I Just Proved That Jesus Is A False Messiah In Less Than 5 Minutes

[Only Reason]

*Staff edit*. Here is why.

He failed one of the first OT prophecies which was to be descended from king David and king Solomon. Genesis 49:10 states that the messiah would descend from king David's side and king Solomon in Chronicles 22:9-10. Jesus already failed this due to a virgin birth. Mary in the NT has no genealogy except for it being hinted at in Luke 1:34-36. The angel confirmed Mary is biologically blood related to Elizabeth. And Luke 1:5 clearly states that Elizabeth is descended from king Aaron. Therefore since Mary is blood related to Elizabeth, she also follows that lineage. So we can conclude Mary is descended from king Aaron of the Levi tribe. There is no mention other than this of her genealogy.


We can also disregard her being descended from king David and Solomon at this point and also because she is not mentioned anywhere in the NT that she was descended from those two anyway. Now, even though Joseph is descended from king David and Solomon, he is disqualified from having any affiliation with Jesus since he made no biological contribution to Jesus' birth as clearly mentioned in Matthew 1:22-25. Only after his birth did Mary and Joseph biologically "consummate." This is a clear indication that Jesus failed this OT prophecy.

What can we logically conclude from this fact alone? That Jesus is NOT the messiah. And I just made the case for Judaism that much stronger ironically...

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah, old stuff there are many prophecies that the biblical jesus doesn't meet, this is just one.
And so Jesus is not a Jewish messiah.

It doesn't matter to christians though

 

[Link]

This supports my theory that household of Aaron is where all the Prophets are from including David. But it shows Bible contradictions in this regard.

 

[shunyadragon]

None of the above represents any 'proof' for the religious claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam since their claims are based on ancient literature that lacks the provenance need for a coherent argument either way. They are claims based on 'faith,' and not good historical evidence.

The best that can be said is there is no objective independent evidence to support the religious claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Historical evidence is spotty and incomplete, and for example historians can only determine that a historical Jesus likely existed at the time the NT describes with some support for the factual historical events in the life of Jesus. There is more evidence for the life of Mohammod, but no evidence for religious claims nor Geneology of Mohammod. The historical documentation of many of most important people in the stories in the OT are most likely fictional or mythical characters like Adam, Eve and Moses.


The bottom line is the religious claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on faith and belief that there scripture is to a degree true to justify their belief. No 'proof' either way.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Jesus never was and never will be the messiah. Here is why.

He failed one of the first OT prophecies which was to be descended from king David and king Solomon. Genesis 49:10 states that the messiah would descend from king David's side and king Solomon in Chronicles 22:9-10. Jesus already failed this due to a virgin birth. Mary in the NT has no genealogy except for it being hinted at in Luke 1:34-36. The angel confirmed Mary is biologically blood related to Elizabeth. And Luke 1:5 clearly states that Elizabeth is descended from king Aaron. Therefore since Mary is blood related to Elizabeth, she also follows that lineage. So we can conclude Mary is descended from king Aaron of the Levi tribe. There is no mention other than this of her genealogy.


We can also disregard her being descended from king David and Solomon at this point and also because she is not mentioned anywhere in the NT that she was descended from those two anyway. Now, even though Joseph is descended from king David and Solomon, he is disqualified from having any affiliation with Jesus since he made no biological contribution to Jesus' birth as clearly mentioned in Matthew 1:22-25. Only after his birth did Mary and Joseph biologically "consummate." This is a clear indication that Jesus failed this OT prophecy.

What can we logically conclude from this fact alone? That Jesus is NOT the messiah. And I just made the case for Judaism that much stronger ironically...

Jewish genealogies followed the male line. Joseph, being Mary’s husband, was the legal father of Jesus. The legal father is on par with the real father as regards rights and duties . . . Since it was quite usual for people to marry within their clan, it can be concluded that Mary belonged to the house of David. Several early Fathers of the Church testify to this—for example, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin and Tertullian, who base their testimony on an unbroken tradition.

 

[Jedster]

None of the above represents any 'proof' for the religious claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam since their claims are based on ancient literature that lacks the provenance need for a coherent argument either way. They are claims based on 'faith,' and not good historical evidence.

The best that can be said is there is no objective independent evidence to support the religious claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Historical evidence is spotty and incomplete, and for example historians can only determine that a historical Jesus likely existed at the time the NT describes with some support for the factual historical events in the life of Jesus. There is more evidence for the life of Mohammod, but no evidence for religious claims nor Geneology of Mohammod. The historical documentation of many of most important people in the stories in the OT are most likely fictional or mythical characters like Adam, Eve and Moses.


The bottom line is the religious claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on faith and belief that there scripture is to a degree true to justify their belief. No 'proof' either way.

From my limited knowledge I agree.
Does this not also apply to Bahais?

 

[user4578]

And here I thought the fact that he was born of a virgin had something to do with it.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Jesus never was and never will be the messiah. Here is why.

He failed one of the first OT prophecies which was to be descended from king David and king Solomon. Genesis 49:10 states that the messiah would descend from king David's side and king Solomon in Chronicles 22:9-10. Jesus already failed this due to a virgin birth. Mary in the NT has no genealogy except for it being hinted at in Luke 1:34-36. The angel confirmed Mary is biologically blood related to Elizabeth. And Luke 1:5 clearly states that Elizabeth is descended from king Aaron. Therefore since Mary is blood related to Elizabeth, she also follows that lineage. So we can conclude Mary is descended from king Aaron of the Levi tribe. There is no mention other than this of her genealogy.


We can also disregard her being descended from king David and Solomon at this point and also because she is not mentioned anywhere in the NT that she was descended from those two anyway. Now, even though Joseph is descended from king David and Solomon, he is disqualified from having any affiliation with Jesus since he made no biological contribution to Jesus' birth as clearly mentioned in Matthew 1:22-25. Only after his birth did Mary and Joseph biologically "consummate." This is a clear indication that Jesus failed this OT prophecy.

What can we logically conclude from this fact alone? That Jesus is NOT the messiah. And I just made the case for Judaism that much stronger ironically...

What about cases of adoption?

The simple answer to this question is that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4)

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

And here I thought the fact that he was born of a virgin had something to do with it.

The story of Jesus being born of a virgin isn't the first of its kind. There are stories of other Christ-like figures that predate Christianity and Jesus' alleged life on earth (10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus). In fact, there are many stories about Jesus' life that parallel the stories of these Christ-like figures that predate Christianity. For instance, being tempted by the devil before an earthly ministry began, miraculously healing sick people, being crucified, dying for humanity, and being resurrected from the dead after three days. The story of Jesus' death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead after three days parallels the life of the Greek god, Attis (1250 BCE). The stories of Attis include being born of a virgin; being crucified, descending into the underworld after dying, and being resurrected from the dead after three days (Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days).

 

[Link]

This is why the Quran emphasized on "chosen families" and shows Aaron (a) to be origin of line of David (a). This correction is also emphasized with the talk of Ibrahim (a) and his family (A), which is done to show, that every nation and time has a family of the reminder, and the so Isa (a) is the last of the Ahlulbayt (a) of Haroun (a) which is per Quran also the Ahlulbayt (a) of Musa (a) even though the offspring is from Haroun (a) and not Musa (a).

 

[Link]

To me the family of David, Aaron, Moses, and Imran is one and the same, and the previous family of the reminder:

Musa (founder)
Mariam (sister)
Haroun (Successor 1)
Samuel (Successor 2)
Talut/Saul (Successor 3)
Dawood (4)
Sulaiaman (5)
Elyas (6)
Alyasa (7)
Dul-Kilf (8)
Imran (9)
Zakariya (10)
Mariam (daughter of Imran)
Yahya (11)
Isa (12)

This is the Ahlulbayt before Ahlulbayt of Taha and Yaseen.

They are all offspring, some of it from some (3:33) and Surah Baqara says "..and a remainder of what the family of Musa and family of Haroun has left (singular not have for both, but has, as in they are one familiy) in it is a tranquility from your Lord..."

Imam Ali (a) concerning that says, Allah (swt) shows successors are in the offspring of Prophets.

Also, Imams (a) would say when asked why in offspring of Hussain (a) and not Hassan (a), "God put the Prophets in offspring of Aaron and not Musa, and we don't ask why, and same way, he put the Imams in Hussain's (a) offspring out of wisdom, and we don't ask why".

 

[paarsurrey]

This supports my theory that household of Aaron is where all the Prophets are from including David. But it shows Bible contradictions in this regard.

Happy birthday!
Regards

 

[Link]

Happy birthday!
Regards

Thank you!

 

[shunyadragon]

From my limited knowledge I agree.
Does this not also apply to Bahais?

All religious beliefs are based to large degree on 'faith' and 'belief' including the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith is more open to the concept that the understanding and knowledge of religions is primarily based on the knowledge, time and cultural relevance at the time the scripture was written from the fallible human perspective, Our knowledge of God and Revelation evolves over time, Even the Baha'i scriptures are relevant to time and change over time. The Baha'i Faith believes in the harmony of science (knowledge changes over time) and religious scripture concerning our physical existence must be understood in the light of science. The only relative certainty of human knowledge is science and this changes over time.

I am a universalist including Baha'i and humanist unitarian view of the diverse knowledge of human beliefs. Buddha taught the Impermanence of everything including human knowledge.

Also the nature of God, human knowledge and Revelation cannot be rigidly defined as many believers of ancient religions do, and is unknowable from the fallible human perspective.

To add I will debate many sides of religious and philosophical question regardless of what I believe in the Greek logic perspective.

The more certain we are of our 'beliefs' the less likely they are true.

 

[Jedster]

All religious beliefs are based to large degree on 'faith' and 'belief' including the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith is more open to the concept that the understanding and knowledge of religions is primarily based on the knowledge, time and cultural relevance at the time the scripture was written from the fallible human perspective, Our knowledge of God and Revelation evolves over time, Even the Baha'i scriptures are relevant to time and change over time. The Baha'i Faith believes in the harmony of science (knowledge changes over time) and religious scripture concerning our physical existence must be understood in the light of science. The only relative certainty of human knowledge is science and this changes over time.

I am a universalist including Baha'i and humanist unitarian view of the diverse knowledge of human beliefs. Buddha taught the Impermanence of everything including human knowledge.

Also the nature of God, human knowledge and Revelation cannot be rigidly defined as many believers of ancient religions do, and is unknowable from the fallible human perspective.

To add I will debate many sides of religious and philosophical question regardless of what I believe in the Greek logic perspective.

The more certain we are of our 'beliefs' the less likely they are true.

A nice reply. Thanks.

 

[Stonetree]

Thank you!

May this birthday bring you closer to your aspired goals.....HAPPY BIRTHDAY, LINK

 

[Link]

May this birthday bring you closer to your aspired goals.....HAPPY BIRTHDAY, LINK

Thanks.

 

[1213]

Jesus never was and never will be the messiah. Here is why.

He failed one of the first OT prophecies which was to be descended from king David and king Solomon. Genesis 49:10 states that the messiah would descend from king David's side and king Solomon in Chronicles 22:9-10. ....

Why do you think Genesis 49:10 doesn’t even have the word, The Messiah? Why do you think it is about the Messiah if the word is not even there?

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Genesis 49:10

Why do you think 1 Chronicles 22:9-10 is about the Messiah?

Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days: he shall build a house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.
1 Chronicles 22:9-10.

 

[Kenny]

Jesus never was and never will be the messiah. Here is why.

He failed one of the first OT prophecies which was to be descended from king David and king Solomon. Genesis 49:10 states that the messiah would descend from king David's side and king Solomon in Chronicles 22:9-10. Jesus already failed this due to a virgin birth. Mary in the NT has no genealogy except for it being hinted at in Luke 1:34-36. The angel confirmed Mary is biologically blood related to Elizabeth. And Luke 1:5 clearly states that Elizabeth is descended from king Aaron. Therefore since Mary is blood related to Elizabeth, she also follows that lineage. So we can conclude Mary is descended from king Aaron of the Levi tribe. There is no mention other than this of her genealogy.


We can also disregard her being descended from king David and Solomon at this point and also because she is not mentioned anywhere in the NT that she was descended from those two anyway. Now, even though Joseph is descended from king David and Solomon, he is disqualified from having any affiliation with Jesus since he made no biological contribution to Jesus' birth as clearly mentioned in Matthew 1:22-25. Only after his birth did Mary and Joseph biologically "consummate." This is a clear indication that Jesus failed this OT prophecy.

What can we logically conclude from this fact alone? That Jesus is NOT the messiah. And I just made the case for Judaism that much stronger ironically...

Your not alone on this:

" And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

and again, his own family:

Mark 3:21 When His own family heard this they went to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He is out of His mind.”

Then again... James, the half-brother of Jesus, ended up a believer as did so many others that Jesus was the Messiah. They may have the better perspective IMO

I guess it is a matter of being convinced in ones own mind. We know where you stand for sure.

 

[Trailblazer]

The historical documentation of many of most important people in the stories in the OT are most likely fictional or mythical characters like Adam, Eve and Moses.

I know that Baha'is believe that Adam and Eve are mythical, but do you believe that Moses was mythical?