Refuting Jewish objections to Jesus as the Messiah

[jcrichton]

Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)

Could someone PLEASE refute the above? I am terribly ashamed of faith being shaken so easily. I checked the above verses. It seems to contradict. But can’t can it? God preserve my faith!

Hi, Layp3rs0n!

…be at ease… what they have done is accumulate a whole mess of innuendoes; they start with an attack and attach anything they can to it… doublespeak is not too crass for them; just reread the statement and note how at first they state that Mary’s lineage cannot be proven only to later assert that she is out of it because she falls under the curse of her predecessors–they can’t have it both ways!

They purposefully ignore that their hero, Solomon, during his golden age began to defile himself with the various gods of his wives and lovers and that he was rejected by Yahweh God and the throne given to a servant not his children!

They quote Jeremiah 22:30 as proof; yet, they purposely ignore the very next passage that speaks on how God will correct Israel’s failures:

"See, the days are coming–it is Yahweh who speaks–
when I will raise a virtuous Branch for David,
who will reign as true king and be wise,
practicing honesty and integrity in the land.
In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will dwell in confidencel.
And this is the name he will be called:
Yahweh our integrity. (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

Our Salvation is not in the hands of men; it rests solely in the hands of Yahweh God, and His Salvific Plan has been placed in effect since Creation!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

What I’m confused about is the claim that the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon. I already know that the genealogy Luke gives is of Mary, while the one in the Gospel of Matthew is of Joseph but, this skeptic is saying that the Messiah has to be descended from King David via Solomon for which he cites 1 Chronicles 22:7-10. So, basically he is saying is that because Mary, whose genealogy is listed in Luke, is not descended from Solomon but from Nathan that this is ‘proof’ that Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

I would really be appreciative if someone could provide a refutation of this.

I hope this helps:

5 But Solomon worshipped Astarthe, the goddess of the Sidonians, and Moloch, the idol of the Ammonites. 6 And Solomon did that which was not pleasing before the Lord, and did not fully follow the Lord, as David, his father. 7 Then Solomon built a temple for Chamos, the idol of Moab, on the hill that is over against Jerusalem, and for Moloch, the idol of the children of Ammon. 8 And he did in this manner for all his wives that were strangers, who burnt incense, and offered sacrifice to their gods. 9 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his mind was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice; 10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not follow strange gods: but he kept not the things which the Lord commanded him. 11 The Lord therefore said to Solomon: Because thou hast done this, and hast not kept my covenant, and my precepts, which I have commanded thee, I will divide and rend thy kingdom, and will give it to thy servant. 12 Nevertheless, in thy days I will not do it, for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. (1 Kings 11:5-12–DRV)

Clearly, since Solomon’s offspring cannot posses David’s thrown, their argument is flawed!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Layp3rs0n]

PRAISE GOD! My hope is restored! Thinking back on it, it is interesting that curses by God in most cases seem conditional, such as at Nineveh and when God was going to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. In both cases He had said “I WILL destroy them.” In both cases God did not do it upon the peoples repentence. God is Eternal. He does not change His Mind…but is seems when God threatens punsishment it often means “I WILL do this unless…” . I am so relieved!

 

[DylanO]

I hope this helps:

5 But Solomon worshipped Astarthe, the goddess of the Sidonians, and Moloch, the idol of the Ammonites. 6 And Solomon did that which was not pleasing before the Lord, and did not fully follow the Lord, as David, his father. 7 Then Solomon built a temple for Chamos, the idol of Moab, on the hill that is over against Jerusalem, and for Moloch, the idol of the children of Ammon. 8 And he did in this manner for all his wives that were strangers, who burnt incense, and offered sacrifice to their gods. 9 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his mind was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice; 10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not follow strange gods: but he kept not the things which the Lord commanded him. 11 The Lord therefore said to Solomon: Because thou hast done this, and hast not kept my covenant, and my precepts, which I have commanded thee, I will divide and rend thy kingdom, and will give it to thy servant. 12 Nevertheless, in thy days I will not do it, for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. (1 Kings 11:5-12–DRV)

Clearly, since Solomon’s offspring cannot posses David’s thrown, their argument is flawed!

Maran atha!

Angel

Thanks for the help but, I’m still kind of confused about this issue, regarding the Messiah’s descent from Solomon, and also with the claim that there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption.

 

[jcrichton]

PRAISE GOD! My hope is restored! Thinking back on it, it is interesting that curses by God in most cases seem conditional, such as at Nineveh and when God was going to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. In both cases He had said “I WILL destroy them.” In both cases God did not do it upon the peoples repentence. God is Eternal. He does not change His Mind…but is seems when God threatens punsishment it often means “I WILL do this unless…” . I am so relieved!

Hi, Layp3rs0n!

I’m glad it helped!

I believe that Yahweh God allows for someone to intercede on behalf of His people (as with Moses placing himself between God and Aaron and his wife, and between God and Israel); this to me is a type of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross which He did so in our behalf…

What is important to note is that God’s Will is done even if every single person fails to do their job–as Jesus said:

"For I say unto you that God is able of these stones, to raise up children to Abraham. (St. Luke 3:8b–DRV)

It was God Himself who created the kingship in Israel; He annointed David as His temporal king and promised him that there would come One who would seat on the throne forever… clearly no human being is eternal; logic dictates that only the Eternal Word would be that King (notice the type in Genesis 14:18-20).

So if God can raise up children from stones, could He not restore a blood-line?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks for the help but, I’m still kind of confused about this issue, regarding the Messiah’s descent from Solomon, and also with the claim that there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption.

Hi, DylanO!

If I were to tell you that I am a theologian or that I was Jewish… would my claim have validity if I cited others that supported my statement?

These people refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord, Savior, King, and God, do you think that they would present an argument that would demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah?

Even when Scriptures tell them that Solomon whas rejected by God Himself–not that a prophet went to Solomon, but that God Himself rejected Solomon and his seed–they continue to point to Solomon as the key to the Kingdom. Do you not see a flaw in this obstinate stance?

…as for the passing down of authority or blessings… I attempted to show you how God determined who would represent Him among the people of Israel. The leadership and full authority of Moses did not go to any of his direct descendants but to his assistant/disciple Jonas… the prophet that annointed Israel’s very first king, Saul, had no blood relations with the prophet that preceded him… and as far as “blue blood,” Joseph who happens to not be Jacob first born is the recipient of the Promise; he just happened to mary the daughter of an Egyptian priest that worshiped a sun god; conversely, as with Jacob and Essau, Ephraim, who is not the first born, receives from Jacob the blessings (Promise) that were, technically, Manasseh’s.

It is Yahweh God Who determines who, what and when about His Salvific Plan–which is inclusive of the Gentiles (as prophesied throught Moses) for His Annointed One (Jesus Christ) would bring them hope (Salvation).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Icemoon]

They quote Jeremiah 22:30 as proof; yet, they purposely ignore the very next passage that speaks on how God will correct Israel’s failures:

"See, the days are coming–it is Yahweh who speaks–
when I will raise a virtuous Branch for David,
who will reign as true king and be wise,
practicing honesty and integrity in the land.
In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will dwell in confidencel.
And this is the name he will be called:
Yahweh our integrity. (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

Hi,

So how did God correct Israel’s failures. And who is the verse talking about?

Thanks

 

[jcrichton]

Hi,

So how did God correct Israel’s failures. And who is the verse talking about?

Thanks
Hi!

Let me give you a rundown:

Genisis 3:15 depicts the whole story of Salvation: the seed of the woman battles against Satan whom in his last ditch effort to undo God’s Authority and Power fails to render a fatal blow; Apocalypse 12 expands on this battle as it opens into the Heavenly struggle and the beast’s attempts against the Child on earth.

Then compare Moses’ revelations about Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19); Matthew refers to Moses’ Messianic Prophecy in 17:5 and Peter expands on it in Acts 3:17-26 and Stephen in Acts 7:37-60 (you could read from v 1). Then compare with John’s rendering 1:19-34.

Genisis offers a different window as it reveals the mysterious King and High Priest of the Most High which comes out of nowhere and is the King of Salem (King of Peace–compare with Isaiah 7:10-14; 9:2-7); this passage is referenced in Psalm 110:4 and expanded in Hebrews 5 through 7.

Let me know if you need more passages.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Icemoon]

Hi!

Let me give you a rundown:

Genisis 3:15 depicts the whole story of Salvation: the seed of the woman battles against Satan whom in his last ditch effort to undo God’s Authority and Power fails to render a fatal blow; Apocalypse 12 expands on this battle as it opens into the Heavenly struggle and the beast’s attempts against the Child on earth.

Then compare Moses’ revelations about Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19); Matthew refers to Moses’ Messianic Prophecy in 17:5 and Peter expands on it in Acts 3:17-26 and Stephen in Acts 7:37-60 (you could read from v 1). Then compare with John’s rendering 1:19-34.

Genisis offers a different window as it reveals the mysterious King and High Priest of the Most High which comes out of nowhere and is the King of Salem (King of Peace–compare with Isaiah 7:10-14; 9:2-7); this passage is referenced in Psalm 110:4 and expanded in Hebrews 5 through 7.

Let me know if you need more passages.

Maran atha!

Angel

Nice for you to elaborate.

But you have not answered my second question about the verse in Jeremiah.

 

[Icemoon]

Then compare Moses’ revelations about Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19); Matthew refers to Moses’ Messianic Prophecy in 17:5 and Peter expands on it in Acts 3:17-26 and Stephen in Acts 7:37-60 (you could read from v 1). Then compare with John’s rendering 1:19-34.

Other than the NT, where is it implied that the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18:19 is Jesus?

I mean, there were many prophets before Jesus and all of them could satisfy the criteria. How is a Torah-educated Jew going to know whether the Elijah or Ezekiel before his eyes is or is not the prophesized one?

Moreover, the verses talk about a prophet like Moses. This ‘equal status’ is befitting of John the Baptist, but not Jesus who is above Moses. Why didn’t the author hint of a prophet that is greater than Moses?

 

[bengal_fan]

Thanks for the help but, I’m still kind of confused about this issue, regarding the Messiah’s descent from Solomon, and also with the claim that there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption.

i already showed a place in the bible where priesthood was passed on through adoption.

 

[jcrichton]

Other than the NT, where is it implied that the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18:19 is Jesus?

…so what should my response be… something like “since I am Catholic and Jesus founded His Church on Kephas I have no need of the Old Testament–consequently, any argument that objects or nullifies the New Testament is void.”

I do not believe that the Old Testament is obsolete nor inconsequential; it is part of my history as a disciple of Christ. But I do feel that it would be a rehearsal in futility if I were to continue to cite the whole Bible while you would accept only the Old Testament–and this viewed only in light of anti-Christian Jews.

However, if you want me to respond to your previous posts (inclusive of the New Testament) I would be more than happy to comply.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Icemoon]

i already showed a place in the bible where priesthood was passed on through adoption.

This was what you wrote:

didn’t samuel inherit the priesthood from eli? samuel was not his natural son, but eli takes him in and begins to call him his son. eli’s other sons all screw up (in many ways) and it is samuel (i believe) who inherits the priesthood.

This was the original quote from the TS:

There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

Are you attacking a strawman? If priesthood cannot be passed on through adoption (your strawman), does it mean the priesthood will end when the priest has no descendants?

In the case of Samuel, prove to us he is not from the priestly tribe.

Hint: the genealogy can be found in 1Chronicles 6. If you find it confusing like the skeptics, read here - christiancourier.com/articles/read/1_samuel_11_elkanah_the_ephraimite

 

[Icemoon]

I do not believe that the Old Testament is obsolete nor inconsequential; it is part of my history as a disciple of Christ. But I do feel that it would be a rehearsal in futility if I were to continue to cite the whole Bible while you would accept only the Old Testament–and this viewed only in light of anti-Christian Jews.

However, if you want me to respond to your previous posts (inclusive of the New Testament) I would be more than happy to comply.

Have I expressed any view that is typical of anti-Christian Jews?

I’ve asked very factual questions, there is no need to put in too much emotions in them:

1. What is your view on those verses in Jeremiah? Who do you think is spoken in those verses?
2. How is a Torah-educated Jew going to identify THE ONE spoken in Deuteronomy?

It is not whether I accept only the OT or not. The fact is, there was only the OT (in reality, the Torah only, the rest of the books were kinda in dispute, iirc) before the NT.

Put yourself as a contemporary of Elijah. Why can’t Elijah be the spoken one?

 

[jj2011]

Hi, DylanO!

they ignore that everything that prophecies say about the Messiah have had to have taken place since all of the conditions are beyond being met in their “futuristic” messiah:

Angel

Biblically speaking, the time of the Messiah has already come, which we know from Daniel’s prophecy of the weeks, among other prophetic texts. While the interpretation of this prophecy given here is not infallible, I suggest a serious look at it.

drbo.org/chapter/32009.htm

 

[DylanO]

Hi, DylanO!

If I were to tell you that I am a theologian or that I was Jewish… would my claim have validity if I cited others that supported my statement?

It’s not that, I was just wondering if you could elaborate on it more.

 

[Icemoon]

Biblically speaking, the time of the Messiah has already come, which we know from Daniel’s prophecy of the weeks, among other prophetic texts. While the interpretation of this prophecy given here is not infallible, I suggest a serious look at it.

drbo.org/chapter/32009.htm

Hi,

No offense, but I’m afraid this is a skewed representation of the traditional Jewish view of the prophetic texts.

To take jcrichton’s view, which I assume is representative (hey … it better be or I’d be accused of attacking a strawman ):

They reason from human understanding, and they reason selectively; they ignore that everything that prophecies say about the Messiah have had to have taken place since all of the conditions are beyond being met in their “futuristic” messiah: i.e: Roman Empire, Temple worship, Crucifixion, gathering the Jews from all nations, inclusion of the Gentiles in Yahweh God’s Kingdom, the Lord Coming to His Temple…

These conditions can never ever be met (again) unless they truly contort the Old Testament Writings to mean anything and everything (as that “messiah” that came from the USSR a few years ago and ended up dying in a hospital bed)–and never mind that Israel is a sovereign nation (supported by the greatest military and financial power on earth, a situation that will not easily change) that hardly needs a “savior.”

It is not the case that they view those prophetic texts as pointing to their future Messiah and selectively ignore the evidence.

For example, the contested texts in Isaiah. Here, their candidate for the Messiah is Cyrus, iirc. In their tradition, the anointed one needs not point to their Messiah that is yet to appear.

Hence jj2011’s reply is skewing the Jewish point of view, because once again, Daniel’s prophecy need not point to their futuristic Messiah. I leave the readers to do their own research, if they are interested.

 

[jj2011]

Hi,

Hence jj2011’s reply is skewing the Jewish point of view, because once again, Daniel’s prophecy need not point to their futuristic Messiah. I leave the readers to do their own research, if they are interested.

My post is based on Scripture. I’m not sure who decides what “the Jewish point of view” is, since Jews, as far as I know, don’t have a pope. Nevertheless, for those who wish to consult different points of view, the wikipedia article is here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

 

[Icemoon]

My post is based on Scripture. I’m not sure who decides what “the Jewish point of view” is, since Jews, as far as I know, don’t have a pope.

Apologies here. I was referring more to jcrichton’s reply which you quoted and was merely using your reply as a launching pad. Opps.

As to who decides what the Jewish point of view is, I’m afraid you have to ask jcrichton. He seems to be clear on their point of view, at least enough to paint them under a broad brush.

And you don’t need a pope to have a point of view. Protestants do not have a pope, does it mean there is no point of view belonging to Protestant Christianity?

 

[Kekule]

This discussion concerning the criteria which prove/disprove Jesus as the Messiah stirred a thought in me.

By what criteria will we know Him when He returns? What if He deviates from the criteria we expect? Will we recognize Him? On the other hand, if we are too loose in our criteria, do we run the risk of following the Antichrist?