Do the Genealogies of Jesus Prove He's Not the Messiah?

[jamespyles]

Sounds like you can't tell the players without a scorecard.

 

[yedida]

Sounds like you can't tell the players without a scorecard.

Sorry, just trying to help. You want to jump in here and try to figure it all out on your own, be my guest. Sorry I butted in.

 

[jamespyles]

It was a joke. I was kidding, not being snarky. Honest.

 

[yedida]

Okay. Without smiley's help sometimes it's hard to tell. Sorry, for knee-jerk reaction. All is good.

 

[ChavaK]

Sounds like you can't tell the players without a scorecard.

LOL, yep, it can definitely be confusing.
But honestly, don't let anyone's opinion bother you who is not a member of your faith group. I couldn't care less what Muslims or Christians or even secular Jews think of my beliefs and scriptures.

 

[Lulav]

My suggestion would be don't worry about what Jews or others have to say about your scriptures and genealogies....

Really? I had to check for a second to make sure what forum I was in. This is Messianic Judaism.

But I bet you said that tongue-in-cheek.

Oh no, serious. Why would you care what non-Messianic Jews have to say about the NT?

LOL, yep, it can definitely be confusing.
But honestly, don't let anyone's opinion bother you who is not a member of your faith group. I couldn't care less what Muslims or Christians or even secular Jews think of my beliefs and scriptures.

Can someone point me to where James stated he wanted the opinion of what it says in the NT? I can't find it, even after re-reading this thread twice.

 

[ChavaK]

Can someone point me to where James stated he wanted the opinion of what it says in the NT? I can't find it, even after re-reading this thread twice.

To me that is what this whole thread is about. He is apparently concerned about Rabbi Boteach's interpretation/opinion of the geneaology of Jesus.

 

[jamespyles]

To me that is what this whole thread is about. He is apparently concerned about Rabbi Boteach's interpretation/opinion of the geneaology of Jesus.

Correct.

 

[ChavaK]

Correct.

So have you been satisfied that Rabbi Boteach is incorrect in his interpretations?

 

[jamespyles]

I'm satisfied there's more to the story than what Rabbi Boteach presents. As far as words like "correct" or "truth" go, I'm still trying to learn.

 

[Lulav]

To me that is what this whole thread is about. He is apparently concerned about Rabbi Boteach's interpretation/opinion of the geneaology of Jesus.

Haaa, I get it now, you are answering for Boteach.

 

[yedida]

Can she do that?

 

[cupid dave]

I've been trying to get an answer to this question, and so far, no one is volunteering. Let me explain.

A few days ago, I wrote a review of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's book "Kosher Jesus" on my blog. While I was reading the book, I came across a part of one chapter where Boteach supposedly demonstrated, using the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, that Jesus (Yeshua, if you will) could not possibly be the Messiah.

Forgive me if this isn't the right forum for this post, but I couldn't find an exact match in any of the other forums here.

I posted the question, along with the relevant quotes from the Boteach book, in a blog post called The Messiah's Father (and hopefully, I have enough posts here to allow me to create a link). I honestly don't know how to respond to Boteach's argument regarding the genealogy lists but maybe one of you does.

Please read my blog and let me know, either by commenting here or there.

Thanks.

-James

The answer is simple.

Jesus was not the progeny of David, nor in the line of Solomen, simply because Joseph was not the biological father.

Mary was not from Judah because her cousin Elizabeth had married a Kohan, Zechariah, and kohans MUST marry Levites, i.e., Elizabeth.

That Mary and Elizabeth were cousin suggests that Mary was a Levite.

What we need to discover in this Age is that Christ was the Elijah.
He had tried to tell his own synagogue this, but they reacted angrily and want to kill him.


16And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, (i.e.; Isaiah 61:1):


18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," (which had just taken place 40 days prior when John baptized him), because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel (of Elijah) to the poor;
he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, (to turn the hearts of the fathers to the sons, and the hearts of the sons to the forefathers), to preach deliverance to the captives (of this erroneous Judaic tradition and complex laws) and recovering of sight to the blind (who have eyes but see not), to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach: The acceptable year of the Lord (i.e., "I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD ).

20And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture (which refers to Mal 4:6) fulfilled in your ears


Clearly, the Elijah was to come first and is the expected one according to Mal 4:6.
Obviously, Jesus was announcing himself, and was announcing the day of the coming messiah exactly as scripture said it would be.

The Testimony of the Testament supports this as true, in that the Genealogy specifically says God was the father of Jesus, not Joseph.

 

[mishkan]

The answer is simple.

Jesus was not the progeny of David, nor in the line of Solomen, simply because Joseph was not the biological father.

Mary was not from Judah because her cousin Elizabeth had married a Kohan, Zechariah, and kohans MUST marry Levites, i.e., Elizabeth.

That Mary and Elizabeth were cousin suggests that Mary was a Levite.

There is a saying that, "Reading the Bible in English translation is like kissing your wife through a blanket". In other words, we often miss significant information, while at the same time, reading into the text ideas that do not belong.

In this case, you are putting too much emphasis on the notion of "cousin". In the Greek, the word is "sungenneis", which is very broad, including the ideas of "kinfolk" or "countryman". It is similar to the modern Yiddish word of "landsman"--a "member of the tribe". In no sense, can we use this word to establish Levitical ancestry for Miryam or Yeshua.

Besides, such a designation would explicitly contradict other passages that note Yeshua's Judean ancestry. One such is Hebrews 7:14. Others include the passages assigning Yeshua the status of "Son of David". That was not just a poetic phrase, but a political statement, recognizing Yeshua as the rightful King of Israel, the heir apparent. No Levite could serve in that office.

 

[MyriamOui]

As regards to the contradiction of the genealogies, one possibly usefull response is quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History(volume 1) from the Loeb Classical Library p. 55 -> ->.
And so he quotes, according to a letter wrote by Africanus:

Reckoning the generations from David through Solomon the third from the end is found to be Matthan who begat Jacob the father of Joseph; but from Nathan, the son of David, according to Luke, the corresponding third from the end is Melchi; for Joseph was a son of Eli the son of Melchi. So then fixing our attention on Joseph, it must be demonstrated how each is called his father, Jacob tracing his family from Solomon and Eli from Nathan, and how first they, that is Jacob and Eli, were two brothers, and, still earlier, how their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, belonging to diffferent families, are represented as the grandfathers of Joseph. Now Matthan and Melchi, inasmuch as they took the same wife, were the fathers of stepbrothers, for the law does not prevent a woman who has lost her husband either by her own divorce or by his death from beeing married to another. Now from Estha, for this is the traditional name of the woman,first Matthan, who reckoned his descent from Solomon, begat Jacob and when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced himself by family to Nathan, took his widow, for he was of the same tribe though of another family, as I said before, and had a son, Eli. Thus we shall find that though the two families were different Jacob and Eli were step-brothers of the same mother, and the first of them, Jacob, when his brother Eli died without children, took his wife, and begat of her the third (from Estha) Joseph, according to the nature, for himself (and also according to the reason, for which cause it is written 'and Jacob begat Joseph'), but according to law he was the son of Eli, for to him Jacob, beeing his brother, raised up seed. Wherefore the genealogy concerning him will not be incurate. Matthew, the evangelist, reckoned it in this way, saying 'and Jacob begat Joseph' but Luke, on the other hand, said: ' who was, as it was supposed' (for he adds this also) 'the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi' for it was impossible to express legal descent more pointedly, and up to the end he suppressed the word 'begat' concerning such raising of children, for he traces the list back to its source with 'Adam the son of God'. This is neither devoid of proof, nor is it conjecture, for the human relatives of the Saviour have handed on this traditon, either from family pride, or merely to give information, but in any case speaking the truth."

The law here is "Ybum" (יבו&#1501 (levirate marriage).
Now it is clear that no man can be God, even Jesus, for Jews-Hebrews, because of the verse Exodus 32, 1, in which they believed that Moses was God (Moses disappeared, as they thought God disappeared). You know: Hebrews ate the golden calf for their pagan thinking. (for the pagans of the antique times know well what it means: God marries a virgin and half a God is born).
Now Jesus (Yeshua) is really a great man, but not the Moshiah, as he is very similar to Elijah the prophet. Even rabbi Boteach can't deny this. I wrote such things in my blog "jesusjuif.com". But you can read once again the story of Elijah and Elishah, it is worth the effort.

 

[yedida]

As regards to the contradiction of the genealogies, one possibly usefull response is quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History(volume 1) from the Loeb Classical Library p. 55 -> ->.
And so he quotes, according to a letter wrote by Africanus: The law here is "Ybum" (יבו&#1501 (levirate marriage).
Now it is clear that no man can be God, even Jesus, for Jews-Hebrews, because of the verse Exodus 32, 1, in which they believed that Moses was God (Moses disappeared, as they thought God disappeared). You know: Hebrews ate the golden calf for their pagan thinking. (for the pagans of the antique times know well what it means: God marries a virgin and half a God is born).
Now Jesus (Yeshua) is really a great man, but not the Moshiah, as he is very similar to Elijah the prophet. Even rabbi Boteach can't deny this. I wrote such things in my blog "jesusjuif.com". But you can read once again the story of Elijah and Elishah, it is worth the effort.

I'm sorry, but you are not allowed to teach/debate in this forum against any commonly held beliefs of Messianic Judaism. Please see our SoP.
Besides, what I have bolded is completely against what CF as a whole believes. Please see the Rules for posting here that you signed when you joined.
Thank you.

 

[MyriamOui]

I'm sorry, but you are not allowed to teach/debate in this forum against any commonly held beliefs of Messianic Judaism. Please see our SoP.
Besides, what I have bolded is completely against what CF as a whole believes. Please see the Rules for posting here that you signed when you joined.
Thank you.

What does it mean???? I don't want to debate, don't want to teach, but to expose my own beliefs, my own truth, that regards no one but me.
Tell me if I am no longer accepted in this forum?
If I am not allowed to post what I am believing, what I have discovered on Jesus, following the scriptures, then I will consider that your forum is not but a fossil. But never mind, you can stop me. But no one will stop the truth to be heard, after all...
On the whole, I like reseaching on the person of Jesus, this great man... But who knows him "be-emet", in truth????

 

[ChavaK]

What does it mean???? I don't want to debate, don't want to teach, but to expose my own beliefs, my own truth, that regards no one but me.
Tell me if I am no longer accepted in this forum?
If I am not allowed to post what I am believing, what I have discovered on Jesus, following the scriptures, then I will consider that your forum is not but a fossil. But never mind, you can stop me. But no one will stop the truth to be heard, after all...
On the whole, I like reseaching on the person of Jesus, this great man... But who knows him "be-emet", in truth????

If you are not a Messianic, which apparently you are not since you have a Magen David icon (correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are a Jew who admires Jesus but do not consider him to be the messiah or G-d)
then you are only supposed to ask questions and post fluff stuff (how are you, how's the weather). Limitations are pretty strict here, so it may not be the forum for you. It's restrictive and stiffling, but what are you gonna do...them's the rules.
BTW, welcome!

 

[jcpro]

What does it mean???? I don't want to debate, don't want to teach, but to expose my own beliefs, my own truth, that regards no one but me.
Tell me if I am no longer accepted in this forum?
If I am not allowed to post what I am believing, what I have discovered on Jesus, following the scriptures, then I will consider that your forum is not but a fossil. But never mind, you can stop me. But no one will stop the truth to be heard, after all...
On the whole, I like reseaching on the person of Jesus, this great man... But who knows him "be-emet", in truth????

Hi. What it means is that this is a Christian forum.

 

[ChavaK]

Hi. What it means is that this is a Christian forum.

LOL, short and to the point!