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

quote:

---

Understanding Jesus as part of the godhead or trinity is another issue which is IMHO best understood in the first chapter of John, (the Word or Wisdom of God became flesh), as well as in Daniel's dream where the "Son of Man" is presented to the Ancient of Days" and given dominion in Daniel 7.

---

I still don't understand why an "incarnated son" or "God incarnate" Messiah might have been unknown when there is supposedly all these "fulfilled prophecies".Look at the Holy Spirit issue here.

quote:

---

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

​

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

​

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

​

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

​

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

​

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

---

Something just isn't adding up here.Why the ignorance of such things in 55 A.D.?

quote:

---

it's not a matter of whether the law was ceremonial or not

---

I should point out that most secular historians seem to consider any mention of food prohibitions as "cultic" or "ceremonial" and the edited text (taking out the food prohibitions) as "moral.P45 is the edited text. (it was used by the western church including a few prominent 2nd century apologists)One can find quite quite a lot of google books and pdfs covering the subject on the first page of google using a general web searchGoogleYou will see p45 and the western quotations of Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25 described as being changed into "moral laws" as opposed to the King James Greek text being "ceremonial".It is a clear bias. Get used to it.Here is what really is a ceremonial law example

quote:

---

Numbers 19

​

1And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,

​

2 This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke:
....
9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.

​

10 And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute for ever.

​

11 He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.

​

12 He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

​

13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

---

Another

quote:

---

Haggai 2:11-15
11Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,

​

12 If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.

​

13 Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.

​

14 Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.

​

15 And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the Lord:

---

To eat pork or not is a moral law.Not ceremonial of cultic or ritual law.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Then why was James (the brother of Jesus) a vegetarian according to every early source? (I don't think Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25 indicates vegetarianism though somebody reading it - without any other informations - might think it says such.)The biblical text of Paul offers fairly strong evidence that he was a vegetarian.The Egyptians, Hittites, and especially the Canaanites didn't eat pork. Neither did the Philistines after 1000 B.C.E.Zoroaster didn't consider animal suffering to be unimportant.Neither did the Hindus.Or the Navajo. (didn't eat pork)Or the Zulu. (didn't eat pork)Most Christians (if one includes gnostics as "Christians") were vegetarian. Like all of the Jewish Christians. Many of the famous Orthodox Christians were too.A fundamentalist should see Jesus as performing magic tricks to create fake fish to eat (not real meat).The destruction of the Temple was interpreted as a New Age, and vegetarianism was the rule among Jewish Christians.Paul said Christians should become vegetarian as they increasingly become observed by others (eat it if you hide the fact of what you are eating from vegetarians, infact you can't even know what some food is in order to be able to eat it). The "market" of Paul's time can't be private anymore. There are worldwide commodity markets and statistics and everybody knows who is eating whatA fundamentalist should see Jesus and/or God as seeing this Temple destruction situation through.

quote:

---

The Israelites were still wanting a god that would do what they wanted. They wanted power in the here and now, and even though they were in the promised land they were still under Roman rule and still in exile. Jesus' message was not about gaining military power but about influencing the enemy with kindness, truth and love. That sold then just about as well as it does today. Further, the message became that God was not just a God for the Jews but for the whole world. It wasn't a message that everyone wanted to hear.

​

Many believed but many didn't.

---

Jesus probably saw himself as being what you say he was. James and Paul (FOR SURE) sure did see Jesus as an anti-nationalistic, peaceful, and loving fulfillment of the Old Testament. I'll even give an example proving James did indeed see things like you say we should.But the problem is that the inter-testamental literature doesn't seem to back up your claim that the Old Testament Messiah predictions were interpreted as such.Here is James in Acts 15

quote:

---

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

​

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

​

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

​

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

​

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

​

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

---

That is the most interesting quote in the entire Bible IMO.Look at the difference between the Septuagint and the Massorah Old Testament text of Amos 9:11-12

quote:

---

Massorah

​

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

---

quote:

---

Septuagint

​

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

---

( Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation is source of quotes)The Septuagint backs up your claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.The Massorah contradicts your claims.Call that a split decision.But there is still the much larger difficulty in matching the incarnate (son of) God concept with the Old Testament verses. The supreme "I am" concept of a single God taking many forms (including an "eternal" (?) Holy Spirit) was unknown by 12 individuals even in 55-57 AD.

I said:

quote:

---

"A fundamentalist should see Jesus as performing magic tricks to create fake fish to eat (not real meat)."

---

The response was:

quote:

---

Except that the text talks about collecting the fish from folks before feeding the multitude. Apparently somebody was eating fish. Jesus performed a miracle in which cast nets came up brimming full of fish. (Luke 5:7, John 21:6) Some of the disciples were fishermen by trade. I don't think the fake fish guess holds up all that well.

---

Turning fish into a much larger amount of fish "left over" after the meal was done could very well be seen an making up entirely new and totally different fish. This is lab-grown and "3-D printed" fish to an entirely new level.The alcohol that was made from water, during a feast, might not have included the initial elements.The fish could have all been fake.Fundamentalists always want a "harmony" of scripture with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church (and the billion person strong "Protestant" amen squad that simply are copy cats of the Catholic traditions and teachings), but why not look for a harmony that matches up with the spirit of the teachings and interpretations of the Jewish Christian branch of James, the Ebionites, and the Elkesaites which was equally strong for centuries after the Catholics came to be around 80-100 AD?Why?Why not?

quote:

---

Personally I find very little credibility nor any sort of "spirit" of the teachings through ancient scribblings...apart from the ones that I believe in.

---

Acts 15 was my last quote.James the Just. James the brother of Jesus. James the lesser.

quote:

---

It has been said that truth is not always popular. You seem to find solace in internet quotes defending the veracity of ancient religions. I find that irrelevant in 2016.

---

Is that the Chinese history website I quoted about the Mani-founded branch of Jewish gnostic Christianity?It was a Chinese history site lol. That was a small part of the site.The kind words about Mani and his followers were in the context of critical commentary on Chinese religious tolerance. The point was that the typical thing people hear is that the Chinese have been historically tolerant of different religions but the site lamented the fact that it is only true relative to Europe.Romans 8:9 says you have to have the spirit of Christ to be a true follower.I offered a concession to you that some were genuine.I showed an example of the very large gnostic sect founded by Mani (but based on 1st centry Jewish Christianity).

quote:

---

Getting back to "pork"...I will say that pork is much more sanitary today than it was back in the day...though many of my friends still refuse to eat it. In my opinion, this should be a preference and not some dietary rule.

---

There are over 1.5 billion followers of the Hindu religion (including the Buddah branch).The concept of karma automatically makes most vegetarian.Paul talked about sins against conscience in Romans 14-15.Karma has to do with killing living creatures. Killing conscious creatures.Parasites have little or nothing to do with it.

Here was a Canaanite philosopher from c.234-305 A.D.Porphyry - Wikipedia(philosopher)He said the same thing:

quote:

---

Daniel did not predict so much future events as he narrated past ones. Finally what he had told up to Antiochus contained true history; if anything was guessed beyond that point it was false, for he had not known the future. (quoted by Jerome)

---

He argued that Daniel was written in the mid 2nd century BCE not the 6th.I wonder if this individual being from Tyre influenced his interest in the subject (the failed prophecy of Tyre comes to mind).

quote:

---

[NoNukes]
I gave you other examples to deal with that suggest something other than vegetarianism. I note that you did not deal with those in order to maintain this fake fish rule. Did Jesus also make fake bread when he fed the multitude? What would this signify?

---

Here is the complete text from your post # 218.

quote:

---

Except that the text talks about collecting the fish from folks before feeding the multitude. Apparently somebody was eating fish. Jesus performed a miracle in which cast nets came up brimming full of fish. (Luke 5:7, John 21:6) Some of the disciples were fishermen by trade. I don't think the fake fish guess holds up all that well.

---

The texts indicate that there was more fish left over after the meal was over than there was fish before the magical miracle created lots of (additional) fish. They ate the fish, but was it from a killed animal or "3-d printed" "lab-grown type meat" (with no killing)? The nets could have been a miracle (a fundamentalist should think so) involving artificial fish (with no brains or thoughts and perhaps some strange physical matter).As for the life of the disciples before they met Jesus, surely they performed animal sacrifices and probably ate meat before they met Jesus. Matthew was a vegetarian according to Clement of Alexandria (born c. 150 A.D. and wrote close to 200 A.D.)

quote:

---

"It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals. Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds, nuts and vegetables, without flesh".
http://www.ivu.org/history/christian/clement.html

---

Here is Clement of Alexandria on wikipedia.Clement of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Here is a super popular evangelical dictionary text.

quote:

---

The clean/unclean system divided animals, people, and land into three categories to teach separation from the Gentiles
....
Thus the food laws symbolically reinforced teaching elsewhere that Israel was a "holy nation" ( Exod 19:6 ) set apart from all others, and promoted practical holiness by discouraging table fellowship with the Canaanites whose diet would ordinarily include the pig and other "unclean" foods ( Lev 20:25-26 ),
Clean, Unclean - Meaning & Definition - Baker's Bible Dictionary

---

It is b.s.The Canaanites did not.Put "phoenicians ate pork" into google and see the evidence. They did not in B.C. times and did not in A.D. times.
Porphyry in 245 A.D. talked about that.Archaeology shows that they did not.The Hyksos didn't eat pork and it is theorized that the Egyptians did not because of them.more google search terms:hyksos ate pork
phoenicians pork herodotusAll sorts of information. This lie that Canaanites ate pork has been around for ages, but it isn't true.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Here one of trillions of pieces of evidence.Here is an expert on archaeological sites. This is a man respected on all sides of the early Israel debate. Second to none in his field.

quote:

---

Na'aman has a different explanation for the lack of pig bones: "The Canaanites also did not eat pork. Only the Philistines ate a great deal of pork at this time." As for figurines, Na'aman says places elsewhere in Judea "were full of figurines."

​

http://www.haaretz.com/...debate-on-david-s-kingdom-1.429087

---

quote:

---

Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork are a tradition in the Ancient Near East. Swine were prohibited in ancient Syria[1] and Phoenicia,[2]

---

Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork - WikipediaIf you follow my google links, then you will find ancient quotes about the Phoenicians and Syrians.Plus books that reference the issueEat Not this Flesh: Food Avoidances from Prehistory to the Present - Frederick J. Simoons - Google BooksThere is just endlessly repeated lies that never ever end.JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, ed. Nahum Sarna (Philadelphia, 1990), talks about the pork laws and how they are meant to be followed everywhere, and not just in a cultic context.I will try to get the quote (I have the book on software, but can't use it presently).I found mp3 tracks of Vernon McGhee.See Leviticus 11 track.It is "secular" not culticThere are moral or ethical issues.Not cultic, ceremonial, or ritual.Index of /tracks/03_Leviticus

They are super duper important when it comes to the history of the early church. And the beliefs.Steve Mason, in his Early Christian Reader, said that the discovery of the multi volume work of Hegesippus would be more important for the knowledge of the early church than the Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi texts.He visited every church in all the major towns in the 2nd century, and wrote a history that stretched back to the first century.hegesippus important early history - Google Searchhegesippus james vegetarian - Google SearchThis specific book below looks at the early texts that say James, Matthew, Peter, and Thomas were vegetarians. It is hostile to the idea that they were vegetarian.Is God a Vegetarian?: Christianity, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights - Richard Alan Young - Google BooksThe Ebionite related Elkesaites existed 100 A.D. and they were vegetarian. This doesn't seem to matter to some, but it is important evidence to me.1 Corinthians 8:10-13 and Romans 14:1-15:1 matters to me alot.So does Acts 15-21 and the related issue.

I quoted this:
"The clean/unclean system divided animals, people, and land into three categories to teach separation from the Gentiles"The response was:

quote:

---

This relates to vegetarianism in what way?

---

People say that the ceremonial precepts involving ritual purity are the only issues relative to meat prohibitions.Out with the ceremonial precepts, and out with any issues related to eating food being a sin.It isn't even true that the ban on pork was ceremonial.And it isn't true that eating pork was allowed by Jesus and James (or Paul or Peter).This false premise has been a real discussion stopper.

quote:

---

Sigh. And what do you make of Jesus performing a miracle to help them catch living fish? Or can we finally admit that this last feat, performed after those folks met Jesus stomps a mud hole in your vegetarian theory.

​

How about a more direct indication of Jesus eating fish.

​

Luke 24:42-43

---

Here is the entire context. This is after he died and rose.

quote:

---

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

​

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

​

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

​

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

​

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

​

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

​

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

---

He was already dead, and a story arises that he ate fish. This text shows endless signs of editing. The better manuscripts don't have the honeycomb part in it, and the evidence is like 100% that part wasn't in the original c.90 AD writing of Luke. Granted the fish part is still in there. But did you read Luke 1:1-4? Luke plainly admits that he used numerous sources and that his Gospel was late. Mark shows evidence of severe editing in chapter 16 (the parallel to Luke 24). Luke stands alone in this fish part.Endless clues of an unauthentic event with regards to the fish part.There is another issue in Luke. People claim Jesus ate the passover Lamb. But here is the text.

quote:

---

8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

​

9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?

​

10 And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.

​

11 And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

​

12 And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.

​

13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

​

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

​

15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

---

Read on and you will see that this specific text ooks like this very event was supposed to replace the Passover lamb.And a lamb being killed wasn't mentioned here anyway.This Passover meal is actually used by people to claim Christians should eat meat (or at least that they should be allowed to). Unreal! How full of it can you get?

Did you know that the Gospel of Thomas (logos 12) shows Jesus making James the leader of the church?This Gospel is a very valuable source as it contains the primitive (pre Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) Logoi formt, and infact that very sayings/logoi themselves are of a more primitive text type than what is in the Synoptics and John.This link has the saying and shows all sorts of comments by scholars on the saying.Gospel of Thomas Saying 12 - GospelThomas.comHere is a google link to follow the issue.
GoogleGalatians 1-2 shows Paul talking about James and his importance.Acts 15-21 is priceless.Josephus mentions only and only 1 Christian - James!The most important church historian was Hegesippus.Google
"Saint Hegesippus (Ἅγιος Ἡγήσιππος) (c. 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD), was a Christian chronicler of the early Church who may have been a Jewish convert and "Here is what he said of James.

quote:

---

"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed...

---

The scripture says Jesus was a Nazarin , so perhaps this type of practice (among Jesus followers) came from Jesus?I don't know but it must be considered.This is not nonsense. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What does it have to do with messianic prophecies?

---

Everything.The Temple destruction and ending of sacrifices with its associated New Age of peace and no killing is very important.Indeed.