Welcome to Gaia! ::

Possibly, LordNeuf, but it would be a valuable opportunity for us to point out that there is the principle of Midrash within Judaism. If something is disproven through science or through the historical record/evidence, then we know that that section of the Torah is midrash, a story offere for the lessons it teaches, rather than for its factuality.

Furthermore, as the daily prayers say explicitly in the section dealing with the method of studying Torah: when two passages of Torah seem to contradiction one another, a third passage elsewhere will reconcile the two and/or illustrate that one or both of the passages was offered for its lesson, not its factuality. If someone wants to point out the contradictions, we'll get a brilliant opportunity to teach the questioner.

Also, I don't think I used the gentleman's faith "against" him. What I did was ignore the reams and reams of Talmud and Responsa that Christians have chosen to consider non-authoritative, and instead use a source that our guest could consider authoritative. It's good manners and it marks you as a better teacher, as Hillel taught, to teach someone something in a way that they can understand. If you, asked me why the Grand Holy Cabbage Book People don't believe in the Great Pumpkin, I can't use the Cabbage's additional works (the Cauliflower Codex and the Book of Broccoli) to say why -- you'd always be free to say, "Oh, but those books aren't things that my tradition teaches or believes, so I can't really take your word for it." But I can use your own Pumpkin Pages, since you accept those as your authoritative scriptures. See?

Heh. A funny one, at that. You've got a good sense of humor, 'Neuf. But let me correct your grammar. You should have written, "Mockest thou not the Great Pumpkin! For verily I say unto you that it is a gourd of wrath, and will squash thou in thine own 'gourd'."

I didn't have a question at all, TheLittleInu. I had an answer for someone else.

I write G*D the way I do because it's easier for my fingers to type, and because the shape of the asterisk looks a bit like a lower-case O to me, thus increasing its resemblance to the word in question.

Another good question, Perks. smile I'll try to go in order of the questions you raise, so that it all flows.

Question 1: Why does the Messiah have to be from the line of David (and further, from his son Solomon rather than from his other sons)?

Messiah is from the Hebrew word mashiach (also sometimes pronounced moshiach), meaning "king." The Hebrew Bible tells us that the kingly (messiah-ly) lineage is from David, and I've copied much of this from my favorite website, http://www.jewsforjudaism.org : For thus says the Lord: There shall not be cut off to David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel . . . . If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne. . . . So will I multiply the seed of David My servant. (Jeremiah 33:17-22)

We also have direct confirmation that the line must go through Solomon specifically: When your [David's] days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, that shall proceed out of your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before you: your throne shall be established forever. (2 Samuel 7:12-16; see also 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 2 Chronicles 7:17-1 cool

And of all my sons--for the Lord has given me many sons--He has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. And He said to me: "Solomon your son, he shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be for a son, and I will be to him for a father. And I will establish his kingdom forever, if he be constant to do My commandments and My ordinances, as at this day." (1 Chronicles 28:5-7)

And David the king said to all the congregation: "Solomon my son, who alone God has chosen. . . ." (1 Chronicles 29:1)

. . . as the Lord lives, who has established me [Solomon], and set me on the throne of my father, and who made me a house, as He promised. . . . (1 Kings 2:24)

And the Christian Testament agrees: And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of king David, submitted themselves to Solomon the king. (1 Chronicles 29:24)

God declares that under no circumstances would He take the throne away from Solomon as He took it from Saul: If he [Solomon] commits iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul . . . (2 Samuel 7:14-15).

How did God take the kingdom from Saul? The right to the kingship terminated with Saul's death. No son of Saul ever sat on or had a right to the throne. But Solomon's descendants, with the exception of one branch of the family, would never lose their right to the throne. The punishment for disobedience would be chastening at the hands of men but not the termination of the monarchical right. It is God's unconditional promise that the posterity of David, specifically that of Solomon, will possess the kingship forever. God assures that there will always be a male of paternal Solomonic descent with the right to reign upon David's throne.

More answers in next post.

Hmm, this is an interesting point of view. I will attempt to give a thought there that is not to challenge the observations made above, but maybe to shed some light on interpretation of said verses (This may seem a cop-out, but that is not my intention). In the Christian Bible, it notes both the genealogies of Jesus as noted. In this statement, the only reason was to give proper blood lines to tie Jesus to the Jewish people and the specific tribes and houses. I am not a Jewish scholar, so I cannot fully comment on properness of the lineage as it pertains to the direct topic of Jesus' house and tribe. However, it does note in my thoughts that the Jewish people (and please, correct me if I am mistaken) do not have a clear understanding of the Holy Spirit or the part it plays in the story of Christ. The Bible notes "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit" (Mathew 1:1 cool . In this manner, Jesus was taken from Heaven and was brought to be wholly man on Earth. Jewish law (as I understand it) requires a son to have a father, otherwise the mother and the baby were to be exiled (I might be off on this subject, I am trying to remember a conversation I had with another Jewish friend several years ago), so it was required that Joseph to be Jesus' earthly father. Also, through this act, just as a brother-in-law would take in this brother's widowed wife, would bestow the house lineage upon the son of the widowed wife. With all this being said, I am not trying to make a case for conversion (more...)

Hi again, Perks. smile To answer your last question first, I'm giving "the Jewish view," so much as there is a Jewish view. Judaism, like Christianity, is not monolithic. There are adherents who choose to focus on one aspect or another of things. However, I get my information from very mainstream Jewish sources. My main sources are:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org (click on Reference Library and then Proof Texts)
http://www.jewfaq.org
http://www.ou.org
http://www.crcweb.org
http://www.geocities.com/~alyza/noachide/n-posts2.htm -- What Jewish law says about non-Jews

...and of course my local Orthodox rabbis.

Now, on to your main questions. smile

One: Holy Spirit.
Christians teach that this, like Jesus, is a separate entity, though part of the triune godhead. Judaism teaches that G*D possesses the quality of holiness. It's impossible to separate G*D from G*D, by Jewish teaching, because G*D is "echad." Echad means one, union, unity, indivisible, singular, unique, alone, without partner/peer/parallel. The central teaching of Judaism, in fact, is "Listen, Israel: Hashem is our G*D -- Hashem echad!" (Hashem = The Name; we say this instead of naming G*D directly when not speaking to G*D through prayer, in order not to use the name in vain.)

Two: Conception through the Holy Spirit
We weren't there when Mary's baby was conceived. We don't pretend to know exactly how it happened. But we suspect it wasn't different from the way most other women conceive children. Unfortunately, it probably happened in a way that made her feel ashamed and unable to discuss it. Either she slept with Joseph before they were married, and didn't want to admit it, or she was violated, most likely by a Roman or Greek soldier, which happened quite a lot in those days. If the latter is the case, we feel bad for her, but we certainly don't see the need to deify the man who did that terrible thing to her.

Three: Levirate marriage
Levirate marriage means that if a man dies while married, but before producing a child with his wife, the wife has the option of asking the man's brother to give her a child in her husband's name. The brother must comply by taking her into his household and lying with her once a month on propitious dates until she becomes pregnant. Naturally, the child will have the same house/lineage as his uncle, but not because of the uncle; rather, the child shares the house of his biological father AND his legal father, since the two of them must share the same house. The child then is called the son of the man who died, not the brother. That is, the uncle is the biological father, but the dead man is the legal father. This makes a son named Joshua "Joshua bar Joseph," Joshua the legal heir of the (dead) Joseph, rather than "Joshua ben Joseph," Joshua the son of Joseph. The only way this works for Jesus is if God (or rather, the Holy Spirit is legally married to Mary; then the Holy Spirit dies; then Joseph, who is the natural-born brother of the Holy Spirit, takes Mary into his household (NOT as a wife, mind you, but as a 'relative') and lies with her. This does not apply here.

Four: Jewish law requires a son to have a father
Not exactly. Natural biological law requires a son to have a father. Jewish law simply states that one's status as a Jew or non-Jew is passed from mother to child, and one's house/lineage within the Jewish people is passed from father to child. Judaism teaches that Hashem created natural law, and now works within it rather than negating it; therefore Jesus must have had a natural, biological, human father.

I appreciate to the utmost extent the credibility of the answers given and those that are giving them. It is interesting to hear that Mary is believed to have conceived naturally. This is a topic I have never thought of before. The idea of Christ's beginnings has mostly passed un-thought of other than in small, passing thoughts. And the notes to correct my understanding of Jewish Law are helpful as well. As I am trying to keep up with this post, I find myself entrenched in thought about these topics. I understand that there are "Jews for Jesus", how does the Jewish community respond to this movement? Another question (as I still have many, haha) is as many different religions and movements exercise in evangelism, how do main-stream Jewish people exercise this, or do they participate in it at all? Thank you to all who help, and a special thanks is to be extended to Divash for her continued quick responses.