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

[Subduction Zone]

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...

Do you realize that as we go back in our heritage that our number of ancestors increases? It is not impossible for Mary to be related to Elizabet and for them to still have different ancestors. Only some of them would be shared. For example your cousins will have ancestors that come from the in law side of their parents that you do not share.

So you have not refuted anything, even though I do agree that there has been no messiah.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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).

Good points to which I will add a thought: At the time of the writing of the NT that was all probably obvious, however the Roman Empire fell into decline. The emperors ruined Roman ideals. The Library of Alexandria burned. After several centuries the Germanic tribes broke off much of Roman territory. A very ignorant period lasting a long time followed.

Some people today think that the NT was written to fool people. Well...maybe it was written to fool some people or not, but I don't think it was intended to. Probably it was not intended to be distributed in bookstores to ignorant people. Probably it was intended as a secret communication between Jews about how to handle their current crisis (Roman violence). One theme of the gospels is cooperation with the Romans. So it may have been written to fool Roman authorities and Roman investigators, but I think its message would have been clear to Jews of the time. Most likely these Jews were reeling from the destruction of their temple of peace, and most likely they were wondering how to proceed.

For me this is a personal subject. Many people think that all of these stories about Jesus must be taken literally by me or I'm not a believer. I'm not allowed to notice that maybe these aren't literally about a man who is trying to become Israel's leader. That puts me into the crowd of those who supposedly reject scripture; but I don't reject scripture.

Which brings me to the OP.

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

Kindly spoken, but that is not why. The idea of a final messiah is a pretty one but only because it is the idea that the world enters a final peaceful state. It is fine that Jews keep hoping that the current messiah might be the last one, but that is their way of hoping for an end to the ways of the world. They may hope that, but they don't have a tradition that demands one person fixes everything in one giant bite. Maybe some do, but I think they never did (that I am aware of). I think the NT was not written to people who would think so. This also seems even more obvious if we consider the non-canonical books that often are included with the NT, such as the book of Enoch or the various apocryphal books.

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...

I think the proposition that Jews are waiting for 'The messiah' is faulty to begin with. They hope that the next messiah will be the last, but that isn't the same thing. I don't think the NT writers are trying to fool anyone about that and are just writing in a different time to people with a broad educational background in the classical writings to which Sgt. Pepper refers. The similarities of the stories of Jesus to other stories should be obvious. Also, Judaism stands or falls on its own merits. Christianity does, too; although many people think its a matter of scripture proofs or proofs that Jesus is the messiah or things like that. There is a lot of fluff.

There is a lot of fluff, but there is a lot of love and good will. Christianity cannot be dismissed out of hand. It is not a zero or unimportant thing. It also cannot be erased without hurting a lot of people.

 

[Colt]

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...

You are correct. Jesus wasn’t the Jewish Messiah, he is the Son of God. Jesus didn’t actually claim to be the Messiah, but he did build his ministry on the “anticipation” of a deliverer. Jesus publicly stated that his kingdom is a spiritual fellowship and fir ALL the world, not a self proclaimed chosen few!

This was the problem that Jesus was confronted with, the Jews developed erroneous “expectations” of what the so called Messiah would do based on murky prophetic claims.

We can also see that the Messiah of Judaism is still MIA.

 

[Spiderman]

Prophecies about the Messiah contradict each other, because there will be more than one Messiah. They talk about different people.

 

[dybmh]

Jesus didn’t actually claim to be the Messiah

John 4:25-26

 

[Colt]

John 4:25-26

The coming of the Son of God or deliverer had been envisioned by seers and prophets of old. In Judaism they developed rigid ideas about the form and function of a Jewish Messiah. I suspect that Jesus wasn’t acknowledging that he was the expected Messiah, rather he was in truth the spiritual deliverer which was at least the basis for the false expectation of Judaism.

 

[Fool]

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...

Matthew 1 explains the lineage. FYI, Mary was immaculately conceived too

 

[Fool]

Everything

The coming of the Son of God or deliverer had been envisioned by seers and prophets of old. In Judaism they developed rigid ideas about the form and function of a Jewish Messiah. I suspect that Jesus wasn’t acknowledging that he was the expected Messiah, rather he was in truth the spiritual deliverer which was at least the basis for the false expectation of Judaism.

everything Is begotten of god..

God is the creator of all. Of all heaven, earth, and itself, I am that I am

 

[Fool]

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.

Monism isn't widely understood. People tend to prefer solid material proof and then work backwards. Sometimes spiritual, mental concepts aren't widely grasped. You don't have a clue what you're looking for if you don't have at least an iota, mustard seed, of belief in what you might be looking for. No one goes looking for nothing, no reason.

 

[firedragon]

He failed one of the first OT prophecies

Do you believe the OT prophecies are for the true messiah? Do you believe in the Tanakh?

 

[blü 2]

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...

Not quite.

The Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jew who on his baptism becomes Son of God by adoption (on the model of David's becoming Son of God in Psalm 2:7). He is expressly NOT descended from David, and he says instead that descent from David doesn't matter.

The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke are the result of the divine insemination of a virgin. In each case the claim is made of descent from David, and in each case the claim purports to be demonstrated by a genealogy which is clearly home-made, and which hopelessly clashes with the other. Worse still, it's the genealogy of Joseph, who is expressly NOT Jesus' father.

The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John are said to have pre-existed in heaven and to have been born on earth of a line descended from David. In neither case is that descent otherwise supported, nor even the parents of Jesus named. So perhaps we're left to assume that the spirit of Jesus, descending from heaven, entered a Jewish couple's zygote at conception. Nonetheless, these are the only two versions of Jesus in the NT whose claim of descent from David can't be dismissed from information on the face of the record.

So the final score is Mark, Matthew, Luke NO, Paul. John apparently YES.

 

[Trailblazer]

Prophecies about the Messiah contradict each other, because there will be more than one Messiah. They talk about different people.

I agree. I believe that Jesus was 'a Messiah' but He was not 'the Messiah' for the age we live in because He did not fulfill the prophecies for this age.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

hmm, I am never surprised to read threads such as this...it ignores a second prophecy about the Messiah and the incarnation of the God/man (Jesus) and his elevation to High Priest after his ascension to heaven.

Is it not found in the book of Hebrews (written by/or on behalf of the apostle Paul) that the Messiah was in fact of the order of Melchizzadek?

Heb 5:5 So also Christ did not take upon Himself the glory of becoming a high priest, but He was called by the One who said to Him:

“You are My Son;

today I have become Your Father.”a6And in another passage God says:

“You are a priest forever

in the order of Melchizedek.”

9And having been made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him 10and was designated by God as high priest in the order of Melchizedek​

This would make the claim that in fact the prophecy, concerning Jesus, did not make the singular claim that Jesus is only of the house of David...he is also adopted into the lineage of Melchizzadek (who is of unknown lineage but a priest of the Most High nevertheless).

So in fact we have 3 lineage claims. I do not see a problem because when one studies the theology of the Bible account, the concepts are confusing if the theology has errors in interpretation.

In any case,

" In his book An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, John Damascene argues that Heli of the tribe of Nathan died childless, and Jacob of the tribe of Solomon took his wife and raised up seed to his brother and begat Joseph, in accordance with scripture, namely, yibbum (the mitzvah that a man must marry his brother's childless widow); Joseph, therefore, is by nature the son of Jacob, of the line of Solomon, but by law he is the son of Heli of the line of Nathan.[27]"
​

This would mean that both accounts of Jesus lineage in Luke and Matthew are true....there is no conflict here, and it in facts supports the prophecies concerning Him rather than denying them!

I would also add that the 70 week prophecy in Daniel clearly show that the fulfillment timing was exactly at the date of not only Jesus birth, but also where he was born and to whom. We also cannot ignore that the disciples and subsequent apostles clearly believed that their Lord and Saviour was in fact the very same person who died on the cross and was raised again...the very man who s doubting Thomas falling on his knees stated "my Lord and my God"

 

[Tiberius]

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...

While I agree that Biblical prophecy is a lousy way to confirm anything, I have to take exception with your last sentence, that you have made the case for Judaism stronger. I suspect you are using a false dichotomy. I can say I am either an alien or a t-rex. Since my DNA is built of the same basic building blocks as all other earth life, we can rule out the claim that I am an alien. Therefore, I have provided support for the claim that I am a Tyrannosaurus. Obviously, this logic is ridiculous, yet it seems to be the same kind of logic you are using.

 

[Truth in love]

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...

It might shock you to know that not everyone married only in their tribe.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

The Baha'is believe there was an 'Adam' first human to know God, and more ancient than the Biblical Adam, which is considered symbolic or simply the description of the origins of humanity through Creation of the time it was written in the context of the culture of the time..

Moses remains an open question to me. At present there is no evidence Moses ever existed as described in Exodus nor that the flight from Egypt took place as described, There may be s Moses, but His actual nature as a Mesianic figure that was a part of Hebrew Revelation may be somewhat lost in history, because of a lack of objective evidence..

 

[joelr]

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...

In Romans Paul says he's related in his "earthly life". God manufactured Jesus out of sperm taken directly from David’s belly exactly as prophecy declared he would. Paul’s choice of phrasing is that Paul must be echoing an early belief in some kind of virgin birth theology that was already being attributed to Jesus, that he is describing God manufacturing Jesus’s body in the womb of Mary using Davidic seed.

Dr Carrier explains this in much greater detail:
The Cosmic Seed of David • Richard Carrier


The problem posed is that in Romans 1:3 Paul says Jesus “came from the seed of David according to the flesh,” which historicists insist proves Paul knew Jesus was an ordinary man once living on earth, because this verse proves he believed he was a descendant of David. And a cosmically incarnated Jesus could hardly be descended from David.

But there is in turn a problem with that.

Paul does not say Jesus descended from David or was a descendant of David. Paul never says anything about his even having a father. Or being born. He only ever says his flesh, upon his incarnation, “came from the seed of David,” and was therefore Jewish and messianic flesh. He does not ever explain what he means by “came from.” The word Paul uses can sometimes mean birth in some other authors, but it is not the word Paul ever uses for birth (gennaô); instead, it’s the word he uses for God’s manufacture of Adam’s body from clay, and God’s manufacture of our future resurrection bodies in heaven (ginomai). Neither of which are born or have parents or are descendants of anyone.

In short, what Paul says in Romans 1:3 is, for Paul, weird. It’s weird even if Jesus existed. Christians even found it so weird themselves, they tried doctoring later manuscripts to replace this word that Paul only uses of manufacture and “coming to be,” with Paul’s preferred word for birth. So saying this passage is also weird if Jesus didn’t exist leaves us at a wash.

What I think is most likely is that Paul means what the first Christians he is mimicking no doubt meant, that God manufactured Jesus out of sperm taken directly from David’s belly exactly as prophecy declared he would (a concept already more rational than God manufacturing Eve from a rib taken directly from Adam’s side). Which, if Jesus didn’t exist, would most likely have occurred in outer space (although that’s not necessarily the case—ahistoricity is also compatible with earthly events imagined in distant mythical places, like Eden: OHJ, Ch. 11, n. 67—but the cosmic hypothesis has more evidence and precedent). More on that later. But it is this “cosmic sperm” hypothesis that Tweet thinks is implausible. He ignored, of course, all the evidence I presented in OHJ establishing it is plausible, and indeed the most plausible hypothesis yet on offer. But for now let’s just grasp the nature of the problem before we examine the solution.



"I argued cosmic semen-banking was a plausible belief of premodern Jews, who could imagine things like it happening, without contradiction or challenge…indeed, later Jews even believed David’s sperm was cosmically stolen or banked! By demons; but no Jew would imagine God couldn’t do for good, what demons did for evil. [The previous sentences I have revised for accuracy. I’ve since found better evidence, of Talmudic Jews imagining angelic sperm banking.] I also showed second century Christian sects advanced even stranger cosmic seed scenarios for the birth of Jesus (thus proving it can’t have been unlikely, if it was commonly being contrived). I showed Paul uses the same vocabulary for this incarnation scenario as he does for that of Adam and our future selves, which are likewise cosmic manufacturing: Eden, where Adam was first made, resides in outer space, not only according to known Jewish apocrypha of the time, as I show in OHJ (e.g. in the Life of Adam and Eve), but according to Paul himself, in 2 Corinthians 12:1-5; and our future resurrection bodies are likewise manufactured in outer space according to Paul, in 2 Corinthians 5:1-5.

And Christianity evolved from a sect of Judaism heavily influenced by Zoroastrian beliefs (see Not the Impossible Faith, Chapter 3). The very concept of an eschatological messiah and an end-times resurrection of the dead are actually Zoroastrian (as are belief in a burning hell, and a Satan as God’s adversary), imported into Judaism by cultural diffusion just a few centuries before Christianity arose.

Note how absurd and implausible both beliefs are. A mass resurrection of all the world’s dead!? An immortal superhero coming from outer space to save us!? (Indeed: 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) If Jews had no qualms about adopting those absurd beliefs, they could hardly have scrupled against adopting notions of cosmic sperm banking. As we know other Jews did, and Zoroastrians as well, even specifically in their messianic model, the original messianic ideology the Jews developed theirs from. If other Jews and Zoroastrians could easily adopt such a belief into their system, Christians could easily have done as well. There simply isn’t any case to be made that that would be “too weird” to have happened. It’s not even too weird to be probable.

Covington adds another apt observation, pointing out that Revelation 12:1-5 “may even be a confirmation that the early Christian community believed in a Jesus who was born (and presumably conceived) in the heavens,” since that’s essentially just what it says. The mother of Jesus is there a celestial figure giving birth to Jesus in outer space, and there hunted by a ravenous space dragon. What part of this is allegory and what part their real belief? What is the mystery, and what the veil behind which the mystery is hidden?

 

[PruePhillip]

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...

I think it says Jesus was the son of Joseph 'as was supposed' - meaning the link is symbolic.
Same as Jesus was 'supposed' to have come from Nazareth.
Everything in scripture is symbolic.
Jesus is symbolically of the priesthood of Melchisedec - he who was both king and priest in Jerusalem. So there's no Melchisedec's genealogy.
This Jesus is he who is mentioned by David in Psalm 22 and 69, and Isaiah 52/53 - the suffering and reigning Messiah.
Zechariah says the Jews will mourn when they see their king coming to them, but realise it's the same lowly man they crucified.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Do you have any idea if Jews keep genealogical records these days?

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha'is believe there was an 'Adam' first human to know God, and more ancient than the Biblical Adam, which is considered symbolic or simply the description of the origins of humanity through Creation of the time it was written in the context of the culture of the time.

Yes, I know that and believe it and it makes sense to me.

Moses remains an open question to me. At present there is no evidence Moses ever existed as described in Exodus nor that the flight from Egypt took place as described, There may be s Moses, but His actual nature as a Mesianic figure that was a part of Hebrew Revelation may be somewhat lost in history, because of a lack of objective evidence..

I don't believe the Moses as described in Exodus in the Hebrew scriptures exists, but I believe what Baha'u'llah wrote about Moses in the Kitab-i-Iqan. That's about as far as it goes.