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]

BET EMET MINISTRIES Hebrew For "The House Of Truth"

Craig M. Lyons Ms.D., D.D., M.Div.

"Jesus failed to fulfill any of the major messianic prophecies; he was never anointed as King, he never ruled Israel, and the world was certainly not perfected in his time. In addition, he was not preceded by the return of the prophet Elijah (Malachi 4:5). Finally, he was disqualified from ever being a messianic candidate due to his lack of the necessary family background "

http://theancientsacredmysteries.com/fa ... ealogy.htm

[polonius]

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.

RESPONSE: Of course there was a Jewish priesthood.

Matt 26:57
Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders had gathered.

And Jewish priests were of descent from Aaron, specifically always Levites.

[Goat]

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.

RESPONSE: Of course there was a Jewish priesthood.

Matt 26:57
Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders had gathered.

Ok. You are only of one tribe too. The priesthood had to be of the Tribe of the Levitates .. If he was the 'son of David', he would not be a levite. He would be in line of the King hood, but not a priest. .. (Unless, of course, the genealogy in Mark is correct, in which case, he is descended from Joachim, and therefore ineligible to be king

IN other words, the stories about Jesus in the New Testament make no sense what so ever when it comes to the Jewish expectations.

[Willum]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

However, I might add, Caesar Augustus did fulfill these prophesy... at least in Rome.

If there were such a thing as a Jewish priesthood, Yeshua would qualify, because He is of the tribe of Yehudah.

No, no, no, on the account he was born in the wrong profession. Carpenters become carpenters, not priests so much.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Repeating a claim without elaboration does not constitute additional evidence and proof by assertion rarely adds to a discussion. 2 Samuel 7:14, which speaks about God's promised affection for Solomon, says nothing about Messianic geneology. 2 Samuel 7 does however speak about various promises so I will post some information about the contents of that chapter in relation to the Davidic Promise more particuarly in verses 12 through 16.

2 Samual 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. He shall build a house to my name , and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever." - DR Bible

I THE TEMPLE PROMISE

In 2 Samuel 7:12-13 (see above) we read God's words to king David. The verses contain a promise regarding David's immediate successor (Solomon), namely that Solomon that would built the Temple . Obviously this promise was not one passed on from father to son so that a succession of Kings were each building a new temple. It was, one could say a "one off deal" (compare 1 Kings 1:24).

II ROYAL SUCCESSION

God went on to provided another detail or feature to this promise:

2 SAMUEL 7:16
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever KJV

A kingdom is a system of rulership with a king (or queen) at its head. The Kingdom of Israel was such a system. Evidently David would become the head of, a succession of kings. Solomon was chosen as the first in that line of Kings (see 1 Kings 1:17). Note that although David's royal kingship would pass from David through to Solomon (not to Nathan or any other of Davids son's) the promise was made to David not to Solomon.

1 CHRONICLES 28:7
then I will establish the throne of your dynasty. For I made this covenant with your father, David, when I said , 'One of your descendants will always rule over Israel.'" NLT

II THE MESSIAH & THE DAVIDIC PROMISE

2 SAMUEL 7:16
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever KJV

Notice that God also refered to David's "house" (or dynasty/family). Thus over and above the establishment of a constant succession of Davidic Kings (running first through Solomon), there was a promised blessing on the family as a whole: someone from David’s house (or family tribe/clan) would eventually inherit the kingship and rule "forever". Did that individual have to necessarily be the direct successor of a king? No, because a new promise was not made to each successive king, it was made to the father or the head of the house of David. Thus as long as that individual was of "the Royal house of David" and had the legal "right to inherit the kingship" should that be possible, then he would be in a position to qualify as that special "somebody" (or Messiah).

SUMMARY: The Davidic Promise refers to the Promise God made to King David. God promised the following

- That Solomon (David's direct heir) would built a temple for God
- That there would be a succession of Kings from David's family line
- That Someone from the House of David (possibly a king but not necessarily) would eventualy inherit that kingship and rule forever

Given the above, Jesus, decendant of David "genetically" (biologically) through his mother (via Nathan) and legally though his "father" (through Solomon), both of whom were of the the royal dynasty, was not disqualified to any claim to Messiahship.

[polonius]

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.

RESPONSE: Of course there was a Jewish priesthood.

Matt 26:57
Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders had gathered.

Ok. You are only of one tribe too. The priesthood had to be of the Tribe of the Levitates .. If he was the 'son of David', he would not be a levite. He would be in line of the King hood, but not a priest. .. (Unless, of course, the genealogy in Mark is correct, in which case, he is descended from Joachim, and therefore ineligible to be king

RESPONSE: I am unfamiliar with Mark's geneology of Jesus. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

In other words, the stories about Jesus in the New Testament make no sense what so ever when it comes to the Jewish expectations.

RESPONSE:

Now you understand. A biological descendent of David could be a king, but not a priest.

[Goat]

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.

RESPONSE: Of course there was a Jewish priesthood.

Matt 26:57
Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders had gathered.

Ok. You are only of one tribe too. The priesthood had to be of the Tribe of the Levitates .. If he was the 'son of David', he would not be a levite. He would be in line of the King hood, but not a priest. .. (Unless, of course, the genealogy in Mark is correct, in which case, he is descended from Joachim, and therefore ineligible to be king

RESPONSE: I am unfamiliar with Mark's geneology of Jesus. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

In other words, the stories about Jesus in the New Testament make no sense what so ever when it comes to the Jewish expectations.

RESPONSE:

Now you understand. A biological descendent of David could be a king, but not a priest.

Pardon, I meant matthew.

[polonius]

[quote="JehovahsWitness"

polonius.advice[/url]

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.[/quote]

Repeating a claim without elaboration does not constitute additional evidence and proof by assertion rarely adds to a discussion.

RESPONSE: Actually repeating a valid claim is not necesssary. But if you like, there is also among other messianic prophecies: (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5; Psalm 89:3-4).

2 Samuel 7:14, which speaks about God's promised affection for Solomon, says nothing about Messianic geneology.[/i] 2 Samuel 7 does however speak about various promises so I will post some information about the contents of that chapter in relation to the Davidic Promise more particuarly in verses 12 through 16.

2 Samual 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. He shall build a house to my name , and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever." - DR Bible

RESPONSE: "And I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" Who would that be?

[polonius]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

2 SAMUEL 7:16
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever KJV

Notice that God also refered to David's "house" (or dynasty/family). Thus over and above the establishment of a constant succession of Davidic Kings (running first through Solomon), there was a promised blessing on the family as a whole: someone from David’s house (or family tribe/clan) would eventually inherit the kingship and rule "forever".

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]


SUMMARY: The Davidic Promise refers to the Promise God made to King David. God promised the following

- That Solomon (David's direct heir) would built a temple for God
- That there would be a succession of Kings from David's family line (NOTE: From David's seed)
- That Someone from the House of David (possibly a king but not necessarily) would eventualy inherit that kingship and rule forever. NOTEL

RESPONSE: Nope. A king.

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


[quote} Given the above, Jesus, decendant of David "genetically" (biologically) through his mother (via Nathan) and legally though his "father" (through Solomon), both of whom were of the the royal dynasty, was not disqualified to any claim to Messiahship.

RESPONSE: Nope. "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.

1. Nathan was never a king of Israel.

2. Mary, a woman, did not have "seed."

3. I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever Kingship was inherited from the previous king (of his seed).

[JehovahsWitness]

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 .

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.

That's taking David's Grandson, but the same principle applies to no matter how many générations removed we go All those that could claim to be from the family of David, could legitmately be refered to as "Sons of David" in the same way people today refer to natural Jews as "The Children of Abraham".

Does that make sense?


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

RESPONSE: Nope. A king.

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.

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.

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


JW