Dear Rabbi
1) You once claimed that you have a family-tree going all the way back to King David. This is a very strong claim. Could you provide some evidence for this?
2) You once also ridiculed the assertion that there would have been records of Israels tribes in the temple. As you regard this assertion as rubbish, would you like to tell me Israels tribal records were kept?
3) You also claimed that there are mutually contradictory inconsistencies in the alleged genealogy of the Christian messiah, proving that they did not know what they (were) talking about. Matthew-Levi Chapter 1 is likely to be providing the genealogy of Yeshua HaMashiach for his foster father Joseph, while Luke 3 does that for his mother, Miriam. They both were of the House of David. So is the inconsistency?
2) You once also ridiculed the assertion that there would have been records of Israels tribes in the temple. As you regard this assertion as rubbish, would you like to tell me Israels tribal records were kept?
3) You also claimed that there are mutually contradictory inconsistencies in the alleged genealogy of the Christian messiah, proving that they did not know what they (were) talking about. Matthew-Levi Chapter 1 is likely to be providing the genealogy of Yeshua HaMashiach for his foster father Joseph, while Luke 3 does that for his mother, Miriam. They both were of the House of David. So is the inconsistency?
Robert Weissman (Rev)
Christian Jew Foundation
Christian Jew Foundation
Dear Robert,
1) To show my family-tree here would take up this whole page, thus impossible. Note also, that my family is not unique. There are literally thousands of Jewish families (all descendants of the Maharal of Prague or of Rashi) that can trace their descent to King David.
2) Even assuming that they kept written records (as opposed to oral confirmation generation to generation), these would be kept by the authorities of the 12 tribal provinces, the only ones of whom such things were relevant. The only tribe this was of national interest is the tribe of Levi (specifically for the authenticity of claims to belong to the priestly class). In any case, for the other tribes there was really no significance. As for the royal house of David, this was public knowledge.
3) (a) The genealogy in Matthew is irrelevant, as a foster-son has no legal standing in Judaism beyond that of his biological father: he is not entitled to estate or titular inheritance, or tribal affiliation of his foster-father etc. That is a law spelled out explicitly in the Torah of Moses which Yeshu claimed to uphold.
(b) Matthews list contradicts the Divine Bible (i.e. the Jewish Scriptures), in I Chronicles 3 the list of generations is:
1-David 2-Solomon 3-Rehoboam 4-Abiyah 5-Assa 6-Yehoshaphat 7-Yoram 8-Ahazyahu 9-Azaryah. Matthew missed Ahazyahu, thus proving ignorance and messing up his claim of 14 generations.
(c) According to Luke there is a completely different genealogical list for Joseph the foster-father, in full discrepancy with Matthew. Christians try to get around this by claiming that Matthews list is Josephs, and Lukes list is Marys. This may sound ingenious but is nothing less than disingenuous. There is not even the slightest hint or allusion in Luke to suggest this reinterpretation. Indeed, Luke could not possibly have meant that, as a)obviously he tried to link Yeshu to the royal succession of King David, and b) must surely knew that in Judaism matrilineal descent has no bearing on tribal affiliation and rights of succession. Thus if he had in mind Marys descent, he would ipso facto have disqualified Yeshu any Messianic claims. Then again, he was automatically disqualified anyway, because – as stated above – foster-son or foster-father has no legal standing beyond voluntary obligations that a foster-father assumes upon himself. Either way you lose.
1) To show my family-tree here would take up this whole page, thus impossible. Note also, that my family is not unique. There are literally thousands of Jewish families (all descendants of the Maharal of Prague or of Rashi) that can trace their descent to King David.
2) Even assuming that they kept written records (as opposed to oral confirmation generation to generation), these would be kept by the authorities of the 12 tribal provinces, the only ones of whom such things were relevant. The only tribe this was of national interest is the tribe of Levi (specifically for the authenticity of claims to belong to the priestly class). In any case, for the other tribes there was really no significance. As for the royal house of David, this was public knowledge.
3) (a) The genealogy in Matthew is irrelevant, as a foster-son has no legal standing in Judaism beyond that of his biological father: he is not entitled to estate or titular inheritance, or tribal affiliation of his foster-father etc. That is a law spelled out explicitly in the Torah of Moses which Yeshu claimed to uphold.
(b) Matthews list contradicts the Divine Bible (i.e. the Jewish Scriptures), in I Chronicles 3 the list of generations is:
1-David 2-Solomon 3-Rehoboam 4-Abiyah 5-Assa 6-Yehoshaphat 7-Yoram 8-Ahazyahu 9-Azaryah. Matthew missed Ahazyahu, thus proving ignorance and messing up his claim of 14 generations.
(c) According to Luke there is a completely different genealogical list for Joseph the foster-father, in full discrepancy with Matthew. Christians try to get around this by claiming that Matthews list is Josephs, and Lukes list is Marys. This may sound ingenious but is nothing less than disingenuous. There is not even the slightest hint or allusion in Luke to suggest this reinterpretation. Indeed, Luke could not possibly have meant that, as a)obviously he tried to link Yeshu to the royal succession of King David, and b) must surely knew that in Judaism matrilineal descent has no bearing on tribal affiliation and rights of succession. Thus if he had in mind Marys descent, he would ipso facto have disqualified Yeshu any Messianic claims. Then again, he was automatically disqualified anyway, because – as stated above – foster-son or foster-father has no legal standing beyond voluntary obligations that a foster-father assumes upon himself. Either way you lose.