Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Prophets - Jesus
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Jesus (Peace be upon him) Messiah.. (Question)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Jesus (Peace be upon him) Messiah.. (Question)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
FollowAl-islam View Drop Down

Joined: 26 November 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FollowAl-islam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Jesus (Peace be upon him) Messiah.. (Question)
    Posted: 26 November 2011 at 9:40am
Salaamu 'alaykum

The jews said that the Messiah where they are waiting for must be come from the line of David and Solomon. We as muslims believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the messiah and is the messiah who shall come back.

My question is, why the new-testament says that Jesus (peace be upon) only come from the lineage of David and not soloman. Cause the lineage must be go trough the father, i have watched a lot video's about this topic on Youtube. Also from muslims who said in that video's that Jesus (peace be upon him) is described in the new-testament that he came not through David and Soloman.

What is the Muslim view, do we say that it's correct that the jews say that the messiah must come through david and soloman, did Jesus (peace be upon him) came from the lineage of David and soloman?

I hope inshaallah that you understand my question my english is not very well and i hope inshallaah that some have a answer for me.

Wassalamu alaykum

Ps. i don't know where i must ask this question i ask it on this topic i see now that is moderate topic, maybe the moderator can move the topic to the right subject/forum if this is the wrong place.

Edited by FollowAl-islam - 03 December 2011 at 9:40am
Back to Top
Sponsored Links

Back to Top
FollowAl-islam View Drop Down

Joined: 26 November 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FollowAl-islam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 December 2011 at 9:41am
Does anyone have a answer?
Back to Top
FollowAl-islam View Drop Down

Joined: 26 November 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FollowAl-islam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2011 at 6:41pm
Nobody?? Come on brothers and sisters??
Back to Top
faheemkamran View Drop Down

Joined: 10 August 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 9
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote faheemkamran Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 January 2012 at 12:17pm

The uniqueness of Jesus (Peace be upon him) as the Muslims see it is his miraculous birth, being born of the Virgin Mary. This was a greater miracle than arising out of Royal descent. But Mathew and Luke for some reason couldn't just see it that way, they were hell bent on fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, so what did they do; they manufactured one for him. The story begins at the annunciation.

Luke 1:34-35

Then said Mary to the angel,

"How shall this be, since I don't know any men?"

And the angel said,

"The Holy Spirit shall come on you,

and the potency of the Highest shall cover you..."

Jesus's followers claimed that he was GOD's illegitimate son, conceived out of wedlock and without a biological father. But, regardless, they say Jesus's mother's husband, Joseph, adopted him, so he had a real father after that.


The book of Genesis records in chapter 38 a story in which Judas (the father of the Jewish race) commits incest. He is tricked into sleeping with a harlot; who turns out to be his daughter-in-law. And word went around that she had a child by whoredom. Tamar, the prostitute was to give birth to twins whom would be named Pharez and Zarah. This clear act of illegitimacy and incest conception was in blatant violation of the Law. So when we read at Mathew 1:3

And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

A prostitute and the product of incest becomes honoured in the lineage of Jesus. Despite the many injunctions in Bible ostracising sinners from the house of God for generations.

A ****** shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the
congregation of the LORD.
Deuteronomy 23:2


But, St. Matthew felt that if the Messiah was to come, he had to be specifically descended through the bloodlines of kings David, Solomon, and Asa (see below), just to prove to the Jews that he was the specific Messiah mentioned in several prophecies. Being so eager to present Jesus as fulfilling this requirement, St. Matthew presents his readers with a lineage for Jesus going through his adopted father, Joseph, and through kings Asa and Solomon, all the way back to king David (Matt 1:1).

But, this presents him with a Trilemma, a Trinity of problems:

According to early Christian-Paulian doctrine regarding his birth to a virgin mother, Jesus is not really related to Joseph's (and therefore king David's) lineage, even todays Bible we read in Luke 3:23 "As was supposed".

The lineage Matthew presents conflicts flatly with the lineage that St. Luke came up with decades later (Luke 3:23). Luke's version has many more generations than Matthew's.

In trying to adopt Jesus into David's lineage (Matt 1:12), Matthew presents a family line that goes straight through the Cursed Branch of kings Jehoiakim and his son, Jeconiah (who is also known as Coniah/Jehoiachin). Matthew either intentionally or unintentionally omits king Jehoiakim in the list, which may confuse some Christians. But Jehoiakim (not Jeconiah) is undeniably the son of Josiah, and Jeconiah is the son of Jehoiakim.

Jehoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah are all names for the same king, son of Jehoiakim, who was carried away into captivity/exile in Babylon, and succeeded by his uncle, king Zedekiah (who was the brother of Jehoiakim). See
1st Chronicles 3:15-19,
2nd Kings 24:6-17,
Esther 2:6,
Jer 22:24-30, 24:1, 27:20, 37:1.
Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel, and the grandfather of Zerubbabel, etc.

In Jeremiah 22, both kings Jehoiakim and Jeconiah are damned and their descendents forbidden to succeed on the throne of David. (see also Isaiah 14:18 for references to the Abominable Branch)

Jeremiah 22:24,28-30

"As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;"
Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his
seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.
Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

In modern translations of the Bible such as the NIV, we read
"Surely as I live," says GOD, "You, Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, even if you were a signet ring upon my right hand, I would cast you off!"

Is this man Jeconiah a broken, abominable idol, an object for which no one cares?...

Write this man off as if childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days, because no one descended from him shall find success in sitting in the Kingship of David or ruling any more in Judah.

The Branch of Jeconiah is damned forever. Jeconiah was carried away into exile and died there. His grandson, Zerub'babel, returned, but, true to the curse, never returned to the throne. And, none from their lineage has ever since.

In a confused attempt to graft Jesus into a messianic line, the overeager Matthew ended up grafting Jesus into the cursed lineage branch. Ironically, for all their discrepancies, this is one of the few points at which Matthew's version of the genealogy and Luke's actually agree. Both gospel tales list Jesus's lineage as running through Zerub'babel and Sheal'tiel, two of the cursed descendents of Jeconiah. Also see Isaiah 14:18 for more Abominable Branch references.

Suspiciously, Matthew has omitted the name of King Jehoiakim in his list. He left Jeconiah in, though.

The Genealogy: Matthew and Luke Contradict

The fact of Jeconiah being in Jesus's adopted genealogy has caused an enormous headache for Christian-Paulian theologians over the past centuries, and still does till this day. Although the average person never learns of this because they rarely address this topic. This and the fact that Luke and Matthew contradict one another in the names of Joseph's ancestors has caused some frantic apologisers, in desperation, to claim that Luke's version of the lineage was "really" Mary's side of the family despite the fact that Luke states flatly that it is Joseph's, and that there is no evidence to support their suggestion (Luke 3:23):

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
There is no support for the notion that it is Mary's line. It is merely wishful thinking. But, deceptively, some bibles add a bit of misleading editorial commentary at the top of Luke 3:23 saying the genealogy is the "line of Mary". That's quite an assertion to make considering it has no scriptural support. The casual reader may accept this charade as if it's really part of the Bible, and moves on without question.

Still, pretending that the lineage that Luke gives is Mary's makes no difference. As we have already pointed out, it is part of the Cursed Branch of Jeconiah (remember, it runs through Jeconiah's son and grandson, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel), and thus makes Jesus an invalid candidate for being the messiah.

Others have tried to explain the contradictions between Luke's version of the line and Matthew's by speculating that perhaps the two men listed as Jesus' paternal grandfathers might have been brothers, and that a levirate marriage (a custom of having engaging in sexual intercourse with your dead brother's wife when he dies childless; the child was then considered to be the legal offspring of the dead man) may have been what gave us Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. There is no biblical support for this speculation in this case, and this combined with the fact that it cuts Jesus off from the lineage from kings Solomon and Asa, has led most Christian theologians to abandon it.

But, there are other problems with the lineage Luke gives Jesus.

The Messiah's Throne Line: David, Solomon, Asa

Besides contradicting Matthew's version, and besides running through the Cursed Branch, the lineage that St. Luke gives for Jesus is problematic because it does not go through kings Solomon and Asa. The messiah's lineage must run through these kings too, as we see in GOD's throne promise:

For your servant David's sake, turn not away the face of your messiah.

The Lord has sworn in truth to David, and he will not change his mind: "I will set the offspring of your body upon your throne.

"If your descendents keep my covenant and my law that I shall teach them, their descendents shall also sit upon your throne forever".

Psalms 132:10-12

Here, GOD is granting the same promise he made to David to David's descendents. The promise states that if David's descendents follow GOD, then the descendents of their line will have the right to David's throne. King Asa qualified because he was wholly true to GOD.

King Asa: A Man after King David's Heart

And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as did David his father...

Although the high places were not removed, Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days.

1st Kings 15:11-14

King Solomon wasn't as good, but for the sake of the promise GOD had made to David, his descendents were assured too:

And when your days are done, and you lie with your fathers, I will set up your offspring after you, who shall come directly from your own 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 his father, and he shall be my son. WHEN HE SINS, I will spank him with the whips of men, and with the wounds of the children of men.

But I shall not withdraw my favour from him, in the way I took it from Saul, whom I cut off from you.

Therefore your house and your kingdom shall be established forever your throne shall be established forever.

2nd Samuel 7:12-16

Here, "offspring" is the Hebrew word, ZERA', which is always used in a physical sense, and often has a collective sense. However, the appended qualifier, "zaraka ... aser yese mimiika", or "who shall come directly from your own body", specifies that the offspring is one of the immediate sons of David (this is the same use of the word as in Genesis 15:4, and 2nd Samuel 16:11). And we see confirmation of this in 1 Chron 22:9-10. And, as it turns out, this son whose kingdom shall be eternal is Solomon:

Solomon Builds the House of GOD

Who is this house-building son, this immediate son of David? See 1st Chronicles 17:11 and 22:9-10, which both say this son will be David's own son, Solomon:

Behold, a son shall be born to you,

who shall be a man of peace,

for I will give him peace from all his enemies,

for his name shall be Solomon...

He shall build the HOUSE for my name,

and he shall be my son, and I will be his father,

and I WILL establish the throne of

HIS kingdom over Israel FOREVER.

1 Chron 22:9-10

In this instance, GOD unconditionally declares that Solomon's throne will be established forever. It is a statement of fact. Later, he also makes similar promises as a reward for Solomon's good behaviour. However, he has already promised David that when Solomon (his house-building, directly-from-your-body son) sins, GOD will punish him but not revoke his right to the Throne line (2nd Sam 7:12, above), and Solomon's Throne will indeed be established forever.

Whatever may be said of Solomon (he did not live up to the role model of his father, David), king Asa's throne lineage is undeniably eternal too, just as David's is. So, simply said, the lineage of the messiah must go through kings David, Solomon, and Asa, undeniably. The genealogy that Luke gives in his tale does not. And, both his version and Matthew's list Jesus as being part of the Cursed Branch of Jeconiah. All of this presents serious problems for those wishing to attach Jesus to the royal Davidic Throne. It would have been better for them to have left the lineages out of the Gospels. Not because it would hide the discrepancies and confusion. But because the lineage is irrelevant to Jesus; as he was born miraculously. And attempting to foster a lineage upon him has only created more problems that it solved.

Hope you got the answer
learning quran read quran
Back to Top
Hughes View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group

Joined: 31 January 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 69
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hughes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 February 2012 at 10:33am
Originally posted by faheemkamran faheemkamran wrote:

Still, pretending that the lineage that Luke gives is Mary's makes no difference. As we have already pointed out, it is part of the Cursed Branch of Jeconiah (remember, it runs through Jeconiah's son and grandson, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel), and thus makes Jesus an invalid candidate for being the messiah.

Just curious where you are getting the idea that Jesus was an invalid candidate for being the messiah? What exactly invalidates him?
Back to Top
Empiricist View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group

Joined: 26 February 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Empiricist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2012 at 12:45am
It is important to realize that it is not the Jews that are deciding the how the Messiah is to come, much as they would like.  It is God.  They also wanted someone to come and be a king to destroy their enemies etc.  Regarding the lineage, Wikipedia has a good write up.  Regarding Luke giving Mary, there is precedent.  From Wiki,
"A more straightforward and the most common explanation is that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew’s describes the genealogy of Joseph.[3] This view was advanced as early as John of Damascus.

Luke’s text says that Jesus was “a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli” (in the Greek: υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι).[70] The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: “a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli.”[71] In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.[3] A variation on this idea is to explain “Joseph son of Eli” as meaning a son-in-law,[72] perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary.[73] An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called “Jair son of Manasseh”[74] but was actually son of Manasseh’s granddaughter.[75] In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus, while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.

The reason for the divergence in genealogies, is that Matthew is said to record the actual legal genealogy of Jesus through Joseph according to Jewish custom. In Luke we apparently have the actual biological genealogy of Jesus through Mary which Luke naturally gives as he is writing for the Gentiles.[76]

The reason Mary is not implicitly mentioned by name is because the ancient Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.[77]'"

God caused Mary to be fertilized by unseen means, and was told this by an angel.  This happened shortly after Elizabeth became pregnant with John the Baptist, as part of God's plan to have John prepare the way for Jesus. 
THere are many prophesies of the Old Testamant fulfilled by Jesus- I would not focus on the lineage issue- it cannot be resolved fully and is not important due to the virgin birth.  It certainly does not invalidate Jesus by any means.  What matters are the many other prophesies and what Jesus said and did, and what his disciples and others did.
Another interesting and unusual prophesy of Jesus is found in the great pyramid of Giza. This is not well known but the timeline in this pyramid shows the history of the Jews and shows the birth at 2BC and death of Jesus.  The horizontal passage then appears to the Queens chamber, which depicts the Jews denial of Jesus.  THe main upward passage continues and then becomes horizontal in the 1900's or so, and shows barriers around the time of WWI and WWII.  The king's chamber opens up at an unknown future date due to a time scale change.  This was studied by the Royal Astronomer of Scotland for most of his life and is quite fascinating but suppressed. 
It appears Jesus was much more than a prophet and was God's example to us as perfection.  This is why he is called the son of God.  The Jews and Pharisees etc of course did not want their cart of rules upset, and had him crucified, but this was also according to God's prophesy, since God knows the outcome of everything.  This is apparently God's example to us all of our foolishness and imperfection.  But God does not make errors.  God created and spoke through Jesus for a unique purpose, and is part of a long term plan for mankind's spiritual growth. 

Edited by Empiricist - 26 February 2012 at 12:16pm
Back to Top
iec786 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 February 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote iec786 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2012 at 8:54am
This is why he is called the son of God.

My friend in your Bible Jesus was called the son of God 13 times.

Why do you fail to call him son of man? because he was called the son of man 56 times?
Back to Top
Empiricist View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group

Joined: 26 February 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Empiricist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2012 at 3:35pm
I do not see where comparing the number of times he is called one or the other matters.  It is just a statistic.  Do you think you can prove something statistically?  I do not think so.  I suppose we could count the number of miracles and the ranking of each on a scale of 1 to 10, and multipy them, to get a score.  One score for Jesus, and one for Mohammad.  Is that not silly?
Jesus was both son of man and son of God.  But I see the dilemma of a Muslim- if he accepts Jesus, then he cannot fully accept the Quran.  However the Quran is written by man.  So is the Bible.  They cannot both be correct.  One must use common sense sometimes.  In the New Testament, there is no talk of killing all Gentiles, or other religions.  The Jews in their Talmud consider Gentiles cattle, etc.  but Jesus did not teach that.  Jesus was there for the Jews but they denied him.  So do many others.  THe point is I do not see how any God can say to kill anyone not following Mohammed.  THis makes no sense whatsoever.  God will however destroy those against him, the followers of the Antichrist, and those who have been given many chances to turn to God but still do not.  This is all in the book of Revelation. 
What kind of prophecies are in the Quran?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.