-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Yaakov on Podcast: Isaiah 1:1-9 LarryB on Anachronisms – excerpt f… Yaakov on Anachronisms – excerpt f… Jim on Anachronisms – excerpt f… Dina on Anachronisms – excerpt f… Archives
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
Categories
- Addressing Atheism
- Annelise
- Atonement
- Basic
- Bible Trial
- Correspondence
- Critique
- Debate Forum
- Faith Structure
- General
- History
- Holidays
- Isaiah 53
- Jim
- Judaism
- Messiah
- Oral Law
- Podcast
- Reflections on the Haftorah
- Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire
- Scripture
- The Charolite Faith
- The Righteous Gentile
- The Ultimate Truth
- Thomas
- Tzvi Jacobson
- Videos
Meta
Rabbi, Shalom lecha.
i watched your video. Your explanation that because when the writer said seed of house of David, he only included seed of men, not women is very insightful if i understood your right. Thus that the biological seed from father’s side is required to be qualified as Messiah. I agree. Yet Church believes Yeshua was born from Virgin Mary so he is “a seed of woman” as prophesied in Genesis 3:15.
I think it is absurd and inconsistent within its own book because the Gospel begins with declaration that he was the seed of Abraham and David, not of woman!!!
What does Judaism teach regarding Genesis 3:15? What does it mean “IT (her seed ) shall bruise thy head and thou shall bruide his heel?”
Gean Guk Jeon On the simple level this passage is saying that there will be enmity between snakes and people – this passage is not talking of a virgin birth any more than Genesis 16:10 is talking about a virgin birth 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Rabbi I really only have one problem with this whole subject. You say that matrilineal descent is too vague in the sense that millions of people could qualify, but as far as people have tried to determine davidic lineage today, all the major lines of descent are based on people with matrilineal connections that we know of.
IE many people trace descent to David through Hillel, but his connection was matrilineal.
This hasn’t stopped anyone from claiming a given person could be the Messiah. While the Virgin birth may sound silly, genealogy is one of the shakiest things anyone could rely on.
Even while I was a Christian I had difficulty believing in the Virgin birth, for a few reasons.
1. Paul does not mention it, only ever calling Jesus the son of David according to the flesh.
2. The gospel of Mark does not mention it.
3. Both Matthew and Luke mention the doctrine, but the author of Matthew is indirectly telling the reader that many people in his time don’t know his story, because he says Jesus was assumed to be the son of Joseph.
There is also the problem of church tradition mentioning family members of Jesus in leadership roles.
The texts themselves say that Jesus had a brother and sisters.
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, even many Protestants have had to reinterpret brother to mean cousin because I’m pretty sure the term used means kinsman.
There are many things that more easily demonstrate that Jesus is not the Messiah, Chief among them being that the world is constantly at war, and Christians sin as much as anyone else, even though their book claims they won’t if they truly believe.
They also base their faith on miracles, even when their own sources teach just like the Tanakh that Miracles cannot serve as proof for True prophecy.
Concerned Reader Matrilineal descent has no legal ramifications as it relates to the royal line – it could be an honorific but it doesn’t make anyone a claimant to the throne of David. I agree with your sentiment that this is not “the” refutation to the claims of the Church – the points you raise are much more meaningful. But for people who are deeply invested, this may serve as a “wake up call” – an impetus to reconsider. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
The virgin birth and the patriarchal line for the promised Messiah are not contradictory or incompatible. This is seen by taking biology into account. A woman does not provide the complete set of chromosomes for her child. Half the set is from the child’s father. Although Mary did not conceive Jesus through a physical relationship with Joseph, this does not mean that Jesus did not acquire Joseph’s chromosomes. If the creation of Adam is viewed literally rather than as allegory, then God provided Adam with chromosomes by special creation. Likewise, God could provide half of Jesus’s chromosomes by special creation. The patriarchal line is satisfied if God specially created a copy of Joseph’s chromosomes.
But, Clifford, this is speculation.
Nevertheless, there are many other problems, not only with the genealogy, but with the whole idea that Jesus could have been the messiah or even could have been God. Next week if time allows I will explain what those problems are.
Forgot to follow, so here goes.
Clifford There would be no way of knowing if Jesus had a copy of Joseph’s chromosomes or not – but more importantly, having “photo-copy” chromosomes of someone does not make you a descendant of that person. A descendant is physical progeny. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Clifford
Sounds like J would have two fathers? The first modern family?
What is a physical progeny? A child’s chromosomes are always copies of the parent’s chromosomes, not the originals. Also, the chromosomes of which I wrote are not photocopies but real, physical chromosomes.
Clifford Physical progeny means children that physically came from their parents – look at the language in 2 Samuel 7:12 and in Genesis 15:4 – this is what the Torah means when it says “seed” or “children” – and Clifford, Concerned Reader has a good point 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
The terminology in 2 Samuel 7:12 and Genesis 15:4 is a figure of speech for biological descent as opposed to adoption. Otherwise, Abraham and David would have to be women to have children literally coming out of their insides. It gets even worse in Genesis 35:11, where Jacob would have to give birth to kings from the grave. Jesus’s chromosomes must have come half from Mary and half from Joseph, making Jesus a biological descendent of Joseph and Mary. This is like any other natural biological descendance, except the chromosomes from Joseph were transferred by special creation rather than a physical relation between Joseph and Mary.
Clifford Biologically, children come from the father as well. And Jacob had Benjamin after the prophecy of Genesis 35:11 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Clifford, wouldn’t it be easier to just ditch the virgin birth doctrine? The Ebionites rejected it, and as I wrote above about Mathew’s gospel, even he says Jesus was born “as assumed the son of Joseph.”
The fact that Paul and Mark dont mention it, and Mathew mentions it with this “assumed son of Joseph” caveat its as though he’s admitting that most of his readers are likewise unaware of it.
Should we apply the same principles of higher criticism to the Tanach? Should we ditch 2 Chronicles 24:17-23 because there is no mention of Joash turning evil in 2 Kings 12? Such a ditching would rescue Joash from terrible consequences mentioned in Ezekiel 3:20. Shouldn’t we just ditch everything in the Tenach that is inconvenient, provided it is mentioned in only one place?