Not through his father, which is what determines his tribe. His genealogy does not qualify him to sit on David’s throne.
If brother's can raise up their own brother's "seed" according to the Torah by marrying the widow then who are you to say? It was necessary that Jesus is the Son of God but both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David. If Jesus is really the Son of God then that pretty much nullifies any argument against Him you could make anyway.
Should we do so you would find most of what you believe is built on the sands on the traditions of men, though you are deceived into thinking it is based on the scriptures when it really isn’t.
You're not talking to someone who has never read the material. Suffice to say if I haven't read the new Testament more than you I would definitely be surprised.
This is flat out wrong, wrong, wrong. The scripture is clear. “Zera”
ONLY means physical offspring. Period. Scripture says that the servant of
Isaiah 53 will have physical offspring. Scripture says that the messiah must be a physical offspring (descendant) of David. You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want. But scripture will still be true.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Indeed scripture will be true even the parts you ignore or misdirect. And btw, the scriptures make no distinction on fathers versus grand fathers or great grand fathers. The point is they are all simply "fathers". So if Mary is descended from David then that really does make Jesus the son of David.
And you seem to forget it was the "seed of a woman" that would bruise the serpent's head.
Wrong. The sign in
Isaiah 7 is not the woman giving birth. So the woman doesn’t need be be a virgin because the birth is not the sign. The sign is that before the child would know the difference between right and wrong the kings attacking Judah would be gone. That is the sign. Read this,
https://outreachjudaism.org/the-virgin-birth/
King Ahaz was very worried about the alliance between Ephraim and Damascus. So Isaiah the prophet comes and basically says don't worry because God will stop them and Ephraim will be crushed within 65 years. Do you want a sign Ahaz? And Ahaz replies no (in so many words) and then Isaiah responds; you've made God tired(bored); but God will give you a sign Himself (that you didn't ask for).
I believe you're partly correct that what you are claiming is the sign is indeed
part of the sign. However, the part about Emmanuel is actually also part of the sign. However this would mean little for Ahaz but instead be meant for future generations.
As for the article you linked:
First your article argues that parthenos does not mean virgin. Then it argues that Christians changed the Septuagint to agree with Matthew by saying parthenos. You can't have it both ways.
Secondly, I'm fine with the idea that parthenos does not mean virgin as I stated previously. It doesn't change much for me. If Dinah is called parthenos after being raped then that's okay by me.
The article also misrepresented the book "antiquities of Jews" as saying that only the Pentateuch was translated as the original Septuagint. That's incorrect. I actually looked up the reference provided and it does not say that. Contrariwise it actually mentions that other books would also be translated.
Excerpt from Antiquities of the Jews, book 12, chapter 2, verse 4:
"... And I let you know, that we want the books of the Jewish legislation,
with some others; for they are written in the Hebrew characters, and being in the language of that nation, are to us unknown. ... "
You can find the whole section
here.
