Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'

hahahaha awesome. you're my hero.

Response: The oldest text (The Septuagint) does not say “childless” but reads “outcast.” This is not a contradiction. He can be called an outcast and still have children that continue the lineage but not sit upon the throne of David as a royal “prince”.(LXX version) Jeremiah 22: 29 Land, land, hear the word of the Lord. 30 Write ye this man an outcast: for there shall none of his seed at all grow up to sit on the throne of David, or as a prince yet in Juda.

Response: Luke 3:23 (not 2:23) does not actually say that Jesus"was the son" of Joseph. It reads that he was "supposed as being" or "was allowed" to be as a son of Joseph. See below:Vaticinus: "And he was the Jesus about years thirty, beginning, being , as was allowed, a son of Joseph, of the Heli"Sinai Text: "And Jesus himself was, when he began his ministry, about thirty years old, being as was supposed, the son of Joseph, son of Heli"Aramaic Peshitta (English Translation) "NOW Jeshu himself was as a son of thirty years, and was considered the son of Jauseph bar Heli"Secondly, Matthew 1 does not really state Joseph begat Jesus or was the father of Jesus, but that Joseph was the "husband of Mary" of whom Jesus was born. It reads: (Peshitta Old English Etheridge v.) And after the exile of Bobel Jukania begat Shalathiel, Shalathiel begat Zurbobel, Zurbobel begat Abiud, Abiud begat Aliakim, Aliakim begat Ozur, Ozur begat Zoduk, Zoduk begat Akin, Akin begat Aliud, Aliud begat Aliozar, Aliozar begat Mathan, Mathan begat Jakub, Jakub begat Jauseph (Joseph) , husband of Mariam (Mary) , of whom was born JESHU who is called the Meshicha.The lineages are of two different parents. More than likely, Mary was the sister of Zecharia the priest (John the baptist's father). The lineage which lists Mary in Matthew 1 speaks of a decending from Abijah (King Solomon's grandson). In Luke chapter 1, Zecharia was also of the house of Abijah / Abia (Luke 1:5).Jesus had two so called parents, so naturally there would be two different lineages listed. Notice that Zachariah (the uncle of Jesus) was also of the lineage of Abijah, so it seems that Zachariah was the brother of Mary the mother of Jesus. One lineage stands for humanity from Adam and Eve and fulfills one prophecy while the other one stands for the Royal descent from King David and fulfills yet another prophecy. Edited by meforevidence, : No reason given.Edited by meforevidence, : No reason given.

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

One of these parents was supposed to be God, making Jesus His own father.Mary's lineage is of no use.Jesus was not the Messiah.Brian.

sorry ramoss, but it is. the septuagint is the oldest text we actually have, dating to about 200 bc. the masoretic dates to about 200 ad, and the dead sea scrolls are somewhere in between. yes, and it's an odd quirk of history that the oldest version we have of the bible is a translation. strictly speaking, of course, the masoretic (biblical hebrew) is also a translation from the (absent) anciest hebrew and aramaic sources.

---

aside from the fact that this rather illogical (you can't be king unless you're actually in the royal family through the patriarchal line), there's an even bigger problem.matthew's genealogy correct leaves out the cursed king, but curiously includes his de-throned son. the line of kings, right before exile, actually backtacks -- so from josiah down, matthew has the wrong lineage. the line goes through josiah's THIRD son, zedekiah, not his second, jehoiakim and his son, jeconiah. no son of jeconiah can be king of judah.for a more extensive argument, see this post, which includes a lot of scriptural backup.Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle

---

Jesus said he was the "son of man" because his biological father was not God(it was a virgin birth). John's Gospel says the Father sent his *only* begotten Son thus Emmanuel (The Word) already was God's Son before he also became (a son of man). 1-3 chapter of gospel of john and 1st chapter of gospel of matthew.The Word says the Word was with God and was God. That all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made. john chapter 1.Christians are born again not of the will of the flesh, or the will of man, nor of the blood, but of God. john chapter 1The apostle John asks a question in his first epistle in reference to the divinity of Jesus meaning is he the Christ. John the Baptists confessed that he was not the Christ. john 1:20 and that Jesus was the Son of God. john 1:34The Question! Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is anti-christ that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 john 2:22.John 1:44 says Simon Peters brother Andrew told Simon Peter that We found the Messias which is being interpreted, the Christ.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

these have been done in this thread before. i suggest you look back a few pages. "son of man" means "lowly mortal" and is used in contrast to "god." see just about any verse in ezekiel, where god is speaking to the prophet. yet clearly there are examples of other sons of god in the text. immanuel means "god is with us." it was the name of a child to be delivered as a sign to king ahaz that he would fend off the assyrians. the pregnant girl (not "virgin" in hebrew) was evidently in the room at the time isaiah made such a prophecy. the child's age was to be a marker for the time it would take to fulfill the prophecy -- but the child was not the prophecy itself. beating the assyrians was. see isaiah 7 -- and actually read all of it."the word" probably comes from an aramaic name for god. .... "christ" means king. the gospel of matthew denies that jesus was king in two ways: first, it places him under a cursed line of kings (no kings shall come from jeconiah), and second, it never has him sit on the throne of judah. perhaps he will someday, but you cannot someone who is not king "king."

---

Joesph was not the biological father of Jesus yet by Jewish Laws was the legal father of Jesus because of his marriage to Mary. Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of David through Joesph. He is also of the bloodline of David through Mary. This bypasses Jeconiah bloodlines yet satisfying Jesus legal right to the throne of David.Its all about the bloodline back to David which is satisfied by the virgin birth. The bible says Joesph was not the bioligical father of Jesus, and the bible mentions he was formed from the seed of the woman.John A Davidson mentioned in a different thread that the female frog egg can become a male without sperm. The virgin birth was the fullfillment of the virgin birth prophecy given to Ahaz to the house of Israel. It was never a sign to Ahaz but a sign given to Ahaz to the house of Israel.supporting verses:And he said, Hear ye now, ****O house of David***: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Isaiah chapter 7Therefore the Lord himself shall give ***you**** a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah chapter 7

quote:

---

John A Davidson mentioned in a different thread that the female frog egg can become a male without sperm.

---

Christians worship a frog?

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

royal lines don't work that way. you have to actually be related, not just adopted. see above. according to matthew, joseph is a son of jeconiah, and therefore not in the royal line anyways. that's what this cursed line thread is about it. irrelevant to royalty. jesus was french? please, go back and actually read isaiah 7 again.isaiah gives king ahaz a prophecy, that he will defeat the assyrians, and tells ahaz to ask god for a sign. ahaz says "no, i know better than to test god." and so isaiah gives ahaz a specific sign. the girl will concieve, and bear a son, and his name will be immanuel. when immanuel is about 13, the prophecy will come true: ahaz will defeat the assyrians.pay attention to the wording and grammar:

quote:

---

—, — ‘

​

ha-almah harah v'yoledit ben

​

THE-girl concieves/concieved/will-concieve, and-bears son

​

the girl is pregnant, and will bear a son

---

you do not say "ha-" anything in hebrew unless you're referring to something specific. in this case, it strongly indicates that the woman was in the room, or was someone that both ahaz and isaiah knew. isaiah's wife is a good candidate.also, in verse 13, ‘ (bayit david) is an idiom for "king" and refers to ahaz, and is in direct reply to what ahaz said the verse before.

---

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.

Jesus was not a mamzer because Mary was a virgin satisfying the law in that Jesus was made of a woman, made under the law. gal 4:5-7 there was no adulturous relationship. Jesus already was the only begotten of the Father (God the Son)(The Word) before he was sent by the Father to become flesh. John 3:16-17 & John 17:5.Sorry: Could not find where Isaiahs son or Ahaz son were named Emmanuel to fullfill the sign that Jesus fullfilled.Jesus is the Christ (the Son) Emmanuel God with us. Matthew 1:23 and John 1:14 The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.Psalms 2:8-12 My take is its about putting your trust in the Son the only begotten Son of the Father.Its in agreement with 1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jeus is the Christ? He is anti-christ that denieth the Father and the Son. In Verse 23 it says Whosoever denieth the Son, the same has not the Father: but he that acknowledges the Son hath the Father also.