Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'

Of course, that would not matter from the viewpoint of the Messiah. The Messiah has to be of the SEED of David (I.E. unbroken decent from male line through Solomon).Trying to say that Helio's is Mary's father is irrelavent. It also is not supported by the Christian scriptures either. The controtions that
appologists go through to try to 'prove' that is illogical, and non-historical.

The oldest text is NOT the septiguant.The septigaunt is a greek translations, and there were many different greek translations.

You are wrong about Jewish law when it comes to the 'Seed of David'.For the Davidic line (or for the priestly lines), no adoptions are allowed for consideration.In addition, according to Jewish law, if a woman has a child whose not the offspring of her husband, that child is considered a 'mamzer' and ritually unclean. This eliminates that child from going to the temple, and marriage to someone other than another mamzer, unto 10 generations.In addition, Isaiah 7 is not about a 'virgin'. The word "Almah" means young woman. The woman discussed in Isaiah 7:14 was also identified in
Isaiah 8:3-4. Isaiah was talking about his own wife. He went to the prophetess and insured she would conceive. Isaiah is talking about his own son. The sign to king Ahaz was that before that child would be old enough to know right from wrong, the King of assyria would have his comeupance.This is confirmed in Isaiah 8:18, when he proclaims that he and his children were teh signs from God. Edited by ramoss, : Added about Isaiah 7

Well, even in the septaguitn, the word 'parthenos' does not neccesiarly mean 'virgin' I point you to genesis 34, where Parthenos refered to
Rebbeka, after she was raped.Second of all, The psalm of David 2:7 specifically says that David was the 'begotton son of god'.. so, John was wrong.

You are again incorrect with the Jewish law.The Jewish law about Mamzwers says nothing about the 'sexual state' of a woman that has a child. That it because it assumes (quite rightfully), that if a woman has had child she has had sexual relations. Since Joseph was her husband, and she had a child that was not his, that child is a mamzer.If the Christians took the GNostic view, this contradiction could have been avoided. But they relied on hellenistic tradition, brought in by the gentile converts to christianity. This directly clashed with the Jewish customs/laws/concepts.

Yes, when it comes to needing to convert, the 'Jewishishness' of the parents counts.However, from the point of view of family line, it is purely paternal.
Bloodlines are very important in the Jewish faith. The 'Branch of David' is an unbroken male decendent. No adoptions, no women in the line.. but an unbroken line from David through Solomon.Therefore, according to Jewish Custom, if you accept the 'virgin birth' myth, Jesus would not fit the prophecy. He would have to be Joesphes biological son, and it would have to be through Solomon.The fact Mathew and Luke disagree show one or the other is making things up (if not both).

Yes, let us look at Mich and Isaiah.The first one says that from the clan of Bethalehm, you will see a ruler coming. That happened long before Jesus. His name was David. If you read on further, it is comparing the pain of childbirth to the hardship that the nation of Israel will go through before the Messiah comes. It has nothing to do with Jesus was so ever.As for Isaiah 9:6-7, that also has nothing to do with Jesus what so ever. It was specifically referring to Hezekiah. (Literally "God is our Strength) or "mighty God". In context, Isaiah was talking about a
sign that had already passed, not a future sign.As for Jeremiah 22, it doesn't refer to ALL of the line of David, but 0nly the lineage of Jehoiachin. There are many lineages that of David that do not include Jehoiachin. Apparently, Jesus was not one of them, and is therefore disqualified.Yes, the Christians believed that "jesus" had God as a father, but the term 'Son of God' was slang to be 'a rightous man' or someone specifically blessed. An earlier example of this is shown to be David, who in Psalm 2:7 became the Son of God when he ascended the throne. It was reconized by the Jews not to be literal. This was put in a pagan context when the Roman and Greek converts to Christianity put their own spin on the writings.

If you follow the Matthew lineage, then, yes he is, since Jeconiah is specifically mentioned.Of course, Matthew and Luke totally disagree with each other.And, to further the matters, the line of David gets passed from father to son, with no breaks, and no adoptions. Since, according to the whole
'virgin birth' story, Jesus was NOT Josephs son, then the entire genealogy is irrelevant, and Jesus could not be of the Line of David anyway.

Yes, that is good for inheritance for material good. However, that is
not how the blood line would be counted. The blood line is always through the father, and the 'seed of David' is a term for a male decedent of David through Solomon, without any breaks or skipping generations. They got to have the 'david' y chromosome.