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).

[Danmark]

Because it's important to use an accurate translation, rather one based on the King James Version of the Bible.

I believe it uses the NKJV version of the OT as the basis with appropriate revisions where LXX and MT don’t jibe w/one another.

In other words, the NKJV comports with your version, which is also based on MT texts – the only major difference being the use of Jacobian English. In any case, I cited the English version because you wouldn’t be able to read the Greek, which I can. I could provide my direct translation if you’d like.

Look up under Hebrew law what happened to property if there was no male relative to inherit it. But property rights is an entirely different matter than Hebrew kingship and the priesthood.

If the property rights pass to the children, in spite of the child belonging to someone else then you’re making an exception regarding Kingship and the priesthood that is a special pleading. Hebrew law demanded that Bathsheba be stoned for adultery; however, she wasn’t and the deity still made the child king. There are exceptions to the law all over the place and you seem to take great care to not mention them.

And what exactly does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

It addresses your claim that Christ wasn’t a biological descendant of King David, which you say is required to fulfill the birth prophecies. You say that adoption isn’t valid.

I should also remind you that Christ said that God could raise up Abraham’s seed from rocks. If God can make a genetic descendant out of a rock then I’m not sure how much weight you think your argument holds.

Right. This God can do anything, he can make people from rocks. There's no point in debating anything since this God can do anything including make the impossible look probable....
Except of course, he can't restore amputated limbs or perform any other miracles that are not the kind that can be faked by men.

[polonius]

JLB32168 wrote:

polonius.advice wrote:

Because it's important to use an accurate translation, rather one based on the King James Version of the Bible.

I believe it uses the NKJV version of the OT as the basis with appropriate revisions where LXX and MT don’t jibe w/one another.

RESPONSE: I believe the original tests were mostly in Hebrew. Why wouldn’t the LXX and MT “jibe� with each other?

JLB then posted:

It addresses your claim that Christ wasn’t a biological descendant of King David, which you say is required to fulfill the birth prophecies. You say that adoption isn’t valid.

.

RESPONSE: Let’s give 2 Samual a break and look at a similar prophecy.

1 Chronicles 17: 11 When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever.13 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you,14 but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.

RESPONSES: Jeffery Harrison “Is Jesus Eligible to be the Messiah?�

“a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.

Maybe JLB can provide a citation where this occurred in the OT.

“b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)

JLB then went on.

I should also remind you that Christ said that God COULD raise up Abraham’s seed from rocks. If God can make a genetic descendant out of a rock then I’m not sure how much weight you think your argument holds.

RESPONSE: Look up the difference between “could� and “would� in your dictionary. Then lets stick to history.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 82 by polonius.advice]

Hi team, the more you investigate the Bible, the more you will find an accurate translation unsettling.

Christians and Jews translate and change the OT, and to a lesser degree the NT as it suited the times. Individual words translated uniquely, passages changes, slanderous messages inserted, and so one, and so on. With all the bastardization (not a slander a real English word) the Bible has gone through, accurate translation is the least of concerns.

Imagine if you will that, at one time it was truly and inspirationally written. Just how many minutes do you think that would last before men corrupted it for their own interests?
A New York minute would be too long.

[Goat]

That particular is when the brother (From the same father) consents to keep the line going for his brother.. they both are from the seen of the 'grandfather', so it's still the biological father whose line it is going through.

Except that Boaz wasn't Ruth's brother-in-law. He was a distant kinsman; therefore, the application wasn't just between bothers-in-law and their sisters-in-law. In fact, Boaz wasn't supposed to marry Ruth because she was a gentile from Moab and the Hebrews had been forbidden to marry outside their tribe.

And yet their son inherited all of the land of his mother's first husband.

That has to do with inheritance, not bloodline.

[JehovahsWitness]

Imagine if you will that, at one time it was truly and inspirationally written. Just how many minutes do you think that would last before men corrupted it for their own interests?.

Well, if (supposition, not a affirmation of truth*) if ... there were an all powerful God, and he didn't want it corrupted, it would never be corrupted (since no one would be able to overpower or outmanipulate an omnipotent omniscient God*).


LOGIC

JW


*supposition

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 85 by JehovahsWitness]

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's arse a'hopping.

I notice your tendency now is to preface your posts with "if we assume x is true" then so on and so forth.

If that counts as debate, you'll enjoy a long unbeaten streak.

Without his long form birth certificate, Jesus is in the same boat as our Muslim communist Kenyan president. [Sarcasm]

[JLB32168]

Right. This God can do anything, he can make people from rocks. There's no point in debating anything since this God can do anything including make the impossible look probable.

Indeed, that is one of the perks of being omnipotent.

Except of course, he can't restore amputated limbs or perform any other miracles that are not the kind that can be faked by men.

– or he won’t do those things or he does those things and few hear about it or they occur and people such as yourself insist they’re hoaxes.
Of course, St. Anthony of Padua is alleged to have restored limbs.
There are videos on YouTube (some are parodies) where people are alleged to have limbs restored or to have witnessed such restorations – since you brought up the allegation that such things don’t happen.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 86 by Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 85 by JehovahsWitness]

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's arse a'hopping.

I notice your tendency now is to preface your posts with "if we assume x is true" then so on and so forth.

If that counts as debate, you'll enjoy a long unbeaten streak. [Sarcasm]

Yes these are called hypothetic situations, often used in debate to highlight a point.

HYPOTHETIC

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed:
a hypothetical case.

2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis:
hypothetical reasoning.

3. given to making hypotheses.

4. Logic. a.(of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

b.(of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.

Was there a point you wanted to make with your words quoted above to further the debate? or did you just want to make a personal remark about a particular poster which could be percieved as sarcastic ?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 88 by JehovahsWitness]

The sarcasm was attached to the Obama comment. But to your point, it's the latter. I just didn't want you to think your caveats went unnoticed, in that you now load near every post with "assuming x is the case for the purpose of debate" rather than showing any of it is true.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 88 by JehovahsWitness]

The sarcasm was attached to the Obama comment. But to your point, it's the latter. I just didn't want you to think your caveats went unnoticed, in that you now load near every post with "assuming x is the case for the purpose of debate" rather than showing any of it is true.

Emphasis addes

Thanks duly noted. If you are suggesting that this is somehow in violation of forum guidelines I'm sure a monitor will pick up on that and proper disciplinary measures taken. Personally I try not to make remarks about people (posters) but like generally to stick to the debate topic but again, thanks for your input.

I won't derail the thread any further but feel free to post a topic on the merits or lack thereof of hypothesis in theologic or philosophic debate

Respect,

JW