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

quote:

---

What's the point? You think scripture predicts the rebuilding of a literal temple?

---

Let me ask this, then.Where on earth can any Old Testament (or intertestimenal literature) verse be interpreted to be saying that the Messiah and the Temple are the same thing?Is there some "holy trinity" of Messiah, Temple, and Sacrifice that I missed?Is Jerusalem ever said to be the same thing as the Messiah?Yes, I'm referring to the Old Testament. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : 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.

Hardly. He understood that was His God given vocation and a vocation that would lead to his death. What He was called to do was upsetting everyone in positions of power and He knew what happened to those who did what He was doing.

Faith was asked about the incarnation of God."There is not a single text in the Tanach that says that the messiah will be God incarnate."She responded:

quote:

---

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.

---

Now, there is an interesting issue with Melchizedek. I once attempted to see if there was any evidence that this individual was seen (in B.C. times or the first century) as some sort of avatar (or pre-incarnation of God and/or Christ), but was left unsatisfied with what I found. I'm leaning more on the "no" side.Here is the issue:From wikipedia

quote:

---

In the New Testament, references to Melchizedek appear only in the Epistle to the Hebrews (later 1st century AD), though these are extensive (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21). Jesus Christ is there identified as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek quoting from Ps. 110:4.[69]

​

In Heb. 7:3 , Melchizedek is described as an extraordinary person in ways that are unique in the biblical narrative. In Heb. 7:3, Melchizedek is depicted as being "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life"; thus giving him an almost godlike status.
....
The association or identification of Melchizedek with the Messiah predates Christianity, developing in Jewish messianism of the Second Temple period.[citation needed]

​

A collection of early Gnostic scripts dating on or before the 4th century, discovered in 1945 and known as the Nag Hammadi library, contains a tractate pertaining to Melchizedek. Here it is proposed that Melchizedek is Jesus Christ.[70] Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ, lives, preaches, dies and is resurrected, in a gnostic perspective. The Coming of the Son of God Melchizedek speaks of his return to bring peace, supported by the gods, and he is a priest-king who dispenses justice.[71]

​

The association with Christ is made explicit by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Melchizedek the "king of righteousness" and "king of peace" is explicitly associated with the "eternal priesthood" of the Son of God.[72] The Christological interpretation of this Old Testament character being a prefiguration or prototype of the Christ has varied between Christian denominations. The Pelagians saw in Melchizedek merely a man who lived a perfect life.[73]

​

Typological association of Jesus Christ with Old Testament characters occurs frequently in the New Testament; thus, Jesus Christ is also associated with Adam (as the "New Adam") and with Abraham.[74]
Melchizedek - Wikipedia

---

earlier in the wikipedia article

quote:

---

The Second Book of Enoch (also called "Slavonic Enoch") is apparently a Jewish sectarian work of the 1st century AD.[40] The last section of the work, the Exaltation of Melchizedek, tells how Melchizedek was born of a virgin, Sofonim (or Sopanima), the wife of Nir, a brother of Noah. The child came out from his mother after she had died and sat on the bed beside her corpse, already physically developed, clothed, speaking and blessing the Lord, and marked with the badge of priesthood. Forty days later, Melchizedek was taken by the archangel Gabriel (Michael in some manuscripts) to the Garden of Eden and was thus preserved from the Deluge without having to be in Noah's Ark.[41][42]

​

Dead Sea Scrolls[edit]

​

11Q13 (11QMelch) is a fragment (that can be dated to the end of the 2nd or start of the 1st century BC) of a text about Melchizedek found in Cave 11 at Qumran in the Israeli Dead Sea area and which comprises part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this eschatological text, Melchizedek is seen as a divine being and Hebrew titles as Elohim are applied to him. According to this text Melchizedek will proclaim the "Day of Atonement" and he will atone for the people who are predestined to him. He also will judge the peoples.[43]

​

The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) repeats information from Genesis.

---

Here is the Dead Sea Scroll text.File Not FoundHow does this character get interpreted?I have been at a loss for a long time and really am afraid to reach any conclusions. (I am uncomfortable by my severe lack of comprehensive access and study to everything avaliable in the literature) (same problem I have on the sacrificial issues and 2nd Temple Judaic views)It can be seen as reflective of messianic views (especially since some date the relevant parts of Enoch to B.C. times), but in what way?

Here is what you said.

quote:

---

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.

---

You didn't tell me when you think the Ezekiel text is/was supposed to happen.We need a time frame here.This is why these issues are so difficult.

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.

Your reasoning is circular: He was the Messiah, so he redefined what the Messiah was to suit Himself.

Not really. There was a number of messianic beliefs of which the most popular was the belief that the messiah would be a military leader that would lead them to defeat their enemies. This is consistent with the majority of religious beliefs. The usual idea is how to get your deity on side with what you want him,her, or it to do.Jesus' understanding however can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, in passages like the suffering serveant in Isaiah, or even in my signature. Jesus simply understood through study and prayer what God actually had to say through the reading of their scriptures. It wasn't about getting God to serve themselves but about getting them to serve others.Certainly this wasn't His whole message but it was and is a big part of it.

There is an interesting issue about the law. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:18, the he will not abolish 1 letter of the law.Then Paul said the things he said.Then you have the modern day Christians.Faith said:

quote:

---

[Faith]
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.

---

The interesting thing is that Acts 15 does maintain some Mosiac Law issues (related to food and fornication)I put "alfred acts 15:23-29" into a google books search so I could find information on his historic translation of the 10 commandments and Acts 15:23-29 for his (typically interpreted as )law code. The issue of the 10 commandments often comes up when questions are asked about the old law.

quote:

---

Alfred the Great and Our Common Law Pamphlet — December 18, 2005
by Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee (Author)

​

Clearly, then Alfred believed that the Apostles here (at the Synod of Jerusalem or the first General Assembly of the Christian Church) enjoined God's Commandments upon all of the Gentile Christians who had heard it - and who indeed should keep it. For here he recalls that also "the Gentiles...should abstain from pollutions and idols and fornication and from blood [shed]. For Moses has those who preach him in every city from of old, being read out in the meeting-places every weekly sabbath-day." Acts 15:19-21 (cf. Genesis 9:5-6 and Exoduc 20:1-17).

​

King Alfred the Great and Our Common Law - F. N. Lee, Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee Rev. Prof. F. N. Lee - Google Books

---

They had to weed out the weeds but found fundamentally important issues in the Mosaic Law and the oral law (traditions)to use as a foundation of maintained commandments which would be built upon with vice lists and further sins against conscience (which are sins against Jesus Christ).The fact that the law was still changed creates a contradiction, but the entire law wasn't thrown out.Contradiction?Yes!Abolishment?No.In my opinion.The more honest fundamentalist dictionaries admit that it is just their opinion that these Acts 15:20 laws were ceremonial (also called cultic).Here is one honest one and it is a classic.

quote:

---

Blood (1.) As food, prohibited in Gen. 9:4, where the use of animal food is first allowed. Comp. Deut. 12:23; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10—14. The injunction to abstain from blood is renewed in the decree of the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:29). It has been held by some, and we think correctly, that this law of prohibition was only ceremonial and temporary; while others regard it as still binding on all. Blood was eaten by the Israelites after the battle of Gilboa (1 Sam. 14:32—34

​

Blood

---

They don't go into much detail.I have a quote (on my zip drive) that comes from an article (in a book) which covers a special conference the World Council of Church's held on the Apostolic Council. The World Council of Church's write it off as not having much of a binding effect when one looks at the rest of the New Testament. They said the decision seemed to be "limited" in its influence.The problem is that there are numerous references to these Acts 15 rules. Revelation 2, 1 Corinthians 8, etc.It seems that these rules get written off simply because Christians today don't follow them. But, history shows us that is was essentially the Catholics (and those in their sphere of influence) who didn't follow these rules. The "Western church" (ie. Roman Catholics) even changed the text to remove all food references in the Acts 15 text. The oldest Acts of the Apostles in-situ manuscripts we have date from 200 A.D. (possibly slightly earlier) and it is the Roman Catholic corruption.The scholars of today know that the later (350 A.D. in-situ texts) are the true representations of the (more) "original" Acts 15 text, and that the oldest texts we have were alterations.All modern Bibles avoid using the text from the archaeological discovery which uncovered the Roman Catholic corruptions. (it was called P75 or P47 or something)But the early Roman Catholics have won the larger battle.Their post 1000 AD "cultic" (or "ceremonial") interpretation has won the day.You don't need to change the text, you just need the power to impose your interpretation on everybody.Is that a lesson for this whole Law issue?

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.

That's pretty much a separate issue from the Messiah. Jesus taught the Jews how to be better Jews. That doesn't make Him the Messiah.I tend to agree that Jesus' teachings are a better idea than a military conqueror. But Christians should concentrate on those teachings and let go of the idea of Messiah. He may have been better than the Messiah but he was no Messiah.

No. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Israel story, and as part of that He fulfilled the messianic requirements, but not in the way the majority of Israelites expected.Incidentally, being the messiah did not in itself deify Jesus. A messiah was simply the anointed one of Yahweh who would redeem Israel. 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.

quote:

---

[Faith]
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

---

The issue in Acts 10-15 was circumcision. The lack of circumcision was what "would have greatly offended the Jewish believers". That was the issue. It was the dividing line between a Jew and a profane gentile.(also, understand that "kill" in Acts 10:13 is in Greek so we don't know the Hebrew words used. But in, Hebrew the word was probably a word that meant ritual slaughter (though words are often capable of being interchangeable even in Hebrew). The concept is more important. See Genesis 15:9 for ritually clean animals. It isn't the same thing as animals that can be eaten in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Roe Deer are an example of a "clean" food that can be eaten, but not fit for sacrifice. Scripture interpreted scripture in Acts 10:28. The issue was about being a ritually clean Israelite verses a profane or common Gentile. Very important issue for the Passover. See Exodus 12.)

quote:

---

Acts 10

​

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

​

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

​

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

​

Acts 11

​

1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

​

2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

​

3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

​

Acts 15

​

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

​

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

​

3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

​

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

​

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

---

James gave his decision (reached with the other Apostles) in the text below.

quote:

---

Acts 15
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.
....
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

​

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

---

They weren't to be troubled with the law (with what could be described as "ceremonial" issues) issues but there were basic right/wrong issues that would transfer to sins according to the new covenant. Jews today know that not eating pork and not killing an animal by certain methods is a secular (non-ceremonial) law that is to be followed at all times. Even the famous fundamentalist J Vernom McGhee, during his verse by verse teaching on Leviticus (in his Through The Bible radio show program still aired), started Leviticus 11 by telling how God placed purely secular laws in between the largely ceremonial law teachings of Leviticus. He considered it very clear that these laws were moral and not cultic or ceremonial. The Catholics (and Catholics alone) invented the ceremonial concept for Acts 15 after 1000 A.D.Circumcision was the burning issue. Look at Acts 21. The Temple sacrifices could not happen to somebody who simply accepted the Hebrew God. There had to be circumcision.

quote:

---

Acts 21

​

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

​

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

​

19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

​

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

​

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

​

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

​

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

​

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

​

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

​

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

​

27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

​

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

​

29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

​

30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

---

They did not choose to make the gentiles compromise. The (Christian) Jews were the ones who had to stomach the lack of circumcision.

quote:

---

[Faith]
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."

---

The dividing line was circumcision. The "covenant cut" was circumcision. The dividing line's (such as national Israel verse the other nations) were erased - hence the new covenant. That is the issue of Moses. No more nationalism and dividing lines. No more "Pledge of Allegiance" circumcision.One (if a fundamentalist) can even make the case that the central Temple was in God's plan to destroy. That would mean that all killing of animals would be done away with. Considering James was a vegetarian, the issue must be considered that he wanted sacrifice to end. Here is a work of his followers.

quote:

---

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (3rd edition
by Bart Ehrman.
p.197
The Gospel of the Ebionites. This Gospel appears to have been a combination of the Synoptic Gospels, a kind of "Gospel harmony" in which the three accounts were merged to form one longer and fuller version of Jesus' life. It was evidently written in Greek and was possibly used among Jewish Christians living in Transjordan. One of its striking features is that it recorded words of Jesus to the effect that Jews no longer needed to participate in animal sacrifices in the Temple. Connected with this abolition of sacrifice was an insistence that Jesus's followers be vegetarian. This insistence led to some interesting alterations of stories found in the Synoptics. Simply by changing one letter, for example, the author modified the diet of John the Baptist; rather than eating "locusts" (Mark 1:6; the Greek word is akrides) he is said to have eaten "pancakes" (egkrides).

---

Faith then says.

quote:

---

[Faith]
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.

---

There isn't any strong evidence to back up this conclusion though.The evidence suggests that the Apostolic Council transferred the fundamentally important moral laws into the New Covenant. Genesis 15 was nationalistic (see quoted text below)and the nationalistic covenant has been made into an anti-nationalistic covenant (see Galatians 3)

quote:

---

Genesis 15
13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

​

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

​

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

​

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
....
18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

​

19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,

​

20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,

​

21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
............................

​

Genesis 17
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

​

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

​

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

​

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

​

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

​

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

​

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

​

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
.........................................

​

Galatians 3
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

​

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

​

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
....
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
....
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

​

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

---

This whole Old Covenant verses New Covenant is related to circumcision and national barriers IMO.Faith then adds.

quote:

---

[Faith]
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.

---

Jews had to deal with the destruction of the Temple with it's attending Exile multiple times.They still follow moral commandments (such as not eating pork).They know it is a sin to fornicate and eat pork (their laws against fornication are in the Mishnah not the Old Testament btw)The Mishnah Torah ("2nd law" which is the oral law or "traditions")wasn't collected during the life of Christ but it did exist (but scattered around and not complete/edited). The Gemara are the Talmudic commentaries on the Mishnah.Everything you just said (in above quoted paragraph) can be compatible with the Jewish and Christian New Testament commandments to not eat pork. They are foundational.

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.?