Messianic Christians?

[iamsoandso]

hey it's 2014,,,,if you put cumin,onions,Cayenne peppers,garlic,salt pepper ect. in ground beef it's a taco?,no,a taco salid,no,a ?,,,,,hmm,if you set together the same things the churches have been saying since the cross,,,and put it on a flour tortilla(unleavened) ,it's the Hebrew grass movement,not Christianity,,,,,"once i invited a friend to dinner we ate taco's,,he helped cook,and was convinced he invented it",,,,,,,,eventually religion will be the same,,,,Christians will say it till it go's (ding,ding,ding),,,,,and the newly converted will say,,,,"yes!,,,you get it thats what i was meaning!!!!",,,,,,,,,,,

 

[VCO]

THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST in Matthew and Luke​

PART 1 of 2

I cannot answer for everyone, but I imagine it is the same reason as mine. Quite frankly, it is because I trust these Theologians, and they have a track record of providing very reliable information. The only author that I quoted below that I was unfamiliar with was John Lightfoot, but his book was published by the Oxford University Press, which is associated with the Church of England, so it too can be consided to be a source of reliable information, in my opinion.

Because this Bible-Discussion.com site has been having lots of problems uploading long posts lately, I will try to reduce the likelihood of a “Page Cannot Be Displayed” Error, by making the following quotes, without the traditional quote in brackets. These are the quotes from the various Commentaries that I used for this study. Each individual quote is between the three crosses with the credit for the source at the bottom of each individual quote, in italics:

t t t

. . . As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. . .. in this genealogy . . . Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob,
. . .
Adam Clarke's Commentary.

t t t
. . . Heli (Luke 3:23)was the father-in-law of Joseph and the father of Mary.
Scholars widely believe that this is the Lord's genealogy through Mary for the following reasons:
1. The most obvious is that Joseph's family line is traced in Matthew's Gospel (Mat.1:2-16).
2. In the early chapters of Luke's Gospel, Mary is more prominent than Joseph,whereas it is the reverse in Matthew.
3. Women's names were not commonly used among the Jews as genealogical links.
This would account for the omission of Mary's name.
4. In Mat.1:16, it distinctly states that Jacob begot Joseph. Here in Luke, it does not say that Heli begot Joseph; it says Joseph was the son of Heli. Son may mean son-in-law.
5. In the original language,the definite article (tou) in the genitive form (of the)appears before every name in the genealogy except one. That one name is Joseph. This singular exception strongly suggests that Joseph was included only because of his marriage to Mary.
Believer's Bible Commentary: A Thorough, Yet Easy-to-Read Bible Commentary That Turns Complicated Theology Into Practical Understanding.

t t t

. . . Matthew . . . brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent's head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam,and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary. . . .
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible.

t t t

The son of Heli - That is, the son-in-law: for Heli was the father of Mary. So St. Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; St. Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by St. Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families.
Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament - John Wesley.

t t t

The fact that the word almah means "a virgin" is proven by the Septuagint. During the intertestamental period, seventy-two Hebrew scholars, six from each of the twelve tribes, worked down in Alexandria, Egypt, on the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language. When they came to this "sign" in Isaiah, those seventy-two men understood that it meant "virgin," and they translated it into the Greek word parthenos. That is the same word which Matthew uses in his Gospel. My friend, parthenos does not mean "young woman"; it means "virgin." For example, Athena was the virgin goddess of Athens, and her temple was called the Parthenon because parthenos means "virgin." It is clear that the Word of God is saying precisely what it means.

. . .


It is essential to note that in His virgin birth Jesus not only was divinely conceived but through that miracle was protected from regal disqualification because of Joseph's being a descendant of Jeconiah (Mat. 1:12, Luke 3:23-31)
The rest of this chapter deals with the genealogy of Mary, not Joseph. The genealogy of Joseph is found in Matthew's Gospel. Matthew's genealogy begins with Abraham and comes down to the Lord Jesus Christ through David and through Solomon. The legal title to the throne came through Joseph. . . .
Thru The Bible with J. Vernon McGee.

t t t

​

end of PART 1 of 2
Please see my next post for PART 2 of 2

 

[VCO]

PART 2 of 2


t t t

. . . Matthew's genealogy presents a descending line, from Abraham through David, through Joseph, to Jesus, who is called Christ. Luke's genealogy presents an ascending line, starting from Jesus and going back through David,Abraham, and even to "Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3:23-38). Luke's record is apparently traced from Mary's side, the Eli of Luke 3:23 probably being Joseph's father-in-law (often referred to as a father) and therefore Mary's natural father. Matthew's intent is to validate Jesus' royal claim by showing His legal descent from David through Joseph, who was Jesus' legal, though not natural, father. Luke's intent is to trace Jesus' actual royal blood ancestry through his mother, thereby establishing His racial lineage from David. Matthew follows the royal line through David and Solomon, David's son and successor to the throne. Luke follows the royal line through Nathan, another son of David. Jesus was therefore the blood descendant of David through Mary and the legal descendant of David through Joseph. Genealogically, Jesus was perfectly qualified to take the throne of David.

It is essential to note that in His virgin birth Jesus not only was divinely conceived but through that miracle was protected from regal disqualification because of Joseph's being a descendant of Jeconiah (Mat. 1:12). Because of that king's wickedness, God had declared of Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin or Coniah) that, though he was in David's line, "no man of his descendants will prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah" (Jer.22:30). That curse would have precluded Jesus' right to kingship had He been the natural son of Joseph, who was in Jeconiah's line. Jesus' legal descent from David, which was always traced through the father, came through Jeconiah to Joseph. But His blood descent, and His human right to rule, came through Mary, who was not in Jeconiah's lineage. Thus the curse on Jeconiah's offspring was circumvented, while still maintaining the royal privilege.
MacArthur New Testament Commentary, The -MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Matthew 1-7 Luke 3:23-31)


t t t

The Association of Messianic Congregations

Was Yeshua (Jesus) the legitimate Messiah ?
Messiah's Right to David's Throne
by Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum - Director, Ariel Ministries

. . . by Jewish law, the name of a woman could not be mentioned in a genealogy, but you wishedto trace a woman’s line, how would you go about doing so? The answer is that you would use the name of her husband. However, if the husband’s name were used, that raises a second question. Suppose somebody picked up a genealogy to read; how would he know whether the genealogy is that of the husband or that of the wife because, in either case, it would be the husband’s name that was used?

The answer to that riddle lies in a problem with the English language which does not exist with the Greek or Hebrew languages. In English, it is not good grammar to put the word "the" before a proper name. We do not use a definite article before a proper name; such as, the Matthew, the Luke, the Mary, the John. However, this is quite permissible in both Greek and Hebrew grammar. The Greek text of Luke’s genealogy is very interesting because of this. In the Greek text, every single name mentioned in the genealogy of Luke has the definite article "the" with one exception, and that is the name of Joseph. His name does not have the definite article "the" in front of it. What that would mean to someone reading the original is this: when he saw the definite article missing from Joseph’s name while it was present in all the other names, it would mean that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, rather, it is Mary’s genealogy. So, in keeping with Jewish law, it was the husband’s name which was used. We have two examples of this in the Old Testament: Ezra 2:61Luke 3:23-31)

Luke’s genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. The line is traced until it returns to the family of David (Luke 3:31-32). However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David totally apart from Jechoniah. Since Jesus was Mary’s son, He, too, was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah. In this manner, He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kingship. However, Yeshua was not the only member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Yeshua to the Throne of David, for they, too, did not have Jechoniah’s blood in their veins. At this point, it is important to note the second Old Testament requirement for kingship: divine appointment. Of all the members of the House of David apart from Jechoniah, only One received divine appointment.

We read in Luke 1:30-33:
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.
31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

. . . the Talmud itself refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli. It is obvious, then, that in long-standing Jewish tradition, Mary was recognized to be the daughter of Heli as mentioned in Luke 3:23.
. . .
http://www.messianicassociation.org/a-agf-throne.htm

t t t

According to the Jewish Tractate of Talmud, the Chagigah a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream,

"He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..."

(John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p.v; vol. 3, p.55)

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm

t t t

CONCLUSION:

Jewish Law and customs of the time of Christ DID NOT permit the use of a woman’s name in a genealogy list, instead it was customary to use her husband’s name to represent her when there was no male heir.

How then were the readers of the list to know whether each name on that list was a blood relative or an in-law?

Apparently Luke used the presence of the little Greek word “tou” or “the” in English, in front of EACH NAME THAT WAS A BLOOD RELATIVE. Therefore the absence of the “tou” in front of a name, would then point to the fact that this one is NOT a blood relative, but in fact an in-law.

THUS the best conclusion is that because there is NO “tou” in front of Joseph’s name in Luke’s genealogy list; Luke was indicating that Joseph was an in-law of Heli, Mary’s father, who had died without having any sons. Joseph’s name therefore had to be used, because it was improper to use a woman’s name, by Jewish Law, leaving the correct and proper name to use in Mary’s genealogy list, to be that of her husband. Thus Luke properly had to use the name Joseph, in place of Mary.

That is what I believe is the best explanation.

Do you have a right to disagree?

SURE.

Is it worth arguing about?

NO WAY.

Titus 3:9 (NKJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

What is the value of studying the genealogies then? From them we learn that because of virgin birth, the curse on Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin) cannot apply to JESUS for Him to be heir to the THRONE OF DAVID. THAT thereby validates the Virgin Birth, and also helps us to validate HIS incarnation, in that GOD created that body in Mary so that Part of HIMSELF could enter that body and experience the death penalty for our sins (the Ultimate form of LOVE). We also learn HE truly is the prophesied Jewish Messiah. We also learn that He had genuine humanity bloodline ties all the way back to ADAM. AND we learn that His rightful claim to the Throne of David can be traced through HIS mother.

 

[Timeline]

I don't know where you found this teaching, but it certainly isn't from the Bible.

IOW, you don't believe that Jesus is God...therefore the conclusion is this: the "jesus" in whom you believe, is the son of Joseph, not the Son of God. You are trusting in "another jesus" and "another gospel". Your "jesus" is a sinner and he can't and he doesn't save.

I understand the virgin birth according to the Scriptures...you have no Scriptural proof for what you teach....because what you teach is a damnable heresy!

I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. And was born in the flesh, becoming man. I don't understand how you can't see that Jesus was man and God. He did come to earth as a man. This is very clear. Jesus was the Son of God. This also is very clear.

 

[Timeline]

WRONG! GOD created in the womb of Mary for HIMSELF a body in which HE WHO IS ETERNAL, could die for our sins, fulfilling what HE Himself defined as the greatest form of LOVE.


John 15:13-14 (HCSB)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] You are My friends if you do what I command you. ( If you receive HIM as LORD which means Master, submitting to HIS Lordship. )

2 Corinthians 5:19 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Now I want to help undo your confusion about the Genealogy of Christ in Matthew and Luke. I did a lengthy study on the subject a couple years ago, and I will post it here in my next few Posts. Please read it, because once again you will notice that the lack of understanding of Jewish inheritance laws is the cause of the confusion.

He was perfect, being the Son of God. He fulfilled the Law in the flesh.

Acts 13:22-25
[SUP]22 [/SUP]After He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will.’ [SUP]23 [/SUP]From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, [SUP]24 [/SUP]after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. [SUP]25 [/SUP]And while John was completing his course, he kept saying, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. But behold, one is coming after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’

Do you suppose that David was not a man either?

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

How do you suppose that He was Man, without being a man? Being a descendant of David? Jesus was both man and the Son of God.

1 Peter 3:18
[SUP]17 [/SUP]For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. [SUP]18 [/SUP]For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; [SUP]19 [/SUP]in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, [SUP]20 [/SUP]who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. [SUP]21 [/SUP]Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [SUP]22 [/SUP]who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

It was from God, that Jesus die in the flesh. And I am called a heretic? Tell me, how could Jesus die in the flesh if He was God only? And not man also?

 

[Timeline]

I will go ahead and apologize to you, VCO. That post should not have been directed at you.

I don't know how God did everything that He did, but some have called me a heretic because I don't see things the way they do. We are all children of God through Jesus Christ, if we accept Him, despite our differences in opinion (or even when we are unjustly called heretics).

 

[Elin]

I expect this to be my last post on this subject. I do not see the point in writing out a whole lineage just to make it pointless at the very end. This does not make sense to me at all. I believe that the Holy Spirit (of the Holy Spirit) took the seed from Joseph (son of David) and put the seed in Mary. If I am wrong I am wrong. If you have further points I will try to come back and read them.

So is Jesus the one and only (i.e., begotten) son of God, making him divine and human; i.e., God,
or the son of Joseph, making him only human?

 

[Elin]

I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. And was born in the flesh, becoming man. I don't understand how you can't see that Jesus was man and God. He did come to earth as a man. This is very clear.
Jesus was the Son of God. This also is very clear.

Glad to see you believe Jesus is the Son of God.

But you don't understand the meaning of "begotten" in Scripture.

If he were begotten of Joseph's seed, he would be the begotten son of Joseph,
not the one and only (begotten) Son of God.

 

[livingepistle]

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


Galatians 2:11-16
King James Version (KJV)
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:23-29
King James Version (KJV)
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This response is to Anyone that is confused concerning this OP subject: we are all of Christ if we believe by Faith. This new Jewish/Hebrew/Messianic belief doctrine is of man. It is a false doctrine and theology that is not of God. Those that have believed upon Jesus and accepted Him as their Savior and Lord receiving the new birth experience, is neither Greek, Gentile, Jew, Black, White, Mexican, Italian, Chinese, or any other race identified as being human. If you must think yourself to belong to any race or creed, let it be to the "Faith Race" born of the Spirit and not of the flesh.

Please read the entire book of Galatians; preferably the KJV.


For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 14:33
King James Version (KJV)

 

[VCO]

He was perfect, being the Son of God. He fulfilled the Law in the flesh.

Acts 13:22-25
[SUP]22 [/SUP]After He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will.’ [SUP]23 [/SUP]From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, [SUP]24 [/SUP]after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. [SUP]25 [/SUP]And while John was completing his course, he kept saying, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. But behold, one is coming after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’

Do you suppose that David was not a man either?

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

How do you suppose that He was Man, without being a man? Being a descendant of David? Jesus was both man and the Son of God.

1 Peter 3:18
[SUP]17 [/SUP]For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. [SUP]18 [/SUP]For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; [SUP]19 [/SUP]in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, [SUP]20 [/SUP]who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. [SUP]21 [/SUP]Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [SUP]22 [/SUP]who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

It was from God, that Jesus die in the flesh. And I am called a heretic? Tell me, how could Jesus die in the flesh if He was God only? And not man also?

Of course HE was both Man and GOD incarnate, but GOD is omnipresent, and no way could all of GOD be compressed into that body we call Jesus Christ. For GOD to cease to be omnipresent is for GOD to cease to be GOD, because HIS omnipresense is part of HIS DIVINE NATURE.

But be careful to explain that "Son of God" does not mean Offspring of GOD. In the Jewish inheritance traditions and laws, it is a TITLE denoting who Who has the right to inherit all that the Father has, including HIS DEITY.

John 16:15 (NKJV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP] All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

 

[VCO]

I will go ahead and apologize to you, VCO. That post should not have been directed at you.

I don't know how God did everything that He did, but some have called me a heretic because I don't see things the way they do. We are all children of God through Jesus Christ, if we accept Him, despite our differences in opinion (or even when we are unjustly called heretics).

I did not know you directed something at me. So no offense taken. As for being called names because you firmly believe and have received HIM as LORD which means Master; get used to it, the world and psuedo Christians love to Hate Christ in you.

John 15:19-21 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
[SUP]21 [/SUP] But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me.


In fact, the first time anyone was called Christian, was at Antioch, and it was meant to be an insult "Oh you are just one of those imitating Christ", but we took it as something to be proud of. I have been called just about every derogatory comment in the book, especially when I was doing the cell door to cell door ministry in the Prison's Security Housing Unit (THE HOLE). One however I did take as a compliment even though it was meant as an insult. One inmate after I explained the gospel to him, including the need to receive Jesus as LORD, which means Master; made this comment: "OH! You are just one of those Lordship Salvationists!" I know of no other way to be saved.

John 1:12-13 (NKJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
[SUP]13 [/SUP] who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Received HIM as what?

Colossians 2:6-7 (NIV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him,
[SUP]7 [/SUP] rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

Romans 10:9 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] that if you confess (not simply profess) with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

 

[Timeline]

Of course HE was both Man and GOD incarnate, but GOD is omnipresent, and no way could all of GOD be compressed into that body we call Jesus Christ. For GOD to cease to be omnipresent is for GOD to cease to be GOD, because HIS omnipresense is part of HIS DIVINE NATURE.

But be careful to explain that "Son of God" does not mean Offspring of GOD. In the Jewish inheritance traditions and laws, it is a TITLE denoting who Who has the right to inherit all that the Father has, including HIS DEITY.

John 16:15 (NKJV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP]All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

I do not believe that I said that Jesus was not the Son of God. But one might note that Jesus calls himself the Son of Man as well as God.

 

[Timeline]

So is Jesus the one and only (i.e., begotten) son of God, making him divine and human; i.e., God,
or the son of Joseph, making him only human?

Would someone be human if they did not have any "human" in them. It seems everyone is okay with Jesus being the son of Mary, but not the son of Joseph. Please explain this. Mary's lineage was better than Joseph's lineage. The only thing that I have seen that would even make me consider what y'all are saying is the comments made by Larry and VCO that reference Jeconiah. But I do not see this to be a problem for God. Jesus lineage had Judah and Tamar as well as David and Bathsheba. I think that God is being limited in these comments. Jesus was also hung "on a tree".


Deuteronomy 21:22-23
[SUP]22 [/SUP]“If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, [SUP]23 [/SUP]his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.


Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—

I suppose this does not say what it says either. God, for you, is too weak to handle this. While I say it was God's plan that all these things came to pass.

 

[Timeline]

Would someone be human if they did not have any "human" in them. It seems everyone is okay with Jesus being the son of Mary, but not the son of Joseph. Please explain this. Mary's lineage was better than Joseph's lineage. The only thing that I have seen that would even make me consider what y'all are saying is the comments made by Larry and VCO that reference Jeconiah. But I do not see this to be a problem for God. Jesus lineage had Judah and Tamar as well as David and Bathsheba. I think that God is being limited in these comments. Jesus was also hung "on a tree".


Deuteronomy 21:22-23
[SUP]22 [/SUP]“If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, [SUP]23 [/SUP]his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.


Galatians 3:13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—

I suppose this does not say what it says either. God, for you, is too weak to handle this. While I say it was God's plan that all these things came to pass.

And I am aware of this verse:
1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

But Jesus overcame the curse(s) when He rose from the grave. At the same time that He conquered death.

 

[Timeline]

And I am aware of this verse:
1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

But Jesus overcame the curse(s) when He rose from the grave. At the same time that He conquered death.

I am open to discussion on when Jesus broke the other curses, but He overcame them nevertheless.

 

[ob77]

I see no one replied to this post, though it is old and I don't know if it'll be read by the poster (if a person can be called a poster)....Yea, Messianic Christian sounds strange. But what is meant by Messianic is that we recognize the origins of the church, the bible, and even our Lord as being Hebrew. We as gentiles seem to believe, because we were taught that way, that the Jewish Remnant has nothing to do with the church. But that could not be more wrong. The church began with Jewish believers who observed the festivals, who kept the sabbaths, and teachings of the old testament. Even after the crucifixion you'll see in scriptures that the apostles kept the teachings of the old testament, but with a twist, they recognized and accepted Jesus as Messiah. As believers we are not required to keep the Law in it's ordinances and sacrifices, but observing the festivals as remembrances and teachings is really getting into the very meaning(s) behind them. It helps me to understand more of the New Testament.
Speaking of the New Testament, that's one thing lately I've come across that blew me away. We as gentile christians separate the bible into old and new, there is not a separation between the two...what we call the new testament is building upon, added to the 'old'. The Complete Jewish Bible is one continuous book, though like any other translation some scriptures may be debatable.
And we also need to remember that as the bible says, the Lord has made us both one together, to make of the two people (Jew and Gentile) one new man. Ephesians 2:11-19.
We gentiles are part with them, not the Jew conforming to gentile style church. We can't rightly call ourselves Messianic Jews, because we are not. So, being part with them spiritually, as part of the household of God (Ep. 2:19) we can call ourselves Messianic Christians! Hope that answered your question.
This comes from someone who is Missionary Baptist and I've never attended a Messianic Congregation. I go to a good church, but they have not come to this belief yet, I consider myself Messianic all the same. All I've learned is online. A good source is hebrew4christians.com

Your wires are crossed. Adam was a son of God, therefore all descendants of Adam are sons of God. The word Adam means ruddy complected, able to show blood in the face through embarrassment or anger, to be rosy cheeked, to blush.
You have never read or understood the Parable of the Tares in Matt,13, or understood John chapter 8. You are not a so called "Gentile" and Jews are the Kenites (descendants of Cain). Refer to the passages I gave you. Christ said that the Jews were not his sheep and they were not of God. Someone is lying, either Christ is, or Jews are. You pick.
As a side note : in verse 37&38 of John-8, there is a discrepancy where Christ says "I know you are of Abraham's seed" - This is in verse 37. What He said in the original text and what the translators left out were two words and they are "You say"
Christ said "I know "You say" you are Abraham's seed, but now you seek to kill me". Jesus Christ would not say in one verse that they were and then turn right around and say they were not.

 

[VCO]

hey it's 2014,,,,if you put cumin,onions,Cayenne peppers,garlic,salt pepper ect. in ground beef it's a taco?,no,a taco salid,no,a ?,,,,,hmm,if you set together the same things the churches have been saying since the cross,,,and put it on a flour tortilla(unleavened) ,it's the Hebrew grass movement,not Christianity,,,,,"once i invited a friend to dinner we ate taco's,,he helped cook,and was convinced he invented it",,,,,,,,eventually religion will be the same,,,,Christians will say it till it go's (ding,ding,ding),,,,,and the newly converted will say,,,,"yes!,,,you get it thats what i was meaning!!!!",,,,,,,,,,,

Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not teach Christian Religion. I teach an intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ as LORD which means Master; where we LOVE HIM and manifest that LOVE via willing obedience.

 

[VCO]

So is Jesus the one and only (i.e., begotten) son of God, making him divine and human; i.e., God,
or the son of Joseph, making him only human?

You almost got that right.

So Jesus is the same as us, only the Spirit part of Jesus is part of GOD HIMSELF, while our human spirits were Created by HIM.
Jesus most certainly has human roots, but those are ONLY through Mary his mother. It is through His Mother's bloodline that HIS right to the THRONE OF DAVID, can be traced.


Zechariah 12:1 (HCSB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] An Oracle The word of the LORD concerning Israel. A declaration of the LORD, who stretched out the heavens, laid the foundation of the earth, and formed the spirit of man within him.

Also refer to my posts #322 and #323 for info on the bloodline of Jesus.

 

[VCO]

I do not believe that I said that Jesus was not the Son of God. But one might note that Jesus calls himself the Son of Man as well as God.

My point was that the TITLE "Son of GOD", does not mean offspring of GOD. It means HE HAS THE RIGHT TO INHERIT ALL THAT THE FATHER HAS, because HE TOO is part of the only GOD that exists, The HOLY TRINITY.

ALL of the mainline Christian Denominations teach and believe that Jesus is both MAN and God in the Flesh.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

 

[crossnote]

My point was that the TITLE "Son of GOD", does not mean offspring of GOD. It means HE HAS THE RIGHT TO INHERIT ALL THAT THE FATHER HAS, because HE TOO is part of the only GOD that exists, The HOLY TRINITY.

ALL of the mainline Christian Denominations teach and believe that Jesus is both MAN and God in the Flesh.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

'part of the only God' sounds rather awkward. Isn't He 'fully' God as are the other members of the Godhead?