Geneology of Jesus

[Amadeus]

I have heard people use this as a reason not to believe in the messiah. Does this article refute your unbelief?

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/iss ... ealogy.htm

[Vladd44]

Could you show me ONE, thats 1, not 3 in one or some other xian voodoo with the numbers....... ONE place in your "divinely inspired" word of god that says that one of the genealogies belongs to Mary specifically?

Simple answer: Show me ONE place in scripture that says it is not.

Now thats funny.

No I cannot prove either way, but your statement is pretty much an admission that you cannot prove your position. I am not in the position of defending either geneology. I doubt either one of them have any real significance.

However i'm not the one who believes in something they cannot prove in the first place. Now it seems you choose to make assumptions regarding this messiah's origin without proof. I also do not feel bound by your bibles addition/subtraction clause.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

And by implication you are supporting an idea that simply doesnt hold up to your scriptures scrutiny. You are supposing this to be an explanation of a dilema. You have no proof inside the confines of your divinely inspired book of what you are implying.

[Lotan]

Prior to His coming the prophecy was accepted as pertaining to the Messiah.

If you're referring to Isa 7:14, there is no indication that it refers to a messiah, or that anyone believed that it did at the time it was written. Can you show that it was 'accepted' as such? There is no scripture to support this.

[youngborean]

If you're referring to Isa 7:14, there is no indication that it refers to a messiah, or that anyone believed that it did at the time it was written. Can you show that it was 'accepted' as such? There is no scripture to support this.

Other than the fact that it was cited by the author of Matthew? Peharps you could offer a significant character other than the Messiah within the reilgious context of the time. I think the indication is quite clear. What other child would be a sign of the deliverance of Israel at the time? Why the name Immanuel, even if your incorrect translation of "God exists among us" (i forget exactly your translation) is to be taken into account. No name in the old testament that was given by a prophet was without cause. And since it is a sign, what is the sign?

Let's look at Hezekiah would probably be the most likely choice. It was commonly thought among rabbi's and a targum of Jonathan that the Child in Chapter 9 is the Messiah, but do we believe that they are the same? (I do) The interesting thing is that Hillel, one of the fathers of rabbinic Judaism believed that Hezekiah was the Messiah based on these verses.

Sanhedrin (99a): R. Hillel said: ‘There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah’

This shows that these verses that have been argued back and forth to pertain to Hezekiah as the person fufilling these propechies. So Hillel's admission that Hezekiah was the Messiah shows a couple of things to me.

1. A belief in traditions outside of Christianity that Isaiah was writing about Hezekiah in these passages.

Which by default (coupled with Hillel's theological stance) points to

2.A base for belief within Rabbinic teaching at the time of Christ that traditions concerning these passages in Isaiah pertained to the Messiah.

They are hardly proofs, but I would call it "indication" which you were calling for.

You may want to say that Chapter 9 is also not Messanic or that the Child in Chapter 9 is a different child. Well then I don't know how to discuss that. But judging that there were no Chapters in the original text and they were really close together and no Literary Critic has provided any break in authorship between the passages, I would argue that they are the same and are intimately linked.

[Vianne]

Other than the fact that it was cited by the author of Matthew? Peharps you could offer a significant character other than the Messiah within the reilgious context of the time. I think the indication is quite clear. What other child would be a sign of the deliverance of Israel at the time? Why the name Immanuel, even if your incorrect translation of "God exists among us" (i forget exactly your translation) is to be taken into account. No name in the old testament that was given by a prophet was without cause. And since it is a sign, what is the sign?

It was a sign that King Ahaz's country would ultimately be all right. When this was written, Judah was being attacked by the kings of Israel and Samaria. King Ahaz was obviously flustered about the matter. To calm him, Isaiah promised him that by the time a child who was not yet conceived today was old enough to eat semi-solid foods (butter and honey) and know enough to choose between right and wrong, both the kings would be out of his hair.

"And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
7:16
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

Isaiah was talking about the political situation at hand, as you will note by his concluding statement. (By the time all this happens, both the lands that are attacking us will be desolate, and their armies no longer a threat.) What good would it have done King Ahaz if his sign didn't come until seven hundred years after his death?

Imagine the scene: the city is in chaos, people racing around in the streets to find weapons and shelter. King Ahaz is bent over a table with his advisors trying to plot a defense strategy, he's sweating and tense, the women in the palace are grabbing their children and racing them to safety, probably crying along the way.

Isaiah the prophet walks in. What does he do? Does he start ranting with outstretched arms and a glazy look in his eyes about the Messiah, who will be miraculously born in seven hundred years?

(Note: the Messiah was meant to be a fully human military leader, as Jews will say to this day, so if by chance Isaiah *was* referring to the Messiah, Jesus still wouldn't have qualified, having been a spiritual counselor and not a military commander. This is why Peter gets upset at Jesus describing his impending death -- the Messiah, by definition, was supposed to militarily unite the Jewish nation, not make a religious point.)

If he did, I'm sure King Ahaz would have looked at him and said, look, that's all well and good, but we kind of have a situation right now, is there any way you could postpone this until a time when we're NOT facing certain annahiliation within the next few hours?

Or does he walk in and offer some consolation about the battle that's about to take place, some scrap of guidance or comfort for King Ahaz about what he needs to do to protect his nation in this crisis? Ahaz needed a sign that would come in his lifetime, preferably within a short time period, which Jesus' birth certainly did not.

Not to mention that the word "virgin" has been mistranslated, and if you'll refer to the original Hebrew (as I did) you will see the word in question is "almah", meaning any generic young woman, not "betulah", meaning a woman who is specifically a virgin in the technical sense. You'll notice plenty of old literature and paintings referring to young women as virgins (Three Young Virgins by a River, etc.), not because it was trying to make a point about their sexuality, but because most young women were generally assumed to be virgins. It's no different than us calling a young child a grade-schooler. We're not making a point about the child's educational status ... we're talking about a kid who is that general age.

Might I point out Jesus was not named Immanuel, and has only been referred to as such by those who are quoting this prophesy. Matthew, or whoever wrote Matthew, took this passage out of context, as did those who used bits and pieces of the Psalms as prophecies ("a voice crying out in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the lord", or being "led like a lamb to the slaughter", or "gambling for his garments" -- none of those were prophecies, but rather poems!).

It was done for one of two reasons: either Mary made the story up to save herself (remember, a woman who got pregnant by someone other than her husband or husband-to-be would be stoned), or late Christians made it up to compete with the Romans, who had several leaders spawned by the gods. The concept of a divine virgin birth is far from new, and in fact existed long before Jesus!

Vianne

[youngborean]

What about Chapter 9? Your assertion of Almah and a mistranslation will always be up in the air. Especially since you assert that you know Biblical Hebrew better than the Rabbis that translated the Septuigant. Could you point out an Almah that was not a virgin? Espicially since a maiden who was not a virgin was a harlot and derseving of the punishment of death according to Deuteronomy. Regardless of your evidence, individuals that had a 2000 year head start within biblical hebrew decided that translating Almah as virgin was exceptable, so where do you get your authority from. I'll go with the people that were still using the word in their colloquial language.

As for your assertion of the Messiah being a millitary commander, well he will be. But it was necessary for him to suffer first. As we read in Daniel.

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

According to how I see it, so the whole world would have an opportunity for salvation. Then Messiah would return according to Zachariah and rule as God on earth. Or if you don't believe in a second coming, you can continue to scratch your head.

Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
Isa 40:5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see [it] together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it].

Not a Prophecy? Only a poem? A poem about a highway from the Arbah? Was not the purpose of the Highway to lead to Jerusalem to see God?

Isa 40:6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh [is] grass, and all the goodliness thereof [is] as the flower of the field:

Isa 40:7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people [is] grass.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Isa 40:9 O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift [it] up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!

Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong [hand], and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward [is] with him, and his work before him.

Isa 40:11 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry [them] in his bosom, [and] shall gently lead those that are with young.

It is poetic, but a poem with very religious implications, which is in essence, a prophecy. Now whether or not that prophecy is fufilled is up to you.

Yes Jesus was not named Immanuel, but he is called Immanuel by people from all nations. For the doctrine of salvation has been based on the principle of believing that Jesus was God incarnate. Obviously if you don't believe that, then the prophecy would not be fufilled in your eyes. Now you are stating that these authors are taking the passages they selected out of context. But what evidence do you have to show that your context is correct and the context that was written by authors who were much more involved with these scriptures and traditions were misguided as you claim? So who was the Child in chap 7 of Isaiah? Who was the Child in Chapter 9? Are you saying Isaiah never spoke of a Messiah, or just here? How did interpretations of these passages being Messanic arise independently of Christianity (expample of Hillel cited above)? Show me the details. Prove to me that an Almah was not a virgin. There is a long history of people that have interpreted these passages in a certain way, so now it would be up to you to categorically prove that your interpretation is correct and Matthew did take everything out of context.

[RevJP]

but your statement is pretty much an admission that you cannot prove your position

Actually, I wasn't presenting a position, I was pointing out the obvious meaning of the article presented in the opening of this thread.

However i'm not the one who believes in something they cannot prove in the first place. Now it seems you choose to make assumptions regarding this messiah's origin without proof.

You are right. I am guilty of having faith in my Lord and His Holy Inspired Word.

[Vladd44]

You are right. I am guilty of having faith in my Lord and His Holy Inspired Word.

Good enough. But I was looking for proof.

[Vianne]

Especially since you assert that you know Biblical Hebrew better than the Rabbis that translated the Septuigant.

Boy, you sure jumped to conclusions quickly. I didn't need to learn Biblical Hebrew better than them. All I needed to learn was a basic concept of the alephbet (sic), which helped me sound out the words. I then went to Webster's Hebrew Dictionary and looked up the meaning of the word. Almah - young woman, virgin, damsel, etc. Point being it was a young female. Betulah - woman who has not known a man.

Could you point out an Almah that was not a virgin? Espicially since a maiden who was not a virgin was a harlot and derseving of the punishment of death according to Deuteronomy.

Sure. Pick any young mother out of the Bible you like. There's Bathsheba, Ruth, Leah, Rachel ... What gave you the idea this girl had to be unwed? Most women were married young, typically in their teens, and began having children quickly after.

Regardless of your evidence, individuals that had a 2,000 year head start within biblical hebrew decided that translating Almah as virgin was exceptable, so where do you get your authority from. I'll go with the people that were still using the word in their colloquial language.

Honey, the people who wrote this originally did not speak modern English. Some modern English translations *do* translate "almah" as young woman. Why? Because that's what almah means. I'll go dig up a few examples for you if you would like.

Mistranslations happen as simply as misspelled words -- for example, you spelled "acceptable" as "exceptable", quickly changing the possible meaning from "this is worthy of being recognized as true" to "this is not normally the way we do things, but we'll make an exception in this case." It throws a mild shade of disapproval on the subject. Do you see how easy it is for the meaning to get tangled up?

As for your assertion of the Messiah being a millitary commander, well he will be. But it was necessary for him to suffer first. As we read in Daniel.

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

According to how I see it, so the whole world would have an opportunity for salvation. Then Messiah would return according to Zachariah and rule as God on earth. Or if you don't believe in a second coming, you can continue to scratch your head.

Talk to any Jew. The Messiah was foretold during a time when the Jews were scattered as captives, such as in the case of Daniel. It was only natural to look forward to a great, strong leader who would unite the nation again. He was not meant to be a spiritual commander in the far future who would fix the problems of the world. He was meant to fix the political problems the Jews had then. This is why the Jews reject Jesus.

Christians seem to have this idea that they know more about Jewish prophecies than the Jews, forgetting the Messiah was to be specifically a Jewish figure, for the Jews. Christians base their beliefs of the Messiah on what Jesus is, because part of their theology is that Jesus IS the Messaih. They're willing to make whatever assumptions are necessary to be sure he fits the bill.

Jews have no such bias. They know who and what the Messiah was supposed to be, and for this reason they are able to objectively examine various specimens and reject those who don't measure up.

Not a Prophecy? Only a poem? A poem about a highway from the Arbah? Was not the purpose of the Highway to lead to Jerusalem to see God? ... It is poetic, but a poem with very religious implications, which is in essence, a prophecy. Now whether or not that prophecy is fufilled is up to you.

And is obviously a subject we're not going to agree on. Yes, I believe he was being more figurative than literal, and since I have prior conclusions that Jesus doesn't fit the bill of the Messiah anyway, I am reasonably secure that if Isaiah was, in fact, being literal, his descriptions don't apply to the case of Jesus.

Yes Jesus was not named Immanuel, but he is called Immanuel by people from all nations. For the doctrine of salvation has been based on the principle of believing that Jesus was God incarnate.

Exactly. Because they believe the passage in Isaiah 7 was referring to the Messiah, and believing he is such, they called him by the name apparently designated for the Messiah. You proved my point better than I could have. I'm glad we agree.

Now you are stating that these authors are taking the passages they selected out of context. But what evidence do you have to show that your context is correct and the context that was written by authors who were much more involved with these scriptures and traditions were misguided as you claim?

If you will review my first post, I explained it all in explicit detail. If there are areas you are unclear on, please list them specifically and I will do my best to clarify.

So who was the Child in chap 7 of Isaiah? Who was the Child in Chapter 9?

I believe the child referred to in Isaiah 7 was not any specific child, but was rather mentioned to help King Ahaz understand the timeline he was looking at before his country would be at peace again. I did mention this previously. The child in chapter 9 could have been the Messiah, because it says "the government will be upon his shoulders".

Are you saying Isaiah never spoke of a Messiah, or just here?

I don't recall off the top of my head whether or not he *ever* spoke of the Messiah, although it's possible he did, probably in Chapter 9 like you mentioned. I don't believe he was speaking of the Messiah in Chapter 7, though, no.

How did interpretations of these passages being Messanic arise independently of Christianity (expample of Hillel cited above)? Show me the details.

I already have. Take a look at the last paragraph of my previous post, and you'll see the conclusions I have come to regarding how the mistranslation of Isaiah 7 became widely accepted.

Prove to me that an Almah was not a virgin.

I will not waste my time. I will present the evidence which gives me reason to believe how I do, and you can decide to agree or not. I already answered this question once in this post.

There is a long history of people that have interpreted these passages in a certain way, so now it would be up to you to categorically prove that your interpretation is correct and Matthew did take everything out of context.

Not really. You assume that tradition means accuracy. All those people can't be wrong, can they? And they're important people with big titles and lots of education and so they MUST be right, and I, little layman that I am, wouldn't presume to think I am also capable of drawing intelligent conclusions in light of what they've already declared is The Truth.

I would rather examine the evidence and make my own assumptions, rather than allow my beliefs to be fed to me. I have already shown you why I believe Matthew, if he did indeed write that book, took Isaiah 7 out of context. Whether you choose to consider my evidence is up to you, and I really couldn't care less either way.

Vianne

[RevJP]

Lexicon Results for `almah (Strong's 05959)
Hebrew for 05959

Pronunciation Guide
`almah {al-maw'}

TWOT Reference Root Word
TWOT - 1630b from 05958
Part of Speech
n f
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) virgin, young woman

a) of marriageable age

b) maid or newly married
++++

There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)

Youngborean asked of Vianne: Could you point out an Almah that was not a virgin?

Strong's Number 05959 matches the Hebrew `almah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

`almah (Strong's 05959) occurs 7 times in 7 verses:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gen 24:43 Behold, I stand 05324 by the well 05869 of water 04325; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin 05959 cometh forth 03318 to draw 07579 [water], and I say 0559 to her, Give me 08248 00, I pray thee, a little 04592 water 04325 of thy pitcher 03537 to drink 08248 ;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exd 2:8 And Pharaoh's 06547 daughter 01323 said 0559 to her, Go 03212 . And the maid 05959 went 03212 and called 07121 the child's 03206 mother 0517.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psa 68:25 The singers 07891 went before 06923 , the players on instruments 05059 [followed] after 0310; among 08432 [them were] the damsels 05959 playing with timbrels 08608 .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro 30:19 The way 01870 of an eagle 05404 in the air 08064; the way 01870 of a serpent 05175 upon a rock 06697; the way 01870 of a ship 0591 in the midst 03820 of the sea 03220; and the way 01870 of a man 01397 with a maid 05959.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sgs 1:3 Because of the savour 07381 of thy good 02896 ointments 08081 thy name 08034 [is as] ointment 08081 poured forth 07324 , therefore do the virgins 05959 love 0157 thee.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sgs 6:8 There are threescore 08346 queens 04436, and fourscore 08084 concubines 06370, and virgins 05959 without number 04557.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord 0136 himself shall give 05414 you a sign 0226; Behold, a virgin 05959 shall conceive 02030, and bear 03205 a son 01121, and shall call 07121 his name 08034 Immanuel 0410 06005.

Let's look at those verses where almah is not shown as virgin in the KJV, but let us look at them in Young's literal Translation - more accurate to the original language:

Exo 2:8 and the daughter of Pharaoh saith to her, `Go;' and the virgin goeth, and calleth the mother of the lad,

Psa 68:25 Singers have been before, Behind are players on instruments, In the midst virgins playing with timbrels.

Pro 30:19 The way of the eagle in the heavens, The way of a serpent on a rock, The way of a ship in the heart of the sea, And the way of a man in youth.

Son 1:3 For fragrance are thy perfumes good. Perfume emptied out--thy name, Therefore have virgins loved thee!

Son 6:8 Sixty are queens, and eighty concubines, And virgins without number.

It appears, as purely a word study, 'almah is predominately used to mean virgin. The suggestion that it does not mean virgin in Isa 7, is a gross departure from the accepted use of the word as demonstrated, and subsequently is not a reliable interpretation.

[youngborean]

Bathsheba, Ruth, Leah, Rachel

Now show me where these women are called almat? You can't because there not.

What gave you the idea this girl had to be unwed? Most women were married young, typically in their teens, and began having children quickly after.

You are showing no actual usage of the word in context. Everywhere the word is used it is meant unwed and unknown by a man. Becasue a woman in the historical context is defined by marriage. The term Isha means both woman and wife, this can be most clearly seen in Genesis 2.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

How can you say most Almat were married when the word is never used of a married woman? What is a maiden to you in English?

Honey, the people who wrote this originally did not speak modern English. Some modern English translations *do* translate "almah" as young woman. Why? Because that's what almah means. I'll go dig up a few examples for you if you would like.

You missed my point here. I was saying that almost 2000 years ago. The Greek speaking authors of the Septuigant decided that Virigin in Greek was an exceptable translation. Why? Well my guess is that they knew what almah meant because it was still being used in every day speech. Your ability to use a modern dictionary in no way negates their knowledge.