According to Matthew 1:7-12, Jesus is a descendant of David through the line of Solomon. However, according to Jeremiah 22:30, the line of Solomon was cursed by God due to the sins of King Jeconiah. Therefore the Messiah cannot be a descendant of David through the line of Solomon. But since Jesus is a descendant of David through the line of Solomon, then this means Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Christianity disproves itself. Judaism is the true religion. Just sayin'.

>>17783933 (OP)
How many times are you going to make this stupid ass thread?
Fuck off

>>17783950
This is the only thread I have ever made on this topic. However, Jesus of Nazareth (Yeshu) is not the Messiah. No matter how hard you shill him he is not from God. The Messiah is yet to come. When he does come the Kingdom of Israel will be restored, the Third Temple will be built, there will be world peace, and the resurrection of the dead will happen. The Nazarene never did any of those things. He cannot be the Jewish Messiah.

Wow Jewish aesthetics are kinda kino

>whatsapp-image-2024-04-09(...).jpg

>>17783933 (OP)
zionism is christian. zionist judaism is messianic crypto christian halal filth. the whole country of israel is a pigstye

>>17783957
Enjoy waiting til the end of time for a messiah that already came (and you rejected him)

He wasn’t even a decent of David, as Joseph was not his biological father.

>>17783933 (OP)
>According to Matthew 1:7-12, Jesus is a descendant of David through the line of Solomon.
According to the same Gospel, Jesus was born of a virgin. See Matthew 1:18-25.

>>17783933 (OP)
>>17783957
Sin is passed through the father. Jesus DIDNT have a human father and was born a virgin. This is Sunday school shit. Fuck off.

>>17784471
Born *OF a virgin

>>17783933 (OP)
The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary using David's own semen, bypassing the curse. The long geneologies at the beginning of Matthew and Luke are red herrings.
"When your days are done, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your sperm after you, which shall come from your belly, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build for me a house in my name, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son." [2 Samuel 7.12-14]
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13387

>>17784507
And for those who believe Luke's geneology is intended to be Mary's geneology, it can be argued that God didn't even use one of Mary's eggs. He just formed Jesus from David's DNA directly within Mary's womb. Where did he get the egg cell? Well, since Jesus is supposed to be God's son as well as David's son, maybe the Holy Spirit provided the egg cell, incidentally demonstrating that the Holy Spirit is female.

Jeremiah 22:30 says none of solomons descendants will rule as a king in Judah. Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world.

So close OP, I thought you might have had it for a sec

>>17783933 (OP)
Jesus Christ can uncurse whatever bloodline He cursed because He is God along with the Father and the Holy Ghost
the leeching backstabbing gypsies who call themselves 'jews' today are mentally deranged and not even related to Judeans so they shouldn't talk about things beyond their grasp

>>17784673
He's deep in his rat tunnel right now, he can't read this comment. Jizzrahell is getting Haifa'd again or so the paranoid freaks seem to think

>>17784549
What kind of heresy is this? I remember some Korean weirdos preaching about some 'God-mother' some time ago. Are you one of them?
Jesus is fully human and fully Divine. And the Holy Spirit is Male.
Christology has a long and sometimes bloody history (especially in the capital and Antioch, Alexandria etc.) but it has been settled for most Christians since Nicaea

>>17784464
So is he a descendant of David or not? Why does Matthew 1 give the genealogy if it doesn't legitimize Jesus as the Messiah?

>>17784697
>the Holy Spirit is Male
Gospel of Philip 15:
"Some have said that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Such people do not know what they are talking about. When has a woman ever impregnated another woman? Mary is the virgin whom the powers could not defile. This is a scandal to the Jews and many who claim to follow the apostles. For rather than defiling this virgin, the powers defiled themselves."
>it has been settled for most Christians since Nicaea
I'm sorry anon, but majority opinion and truth are often at odds.

>>17784721
>Gospel of Philip
cool story bro. I didn't know I was talking to some neo-gnostic lunatic

>>17784723
"Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Does that sound like an apt description of mainstream Christianity to you?

>>17784732
That does not mean I have to believe whatever bullshit you're trying to sell
Nicene Christianity makes more sense than anything else to me, so I'll stick with it. Christ speaks well enough through the Four Canonical Gospels. If you want to read apocryphal texts, feel free to. But don't try to pass it off as some hidden enlightenment, because it is anything but.

>>17784744
>That does not mean I have to believe whatever bullshit you're trying to sell
Don't ask questions if you don't want answers :p

>>17783933 (OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
>in his book An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, John Damascene argues that Heli of the tribe of Nathan died childless, and Jacob of the tribe of Solomon took his wife and raised up seed to his brother and begat Joseph, in accordance with scripture, namely, yibbum (the mitzvah that a man must marry his brother's childless widow); Joseph, therefore, is by nature the son of Jacob, of the line of Solomon, but by law he is the son of Heli of the line of Nathan.

>>17784697
I saw argued with some of those people IRL a few weeks ago. They are proselytizing in California. They come from the so called World Mission Society Church of God. They worship an 81 year old Korean woman. They are insane, even the Seventh Day Adventists who they sprang from avoid them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God

>>17783950
not all threads that point out christard bullshit are the same thread. it just feels like that for you because they activate the bit you have.
also, you haven't explained how this is not an embarrassing detail.

>>17784471
>Sin is passed through the father.
1) that's some fringe theology right there
2) we are talking about the lineage being cursed, not about sin.

>>17784715
>So is he a descendant of David or not?
Yes, the Luke genealogy gives Mary's ancestry, which is also from David through his other son Nathan.

>Why does Matthew 1 give the genealogy if it doesn't legitimize Jesus as the Messiah?
It does because Jesus is the legal heir of Joseph's inheritance. Although Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph, He is the legal son of Joseph. And Joseph was the heir of the kingdom through the Matthew genealogy. So it makes sense why both of these ancestries are given in this case.

>>17783933 (OP)
"My kingdom is not of this world"
Are you purposely trying to install doubt unto christians hearts with lies?

When did Yahusha ever say he would rule Judah. He will bring a new Jerusalem quite literally from heaven.

>>17784771
I live in Korea and I occasionally run into cultists from that group who try to evangelize me.

>>17784471
Then he wasn't descendant of david

>>17784673
>Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world.
Cool cope; the messiah is supposed to rule on earth

>>17783933 (OP)
Jesus didn't exist.

>>17784933
There are two kinds of prophecies about the messiah, the glorious kind and the suffering servant kind. Meaning first coming and second coming. So He will rule the Earth, on the second coming with the restoration of the material world.
But the messiah also had to be scourged and die, old jewish tradition admits to it, only nowadays they pretend it away, betraying their own tradition, for the purposes of trying to debunk Christianity.

>>17784944
>the suffering servant kind
There is no such thing in the old testament, the messiah was not meant to die at the end of foreign invaders

>>17784944
>the suffering servant kind
There is no such thing in the old testament, the messiah was not meant to die by the hands of foreign invaders

>>17784961
He didn't, He was killed by the evil Jews.

>>17784464
And that's based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. Almah means young woman, not virgin. Matthew didn't know Hebrew though and was reading the Greek mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 when he invented the virgin birth story. Jesus is not the Messiah.

There's a caveat in your reasoning, OP. The genealogy in Luke 3 traces Jesus through Nathan (another son of David), traditionally interpreted as Mary’s lineage. This bypasses Jeconiah entirely. Matthew traces Joseph’s royal/legal descent (not blood), affirming Davidic kingship legally, while Luke provides biological descent through Mary. Also, as >>17784471 said, Jesus (being virginally conceived) is not biologically descended from Joseph, so the curse doesn’t apply. He inherits Davidic legal rights through Joseph, not the cursed bloodline.

It's also worth noting that Jeconiah’s grandson, Zerubbabel, is later blessed (Haggai 2:23), showing the curse was lifted or limited. The curse is disciplinary, not metaphysical or eternal.

>Judaism = true religion
kek

>>17785147
Luke genealogy ends with Joseph, not Mary. There's no point in tracing a mothers genealogy, it's never been done in the old testament. Only by the father are they traced.

>>17785147
Your entire virgin birth story is based on a mistranslation from the Septuagint. Assuming the gospels are even accurate about Joseph's bloodline, then the curse applies to Jesus. But given that Luke and Matthew contradict eachother (trying to harmonize them is a cope) Jesus probably wasn't even a descendant of David anyway. Whichever way you go, virgin birth, Joseph's lineage or lack thereof, Jesus can not be the Messiah. You cannot inherit the throne of David "legally" either. So assuming your leviarite hypothesis about Joseph is correct anyway, this is not possible in the first place. There is no precedent for that in Jewish law. You either are or you aren't descended from king David. End of story.

>>17784753
I thought you were one of those weird cultists, but turns out you're just a confused child

>>17784771
Yeah sounds like the ones I was talking to. I interacted with them a few times, different people every time. They were always very polite, always a guy and a girl early-mid 20s, but absolutely deranged 'theology' that they kept insisting it was the correct interpretation. Kinda gave me JW vibes but less annoying

>>17785160
Your objection depends on hyper-literalist interpretation, ironically Protestant in style. That’s not how Jews validated messianic identity in practice. Some Church Fathers (e.g., Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa) and later Catholic exegetes held that Luke’s “Joseph” is legally named but represents Mary’s father’s line (i.e., Joseph is called “son of Heli”) because he is Heli’s son-in-law. The Semitic idiom doesn’t distinguish between son and son-in-law. Also, the Incarnation is not biological via Joseph. Therefore, Luke's genealogy serves to show Jesus’ real human descent from David through Mary, even if Joseph is named for legal reasons. On top of that, there have been instances in the Bible (although rare) where matrilineal linkage was present (1 Chronicles 2:34-35, Numbers 27), so I think that Messianic exceptions would certainly qualify.

>>17785453
Jews themselves translated ‘almah’ as ‘virgin’ long before any Christian touched Isaiah. This wasn’t a Christian invention. It reflects an ancient Jewish interpretation with prophetic expectation of a virginal sign. Catholic theology isn’t constrained to DNA paternity. Jesus is the “Son of David” typologically, legally, and divinely. Kingship was often conferred through covenant and adoption (cf. Saul, David, Solomon, etc.). Gospel genealogies serve different functions: Matthew lays down royal/legal descent for a Jewish audience, whereas Luke lays down biological/human descent, possibly via Mary, for a Gentile audience. Contradiction only arises if you assume both intend to show the same thing, in the same way, for the same purpose. That’s not good historical reading from your part, to be fair.

It's also worth mentioning that post-exilic claims to Davidic legitimacy became looser due to intermarriage and record loss. Zerubbabel’s authority came not only by blood, but divine appointment, and he descends from Jeconiah himself. Although rare in Tanakh, legal fatherhood is clearly meaningful (cf. Moses raised by Pharaoh’s daughter, Joseph adopting Ephraim/Manasseh). Jesus is legally Joseph’s son, whether you like it or not. I'll ask you this: if Jesus' descent were truly disqualifying in a way Jews found compelling, the Apostles would’ve faced that charge constantly. Yet Acts and Paul show they confidently preached Jesus as David’s heir in synagogues.

>>17785568
The word alma isn't even the main problem, the whole prophecy has nothing to do with the Messiah. Immanuel was a sign given to a king, not a Messianic prophecy.

>>17785065
>And that's based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. Almah means young woman, not virgin.
The word עַלְמָה does in fact mean virgin.

Also, כָּרָה does mean "pierced," and בַר in Psalm 2:12 does mean "son" (from the Syriac-aramaic).

>>17785550
>held that Luke’s “Joseph” is legally named but represents Mary’s father’s line
That's just bullshit. The Luke writer would have never assumed that readers would think writing Joseph meant Mary. If the Matthew book wouldn't exist you wouldn't think Luke's genealogy was of Mary. You're only using that excuse to justify the errors of the mismatched genealogies.

If the genealogy was of Mary the Luke writer would have written Mary to make sure the reader understood that it was of Mary.

Without Matthew there would be no reason to assume it wasn't Joseph's lineage.

>>17785584
You're assuming a strict literalism that neither Jews nor Christians actually followed. Isaiah’s prophecy only fully makes sense in Christ. “God with us” isn’t a random, cute baby name. “The virgin shall conceive” and the child being called God with us (Immanuel) goes far beyond the scope of any 8th-century BC child (Maher-shalal-hash-baz included). Also, If the prophecy only concerned a mundane child, the drama of the “sign” evaporates. Why would a generic pregnancy (which is commonplace) be given by God as a miraculous “sign”? Matthew isn’t ignorantly ripping Isaiah out of context. He’s drawing from Jewish midrashic tradition, where prophecies are reapplied and deepened in light of later revelation. This was common Second Temple interpretive practice (cf. Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called my son”). It's ironic how you demand that Christians read Isaiah 7 strictly historically, while he reads it exactly how Jews read prophecies at the time, both typologically and expansively.

>>17785590
Luke names Joseph BECAUSE he’s the legal father. Even if giving Mary’s ancestry, Luke names Joseph because genealogical conventions of the time didn’t list women, even if tracing through them. That doesn't mean it's his biological lineage. This isn’t even a unique Christian view. Raymond Brown, Origen, and even some Jewish scholars acknowledge the possibility of levirate marriage or son-in-law attribution to explain this literary structure. Early Church Fathers noticed the differences between Matthew and Luke and didn’t see them as contradictions. For instance, Eusebius argued Luke traced Mary’s line, with Joseph listed as son-in-law of Heli, not biological son. Luke’s emphasis on Jesus’ humanity, birth narrative, and Mary’s role (more detailed than Matthew’s) supports that this genealogy may reflect biological descent, with Joseph listed as placeholder.

If Luke said Mary, you’d just claim contradiction because Matthew names Joseph. There’s no win condition for you.

>>17785590
>Without Matthew there would be no reason to assume it wasn't Joseph's lineage.
As mentioned in the second part here >>17784894 , the entire reason why Joseph's lineage is important is because it shows the ancestry of the kings of Judah, from Abraham to David to Jeconiah to Joseph, thus showing the legal claim that Joseph had.

Luke's presentation of ancestry does not show a descent through the line of Solomon, but rather it has Nathan listed as the son of David. Anyone reading Luke therefore would know right away that this is Mary's line, since Joseph's line has to be through Solomon, and that is where the legal right to be king of Judah is inherited.

Also, anyone who understands the prophecy about the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 understands why in this case the maternal line of descent is important, since Jesus also concurrently fulfills that prophecy. He bypasses not only the curse of Jeremiah 22 on Jeconiah's line, but also the curse of the fall in Genesis 3, since he has no earthly father. That is why Luke's genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, since this is the focus. Isaiah 7:14, which says that He would be born of a virgin, only confirms the pre-existing prophecy of Genesis 3:15, which says that the seed of the woman will crush the serpent's head, and the serpent will bruise His heel. Anyone who understands this would know what Luke is doing.

Also, Luke's presentation of genealogy differs from most in the Bible by listing who was the son of whom, rather than who begat whom. It is entirely possible for the following things to be true without contradiction according to Luke:

1) Jesus is the (legal) son of Joseph
2) Joseph is the son-in-law of Heli
3) Cainan is the son-in-law of Arphaxad.

None of that is a contradiction. If anything, the fact you see all three of these in the same genealogy makes Luke seem more consistent and also explains why he structured his genealogy in that way too. It wasn't merely for stylistic purposes.

>>17784682
Not to mention that he is co-eternal and homoousios to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

>>17785600
Immanuel was a sign given to king Ahaz to let him know when the kings of Israel and Samaria would be destroyed. God said when the boy would be around 12 yo the two kings Ahaz feared would have already fallen. Jesus was born 500 years after God said this. If Jesus was the Immanuel sign Ahaz was waiting for he would have died waiting. It makes no sense at all that Jesus was Immanuel. The new testament only makes sense to people unfamiliar with the old testament.

>Out of Egypt I called my son

Here is a other lie of Matthew. Its not being reapplied, it's just a lie. That son God called out of Egypt in this verse can't be Jesus because in that verse God is denouncing that son for rebellion and idolatry. Was Jesus an idolater?

The full verse says:

>“When Israel was a child, I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.

Matthew cites this verse out of context to make it look like God is talking about his son Jesus but when you read it in context its clear the son is Israel. God is rebuking his son in that verse, not praising him.

The new testament is only believable if you never read the old testament. There's nothing being reapplied here, it's just a lie. A verse out of context.

>>17785600
There is no reason for Luke writer to have assumed that people would know he was writing Mary's lineage when he wrote it was Joseph's.

>>17785635
See >>17785619

>>17785550
> hyper-literalist interpretation
i.e. the only correct one. dude, you have the literal word of the literal creator god and you go around trying to claim it means something else it plainly means?

>>17785588
>The word עַלְמָה does in fact mean virgin.
[citation needed], preferably not from a christian apologetics site.
besides, what does bethulah mean, then?

>>17785646
So is it Marys or Joseph?

>>17785600
> Isaiah’s prophecy only fully makes sense in Christ.
no, Isaiah's "prophecy" only makes sense as a poetic device to express "in less than a year".

>>17785629
You’re treating Matthew like a Protestant prooftexter, not as a Jewish theologian steeped in midrash. Catholic exegesis views these Old Testament passages through the lens of typology, not 1:1 literalism. 'Immanuel' was indeed a near-term sign for Ahaz and a foreshadowing of a greater fulfillment (that is, 'God with us' in the person of Christ). The name and concept far exceed any local fulfillment in Isaiah’s time. It's also relevant that Matthew’s citations use common Second Temple midrashic technique. That is, reapplying past Israelite history to Jesus as the new Israel, the true Son, and the covenant's fulfillment. This was a known and accepted Jewish interpretive practice.

>"Out of Egypt I called my son” is a manipulative misreading and a lie
It’s only a ‘lie’ if you flatten every prophecy into newspaper literalism. Hosea 11 refers to Israel’s exodus, yes, but Matthew presents Jesus as recapitulating Israel’s story, doing faithfully what Israel failed to do. Jesus, like Israel, comes out of Egypt. But, unlike Israel, He obeys. That’s the contrast Matthew intends to highlight. If Matthew’s audience were Jewish Christians (which they were), they would have known Hosea 11:1 in full. Accusing Matthew of lying to people who read Hosea weekly is absurd. His audience understood the application and the symbolic contrast. These are not even isolated cases (see Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and others used typologically in early Christian theology). Rigid literalism can't explain how prophecy works in scripture's broader arc.

>>17785647
>>17785647
>literal interpretation is the only valid one
This is a false premise. The Bible is not a flat legal document, but a sacred, layered text, inspired across centuries, genres, and covenants. Jesus Himself did not interpret Scripture hyper-literally:
>"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
>“I am the vine, you are the branches.”
Even the Emmaus road scene (Luke 24) shows Jesus interpreting all of Scripture allegorically and typologically to explain His mission. I should also mention how Christian hermeneutics follows Jesus and the Apostles:
>Paul reads Sarah and Hagar as allegories (Galatians 4:24).
>Hebrews reinterprets the entire priesthood and temple symbolically.
>The Church Fathers universally taught that Scripture had multiple senses (literal, moral, allegorical, anagogical).
Even Rabbinic Judaism uses paRDeS (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod): literal, hinted, allegorical, mystical meanings; not one single "plain" sense.

Reducing divine revelation to surface-level reading assumes the infinite Logos communicates like a bureaucrat. Pardon my language, but that's fucking retarded.

>>17785655
>and a foreshadowing of a greater fulfillment
There is nothing that indicates it was nothing more than a sign for king Ahaz. Every prophet who's name ends in iah or el has God's name in their name. Someone being called God is (whatever) is not a sign that they are God.

>Matthew presents Jesus as recapitulating Israel’s story, doing faithfully what Israel failed to do

Matthew is just lying. He never expected gentiles to read and check the Hebrew texts themselves. Why do you think the church spent so much effort preventing the Bible from being translated?

>>17785666
>Paul reads Sarah and Hagar as allegories
Because the new testament is simply not inspired by God. Christianity is the iron legs of the statue of Daniel mixed with clay.

>>17785649
>besides, what does bethulah mean, then?
It's a synonym. Compare Genesis 24:16 and Genesis 24:43. Both terms are used for the same individual.

>>17785667
>Someone being called God is (whatever) is not a sign that they are God.
You're forgetting what it also says in Isaiah 9:6-7.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
(Isaiah 9:6)

>>17785670
Jesus is the Son of man mentioned in Daniel 7:13 and the Messiah mentioned in Daniel 9:26.

>>17785667
>Isaiah’s prophecy was strictly for King Ahaz
A prophecy can have an immediate referent (Ahaz’s time) and a greater, Messianic fulfillment. OT often works this way:
>2 Samuel 7: Solomon is the initial fulfillment, but the language (eternal throne, God’s son) clearly points beyond to the Messiah.
>Psalm 22: David’s suffering, yet the language matches Christ’s Passion perfectly.
Isaiah 7–9 is part of a prophetic arc pointing toward a child-king who brings divine peace and is called “Mighty God.” This clearly exceeds any 8th-century Judean.

>Names like “Immanuel” are not theological declarations but common theophoric names
It's true that names like Elijah or Daniel include God’s name, but Immanuel is unique because Isaiah explicitly says “the virgin shall bear a son and shall call his name God-with-us,” and this is tied directly to a divine sign.

>Matthew knowingly misused the Old Testament
A baseless claim and you know it. His Gospel is saturated with Jewish references, including customs, law, and fulfillment themes. He even uses the Septuagint, the very same text Jews across the diaspora used at the time. If he were “lying,” he wouldn’t have convinced any synagogue audience or survived Jewish scrutiny. Yet his Gospel spread precisely among those communities.

>The Church suppressed Bible translation to keep people from seeing the truth
Translations already existed in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian etc., long before the Reformation. What the Church resisted were unauthorized, heretical, or mistranslated editions, not translation itself. The Douay-Rheims English translation (a pretty hardline Catholic one) predates the KJV itself. The Church has always taught Scripture is essential, but interpreted within the tradition that produced it.

You insist on hyper-literal reading of Scripture, yet accuse Matthew of deception for doing just that with typological purpose.

>>17785676
>and the government shall be upon his shoulder
How does this describes Jesus?

>Jesus is the Son of man mentioned in Daniel 7:13 and the Messiah mentioned in Daniel 9:26.

If Daniel 9 was about Jesus it would have talked about the resurrection but is strange would die and will have nothing.

>>17785685
Everytime it is discovered that the new testament lied you just say it has two meanings. You could apply this to anything and make up any lie you want. You can say any prophecy that already has been fulfilled is actually about Jesus and will be fulfil again. Just lie lie lie.

>>17785676 #
>and the government shall be upon his shoulder
How does this describes Jesus?

>Jesus is the Son of man mentioned in Daniel 7:13 and the Messiah mentioned in Daniel 9:26.

If Daniel 9 was about Jesus it would have talked about the resurrection but it says he will be killed and will have nothing.

>>17785568
>Jews themselves translated ‘almah’ as ‘virgin’ long before any Christian touched Isaiah. This wasn’t a Christian invention. It reflects an ancient Jewish interpretation with prophetic expectation of a virginal sign.
Do you know how mangled of a translation the LXX is? Isaiah 7:14 isn't the only example of obvious mistranslation. Not to mention the fact that Matthew's gospel makes several errors. Matthew 2:23 has a prophecy that the Messiah would be from Nazareth, despite the fact that no such prophecy ever appears in the Tanakh, Matthew 27:8-10 wrongly attributes a passage from Zechariah to Jeremiah and claims it as a Messianic prophecy despite it not being Messianic at all, and apparently he can't even do simple counting as he lists 41 names in his first chapter and says there were 3 divisions of 14 generations when, in order for this to be the case, there should be 42 names in total.

>Jesus is the “Son of David” typologically, legally, and divinely. Kingship was often conferred through covenant and adoption (cf. Saul, David, Solomon, etc.)
Sorry. Not how that works. The Messiah will be from the seed of Jesse (2 Samuel 7:12-16). There is no way to interpret it allegorically.

>I'll ask you this: if Jesus' descent were truly disqualifying in a way Jews found compelling, the Apostles would’ve faced that charge constantly. Yet Acts and Paul show they confidently preached Jesus as David’s heir in synagogues.
Jesus does face the charge in John 7:42 of your scripture.

>>17785160
>There's no point in tracing a mothers genealogy
that just begs the question - why would the author do it?
>because he was dishonest and stupid
Do we have previous evidence of this?

>>17785720
>it would have talked about the resurrection but it says he will be killed
Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:26, Zechariah 12:10 and so on are all about Jesus as the Biblical Messiah. There are also prophecies about His resurrection, such as Psalm 16:10 for example.

Jesus is the Son of man mentioned in Daniel 7:13 as well, as I mentioned.

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."
(Daniel 7:13-14)

This fits with Isaiah 9 where it says the government shall be upon His shoulder. Scripture also says in Malachi the following:

"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall."
- Malachi 4:2

Of this resurrection see also the following:

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."
(Isaiah 53:10)

"For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:"
(Psalm 8:5-6)

"Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.
He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.
With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation."
(Psalm 91:13-16)

>>17785590
>You're only using that excuse to justify the errors of the mismatched genealogies.
Not just him, many generations of scholars, who could have just dropped one of them. What's more likely, that all of these studied ascetics had poor character and intellect, or that you're missing something?

>>17785742
>that just begs the question - why would the author do it
He didn't. The genealogy who wrote ends with Joseph.

>>17785746
Post all those quotes. I'm not going to be searching verse by verse to know what you're saying. Show how they are related to Christ.

There is no evidence that Jesus is the son of man talked about in Daniel and Enoch. Neither of them mentioned the son of man was God incarnate and would die for people's sins and resurrect at the third day. Something so important would have been added to the prophecy of the son of man if it was so.

But nowhere does it says the son of man is God himself in the flesh or that he would be killed and come back to life.

>"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall

So you're just taking any verse that talks about a special person and saying the person is Jesus?

>he shall see his seed
Jesus had no children. He never saw his seed. And he claimed in heaven people don't marry so he will never see his seed. That prophecy was not about Jesus.

>For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

This verse is talking about mankind. Read the whole verse and it is clear. Not about Jesus. I thought you said Jesus was God so if this verse was about Jesus then how is he lower than angels if he supposed to be king over angels? None of these verses are a about Jesus. Admit it.

>>17784697
In modern American far-left theology it has become shockingly common to characterize the Holy Spirit as female. I have attended a Episcopal Church in downtown Atlanta many times where one of the female Pastors starts all prayers with, "Dear Father, Mother God". The Episcopalians have gone off the fucking deep end recently. I go to that Church for the afternoon service sometimes, hours after I attend my home Church in the morning, because the Episcopalian one does free dinner and I am poor as fuck. Their theology is absolutely vile though and it is so hard to sit through it sometimes, even though I typically always manage to get something out of it. It is often hard for me to not walk out. Same lady Pastor referred to the pedophile Dalai Lama as "his holiness" in a sermon. Another Pastor there said that the authors of the Gospels never met last time I was there. It's ridiculous. The Congregants are rich liberal whites.

>>17785813
>Jesus had no children. He never saw his seed.
See Psalm 22:30.

"A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this."
(Psalm 22:30-31)

This is the people who are referred to by Jesus in the Gospel when He says, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34)

Jesus also said, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

All of this is a reference back to Psalm 22:30 and to the seed mentioned in Isaiah 53:10 that you objected to. It also says in Isaiah 63:16, "Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting." This once again refers back to Jesus, our redeemer, as Isaiah also says, "and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6).

So, Jesus is the everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6), His name is from everlasting (Isaiah 63:16). And "a seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation." (Psalm 22:30) The Lord here again refers to Christ. See also the parallel with Isaiah 45 as well.

"Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."
- Isaiah 45:21-23

>>17785813
>how is he lower than angels if he supposed to be king over angels?
He is fully God and fully man. See Colossians 2:9 for example.
>So you're just taking any verse that talks about a special person and saying the person is Jesus?
Jesus is the Just One referred to frequently throughout the Bible. Not just in Psalm 8 but in many places.

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
(Hebrews 2:9-10)

>But nowhere does it says the son of man is God himself in the flesh or that he would be killed and come back to life.
Psalm 16:10, as I already mentioned. See the following:

"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance."
(Acts 2:22-28)

>Neither of them mentioned the son of man was God incarnate and would die for people's sins
Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 53:5-12.
>There is no evidence that Jesus is the son of man
Psalm 110:1, Acts 2:34-35, Acts 7:56.

>>17785869
You're the king of mental gymnastics.

>>17784837
NTOA but Mary is sinless, so it doesn't matter if sin passes through both parents. Therr was no earthly father, and the mother was sinless.

>>17785944
>but Mary is sinless
That doesn't line up with God's word.

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."
(Galatians 3:22)

"But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."
(Hebrews 7:24-27)

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed;"
(Romans 4:13-16)

"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:"
(Galatians 3:11-13)

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
(1 John 1:7)

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
(Romans 3:9-10)

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
- Romans 3:23

Don't worship and glorify a false idol or false god anon.

>>17783933 (OP)
Shut your fucking mouth, kike. Jesus (pbuh) was a great prophet of Allah (swt) and the messiah sent to the children of Israel. You tried to crucify him but Allah (swt) befuddled you. Now you dare fight against his friends in Iran? We shall destroy your entire nation and on the day of judgment Allah (swt) will ask you why you rejected his prophets Jesus son of Mary, John son of Zachariah, and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon all of them. Your will answer and then you will be punished in Jahannam along with the Christians who worshipped the prophets. You went the opposite extreme by rejecting them.

>>17783957
They should build a temple to multiple pagan gods at the site of the temple mount just as a flex and a cool historical innuendo.

>>17785619
>3) Cainan is the son-in-law of Arphaxad.
My own reading of this text has been a little different. Most old testament sources agree that Selah was the son of Arpachshad. I think that Cainan was Selah's older brother who was so influential in raising his younger brother that Luke to included him in the genealogy. This is yet more proof that Jesus must be God, because only God would know both the interior heart of man and ancient history.

>>17785667
>Why do you think the church spent so much effort preventing the Bible from being translated?
The Bible was translated into Greek and Latin, both of which were the major languages of the Roman Empire at the time of translation.

>>17786426
most people didn't speak either.

>>17786408
>My own reading of this text has been a little different. Most old testament sources agree that Selah was the son of Arpachshad.
I was thinking of passages like Ezra 8:18 and Deuteronomy 11:6, which show that the Old Testament sometimes crosses over more than one generation. You can compare "Mahli the son of Levi" in Ezra 8:18 to the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 6:47. Likewise you can compare "Eliab the son of Reuben" in Deuteronomy 11:6 to the full genealogy in Numbers 26:5-9. Both of these places, "son of" in the Old Testament indicates a more distant ancestor. (An even bigger example of this is in Ezra 7:3, where the Azariah in question is seven generations removed from Meraioth, according to 1 Chron. 6:7-10). But if Luke was including all father-in-law relationships such as Joseph to Heli, then Cainan in Luke 3:36 would appear for the first time in that genealogy (which Luke would record by inspiration directly from God). This is why I believe it indicates their relationship was similar to that of Joseph and Heli.

>>17785670
>Christianity is the iron legs of the statue of Daniel mixed with clay.
This is mathematically impossible because the Christian era far outlasts all the other eras combined.

Babylon 597-539 BC, 58 years
Persia 539-332 BC, 207 years
Greece 332-167 BC, 165 years
Rome 37-312 AD, 349 years
total of 779 years

Christian era, 313 to Present: 1,712 years

>>17785825
>Episcopal
they are the most zogged denomination bro
Any Catholics nearby? Or Orthodox even if you can stomach the language

>>17785626
jews and others have a hard time understanding this concept. It's laid out plainly and clearly in John, which should be read and studied more.

>>17785065
>implying
yeah fuck off with your kosher bullshit
Church Doctors and Church Fathers, not to mention literal Evangelists certainly knew much more about Jesus and Mary than your mentally damaged talmudic retards

>>17785670
blasphemy
NT is 100% God-inspired because Jesus Christ is the Son of God
juden malding but who the fuck cares about ugly hook nosed inbred gypsies

In Orthodox Judaism, the messiah is seen as descending from David though
So how can you see this as a win for Judaism and a loss for Christianity when clearly the Messiah cannot descend from David?

>>17787007
Mainline Protestants aren't the most ZOG boosting, tends to be more the "non-denominational" Baptists and Pentecostals and "political Christians" or those who use Christian rhetoric to gain support for foreign policy goals without perhaps even believing in Christianity.

I am 100% against Israel the apartheid state and I am Protestant. The true Israel is the invisible church.

>>17785825
Depends on the Church. My local Anglican church has two male priests who are quite good, solemn liturgical atmosphere, weekday communion on Wednesday. But there are liberals infesting the Church, increasingly balanced out by conservative Africans on global policy. But if your church is in the clutches of local liberals, it can be awful.

Went to a Presbyterian church and the incoming pastor was a female coming from the ultraliberal United Church (they have pride steps) she just had to take a course.

>>17787200
sorry got them confused with Pentecostals
Agree with you 100%, Episcopals are like Anglicans
It is still odd for a properly run church to call the Holy Ghost female. Something else must be going on with that particular church or diocese

>>17787208
You teach that all you need to do to enter heaven is believe Jesus resurrected and now are surprised that a bunch of sinners are in your church believing Jesus resurrected yet refusing to stop sinning.

You don't teach the truth, that's why the church is infested with liberals. According to your own doctrine those liberals are saved

>>17787692
Romans 6:
>1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

A church is a hospital for sinners, but some "affirming" churches are encouraging these sinners to continue or embrace their sin, not turn away from it.

>but a heretical sect discredits the whole movement
No, you just gotta be more choosy. You can't just go to the Roman Catholic church and worship Mary and other idols. It's not a monolith.

>>17787036
Messiah will descend from David but not through the line of Solomon.

>>17784507
So David is Jesus’ father??

>when you realize that Jesus' genealogy is rendered moot for being the son of God

>>17788084
It's what most Christians teach.

>>17785065
It would not matter if Jesus Christ was every form of liar and degenerate in his origin and formative years prior to his mission. Way to entirely miss the point. He did more good than anyone could dream to, and would have done infinitely more had he not been killed for the same retarded reasons snarky control freaks always kill people that rock the boat. In this case though He went above and beyond. He did it for everyone. And yet somehow neurotic cunts still find issue with him while missing the point of everything He said and did. Doesn't matter what religion you are. Objectively or otherwise, He mogs all others. What many are mad about in actuality, is how others use Christ as justification to be abhorrently narrow minded and hateful either in their supposed support or opposition to Him, which is precisely what He said He would do, wasn't it? And everyone hates Him because He told the truth anyway.