Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?

i meant that the hebrew of that verse does not contain the word virgin. i know there is a hebrew word for virgin. sorry for the confusion. the kjv translates it virgin twice in song of songs, and once in genesis. but there is no reason in any of those verses for it to be translated as such. neither of my jewish bibles do. really? i only see it in the genesis verse, and not the songs. but then again, i don't read greek very well. but a search reveals that parqenos does not appear in song of solomon at all.yet it appears three times in genesis 24, only ONE of which is translated "virgin" in the kjv rendering of the masoretic text. which means that something changed. because these are actually a different hebrew word, besides almah and betulah.it also indicates that parqenos is not being used to represent the hebrew word for virgin. uh. read isaiah 7, 8 and 9 again. it's a prophesy that will be fulfill when a child is about 13. the prophesy is that ahaz will defeat israel and aram. to just look at the part about a young woman concieving is silly.it doesn't say virgin. there's nothing special about the young woman getting preggers. and it says his name is immanuel, not jesus. ahaz was worried that god had forgotten him, or that he'd messed up. the child was a sign that god was still with him, and judah. thus, "god is with us:" immanuel. not jesus. the child is a sign that god IS with them, and that ahaz will defeat aram and israel.not that the child IS god.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-17-2005 07:01 PM

I have to take a break until late tomorrow. I haven't been making any of this up. I'm simply trying to explain what Christian theology says and has said for 2000 years now.I understood your question about what Jesus meant and gave you the orthodox Christian answer in that list of the prophecies I found. It's exactly what I've always been taught. It's standard Christian interpretation.Beyond that I've tried to answer the secondary questions it has raised, but basically your question has been answered: That's what Jesus was referring to about how He is spoken of in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms. It was His claim to be the Messiah.So really it is Jesus you are arguing with, not me. But if there is more I can answer tomorrow I will try again. So bye for now.

i'm well aware of that. but daniel in itself is a whole nother discussion. we're just looking at the books that jesus specifically mentioned as being contained in the torah, nevi'im, and psalms. jesus did occasionally too. but we're not looking at arguments about how jesus supposedly fulfilled prophesies. we're showing that most of these arguments are simply wrong. it's not neccessary to look at them when we have the verse they cite. we're look at the evidence, not the later mental gymnastics to make jesus fit through the hoops. genesis has a bad habit of refering to groups in the singular. for instance, it often calls who groups the equivalent of "bastard" by stating their origin in sexual misconduct. (ala lot's sons by his daughters.)in this instance, it's making a singular case out a tendancy to not like snakes. it's an explanation of our reaction to snakes.although prior to the time of christ, this was read as singular. but not as messianic prophesy. there's another book or two that has this verse refering to seth, eve's son, who is bitten by a snake and bashes its head in. also, look how seth is refered to:

quote:

---

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew

---

seth is specifically referred to as eve's seed. nothing special about that. i'm pretty sure it was the verse this was addressing. seed is referring to multiple offspring. descendents. whether or not job himself was jewish, it is still jewish literature, written by jews. and he answers to, and talks about the god of the jews, yahweh, in the sense that jewish people do. (as opposed to the people of ugarit, who refer to yahweh was the son of el) you stand corrected. yes. however, that brings up another issue. the line of kings ALWAYS goes through the father. if jesus had no earthly father, he could not have been heir to david's throne, and the messiah. whether or not he was of the house of david. actually, that whole chapter in job (indeed the whole book of job) is one long accusation against god. job is saying someone will redeem him AGAINST GOD.notice the reaction he expects in the next verse from his friends? he's expecting to get lynched. you wanna agree with job's blasphemy? job is arguing that god is unjust. do you want to agree with him? look at how job starts:

quote:

---

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

---

that doesn't jive with original sin. and if the sin comes from being born of a woman, jesus's got it too. job is very poetically accusing god of not giving him his just dues. from the same chapter:

quote:

---

Job 19:6: Yet know that God has wronged me

---

quote:

---

Job 15:14 What [is] man, that he should be clean? and [he which is] born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

---

You are making this more difficult than it really is.Three "laws" of the 613 were pulled from Genesis.
Circumcision
Be fruitful and multiply
Not to eat the thigh (which is also not in the laws given to Moses)By tradition they have become part of the "laws" that the Jews are to follow. Remember centuries have passed by.The examples you shared are about rules that are to be followed, not prophecies.

quote:

---

how does that make any sense, though? what could rules speak of a messiah? they're just rules, not prophesy.

---

Hey Jesus said it not me. Besides, what true messianic prophecy have they presented us from any of the five books?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

oh, we know. trust me.for one, i am a christian myself. i'm not sure about purpledawn. i keep forgetting.but a lot of the nt literature simply misreads jewish literature. just wait till we get to the donkeys bit lower in your first post. ...and what if it's wrong? actually, i'm starting to think that referencing psalms was a subtle claim of deity. you see, psalms are usually about a very personal relationship with god, between the psalmist and god. and if jesus isn't the psalmist... i think this is closest jesus ever came to claiming to be the messiah. he implies it a lot. "son of man" etc. but i don't think that he's talking about that standard list of things we alwasy see posted. this thread is to determing what he WAS talking about.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-17-2005 07:36 PM

Predictions are far more accurate if done after the fact.Anyway, prophecy was not originally meant as a synonym of prediction. Prophecy was the transmittal of instruction or knowledge.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

no, i'm really not. you are. not a law. it's a covenant. and agreement. a commandment, specific to adam and eve. explanation of a law that is mysteriously missing. not a law in itself. exactly. i'm not sure. i think jesus might have been subtley calling himself god.but onto what jesus would have said. although jesus probably spoke aramaic, if he had spoken hebrew, when he said "law" he would have actually said the word "torah." when a jewish person refers to "the law" or "the law of moses" they mean the torah. why do you think he meant anything other than "torah?" he mentions two specific divisions of the modern tanakh by name. i've even heard arguments that "psalms" is really a bad rendering of "writings" or ketuvim, the third section.i other words, he might have been saying "the entire old testament"

quote:

---

I'm simply trying to explain what Christian theology says and has said for 2000 years now.

---

I already know what Christian theology says and it doesn't match up.The Jews who listened to Jesus only had the OT to check his statements through. They didn't have Christian Theologians.This thread is in accuracy and inerrancy, not faith and belief.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Exactly!

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

actually, that whole chapter in job (indeed the whole book of job) is one long accusation against god. job is saying someone will redeem him AGAINST GOD.

---

That's what Jesus DID!! It's God's Law that condemns us, that we need to be saved FROM.Oh but I can't take the time right now to get into any more of this. I just HAD to answer that one point. Other points also beckon but I have to get some things done. Don't say anything interesting until tomorrow night!

quote:

---

I already know what Christian theology says and it doesn't match up.

---

I find it all extremely beautifully consistent myself.

quote:

---

The Jews who listened to Jesus only had the OT to check his statements through. They didn't have Christian Theologians.

---

Yes, but all Christian Theology is is the codification of what is found in the scriptures.

quote:

---

This thread is in accuracy and inerrancy, not faith and belief.

---

???????

quote:

---

Predictions are far more accurate if done after the fact.
Anyway, prophecy was not originally meant as a synonym of prediction. Prophecy was the transmittal of instruction or knowledge.

---

Partly true, but the Bible is unique in that it has the kind of prophecy that really IS prophetic in the sense of predictive. And they were all done BEFORE the fact.Ciao for now.

so god's the bad guy?you realize this is blasphemy right?

Would the Bible contain blasphemy?No, God Himself has pity on us poor miserable condemned people, condemned by His law, and sends His Own Son to save us from it, from His OWN condemnation of us. It's the most beautiful story ever written.

quote:

---

I find it all extremely beautifully consistent myself.

---

Unforatunately you haven't shown the consistency in your posts. The explanation and the words don't match up.This is accuracy and inerrancy, which to me means, stick to evidence.IOW, if the words say "the cow jumped over the moon", don't give me that theology says it means the dog jumped over the moon. If you do, you need to show me why the words don't match, with concrete evidence.If you claim double meanings, you need to show evidence of it, etc.Don't pass on Christian Theology if you can't show evidence to support their interpretation.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France