Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Messiahs' genealogy?
#31
But in Hebrews it says:

Heb 8:1 Now this is the main point of the things being said: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
Heb 8:2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord set up, and not man.
Heb 8:4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;
Heb 8:5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things

While this is speaking of the Sanctuary and the Tabernacle could there not be also a Davidic Throne upon which the true King of Israel, YHVH, in the form of the Messiah even now sits. Might it be that the earthly throne of David was only ‘a copy and shadow of the heavenly thing’?
#32
(03-23-2013, 03:07 PM)Joshua888 Wrote: Nachshon Ben Avraham
Malachi 3:22

There is no such verse in Malachi what verse did you mean????????
You need to look at a Hebrew Tanakh.
#33
(03-17-2013, 05:35 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: What is Jewishness? It is amazing how convoluted you make it out to be.

Tribal lineage is all there is, and all there ever will be. Nothing in the Torah describes Jewishness, the word isn't written.
Okay, so prove that Mary is from the tribe of David, not assumptions MJ since you're a Karaite. You previously conceeded this point. Then show me how a woman can pass on tribal lineage. Tribal lineage does not pass through the mother as evidenced by Numbers 27:4, 27:7-8, 36:1-10, Joshua 17:4-6. Only tribal land/property transfers to daughters in the case of no male inheritors. The daughters of Zelophehad married within their tribe to maintain tribal lineage. Why? Because their husband transfered that to their children and family. Tribal lineage is through the physical/biological father. Yeshua doesn't have a tribal lineage through Mary.

As far as being Jewish/Israelite, you can look at Ezra 10:2-3 which shows woman and children being sent away, and it wasn't because they were Jewish/Israelite. Then, there's the matter of Deut 7:3-4.

Deut 7:3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Deut 7:4 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He will destroy thee quickly. We know that the Hebrew word "yasir" here means "he will turn away", not "they will trun away".

The children of a Gentile mother are not Jewish, so the Torah is not worried about them being turned away from Hashem. It is only the children of a Jewish woman and a gentile father. That child is still Jewish and can be turned away from Hashem and Torah. We see evidence of this in Lev 24:10-11 where an Israelite woman married to an Egyptian has a son who blasphemes the Name. If he wasn't Jewish/Israelite, the matter would have never gone to Moses for a decision as to what to do with him.
#34
Oliver, context shows that 2 Samuel 7:14 and 1 Chronicles 17:13 speak of Solomon, not David. G-D is telling David that Solomon will build the Temple, and that he, and all his kingly sons, will be like G-D’s sons; when they sin G-D will punish them with the rod of men, but the kingship will never be taken away from David like it was from Saul.

How do you understand “not seeing corruption” (Acts 13:35-37)? If this corruption occurs after death, is Paul trying to say that David did not go straight to Heaven? If before death, how can this speak of Jesus, who spoke many times against the corruption he perceived in his time?

What does Psalm 2 mean when it says “you are My son, today I have begotten you?” I do not know your personal belief, but since you attribute this verse to Jesus, I can assume you to not believe in the trinity, for such a statement from Psalms would indicate Jesus is not co-equal not co-eternal with G-D. Looking into Psalm 2, G-D is speaking of King David, who was installed by G-D, ruled in Jerusalem, lived right next to G-D’s holy mountain, and broke the nations surrounding him with a “rod of iron.” Or it could speak of any Judean king on the day of anointment; in keeping with the theme from 2 Samuel 7, the new king is now like G-D’s own son, with all the privileges and responsibilities inherent. Is Psalm 2 speaking of the Messiah? It doesn’t say anything of that sort therein. No elements of the Messianic Age are present, nor are any buzzwords usually attributed to the final king in Israel used.

Why do you think G-D can sit on a throne “in the form of the Messiah,” when G-D tells us that A. He is not a man (Hosea 11:9), and B. the Messiah is supposed to fear G-D, not be G-D (Isaiah 11:2-3)?
#35
(03-23-2013, 10:26 PM)benyosef Wrote: I ask, if Malchitzedek was not written to be a sign either, where does Paul get this idea that if the Torah doesn’t record someone’s lineage they can be considered G-D’s son?

I can't tell you Apostle Pauls' mind, but I would say because Gods' son wouldn't have a lineage through a Dad so there wouldn't be a male lineage to trace only the Mother. And we all understand only the male line is traced by the Hebrews.

(03-23-2013, 10:26 PM)benyosef Wrote: Another thing I never understood is if Christianity is insistent Jesus had no human father, why does the NT constantly call him “son of man?”

Because Jesus does have a Mother who traces back to Adam and Eve through David to Abraham and Sarah.

(03-23-2013, 10:26 PM)benyosef Wrote: MJ: “No one can see the Sabbath…yet the Sabbath is written as a sign…Other viewers would have began to recognize [Jesus], he was teaching at a very young age, he grew in stature and God gave him favor among men…”
My question is, if Isaiah is giving Ahaz a sign that the prophecy will occur, why give an invisible sign? Isaiah didn’t give Ahaz the sign of Sabbath, he gave him the sign of a child’s maturity, which can be visually recognized. The question remains: Can a virgin birth be a sign? Your comment that others saw Jesus teaching at a young age doesn’t answer the question because that has nothing to do with Mary’s sexual experience or lack thereof. When she was pushing baby Jesus in the pram, were people able to see he was the messiah because his mother is clearly a virgin? Can you tell if someone is a virgin by looking at them?

Well, this follow up skirts your idea that a sign is always visible. No you can't tell if someone is a virgin, but seeing as Jews don't lie, the fact she was a virgin would become verbally obvious. I would also say visible, as this woman would say she was a virgin and they would have visually witnessed her verbal testimony.
#36
(03-30-2013, 08:56 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: Because Jesus does have a Mother who traces back to Adam and Eve through David to Abraham and Sarah.
Come on MJ, you know you can't trace Mary back to David. You previously conceeded this point. And of course, tribal lineage does not follow through the mother.

(03-30-2013, 08:56 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: Well, this follow up skirts your idea that a sign is always visible. No you can't tell if someone is a virgin, but seeing as Jews don't lie, the fact she was a virgin would become verbally obvious. I would also say visible, as this woman would say she was a virgin and they would have visually witnessed her verbal testimony.
This is a contradiction -verbal is not a visible sign. Another thing, the sign wasn't a virgin as this can't be seen. The sign is the child born who will see the northern invaders wiped out and Jerusalem saved.
#37
(03-31-2013, 05:23 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Come on MJ, you know you can't trace Mary back to David. You previously conceeded this point. And of course, tribal lineage does not follow through the mother.

I don't think "can't" is the right word, it just isn't written. Tribal lineage can be traced through either the Father or Mother. The women have a tribe, they're born into one. They have to marry within their tribe.

(03-30-2013, 08:56 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: This is a contradiction -verbal is not a visible sign. Another thing, the sign wasn't a virgin as this can't be seen. The sign is the child born who will see the northern invaders wiped out and Jerusalem saved.

A woman can visually be seen giving a verbal testimony. The Sabbath day can not be "seen".

That is your own belief. I'm just typing what is written in the New Testament. You can choose to believe or not.
#38
(04-02-2013, 02:38 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: I don't think "can't" is the right word, it just isn't written. Tribal lineage can be traced through either the Father or Mother. The women have a tribe, they're born into one. They have to marry within their tribe.
Yes, but only father's can pass on the tribal lineage, this is not a possession.

Let's examine your answer in light of the Torah. Numbers 27:7-11 says -
Num 27:7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.
Num 27:8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.
Num 27:9 And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren.
Num 27:10 And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren.
Num 27:11 And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.

The Hebrew for inheritance is "achuzat" which means to grab hold of a possession in these verses.

Please notice the logic in these verses. If there are no son inheritors from the tribe, then the land possession passes to the daughters. There is no need to pass tribal lineage to a male family member if there are no daughters because he's already in the family. Same with a daughter, her tribal lineage is already intact from her father. These verses are speaking only of land possession. Try this exercise. Substitute the word "tribe" for "inheritance". It makes no sense.

Let's look at Numbers 36:1-10. The verses use the Hebrew words "shivtei" and "mateh" for tribe. Notice that only the Hebrew word "nachalat" is used for inheritance. If tribal lineage could be passed on from a mother to her children, different words wouldn't be used to distinguish the two. Again, try this exercise. Substitute the word "tribe" for "inheritance". It makes no sense again.

These verses also stipulate that daughters who inherit a land possession must marry within their tribe. Why? So that future children will inherit the tribal lineage which can only be given/passed on through the biological father.
#39
(04-02-2013, 02:38 PM)MessianicJew Wrote:
(03-31-2013, 05:23 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Come on MJ, you know you can't trace Mary back to David. You previously conceeded this point. And of course, tribal lineage does not follow through the mother.

I don't think "can't" is the right word, it just isn't written. Tribal lineage can be traced through either the Father or Mother. The women have a tribe, they're born into one. They have to marry within their tribe.

(03-30-2013, 08:56 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: This is a contradiction -verbal is not a visible sign. Another thing, the sign wasn't a virgin as this can't be seen. The sign is the child born who will see the northern invaders wiped out and Jerusalem saved.

A woman can visually be seen giving a verbal testimony. The Sabbath day can not be "seen".

That is your own belief. I'm just typing what is written in the New Testament. You can choose to believe or not.
Continued:

A mother's DNA plays no role in tribal lineage. And, there is no evidence of Mary's connection to the tribe of David. Occam's razor says the simplest answer is the best solution. Yeshua was born naturally from a father and mother.

(04-02-2013, 02:38 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: A woman can visually be seen giving a verbal testimony. The Sabbath day can not be "seen".

That is your own belief. I'm just typing what is written in the New Testament. You can choose to believe or not.
Can you show me a verse in Tanakh where someone's word is not followed by a physical sign? Isaiah 7:14 says nothing about a "verbal testimony" as a sign.

Genesis 1:14 - Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. Days are given as signs, so the Sabbath is a sign. I'm just typing what's written in the Original Testament, Torah, in agreement with the prophets.
#40
(04-04-2013, 07:11 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Can you show me a verse in Tanakh where someone's word is not followed by a physical sign? Isaiah 7:14 says nothing about a "verbal testimony" as a sign.

Genesis 1:14 - Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. Days are given as signs, so the Sabbath is a sign. I'm just typing what's written in the Original Testament, Torah, in agreement with the prophets.

The visual is the person giving the verbal testimony. Just like you claim the stars are the visual for the Sabbath. So this woman would be the virgin fulfilling this prophecy. She isn't mute after all.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)