@Left Coast when I said 'real' king I meant not this Christian spiritual reigning from heaven thing. He has to be, well, alive, and some kind of actual worldly ruler.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?
- Thread starter ayin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jesusisyhwh
The halacha in the Tankah doesn't describe a person's step children as different from their biological children. What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David? | GotQuestions.org
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Looks like that word is more often translated as a hook, not a nail. But I see where you're coming from, now. Thanks.
I believe Jesus will reign as some kind of actual world ruler when he returns. Zechariah 14:4 talks about the reappearance of the Messiah. While the second coming isn't explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament, it's consistent and resolves vague details about the meaning of certain verses.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Can you show me where there is any discussion of step children in the tanach and where the text says that, under the laws, they are equivalent to biological children?
It's not inconsistent with the teachings of the Tanach. Not all of the laws where mentioned in the Tanach. Some things were implied by default. The Tanach laws on people not marrying close relatives doesn't mention cousins, but that doesn't mean that cousin marriages were optimal situations.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Ah hah. Strong's Lexicon. The Christian talmud has struck again.
Saying something isn't in the Tanakh and deciding it must be true anyway since it resolves a conflict in your theology should surely make you think that your theology is wrong, not that G-d was so vague that millions of people misunderstood what He was saying.
The Talmud is no more Torah than what Christians say. The Talmud saying that Jesus was a sorcerer isn't proof that he isn't the Messiah.
I'm not saying that the Tanakh was vague. Even if I am, can't that mean that there might be a second coming, since it isn't stated either way?
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
To everyone. This thread can go on for days.
Christians. You have a better chance of convincing each other of Jesus than you do of convincing any Torath Mosheh Jew. Essentially, you don't have the skill set that Hashem required to try to prove the Jesus story to Torath Mosheh Jews. Your predecessors have tried for about 1,700 years and failed. So, that being said this thread ends up being a waste of time.
Christians. You have a better chance of convincing each other of Jesus than you do of convincing any Torath Mosheh Jew. Essentially, you don't have the skill set that Hashem required to try to prove the Jesus story to Torath Mosheh Jews. Your predecessors have tried for about 1,700 years and failed. So, that being said this thread ends up being a waste of time.
rosends
Well-Known Member
So in post 168, when I cite law, you dismiss it as from rabbis and not from the tanach, but when you need there to be some law that is not in the tanach, suddenly you can "imply by default" (whatever that means). Your decision about what isn't optimal is just yours, driven by what you want to find. Again, none changes actual law.
No, you don't just get to make up doctrine that isn't found in the Tanakh. If there had been no Jesus, would you still believe in the second coming? Likely not, as the only theology that needs it is yours. You're inserting things into the Tanakh that you need to be there because your messiah failed. If he hadn't failed you wouldn't have to have the argument that he's going to come again and do it next time - I could say this about Harel, but as much as I may want Harel to be the Messiah, saying he'll come back and do it next time doesn't make him the Messiah.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Sure it is.
The Tanakh doesn't treat stepchildren and biological children as legally different. What does the Bible say about stepparenting / step-parenting? | GotQuestions.org
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
You don't sound really happy about your faith in Jesus. Especially since the yeshu(s) plural mentioned in the Talmud all lived 100 years prior what the NT claims. Are you sure you want to say that the Jesus you beleive in was one or all of the yeshus, plural, mentioned in the Talmud?
BTW. We Jews are concerned with what you beleive Jesus to be. That is up to you to decide for yourself. It has nothing to do with Torath Mosheh Jews.
Tumah
Veteran Member
That's definitely one of the dumbest things I've heard this week at least. Lots of people have said that Psalm and not just the first line either.
This is fabricated completely by yourself.
There is nothing in that Psalm that says that the nations would turn to the G-d of Israel as a result of someone's suffering.
The Tanakh says that the Messiah would appear, be cut off, and then reappear in victory. Zechariah 9:14-15 and 12:20-14 talk about the second coming of the Messiah.
rosends
Well-Known Member
You realize that the web page you cited says the following:
"While the Bible does not specifically address the topic of stepparenting"
and then it does not bring up any Tanach based quotes until it brings up a Proverb which is about how to deal with people and isn't about parenting specifically. If you have no relevant text, then just pointing to a random webpage does not help.
The tanach doesn't equate children and step children under the law, so any conclusion you invent about the legal status is yours alone.
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
This issue is important to Jews and Christians. The best explanation that I can find comes from R.A.Torrey, who says the following:
'1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour's conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary's husband. In all of this, of course, there is a deep significance.
2. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. in Luke he appears as 'the Son of Man', our Brother and redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew, the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in him. But in Luke, the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, and shows the relation of the Second Adam to the First.
3. Joseph's line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David's son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.
4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel 7:12-19; Psalm 89:3,4,34-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22,23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the Son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not his father according to the flesh, but was his father in the eyes of the law.
5. Mary was a descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 2:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heliers. The simple explanation of this is that, Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy, males alone forming the line, so Joseph's name is introduced in the place of Mary's, he being Mary's husband; Heliers was his father-in-law and so Joseph is called the son of Heliers, and the line is completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heliers, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16).
6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the one the royal and legal, the other the natural and literal, and these two genealogies we find, the legal and royal in Matthew's Gospel, the Gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke's, the Gospel of humanity.
7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David, and Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph's genealogy furnishes the royal line fro Jesus, his son before the law, nevertheless Jeremiah's prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus, strictly speaking, was not Joseph's descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary's son through Nathan, and can come to the throne legally by marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.
As we study these two genealogies of Jesus carefully and read them in the light of the Old Testament prediction, we find that, so far from constituting a reason for doubting the accuracy of the Bible, they are rather a confirmation of the minutest accuracy of that Book.'