|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
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 Bs'd So Paul said that it is impossilble to obey the law. 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.
However, God put on obeying the law the most beautifull blessings, and on disobeying He put the most horrific curses. (for the finer details look HERE ) 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.
So what would be the use of that, if people cannot fulfill the law? Then God would simply have cursed the Jews by giving them a law which they cannot obey, and on which disobedience follow terrible curses. 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."
And of course, there are examples of people who did follow Gods commandments: "I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give to your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves: 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Gen 26 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.)
Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 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.
And God Himself clearly says that obeying the law is no problem: For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of Y-H-W-H your God which I command you this day, by loving Y-H-W-H your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live and multiply, and Y-H-W-H your God will bless you in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you this day, that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land which you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, loving Y-H-W-H your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which Y-H-W-H swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.Deut 30 God says: "CHOOSE LIFE!", choose the law. 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:
Rom 10:6-8 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 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.
According to Paul and the Christians there is no choice. 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.
So who should we believe, Y-H-W-H or Paul? Believing Paul is obeying God because his teaching is true to God.
so that we might be drawn to Christ, the only human being who ever did obey it perfectly Actually, he did not. For the finer details look HERE I will have to read that later, it's long and I'm tired.
The law stands for ever. That is what God said: "Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come." Ex 12:17 "In the tent of meeting, outside the curtain that shields the ark of the covenant law, Aaron and his sons are to keep the lamps burning before the LORD from evening till morning. This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come." Ex 27:21 "‘This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.’Leviticus 3:17 "You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live." .Leviticus 23:14 ‘Now if you as a community unintentionally fail to keep any of these commands the Lord gave Moses 23 any of the Lord’s commands to you through him, from the day the Lord gave them and continuing through the generations to come" Numbers 15:23 There is much, much more like this, saying the law stands forever, for all generations. 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.
There is no such a thing as: "The messiah will come and abolish the law". It just doesn't exist. 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..."
And, of course, JC himself also said the exact opposite of what the Christians say: 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?
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5 So also JC agrees: The law stands forever. Yes, absolutely.
It is only Paul who comes up with the idea that the law is abolished, but who is Paul that he thinks he can abolish the law?? 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.
But alas, you've managed to erase the messianic meanings of all the OT scriptures that prophesied that the Messiah would be God incarnate. There is not a single text in the Tanach that says that the messiah will be God incarnate. 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.
Just doesn't exist. If you think different, please post 'm here. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Eliyahu writes: I think that by now it is quite clear that JC did NOT fulfill the messianic prophecies, so it should also be quite clear that he was NOT the messiah. I think that by now it is quite clear that JC DID fulfill the messianic prophecies, so it should also be quite clear that he WAS the messiah. You have been shown how he defeated the enemy, (evil), and how he rebuilt the temple, not as a building, but in the hearts of those that are followers of His message of loving others as we love ourselves.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
So he built a metaphor, not a temple.
...how he rebuilt the temple, not as a building, but in the hearts of those that are followers of His message of loving others as we love ourselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
ringo writes:
So he built a metaphor, not a temple. Yes and no. For the Jews the Temple was where one could go to meet with God, or in other words the Temple was where God 's world or dimension overlapped with our world or dimension. Jesus said that the overlap occurred in the hearts of those that had faith in His message of loving others as they loved themselves, and went further in saying that the temple had been corrupted..He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I still can't see the precedents in the Old Testament.
The Hindus had the Trimurti. Vishnu is god and Brahama is something like a "holy spirit" IMO, though some reverse the roles. The Zoroastrians had the Spenta Mainyu as one of the 7 angels in the Gathas.
quote: Look at Matthew 2 The Magi aren't Jewish priests but are infact Zoroastrian priests. Then from a pre Christian Hindu text. Vishnu incarnated as Krishna (in the womb of a female), and this Avatar became eternal (a type of son though the incarnation was spermless and is the exact same soul as Vishnu), though Hindus never called Krishna a "son" of God as far as I know. The evidence is so strong that the Zoroastrian eschatology was wrapped in (intertestimental) Jewish garb, that it is just unreal. Throw in the Hindu trinitarian concepts (with the Avatars) and you have Christianity. There was even a way to have the Old Testament Jewish prophecies (with animal sacrifices!) "fulfilled" in a way that ended up offering justification for Zoroastrian and Hindu type of new ages and eschatological calendars. Lord's Supper anyone? It "fulfilled Jewish prophecy". Talk about a real life Da Vinci Code. This is a sacred marriage between the Old Testament and the old Zoroastrian faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: quote: The Alpha and the Omega of post Christian times was paralleled in a text that definitely dates from before the Christian era. The Bhagavad Gita has Krishna say that he is Vishnu and Brahma and Sheba. The only known "Trinity" of (probable) B.C. times. He was the specific incarnation of Vishnu in the womb of a female. There is a very slight possibility that the specific word or concept of "Trimurti" was influenced by the Trinity of Christianity. It probably was earlier. But the Avatar Krishna (the incarnation of Vishnu) came first. The evidence is very strong at the start of the 21st century and only getting stronger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
And yet the Jews don't accept Jesus as "the Temple" - so you can't use their concept of the Temple to back up your claim.
For the Jews the Temple was where one could go to meet with God, or in other words the Temple was where God 's world or dimension overlapped with our world or dimension. GDR writes:
Which has nothing to do with Him being the Messiah.
Jesus said that the overlap occurred in the hearts of those that had faith in His message of loving others as they loved themselves, and went further in saying that the temple had been corrupted..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
ringo writes:
Some Jews did and some didn't. I don't believe that Jesus ever did see the Christian Church evolving the way it did. I think that He understood that what He was doing was the fulfillment of the Israel story, that involved the return of Yahweh to His people which Jesus embodied as the Jewish messiah. And yet the Jews don't accept Jesus as "the Temple" - so you can't use their concept of the Temple to back up your claim. It is what separates the beliefs of Jews and Christians today as it did then.
ringo writes: Which has nothing to do with Him being the Messiah. One of the things the messiah was supposed to do was to rebuild the temple. The temple was by Jewish custom the place where God could be found. Jesus' claim was that He was the place where God was to be found. In other words Jesus was redefining the idea of Temple. This is from John 2 quote: This is from Paul 1st letter to the Corinthians chap 3:quote: In other words Jesus did rebuild the temple but it was in people's hearts, thus fulfilling the messianic mission.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
On Krishna.
On Sacrifices. On revelation. Here is a fundi admitting that there was an incarnation of God (in all his forms) before the time of Jesus, it seems. New Birth or Rebirth?: Jesus Talks with Krishna - Ravi Zacharias - Google Books
quote: Interesting. I was going to hunt for specific scripture, but this co-author of the famous Kingdom of the Cults book has done a good job of interpreting it (partly anyway). Here were the search terms I typed into google i am vishun i am brahma krishna The Jews had the "I am" or l'tre suprme . So did the Hindus. But theirs was an incarnation type of faith. Before 100 BCE anyway. Then came Jesus the Jew. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Here is a fundi admitting that there was an incarnation of God (in all his forms) before the time of Jesus, it seems. I know Ravi Zacharias and I know that what you claim that he meant is false. He is contrasting Krishna and Jesus rather than supporting similarities, as you erroneously suggest. In addition, your post is entirely off topic. That is why my altar ego suspended you. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Well, according to your quotes it was the epistle writers who were redefining the idea of Temple - and they were doing it after Jesus had already died and failed to fulfill the requirements to be the Messiah. In other words Jesus was redefining the idea of Temple. Was Napoleon the Anti-Christ? Let's just redefine Anti-Christ to fit Napoleon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I said "Here is a fundi admitting that there was an incarnation of God (in all his forms) before the time of Jesus, it seems." but I meant that he was acknowledging that a non-Christian text of such existed, not that he believed it to be of divine influence.
Phat responded.
quote: I was assuming that he admitted that the Bhagavad-Gita was pre-Christian (as every relevant historian now admits ). He seems to acknowledge that it is a pre-Christian incarnation of God (in a female womb!), right? Does he acknowledge the "I return to deliver the righteous" part? Doesn't matter because it is there regardless of the presence of willful ignorance.
quote: There is the pre-Christian text of a 1st and second coming. The Bhagavad-Gita. Lets look at Hebrews chapter 9 and 10. It seems to (IMO) respond to the Jewish Christians who rejected sacrifice (and consumption of meat) but held views that Jesus had multiple incarnations. Here is the text that the 90s A.D. 1 Clement quoted (Clement didn't quote the specific verses , but his quoting of the book proved it existed in the first century though)
quote: The Gospel of John ( written after Hebrews though) took up the theme of Jesus being the rebuilt Temple. Ravi Zacharias clearly saw the pre-Christian Avatar of India as a parallel because he used terms lifted from Hebrews 9-10 to apply to the logic displayed in the Indian sacred texts. I wonder if he considers Hebrews as evidence of Krishna awareness present among 1st century Christians. It should be seen as evidence that Elkesai (100 AD) wasn't the first Jewish Christian Ebionite to hold these views. Regardless, we have to look at the Old Testament verses that possibly point in the direction of a future dispensation where sacrifices are frowned against BUT we also have to ask why the (so-called by Christians) "millennial Temple" Old Testament chapters seem to have sacrifice. Then compare those to New Testament concepts (which may or may not match what modern Christians take from the respective texts). But (here is the problem you seem to have Phat) we must also look at non-Biblical sources for the inspiration. The differences between the pre-Christian Hindu texts and the New Testament are enormous for sure. And that is with or without the avatar/incarnation text I quoted. But we can't ignore the evidence of inspiration when we have a supreme I AM manifesting himself in a females womb, and promising to return again. All in a text that is best dated about 100 B.C. - BEFORE CHRIST. I can't ignore it anyway. It raises questions that should be asked and fairly engaged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
LaMark, this topic is Bible Study. Vishnu is irrelevant. The Oxford Dictionary is irrelevant. The Bhagavad-Gita is irrelevant. Please stop interrupting topics with your zoroastrianistic myths, or I will request you be banned permanently.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Do we have to invoke the "unknown God" or something to explain the mysterious intrusion into a Jewish frame?
Are the Magi of Matthew 2 allowed to be mentioned in any capacity? This is the exact same word as a Zoroastrian. The Koran mentions Magians. Is one not allowed to refer to what every historian knows it means (Zoroastrians). It isnt even debatable. I won't even ask about the Holy Spirit. (honestly, I'll leave that part of the "trinity" out of the discussion for sure) It seems that we need to know the source of something to understand where it is coming from and what exacty it means. Google The first 2 hits
quote: This is really getting out of wack when you can't even say the plain meaning of words that the Messiah story uses. A threat to ban somebody for trying to understand one concept (like Avatar) so as to be able to consider why the Messiah of the Old Testament doesn't match the Christos/Messiah in the New Testament. One has to be able to place things properly so one can better understand texts and their usages. I suppose I will avoid mentioning the Zoroastrian origins (and Hindus) but it would be nice if scripture can be quoted by those who maintain that Jesus was some sort of prophetic fulfillment of the Old Testament. Even then, there were vastly different Christian interpretations and views back in the 1st century. Especially among the Jewish Christians. Again, what should I do if Matthew 2 ends up being discussed? (the Herod story with the Magi.) Just airbrush over the Magi part? How? Why? Honestly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: I quoted Hebrews 10-11 in the New Testament. The Gospel of John has already been mentioned. Now, what about the Old Testament and its view on sacrifices? There are lots of sacrificial issues mentioned in a context that does not involve some future eschatological situation. Then there is the eschatological mentioning of sacrificial issues. There is explaining to do. There is quoting to do. Let's see the actual biblical text, then explain how it is in sync with the New Testament. Quote that too. (I'm sure contradictions will be explained as "The Old Testament was written to contradict what would actually happen so that Satan was tricked into expecting something else" like Faith essentially said earlier) I won't mention inter-testamental texts because well it might be a reason for my banning. But those might be relevant too. I don't have any on hand, and frankly it might be against Phat's rules even if I did. I do wonder what the extremely important Book of Enoch actually says when examined closely.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024