Tony N said:

Well, if we don't need the temple records to prove Jesus' lineage then why on earth did you even bring it up?

Because it is what you christians do when Jews and Noachides assert that we KNOW there are descendants of King David alive today, and that any of them could be the real messiah prophesied by the prophets, and therefore, there's no reason to assume jesus was the last legitimate candidate, as the christians claim at least one prophecy suggests.
Also, as a recap, you claimed that if there were some question about the lineage of jesus, the Jews would have said so back then. I pointed out that the lineages appear ONLY in books written by we-know-not-whom, and which date from no earlier than 70 c.e. By that time, as you christians know, is after the Temple was destroyed, so there would have been no Temple records, so there would be no way (according to the mind-set of christians) to effectively answer the question.
Your claim depends on the n.t. being
[1] true, which we all know it is not. Therefore, there's no reason to believe the Rabbis mentioned in the n.t. would have had any reason to question the lineages of jesus during the life of jesus, and not just because jesus never lived.
[2] contemporary with the time frame of the christian myths the n.t. claims to chronicle, and they're not - they are much younger. Therefore, there's no reason to believe the Rabbis named in the n.t. would have had any reason to question the lineages of jesus during the life of jesus, and not just because jesus never lived.
Here is what I originally said:
"How was that supposed to be accomplished? According to christians, when Jerusalem was sacked, the Temple destroyed, and the Jews dispersed, the Temple Records were also destroyed. (At least, that is what I have heard the Christians claim. I don't know if they were actually destroyed.) Without the Temple records, nobody could prove his lineage. Or so some christians say."

But the gospels were written prior to the destruction in 70 A.D. Therefore it is a moot point.

That's untrue. They are much younger, so it's still a valid point. I have already cited two or more passages that show that the n.t. dated from after the destruction. You have failed to refute (any of) them.

So you bring up two things above: Temple Records destroyed in 70 A.D. but you really don't know if they were!

Right. I have only heard the claim that they were destroyed from christians. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing from Jews about any lineage records kept in, or near, or even tangentially associated with the Temple at all! It might make sense to assume there were such records kept, but that doesn't mean there were any. They could have been oral records, and possibly were, for all I know.

You don't really know for sure if Matthew copied anyone's writing.

It's dealt with in depth in a document called, "1001 Errors in the New Testament" It's likely also dealt with in
"The Problem With Matthew." I looked, but I can't read the doc myself, because I don't know how to open a pdf.
But I did find the following:
The Gospel of Mark is written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the mythical Peter. (Peter is largely based on the pagan god Petra, who was door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife in Egyptian religion.) Even in Christian mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul and Luke. Mark was written before Matthew and Luke (c. 100 CE) but after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE which it mentions. Most Christians believe it was written in c. 75 CE.
                This date is not based on history, but on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old age. This is not possible since the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Indeed, since all the other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters from the past, Mark was probably written long after any historical Mark (if there was one) had died. The contents of Mark is a collection of myths and legends put together to form a continuous narrative. There is no evidence that it was based on any reliable historical sources. Mark was altered and edited many times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 CE. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 CE - c. 215 CE) complained about the alternative versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his lifetime. (The Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered pederasty to be a virtue and Clement complained about their versions of Mark which told of Jesus' homosexual exploits with young boys!)
-- REFUTING MISSIONARIES: Part 2, by Hayyim ben Yehoshua

Since it is a known fact that the Jewish leaders hated Christ,

Myth. There is no evidence this "christ" person was a real person, there's no reason to assume that anybody hated him. Also, the Jews are famous for their hospitality, generosity, and concern for Gentiles. The only 'evidence' for any animosity from the Jewish people and "christ" comes from christians, who, as Paul admitted, will lie if it means they can win souls to the belief in their dead god/man.

... wouldn't it make more sense that they would go out of their way to disprove all the four accounts?

Once these accounts showed up, (decades at least, and as much as a century and more after the fact in some cases), the Jews DID disprove all four accounts. That's only one reason they aren't christians themselves.
 
The Jewish sources cannot be trusted.

False. In fact, the Jewish sources CAN be trusted, and for quite a few very good reasons:
1) their accounts conform to history and archeaology,
2) their accounts are internally consistent,
3) their accounts show Judaism in an earnest and frank way, warts and all.

We need a neutral source rather than Rabbinic Literature.

I wouldn't hurt to have one. Care to suggest one?

The evidence shows that the four Gospels were written in a relatively short time after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Examining the internal evidence of the New Testament itself can make this plain.

I believe that I already quoted somebody who disagreed with this claim. Remember, the gospels were pieced together from several separate sources, and were not codified as they exist now for about three hundred years after the supposed life of jesus.
It is possible that early scraps of documents were cannibalized and used as background for the gospels, but the anachronism's they contain prove the gospels do not predate the destruction of Jerusalem.

The inference is that Acts was written while Paul was still alive, seeing his death is not recorded. Since there is good evidence that Paul died in the Neronian persecution about A.D. 67, the Book of Acts can be dated approximately A.D. 62.

Incredible. By this argument, "Gone With the Wind" was written by 1880 and no later.

John Was An Eyewitness To The Events  

John 1:19 sez "priests and Levites" were sent while 1:24 sez the Pharisees sent them. The problem is that the priests and Levites were Sadducees, not Pharisees, so they wouldn't be sent by the Pharisees. Also, it was the Sadducees who were in control at the time who likely would have sent a scouting party. Predictably there is some textual variation here and some modern translations try to hide the error by introducing the Pharisee party as a new group sent to question John. In any case, what we have here is an unknown author whose story was written in a language Jesus never spoke and edited by unknown authors who make a point that the other Gospels were wrong about the star witness John the Baptist being Elijah and want us to believe in all things Jesus but don't know the difference between Pharisees and Sadducees.
John 1: (KJV) 38 "Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?"
There is no evidence in Jewish literature that "Rabbi" was used as an address in Jesus' supposed time.
John  1: (KJV) 37 "When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?" They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?" 39 "Come," he replied, "and you will see." So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour. 40 Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus."
Compare to Mark 1: (KJV) 14 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15   And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 16   Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers."
John's John the Baptist had not yet been imprisoned when Simon and Andrew met Jesus while Mark's John the Baptist was already imprisoned by the time of the historic/non-historic meeting.
John 2: (KJV) 15 "And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"
No evidence from Jewish sources or the Synoptics that sheep and oxen were in the Temple area.
Besides the historical errors in John, as an alleged "eye-witness", he often contradicts other "eye-witness" accounts.
John 1: (KJV) 37 "When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?" They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?" 39 "Come," he replied, "and you will see." So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour. 40 Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus."
Compare to Mark 1: (KJV) 14 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15   And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 16   Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers".
John's John the Baptist had not yet been imprisoned when Simon and Andrew met Jesus while Mark's John the Baptist was already imprisoned by the time of the historic/non-historic meeting.
John 1: (KJV) 45 "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
"John" is the only Gospel to identify Nathanael as a disciple.
John 2: (KJV) 15 "And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"
John's Jesus cleans the Temple early in his watch while the Synoptics' Jesus cleans the Temple late in his watch. Spring forward, fall back. Based on descriptions of the scope of temple operations this would have been virtually impossible for one man to accomplish which was conceded by several early Church Fathers such as Origen and the wording of "John" gives no indication that the author thought he was describing a miracle. Josephus records many disturbances in the Temple but never mentions this one.
John 2: (KJV) 18 "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19   Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Compare to Mark 14: (KJV)57   And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58   We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
John's Jesus makes a claim that is cited by witnesses at Mark's trial of Jesus, and Mark writes that these witnesses gave false testimony. Apparently, Mark knew that John was a false witness.
If Mark is right, there's no reason to credit John as an "eye-witness."

Two genealogies, one of Mary the other of Joseph both proving Jesus does have claim to the throne of David.[.i]

Nope.
1) Lineage from David for the sake of determining kingship goes through the father alone, not the mother. A man born of Reuben's Tribe, but adopted into Levi, could never be considered a Levite, and was therefore forbidden to take on the Levite's religious role. Likewise, a child of who-knows-which Tribe (if any) but raised by descendant(s) of Joseph could NEVER have been heir to David's throne.
2) Neither lineage provided by the n.t. claims to follow Mary's family tree.
3) Neither lineage claims that Joseph was the father of jesus, so the claim that jesus was a descendant of David is spurious.

Funny, but you said a year or so ago on these forums that someone else could have been the messiah about 50 or so years before Jesus came on the scene.

Really? I said that? I don't remember that. I think I do recall saying that the fellow that christians claim was jesus actually lived several decades before the jesus of the gospels.

Now you state Elijah has not come. So how could this other "pre-Jesus" person you mentioned be the messiah?

He could not have been, nor has anyone since proven to be the messiah. The best reason for the certainty of this fact is that we are not now living in the messianic era. The fact that Elijah has not yet come is just icing on the cake.

Also, John was not LITERALLY Elijah but was come in the spirit of Elijah:

That doesn't matter one tiny little bit. Nowhere in the Tanakh is it prophecied that someone will come "with the spirit of Elijah," nor "in the spirit of Elijah." So whether John had the spirit of Elijah or not is a moot point; it doesn't have anything to do with messianic prophecies.

Luk 1:17 And he shall be coming before in His sight in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn back the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the stubborn to the prudence of the just, to make ready a people formed for the Lord."

This is a false prophecy. Nowhere is it said that John tried to "turn back the hearts of the fathers to the children." Nor has it happened till this very day, and John's been dead for 2000 years.

Mat 11:14 "And, if you are willing to receive him, he is Elijah who is about to be coming."

This is jesus confirming he is a false prophet, because he said that his cousin was Elijah, when he really was not.

It is not that Jesus WANTED families divided but that such would occur.

Oh brother. That line is new, but hardly impressive, since the n.t. makes it clear that I am right: he came to divide families. The claim that jesus meant it "would" happen is just ludicrous, since it's been the human condition for thousands of years. It's just as impressive a "prophecy" as if he had predicted that dogs will one day eat vomit.

Does it state that the Messiah must rebuild the temple?
nojc4me's reply: Yes, it does.
Tony's retort: No, actually, it does not.

Yes, actually, it does. The Third Temple is envisioned in what is, perhaps, one of the most detailed and vivid descriptions of the messianic era to be found in the Hebrew Bible - Chapter 37 in the Book of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 37:26-28 – (26) And I will form a covenant of peace for them; an everlasting covenant shall be with them; and I will establish them, and I will multiply them, AND I WILL PLACE MY SANCTUARY IN THEIR MIDST FOREVER.  (27) And My dwelling place shall be over them; and I will be to them for a G-d, and they shall be to Me as a people.  (28) And the nations shall know that I am the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, WHEN MY SANCTUARY IS IN THEIR MIDST FOREVER.
Later on, in Chapters 40-48, Ezekiel gives a detailed description of the Third Temple and the ritual services to be held within its walls.

Mat 27:52 and the tombs were opened. And many bodies of the reposing saints were roused,
nojc4me's reply:
That is myth. No historian of the day ever recounted the citizens of ANY city (much less a specific city, say Jerusalem, for example), experiencing the opening of hundreds or even thousands of graves and the dead streaming therefrom to walk the Earth again.
Tony's reply:
Many things have happened in the world that no historian accounted for. For instance, is it a myth that Moses went on top of a mountain and got ten commandments from God? No historian documented it!

Untrue; the most respected of historical documents describes the event in detail. And it has the added benefit of confirmation by hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses.

Also, where does it state that ALL of the things you enumerate MUST come to pass all at the same time for one to be Messiah?
nojc4me's reply:
Maimonides wrote about it. He cited Scripture and gave good reason for the belief. That's good enough.
Tony's reply:
Oh brother! I thought you might have something of substance to back up your idea.

I did. If you choose not to accept it, that's your own look out.

Instead you give me a fallacy of argumentation called "Appealing To Authority or Ad verecuniam" which proves NOTHING!

It seems to me that your problem is that you have no authority to call upon, so of course you deny that any authority (including Moses) should be credited.
It sounds like a little boy saying, "If you don't want to play by my rules, I'll just take my ball and go home."
If I write something, and somebody comes along and asks what it was I meant by saying thus-and-so, am I not the best person to answer that? Doesn't that mean I'm an expert on the subject? Are you saying we should accept your opinion of what I said because otherwise, we're "Appealing To Authority or Ad verecuniam"?
 Do you have a problem with authorities?

Sure I have. Or, actually, you have. You have proven you are not interested in the truth, you're interested in being seen as an authority.

What I understand from this thread so far is that it IS IMPORTANT that any MESSIAH MUST come from a certian lineage.

Now, whether there be thousands who MIGHT qualify vs what Messiah is to DO can be two different things?  I don't know...just putting forth a thought....

Lets assume that some guy comes forward and can do all those things (which the Jews expect) concerning the fulfilling of scripture (is this possible?) and yet one cannot know for sure his lineage...now what?  Just thinking out loud...

Ignore if this doesn't make sense to you.

G.