Jesus - was he a Jew?

[Luke17:37]

I believe Courson was wrong. Mary was a "close relative" of Elizabeth, who was described as a "daughter of Aaron" (Luke 1.5) - thus making her from Levi. If Mary was a close relation - she would also have to be a daughter of Aaron - from Levi - as well.

Mary is a descendant of David through Nathan. There are two genealogies in the gospels - Joseph's (Matthew 1) and Mary's (Luke 3).

Even though Mary was a direct descendant of David (line of Judah), that doesn't prohibit her from being related to Elizabeth, a Levite. People marry outside the tribes sometimes. For example, if Elizabeth's mother was of Judah and married a Levite, Elizabeth would be considered a Levite (tribe goes through father) but can still be related to Mary (e.g., first cousin once removed).

Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David, and He is. And the Bible also says Mary was a relative of Elizabeth. There's no reason to pick one or another--we should believe it all. It's God's word, and He doesn't lie.

 

[Dave-W]

Where in the text does it say that Mary was involved IN ANY WAY in the Lukan genealogy?

No where.

And that being so - WHY does everyone seem to think that it is so?

 

[Dave-W]

Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David,

That right there makes your logic bad. Your logic is one of 20th and 21st century western origin. NOT one of Semitic mid-eastern of 2000 years ago.

Did you know that in that thought system if a person was adopted, his/her entire family tree changed? The fact that Jesus was adopted by Joseph made his lineage to David THRU Joseph. Besides - using your own words:

For example, if Elizabeth's mother was of Judah and married a Levite, Elizabeth would be considered a Levite (tribe goes through father)

True. So does being an heir to the throne. It CANNOT go thru a woman.

 

[Luke17:37]

Where in the text does it say that Mary was involved IN ANY WAY in the Lukan genealogy?

No where.

And that being so - WHY does everyone seem to think that it is so?

Well, Luke says: "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23), whereas Matthew says: "And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16). I understand this ("as was supposed") isn't a direct translation, but there's a reason why they translated it that way. Note that Joseph couldn't have had two fathers, Jacob and Heli. Moreover, since Joseph wasn't Jesus' blood father, Mary's line is what is most important, as it must show that she as Jesus' human mother was a descendant of David (because that was a promise God made to David, that the Messiah would descend from him). The phrasing of Matthew makes it clear we are talking about Joseph, whereas Luke suggests otherwise.

This article explains it.
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v05-n06/genealogy

 

[Luke17:37]

That right there makes your logic bad. Your logic is one of 20th and 21st century western origin. NOT one of Semitic mid-eastern of 2000 years ago.

Did you know that in that thought system if a person was adopted, his/her entire family tree changed? The fact that Jesus was adopted by Joseph made his lineage to David THRU Joseph. Besides - using your own words:

True. So does being an heir to the throne. It CANNOT go thru a woman.

Jesus is a special case, being the Seed of the Woman.

Are you saying you don't believe Jesus was a true physical descendant of David?

Just read the article I sent you. It was written by Jews who believe in Jesus as their Messiah. And this is not a crazy concept but a general consensus among most theologians. I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you disagree, fine.

 

[Dave-W]

Jesus is a special case, being the Seed of the Woman.

That does not work. As Paul wrote in Galatians, HE was born UNDER THE LAW. Meaning that if He broke the Law in any way (including being a "special case" it was to Him a sin and that invalidates His sacrifice for our sins. IT had to follow the Law to the letter.

Are you saying you don't believe Jesus was a true physical descendant of David?

As the Son of God, Jesus was not a DNA descendant of any human. But since Joseph adopted him as his own son, He became a son of David in that process. Remember what David wrote of Him:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

That speaks of adoption.

 

[tulc]

(snip)
True. So does being an heir to the throne. It CANNOT go thru a woman.

So...you're only considered a Jew if your mom was Jewish but you can't inherit the throne if it's through your mom? Man, that hair is REALLY getting very finely split.
tulc(suspects by the time it's done there's going to be enough to make a wig out of it)

 

[Dave-W]

So...you're only considered a Jew if your mom was Jewish but you can't inherit the throne if it's through your mom? Man, that hair is REALLY getting very finely split.
tulc(suspects by the time it's done there's going to be enough to make a wig out of it)

In the first century both were thru the father, but "Jewish status" was starting to be recognized thru the mother. That becoming official came a couple of centuries later.

But even now - some 1800 years after Jewish status became officially thru the mother, status as a Kohen (priest) goes thru the father. That never changed.

 

[Luke17:37]

That does not work. As Paul wrote in Galatians, HE was born UNDER THE LAW. Meaning that if He broke the Law in any way (including being a "special case" it was to Him a sin and that invalidates His sacrifice for our sins. IT had to follow the Law to the letter.


As the Son of God, Jesus was not a DNA descendant of any human. But since Joseph adopted him as his own son, He became a son of David in that process. Remember what David wrote of Him:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

That speaks of adoption.

Jesus is fully man and fully God. He has human DNA through His human mother, and thus can be a substitutionary atonement for humans (being sinless, which no one born of human father can be). Jesus is eternal of course, but the body of flesh He took on has human DNA. We disagree.

Psalm 2:7 is about the moment when God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, conceived the God-man Jesus in the womb of Mary. It is not talking about Joseph at all. It is the members of the Trinity discussing the incarnation of Jesus at what was then a future point in time.

Luke 1:35
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

And of course we know John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

God the Father and God the Holy Spirit and God the Son were all involved in Jesus' miraculous conception, and this was planned for a very long time ("...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). The plan for Jesus to be slain was ready from the foundation of the world (creation) and it was first proclaimed to man in Genesis 3:15.

I need to log out and I shouldn't be back on for a few weeks. So you don't need to reply to me.

 

[ewq1938]

Sure they did. If they did not see it that way, why did they let "Christians" fight along side them during the sieges of Jerusalem, both in 70 ad, and 135 ad?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[Isiaih]

My take on this is that Christians are the proper continuation of the Jewish religion as all previous Jewish prophets were leading up to the birth of Jesus Christ. Christians today are the continuation of Isreal and Gods promise. Jews today are essentially in schism as their forefathers failed to recognise the Messiah as prophesised in their own Book the Torah, and are essentially lost until they recognise Christ as the Messiah.

 

[The Lone Ranger]

My take on this is that Christians are the proper continuation of the Jewish religion as all previous Jewish prophets were leading up to the birth of Jesus Christ. Christians today are the continuation of Isreal and Gods promise. Jews today are essentially in schism as their forefathers failed to recognise the Messiah as prophesised in their own Book the Torah, and are essentially lost until they recognise Christ as the Messiah.

Malachi 4:4-6
How many Christians do you know that practice Torah? Many Christians believe the 1st Testament is null and void.

 

[Isiaih]

Malachi 4:4-6
How many Christians do you know that practice Torah? Many Christians believe the 1st Testament is null and void.

They believe the old testament to be fulfilled and that the new Testament is the continuation of the same faith. For example Jesus declared all foods clean, which over ruled the Old testament rules on certain foods being forbidden.

"It is finished" the Lord said on the cross before he died, which was the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecies.

 

[The Lone Ranger]

They believe the old testament to be fulfilled and that the new Testament is the continuation of the same faith. For example Jesus declared all foods clean, which over ruled the Old testament rules on certain foods being forbidden.

Matthew 5:17. Yeshua never ate pork, or any unclean foods. He may not have eaten Kosher all of the time, meaning HE may not have had all of HIS food blessed by a Rabbi, but still. He sent demonic spirits into a herd of swine, which ran over a cliff and was destroyed though. He said it is not what goes into a man which defiles him, but what comes out of a man's heart. That which what man says is what is in his heart. He was clearly rebuking the priests corruption in Israel, by means of Hosea 4. Torah said if we eat unclean foods we are unclean for 7 days though.