According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim makes it impossible, however, for Christians to insist that Jesus was king of the Jews. This is because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father. This is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18. According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, not a human Jewish father. This human Jewish father would be essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.
2007-11-28 19:17:10 · 15 answers · asked by Charlemagne's Ghost 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
.
Good try and even my hoofs are laughing........
hee haw, hee haw..........
.
2007-11-28 19:37:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
But Joseph, who has direct lineage to king David (Matthew 1), is Jesus' earthly father. One couldn't dismiss the legitimacy to the throne solely based on blood line of the father. Adoption would create a legitimate heir. Also think of Abraham. When in fact Ishmael was the first born of Abraham, God made Isaac the true heir. The difference was the mother and not the father. If it's God's will, it will be.
2007-11-29 03:34:39 · answer #2 · answered by NYBHC 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Clearly the Pharisees of the day disagreed with you. They merely said that he was required to be "of David", without adding your physical paternal requirement for the Messiah: "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David." (Mat 22:41-42) So where is the requirement that the Messiah be of the physical seed of David? Easy it isn't there; for it was by name that Jesus was the Son of David, being born from a Davidic womb, and by seed that he was the Son of God. "For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;" (Jer 33:17)
In addition, I disagree with your assertion that the census of Numbers 1:18 is irrefutable proof that lineage existed solely through the physical male, for it was simply a census of men, that excluded priests. If descendence were solely based upon the physical, why would God have told Isaac's wife that two different nations were in her womb, one as king and the other as a servant?
2007-11-29 03:57:49 · answer #3 · answered by w2 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Excellent point, this is an area where the bible blatantly contradicts itself.
Romans 1:3
Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.
Matthew 1:18
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Notice how the first one says "made of the seed of David" and the second one says he was conceived before they came together. That doesn't make any sense!!!
The Christian Church just wanted to create someone who was the son of God yet the rightful heir to the throne of the Jews. They accomplished this at the expense of accuracy and continuity of details, and they probably liked it better back when everyone was illiterate.
2007-11-29 03:36:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
You are underinformed. Jesus had to have BOTH a physical right AND a legal right to the throne of David.
His physical right came through Mary and His legal right came through Joseph His ADOPTIVE father.
Both Joseph and Mary descended from King David.
2007-11-29 03:36:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Jesus was born of The Holy Spirit, which Makes Jesus The Mesiah, many thought Jesus was going to save the jews another way, They did not comprehend How Jesus would save all, with the sacrifice to the cross.
Why do you try so hard to use worldly insight to disprove spiritual truth? If you have The Holy Spirit you will understand Gods word, and what The Lord is telling us.
2007-11-29 03:23:53 · answer #6 · answered by Lynn C 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The prophesy is from Isaiah.
What you are saying is Isaiah was either wrong or God was wrong and the Jews know better than God.
I choose to believe the word of God according to Isaiah which is in agreement with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
2007-11-29 03:32:52 · answer #7 · answered by djmantx 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
you have an excellent point and i am hoping i find some kind of acceptable explanation of this. the only thing i can come up with so far is that the whole virgin birth was blown out of proportion. i am still confused tho because apparently there are 2 different lineages mentioned and neither are possible for the messiah to come thru either. (from what i understand.)
2007-11-29 03:23:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Makes sense to me why Jews wouldn't believe he is the messiah.
2007-11-29 03:20:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes. This is very accurate. It is like this. If you have a neighbor who professed that he is a messiah, would you easily believe him? Of course, not.
But he is the true messiah. I feel it. I know it. And there is no confusion about it.
2007-11-29 03:23:05 · answer #10 · answered by Youth of Noble Birthright 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
You guys believe in mythical beings coming to 'save' you. Why?... life not interesting enough for you?
2007-11-29 07:02:21 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋