Good heavens -- here we go again! There is indeed a messianic prophecy that the messiah will be a "son" of David (a Davidic heir, descendant of King David) -- and of King Solomon -- but Jesus was NOT a legal descendant of David. Jesus did not fulfill this prophecy -- and the list maker has "played this card" many times on the list of 365 supposed prophecies Jesus fulfilled: 49. 2 Samuel 7:12...David's Seed...Matthew 1:1 51. 2 Samuel 7:16...David's house established forever...Luke 3:31; Rev. 22:16 55. 1 Chronicles 17:11...David's Seed...Matthew 1:1; 9:27 130. Psalms 89:35-37...David's Seed, throne, kingdom endure forever...Luke 1:32,33 142. Psalms 110:1...Son of David...Matthew 22:43 151. Psalms 132:11...The Seed of David (the fruit of His Body)...Luke 1:32 290. Jeremiah23:5-6a...Descendant of David...Luke 3:23-31 297. Jeremiah 33:14-15...Descendant of David... Luke 3:23-31 298. Ezekiel17:22-24...Descendant of David... Luke 3:23-31 Now we add 300. Ezekiel34:23-24...Descendant of David... Matthew 1:1 to the list. The last few claims tied Jesus to Luke's lineage which differs from Matthew's. Luke bypasses Solomon and has the Joseph's line descend through David's son, Nathan. This alone would disqualify Joseph since the T'nach (bible) tells us that the Davidic kings descend from David's son, Solomon -- not Nathan. See Shmuel Beit / 2 Samuel 7:12-16, and Divrei Hayamim Alef / 1 Chronicles 22:9-10. Matthew 1:1 claims to give the genealogy of Jesus, but it is different from Luke's. Perhaps this is why Paul later says in 1 Timothy 3-4 "As I urged you . . .to instruct certain people not to spread false teachings, 4 nor to occupy themselves with myths and interminable genealogies. Such things promote useless speculations." So, says Paul, ignore those confusing lineages and genealogies. . . this even though G-d has made it clear that they are important --the messiah will come from the royal lines of King David and Solomon! It seems that even Paul recognized that the virgin birth disqualified Jesus from kingly lineage and the two conflicting lineages given by Matthew and Luke disqualified Joseph (and thus any of his children) from kingship -- why else would Paul tell people to ignore them? In the T'nach (bible) tribal lineage is only passed by a Jewish biological father impregnating a Jewish woman (his wife or concubine). The mother must be Jewish because "who is a Jew" is passed maternally (link), while tribal status is passed by the Jewish father IF the mother is Jewish. For those who want to understand in more depth why "who is a Jew" is passed maternally follow the link. Christianity teaches of the virgin birth of Jesus, and this is actually the very first thing that totally disqualifies Jesus from being a Jewish king (messiah). Joseph was married to Mary. Some missionaries try to avoid the issue of Jesus' legitimacy by stating that Mary was engaged to Joseph, but not yet married. Thus there is no question of adultery, because she was engaged, but not married. Nice try, but (there was no such thing as an engagement in ancient Judaism). Marriage was a two part process, and in the first stage (eirusin) the couple might not live together, but they were still considered married. Also note that Joseph is said to have thought to divorce Mary (Matthew 1:19). One divorces a wife, not a fiance. Joseph himself discusses the fact that he is married to Marry in Matthew 1:19 "“Then her husband Joseph, because he was a law-abiding person and yet didn’t want to expose her to the embarrassment of a public criminal trial, was considering divorcing her secretly...”" Therefore if Mary, a married woman, became pregnant by anyone other than her husband she was an adulteress by definition -- and her child was a מַמְזֵ֖ר / mamzer. Mamzer / מַמְזֵ֖ר is often translated as "bastard" but this is an incorrect translation. Judaism does not have the concept of bastardization. The child of an unmarried woman has no stigma attached. A mamzer is defined as the child of adultery or incest. It little matters if Christians think Mary's pregnancy was a miracle of non-sexual union by a "holy" ghost -- the law states that she was married and thus her child would have been a mamzer according the the Jewish laws given to us by G-d Himself. See D'varim / Deuteronomy 23:3: "A מַמְזֵ֖ר / mamzer must not enter God's marriage group. Even after the tenth generation, he may not enter G-d's marriage group." A mamzer may only marry another mamzer -- which may answer why Jesus never married -- even though it is a mitzvah to marry. . . The virgin birth would disqualify Jesus not only from kingship (no descendant of David, no tribal status) -- he would actually be ostracized from marrying a Jewish woman who was not a mamzer herself. If Jospeh were Jesus' biological father then Jesus would have belonged to the tribe of Judah, like his father. However, the two conflicting lineages given for Joseph both disqualify him from being a king -- and thus a messiah. Luke bypassed Solomon, as mentioned above. Matthew's mistake was including a Davidic heir named Jeconiah who G-d cut off from the kingly line for himself and his descendants. Matthew 1:11-12 "and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.12 After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel. . ." Oops. "So said the L-rd: Inscribe this man (Jeconiah ) childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling anymore in Judah." Y'rmiyahu / Jeremiah 22:30. Yet Matthew has Joseph's line going through the line that G-d has cut off from kingship -- for all of his seed (descendants) in perpetuity. Oops indeed! Some missionaries will point to Jeconiah being removed from the royal line (and Luke's mistake in including Nathan and not Solomon) and say something along the lines of "this is why there had to be a virgin birth -- there were no Davidic lines "left"). This is wrong -- there are Davidic heirs alive even today -- Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines! Even though Jeconiah's line was disqualified (unless one believes that G-d can forgive without sacrifices -- something Christianity does not believe) -- there were many other heirs of Solomon who live in every generation. It also ignores the fact that it is the biological father who passes down tribal status -- and a virgin birth (no Davidic sperm) disqualifies Jesus completely. Being a Davidic / Solomon heir disqualifies Jesus from the very day of his birth from any potential messianic claim. Being a Davidic heir does not equate to being a messiah. As mentioned, Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines -- not all of his children became kings. Solomon's son Rehoboam / רְחַבְעָם became King of Judah (the southern Kingdom -- the northern tribes broke away to create the northern kingdom of Israel). "And Rehoboam came to Jerusalem, and he assembled all the House of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, one hundred and eighty thousand chosen warriors, to wage war with the House of Israel, to return the kingdom to Rehoboam, the son of Solomon." Melachim Alef 12 / 1 Kings 12:21. In conclusion, Jesus was not a "son of David" under any of the three possible parentages given for him in the Christian bible:
Jeconiah's son, Zeurrubbabel , later became a governor -- but he was never a king. See Chaggai / Haggai 2:2. Lastly, some missionaries will point to the Talmud, Sanhedrin 37b - 38a which says that Jeconiah repented and G-d forgave Him. Thus heirs from Jeconiah could conceivably be included in the kingly / messianic line. Since when do missionaries accept anything from the Talmud? The T'nach (bible) clearly says that Jeconiah was removed from the line, and unless missionaries are willing to accept Talmudic teachings regarding idolatry (excluding Jesus from divinity) they can not cherry pick passages! G-d forgiving without sacrifice in Sanhedrin 37b - 38a seems to negate the entire" "reason" for Jesus' "sacrificial death to atone for sins"! Jeconiah or no Jeconiah in the royal line, Jesus did not have the right to kingship. He was never a king, never anointed (the very meaning of "messiah") as a king, never reigned as a king, etc. While the Christian bible and the list maker may claim time and again that Jesus was a "son" of David the facts state the opposite.
1 Comment
RanoutofEgypt
1/3/2018 04:01:46 am
Superb !! Also when comparing the passages Matt 1 vs luke 3 you find over 25 differences in Josephs lineage. All men, one is not mary's lineage either as claimed, because one says "Father of.." and the other says "son of.." apparently Joseph had two fathers ?
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Photos used under Creative Commons from dionhinchcliffe, paulasenciogonzalez, paulasenciogonzalez, amy32080, petersbar, Aaron Stokes, amboo who?, Damian Gadal, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Midwest Region, SharonaGott, Udo Schröter, paulasenciogonzalez, Joybot, zeevveez, ianmunroe, freeqstyler, quinn.anya, Ivy Nichols, Groman123, UnknownNet Photography, torbakhopper, “Caveman Chuck” Coker, CarbonNYC [in SF!], dgoomany, Lion Multimedia Production U.S.A., oldandsolo, dbeck03