Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies?

What a bunch of nonsense. How can it possibly be that Israel was wounded for the transgressions of others? He was wounded FOR our transgressions, not BY our transgressions.And how on earth did the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 bring anybody peace? Israel is always being punished by God for their own transgressions as are all of us.Nothing in scripture allows the idea of THEIR taking OUR punishments upon themselves. For one thing sinful humanity cannot do that. The lamb of sacrifice must be unblemished, meaning sinless, and only Jesus fits that description.Are we SAVED by the sufferings endured by Israel? Show me where you get such a nonsensical idea besides your imposing it on the text of Isaiah 53. No, that text is about the Messiah then to come, now known as Jesus: Israel has always suffered for their own sins as have all of us. They can be saved from the consequences of their sins for eternity thanks to the sacrifice of Christ, if they wish to be, just as we all can.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Being a Jew doesn't make them right, to put it mildly. The fact is that the Jews who rejected Jesus then and reject Him now do not understand their own scriptures. Orthodox Jews today are the same as the Pharisees in Jesus' time who were always being upbraided by Him for their man-made teachings and twisting of the scriptures. They continue today with exactly the same false teachings. They still strain gnats out of their soup and swallow camels.The Jews who did believe were also slow to get it because of the false teachings of the Pharisees, as Jesus was continually showing them. A few got it right away, such as the old man (Simon?) and Anna who were always in the temple, and those Bereans who studied the scriptures carefully to see if the claims were true and concluded they were. Paul had it all wrong because of his having been steeped in the teachings of the Pharisees, but after being waylaid by the risen Christ he became the firebrand for the truth we all follow now. And how much of the NT do you have to rewrite to come to that absurd conclusion? What evidence could you possibly have for such a claim? He chose twelve lowly men to be his disciples, fishermen and others, men who were not soldiers; He went around teaching and healing and doing miracles rather than gathering an army; He told them He was going to die and then He took it completely passively when the time came. Where in any of the accounts of His life is there the slightest hint that He had the worldly politico-military aim you ascribe to Him? Right, in the "gospel according to PaulK of course." It doesn't exist in the Bible. Brief? Still going after 2000 years? Popularity? According to the NT, only with some, and it quickly evaporated. They hosanna'd Him when He entered Jerusalem on the donkey, which was His declaration of His Messiahship. His Kingship, but then they all rejected Him before Pilate and chose Barabbas instead.But the Gospel According to Paul K is of course superior to the Bible itself and the testimony of 2000 years and millions upon millions of believers, true believers who are willing, even today, to die for the truth we find in the Bible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

THAT point I agree with. Some who are responding to Eliyahu are clearly completely ignorant of what Orthodox Jews believe and keep raising questions that are completely irrelevant to him.HOWEVER, you also said that since Eliyahu regards the claims for Jesus to be false that "even non-Jews" should regard those claims to be "thoroughly suspect." That is what I was answering. Eliyahu represents today's Pharisees, the descendants of the very men Jesus was constantly condemning for their misreading of scripture. No, as I showed you'd have to rewrite pretty much the entire NT because there what we have is Jesus doing not one single thing to suggest He intended to fulfill the worldly aims of the Jews as a conquering hero, quite the opposite, as I pointed out, also we have the Jewish leaders being denounced by Jesus as wrong wrong wrong. Your "critical view" must ignore just about all of it, but the idea of Jesus' "lack of impact" has my jaw on the floor. Especially the phrase "outside Christianity." Now THAT's classic. THAT is enough to make a camel swallow a Pharisee. Or something like that.Jesus' impact for starters converted some 30,000 Jews according to some figuring I did quite a while back based on the Book of Acts, then spread out all over the Middle East and Mediterranean world, establishing churches wherever it went, the majority out of the synagogues and therefore Jewish at least at first, then up through tribe after tribe of Europeans as well. Christianity displaced former religions as the gospel spread, it made inroads into the nonChristian world, making much of it Christian which hadn't been before. "Lack of impact?" "Outside Christianity? It ATE UP the nonChristian world of the first few centuries. "Lack of impact?" It "turned the world upside down" as many historians have said. What you are doing is rewriting. Yeah, Christianity made CONVERTS in the millions. The converts wrote tons and tons of stuff. The ones who didn't convert went on in their usual ruts, sometimes, however, acknowledging the impact of Christianity by throwing its followers to the lions and burning them as torches. No doubt because I'm the one with the truth, you the one with the made up crap, and the pride to boot.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hardly. That was addressed and resolved in the very teachings of Jesus himself who exposed the unscriptural understanding of the Pharisees, and today's Jews are the same as those erring Pharisees. They crucified Him because they didn't believe He was the Messiah, and nothing has changed in their view of Him today either. Why on earth should we reconsider something that was so definitively put to rest in Jesus' own time. I pointed out that Jesus didn't do one thing that suggested an ambition to establish an earthly kingdom that would involve political and military arrangements. He taught, he did miracles, nothing suggestive of the kind of Messiah some of the Jews were wrongly expecting. You didn't bother to answer this but it's a fact that everything Jesus did works against such an idea, as well as everything He taught, most particularly "My Kingdom is not of this world."

Sad to say you could be right about this. But God always preserves a remnant of those who put their trust in Him. Christians in name only aren't Christians anyway. When we get down to a few true believers then you'll see the power of God in us. Well, there's one coming soon I think, but he'll be a tool of Satan. I hope if that happens it will cause you to rethink the evidence for the true Messiah/Moschiach Jesus/Yeshua. I agree with this in a general sense, especially now and for the future, but originally its existence depended on Britain. Not until you recognize Jesus as your true Messiah, and I certainly hope that happens within the next twenty years, the sooner the better. I tend to agree with you about this (although there are other ways of seeing it among Christians). The founding of Israel was not led by people who trusted in God, nor has any of its history been attributed to God, by the Jews themselves I mean, that I know of. Still, I agree that there is no way all that could have come about unless God was guiding it, despite the fact that the nation as a whole is unbelieving. It's hard to deny that God supported Israel in the wars that threatened her starting in 1948. Powerful Providence if not exactly miraculous. I also expect Jesus to return to earth on the Mount of Olives. Hope you grasp the implications of that eventually. This is quite true of Roman Catholicism, but they aren't Christian anyway. (Some Catholics may be Christian because they at least learned that Jesus is the Savior and don't understand all the weird theology of the RCC, but the RCC itself is pagan to the core. Even their garb goes back to pagan Rome, and the title "Pontiff" and that fish-shaped hat that harks back to the religion of Dagon the fish god, and the exaltation of "the virgin Mary" who is simply the RCC version of the goddess mothers of Tammuz and Osiris and all the rest of them that go back to Semiramis and Nimrod. And as the book of Revelation says of the RCC, she is the Harlot Church that is "drunk with the blood of the martyrs" which include all the victims of their Inquisition, some 50 million Bible-believing Christians plus another 17 million which included Jews among others. And from what I've been reading the Holocaust itself was modeled on the Inquisition. Hitler was a Catholic and the Pope in his time supported him, eulogized him on his death and after the war facilitated the escape of thousands of Nazi murderers to Catholic countries. You might find this information useful some day. Well, the Jews of the NT even confessed that there was no way anyone had ever fulfilled the Law perfectly, and Paul taught that the whole point of the Law was to show us our inability to obey it so that we might be drawn to Christ, the only human being who ever did obey it perfectly and could do so because He did not inherit sin, having God as His Father. His perfect obedience is imputed to those who believe in Him and know that our debt to the Law was paid by His death on the cross. You also can't obey the Law, you're just fooling yourself. But once Jesus' obedience and death is accepted on our behalf then we are given spiritual strength through Him to begin to obey it.But alas, you've managed to erase the messianic meanings of all the OT scriptures that prophesied that the Messiah would be God incarnate. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Such as by saying that he would not have known what coveting is had the Law not forbidden it, and concluding that it was the Law's purpose to show us what God forbids and our inability to obey it. Jesus had already taught that the Law is a lot deeper than outward obedience, it's a matter of the dispositions of the heart, that even lusting in the heart is adultery, and hatred in the heart is murder. Is there anyone who could ever claim to never have committed such sins? James says that we are guilty of all the Law if we sin against it even in part. The purpose of the Law, then, according to Paul again, is to bring us to Christ, who alone fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law and took all the sins on His own body of those who believe in Him, so that He could die in our place, pay for our sins that we are certainly unable to pay for, and set us free from the burden of the Law. Yes, of course, obedience of the Law is what it's all about, and if anyone could do it he/she would never die. Because death is the wages of sin. The Law is universal and unbreakable, holy and beautiful, but we are sinners because of the disobedience of Adam, all of us "conceived in iniquity" as King David says in the Psalm. The Messiah has come to overturn the effects of that disobedience and make us fit for the company of God, in whose presence nobody can stand who has sin. Well, consider the history of Israel as the Tanach reports it: over and over they fall into terrible sin and God sends terrible punishments. That ought to teach that obedience is no easy thing, that the very people to whom God gave the Law kept running afoul of it. And what would be the use of giving the Law then? To teach that the Law is perfect and holy and that we are sinners, to teach that what is needed is repentance and trust in God for our salvation; to humble us before God's majesty and goodness, so that we give up trusting in ourselves and surrender ourselves completely to Him. "That no flesh should glory" but all glory be God's. Anyone who thinks he obeys the Law is liable to great spiritual pride, which is the worst sin of all. God gave the Law so that we could see we have nothing good in ourselves but all goodness and mercy comes from Him. "All we like sheep have gone astray" says Isaiah. "My people draw near to Me with their lips but their hearts are far from Me." Well, according to the NT, Hebrews 11 to be exact, Abraham "believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness." That is, it was his faith in God that counted for obedience of the Law: "obeyed My voice and kept My charge" has to do with his leaving Ur as God commanded, to go to a new land, not obedience to the Law as such. He believed God's promise to make him a great nation, and that was counted to him for righteousness. Clearly Abraham sinned even in the biblical report, such as when he lied about Sarah to the king who wanted her for his wife, and God had to intervene; he also and most particularly showed a lack of faith in consenting to father a child by Sarah's maid instead of believing God's promise to give him a son, so even his faith was imperfect, yet God accepted him for the faith he had. He also was a bit slow in obeying the command to leave Ur, since he hung out in Haran longer than necessary, at least according to some theologians. Such faults just emphasize the point, that his righteousness was imputed to him because of his faith and not obedience of the Law. It is faith like Abraham's that Christians are to live by.Also, the word you translate "descendants" is Hebrew for "seed" and most Protestant theologians I trust regard the "seed" as a reference to the Messiah -- it is through the Messiah the nations of the world are to be blessed, and of course the Messiah comes through God's people Israel so indirectly Israel blesses us too.(Same with reference to the "seed of the woman" who was promised to crush the head of the serpent, another reference to the Messiah.) Certainly the Jews as a nation didn't bless the Gentiles, mostly regarding us as "dogs" and people they needed to keep themselves separate from (this is clear from many references in the New Testament, especially Peter's refusal to eat "Gentile" food), but the Messiah came and even said that He is the "true Israel" who is obedient to God, using many other metaphors scripture uses for God's people Israel, such as "the true vine," and it is through Him that all nations of the world are blessed. And we also understand the great number of Abraham's descendants, great as the stars of heaven, to include us who through our faith in Christ Jesus have been "grafted in" to the root which is the blood descendants of Abraham, making us "adopted children" through God's unconditional covenant with him. So we sing of "Father Abraham" in our Sunday schools. Well. there is an interesting contrast between that passage and Romans 10 where Paul quotes much of it but in the context of seeking God's righteousness through faith, as opposed to our own righteousness through obedience: I'd like to read a really good commentary comparing the two passages but at the moment all I can do is point out the different emphasis in the NT. Well, Romans 10 is right at the heart of the Gospel of Christ, salvation through faith in Him as contrasted with self-righteousness through pride in our own righteousness and holiness, so it's a lot more than saying "there is no choice." The choice is to admit you're a sinner who needs Christ, Who alone could obey the holy and perfect Law of God, was willing to suffer in our place to pay for our sins, and covers us with His own perfect obedience to fit us for the presence of God. Believing Paul is obeying God because his teaching is true to God. I will have to read that later, it's long and I'm tired. And we agree that it stands forever, and Jesus taught that it stands forever, and all those rituals were designed to remind the people that it stands forever. Nor does anyone say it exists. Jesus FULFILLED the Law, He didn't abolish it and He very clearly said "I came not to abolish the Law..." Yes, as I said above Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and said He didn't, and no Christians I know say anything different. What "Christians" do you have in mind? Yes, absolutely. Paul doesn't say the Law is abolished, that is a serious misreading of Paul. He says we all fail to obey it and that's why we need Christ who fulfilled it perfectly. The Law is holy, Paul said. But for that very reason it judges us relentlessly and we cannot escape it because we are sinners. The Law is perfect and stands forever, and unless Jesus had come to fulfill it in our place we'd all be condemned to Hell by it. Jeremiah: "The LORD our righteousness" refers to the Messiah; Isaiah: "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace" refers to the Messiah. There's lots more but prophecies of the Messiah in the OT are ambiguous, in order to deceive Satan and insincere people, so you have to be willing to recognize them. I gave the two main ones above, and maybe I'll get the energy to study up on the others.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I haven't been following this thread and I don't know what you are asking me. Could you make it clearer? There's no point in clicking on the links if I don't know what I'm supposed to find out from them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What's the point? You think scripture predicts the rebuilding of a literal temple? That's certainly what a lot of people are expecting to happen in the very last days, and some Christian ministries give reports on the progress of preparations for its rebuilding. This is based on taking the OT literally as you apparently do, rather than understanding it in the context of the New Testament as Reformation Protestants do.From the Protestant point of view there may very well be such a literal rebuilding of the Temple but it would be a terrible mistake because Jesus is the cornerstone of the true temple, of which his followers are living stones. He is also the Sacrifice that really could atone for sin as animal sacrifices could not. See Hebrews 9 and 10.So that to rebuild the Temple and reinstitute animal sacrifices would be terrible blasphemy. That doesn't mean it isn't going to be done, however; it may very well happen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why not respond to what I actually said? I don't know. It's a New Testament teaching and we're to understand the Old Testament in the light of the New. What? Not Jerusalem, but Israel is equated with the Messiah in the NT, and also the temple equated with God's people the followers of Christ. I don't know. There may very well be lots of subtle equations in the OT that I'm not up on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think I have anything to say that would illuminate whatever problem you are having with Melchizedek. I haven't studied this beyond the New Testament revelation that shows him to be a foreshadowing of the Messiah, perhaps even a preincarnation of Christ as some commentators have it. Not having studied it I have no determined opinion on these things.

Sorry, I don't have an opinion about the Ezekiel text, not having studied it enough.

My understanding of the judgment in Acts 15 is that it was intended to require the Gentile believers to obey certain laws that would have greatly offended the Jewish believers if disobeyed. It's an application of the principle that we are not to act in a way that causes our brother to stumble, even if we have every right to ignore the law altogether because it has been fulfilled. It was important that Gentiles not be required to be circumcised so that was the first judgment; but then they did require obedience to some laws for the sake of the conscience of the Jews:As one commentator says: "If the decision is that one does not have to be Jewish to be a Christian, it must also be declared that one does not need to forsake the Law of Moses to be a Christian."So it's not a matter of whether the law was ceremonial or not, but a matter of respect for the conscience of other believers -- in this case the Jewish believers who had been brought up in strict observance of the Law of Moses. When the Jews were later no longer the leaders in the Church it was recognized that there was no longer a need to obey these laws -- because there is no requirement any more to obey any of the laws as the Jews understood it.abe: We're "in Christ," (we used to be "in Adam" as all human beings are, but when we give ourselves to Christ we are now "in Him." There's lots of theology wrapped up in that but I guess I should make it brief). Christ obeyed all the Law for us, we are reckoned as righteous (as obedient to the Law) through our faith in Him. (Not that we are to flout the Law in any way of course, which is one way salvation by faith and not by works has been misunderstood -- when we commit sin, which is defined as transgression of the Law, we confess it and forsake it, depending on Jesus for cleansing.) Sinners can't be saved; your sins have to be completely done away with because only the perfectly obedient/righteous can see God. We have no power in ourselves to wipe out our sins; that's what Jesus did for us, and we possess His righteousness through faith in Him. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I believe you are wrong about The Branch. It's identified as singular for one thing, as He, not as two. And it's always considered to be a metaphor for the Messiah, a branch that grows up from the root of David."Vine" on the other hand usually stands for Israel, although Jesus did use it for Himself in "I am the Vine, you are the branches." Here's a referenceEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes there are references to two branches of an olive tree in Zechariah but that's not the same thing as The Branch which is singular and refers to the Messiah, which is particularly clear in Jeremiah 33:15: HE shall execute.... doesn't suggest two, but only one.I haven't done a comparison of Zech 11 with Rev 11, maybe later.There is a reference to Israel as the Vine in Psalm 80: Israel was not a worldly nation in the Old Testament, it was God's Chosen People.I agree that Jesus refers to Himself as the Vine in at least that one place, and Israel is also referred to as a Vineyard in the New Testamen, the vineyard that brought forth bad fruit.There are lots of interesting ways such images are used in the Bible and I certainly don't know them all, but I did know that The Branch, singular, refers to the Messiah. I've wondered about the two olive trees in Zechariah, certainly something to be studied.ABE: The reply button you want is the one at the bottom right of the post you are replying to.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where do either of them even mention the birth date?