Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

[JoeMo]

9 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I wonder if he [Marvin Rosenthal] is still around.  I'm gonna Google him

He is.  I just Googled him; and learned that  - according to Joel Richardson - he has revised his views to believe in an antichrist that will come out of the Middle East rather than Rome.

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=5431

http://www.zionshope.org/iframe_html/20130910_Rise/link_ZF_Rise_0910.aspx

[hch]

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 5:32 PM, Alchemy said:

hch,

The woman on the beast in Revelation 17 is Babylon. The woman is that great city. (Revelation 17:5, 18)

Is she a contemporary to the beast?

[hch]

10 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

OR - is the name "Babylon" applied symbolically to the final kingdom to rule over Israel (and the world)? 

Rachel,

the answer to this question has a lot to do with the identity of the beast. If you are saying that the woman is Babylon and the beast is Israel in the endtime, then are the 7 mountains 7 Israeli kings in the endtime?

Since Golda Meir (a woman) was prime minister of Israel, there have been 8 men (PM)

Golda Meir served 5-years & 19-days. Only seven men served longer.

Interesting fact, but is it significant? 

[Pickle]

On 3/31/2016 at 2:23 PM, MCBGM said:

The same words, in different places, yes. But parallel? I don't see that.

Our brains are built to see patterns even where they don't exist. Like looking at the clouds and seeing pictures.

So what do you see in 2 Sam. 5; 1 Chr. 11; and Dan. 9 that would show that the last passage is not connected to the former two passages?

[Pickle]

On 3/31/2016 at 3:21 PM, MCBGM said:

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation3.html

From Rabbi Stuart Federow, a good place to begin. Note especially points 3 and 4.

[Under Jewish Torah law, the Kingship (Messiahship) of Judah cannot pass to any maternal, adopted, or non-bloodline heir. Only an actual (paternal, not maternal) bloodline heir of King David, through David's son King Solomon, will suffice. When King Messiah comes, his paternal (Y) DNA will be shown to descend from King Solomon whose unmistakable tomb will be revealed to us by the Messiah.]

About Pinchas Lapide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinchas_Lapide

http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Jesus-Jewish-Perspective/dp/157910908X

Since we are talking about traditional Jewish views about Messianic prophecies, I'm just wondering why the Messiah would have to be descended paternally from David within the Jewish view that the Messiah will be the Son of God.

Recall that Nathanael, who had yet to hear Jesus teach anything at all, declared Jesus to be the King of Israel, the Son of God (John 1:49). Even Caiphas the high priest acknowledged at Jesus' trial that the Messiah was believed to be the Son of God (Mat. 26:63).

Thus, if a significant number of Jews believed that the Messiah would be the Son of God, I don't see any way to insist that Jewish thought requires that the Messiah have a human father.

If you are correct, how would you answer this question, based on Ps. 110:1?

Matthew 22:45  If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

[Pickle]

On 4/1/2016 at 9:35 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Pickle, 

When you write "we know", - what you MEAN is "I know" OR SDAs who believe in EGW "know", or people who agree with YOU "know". 

I - on the other hand - do NOT "know", and I do not agree with your interpretation. 

When you word your posts with "we know", it just sounds closed minded. 

Many Bible prophecies are duel prophecies.  They have more than one application, but only ONE final fulfillment. 

In Dan 8:17, the angel told Daniel, "the vision refers to the time of the END".  I do NOT believe that 333BC (when Alexander the Great fought Persia) was "the time of the END", nor do I believe that 1798 began "the time of the END". 

When I wrote "we know," I meant that points that are indisputable based on the biblical text.

The only specific you give is in your last paragraph. I assume you are objecting in that paragraph to my first point, and yet my first point said nothing about 1798 AD or 333 BC. It's a simple, indisputable fact that the book of Daniel is sealed until the time of the end, which begins at the end of the 1260 days. There is nothing to disagree with in this statement.

[Pickle]

On 4/1/2016 at 10:00 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe the "time of trouble such as never was" (Daniel 12:1) will be the 7 last plagues.

I believe that "time" BEGINS with a great resurrection.  Multitudes of those who sleep in the dust will come forth.  Some to everlasting life.  Some to "shame and everlasting condemnation". 

I believe those who were knowingly rebellious against the LORD, without repentance will be resurrected at this time.  This is the Second Coming DAY.  This is judgment DAY.  This is Yom Kippur - Day of Atonement.  The knowingly unrepentant will be "cut off" from God.  They will be left to suffer the plagues.  I do NOT believe they will be resurrected AGAIN after 1000 years, to be judged AGAIN, and executed AGAIN.  "Everlasting condemnation" is a done deal.  No one comes back from this judgment. 

The "time of trouble such as NEVER WAS" is not the same as the "time of Jacob's trouble".   Jacob's trouble will be the final period of persecution by the "little horn" leading up to the Second Coming. 

What makes "sense" to you Pickle, does not make sense to me.  We disagree.  I post my beliefs, and you post yours.  Folks reading our posts can make up their own minds. 

Rachel

You evaded the issue. Why?

If Dan. 12:1's time of trouble is the 7 last plagues, when is the time of persecution of Dan. 11:33, 35? That was my question. And I pointed out that the 1290 days begin with Dan. 11:31, which is, to my knowledge, indisputable.

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, Pickle said:

When I wrote "we know," I meant that points that are indisputable based on the biblical text.

The only specific you give is in your last paragraph. I assume you are objecting in that paragraph to my first point, and yet my first point said nothing about 1798 AD or 333 BC. It's a simple, indisputable fact that the book of Daniel is sealed until the time of the end, which begins at the end of the 1260 days. There is nothing to disagree with in this statement.

Where exactly, does Daniel say that the "time of the end" BEGINS AFTER 1260 days???

Personally, I believe "the time of the end" BEGINS at the start of the 1260 days.  Why?  BECAUSE the 1260 days lead up to the pronouncement of judgment in heaven, that the kingdom is given to Christ and His saints, and "the time came" for the saints to take possession of the kingdom. 

Daniel 7:21-22  The "horn was making war against the saints . . UNTIL the Ancient of Days came (to the judgment scene Dan 7:9-10) and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and THE TIME CAME for the saints to possess the kingdom." 

The "horn" makes war against the saints for "a time, times, and half a time".  (Dan 7:25) 

"A time, times, and half a time" EQUALS 1260 days.  1260 days is the LAST TIME PERIOD before Jesus returns.   It is "the time of the END",  the time leading TO the END. 

-------------------

In Revelation 13 "the beast" - (NOT the "harlot") - "was given authority to continue for forty-two months". 

But the BEAST is not "the harlot". 

In the SDA scenario, the Catholic Church is "the harlot", and she persecuted the saints for 1260 years (til 1798 "deadly wound").  But the passage says the BEAST does the persecuting.  Who is the BEAST in the SDA scenario?  Are you saying that "the BEAST" and "the harlot" are BOTH the Catholic Church? 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Let's assume for a moment that "Babylon" (the mother of harlots) was the BEGINNING of all false worship - the worship of demons.  Every false system of worship therefore came from Babylon.

NAU  Genesis 10:7 The sons of Cush were Seba and Havilah and Sabtah and Raamah and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan. 8 Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before (against) the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD." 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. (Gen 10:7 NAU)

Nimrod ruled a kingdom which grew to control the "land of Shinar". 

Babel (or Babylon) means "confusion by mixing".  Nimrod mixed the true worship of Yahweh, with the false worship of demons.  This false worship SPREAD to all the earth.   It took slightly different forms and names, because of the different languages, but it was essentially the SAME false worship.  Even Islam mixes pagan elements, and demon worship with the true worship of Yahweh.  (Else why the pilgrimage to march around a meteorite?) 

Revelation 9:20 "The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons" (NAU)

Why label the Catholic Church as the ONLY perversion of true worship?  Is it because she specifically perverted Christian worship, essentially baptizing pagan practice with Christian names.  She changed the commandments.  She changed the "appointed times" (Feasts).  She put the names of Bible saints (especially Mary) on pagan gods, and made images for worship.  She continued celibate "priests" (just like the eunuchs of old) and "nuns" to administer her doctrines ( so they could not own any property to leave to any heirs).  They elevated one man (as Father - high priest) to speak for God to them. 

I understand WHY many label the Catholic Church as the harlot of Revelation.  I'm just thinking that "the harlot" of Revelation is much more than just the Catholic Church.  It is a worldwide SYSTEM of FALSE WORSHIP, embracing all false worship.  Of course "catholic" does mean "universal". 

The BEAST has 7  "heads".  The "heads" all have "a blasphemous name". 

Revelation 13:1 "Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name." (NKJ) 

The "horns" are the enforcers.  The "heads" teach false worship - blasphemy. 

The "harlot" rides this BEAST. 

I see a SYSTEM in the last days, whereby all religions of the world come together to make peace - (anything to end war).  It is decreed that no one may speak ill of any religion, or try to pull away converts from any religion.  That would cut out a lot of teaching from the Bible.  We see it today as "political correctness".  It is a way to homogenize religion and worship - to bring it all back into ONE BIG SYSTEM. 

 

[Martn]

[Martn]

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, Pickle said:

[Under Jewish Torah law, the Kingship (Messiahship) of Judah cannot pass to any maternal, adopted, or non-bloodline heir. Only an actual (paternal, not maternal) bloodline heir of King David, through David's son King Solomon, will suffice.

I thought Jesus paternal "DNA" (if God has DNA) came from God.  I understand from scripture that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.  Be a literal Son of God (as Christians believe) seems a much higher qualification than a Son of David.

Is there a Bible verse that says Jesus' paternal bloodline has to be through David; or is this simply rabbinical tradition??  If it was "assumed" that Joseph was Jesus' father, then Jesus would pass the test; since Joseph was a descendant of David.  In fact, both he and Mary were descendants of David.

[Pickle]

16 hours ago, MCBGM said:

Jesus is not telling them that Messiah cannot be David's son. He is simply challenging them to figure out how this is possible. Given that the Messiah will have authority (lordship) over King David even.

Now, according to Christian scripture, Jesus himself actually was David's son. An actual, bloodline descendant of King David, through Mary the mother of Jesus.

Mary his mother was not, however, a bloodline descendant of King David through David's son Solomon. And so neither was Jesus, as prophecy requires the Messiah must be.

Jesus was a bloodline descendant of King David. But he was not a bloodline descendant of King Solomon. This is the problem which Jews have with Jesus.

"I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star" (Rev. 22:16).

If David could be king, could not the root of David be king as well?

How do we know that Mary was not a bloodline descendant of Solomon?

Jewish law permits a person to be reckoned as descended from someone they aren't really descended from. I'm thinking of Levirate marriage, where the child of the brother of a deceased is considered to be a child of the deceased.

Succession for the Roman emperors was sometimes accomplished through adoption, Octavian being the heir to Julius Caesar via adoption. Is there anything in the Bible that would prohibit an adopted child from ascending the throne? If not, then it would not appear that literal descent is an absolute requirement anyway.

[Pickle]

16 hours ago, MCBGM said:

Jews understand Messiah must be God's son. Of course. But not the way Christians suppose.

Jews believe we all can be God's children. But only in a certain sense. Not literally.

David was God's son too. And so was Adam.

Anyone who strives to be righteous, as God is righteous, can in that sense be the son of God.

Thus even formerly fallen Adam, we are told, "was the son of God." Luke 3:38.

Especially, as Adam's offspring, Messiah too would be the son of God. A man of righteousness.

The Kingship (Messiahship) of Judah --according to prophecy-- would be established only through David's son Solomon. Messiah simply cannot come any other way, therefore, or the prophecy would be pointless.

Jewish kings (messiahs, which is what the term refers to), in particular, cannot be by either maternal or adopted descent. Only a paternal, bloodline heir can suffice. This way the Jews will know, for sure, that Messiah really is Messiah when he comes.

Which is why Jews especially have been so opposed to the idea of the Virgin Birth. Not because virgin birth is impossible, but because it would render a child incapable of being the Messiah.

Jesus was born of a virgin. Very likely he was, I think. And that is why he cannot be the Messiah.

"A messiah" (prince messiah) yes, quite possibly --which is precisely what Daniel calls him. But not the Messiah (King Messiah).

When Caiaphas asked Jesus to respond at His trial under oath whether He was the Messiah, the Son of God, if Caiaphas meant what you suggest the words "son of God" meant in that instance, I don't see how Jesus could have been condemned to death.

John 8:58-59 suggests that Jesus claimed to be the Angel that met with Moses at the burning bush. John 10:33 flat out says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because He "makest thyself God." Thus I think there has to be something more to the words "son of God" than just the generic sense.

Additionally, Nathanael's words meant essentially nothing if he was using "son of God" in a generic way.

How will a future messiah's lineage be proven since the records were all destroyed when the temple was destroyed? The Messiah would have to come before 70 AD if proving one's lineage is really important.

The Bible records no dispute over whether Jesus was descended from Solomon. Would that not suggest that there was no dispute over his right to the throne on those grounds?

[Pickle]

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Where exactly, does Daniel say that the "time of the end" BEGINS AFTER 1260 days???

Like I said before, Dan. 11:33, 35; 12:4-7.

Daniel 11:33  And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

Daniel 11:35  And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

Clearly, a period of intense persecution ENDS  once the time of the end begins. And I don't see any way around the conclusion that these verses are referring to the 1260 days.

Daniel 12:4  But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:

Daniel 12:6-7  And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

So when shall be the end, when Daniel is unsealed? At the end of the 1260 days. It actually says something like this twice in this chapter in different ways.

Daniel 12:8  And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

Daniel 12:9  And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Daniel 12:13  But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

So fairly clearly, the time of the end begins at the end of the days. What days?

Daniel 12:11  And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

These 1290 days begin in Dan. 11:31, since that verse speaks about the taking away of the daily and the setting up of the abomination of desolation.

 

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Personally, I believe "the time of the end" BEGINS at the start of the 1260 days.

I don't see how that is remotely possible, given Dan. 11:31, 33, 35; 12:4-13. If you think otherwise, please explain how your view harmonizes with the specifications given in these verses.

 

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

In the SDA scenario, the Catholic Church is "the harlot", and she persecuted the saints for 1260 years (til 1798 "deadly wound").  But the passage says the BEAST does the persecuting.  Who is the BEAST in the SDA scenario?  Are you saying that "the BEAST" and "the harlot" are BOTH the Catholic Church?

The beast is the papacy. The Catholic Church might be considered the wife of the beast, corresponding to Jezebel (Rev. 2), while the beast corresponds to King Ahab.

In reality, while we might be able to separate the Catholic Church from the papacy, separating the Church of Rome from the papacy is tougher.

One thing I've noticed is that the first beast of Rev. 13 tends to be identified as "the beast," while the other beasts in Revelation are identified through the use of qualifiers. Thus the second beast of Rev. 13 is at some point called the false prophet, to keep the reader from becoming too confused.

So which beast is the one that is thrown in the lake of fire in Rev. 19? In my view it's the 1st beast of Rev. 13 because there are no qualifiers used. It's simply "the beast."

I admit, this sounds odd: My view is that "the beast" in Rev. 17 when unqualified refers not to the scarlet beast but to the first beast of Rev. 13. I therefore equate an unqualified "the beast" in Rev. 17 with the woman of Rev. 17, not the scarlet beast. Wherever "the beast" in Rev. 17 is qualified, I think it's referring to the scarlet beast.

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, Pickle said:

How do we know that Mary was not a bloodline descendant of Solomon?

We don't "know" for a fact, but many theologians and Bible scholars are of the opinion that Heli (mentioned in Luke 3:23) was the father of Mary; and he was NOT descended from Solomon.

In Matthew 1 (assumed by many theologians to be the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph,) we see that the lineage of Joseph included Solomon and Jehoiakim (Matt.1:6,11).   Through Jeremiah, God told us that no descendant of  Jehoiakim would ever rule Israel.

"As surely as I live,” declares the Lord, “even if you, Jehoiachin^[c] son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. ²⁵ I will deliver you into the hands of those who want to kill you, those you fear—Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the Babylonians.^{[d] 26} I will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. You will never come back to the land you long to return to.”   Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants?  Why will he and his children be hurled out,  cast into a land they do not know?  O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord!  This is what the Lord says: “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper  none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.” (Jer.22:24-30)

If the lineages are reversed; and Matt. is actually recording the lineage of Mary, the same would be true.

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Pickle]

21 hours ago, JoeMo said:

We don't "know" for a fact, but many theologians and Bible scholars are of the opinion that Heli (mentioned in Luke 3:23) was the father of Mary; and he was NOT descended from Solomon.

In Matthew 1 (assumed by many theologians to be the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph,) we see that the lineage of Joseph included Solomon and Jehoiakim (Matt.1:6,11).   Through Jeremiah, God told us that no descendant of  Jehoiakim would ever rule Israel.

...

If the lineages are reversed; and Matt. is actually recording the lineage of Mary, the same would be true.

Matthew 1:6  And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

Matthew 1:12  And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

---------------------------------

Luke 3:27  Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

Luke 3:31  Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

---------------------------------

I think that's fairly clear. Both lineages, both the one in Matthew and the one in Luke, contain Salathiel and Zorobabel, and thus these men were descended from both Nathan and Solomon. Some explain this by saying that Salathiel was born as the result of a Levirate marriage.

[Pickle]

14 hours ago, MCBGM said:

If David could be king, could not the root of David be king as well? [No. The Royal (Messianic) line began with David.]

How do we know that Mary was not a bloodline descendant of Solomon? [Wouldn't matter. Among Jews, the female line cannot convey Kingship (Messiahship).]

Jewish law permits a person to be reckoned as descended from someone they aren't really descended from. [Not for purposes of Kingship.]

Succession for the Roman emperors was sometimes accomplished through adoption. [Pagan (human) in origin, Roman royalty was not truly Royal. Jewish Royalty was and is a very different matter of course.]

1. I think one could say that the royal line actually began with God:

1 Chronicles 29:23  Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

2. & 3. You cited no Scripture in support of your assertions. Could you do so?

Note that Scripture does speak of the law of the firstborn, and yet there were exceptions, as in Shem, Abraham, and Jacob.

[Pickle]

13 hours ago, MCBGM said:

I don't see how Jesus could have been condemned to death. [He was condemned for a whole list of reasons, not one reason only. Besides, merely claiming to be messiah, without right to do so, was grounds enough for execution all by itself.]

John 10:33 flat out says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because He "makest thyself God." [They misunderstood him. Deliberately, for even after Jesus explained he wasn't claiming to be God's son in any way different from the divine sonship of all humans (10:34-36 & 17:21-23), they continued to fault him anyway.]

Nathanael's words meant essentially nothing if he was using "son of God" in a generic way. [His usage was not generic. For not only did he say Jesus was the son of God, but messiah as well. I agree, Jesus was no ordinary son of righteousness. His righteousness was outstanding, to say the least. As great as Jesus was however, the Messiah will be vastly greater, hard though that may be to imagine.]

How will a future messiah's lineage be proven since the records were all destroyed when the temple was destroyed? [Jews, even today, have before them a very clear means of determining the Messiah's ancestry, beyond all shadow of doubt. As I have explained already. Is it possible you are not really paying much attention to what I've said? It would be pointless for me to repeat my answer, then.]

The Bible records no dispute over whether Jesus was descended from Solomon. [Christian record omits many details inconvenient to its own narrative. So that is not surprising. Nevertheless, there was an attempt to represent Jesus as descended from Solomon, through Joseph his father, but this reasoning too is faulty:]

1. You did not cite any Scriptural support for your final assertion. However, your first assertion contradicts the text. He was condemned to death before the Sanhedrin for answering the question affirmatively that He was the Messiah, the Son of God, and for only that. Thus, Jews in Jesus' day equated the Messiah with the Son of God, and for that to make sense, Son of God could not mean son of God.

2. I can see how it can be claimed that they misunderstood Him in John 10:33, but not so in John 8:58-59, which you did not comment on.

Jesus said "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad." In Gen. 22, Abraham named the place Jehovah Jireh, because in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen/provided. The same Hebrew word can be translated seen and provided. Abraham told Isaac that the Lord would provide Himself a lamb. Abraham was asked to offer up his only son Isaac. A ram died in the place of Isaac. A ram is not a lamb, and thus the substitutionary ram was not the promised lamb, but only a symbol of it. God stopped Abraham from actually offering up his son, but did not pronounce the blessing until after the sacrifice. Hebrews says that Abraham believed that God would resurrect Isaac if Abraham really did offer him as a sacrifice.

Put it all together, and one can conclude that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, and thought that He did. He was the Father's only Son. He was the substitutionary lamb that died in our place that we might go free and received the blessing. He came to Mount Moriah to offer up His life, and thus in that very mount it was seen or provided. He did rise from the dead that He might one day take David's throne.

4. I did not catch where you said how Jews can prove lineage since the records have been destroyed. Can you provide a link to where you explained this?

Ezra 2:62  These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

It therefore is a big deal.

5. Do you have an example of an inconvenient detail that we can prove was left out?

13 hours ago, MCBGM said:

As our brother Joe (above) has noted, regardless whether Jesus was blood-descended from David and Solomon or not, he still could not be the Messiah because he was also descended from Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, Salathiel, etc. --cursed by God never to have a descendant seated on the throne of David and ruling Judah anymore. 1 Chronicles 3:10-17; Jeremiah 22:18, 24, 30; Matthew 1:7-12.

As cousins, both Mary and Joseph probably were descendants of Jeconiah. Therefore no King (Messiah) could ever come through either of their lines, regardless who they descended from otherwise.

There are other possible ways to resolve that apparent problem, and Jewish writers have proposed some, such as the revoking of the sentence due to Jechoniah's repentance. Lightfoot cites Kimchi in this regard, and he also cites Babyl. Sanhedrin for the idea that "His carrying away expiated."

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, MCBGM said:

As our brother Joe (above) has noted, regardless whether Jesus was blood-descended from David and Solomon or not, he still could not be the Messiah because he was also descended from Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, Salathiel, etc.

Just to clarify, I am NOT implying that Jesus is not the Messiah.  The verses I quoted merely showed that Jesus could not be an earthly king of Judah.  He Himself said His Kingdom is not of this world. I believe that Jesus was the Son of God from before time began.  His true patriarchal lineage is directly from God - not as a creation; but as the express image of God.  IMHO that trumps any physical lineage limitations.  I affirm that Jesus Christ is the begotten (not created) Son of God; and that He is God; and the creator of all that is seen and unseen.  He is also the only Name under heaven by whom we can be saved.  There is no other.

[Martn]

[Martn]

[JoeMo]

41 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

Need I point out that any one can become a Jew. Judaism is open to all peoples.

" But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[a] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:21-23)

" For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. ²⁹ Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, ³⁰ since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. (Rom. 3:28-30)

"As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”^[a]12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, ¹³ for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Rom. 10:11-13)

From the above verses, I conclude that these in no difference between Jews and Gentiles in the New Covenant.