one for Israel

LoAmmi said:

I can see why you believe this to be fulfilled in Christianity. I really have no objection to it except I don't believe you are correct.
That's why I asked you about who you thought Jesus was. I understand where your coming from now. I know we don't agree. I think God has made a new covenant with world. I know u don't agree. But thank you for your time. I don't mind reading your ideas if you don't mind mine.
Important question though: Kingship passes though the male. If you believe Jesus had not earthly father, how did he become rightful king?

Click to expand...

Luke's genealogy
Based on the previous facts, Luke's genealogy must list Jesus' ancestors through his mother which is an unusual thing to Do for The time but we can see the reasons for this.

Jesus was the natural son of Mary, who conceived by the Holy Ghost and therefore He becomes the Son of God (Luk 1:34-35). Considering the fact that by the Jewish tradition women are never listed in the genealogical links, it is acceptable that Luke lists Joseph instead of Mary (as he was the "father" of Jesus and this is the custom of respect to the husband) and thus Luke names Joseph as son of Heli. Further, since Heli had no sons but only daughters, we can find a precedent of the same type of name substitution in Num 27:1-11 and Num 36:1-12.

Reading through Luke's genealogy, we can see how Jesus, through his blood relationship with his mother and her ancestors, becomes the true son of God. genesis 3
this website shows both the linages check it out
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/genealogy_of_jesus.htm

Genealogical abridgment
Genealogical abridgment occurs not only in Matthew 1:1, but also in the Old Testament. Compare Ezra 7:3 with 1st Chronicles 6:7-10, and you can see how Ezra deliberately skipped six generations from Meriaoth to Azariah (son of Johanan).
Son could also be used to describe kinship without sonship. Although Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel (1st Chronicles 3:17-19), he was called the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:12). Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15). Yet, he was called the "son of Manasseh" (Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, 1st Kings 4:13).
The point to remember is that the word son can be applied to several types of relationships. So adopted sons did get legal rights in ancient Israel. Thats why genealogies were so important.
The Problem
Joseph, the father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim's descendants (through Jeconiah). Joseph's offspring could not claim David's throne because of the curse. Jesus laid claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 12:2). If Jesus had been born of Joseph, the curse would have been contradicted.
Also, God had promised David that one of his physical descendants would reign on the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13). As explained above, Joseph was excluded from being the genetic father of the future king of Israel.
It was impossible to fulfill the requirements of both curse and promise by natural means. One man had to be both heir to and offspring of David, without being the genetic descendant of Jehoiakim. This problem required a divine solution.

The Solution
God created a solution through the miracle of the virgin birth. Although Joseph was one of Jehoiakim's offspring (through Solomon), Mary was not. She was a descendant of Nathan, one of David's other sons (Luke 3:31). God's promise to David was fulfilled because Mary was the biological parent of Jesus.
The virgin birth also addressed the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Kingship was an inherited right. By Joseph, Jesus inherited a legal claim to the throne of David. However, he was exempt from the curse of Jehoiakim because Joseph was not his genetic father.
So the miracle of the virgin birth accomplished God's will in two ways. First, it granted Jesus a legal claim to the throne of David. And second, it maintained the integrity of the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Indeed, Jesus was not one of Jehoiakim's offspring.

dougangel said:

Luke's genealogy
Based on the previous facts, Luke's genealogy must list Jesus' ancestors through his mother which is an unusual thing to Do for The time but we can see the reasons for this.

Jesus was the natural son of Mary, who conceived by the Holy Ghost and therefore He becomes the Son of God (Luk 1:34-35). Considering the fact that by the Jewish tradition women are never listed in the genealogical links, it is acceptable that Luke lists Joseph instead of Mary (as he was the "father" of Jesus and this is the custom of respect to the husband) and thus Luke names Joseph as son of Heli. Further, since Heli had no sons but only daughters, we can find a precedent of the same type of name substitution in Num 27:1-11 and Num 36:1-12.

Reading through Luke's genealogy, we can see how Jesus, through his blood relationship with his mother and her ancestors, becomes the true son of God. genesis 3
this website shows both the linages check it out
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/genealogy_of_jesus.htm

Genealogical abridgment
Genealogical abridgment occurs not only in Matthew 1:1, but also in the Old Testament. Compare Ezra 7:3 with 1st Chronicles 6:7-10, and you can see how Ezra deliberately skipped six generations from Meriaoth to Azariah (son of Johanan).
Son could also be used to describe kinship without sonship. Although Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel (1st Chronicles 3:17-19), he was called the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:12). Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15). Yet, he was called the "son of Manasseh" (Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, 1st Kings 4:13).
The point to remember is that the word son can be applied to several types of relationships. So adopted sons did get legal rights in ancient Israel. Thats why genealogies were so important.
The Problem
Joseph, the father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim's descendants (through Jeconiah). Joseph's offspring could not claim David's throne because of the curse. Jesus laid claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 12:2). If Jesus had been born of Joseph, the curse would have been contradicted.
Also, God had promised David that one of his physical descendants would reign on the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13). As explained above, Joseph was excluded from being the genetic father of the future king of Israel.
It was impossible to fulfill the requirements of both curse and promise by natural means. One man had to be both heir to and offspring of David, without being the genetic descendant of Jehoiakim. This problem required a divine solution.

The Solution
God created a solution through the miracle of the virgin birth. Although Joseph was one of Jehoiakim's offspring (through Solomon), Mary was not. She was a descendant of Nathan, one of David's other sons (Luke 3:31). God's promise to David was fulfilled because Mary was the biological parent of Jesus.
The virgin birth also addressed the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Kingship was an inherited right. By Joseph, Jesus inherited a legal claim to the throne of David. However, he was exempt from the curse of Jehoiakim because Joseph was not his genetic father.
So the miracle of the virgin birth accomplished God's will in two ways. First, it granted Jesus a legal claim to the throne of David. And second, it maintained the integrity of the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Indeed, Jesus was not one of Jehoiakim's offspring.

Click to expand...

Ok, but as I said, Kingship like Tribe status passes through the male, not through the female. You also cannot be adopted to gain it just like you couldn't be adopted to be a priest. You either are a male line descendant of Aaron to be a priest, or you are not. You cannot be made one by being adopted. Likewise, you cannot be made king by being adopted. I know Christians really, really, really want adoption to be able to convey it, but there is no justification for this anywhere in the text that discusses priesthood and tribe status and kingship. No justification at all.

This "solution" isn't a solution. But it gets a bit worse for you....

1 Chronicles 22 states that the line of Kings go through Solomon.
Behold, a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace, and I shall give him peace (shalom) from all his enemies around about, for Solomon (Shlomo) will be his name, and I shall give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house in My name, and he shall be to Me as a son, and I to him as a father, and I shall prepare the throne of his kingdom forever.


So, if Mary goes through Nathan, well, she's not part of the correct line. She's part of Nathan's line, but the throne was passed to Solomon's line FOREVER.


Well, not that this matters since we know that it cannot pass through Joseph at all since he is not a biological father, but scripture actually indicates that the curse you speak of may have been reversed. Contrast Jeremiah 22 with what is said to his grandson in Haggai 2.

dfw69 said:

Who is the king of Israel David or Hashem?

When Hashem choose David he was choosing "his beloved" ...David means beloved ... Hashem loves his son and has given him all things ...David was a foreshadowing of Hashem son

Click to expand...

David was king of Israel. HaShem is king of the Universe.

dfw69 said:

If Hashem is king of the universe then he is also king of Israel being within that said universe and rightful heir to the throne and is able to place his son thereupon

Click to expand...

If you want to say He stripped the physical line of David from the Throne of Israel, that's fine. Makes Him a liar, but that's on you.

dfw69 said:

But it was prophecied the seed of the woman shall destroy satans kingdom not the lineage of the man

Click to expand...

Latching onto seed of the woman isn't going to do you much good when I start posting all the parts in the Tanakh that refer to a woman as having seed or a child been the seed of a woman. I know that Christians like to cling to Genesis 3, but it's a mistake when I don't have to go very far for G-d to be telling Hagar that her seed would become a great nation.

dfw69 said:

Lol no I'm not saying that Hashem is a liar I'm saying his son was his intension to place on the throne all along

Click to expand...

Well, you can say that. I see no justification for that stance in the text of the Tanakh.

dfw69 said:

Who can destroy satans kingdom but Hashem only anointed son? That's what I believe anyway

Click to expand...

Satan doesn't have a Kingdom. In fact, in my faith, Satan is just an angel who does whatever he's told to do. It's hard to find anything in the Tanakh that shows Satan as anything else.

dfw69 said:

Can man make a perfect world without Hashem? If man tries without him they will fail

1 Samuel 8

Click to expand...

A man couldn't bring Israel out of Egypt, but that didn't require HaShem to send His son (who is also himself) to do it.

dfw69 said:

Well Moses is not able to save as Jesus is able through the new covenant ... Moses indeed delivered Israel from pharoahs hand but Jesus will deliver us from this world and take us to heaven to hashems holy mountain where we may behold the father face to face and live with him forever

If you don't conform to this world you too may be able to enter and your sins covered though you have spoken against Jesus in unbelief ...that is if the rapture happens within our lifetime

Click to expand...

You and I have talked before. If *anything* like you describe here were in the Tanakh, I could be persuaded. But it isn't in there.

LoAmmi said:

Ok, but as I said, Kingship like Tribe status passes through the male, not through the female. You also cannot be adopted to gain it just like you couldn't be adopted to be a priest. You either are a male line descendant of Aaron to be a priest, or you are not. You cannot be made one by being adopted. Likewise, you cannot be made king by being adopted. I know Christians really, really, really want adoption to be able to convey it, but there is no justification for this anywhere in the text that discusses priesthood and tribe status and kingship. No justification at all.

Click to expand...

Jacob, Joseph's father, adopted Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to share in Jacob's inheritance equally with Jacob's own sons. (Genesis 48:5) He is counted as the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Manasseh, one of the twelve Israelite tribes. Jacob also blessed Ephraim over his older brother.

Ephraim was the younger son of Joseph, son of Jacob, and Asenath, daughter of Potiphera (priest of the sun god Re of Heliopolis). Ephraim is the ancestor of the Tribe of Ephraim. Before his death, Jacob adopted his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasseh to be equal with his own sons (Genesis 48:5).

There are examples of adoptees getting title and heir rights in the OT. Not for Priests. but for title. It really seems it's up to father.
That's what this was about.
Genealogical abridgment

Son could also be used to describe kinship without sonship. Although Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel (1st Chronicles 3:17-19), he was called the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:12). Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15). Yet, he was called the "son of Manasseh" (Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, 1st Kings 4:13).
The point to remember is that the word son can be applied to several types of relationships. So adopted sons did get legal rights in ancient Israel. That's why genealogies were so important.

Mary is the seed of the woman Genesis 3:15 The physical line.
Joseph is the Legal line. Jesus claim to the throne of David as a inherited son of Joseph.
Jesus can claim the throne of David but isn't physically receiving the curse.

You say the curse was lifted. But the curse being there seems to be important in the NT.

dougangel said:

Jacob, Joseph's father, adopted Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to share in Jacob's inheritance equally with Jacob's own sons. (Genesis 48:5) He is counted as the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Manasseh, one of the twelve Israelite tribes. Jacob also blessed Ephraim over his older brother.

Ephraim was the younger son of Joseph, son of Jacob, and Asenath, daughter of Potiphera (priest of the sun god Re of Heliopolis). Ephraim is the ancestor of the Tribe of Ephraim. Before his death, Jacob adopted his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasseh to be equal with his own sons (Genesis 48:5).

There are examples of adoptees getting title and heir rights in the OT. Not for Priests. but for title. It really seems it's up to father.
That's what this was about.
Genealogical abridgment

Son could also be used to describe kinship without sonship. Although Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel (1st Chronicles 3:17-19), he was called the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:12). Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15). Yet, he was called the "son of Manasseh" (Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, 1st Kings 4:13).
The point to remember is that the word son can be applied to several types of relationships. So adopted sons did get legal rights in ancient Israel. That's why genealogies were so important.

Mary is the seed of the woman Genesis 3:15 The physical line.
Joseph is the Legal line. Jesus claim to the throne of David as a inherited son of Joseph.
Jesus can claim the throne of David but isn't physically receiving the curse.

You say the curse was lifted. But the curse being there seems to be important in the NT.

Click to expand...

So, according to you, a man in David's line that was unaffected by the curse could have adopted any Jewish boy (or even not a Jew, who knows) and that boy would have had legal rights to the Throne of David?

LoAmmi said:

So, according to you, a man in David's line that was unaffected by the curse could have adopted any Jewish boy (or even not a Jew, who knows) and that boy would have had legal rights to the Throne of David?

Click to expand...

Well I have given you evidence in the OT that adoptees claim titles not just the sons. I could give you more and explain it but I'm not going into anymore time or effort on it.
Genesis 30
Jacob slept with slaves, this populated Israel. In those times with the borders moving. Nations around them that they took slaves from.( For example.Samson, Philistines) If they lived in peace they mixed in and became Israelite's. So your pure bred stuff. I'm not sure about.

As others have said. He was a Jew through Mary. he was a Israelite born and bred.
God picked Mary and Joseph and they have those claims so I guess it was good enough for God.

dougangel said:

Well I have given you evidence in the OT that adoptees claim titles not just the sons. I could give you more and explain it but I'm not going into anymore time or effort on it.
Genesis 30
Jacob slept with slaves, this populated Israel. In those times with the borders moving. Nations around them that they took slaves from.( For example.Samson, Philistines) If they lived in peace they mixed in and became Israelite's. So your pure bred stuff. I'm not sure about.

As others have said. He was a Jew through Mary. he was a Israelite born and bred.
God picked Mary and Joseph and they have those claims so I guess it was good enough for God.

Click to expand...

I asked you one question. Is you answer to that question "yes"? A boy could be bought into the line of David simply by being adopted by a man in that line?