21 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderi personally think its rather rich of you to talk of evasion when you have slithered here and there, hither and zither, with insinuations of deceit and lying, with nothing but insults and vague connections to the ancient Hebrews as your defense, it is clear you are not worthy of jaywills attempts to reach you although i myself do not agree with the content, and I would therefore advise him to relent, for it is clearly pearls before swine!
This post is an off-topic evasion of the subject under discussion which was whether Jesus meets the criteria set forth in the OT prophecies for the Messiah. Since he clearly does not, you have little choice but to evade mention of them.
I'm not worried about being "crushed under the smiting stone" by a preposterous, anthropomorphic God I might as well use that time to ask Santa for a new Porsch or Caissa for a higher rating.
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieUnlike you and jaywill, I've kept on-topic and haven't used other people's words without attribution. It's also rather clear that your theology lacks a rational basis which is why, in the end, you are reduced to the Secret Decoder Ring Theory.
i personally think its rather rich of you to talk of evasion when you have slithered here and there, hither and zither, with insinuations of deceit and lying, with nothing but insults and vague connections to the ancient Hebrews as your defense, it is clear you are not worthy of jaywills attempts to reach you, and I would therefore advise him to relent, for it is clearly pearls before swine!
Good luck with convincing other people with that one.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
21 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillOn the contrary, that's exactly what has been going on in regards to a second coming of Jesus.
...
And not only that, but the church has not been sitting around twiddling its thumbs and waiting.
...[/b]
Any church has no choice otherwise. Any who are waiting are no different than those who waited before them; they will continue to wait and take their last breath, still waiting.
I have no need to pray for his supposed second coming. My Christology has no place for that - it is quite unimportant to me.
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou say that Jesus' message is too love all. You have left out His message of judgment and faith.
and that has anything to do with the fact that humanity missed the message how?
of course some got the message. it was freakin simple: love. all. just that so many didn't. it wasn't the apostles fault, i really don't see the point of your post.
22 Dec 08
7 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderreduced, reduced? duh? one is still waiting for your affirmation or otherwise with regard to the references, not unattributed as you lyingly claim, but taken from the book, the life and times of the messiah, by Alfred Edersheim, and the most laughable thing about it is, that the best you can come up with is that the words lack attribution, it is truly pluckety pluck at straw da de straw, quite pathetic, in the original sense of the word, really.
Unlike you and jaywill, I've kept on-topic and haven't used other people's words without attribution. It's also rather clear that your theology lacks a rational basis which is why, in the end, you are reduced to the Secret Decoder Ring Theory.
Good luck with convincing other people with that one.
it lacks a rational basis, duh?
OUTSTANDING PROPHECIES CONCERNING JESUS AND THEIR FULFILLMENT
Prophecy Event Fulfillment
Ge 49:10 Born of the tribe of Judah Mt 1:2-16; Lu 3:23-33; Heb 7:14
Ps 132:11; From the family of David the son of Jesse Mt 1:1, 6-16; 9:27; Ac 13:22, 23;
Isa 9:7; Ro 1:3; 15:8, 12
11:1,
11:10
Mic 5:2 Born in Bethlehem Lu 2:4-11; Joh 7:42
Isa 7:14 Born of a virgin Mt 1:18-23; Lu 1:30-35
Jer 31:15 Babes killed after Mt 2:16-18
his birth
Ho 11:1 Called out of Mt 2:15
Egypt
Mal 3:1; Way prepared Mt 3:1-3; 11:10-14;
4:5; before 17:10-13; Lu 1:17, 76;
Isa 40:3 3:3-6; 7:27; Joh 1:20-23;
3:25-28; Ac 13:24; 19:4
Isa 61:1, 2 Commissioned Lu 4:18-21
Isa 9:1, 2 Ministry caused Mt 4:13-16
people in Naphtali
and Zebulun to see
great light
Ps 78:2 Spoke with Mt 13:11-13, 31-35
illustrations
Isa 53:4 Carried our Mt 8:16, 17
sicknesses
Ps 69:9 Zealous for Mt 21:12, 13; Joh 2:13-17
Gods house
Isa 42:1-4 As Gods Mt 12:14-21
servant, would not
wrangle in streets
Isa 53:1 Not believed in Joh 12:37, 38; Ro 10:11, 16
Zec 9:9; Entry into Mt 21:1-9; Mr 11:7-11;
Ps 118:26 Jerusalem on colt Lu 19:28-38;
of an ass, hailed Joh 12:12-15
as king and one
coming in Gods
name
Isa 28:16; Rejected but Mt 21:42, 45, 46; Ac 3:14;
53:3; becomes chief 4:11; 1Pe 2:7
Ps 69:8; cornerstone
118:22, 23
Isa 8:14, 15 Becomes stone of Lu 20:17, 18; Ro 9:31-33
stumbling
Ps 41:9; One apostle Mt 26:47-50; Joh 13:18, 26-30;
109:8 unfaithful, betrays Ac 1:16-20
him
Zec 11:12 Betrayed for 30 Mt 26:15; 27:3-10; Mr 14:10, 11
pieces of silver
Zec 13:7 Disciples scatter Mt 26:31, 56; Joh 16:32
Ps 2:1, 2 Roman powers and Mt 27:1, 2; Mr 15:1, 15;
leaders of Israel Lu 23:10-12; Ac 4:25-28
act together against
anointed of Jehovah
Isa 53:8 Tried and condemned Mt 26:57-68; 27:1, 2, 11-26;
Joh 18:12-14, 19-24, 28-40;
19:1-16
Ps 27:12 Use of false Mt 26:59-61; Mr 14:56-59
witnesses
Isa 53:7 Silent before Mt 27:12-14; Mr 14:61;
accusers 15:4, 5; Lu 23:9
Ps 69:4 Hated without cause Lu 23:13-25; Joh 15:24, 25
Isa 50:6; Struck, spit on Mt 26:67; 27:26, 30; Joh 19:3
Mic 5:1
Ps 22:16, Impaled Mt 27:35; Mr 15:24, 25;
Lu 23:33; Joh 19:18, 23;
20:25, 27
Ps 22:18 Lots cast for Mt 27:35; Joh 19:23, 24
garments
Isa 53:12 Numbered with Mt 26:55, 56; 27:38;
sinners Lu 22:37
Ps 22:7, 8 Reviled while on Mt 27:39-43; Mr 15:29-32
stake
Ps 69:21 Given vinegar and Mt 27:34, 48; Mr 15:23, 36
gall
Ps 22:1 Forsaken by God to Mt 27:46; Mr 15:34
enemies
Ps 34:20; No bones broken Joh 19:33, 36
Ex 12:46
Isa 53:5; Pierced Mt 27:49; Joh 19:34, 37;
Zec 12:10 Re 1:7
Isa 53:5, Dies sacrificial Mt 20:28; Joh 1:29;
8, death to carry away Ro 3:24; 4:25; 1Co 15:3;
11, sins and open way Heb 9:12-15; 1Pe 2:24;
12 to righteous 1Jo 2:2
standing with God
Isa 53:9 Buried with the Mt 27:57-60; Joh 19:38-42
rich
Jon 1:17; In grave parts of Mt 12:39, 40; 16:21; 17:23;
2:10 three days, then 27:64; 28:1-7; Ac 10:40;
resurrected 1Co 15:3-8
Ps 16:8-11, Raised before Ac 2:25-31; 13:34-37
corruption
Ps 2:7 god declares Mt 3:16, 17; Mr 1:9-11;
him His Son by Lu 3:21, 22; Ac 13:33;
spirit begetting Ro 1:4; Heb 1:5; 5:5
and by resurrection
and as for the assertions of some secret code, it is not our fault that you cannot be privy to the knowledge, for these are examined spiritually and in truth and with the correct attitude, none of which seem strikingly evident in your case, therefore i provide them not for your perusal, for you are interested in nothing but tearing down, but as a testimony to the scriptural references which form a basis for our thoughts and beliefs.
and please do not ask for a reference, for i am giving nothing to which you are not entitled.
22 Dec 08
First, hundreds of equivocal “prophecies”, taken together do still not an unequivocal prophecy make.
—An unequivocal prophecy might look something like: “In this year ___________, a son will be born to a woman named___________; his name will be___________, and he will do these things…” For example, an Isaiah verse that Matthew drew on is 7:14, which says, “Let her name him Immanuel”. (JPS translation.) The only occurrence of that name in the NT is Matthews’s direct quote of that very verse—nowhere is Jesus actually named or called Immanuel.
Matthew, in particular, I think did an artful job of searching out texts to find things that he could apply to the one he already thought was messiah. From a Jewish perspective, there is no fault in such a process—it is part of what is called “midrash”. Jews would’ve likely understood that; the Greek mind might not have.
The problem arises when people start to presume that the links to Jesus are clear and unequivocal, so that anyone who doesn’t agree must be ignorant, stupid or perverse.
Second, since, my research materials and my on-line computer are currently not at hand together, I will limit myself here to a few comments on Isaiah. I am not claiming that these are any more unequivocal than anything else; they simply are intended to point to the equivocality.
—Isaiah 9: 6 is cast in the past tense. However, such grammatical readings ought not to be considered decisive in Biblical Hebrew generally (as they might be in Greek—or English), and in poetic/prophetic speech in particular. The footnote in my Harper-Collins Study Bible (NRS translation) says, with regard to 9:1-7, “This passage served originally as an oracle for the coronation of a Judean King, probably Hezekiah.” (J.J.M. Roberts, Professor of Old Testament Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary.)
—In 37:22, it is Zion that is referred to as “virgin daughter” (NRS; JPS has “fair maiden” ; the Stone Edition Tanach has “maiden daughter” ).
—In 45:1 Isaiah (or Second Isaiah) makes his only direct reference to a messiah—King Cyrus. The English word “anointed” translates the Hebrew moshiach: messiah.
Third, there never was (and is not now) a singular understanding of messiah that can be claimed for Judaism in general. It is not a central tenet of faith. As noted above, even a foreign king—Cyrus—was called messiah by a prophet. Not all Jews (or even a majority of Jews) at Jesus’ time were into apocalyptic messianism (though it does seem to be a more prominent phenomenon in times of distress, such as the Roman occupation). I am not really familiar with the Essenes, and what their messianic ideas were.
However, just to illustrate, Rabbi Hillel (an older contemporary of Jesus) is quoted in the Babylonian Talmud (tractate Sanhedrin, 98A) as follows:
“Rabbi Hillel said: ‘Israel need not look for the advent of Messiah, since Isaiah’s prophecy about him was already fulfilled in King Hezekiah.’” (quoted in The Talmudic Anthology, Louis I. Newman, editor, p.278)
—Note: “Rashi understands Hillel to mean that God alone and not a Messiah would bring about the promised redemption…” (ibid)
And: “Rabbi Akiba was rebuked by Rabbi Jose, the Galilean, for ‘profaning the Divine Presence’ by teaching that the Messiah occupies a throne alongside of God. (If miracles are to be performed, God alone will perform them. The Messiah’s advent will not change the course of nature.)” (tractate Hagigah, 14A; quoted in ibid, p. 277)
Fourth , like No.1, I am unaware of any passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (or the Oral Torah, though I am a rank beginner there) that would imply a twice-coming messiah.
Fifth, I do not think Jesus was “the messiah” . I no longer venture any arguments about what I think he might’ve thought, or questions of “Christology”, etc; I no longer venture any arguments about the NT texts at all. Those with whom I have enjoyed such arguments on here in the past probably have a general idea about what I might think.
Sixth, I do not fault Christians for drawing on the Hebrew Scriptures in support of their faith. I do not fault them for thinking that Jews (and others) are simply mistaken. Just as there is no singular tenet in Judaism regarding messiah, there is no singular reason why the vast majority of Jews (all but a scant handful) never thought that Jesus fit the bill—I have read some books on the subject by Jews, and they express a variety of reasons. I can cite some works if anyone is interested.
I do fault people who presume that the Hebrew Scriptures are so clear and unambiguous as to yield a straightforward “one and only ‘right’ meaning” to anyone who can read—English! That is not only antithetical to Jewish norms of exegesis that predate Jesus and Christianity, it is antithetical to the language of Biblical Hebrew [hence my caveat above about imposing strict grammatical rules on the Hebrew]. I do not fault Christians for reading the Hebrew Scriptures through the hermeneutical lens of the NT even; I do fault some people for not owning up (or at least seeming to not own up) to the fact that that is a hermeneutical decision—just as to read through the lens of historical criticism, or literary criticism, or midrash are hermeneutical decisions.
I fault no one for saying, “This is how I read the text” (and mere disagreement is not fault-finding; the basic format for Torah-study is argument). I do fault those who claim, “This is the only way any reasonable person can read the text”, and simply dismiss out-of-hand alternative valid possibilities.
Are there any prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah? I don’t think so. Can such prophetic linkages be crafted by means of a valid midrashic hermeneutic? Yes. Do I expect everyone to agree with me? No.
Note—
There is one and only one creedal tenet in Judaism:
Shema Ysrael YHVH eloheinu YHVH echad.
“Hear, O Israel, The-One-That-Is, our God, the One-That-Is is one.” (my translation)
And that can be taken dualistically (as in dualistic monotheism) or non-dualistically. I follow the latter.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdwhether they are unequivocal or otherwise is neither here nor there, if there is evidence to the contrary then where is it? whether or not Matthew searched for prophesies that he could apply or otherwise is pure conjecture, as for whether others are stupid i do not think is the issue, for if there is evidence to the contrary then should it not be considered, but as for the present, the evidence is practically scant and even non existent, for example that Christ was not of the Davidic line, where several references were provided, not withstanding the biblical passages, evidence to the contrary, nil? as for Isaiah it has been alleged it was an interpolation, evidence nil, that it was intended clearly with regard to Hezekiah when there are clear references in Jewish rabbinic writings which state it was messianic, who are we to believe?
[b]First, hundreds of equivocal “prophecies”, taken together do still not an unequivocal prophecy make.
—An unequivocal prophecy might look something like: “In this year ___________, a son will be born to a woman named___________; his name will be___________, and he will do these things…” For example, an Isaiah verse that Matthew drew on is 7:14, w ...[text shortened]... be taken dualistically (as in dualistic monotheism) or non-dualistically. I follow the latter.[/b]
you have most admirably produced at least some references with which to back up your claims, it matters not their source to me, as the content is important, but they remain at very best the thoughts of men, imperfect and fallible.
the problem for you clearly is that with such a huge body of references, which were stated previously, you would indeed have to dispute and contradict each and every one, which is almost impossible, for many clearly cannot be refuted, that Christ was indeed the Messiah i see no evidence to the contrary, nor has any been provided, the attempts made have been simply to discredit the interpretations of such, not an actual refutation. also because the references themselves are found in the Hebrew scriptures which have been excellently preserved to our day due to the conscientious efforts of the Masoretes and others making it difficult to refute, for the claims that they have been manipulated cannot be inferred here.
are there any prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah i think is to take a narrow view, for to the christian the entire canonical works are inspired of god, from genesis to revelation and while they do not provide an unequivocal testimony, they come as close as one can get, which not withstanding the lack of evidence to the contrary, are good enough.
I thank God that the ancient Hebrews were entrusted with the preservation of the sacred text, for they have done an admirable job, that there is one God we also acquiesce, however for the christian we have the added tenet that we must love him with our very being!
22 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhether they are unequivocal or otherwise is neither here nor there
whether they are unequivocal or otherwise is neither here nor there, if there is evidence to the contrary then where is it? whether or not Matthew searched for prophesies that he could apply or otherwise is pure conjecture, as for whether others are stupid i do not think is the issue, for if there is evidence to the contrary then should it not be con ...[text shortened]... ce, however for the christian we have the added tenet that we must love him with our very being!
It certainly is, in the face of claims that the body of prophecies is unequivocal. You are right: you can throw a myriad of equivocal statements (many of them poetic in nature) that you claim must apply to Jesus, and I will likely not bother to address each one—I certainly will not bother unless you find one that you claim is clearly unequivocal. A large group of equivocalities is simply a large group of equivocalities.
I have given Jewish readings of just a few; Torah Jews read these texts as fervently, religiously and deeply as you do. They just don’t read them the same way.
if there is evidence to the contrary then where is it?
(1) This—and your list of “nils”—are logically equivalent to my asserting the existence of unicorns, and demanding from you evidence to the contrary.
In fact, there is certainly more evidence for the presence of unicorns (paintings, myths, stories) in the world than there is for their absence; how would one “produce” evidence of the non-existence of unicorns?
Surely you can see how flawed that kind of reasoning is. What surely you mean to argue is that you believe that you have a sufficiency of evidence for your conclusion, and see no such sufficiency of evidence for the contary. (Such evidence clearly has been offered in this thread; it's okay that you judge it to be insufficient or non-compelling in nature.)
(2) With that said, however, the fact that the world remains unredeemed, that there is corruption in the world, that there is not universal shalom (peace and well-being) certainly stands as some evidence that the messianic mission (if there be such a messiah) is not fulfilled. Such things represent at least some of the evidence that some Jews would look for, as evidence of the advent of the messianic age, whether ushered in by some personal messiah or not.
In the face of that kind of evidence, resort is made to a “second coming”. However, absence of any reference in the Tanach to a messianic second-coming means that that notion had to come from somewhere else. (If I am wrong, and there is some unequivocal mention of a twice-coming messiah in the Tanach, I’ll stand corrected.)
(3) At least as early as Hillel (circa 60 BCE to 20 CE), a major rabbinical figure, there were such rabbis who eschewed the notion of any more moshiachs. (See below)
that it was intended clearly with regard to Hezekiah when there are clear references in Jewish rabbinic writings which state it was messianic, who are we to believe?
So, there are rabbis who take it as referencing Hezekiah, and there are rabbis who take it as referring to a future messiah (I do not know that there are, but it seems likely and I’ll take your word for it). [Shrug] There is not some central rabbinical authority that tells us which rabbis we must believe, nor what particular ideas of moshiach we must hold. There is—and never was—any central teaching, belief, doctrine about messiah in Judaism. You are expected to study and come to your own conclusions. Hillel has no more final say on such matters than any other rabbi(s).
It would not have been a crime (or a heresy) for some Jews to conclude that Yeshu ben Yoseph was messiah (either “a” messiah, or some kind of “the” messiah). Other Jews might have thought that was wrong-headed, even dangerous in the face of the Roman occupation—but that’s all. Whether or not Jesus and his followers could be accused of any heresy or blasphemy would depend on what they heard him/them to say about his relationship vis-à-vis the God who is always One—and any claims that he was uniquely God-in-the-flesh (and “the only son of God) might well have been taken as a rejection of that single creedal tenet of Judaism, which even the Pharisees and the Sadducees agreed on. It may well have sounded of a piece with pagan polytheism.
I do not recall that Jesus was convicted of blasphemy (if the stories are accurate, then the Sadducees certainly told a number of lies—including that Jews had no law allowing the death penalty). I do not convict him either.
the attempts made have been simply to discredit the interpretations of such, not an actual refutation
On the one hand, I didn't get very far into Hebrew studies (I am by no means fluent, even at reading; but I have learned how the language works) before discovering that it is darned difficult to “discredit” various interpretations. That is why there are so many interpretations within Judaism (including what you would call “spiritual” ones), and all possible interpretations are to be admitted, and new interpretations to be made. So, personally, I can’t use the word “discredit”. For the most part, I would say that such interpretations are arguable, but not “discreditable”. I do not discredit your interpretations: they are simply not mine.
Here, I have really only argued their equivocality, and offered (in the case of Hezekiah at least, a counter-interpretation). In rabbinical understanding of how to read Torah, that would not constitute a “discredit”.
What I am refuting is—
(i) That only one clear and unequivocal interpretation is possible from the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.
(ii) The notion (not stated in this thread, but perhaps implied) that there is, or ever was, any central, univocal notion of messiah (let alone anything like a required belief) in Judaism.
—When Isaiah calls Cyrus “God’s moshiach (the single actual reference to messiah in Isaiah), do you take him to mean the same kind of messiah as you take the rest of his prophetic statements to mean? Certainly not. If you do a word-search for the English word “anointed” (in most English translations, anyway), you can see how many folks were called messiah.
(iii) The logical flaw that absence of evidence for a proposition, X, somehow demonstrates its contrary, ~X. Or, more apropos of this discussion: that absence of evidence for ~X somehow demonstrates that X.
As I noted above, quite seriously, there is—as a matter of fact—more evidence for the existence of unicorns than for their nonexistence. I simply do not find the nature of such evidence to be sufficiently compelling to warrant a belief in unicorns; others do. If I try to produce some kind of “evidence of absence”—e.g., I have never actually seen one—there are all kinds of counters, like: “Well, you have to believe in them to see them”. Or: “They’re not here anymore, but they will return one day.” Or…
_______________________________________________
I am currently engaged in studying Torah (working through the weekly parshyot), without the lens of the NT. I am reading rabbinical Talmudic and Midrashic commentaries and interpretations. I am working slowly. Maybe in a year, I will be able to articulate reasonable alternative readings of all your hundreds of prophecies without having to grind the research stone on each one. In the meantime, if I see one that interests me, and fits in with where my studies are, perhaps I’ll leap in. But the purpose of my studies has nothing to do with trying to refute Christianity; I am simply pursuing my own spiritual path now through that paradigm (where I once “lived”, so to speak, and where I am trying to recover a lot of lost ground).
I do read the texts through the lens of non-dualism (while recognizing various dualistic readings by the rabbis, etc.). Non-dualism is quite prominent in Judaism, so I am not imposing some exogenous “map”; I am seeing how that stream of Judaism “maps” that “territory”.
I will, of course, from time to time present interpretations and arguments on here: that is one way that I test my own thinking against other minds.
22 Dec 08
4 edits
Originally posted by vistesdvisted,
[b]whether they are unequivocal or otherwise is neither here nor there
It certainly is, in the face of claims that the body of prophecies is unequivocal. You are right: you can throw a myriad of equivocal statements (many of them poetic in nature) that you claim must apply to Jesus, and I will likely not bother to address each one—I certainl tions and arguments on here: that is one way that I test my own thinking against other minds.[/b]
So basically, you come down on the side of those who thought Jesus should be crucified. Am I right?
I mean as He stood before Caiphas, basically, you (based on your research) are in agreement with the high priest and the scholars recomending that He has blasphemed and is worthy of death.
Is there a nickel's worth of difference between their rejection of Jesus as Son of God and your own?
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdyou make many good points, if time permitted i would like to address at least some of them, however the similarity to the unicorn and the basis for its evidence and acceptance is to place the messiah in the same category as a type of mythical being, unless i misunderstood you, which is also probable, however i do not think is quite the same thing, although many would say that it was. however probably one of the most compelling prophetic references and the one that comes closest to being unequivocal is the famous scripture in Isaiah chapter 53 concerning the manner of death of the messiah. i reproduce it hear for your perusal.
[b]whether they are unequivocal or otherwise is neither here nor there
It certainly is, in the face of claims that the body of prophecies is unequivocal. You are right: you can throw a myriad of equivocal statements (many of them poetic in nature) that you claim must apply to Jesus, and I will likely not bother to address each one—I certainl ...[text shortened]... tions and arguments on here: that is one way that I test my own thinking against other minds.[/b]
Who has put faith in the thing heard by us? And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed? And he will come up like a twig before one, and like a root out of waterless land. No stately form does he have, nor any splendor; and when we shall see him, there is not the appearance so that we should desire him.
He was despised and was avoided by men, a man meant for pains and for having acquaintance with sickness. And there was as if the concealing of ones face from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account. Truly our sicknesses were what he himself carried; and as for our pains, he bore them. But we ourselves accounted him as plagued, stricken by God and afflicted. But he was being pierced for our transgression; he was being crushed for our errors. The chastisement meant for our peace was upon him, and because of his wounds there has been a healing for us. Like sheep we have all of us wandered about; it was each one to his own way that we have turned; and Jehovah himself has caused the error of us all to meet up with that one. He was hard pressed, and he was letting himself be afflicted; yet he would not open his mouth. He was being brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering and like a ewe that before her shearers has become mute, he also would not open his mouth.
Because of restraint and of judgment he was taken away; and who will concern himself even with [the details of] his generation? For he was severed from the land of the living ones. Because of the transgression of my people he had the stroke. And he will make his burial place even with the wicked ones, and with the rich class in his death, despite the fact that he had done no violence and there was no deception in his mouth.
But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days, and in his hand what is the delight of Jehovah will succeed. Because of the trouble of his soul he will see, he will be satisfied. By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bear. For that reason I shall deal him a portion among the many, and it will be with the mighty ones that he will apportion the spoil, due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death, and it was with the transgressors that he was counted in; and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.
now almost any one of these statements can be cross referenced to other parts of the inspired word and one must ask, if they were not fulfilled in the manner of execution and death of Jesus, then who else did?
i provide the reference not to try to convince you of the Christs claims to be the messiah, but as simply to provide a reference for why we believe he is, for to be sure, there are many other factors which influence a persons accepting or rejecting this testimony, but for me, its good enough.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehowever the similarity to the unicorn and the basis for its evidence and acceptance is to place the messiah in the same category as a type of mythical being, unless i misunderstood you, which is also probable, however i do not think is quite the same thing, although many would say that it was.
you make many good points, if time permitted i would like to address at least some of them, however the similarity to the unicorn and the basis for its evidence and acceptance is to place the messiah in the same category as a type of mythical being, unless i misunderstood you, which is also probable, however i do not think is quite the same thing, a ...[text shortened]... rs which influence a persons accepting or rejecting this testimony, but for me, its good enough.
Well, I admit that I chose an outlandish example, just to put a sharp point on the illustration.
I will delve into Isaiah 53. But I am going to take my time about it, as my studies go along—I doubt that I will too long about it, though. Maybe I can work Isaiah in along with my weekly Torah readings; I do know that sections of Isaiah are read along with the weekly Torah portions.
With regard to your “If not Jesus, who?” question, a fairly standard reply would likely be: “Nobody—yet.” But, for me—without having done my “homework”—that would be a kind of knee-jerk answer. Maybe it will be my answer, but it isn’t now.
i provide the reference not to try to convince you of the Christ’s claims to be the messiah, but as simply to provide a reference for why we believe he is, for to be sure, there are many other factors which influence a person’s accepting or rejecting this testimony, but for me, it’s good enough.
Understood. Thanks. And vice versa.
A thought experiment:
Given the broad range of understandings of “messiah” in Judaism, suppose that you concluded that none of the prophecies in the HS, separately or together, necessarily pointed to Jesus—or the concept of messiah that you firmly believe he embodies. I see no reason why such a conclusion would necessarily undermine Christian belief.
It seems to me that a perfectly legitimate response (let’s say, to someone who was ready to renounce their Christianity on the basis of that conclusion about the HS prophecies) would be something like: “Those who followed Jesus saw something in him that evoked a new understanding of messiah—one drawn from the concept they inherited from Judaism, but new nevertheless. Because of this ‘epiphany’, they searched out the HS for clues. Some were more interested in that pursuit than others. But—whether they properly identified and read what they found in the HS, or not—that was not what was decisive. What was decisive was what they saw in Jesus that they could only call messiah (Christ). And they had to find ways to express that.
“But—that messiaship, that identification of Jesus as Christ—was vested strictly in that event, and nowhere else! [And I am not implying that yours is vested anywhere else.]
“Look, Peter probably knew his share of Torah (written and oral), but he was no Torah scholar; he was a working fisherman. It was not his extensive knowledge of prophecy that led to his statement—really, his outburst—of faith. Likewise, it was the knowledge of Christ that led Matthew to the scriptural texts, not the other way round.”
Etc., etc. Now, that kind of view might require some re-adjustment in some people’s understandings of things like scriptural inspiration and inerrancy and such. But I know for a fact that there are many Christians on here, of diverse theological opinions on other matters, who would urge the pre-eminence of Christ (and the Holy Spirit) over scripture. And I’m not aware that a disagreement about such scriptural matters can render one who vests their faith in Jesus as the Christ (whether in trintarian terms or not) nevertheless not a Christian.
Just a thought experiment.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdthe problem with christian thinking is that certain aspects of the text are emphasized over others to support preconception and church doctrine, thus although the scripture clearly indicate that God is one, they state that there is three in one, or that there are different manifestations of the one, or whatever, why, because this is church doctrine and has no basis in scripture. thus they invalidate the word of God because of their traditions, kind of like what happened to the Law that was given to Israel, eventually the oral law superseded the written law, thus what was fairly simple to understand at the outset became complicated and involved which gave birth to confusion and controversy.
[b]however the similarity to the unicorn and the basis for its evidence and acceptance is to place the messiah in the same category as a type of mythical being, unless i misunderstood you, which is also probable, however i do not think is quite the same thing, although many would say that it was.
Well, I admit that I chose an outlandish example, just ...[text shortened]... in trintarian terms or not) nevertheless not a Christian.
Just a thought experiment.[/b]
what is of interest is this, that if the Jews are still waiting for a messiah, as i remember reading that some still are, how will they recognize him? can he prove for example that he is of the lineage of David? clearly a prerequisite, is it not? if not how will they know? quite interesting, what are your own thoughts?
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie if I may interject without throwing the current debate too much.
the problem with christian thinking is that certain aspects of the text are emphasized over others to support preconception and church doctrine, thus although the scripture clearly indicate that God is one, they state that there is three in one, or that there are different manifestations of the one, or whatever, why, because this is church doctrine a ...[text shortened]... sis in scripture. thus they invalidate the word of God because of their traditions, ... my edit
I don't think that there is any mention in scripture of "three in one" although there are different manifestations of the one God as you say. I'm a little confused by your opening sentences saying "the scripture clearly states" (which I claim it doesn't), and then saying "no basis in scripture".
I agree (if this is what you are saying) that the doctrine of the Trinity (also not mentioned anywhere in the Bible) has confused some people of God's revealed identity. Interestingly the "Eternal Son" is not mentioned anywhere in scripture either.
22 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterhi, yes this is exactly what i was saying, there is no mention anywhere of a three in one, although a trinitarian may argue that they are the same in essence or something like this, i do not buy the trinity, not one bit, God is one! the eternal son is also interesting, i had never thought of this myself. My good friend jay will, quite earnestly tried in vain to convince me, but he used some obscure passages in Zechariah which was tenuous to say the least, if he reads this im for it! Also the passage that he refers to Isa 9:6 has no reference to the almighty, not one! the phrase eternal father is used only on this one occasion, nowhere else, and thus by admitting that the scripture had reference to Christ, he must concede that it had nothing to do with the Father, Almighty God, who is one! (but it did not stop him from trying 😀)
Robbie if I may interject without throwing the current debate too much.
I don't think that there is any mention in scripture of "three in one" although there are different manifestations of the one God as you say. I'm a little confused by your opening sentences saying "the scripture clearly states" (which I claim it doesn't), and then saying "no bas y. Interestingly the "Eternal Son" is not mentioned anywhere in scripture either.