• 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!

Messiah the son of Joseph

rosends

Well-Known Member
Jacob, whose name was changed to "Israel' was the father of all the 13 tribes of Israel. Because Dan was sterile and had no children of his own, after the death of his mother, he adopted his young sister 'Hushim', the daughter of his mother 'Bilhah', which child was conceived from the rape of Reuben the first born of Israel.
A lovely story. Of course, it flies in the face of so much (including that Chushim was a son, not a daughter) and is not spoken of as adopted anywhere in the text or commentaries. You, no doubt, want to tie this all into Chronicles 1:8 which has a female named Chushim but there, you also have a person named Shacharim (who was actually Bo'az). Chushim, son of Dan was deaf but plays an important role in a certain biblical figure's death.
The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded..as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b).” In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house.
An orphan, brought up is regarded as like a biological child for certain religious laws. However this is not adoption and is not about tribal lineage. If you are going to cut and paste from some "debating Christianity" website, you should check sources. Sanhedrin has no 119 b. You mean 19b, which states that if one takes in an orphan, the text elevates him to the status as having given birth to the child for the sake of honor/respecting parents, certain laws of partial claim to inheritance (see the Petach Einayim) and how one is referred to in some rituals. Jumping to any other conclusions is pure invention.
Whenever a man had no sons his eldest daughter, through who his genetic line would be counted, was given the appellation 'ben.'
Ah, like the 5 daughters of Tzlophchad who were called daughters even though their father had no son.
Do you know why the descendants of 'Hushim' the first born of Reuben, who was the first born of Israel, is not counted among the 144,000 chosen ones, rosends?
Because your notion of the 144,000 is not part of Jewish thought so is useless? Yeah, that must be it. You can debate that on the other thread about the "144,000" or on that debating Christianity site from which you copied all of this.
The Messiah does not come through the line of Ephraim, but through the tribe of Levi (Nathan the son of Uriah and Bathsheba, the adopted son of David, and ancestor of Mary and Joseph the parents of Jesus) and the tribe of Judah (Solomon the biological son of David and Bathsheba, the ancestor of Joseph the son of Jacob,), Jesus our King and high priest.
So then all the sources that refer to the Messiah, Son of Ephraim must be wrong. They must also not be trusted when they talk about a Messiah the son of Joseph. Feel free to throw out the entire idea. And the rest of this muddled lineage claim simply makes no sense.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
You say that Messiah son of Joseph does not appear in scripture, but is Zechariah 9:9 not the root of the thinking behind two Messiahs?
Even were this so, the "root of the thinking" is not the same as "appears in scripture."
Zech. 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***.'

How does one marry together a King coming with the clouds of heaven, and a King 'lowly, and riding upon an ***'?
maybe try a better translation
"Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion; Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem! Lo, your king is coming to you. He is victorious, triumphant, Yet humble, riding on an ***, On a donkey foaled by a she-***."

the donkey (chamor) could have been foaled by a horse, so the text clarifies and points out that it is still young (based on the use of the word "ayir").
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No, that's just your new guess. This way you can have a Son of Joseph reincarnated which justifies your idea of a second coming. Of course, this wouldn't work according to the rabbinic writings, but whatever. There is no state of "adopted" under Jewish law. One can raise an orphan, but there is no adoption status that confers tribal lineage.

David is called the father of Jesus in the gospels, and this applies whatever you want to make of the genealogies in the Gospels.
Considering the lack of a Law adoption and the status of the adopted child, you are arguing from a position of not knowing the status. If there was a Law that prohibited an adopted child to be of the same tribe as the adopting father, you might have a leg to stand on. You are arguing from a position of a lack of a law.
The truth is that Joseph took Mary, his promised bride, who was pregnant, and married her and raised the child as his own, along with any other children that he had. Joseph was of the tribe of Judah and lineage of David and so Jesus was born into that and raised in that as a member of Judah.
If Jesus had married then his children would have been of the tribe of Judah without any Law prohibiting that.

But that's what the website YOU quoted cites as its evidence. So if you want to discount it, then you should not use it as any proof at all.

The website does not say the P.Rabbati is God's Word, all it does is use Jewish sources to show the thoughts on the lineage of Messiah Ben Joseph. The Bible clearly trumps any Jewish thoughts on the matter. There does not appear to be anything in the scriptures about a Messiah coming through the line of Joseph, it is no more than imagination of Jews that do that.

It's nice to have made up texts that invent claims.

The New Testament is just a part of God's Word that you do not accept.
Jesus is the Word of God and all things were made through the Word of God in the Hebrew scriptures.
Some Christians also see the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 as a reference to Jesus.

Um, first off, you want to discount it because it is not the word of God. Then you want to use it but ignore what it actually says. It refers to the light and the Soton asks "to whom is this light that you have hidden under your seat?" (unless you think that God stowed a living, speaking person under his chair or that the medrash is a literal description of actual events)
...אור שנגנז תחת כסא הכבוד שלך למי א"ל למי שהוא עתיד

I did not discount it as revealing the lineage of Messiah Ben Joseph in Jewish thought, I just discounted it as God's Word. It certainly reveals the thoughts of the lineage, but that does not mean those thoughts are right.

So you are left with an incomplete quote from the Rasag who says that the appearance of the Son of Joseph messiah isn't inevitable, and some interpretations (nice to have those, right?) and a reference to a dubious text of no authority. OK. You should be, I would think, happy to ignore any idea of a Son of Joseph messiah. Why you would agree that there is no textual proof ("There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures which show a Messiah from the line of Joseph.") and yet still defend a text which makes the argument anyway makes no sense.

There is no textual proof of any Messiah from the line of Joseph, true, but that does not eliminate the scriptures that point to a suffering Messiah. I just reject any line of Joseph idea that Jews have come up with and refer you to the New Testament story of a suffering Messiah who is resurrected and ascended to God to be presented with a Kingdom (as in Daniel 7:13,14) and to sit at God's right hand till all His enemies are put under His feet (Ps 110) and then will return as the triumphant Messiah Ben David.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
David is called the father of Jesus in the gospels, and this applies whatever you want to make of the genealogies in the Gospels.
So whether or not he is, he is called it. Got it.
Considering the lack of a Law adoption and the status of the adopted child, you are arguing from a position of not knowing the status. If there was a Law that prohibited an adopted child to be of the same tribe as the adopting father, you might have a leg to stand on. You are arguing from a position of a lack of a law.
I think your logic is a bit screwy. Jewish law is very clear on the relationship between a child brought up in a house and the parents who raised him. But there is no law passing down tribal lineage. Claiming that this is what happens therefore is an invention unsupported by any Jewish law or precedent. I am not making a claim -- others are, that tribal lineage is passed down in cases of adoption. But since there is no law of adoption or law passing down lineage to a non-biological child, that claim is empty.
The truth is that Joseph took Mary, his promised bride, who was pregnant, and married her and raised the child as his own, along with any other children that he had. Joseph was of the tribe of Judah and lineage of David and so Jesus was born into that and raised in that as a member of Judah.
That's not a truth. That's a claim. It is contradicted by Jewish law.
If Jesus had married then his children would have been of the tribe of Judah without any Law prohibiting that.
One would need a low ALLOWING it and such a law doesn't exist. When Tzlophchad had only daughters, and there was no law indicating the inheritance as it relates to daughters, they didn't yell "Hey, there's no law saying we don't inherit so we inherit!" They went to Moses and said "because there is no law saying we inherit, we will get nothing" so he presented a law saying that they CAN inherit. Without a law allowing for the exceptional case, the case is not an exception.

The website does not say the P.Rabbati is God's Word,
I don't recall saying that it does. But if you dismiss it because it isn't God's word, then you should be consistent and dismiss it -- not allow for its authority when it says something you like.
all it does is use Jewish sources to show the thoughts on the lineage of Messiah Ben Joseph. The Bible clearly trumps any Jewish thoughts on the matter. There does not appear to be anything in the scriptures about a Messiah coming through the line of Joseph, it is no more than imagination of Jews that do that.
Great -- you do't have to tell me. Tell it to the OP who insists that the Son of Joseph is a thing.

The New Testament is just a part of God's Word that you do not accept.
Just like the talmud! Thanks.
Jesus is the Word of God and all things were made through the Word of God in the Hebrew scriptures.
Some Christians also see the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 as a reference to Jesus.
And some Muslims see references to Mohammed in the Song of Songs. People see weird things, amirite?


It certainly reveals the thoughts of the lineage, but that does not mean those thoughts are right.
Great, so they are wrong and you dismiss them as such. That works for me, as long as you are consistent.

There is no textual proof of any Messiah from the line of Joseph, true, but that does not eliminate the scriptures that point to a suffering Messiah. I just reject any line of Joseph idea that Jews have come up with and refer you to the New Testament story of a suffering Messiah who is resurrected and ascended to God to be presented with a Kingdom (as in Daniel 7:13,14) and to sit at God's right hand till all His enemies are put under His feet (Ps 110) and then will return as the triumphant Messiah Ben David.
Yeah, um...this is all other silliness which has been dealt with and dismissed elsewhere. Have fun with that. Meanwhile, go tell the OP that there is no Messiah son of Joseph. You will become part of the conspiracy.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
How is ben Joseph different than Elijah then in this regard?
Elijah acts as a herald, announcing, but the Son of Joseph is seen as a military leader. The Saadia Gaon section I quoted says this, "This man will go to Jerusalem after its seizure by the Romans and stay in it for a certain length of time. Then they will be surprised by a man named Armilus, who will wage war against them and conquer the city and subject its inhabitants to massacre, captivity and disgrace. Included among those that will be slain will be that man from among the descendants of Joseph…As a result of what has happened to them, many will desert their faith, only those purified remaining. To these Elijah the prophet will manifest himself, and thus the redemption will come"
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Here's something worth giggling over...
People seem to like to quote the talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 19b which states (as was quoted)
"The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded..as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b).” In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house."

This supposedly proves that tribal lineage changes when someone takes in a child.

If you know anything about the talmud then you know the precision of language in it. The text in this case uses the phrase "מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו" (transliterated as "ma'aleh alav hakatuv k'ilu"). This literally translates to something like "the biblical text raises him up as if". This is a technical term that speaks about how a person is regarded -- it is not a statement of a change in identity in any real sense. In fact, the talmud says that one who "loses" a life of a Jew "is considered as if" (מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו) he had destroyed the whole world. This is clearly not a pronouncement of fact with literal religious-law implications.

Of course, one might want to say "but it is as if he bore the child, so then the tribe changes." Then, you have to look at a statement just a few lines down in the talmudic text:

"Kol hamelamed ben chaveiro Torah, ma’aleh alav hakatuv ke’ilu yelado / Whoever teaches someone else’s child Torah, it is as if he himself bore him. "

So by that logic, the language being identical, one who teaches someone else's child Torah would also be changing that child's tribal lineage in the exact same way. Is that really the claim being made? Because that's what the talmud says.

Or is consistency too much to ask?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Even were this so, the "root of the thinking" is not the same as "appears in scripture."

maybe try a better translation
"Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion; Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem! Lo, your king is coming to you. He is victorious, triumphant, Yet humble, riding on an ***, On a donkey foaled by a she-***."

the donkey (chamor) could have been foaled by a horse, so the text clarifies and points out that it is still young (based on the use of the word "ayir").

Do you understand these passages to be two Messiah's, one leading to another, or one Messiah in two guises?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Do you understand these passages to be two Messiah's, one leading to another, or one Messiah in two guises?
There are as number of interpretations among rabbinic commentators but they all agree that the verse 9:9 about a singular person at a singular moment, with a singular identity. That person might be the Messiah from the line of Dave, the messiah from the line of Joseph, Judah Maccabe, or the biblical Nechemia. So the answer to your question would be "no."
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Elijah acts as a herald, announcing, but the Son of Joseph is seen as a military leader. The Saadia Gaon section I quoted says this, "This man will go to Jerusalem after its seizure by the Romans and stay in it for a certain length of time. Then they will be surprised by a man named Armilus, who will wage war against them and conquer the city and subject its inhabitants to massacre, captivity and disgrace. Included among those that will be slain will be that man from among the descendants of Joseph…As a result of what has happened to them, many will desert their faith, only those purified remaining. To these Elijah the prophet will manifest himself, and thus the redemption will come"

I understand Armilus is a corruption of Romulus, Rome. Rome is also connected with Esau and Edom. There seems to be an underlying theme that Esau/Edom/Rome is a circumlocution for Christianity.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I find it remarkable that Jewish scholars, using the Hebrew scriptures alone, have managed to develop such a vast body of knowledge that contains all the seeds of truth.

The great unsolved mystery for Jews seems to have been the Church, the body of Christ. In the prophecies of Isaiah, for example, the first and second advents of Christ are sometimes hidden in a single sentence. There is no clearly defined Church Age. Not surprisingly, rabbis have had great difficulty explaining how Messiah the son of Joseph could be so different from Messiah son of David.

I recently came across this interesting passage in the Talmud.

Sukkah 51b-52a.
'What is the cause of mourning [mentioned in the last cited verse - Zech.12:12]? - R. Dosa and the Rabbis differ on the point. One explained, The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, The cause is the slaying of the Evil Inclination.
It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son [Zech. 12:10], but according to him who explains the cause to be the slaying of the Evil Inclination, is this [it may be objected] an occasion for mourning? Is it not rather an occasion for rejoicing? Why then should they weep? - [The explanation is] as R. Judah expounded: In the time to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the Evil Inclination and slay it in the presence of the righteous and the wicked. To the righteous it will have the appearance of a towering hill, and to the wicked it will have the appearance of a hair thread. Both the former and the latter will weep; the righteous will weep, saying, 'How were we able to overcome such a towering hill!' The wicked also will weep saying, 'How is it that we were unable to conquer this hair thread!' And the Holy One, blessed be He, will also marvel together with them, as it is said, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, it shall also be marvellous in My eyes.' [Zech. 8:6]

In another book, A Rabbinic Anthology [Selected by C.G. Montefiore and H.Loewe], there was an extract from a Midrashic compilation known as the Pesikta Rabbathi which describes at length the sufferings of the Messiah. It's too long to quote in full, but it contains these amazing lines, "'Afflicted and riding on an ***' That is the Messiah. Why is he called afflicted? Because he was afflicted all those years in the prison, and the transgressors in Israel laughed at him. And why riding upon an ***? Because the transgressors have no merit, ....but through his merit God protects them, and leads them on a level way, and redeems them.....'In thy light we shall see light.' What is this light that the congregation of Israel looks for? That is the light of the Messiah, as it is said, 'God saw the light and it was good.'

Is modern Judaism being honest to its ancient scholarship, or is it systematically attempting to eradicate the points of contact between Judaism and Christianity?

Are there not a large number of prophecies to the 'suffering servant' [Messiah son of Joseph] that fail to gain recognition as Messianic prophecies?

In a nutshell, are you stating that the Jewish Mashiah ben yosef is Jesus Christ?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
There are as number of interpretations among rabbinic commentators but they all agree that the verse 9:9 about a singular person at a singular moment, with a singular identity. That person might be the Messiah from the line of Dave, the messiah from the line of Joseph, Judah Maccabe, or the biblical Nechemia. So the answer to your question would be "no."

Thanks for all your responses. One last question, in bits.

If there is to be a single Messiah in the future, but no single Suffering Servant, how do you envisage the coming of that single Messiah [son of David]?

Will the coming Messiah be born in the city of David and rule Israel from Jerusalem, without ever facing rejection or death?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
In a nutshell, are you stating that the Jewish Mashiah ben yosef is Jesus Christ?

Yes, but I also believe Jesus Christ fulfils the role of Messiah son of David at his reappearance in judgment. Of course, like all Christians, I have the New Testament to help me unlock the Hebrew scriptures.

Like David before him, Jesus was anointed by God well before being raised to the throne as king over Judah and Israel.

I believe Messiah son of Joseph is a way for Jewish scholars to explain certain awkward passages of scripture, such as Zech. 9:9 and Zech.12:10, not to mention significant others, including Psalm 22 and a bunch in Isaiah.

If you do away with the idea of Messiah son of Joseph, you are left with a Messiah son of David, the coming King. Mercy will then be replaced by judgment, to my understanding.

If the New Testament had been written in Hebrew, would history have been very different?
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes, but I also believe Jesus Christ fulfils the role of Messiah son of David at his reappearance in judgment. Of course, like all Christians, I have the New Testament to help me unlock the Hebrew scriptures.

Like David before him, Jesus was anointed by God (using the prophet Samuel) well before being raised to the throne as king over Judah and Israel.

I believe Messiah son of Joseph is a way for Jewish scholars to explain certain awkward passages of scripture, such as Zech. 9:9 and Zech.12:10, not to mention significant others, including Psalm 22 and a bunch in Isaiah.

If you do away with the idea of Messiah son of Joseph, you are left with a Messiah son of David, the coming King. Mercy will then be replaced by judgment, to my understanding.

If the New Testament had been written in Hebrew, would history have been very different?

1. To be clear, you contend that Messiah son of David, and Messiah son of Joseph are one and the same and that is Jesus?

2. Why do you ask this question "If" the New Testament was written in Hebrew? Well, I don't know what difference it would have made in world history. Maybe huge, maybe nil, but its based on an "if" so cannot be answered without a humungous analysis and probability calculations that would take a Turin test.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
A lovely story. Of course, it flies in the face of so much (including that Chushim was a son, not a daughter) and is not spoken of as adopted anywhere in the text or commentaries. You, no doubt, want to tie this all into Chronicles 1:8 which has a female named Chushim but there, you also have a person named Shacharim (who was actually Bo'az). Chushim, son of Dan was deaf but plays an important role in a certain biblical figure's death.

An orphan, brought up is regarded as like a biological child for certain religious laws. However this is not adoption and is not about tribal lineage. If you are going to cut and paste from some "debating Christianity" website, you should check sources. Sanhedrin has no 119 b. You mean 19b, which states that if one takes in an orphan, the text elevates him to the status as having given birth to the child for the sake of honor/respecting parents, certain laws of partial claim to inheritance (see the Petach Einayim) and how one is referred to in some rituals. Jumping to any other conclusions is pure invention.

Ah, like the 5 daughters of Tzlophchad who were called daughters even though their father had no son.

Because your notion of the 144,000 is not part of Jewish thought so is useless? Yeah, that must be it. You can debate that on the other thread about the "144,000" or on that debating Christianity site from which you copied all of this.

So then all the sources that refer to the Messiah, Son of Ephraim must be wrong. They must also not be trusted when they talk about a Messiah the son of Joseph. Feel free to throw out the entire idea. And the rest of this muddled lineage claim simply makes no sense.

The five daughters of Zelophehad from the tribe of Manasseh the actual first born son of Joseph, who were Mahlah, Noa, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah, all married their first cousins as was the custom of the Israelites. Numbers 27.

Is Mahlah, the first born daughter of Zelophehad, a male or female name?

See 1 Chronicles 7: 18; Gilead’s sister Hammolecheth had three sons, Ishod, Abiezer, and Mahlah.,

Hushim, the daughter of Dan married her first cousin Shaharaim, from the tribe of Benjamin, who sired to her two sons, Abitub and Elpaal, who were also called Muppim and Huppim the descendants of Benjamin.

When Levi went to reside in Egypt, he took his three sons with him, and they were Gershon, Korath, and Merari.

Korath, the second born of Levi, had four sons, Amram , Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, the firstborn of the four being Amram, who married Jochebed, his father’s sister, who were the parents of Miriam, Aaron, and Moses.

The second born son of Korath was Izhar, who had no sons, the source of his descendants is through his only daughter ‘Shelomith’ who united with her first cousin Amminadab, and bore Korah to carry on her father’s name.

In 1Chronicles 6: 22; “These are the descendants of Kohath from generation to generation: Amminadab, Korah, Assir, Elkanah, Ebiasaph, Assir, Tahath, Uriel, Uzziah, Shaul.

The progeny of Korath is counted through Amminadab from the tribe of Judah, whose sister ‘Elisheba’ was the wife of Aaron.

Korah, the grandson of Izhar the second born son of Korath, and 250 of his clan, who were not of the seed of Aaron, were incinerated by the fire of the Lord, as a warning to the Israelites that no one who was not of the seed of Aaron should come to the alter to burn incense for the Lord.

Gill’s notes on the bible; Notwithstanding, all the children of Korah died not. Neither of the pestilence, nor by fire, nor by the swallowing up of the earth; they not being in the counsel of their father, but followed the doctrine of Moses the prophet, as the Targum of Jonathan; they either disliked their father's scheme, or, if they engaged with him in it, they repented and departed from him, and were not present when the judgments of God came upon him and his company; there were several of his posterity who were singers in the times of David, and to whom many of the psalms were sent to be sung.

The sons of Uriah were members of the tribe of Levi through their mother Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Oded-Edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi, by his second wife Jepunniah, an Ethiopian woman, [See Numbers 12: 1; KJV] who was the widow of a man from the tribe of Judah, and the mother of Caleb, who, at the age of forty, became the adopted son of Moses, and Jepunniah was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two fathers-in-law to Moses, [See Judges 4: 11.] Hobab was also the brother-in-law to Moses, as both were the sons, or rather the sons-in-law of Jethro,

Orthodox Jews, who believe that matrilineality and matriarchy within Judaism are related to the metaphysical concept of the Jewish soul, maintain that matrilineal descent is an oral law from at least the time of the covenant at Sinai (c. 1310 BCE).

The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 19b).” In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house, which means, that Heli and his descendants, who were born from the genetic line of Nathan ‘the prophet,’ who was the adopted son of King David, were legitimate heirs to King David, although originally, not to the throne of Israel, as the prophesied Messiah had to come through the genetic line of Solomon.

Heli and his descendants only became heirs to the throne of David, through Nathan the adopted son of King David, when Naria, a descendant of Nathan, married Tamar, a female descendant of King Solomon, who bore to Naria a son by the name “Salathiel.” After the death of Naria, Tamar was taken to wife by King Jehoiachin, whose only biological son with Tamar, was Zedekiah who died prematurely in Childhood.

According to Torah law, Nathan the adopted son of King David, and Nathan’s descendants, were legitimate heirs of King David, but not in the ancestral line of the promised Messiah, who was to be born of the seed of Solomon, until Naria the descendant of Nathan coupled with Tamar the descendant of Solomon, to produce Salathiel the ancestor of Jesus, who has been made High Priest (From the tribe of Levi=Nathan) and King (From the tribe of Judah=Solomon) in the order of Melchizedek.

David Hughes the noted Genealogist of the Ancient World Lineages, states that King Jeconiah’s only son, with Queen Tamar, ‘Prince Zedekiah,’ died prematurely in childhood, and in 586 BCE King Zedekiah, the last king of Israel, whose original name Mattaniah, was the son of Josiah and the uncle of Jehoiachin. King Zedekiah/Mattaniah, was taken prisoner and his sons were executed in front of him, after which, his eyes were gouged out, and there in Babylon, he remained blinded in exile for the rest of his life and it appeared that the entire royal lineage of King David through God’s chosen son, Solomon, had been exterminated.

With all the known direct lineages of male heirs to the lineage of King Solomon the son of King David and Bathsheba now extinct, Queen Tamar II became the dynastic heiress preserving not only the Lineage of King Solomon, but also became the inter-dynastic link, or the vital crossover heiress merging the non-royal Nathan lineage with the royal lineages of King Solomon. With the addition of Tamar representing the mainline descendants of King David, we now can understand the linkage between the two prime royal and non-royal lineages to the ancestry of the Jewish Messiah Yehoshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph the son of Alexander Helios a descendant of Nathan).

Jesus carried in his genes the potent fusion of Davidian and Zadokian bloodlines. He carried the potent bloodline of the royal mantle as a Priest-King of Israel and the messianic mantle as the Maschiach Yisra’el (Messiah of Israel) of the House of David.

Hebrew 5: 10; “And God declared him (Jesus) to be high priest according to the priestly order of Melchizedek.” Melchizedek held the titles of both King and high priest. Hebrew 5: 5; “In the same way, Christ did not take upon himself the honor of being high priest. Instead, God said to him, ‘You are my Son; TODAY I have become your Father.’”

BTW, I do not cut and paste from other "debating Christianity" websites, Perhaps you have read my beliefs as to the daughter of Dan from my posts in other Christian forums, which are under the name ‘The S-word’ of ‘The Tongue’ or perhaps ‘Gentorev.’ Or some other name I was using at the time.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Continued from post #36.

Hushim, from whom the tribe of Dan is counted, was born the daughter of “Bilhah” the mother of Dan the sterile giant, after she had been raped by Reuben the firstborn son of Israel=Jacob.

Samson, whose ancestor was Bilhah the mother of Dan, was known as a great womaniser, but Like the giant Dan, he too was apparently sterile, even Manoah, the father of Samson appears to have been sterile, and his wife was only able to conceive after being visited by a messenger of the Lord.

From the Testament of Reuben the first born of Jacob/Israel 3: 11; “Had I not seen Bilhah bathing in a covered place, I had not fallen into this great iniquity. For my mind taking in the thought of the woman’s nakedness, suffered me not ‘to sleep’ until I had wrought the abominable thing. For while Jacob our father had gone to Isaac his father when we were in Eder, near to Ephrath in Bethlehem, Bilhah became drunk [During the harvest festival] and was asleep uncovered in her chamber. Having therefore gone in and beheld her nakedness, I wrought the impiety without her perceiving it, and leaving her sleeping I departed.

From the Testament of Benjamin 1: 3; “As Isaac was born to Abraham in his old age, so was I to Jacob, and since Rachel my mother died in giving me birth, I had no milk: therefore, I was suckled by Bilhah her hand maid. [The mother of the 14 yearold Dan, was Bilhah, who had been raped by Reuben, was apparently lactating at that time.] Hushim, was the child born of Bilhah from the rape of Reuben and she was adopted by her older brother, the sterile giant Dan after the death of their mother Bilhah.

Hushim married Shaharaim from the tribe of Benjamin, to whom she bore “Abitub,” through who the line of Dan was counted, and Elpaal was her other son, who is the ancestor of Saul the first king of Israel, who stood a head taller than any other Israelite. See 1 Samuel 10: 23.

Shaharaim is not counted among the descendants of Israel who went into Egypt Genesis 46: because he had already divorced Hushim the mother of Huppim and huppim before then, and he had moved into the land of Moab, amd married a woman by the name ‘Hodesh’ from where, MUCH LATER, came Ruth the mother of Jesse. but Hushim and her two sons, Abitub and Elpaal, who were also called Huppim and Shuppim are counted among the family of Benjamin, who went down into Egypt. See Genesis 46. See 1st Chronicles 7: 4-12, where the descendants of Benjamin and Dan are counted together.

“The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 19b).” In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house." Where ever a man has no sons, and his descendants are counted from his daughter, she is given the appellation "BEN." Hushim ben Dan is the half-sister and adopted daughter of Dan, who married into the tribe of Benjamin and through whose son Abitub, the tribe of Dan is counted.

The tribe of Dan, were the sons of Hushim the first born of Reuben the first born of Jacob/Israel. The Father of Hushims descendants [The tribe of Dan,] was Shaharaim from the tribe of Benjamin. See 1st Chronicles 8: 8-9; and 7: 12, where "Hushim ben Dan," is counted in among the descendants of Benjamin, Hushim's two sons "Abitub and Elpaal" are here referred to as "Shuppim and Huppim," as they are in Genesis 46 and 1st Chronicles 7: 12.

Although Dan was the fifth born son of Israel, because ‘Leah’ was the first and only true wife of Jacob, her six sons received the first six blessings of Israel, while Dan received the seventh blessing and the seventh allorment of Land in the promised kingdom. See Joshua 19: 40.

The tribe of Dan, who was counted as the seventh born son of Israel, received the seventh allotment in the Promised Land. But being unable to drive out the original inhabitants in the open country that was allocated to them, they were forced to live in the hill country among their brother tribe “Benjamin.”

See Judges 1: 34; “The Armorites forced the people of the tribe of Dan into the hill country and would not let them come down to the plains.”

The only inhabitants of the land of Benjamin who survived the slaughter of that tribe, were 600 fighting men from the tribe of Dan, (Who were actually descendants of Shaharaim the Benjaminite) who took refuge at the rock of Rimon in the open country, which had been allocated to Dan.

In 1st Chronicles 7: 4-12; Benjamin and Dan the adopted father of Hushim are counted together and in chapter 8: 8-11; Shahariam is the father of Hushims two sons Abitub and Elpaal. “ABI” means “FATHER” and it is through Abitub the grandson of Dan through his adopted daughter “HUSHIM” that the tribe of Dan is counted.

Judges 17: There was a man called Micah, who lived in the hill country of Ephraim and he hired a young Levite from Bethlehem to stay with him and be his priest. That Young Levite was Jonathan the grandson of Moses, whose concubine ran away and returned to her family in Bethlehem. Jonathan followed her to Bethlehem and convinced her to return with him, but in the Benjaminite city of Gibeah she was raped and sodomised to death by some nogooders from that tribe.

Jonathan then cut her body into 12 pieces and sent one to each of the 12 tribes demanding that they do something about it. See Judges 20: 3-7. The Israelites then demanded that the tribe of Benjamin hand over the guilty perverts for execution, but they ignored them and instead they gathered together 400,000 trained soldiers into the city of Gibeah from all the surrounding Benjaminite cities to defend themselves from any attack that was bound to follow.

The Covenant box of the Lord was at Bethel in those days, and Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron and cousin to Jonathan the grandson of Moses, was in charge of the covenant box. It was through Phinehas that the Lord commanded the Israelites to attack Benjamin.

The Israelites were defeated in their first attack, having lost 22,000 soldiers they retreated to lick their wounds. In their second attack they lost another 18,000 trained Israelite soldiers as they were once again roundly defeated.

In their third attack, the Israelites put some 10 thousand especially chosen troops in hiding around the city of Gibeah, then the main force faced up against the Benjaminites on the main road to the city, planning to retreat before the enemy which leapt from the walls as they had done in the two previous attacks, once they had lured the main force of the Benjaminite army far away from the city, the surrounding Israelites left their hiding place and attacked the city killing all within it and setting it alight.

When the retreating Israelites saw the smoke rising from the city, they turned upon the advancing Benjaminites who were caught between the two armies and were slaughtered.

Judges 20: 47-48; “Six hundred men were able to escape to the open country to the Rimmon Rock, which is situated in the coastal land that was allocated to Dan and there they stayed for four months. The Israelites then turned back against the rest of the Benjaminites and killed them all-----men, women and children, and animals as well.

Judges 21: 6-12; The children of Israel grieved for Benjamin their brother, and said, “Today Israel has lost one of its tribes.

7 How shall we provide wives for those who remain, since we have sworn by the Lord that we will not give them of our daughters to wives?”

8 They said, “What one is there of the tribes of Israel who didn’t come up to the Lord to Mizpah?” Behold, no one came from Jabesh Gilead to the camp to the assembly.

9 For when the people were counted, behold, there were none of the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead there.

10 The congregation sent twelve thousand of the most valiant men there, and commanded them, saying, “Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the little ones.

11 This is the thing that you shall do: you shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman who has lain with a man.”

12 They found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins, who had not known man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

All the women in the land of Benjamin had been butchered, so, in order to save the tribe from total extinction, wives had to be found for the 600 survivors of the tribe that was lost, which 600 men were the descendants of Shaharaim and Hushim of the tribe of Dan, so they were given 400 virgins, who were the descendants of Dinah the twin sister of Zebulun whose descendants issured from Shechem by whom Dinah had been raped as a 12 yearold girl.

Zebulun the twin brother to Dinah, was the sixth born son of Leah the only true wife of Israel, whose six sons received the first six blessings of Israel, that is why Dan, the actual 5th born son of Israel had to receive the seventh blessing, and Dinah, the seventh born of Israel, who is said to have been born on the seventh hour of the seventh day of the seventh month of that Jubilee of 49 years, 7x7=49; divides the six sons of Leah, from the six sons of the mothers of Israel’s other six sons.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Continued from post #37.

The tribe of Dan of the seventh blessing from Jacob/Israel, who was allocated the seventh allotment of land in the promised kingdom, married into the children of Dinah the seventh child of Leah.

Because they were short, 200 wives, the 600 survivors were allowed to steal 200 virgins from the other 11 of Israel’s 13 tribes,, who had made a solemn vow before God, to never allow one of their daughters to marry a member of the tribe of Benjamin, which vow was witnessed by Phinehas the grandson of Aaron.


The Israelites who had repented for slaughtering the 12th tribe of Benjamin, turned their backs while the sons of Hushim the daughter of Dan and Shaharaim the Benjaminite, stole 200 of the virgins who were dancing at the festival at Shiloh, and this is rape in any man's language. The six hundred Danites were to later recruit “Jonathan the grandson of Moses” as their priest, stealing also the silver idol of Micah, which I believe was an Eagle, a typical symbol for the hill country of Manasseh where Jonathan had lived in the house of Micah.

None from the tribe of Dan, the brother tribe to Benjamin, were among the 11 tribes, who slaughtered every man, woman, and child in the country of Benjamin See Judges 20: 47; nor are any from the tribe of Dan counted among the 144000 chosen from the 12 tribes of Israel in Revelation 7: 4.

The 600 Danites moved up into the land of Sidon after the land of Benjamin was later divided among the tribe of Judah and the 10 northern tribes of Israel (Levi not counted among them) it was then that a pseudo tribe of Benjamin was created, which pseudo tribe was counted from the daughters of Benjamin, who had married into the other tribes before the slaughter of the tribe of Benjamin.

1st kings 12: 31; When Rehoboam arrived in Jerusalem, he called together 180,000 of the best soldiers from the tribes of Judah and the (PSEUDO) tribe of Benjamin. (BUT) we have just read in the previous verse (30) after the 10 northern tribes had abandoned Rehoboam the son of Solomon, it is said, that ONLY the tribe of JUDAH remained loyal to David's descendants.

Ps 68: verses 24 and 27; (24) “O God your march of triumph is seen by all, the procession of God, my king, into his Sanctuary” (within His New Temple, that replaces his old tabernacle) ------ (27) “First comes Benjamin, the smallest tribe, etc”


Benjamin, was the youngest and beloved son of Jacob, born of Rachel the love of his life. And of Benjamin, it is said in Deuteronomy 33: 12; “This is the tribe that the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, loves and protects: He guards them all day long, and he dwells in their midst.”

After the 600 descendants of Shaharaim, who belonged to the tribe of Dan and who were unable to remove the original inhabitants from the land they were allocated, had now lost the land of Benjamin in which they had lived. See Joshua 19: 47; The 600 survivors from the tribe of Dan all fighting men ready for battle, with their wives, children and all their possessions, Judges 18: 21; (They weren’t coming back) moved up into the land of Sidon the first born of Canaan, where, in the ships of Dan they became seafaring merchants, and that tribe, who had taken as their priest, Jonathan the grandson of Moses, can be found in the Greco-Roman Empire, which according to Legend was founded by the two brothers, Romulus (Benjamin who was killed when he leaped the wall) and Remus (Dan who founded Rome) the rape of the Sabine women is found in the forcible rape of the 600 virgins.

From the Testament of Dan, who is the actual fifth born son, of Israel, but of the seventh blessing of Jacob and who was born of Jacob’s concubine Bilhah, who was raped by Reuben near Eprathah, when Dan was about 14 years old and while Jacob was away visiting his father “Isaac.”

The Testament of Dan 7: 3; “Nevertheless, Dan prophesied to the members of the tribe that was founded by Hushim his adopted daughter, who was the biological child of Bilhah and Reuben the first born of Israel, that they should forget their God, (The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) and should be alienated from the land of their inheritance, (Canaan=Palestine) and from the race of Israel, and from the family of their seed (Reuben the first born).

As Benjamin the 12th tribe of Israel was lost, so too Judas Iscariot, who was the 12th disciple, was also destined to be lost. “Iscariot” means, “Man of Kerioth,” and it was in the district of Kerioth-Hazor that the pseudo tribe of Benjamin settled on their return from the captivity in Babylon.

After Judas, the 12th disciple, who was destined to be lost, had been hung upon a tree, and whose rotted and bloated corpse was to later slip from the rope and fall headless to the ground where it burst asunder spilling his bowls over the Potters field, the other 11, chose a replacement for him, but they did not have that authority, it was Jesus of Nazareth, who chose the original 12 and it was he, in his inherited glorious body of brilliant and blinding light, who chose the replacement to Judas: and that replacement was Paul, the son of a Roman mother and a father who belonged to the pseudo tribe of Benjamin, and it was Paul who was imprisoned in Rome, who was chosen to gather the Roman Gentiles as the 12000 chosen from the tribe of Benjamin who had been lost.

Taken from the book that I am in the process of writing.
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
1. To be clear, you contend that Messiah son of David, and Messiah son of Joseph are one and the same and that is Jesus?

2. Why do you ask this question "If" the New Testament was written in Hebrew? Well, I don't know what difference it would have made in world history. Maybe huge, maybe nil, but its based on an "if" so cannot be answered without a humungous analysis and probability calculations that would take a Turin test.

Yes.

I pose the question because Hebrew was always the language of the prophets. It must seem strange to a Jew that God would even consider another language as the medium through which to communicate His Word.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes.

I pose the question because Hebrew was always the language of the prophets. It must seem strange to a Jew that God would even consider another language as the medium through which to communicate His Word.

Not really brother. The problem Jews had with the New Testament is not that it was in Greek. The Jews of Jesus's time never ever saw any New Testament. There never was one. The oldest canon that we know of was with Marcion of Sinope and that too from the Church fathers anti Marcion writing. Thus, the rabbit hole runs deeper. So for the Jews to reject Greek writing, they need to have them in the first place. Paul writing to specific people, not all Jews and her was the only writer in the first or second decade. Paul was also preaching to the gentiles, so his writings also reflected the same. So your question in this case has a huge fundamental problem in its response.

Secondly, if I am to hypothetically agree to Jesus being the Christ, son of Joseph and David mentioned in Jewish scripture, where are the teachings of Jesus being one of the trinity? Only if that is found in the same Jewish scripture you are referring to it would be a valid equation. Otherwise it is a fallacy of division.
 
Top