Witness posted:

Did that individual have to necessarily be the direct successor of a king?


RESPONSE: Yes. 2 Sam 7:12-13

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. [Douay Rheims Bible]

No, the individual would only have to be of the royal line of David .

RESPONSE: If he were of the royal of David, he would be of Davids seed or loins, a direct successor with no break in the seed line.

To illustrate, David had 19 sons. Only one of them, Solomon, became king. So the son's of all of David's 18 other boys (David's grandsons) were not sons of a king (granted they were grandsons of a king but their fathers were not kings.

Now imagine if David's family is wiped out. Solomon dies, all Solomons sons die all Davids sons are already dead, the only one left, let's call him "18-Junior WHO, as we have already established, IS NOT THE SON OF A KING. And certainly not a king at this moment.

.

>> Could 18-Junior legitimately access the throne even though his father never wore a crown (because he wasn't a king)?

Yes!

>> Why? Because 18 junior was a descendant of King David, although not the Son of a king. [/quote]

RESPONSE: Yes. Provided 18 junior was of the Davidic seed line

That's taking David's Grandson, but the same principle applies to no matter how many gnrations removed we go All those that could claim to be from the family of David, could legitmately be refered to as "Sons of David".

RESPONSE: Anyone can claim" anything. They would in fact have to be of the Davidic seed line.

(I)n the same way people today refer to natural Jews as "The Children of Abraham".

Does that make sense?

.

RESPONSE: Not really. Thats where you go wrong. The expression Children of Abraham is used symbolically, and is not taken to mean the literal biological children of Abraham. Just members of his tribe.

Im one of George Washingtons children, so to speak. I served in the same military, but I was not in Georges seed line.

That someone from the House of David (possibly a king but not necessarily) would eventualy inherit that kingship and rule forever.

RESPONSE: Nope. Only someone from David's seed line, if God is to be believed..

I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (Kings have kingdoms)

Yes, once they become Kings they have a kingdom. Remember little #18-Junior. When he was playing in his sandbox or out fishing as a boy was he a king? No. Could the people have legitmately gone to this (non-king) boy and say "We want to MAKE you a king?" Yes. And from the moment they anointed him as king he (the boy) would be ... king and inherit the kingdom.

RESPONSE: I think God, not the people, selected the kings of Israel. Or at least that's what some like to think. If there was already a Davidic king in place, I doubt people would have the authority to pick another..

The Messiah would be in that position. In fact the Royal succession was broken when the Davidic kingship ended at the hands of the Babylonians in the 6th Century BCE. What did NOT end though was the Davidic family. The "house of David". From that time, there were no Israelite Kings ruling on earth ...and thus no one to directly inherit the kingship from his King-Father. But what the Jews continued to do was hope that an 18-Junior with a fighting spirit would re-establish the Kingship.

REPONSE: 2 Sam 7:13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

But as you pointed out the Davidic throne of his kingdom was ended by the Babylonians. God got another of his pronouncements wrong I guess. Or the very human and fallible writers of scripture sure did!

What they were not expecting was a lowly carpenter from Nazareth, but sometimes life throws us a curve ball!

JW

RESPONSE. Or maybe a foul ball!

RESPONSE: Are you referring to that itinerant preacher who was crucified by the Romans for insurrection?

[liamconnor]

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).

So...

I will leave aside some of your hasty interpretations of 2 Sam and Psalm 89 (which do not require that the next heir be the promised line). as far as the difference between Matthew's and Luke's genealogy, I agree...

So....You just spanked a few fundamentalists. Great. What about the rest of us??

[Willum]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Of course NT documentation was written after the fact, by folks who may have needed to repair history.

The non-mystical account of Jesus was that he was the product of a tryst between a Roman soldier named Pantera and Mary.

[Wiki-Pantera]

As disruptive as this theory is, it is infinitely more likely than any divine influence, and the references also require no divine cause.

[polonius]

So...

I will leave aside some of your hasty interpretations of 2 Sam and Psalm 89 (which do not require that the next heir be the promised line). as far as the difference between Matthew's and Luke's genealogy, I agree...

So....You just spanked a few fundamentalists. Great. What about the rest of us??

RESPONSE:

>>your hasty interpretations of 2 Sam and Psalm 89 (which do not require that the next heir be the promised line<< ???

>>What about the rest of us??<<

If you tell fibs, you get spanked too!

[Goat]

Did that individual have to necessarily be the direct successor of a king?

RESPONSE: Yes. 2 Sam 7:12-13

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. [Douay Rheims Bible]

No, the individual would only have to be of the royal line of David .

Let's expand on what Jewish law and expectations woudl be. The individual would have to be a direct male descendant, unbroken in lineage, (In modern terms, he woudl have to carry the Y chromosome of David). Despite what Christian missionaries say, he could not be of the line of Jeconiah, and his lineage would have to go through Solomon. That's Jewish expectations.

Christian ones might be otherwise.. but when you are talking the Jewish scriptures, and the Jewish expectations, that is what the Jewish faith and law qualifications are.

[Goat]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Of course NT documentation was written after the fact, by folks who may have needed to repair history.

The non-mystical account of Jesus was that he was the product of a tryst between a Roman soldier named Pantera and Mary.

[Wiki-Pantera]

As disruptive as this theory is, it is infinitely more likely than any divine influence, and the references also require no divine cause.

If you look at that account in context, there is no indication that this particular incident was referring to Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was a very common name, and is mentioned dozens of times. Just because there is a mention of the name "Jesus" or Mary doesn't mean it is referring to the Jesus or Mary of the New Testament.

[Willum]

[Replying to Goat]

Except for, prior to the Jesus, Jesus as written was practically non-existent form of "Joshua," even if you believe the unlikely derivation of the name.

And just whom else would be noteworthy?

Just on Jesus would be noteworthy of calling attention to the fact. Is there any other Jesus whom you can mention whom Jews and Celsus would vilify in this way?

Not so much, no. Especially since Celsus was a critic of religion, not some guy named Jesus.

[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 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.)

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

I'm sorry Polonius, I'm not sure if I should respond. Are you replying to me, or to the apparently/allegedly serial plagiarist JehovahsWitness?

[polonius]

[Replying to Student]

JehovahsWitness wrote:


polonius.advice wrote:


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.

I'm sorry Polonius, I'm not sure if I should respond. Are you replying to me, or to the apparently/allegedly serial plagiarist JehovahsWitness?


RESPONSE: I believe that the section I posted came from JehovahsWitness. Didn't you actually challenge JWs wishful thinking in this case, if I have the sequence correct.

Didn't you point out that "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.]

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]

Except for, prior to the Jesus, Jesus as written was practically non-existent form of "Joshua," even if you believe the unlikely derivation of the name.

And just whom else would be noteworthy?

Just on Jesus would be noteworthy of calling attention to the fact. Is there any other Jesus whom you can mention whom Jews and Celsus would vilify in this way?

Not so much, no. Especially since Celsus was a critic of religion, not some guy named Jesus.

No, not true at all. While it was a form of Joshua (the whole Jesus came from the Greek), there are many references to many people named 'Y'shua' or Jesus in the Greek.

I will accept that the name would have been translated as Joshua , but it's the same name