Jesus Cannot be the Messiah because of His Cursed Lineage! –Rabbi Tovia Singer
Tovia Singer | 6 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIqFt3RvND8
1:09 A very good reply is to rely on both Matthew and Luke.
The line in Matthew physically leads up to St. Joseph. The line in Luke really leads up to the Blessed Virgin Mary, physically, but by adoption also to St. Joseph:
Here is the opinion of Challoner:
[23] "Who was of Heli": St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.
Another view is, Heli is St. Joachim, and Joseph is his son as his son in law, bridegroom to his only daughter.
Now, both mention Salathiel, and it's the same Salathiel, since both mention Zorobabel as his son. B U T:
And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel.
Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri
There are two possible solutions.
1) Salathiel was at first / just potentially under the curse, since physically the son of Jechonias, but escaped by being adopted by Neri (perhaps in the same fashion above described for St. Joseph, i e, if Jechonias had married the widow of "his brother" (closest available male relative) and Salathiel was his son, Salathiel was outside the curse since legally the son of Neri)
2) The Salathiel who was father of Zorobabel was a legal heir and standin to the Salathiel who was son of Jechonias.
Third possibility, the curse and the promise were both fulfilled, Jesus never politically ruled as someone commanding armies with heavy weaponry, fulfilling the curse, as mentioned to Pilate (if my kingdom had been of this world) but at the same time the promise was fulfilled (His kingdom lasts forever, and His spiritual kingship over the Church has shaped world history and regional history of the near East, as per Isaias and Zacharias in your quotes, ever since).
1:09 I look up all references to Jechonias. OK, I make a search, and skim through what I see. The curse is in Jeremias 22:30.
29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. 30 Thus saith the Lord: Write this man barren, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David, and have power any more in Juda.
In verse 29, the triple adress to "earth" may mean my third solution holds. Jesus' kingship is spiritual.
Or, "any more" can be limited by "in his days" and already be reversed by Zorobabel.
Or, again, if Salathiel was fathered physically by Jechonias, but in the name of a deceased Neri, Salathiel stands outside this.
Or, again, Salathiel after the Babylonian captivity was a standin for the Salathiel son of Jechonias.
Thanks for referring me to a great non-problem for Christianity! I'm taking that as a Christmas present!
1:56 So, Joachim, his uncle, adopted another Salathiel, the son of Neri, to replace the Salathiel who was son of Jechonias.
6:09 I am indeed against the Talmud.
It contains tractates by the Antichristian Rabbi Akiba.
It also refers to a certain Yeshu, disciple of Joshua ben Pekharia, who leaves his master and founds an idolatrous sect. On this part, I would exonerate the Talmud, as I think Odin is a very good candidate for this Yeshu.
- both Saxo and Snorre say that Odin arrived as a stranger in Sweden (which could be anachronistic for an arrival that was really among Swabians, further South)
- at least Snorre says, he was the teacher in the religious quasi-history known as Norse myth, and Norse myth shows clear familiarity with matters like Genesis and Daniel, but also Near Eastern religion, as earth is the carcass of a monster (featuring Odin and brothers for Enlil), or a good brother is killed by a bad brother and becomes the lord of a paradise in the Netherworld (featuring Odin's son Baldr for Osiris)
- Havamal seems pretty close to Qohelet
- While Havamal as we have it is in Old Norse, a language spoken 1000 years later, it has been retro-reconstructed as how it would sound in Proto-Norse, spoken at this time, and it is still metric.
However, it also features a certain Yeshu who was executed by Jews. Not via Romans, but while Judaea was sovereign. This one seems to be based on Our Lord, and retro-posed back in time to pre-Roman times. The Jewish calendar is too short. If the Masoretic text choices held, we would be year 6027 according to Ussher, and you say we are in 5784. The missing years are done in the weeks of Daniel to make Bar-Kokhba instead of Jesus fit. And this contraction of real time to a shorter recorded time involves things being pushed back, and even wrongly identified with each other.
The reference to this other Yeshu (whom your Talmud is not distinguishing from the disciple of BenPekharia) is probably both a blasphemy and a conflation with the other one. And it has historically by Jews been taken as the same one, which makes it highly blasphemous.
So, the Talmud is not sth we can use as a religious guide. Some of our clergy have found light on historic matters in for instance earlier tractates of the Mishna.
6:21 "they don't believe in the oral law of the Jews"
Yes, we do. We just believe that while the Talmud was being recorded, you were changing it while you were rejecting the true Christ.
Example of Christians believing in the oral law of the Jews, St. Paul mentions the magician adversaries of Moses as Jannes and Jambres or Jannes and Mambres.
This is not from the books of the Tanakh, even our extended version, 7 books more, Tobit says the friends of Job were kings, which the book of Job doesn't, but the only reference to Jannes and Mambres I find is in 2 Timothy 3:8. The NT mentions at least two Yanukas. 1) Our Lord (who at age 12 impressed one generation of Pharisees, it was the next one which rejected him); 2) St. Timothy. Possibly also Sts Paul and Barnabas, both disciples of Gamaliel. Would Gamaliel have taken anything less than Yanukas for students?
So, we accept the oral laws of the Jews, but believe they are better preserved in Roman Catholicism than in the Talmud.
We also accept there was a secret oral law, which is better preserved in Roman Catholicism than in the Zohar.
7:27 You bet I love using a Talmudic tractate about Jechonias.
It's probably either even recorded by one of the earlier parts of the Mishna, or, even if in the later part of the Mishna or in the Gemara, it goes back to an earlier tradition, from back when Jews meant the people of God, ie before they rejected Christ, and the ones who didn't became ancestral to Palestinians.
I have just stated why it is not inconsistent to reject later tractates for instance involving blasphemies about Our Lord, or things later taken in a blasphemous way, or Rabbi Akiba's strawmanning of the NT. The Talmud is a tainted source, much like Norse myth is a tainted source. It's not a religious guide. But it contains traces of one.
8:07 Exactly. "Year after Creation 5784" is one of the problems of some coverups Judaism ran into when rejecting the true Messiah and trying to readapt the weeks of Daniel.
The preference of the Masoretic chronology, specifically in Genesis 11 (less important in Genesis 5), over the one in Samaritan and LXX Bibles, is also part of a coverup.
Namely your claim that Melchisedech was really Shem, the Son of Noah, so, if not a descendant of Levi, at least a very holy ancestor of him (who had covered up his father's nakedness and been blessed for it). This doesn't work unless Abraham is born 292 after the Flood rather than for instance 942 or 1070.
While St. Paul underlines that Melchisedech was not ancestral to Aaron, unlike Abraham, this coverup denies it.
Josephus is a good witness to the coverup. In his Antiquities, he resumes the Genesis 11 genealogy, both in a résumé that reflects the new consensus, 292, and in detail, where the items add up to considerably more, as Josephus had learned that part of the Bible by heart before the coverup.
9:12 You are misrepresenting Christian theology.
You may have heard of Ephesians 2:8,9. For a Catholic, this does not consitute a passage. Check Ephesians 2:8-10 instead:
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
For Jechonias, the first part in this second part of his justice before God, of the works God had prepared for him, was his repentance. And as both kings and priests had access to the pre-Christian version of the Zohar, he was a real believer in Jesus.
9:27 It doesn't even mean I've never been in a Calvinist Church in my life. I have visited one, outside service hours. Dito for a synagogue, or perhaps a second time too, in school later on.
But your problem means you have not consulted Catholics about Christian theology, only Calvinists. If you know anything about Chronology, that Calvinists are the newcomers and Catholics the homeboys in the Christian field is even clearer than for Rohoboam to be continuing and Jeroboam to be breaking the covenant with Moses. It's more comparable to the difference between the temple and those, illegally, worshipping on the hills.
10:07 We are not admitting Jechonias' works saved him.
We say it showed God saved him, before he even started to bow down his head.
Thanks for a good laugh, when it comes to us not knowing what to do with you, unless you limit that to Calvinists, in which I graciously thank you for rebuking their false theology. But even then, you might want to learn the difference between a Catholic and a Calvinist a bit better.
12:18 Thank you.
You have crushed the Protestant heresy of Sola Scriptura.
We believe by Jewish oral law, continued as Catholic oral tradition, that man has free will.
Not the oral law like you have now, tainted by rejection of Jesus, which is a fault, but as it was before you committed this fault.
Similarily, we believe by Jewish oral law, continued as Catholic tradition, that God forgave Jechonias.
12:33 We say that the rabbis had this sort of authority
prior to the death of Jesus on the Cross.
From the evening of the Resurrection on, it's Peter, Andrew, James and John and a few more, and their successors, aka Catholic bishops, who have this authority.
12:42, no Gamaliel, in Acts 5, precisely
didn't say that:
34 But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while 35 And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men. 36 For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. 37 After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. 38 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; 39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him
Two of his disciples are mentioned as Apostles, one explicitly in the Bible:
And he saith: I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law, as also all you are this day
[Acts Of Apostles 22:3]
OUR oral law says that St. Barnabas also was a disciple of Gamaliel. At least one believable version of it even says that Gamaliel died as a Christian, and that means he is now in Heaven, adoring Jesus, and honouring His Blessed Mother.
And if YOUR oral law says the words in Acts 5 are spurious, then we say, that is part of why your oral law,
as you have it now, is tainted, and part of a coverup.
I am less sure whether Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus were rabbis, but they were Pharisees. I am however very sure they were admiring Jesus as he was the 12 year old Yanuka in the Temple. It was the generation of their sons that rejected Him.
12:52 When you speak of rabbis martyred for rejecting Christianity, I'd like you to be precise on what years ...
If you mean in the time of the Kings of Spain, OK, some were too old to make an unusually long voyage (when St. Pius V expelled Jews, they were able to leave the Papal states at the rate of a Sabbath journey per day and also to leave rabbis in the ghettos of Rome or Ancona, and when St. Lewis IX did so, moneylenders were not rabbis anyway, so weren't concerned by the exile, and it was also mainly a land journey, meaning the exile was not a totally inhuman hardship). But that was 1400 years or so after their forefathers had persecuted Christians, by denouncing them to Roman authorities and possibly in other ways. That was 1400 years after the division, and doesn't help to decide which side of the division is correct.
Now, the authority of the rabbis was given by Ezra, who had authority as a priest and as a scribe.
Matthew, a Levite, had authority as a scribe, at least he had that training, even if he abused it as a tax collector.
John, according to the thesis of Jean Colson, a Catholic priest publishing in 1968, was even a Cohen. He considers that a mention in 2nd C. disputes about the more or less Jewish calendar solutions for Easter of Resurrection, in Asia Minor, "we have known John, who wore the golden headband" refers to the beloved disciple, to the author of 5 NT books.
So, if the authority of the rabbis was derived from priests and scribes, this means the authority of two of the gospellers is even on OT rules greater than that of the rabbis.
14:03 Three sets of fourteen is not necessarily one missing.
Two sets could overlap in one person or not.
Also, there could be two Jechonias, as mentioned.
But the deletions of people are for injustice, Jechonias not being deleted, if the father of Salathiel was the same as the unjust king, would mean St. Matthew accepted the oral law saying that Jechonias was forgiven. So, St. Matthew is an earlier source for this than the Talmud as a whole.
Why was Jehoiacim deleted?
My friend in Tasmania believes that Jehoiacim was the very unrighteous Haman, if I recall his theory correctly.
So, everyone who is deleted is deleted for a curse, the generations after Athaliah, and Jehoiacim if he was Haman.
