Is Jesus really the Messiah according to Mainstream Christianity?

[Vladimir Lenin]

Alright,

Most modern day Christians believe that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph.

But if Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, then how could the prophecy of the Messiah being from the line of King David be true? If Jesus hasn't met the prophet's criterion for being Messiah then Jesus clearly can not be the Messiah.

Therefore if we believe that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, then Jesus can't have been the Messiah.

[Ummon]

http://wespatterson.com/biblical/adam_to_jesus.html

[Vladimir Lenin]

http://wespatterson.com/biblical/adam_to_jesus.html

http://www.torahatlanta.com/articles...%20Lineage.htm

[Anarius]

http://wespatterson.com/biblical/adam_to_jesus.html

What does "the last Adam" mean?

[Vladimir Lenin]

What does "the last Adam" mean?

The last child of Adam. Which, if we have the belief that the bible is infallible is untrue.

To be honest, I'm a Christian (Arian Catholic) and I don't believe in virgin birth. The idea that it sprung from was a misinterpretation of a verse in Isaiah,

7:14b, NKJV: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

7:14b, NRSV: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

[Anarius]

The last child of Adam. Which, if we have the belief that the bible is infallible is untrue.

How can he be the last son of Adam? I thought we all were. Except the ones who are descended from Lillith, apparently.
And I thought Arianism died out in the dark ages.

[Vladimir Lenin]

How can he be the last son of Adam? I thought we all were. Except the ones who are descended from Lillith, apparently. And I thought Arianism died out in the dark ages.

Exactly, the bible should be read with caution and interpreted with logic and reason.

Arianism did do to Roman Catholic suppression but it had a resurgence during the Age of Enlightenment. The Modern Day Arian Catholic Church was formed only a few years ago.

[Каие]

http://wespatterson.com/biblical/adam_to_jesus.html

How exactly do we know that? Have we got the bodies?

[motiv-8]

How exactly do we know that? Have we got the bodies?

Jews were particularly zealous about researching, writing, relating, and guarding their lineages, especially if it was royal or priestly.

[gambit]

http://wespatterson.com/biblical/adam_to_jesus.html

Jesus is not the last adam. He had brother(s?).

Thusly your entire argument must be false, I must be right, and you have one standard day to lick my balls apologize publicly or you face penalty of law.

[Ummon]

Jesus is not the last adam. He had brother(s?).

Thusly your entire argument must be false, I must be right, and you have one standard day to lick my balls apologize publicly or you face penalty of law.

That unfortunately is a gross misunderstanding of the term "Adam" in this context. Jesus is the final form of humanity (allegedly), not the last man.

To lick something, it should exist first, don't you think?

1. Except being the stepson doesn't give you rights to the throne. It has to be direct blood line.

2. Because a young woman (girl) gave birth every single line down to Mary, and named there sons Immanuel....

3. I'm saying that Matthew and Luke had bias when writing the gospel, that's all.

4. Except, Kingship is passed only through the line of the Father, never the mother.

Another way to look at this would be, that in the Psalms it is stated precisely that the Messiah will be God's begotten son (Son). Therefore, a predicament as to the real meaning of both arises.

[gambit]

That unfortunately is a gross misunderstanding of the term "Adam" in this context. Jesus is the final form of humanity (allegedly), not the last man.

Oh? So what do you mean by 'final form of humanity' exactly?

To lick something, it should exist first, don't you think?

My secret! *hisses and runs into a sewer*

[Ummon]

There remains to be seen if there was a form of legal recognition of parenthood in Judaism. I ignore it, sincerely.

[Vladimir Lenin]

There remains to be seen if there was a form of legal recognition of parenthood in Judaism. I ignore it, sincerely.

I'm not saying Jesus is not the Messiah, all I'm doing is specifically questioning the idea of Virgin Birth.

The origin of the Virgin Birth

The idea of a Virgin Birth of a deity is not unique to “(Roman) Christianity”, such as the story of the pagan Mithras, however the story we are familiar with had its origins, inadvertently, in the book of Isaiah namely...

7:14b, NKJV: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

7:14b, NRSV: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

The Arian Catholic Church accepts that the conception of Christ was indeed a miraculous event; however the facts concerning the Virgin Birth in the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke have been presented to fit the prophecies.



Translating the prophecies of Isaiah

The Book of Isaiah was written in Hebrew about 700 BC. The Hebrew word “almah” rendered “virgin” in the NKJV actually means “a young woman of marriageable age” (Genesis 24:43 & Isaiah 7:14) or “Maiden” (Proverbs 30:19 and Psalms 68:25); however the nearest English equivalent is “girl”. There is no ambiguity here as Isaiah had many words at his disposal to describe this type of woman. E.g. “betula” in Hebrew means literally a Virgin having had no relations with a man (Greek: parthenos); and “na’ara” literally means a “girl”; these words are quite specific and unmistakable.

However in the second century BC as Greek was the most widely spoken language in the known world, more so than even Latin, the Septuagint was written to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek.

The Greek equivalent to the Hebrew “almah” is “neanis” and refers to a “young woman”. However the writers of the Septuagint instead translated this word into the Greek: “parthenos”, which means specifically “virgin” as if the Hebrew word “betula” had been used instead!

The story of the Virgin Birth is conspicuous by its absence from the earliest Gospel According to Mark, in fact it is only mentioned in two of the four Gospels: Matthew and Luke. The Gospel according to Luke concentrates the approach to the conception of Jesus from Mary’s perspective in Luke 1:26, while Matthew focuses on Joseph’s perspective in Matthew 1:18.

The virgin birth has been doubted (or denied) by many scholars, who often regard the birth-narratives in Matthew and Luke not as historical record but as some form of imaginative literature, expressing the significance of Jesus’ birth in symbolic, poetic, mythical or midrashic terms. The absence of explicit reference to the virgin birth elsewhere in the New Testament, especially Mark and Paul, is held to confirm that it was not part of the earliest traditions about Jesus. Some people have tried to claim that in Mark 6:3 there is an indirect acknowledgement that Jesus was the Son of Mary more than he was the Son of Joseph, thus:

“Mark 6:3 ‘Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?’ So they were offended at Him.

4 But Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honour except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.’”

That in Hebrew culture to describe someone as the son of his mother instead of his father without good cause is quite disparaging, however as you can see at the end of verse 3 and in the very next verse these people are offended at Jesus and are not affording him any respect, also here Jesus addresses himself as a prophet! In contrast Matthew 13:55 uses the words: “the carpenter’s son” and Luke 4:22: “Joseph’s son.”

The Arian Catholic Church, "The Virgin Birth - Separating Myth from Fact!"
http://arian-catholic.org/arian/virgin_birth.html

Presumably, they think that Mary was descended from King David's line. Jewish ancestry was and is held to be matrilineal, after all.

The royal line is only passed through the father, never the mother. Even if the lineage mentioned in Luke is Mary’s lineage - that presents a problem in of itself. True, one’s Jewishness is passed through the mother, yet one’s tribal inheritance passes through the father. Christians argue that the Book of Numbers shows a case where a father had no sons, and his estate of land went to his daughters, who it is presumed could pass it on to their children. The Jewish position, however, is that this may apply to property, but not to one’s rights to the throne. Yet, even if we were to assume that the lineage could pass through the mother, and we assume that Luke’s lineage did in fact belong to Mary, was Mary’s lineage a legitimate one?

http://www.torahatlanta.com/articles...%20Lineage.htm

[MaximiIian]

But if Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, then how could the prophecy of the Messiah being from the line of King David be true?

Presumably, they think that Mary was descended from King David's line. Jewish ancestry was and is held to be matrilineal, after all.

[Ummon]

I understood you quite clearly: my point is that we need an adjudication of the legal aspects of lineage in Jewish law. Maybe Simetrical?

[Vladimir Lenin]

I understood you quite clearly: my point is that we need an adjudication of the legal aspects of lineage in Jewish law. Maybe Simetrical?

Hmmmm, maybe. I know the religion of Judaism is passed down through the mother, but the right of inheritance belongs to the sons and then daughters, and finally the right of the throne belongs only to the sons.

[Father Jack]

This has been a very interesting thread to follow so thankyou gentlemen.

I think that it is hightly likely that when the old testament was translated into Greek and Latin it is highly proberble that mistakes were made and cultural differences and interpretations would have been ignored. This thusly means that it is a possiblilty that the modern bible (including the old testament) must be taken with a pinch of salt. It begs the question, how much of the bible can be trusted if mistakes have been made?

As for the Virgin birth. I think that it is likely to have been the writers of the Gospels attempting to link ancient Jewish tradition of the Messiah with the person of Jesus. They may have believed that this would add a certain amount of weight behind early Christianity and prehaps a way for them to gain more support in the region (Judaea, Syria, Aegyptus). We must also remember that the deciples would have been originally Jewish before taking up the teachings of Jesus so for them Jesus was the Messiah, hence the need for them to strengthen their point of veiw with linking the birth of Jesus with the prophesy of the Messiah

[Vladimir Lenin]

This has been a very interesting thread to follow so thankyou gentlemen.

I'm glad you've enjoyed the discussion here,

I think that it is hightly likely that when the old testament was translated into Greek and Latin it is highly proberble that mistakes were made and cultural differences and interpretations would have been ignored. This thusly means that it is a possiblilty that the modern bible (including the old testament) must be taken with a pinch of salt. It begs the question, how much of the bible can be trusted if mistakes have been made?

I agree, mistakes were clearly made when the bible was written which is why part of the reason why I like the Arian Catholic Church is that they stress the bible must be read carefully with logic and reason.

Most of the Bible can be trusted but we have to read carefully and take it as infallible.

As for the Virgin birth. I think that it is likely to have been the writers of the Gospels attempting to link ancient Jewish tradition of the Messiah with the person of Jesus. They may have believed that this would add a certain amount of weight behind early Christianity and prehaps a way for them to gain more support in the region (Judaea, Syria, Aegyptus). We must also remember that the deciples would have been originally Jewish before taking up the teachings of Jesus so for them Jesus was the Messiah, hence the need for them to strengthen their point of veiw with linking the birth of Jesus with the prophesy of the Messiah

I believe that Jesus Christ was and is the Messiah, that he was the son of Mary and Joseph. The virgin birth idea was caused by two things:

1. A misreading of the prophet Isaiah.

2. The early church editing Jesus to fit the mistaken prophecy.

[basics]

Macky,

Every version of the Bible worthy of the name up until the revisionists got their hands on it were almost word for word identical. The only difference being the additional books in the Roman Catholic version.

Indeed modern Rabbis, or at least them that I have had consultation with, say that in their own minds the translations from the Hebrew are quite correct, give or take but a few grammatical errors.

Now when a Hebrew, to whom contradiction might mean destruction of the Gospel, agrees to the translation, that speaks volumes and should do even to the doubters.