The Real Jesus (Son of David According to the Flesh)

[mayacrisol]

Rom 1:3
(KJV) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of
the seed of David according to the flesh


2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Psalm 94:10 ... he that teaches man knowledge, shall not he know?

1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
****************************************************

I believe that the Virgin birth is true, precisely because it is supported in the Scripture, it has been prophecied and it happened as it should, and it was written.
What I don't believe in is the idea (which started only in the second century) that the baby was sired by God Himself, that Mary was David's descendant and that Joseph was just a foster father to the man Jesus (These are contrary to what is written and You will not find these in the scripture!)

 

[mayacrisol]

I have made a lengthy article regarding this, i will post the link as soon as I can and i am prepared to prove it all from the Scripture.


One of the reasons why Atheists believe that Jesus Christ is a False Messiah:
“The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.”-atheists

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY JEWS DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS IS BECAUSE OF THIS CATHOLIC LIE!!!
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people.The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).

See, A False Jesus have been preached by so called Christians for the longest time to deceive even the elect!

Did you know that this "Jesus has no biological father" is a tenet of Christianity and Islam which holds that Mary miraculously conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin and without paternal seed from Joseph, this became a universally held belief in the Christian church by the second century only! only after all the Apostles have died! This doctrine was included in the two most widely used Christian creeds, which state that Jesus "was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary"

This false doctrine craftily empowers all other fabricated lies and dogma.

 

[fallingblood]

Matthew and Luke were written in the first century. The tradition most likely preceded both of them. Thus, the idea that Jesus was the son of God was not created in the second century.

As for the virgin birth being predicted, you have not shown that. There was no prediction that the messiah would be born of a virgin.

Also, you may want to research Judaism a little further. The reason Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah is because as soon as Jesus died, he failed to be the Jewish Messiah. Jesus did not fulfill Messianic prophecy, thus, the Jews have no reason to think of him as the Messiah.

 

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

I believe that the Virgin birth is true, precisely because it is supported in the Scripture, it has been prophecied and it happened as it should, and it was written.
What I don't believe in is the idea (which started only in the second century) that the baby was sired by God Himself...

I'm confused... You believe that the virgin birth is true because the Bible says so, but you don't believe that God sired the child, even though Matthew 1:18 says that "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." A word study using Strong's shows that the verse can expand to "she was found to hold in her stomach a child that originated from the Holy Ghost."

As for the virgin birth being predicted, you have not shown that. There was no prediction that the messiah would be born of a virgin.

Except for Is 7.

With regard to the Jews not accepting Jesus as being the Messiah that was prophecied of, I've heard that it was because the Jews were expecting a king who would come along and judge the nations and restore Israel and all that sort of thing. What they got was a carpenter who got nailed to a tree. It would appear that the Jews were looking towards what Christians would say is His second coming, and His first coming didn't line up with what they were expecting, so they rejected Him.

 

[fallingblood]

Except for Is 7.

With regard to the Jews not accepting Jesus as being the Messiah that was prophecied of, I've heard that it was because the Jews were expecting a king who would come along and judge the nations and restore Israel and all that sort of thing. What they got was a carpenter who got nailed to a tree. It would appear that the Jews were looking towards what Christians would say is His second coming, and His first coming didn't line up with what they were expecting, so they rejected Him.

Actually Isaiah 7 states that it was suppose to be a young girl, and had nothing to do with Jesus. There is really no debate about that among scholars. The reason being that the best manuscripts state that. More so though, scholars know how the the idea arose. It was from the Hebrew to Greek translation, the LXX, that the idea that Isaiah stated something about a virgin arose. The Hebrew states differently.

As for the Jewish messiah, they were looking for someone to deliver them. Jesus didn't. As you said, he got nailed to a tree. It was at that point that he became a failure.

It didn't matter that he was a carpenter, it mattered that he didn't fulfill prophecy. He didn't accomplish what the messiah was suppose to do. Thus, in a Jewish sense, he can't be the messiah.

 

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

Actually Isaiah 7 states that it was suppose to be a young girl, and had nothing to do with Jesus.

The word used in Is 7 that gets translated into english as "virgin" means more than just a "young woman." It has connotations of "velied," "private" and "kept out of sight."

Furthermore, Matthew 1 says that Mary was pregnant before her and Jospeh came together. Then an angel tells Joseph not to divorce her; she hasn't done anything wrong, the child is God's.

After all this happened, Matthew says "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying..." He then quotes the exact verse in Isaiah.

It seems to me that a virgin conceived so that what God had spoken through a prophet would be fulfilled. That would mean that Isaiah was in fact talking about Mary. The book of Luke says that Mary was a virgin. I think that means that when God spoke through Isaiah and used the word for a young woman that had extra connotations of "velied," "private" and "kept out of sight," He was talking about a virgin.

It was at that point that he became a failure.

The Jews were fairly unhappy with Him before that. From what I've read, they already thought He'd failed and wasn't the Messaiah before He got to the cross.

 

[fallingblood]

The word used in Is 7 that gets translated into english as "virgin" means more than just a "young woman." It has connotations of "velied," "private" and "kept out of sight."

It meant young woman. And that is besides the point. If you read the actual story in Isaiah, in context, it has nothing to do with a further messiah. It had to do with a time very close to them. There is no reason at all to believe that Isaiah 7 is speaking of Jesus as the prophecy had already been fulfilled long before he was even conceived.

Out of The New Jerome Biblical Commentary: Haalma is not the technical term for a virgin (betula). This is best understood as a wife of Ahaz; the child promised will guarantee the dynasty's future and for this reason can be called Immanuel. (pg 235, 15:19)

Furthermore, Matthew 1 says that Mary was pregnant before her and Jospeh came together. Then an angel tells Joseph not to divorce her; she hasn't done anything wrong, the child is God's.

And it was said that Augustus was the son of Apollo. The fact is exaggeration and legend do tend to be placed into the lives of people who are considered important. More so, if you really wanted to delve into it, Matthew's and Luke's birth narratives are highly different, and even are contradictory.

After all this happened, Matthew says "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying..." He then quotes the exact verse in Isaiah.

Matthew quotes from the Septuagint (LXX). Like I said before, it was from the Hebrew to Greek that the problem occurred. It really doesn't matter what Matthew states that the verse says when we can look at the Hebrew and see that it doesn't sync up. Thus, there is a problem, and it is with Matthew.

It seems to me that a virgin conceived so that what God had spoken through a prophet would be fulfilled. That would mean that Isaiah was in fact talking about Mary. The book of Luke says that Mary was a virgin. I think that means that when God spoke through Isaiah and used the word for a young woman that had extra connotations of "velied," "private" and "kept out of sight," He was talking about a virgin.

God never made such a claim. No prophet said that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. No prophet said that Jesus would be born of a virgin. That means, Isaiah, as has been shown, was not talking about Mary. Since the Hebrew stated that it would be a young woman, as I've shown, and that the prophecy was already long fulfilled, as I have already shown. More so, it had nothing to do with the messiah, as I've also shown. There is absolutely no reason to assume Isaiah meant virgin, when he could have used the word for virgin. Yet, he doesn't, and instead, uses the word for young woman. Your case fails.

The Jews were fairly unhappy with Him before that. From what I've read, they already thought He'd failed and wasn't the Messaiah before He got to the cross.

The disciples were Jews. The first followers of Jesus were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Matthew is even quite clear in having Jesus say to not to go out to the Gentiles or Samaritans, as in they were supposed to minister to the Jews. The fact is, there was a section of Jews who believed that Jesus was possibly the messiah. However, once he died, the vast majority of the Jews, saw that he was a failure. The reason being that he died, and did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. The key one being that the Jews were still under Roman control.

There is no reason at all to believe that Jesus was the Jewish messiah as he failed. He failed when he died, he failed to fulfill the prophecies, and he failed when he didn't set the Jews free.

 

[mayacrisol]

Matthew and Luke were written in the first century. The tradition most likely preceded both of them. Thus, the idea that Jesus was the son of God was not created in the second century.

As for the virgin birth being predicted, you have not shown that. There was no prediction that the messiah would be born of a virgin.

Also, you may want to research Judaism a little further. The reason Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah is because as soon as Jesus died, he failed to be the Jewish Messiah. Jesus did not fulfill Messianic prophecy, thus, the Jews have no reason to think of him as the Messiah.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.



by: Rabbi Shraga Simmons
For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
1) The Jesus of Christians did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus had no father ― and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. Jews still await the coming of the Messiah.
source: simpletoremember. com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/Why]Why Don't Jews Believe In Jesus | The difference between Judaism and Christianity

 

[mayacrisol]

I'm confused... You believe that the virgin birth is true because the Bible says so, but you don't believe that God sired the child, even though Matthew 1:18 says that "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." A word study using Strong's shows that the verse can expand to "she was found to hold in her stomach a child that originated from the Holy Ghost."

"she was found with a child of the holy ghost" could easily be understood as "she was found with a child by the Holy ghost".
True because the child was prepared by the holy ghost through the power of the highest.

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:


Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


Did you really think these verses meant the holy ghost fecundated Mary? Did you think the holy ghost had to do that so Mary would conceive? I assume you realize how infinitely powerful and knowledgeable God is, right?


Remember, it was written:
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

Psalm 94:10 ... he that teaches man knowledge, shall not he know?

This is what I discussed in my article, the link of which i will post as soon as I'm able, since I am very new here, I'm not allowed to post links.

 

[fallingblood]

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

I have already explained why Isaiah 7:14 does not say virgin. That is an incorrect translation. The correct translation, from Hebrew, not Greek as your source does, is young woman. If you look at my previous post, I explain this fuller.

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus had no father ― and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. Jews still await the coming of the Messiah.
source: simpletoremember. com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/Why]Why Don't Jews Believe In Jesus | The difference between Judaism and Christianity

Here's the problem. There wasn't just one idea of the Messiah that all of Judaism was expecting. That is what you are assuming. For instance, it is known that the Essenes were expecting two Messiahs; a kingly one and a priestly one.

As for being a descendant of King David, he technically was. First, the virgin birth is probably a myth. It mostly likely is a fabricated story that has little or no basis in reality. However, even assuming that it was, Jesus' legal father was Joseph. That is what matters. He still was technically a descendant of King David.

And really, that is besides the point. It was thought that he was a descendant of King David. Paul tells us that. That was all that mattered was that he was believed to be of the line. Whether or not he was is besides the point. As for why he is not considered the Jewish messiah, again, it is very simple. He failed. After he died, the Jews were still under the subjection of the Romans. The Romans still occupied the Jewish homeland, which the Messiah was suppose to have fixed. The Messiah was supposed to free the Jewish homeland from foreign rule. Jesus didn't do this, and thus, can not be the Jewish Messiah.

 

[fallingblood]

"she was found with a child of the holy ghost" could easily be understood as "she was found with a child by the Holy ghost".
True because the child was prepared by the holy ghost through the power of the highest.

So your argument is based on a maybe? Luke and Matthew make it very clear that Jesus was considered to be the literal son of God. She was called a virgin, it was clear that Josephus did not know her until after the pregnancy. And we are told that the Mary was pregnant through the Holy Spirit. That what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. Now, the Holy Spirit meaning the Spirit of God. Really, you have no ground to stand on here.

Remember, it was written:
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

This actually argues against the point you're making. First, it specifically states that Jesus is a descendant of David. This disproves your idea as to why the Jews reject him. Second, the verse states that Jesus was born in the normal fashion, as in, Joseph and Mary had sex, and then conceived. It argues against the virgin birth.

 

[Gloone]

It seems like Holy spirit and conceived may have some lose translations all together. It makes more sense when saying Jesus was born through the grace of god. Seeing all the trails and tribulations Joseph and Mary went through with Jesus in his early life and during Mary's pregnancy it only makes sense. They were both guided by angels sent by god because the King Herod wanted to kill the first born "King of the Jews" (which is debatable obviously) Jesus. The only logical reason for him wanting do this is because he didn't want to lose his seat at the throne or rule and felt threaten of losing it. There are also some stories that Mary could prophesize things, but no one believed her so she had a child, “Jesus” that people would listen to since women were less significant then and not given much respect.

 

[fallingblood]

It seems like Holy spirit and conceived may have some lose translations all together. It makes more sense when saying Jesus was born through the grace of god. Seeing all the trails and tribulations Joseph and Mary went through with Jesus in his early life and during Mary's pregnancy it only makes sense. They were both guided by angels sent by god because the King Herod wanted to kill the first born "King of the Jews" (which is debatable obviously) Jesus. The only logical reason for him wanting do this is because he didn't want to lose his seat at the throne or rule and felt threaten of losing it. There are also some stories that Mary could prophesize things, but no one believed her so she had a child, “Jesus” that people would listen to since women were less significant then and not given much respect.

Just to first address with the idea that Herod had all of the first born killed. It didn't happen. There is no evidence for that at all. More so, Luke's account shows that there is no reason to believe that it occurred, because Luke simply is oblivious to the idea.

The fact is this. Luke and Matthew go out of their way in order to show that Jesus is the literal Son of God. Their birth stories show that the belief they were trying to pass on is that Jesus was the son of God. In my last post, I showed this.

 

[Gloone]

Just to first address with the idea that Herod had all of the first born killed. It didn't happen. There is no evidence for that at all.

Whether there is evidence for it or not, it is recorded as prophecy and is what eventually led Mary and Joseph to leave the land they were living in for Bethlehem or w/e it was they went. Massacre of the Innocents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Herod the Great (73 BC – 4 BC) was an Idumean (or Edomite) whom the Romans established as the king of Idumea, Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Matthew's account is consistent with the character of Herod, who was ruthless in defense of his power and notorious for his brutality."

 

[Oberon]

"she was found with a child of the holy ghost" could easily be understood as "she was found with a child by the Holy ghost".

Actually it couldn't. ευρέθη εaν γαστρι ἔχουσα εκ Πνεύματος ῾Αγίου/heurethe en gastri echousa ek pneumatos agiou/ she was found with a child from/of the holy spirit.

The line "from/of the holy spirit" is placed in the genitive with the preposition ek. The sense of the genitive phrase here can't really be interpeted as anyway other than originating from.

 

[mayacrisol]

As for being a descendant of King David, he technically was.
And really, that is besides the point. It was thought that he was a descendant of King David. Paul tells us that. That was all that mattered was that he was believed to be of the line. Whether or not he was is besides the point.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

virgin
Original Word: עַלְמָה
Transliteration: almah
Phonetic Spelling: (al-maw')
Short Definition: damsel

Word Origin
fem. of elem
Definition
a young woman, a virgin

damsel, maid, virgin

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
Feminine of elem; a lass (as veiled or private) -- damsel, maid, virgin.

see HEBREW elem

I believe in the virgin birth, it's clearly written in the scripture, It was confirmed by the blessed Mary it in this verse:

Luke 1:24 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?


Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.




There are verses in the scripture that shows how Jesus is in fact a descendant of David.

Matthew 1:19-20 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.


Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David: )

Luke 1:26-27 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

 

[Oberon]

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

almah simply doesn't mean virign. You need to use at the very least a lexicon here, not a concordance. For example, the BDB makes clear that the word just means "young woman" which typically implied virginity (somewhat similarily to parthenos) but did not mean it. The word could even refer to those newly married.

 

[mayacrisol]

Actually it couldn't. ευρέθη εaν γαστρι ἔχουσα εκ Πνεύματος ῾Αγίου/heurethe en gastri echousa ek pneumatos agiou/ she was found with a child from/of the holy spirit.

The line "from/of the holy spirit" is placed in the genitive with the preposition ek. The sense of the genitive phrase here can't really be interpeted as anyway other than originating from.

what is your idea, when it says "originating from"?


Scripture says Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, so how's that if Jesus is not descendant of david according to the flesh? You know that you can't find any scriptural proof that mary is descendant of David according to the flesh right? but there are scriptural proofs that Joseph was. So, what do you make of that?


Here's my stand:
If Mary isn't descendant of David (since the scripture doesn't support that with any proof texts) and Joseph is actually the blood descendant of David as supported by scripture. Then Joseph is the biological father of jesus in the flesh.

It is Joseph's seed that's crucial for Jesus to be the descendant of David according to the flesh, because it's what's written in the prophecies that the holy seed would be made of the seed of David according to the flesh (from Juda's tribe) and Joseph is from judah's tribe, bloodline and house of David.

but since Mary conceived while virgin, then Joseph did not have sex with her before she conceived, how then can Joseph's sperm impregnate Mary without copulation?

Here's where God divinely intervened.

Just as how Sarah who was already menopause conceived, just as how Mary's cousin Elisabeth who was barren, conceived, God was able to make Mary who was a virgin, conceive.
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

 

[mayacrisol]

almah simply doesn't mean virign. You need to use at the very least a lexicon here, not a concordance. For example, the BDB makes clear that the word just means "young woman" which typically implied virginity (somewhat similarily to parthenos) but did not mean it. The word could even refer to those newly married.

but it could mean virgin too, do you agree?

 

[Oberon]

what is your idea, when it says "originating from"?

The originator/cause/the which begat/etc.

Scripture says Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, so how's that if Jesus is not descendant of david according to the flesh?

1) This depends on a particular assertion of what kata + accusative means above.
2) The line made of the seed of david isn't quite accurate. The phrase is tou genomenou ek spermatos david kata sarka. The word in qeuestion is the genitive participle genomonou, which comes from the verb ginoma (classical greek gignomai) which meant to be, to become, etc. In other words, the line reads more literally the one coming to be from the seed of David with respect to the flesh. Now, personally, I think kata sarka implies beind a descendant of a human. But this isn't possible with a virgin birth any more than it is than by a birth of the holy spirit. If Paul was aware of the virgin birth story, this line doesn't make much sense, unless one interprets it as with respect to his foster father or some such thing. In that case though, it makes just as much sense to assert that the real father was the holy spirit.

You know that you can't find any scriptural proof that mary is descendant of David according to the flesh right? but there are scriptural proofs that Joseph was. So, what do you make of that?

1) I'm not arguing that scripture agrees or must be in agreement or that there is an such thing as scriptural proof. I'm just happened to be able to read the texts in greek and in hebrew and I so I had an issue with your interpretation.
2) Again, kata sarka would imply that Josephs had sex with mary and Jesus was the result.

but it could mean virgin too, do you agree?

No, it could imply virginity, similarly to the way preteen in today's world could imply virginity.