Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 3:49 AM
42 online now:
CosmicChimp, Tangle (2 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Isaiah 53 speaks about ISRAEL, and not about the messiah.
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 76 of 169 (717834)
02-02-2014 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Eliyahu
02-01-2014 11:39 PM


God can appear anyway He wants.

Im glad you believe this. If God chooses to appear as a human, then he has not violated the statement, God is not a man, that he should lie. If God chooses to live as a human in human form,he neither violates or gives up his nature and essence as God

The Tanach is accepted by both Christian and Jew as being inspired by God, so I don't have to proof that the Tanach is from God. What I'm doing is proving that the NT is not from God. This by showing that JC was a false prophet, showing that the messianic prophecies are not fulfilled, and other inconsistencies in the NT.

Yes the tenach is accepted by both, but how and why. What do you do when people try and point out inconsistencies in the Tenach

The supporting evidence for both is of the same type. If Jesus was a false prophet, why then was not Moses, since it is claimed he didnt actually write the he books he claimed to have penned

The Tanach says that God IS NOT a human.

The NT says he was a human. So also on that point the NT contradicts the Tanach.

Some prophets in the Tanach saw the figure of a human, but God never was a human.

The Tenach also says God put to death, men, women and children, does this mean he is a murderer

The NT says "That in him dwelt ALL THE FULNESS of the Godhead in human form" Colosians. Does this make him strickly human, no?

He is not human, the same way he is not a murderer, even though he takes life ofr his own reasons

The statement,"God is not human", relates to his overall nature, he is not finite, he is infinte

While he has freewill, he cannot lie,because he is infinte in wisdom and knowledge. There is no reason or purpose to lie

Exodus 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

So if God fashions himself in the likeness of humans, has he broke his own rules

Neither is God violating or denying that he is not human, when living as a human

Your reading t much into the statment

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Eliyahu, posted 02-01-2014 11:39 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dredge, posted 04-25-2017 11:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 77 of 169 (718603)
02-07-2014 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by GDR
01-08-2014 9:00 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
GDR writes:

I understand what you're saying but, (you might be surprised ) I disagree. Certainly the ancient Jews had a very different idea of what a messiah would be like than what Jesus brought to them. However, with the benefit of hind sight, which is how Peter, Paul etc worked out their theology, there is a fairly clear picture of of a messianic Jesus as understand by the early Christians even before they were actually called Christians, drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures.

well, this is sort of an interesting argument. it affirms that prophecy has nothing in terms of predictive power. one is forced to wonder the point of predictions that don't predict.

of course, i would argue there is not a fairly clear picture of a messianic jesus. on the contrary, there are still all those claims about a messiah who actually does things that matter in the real world, and solve real world problems. and in fact, many of those ret-conned, hind-sight prophecies, if examined in context, are about a messiah who does things in the physical world.

If we get a good reference Bible it is clear that most of what we have recorded of the teachings of Jesus involves a reference to their scriptures.

sure. the things that jesus said, more often than not, are perfectly valid interpretations based strongly upon the torah (law) and nevi'im (prophets). in this way, he's a rather standard rabbi, offering his own (somewhat radical) midrash. fine. the problem is the things people said about jesus; paul's teachings are most decidedly at odds with the torah.

The Jews expected the messiah to rebuild the Temple

not at the time of jesus, no, they didn't. the second temple existed in jerusalem until about 40 years after hypothetical jesus was hypothetically crucified. then it was torn down by the romans. rebuilding the temple was a messianic thing between the first and second temples, and after the second temple (when most of the new testament was written), but not during the time jesus would have lived.

Jesus told them that He would be rebuild the Temple in the hearts of those that followed Him.

actually, jesus first said that the temple would be destroyed.

I'd say more misunderstood than wrong.

the bits about the necessity of sacrifice, and human sacrifice being an abomination are, well, probably a bit more than misunderstandings.

Jesus was very much a Jew and very much immersed in the Jewish culture. Essentially Christianity is a Jewish sect.

these are very different statements. jesus, as portrayed in at least three of the gospels, is quite jewish and very much in line with heretical judaism at the time. actually, he may have even been a bit less fringe than some sects.

christianity, though, is the religion that formed around worship of jesus as divine, and that is by definition not compatible with judaism. this is something the earliest christian authors, like paul, understood well. they tried, in their epistles, to distance themselves from judaism, jewish law and practice, etc. it's a bit like saying "buddhism is a sect of hinduism". they're related religions, sure, but one is not a subset of the other.

That is closer to what the ancient Jews expected but quite different from the way that Jesus saw Himself fulfilling the Scriptures. On top of that of course Gandhi didn't return in a resurrected body.

which is not a requirement for being the messiah, of course.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by GDR, posted 01-08-2014 9:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by GDR, posted 02-09-2014 6:41 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 78 of 169 (718609)
02-07-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by jaywill
01-09-2014 12:32 AM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
jaywill writes:

You don't care for belief ? You seem to care rather consistently for describing why, say, my belief is invalid here, there, and here again.

You seem to care when studying the Bible renders a typical Christian belief. Ie. you care enough to demonstrate regarding Isaiah 53 as a prophecy concerning a Redeemer offering Himself for man's atonement before God, is unwarranted belief.

perhaps you misunderstand.

you are free to believe what you'd like; i'm only commenting on whether or not that belief is a valid reading of the text. if it is, no problem. if the text does not support your belief, that's fine too. this is not my problem to reconcile, but yours. maybe the text is wrong and your belief is right. i'm not making a value statement on your faith; i'm only saying it's not accurately reflected in the source you have chosen. deal with that as you will.

If you think the text more obviously carries the meaning that Israel is dying an atoning death for Israel, I think you run into problems with that interpretation. It would not make sense here:

quote:
"That He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due ? And they assigned His grave with the wicked." (v.8b)

If the stroke was due his people then how could his people bear the stroke in some kind of substitutionary way ?

the text is personifying the kingdom. the people were due punishment, so the kingdom was dissolved. it's actually fairly easy to see how this is a repetition of concept, which is typical in hebrew poetics.

So Israel cannot be an atoning offering on behalf of Israel. It is not logical.

actually, within the confines of jewish law, one atoning for anyone other than himself is not logical. for instance,

quote:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

you are viewing this passage with a christian mindset where atonement by substitution is the very foundation of your belief. but this idea is nonsense to the jews who wrote the old testament. how can i atone for you sins, or you for mine? that would be a meaningless exercise in futility, and it would not be just. the idea of a perfect man stepping in and soaking up all the sins of everyone and atoning for us, by dying, is completely revolutionary, and not at all found in judaism.

I don't know too many people as you describe, that is, that were either believers in Judaism or believers in the New Testament, that gave up faith in God altogether.

i've known several personally.

God speaks of a new covenant not like the former given through Moses at Mt. Sinai.

yes, and one that, to you, sounds superficially like christianity. but look, yahweh says in verse 34 that there will be no more preaching or evangelism:

quote:
and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me,

still sound like christianity? because christianity says something like that is coming... in the end times.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jaywill, posted 01-09-2014 12:32 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 79 of 169 (718612)
02-07-2014 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jaywill
01-09-2014 1:35 AM


Re: theocracy
jaywill writes:

well, no. israel was neither theocratic, nor unique. a theocracy does not have independent kings and priests; israel and judah did.

I still regard ancient Israel, before and after the divide, as the unique collective national theocracy.

this statement is utterly nonsense. how can you call a kingdom that divides into two practically identical kingdoms, unique? the other kingdom's just like it.

and israel and judah are very similar, historically and archaeologically, to their neighbors. very similar. everything we know about canaanite religion (at least from source outside the bible) sounds distinctly like judaism with a few more gods. and a separation of church of state -- kings and priests who often were at odds in the bible! -- means it's not a theocracy. do not mistake the bible's adoration of a few select kings like david and solomon for the bible imbuing them with religious authority. nearly every king of judah and every last single king of post schism israel is condemned by the bible. in what theocracy do the priests continually write about how bad the kings are, for doing things different than the religion dictates? have you read the bible?

Many other passages show this unique aspect of Israel both before and after the split following Rehaboam.

judah followed rehoboam. israel was under jeroboam.

i realize this is an easy mistake to make, as many of the biblical authors still identify as part of "israel" (the people). and so you will hear talk about jacob or israel in the prophets. but the kingdom israel was a different place, most of the bible was written in judah, by jews.

it's not really even until josiah -- the second last generation of jewish kings -- that a king even takes a dramatic religious stance.

Deuteronomy is way before Josiah the king.

yeah, no it's not. deuteronomy was the book found by hilkiah the priest that prompted josiah to take his religious stance. it was unknown before that time.

And even prior to that is God's promises in Genesis to obtaining a theocratic nations through Abraham's seed through which all the families of the earth would be blessed.

i don't know where you see the word "theocratic" in there. or even the concept. it says nothing about kings. and even if it did, they'd have to be kings as religious leaders.

Before any kings were established God was their King in the Five Books of Moses, Joshua, Judges and as it was taught in First and Second Samuel.

this may come as a surprise to you, but people typically write books after the events they describe, not during.

Even Cyrus the king of Persia is used to be a figure of Christ as the One bringing back the people and rebuilding the broken down house of God.

yes, cyrus is, in fact, treated as a messiah.

...Yet you have Him brought back to life in verse 11.

and having kids in verse 10.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jaywill, posted 01-09-2014 1:35 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 80 of 169 (718936)
02-09-2014 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Eliyahu
01-29-2014 12:03 AM


Eliyahu writes:

We don't need 700 pages to deal with the resurrection, one is enough:

Why do you think that JC was ressurected?

Even in the New Testament there is NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS of his resurrection. No man saw him get up from the grave and walk away.

Oh, but he appeared to his disciples. Well, in that case, can you explain to me why nobody recognized him? Look in Luke 24:13-35. This speaks about the men on the road to Emmaus. JC met them, but they didn't recognize him.

The same thing happens in John 20:14; "At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. "Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, ... "
She thought JC was the gardener....

John 21:4 "Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. He called out to them, ..."

And again they didn't recognize him.

Isn't it strange that they didn't recognize the person with whom they were so close for years?

But the NT gives the answer to that strange phenomena. Look in Mark 16:12-13 "Afterward Jesus appeared IN A DIFFERENT FORM to two of them while they were walking in the country."
So it was a person "in a different form" from the previous well known JC who appeared to them, that's why they didn't recognize him.

A person in different form from the old JC, who was not recognized by the people he interacted with for years, only days before, doesn't that sounds like an impostor who is pretending to be the resurrected JC?

That also explains why some of the disciples doubted when the "resurrected JC" appeared to them: "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Matt 28:17.

Can you imagine that the authentic JC appears to you and you still doubt?
Apparently he was not so authentic.

If the disciples, who saw the "resurrected JC" with their own eyes, still doubted, why then do the Christians 2000 years later, who have nothing to go by but stories, don't doubt?

I'd suggest that largely the questions raised were as a result of it being a resurrection in new bodily form as distinct from a resuscitation of the body as was the case with Lazarus. The resurrected Jesus was the new Adam for the renewal or resurrection of all creation.

The doubts didn't last long however as His followers at the risk of, and in many cases with the loss of their lives went out and loudly proclaimed Jesus as the messiah, even going beyond that is saying that Jesus embodied Yahweh's return to His people, and for the world.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Eliyahu, posted 01-29-2014 12:03 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 81 of 169 (718945)
02-09-2014 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by arachnophilia
02-07-2014 6:59 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
GDR writes:

I understand what you're saying but, (you might be surprised ) I disagree. Certainly the ancient Jews had a very different idea of what a messiah would be like than what Jesus brought to them. However, with the benefit of hind sight, which is how Peter, Paul etc worked out their theology, there is a fairly clear picture of of a messianic Jesus as understand by the early Christians even before they were actually called Christians, drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures.

arachnophilla writes:

well, this is sort of an interesting argument. it affirms that prophecy has nothing in terms of predictive power. one is forced to wonder the point of predictions that don't predict. of course, i would argue there is not a fairly clear picture of a messianic jesus.

Well they did predict but in the ambiguous manner that results as a result of God working through humans with all of our biases, misconceptions, cultural and personal conditioning etc.

arachnophilla writes:

on the contrary, there are still all those claims about a messiah who actually does things that matter in the real world, and solve real world problems. and in fact, many of those ret-conned, hind-sight prophecies, if examined in context, are about a messiah who does things in the physical world.

But that is exactly what He did. He pointed out that you don't solve real word issues by the sword. He said that if you really want to change the world you do it by loving your enemies, caring for the poor, loving your neighbour etc.. In the resurrection God shows us that death - the greatest power that evil has over us - does not have the final word.

arachnophilla writes:

sure. the things that jesus said, more often than not, are perfectly valid interpretations based strongly upon the torah (law) and nevi'im (prophets). in this way, he's a rather standard rabbi, offering his own (somewhat radical) midrash. fine. the problem is the things people said about jesus; paul's teachings are most decidedly at odds with the torah.

I'd say that he fulfilled and shed light on the Torah in a way that nobody else had.

arachnophilla writes:

not at the time of jesus, no, they didn't. the second temple existed in jerusalem until about 40 years after hypothetical jesus was hypothetically crucified. then it was torn down by the romans. rebuilding the temple was a messianic thing between the first and second temples, and after the second temple (when most of the new testament was written), but not during the time jesus would have lived.

No, as the Temple had been largely rebuilt by the Herodians who were simply puppets of the Romans and was not functioning in the manner that observant Jews felt it should. The original prophesies were written prior to the Herodian reconstruction. I don't know if they anticipated any additional rebuilding of the Temple but they would certainly like to have seen it removed from Herodian control and would have expected a messiah to accomplish that task.

arachnophilla writes:

actually, jesus first said that the temple would be destroyed.

That was a political statement that was consistent with His message of "those who live by the sword will die by the sword". He was saying that by continuing on with their revolutionary ways the Romans would do what they always did and that the Temple would be destroyed; as it was in 70AD.

arachnophilla writes:

these are very different statements. jesus, as portrayed in at least three of the gospels, is quite jewish and very much in line with heretical judaism at the time. actually, he may have even been a bit less fringe than some sects.

christianity, though, is the religion that formed around worship of jesus as divine, and that is by definition not compatible with judaism. this is something the earliest christian authors, like paul, understood well. they tried, in their epistles, to distance themselves from judaism, jewish law and practice, etc. it's a bit like saying "buddhism is a sect of hinduism". they're related religions, sure, but one is not a subset of the other.

I think John does the best job of it in Chap 1 where he talks about Jesus being the embodiment of the "Word", (wisdom) of God. The Jews had an expectation that Yahweh would return to them, so that idea that Yahweh returned to them in the manner that John describes is consistent with Jewish understanding that there is but one God.

arachnophilla writes:

(resurrection) which is not a requirement for being the messiah, of course.

I agree. In effect Jesus tied together two prophesies or expectations of the Jews. The first was for the messiah and the second was for the return of Yahweh.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 02-07-2014 6:59 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 7:09 PM GDR has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 82 of 169 (718953)
02-09-2014 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by GDR
02-09-2014 6:41 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
GDR writes:

Well they did predict but in the ambiguous manner that results as a result of God working through humans with all of our biases, misconceptions, cultural and personal conditioning etc.

so... not useful for predictions at all? look, i don't agree with this premise to start with. i think the prophets are fairly clear. they tend to speak in heavy allegory, yes, but the context is always understandable if you poke at it a bit. and the prophecies that are usually applied to jesus are a bit more clear than the one in this topic.

the prophets are also pretty clear about speaking for yahweh.

But that is exactly what He did. He pointed out that you don't solve real word issues by the sword.

quote:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

i mean, okay, maybe that's a metaphor. but it's an odd choice of words. jesus shook up the political establishment, at least according to the gospel, by arguing against their entire operation. by democratizing faith. that was pretty revolutionary... and it made him more enemies than it made him friends. it sort of got him killed.

I'd say that he fulfilled and shed light on the Torah in a way that nobody else had.

unless you've read any of the jewish midrashim.

No, as the Temple had been largely rebuilt by the Herodians who were simply puppets of the Romans and was not functioning in the manner that observant Jews felt it should.

observant jews ran the temple.

The original prophesies were written prior to the Herodian reconstruction. I don't know if they anticipated any additional rebuilding of the Temple but they would certainly like to have seen it removed from Herodian control and would have expected a messiah to accomplish that task.

perhaps, but that's not the same thing as rebuilding the temple.

That was a political statement that was consistent with His message of "those who live by the sword will die by the sword". He was saying that by continuing on with their revolutionary ways the Romans would do what they always did and that the Temple would be destroyed; as it was in 70AD.

not quite. it's pretty universally understood by christians as a condemnation of the pharisees and their practices; which were quite happy with roman rule (and the roman rule with them). it's christ arguing that this church will be done away with, and a new one (a christian one) established in its place.

I think John does the best job of it in Chap 1 where he talks about Jesus being the embodiment of the "Word", (wisdom) of God.

which is why i said "three gospels" above. there's some worthwhile questions about whether or not this idea is really all that jewish.

The Jews had an expectation that Yahweh would return to them, so that idea that Yahweh returned to them in the manner that John describes is consistent with Jewish understanding that there is but one God.

well no, not if you're jewish. it sounds an awful lot like what aaron said of the golden calf: behold your god that lead you out of egypt. saying something is yahweh when it's plainly not (eg: a human being, or an inanimate object) is the definition of heresy in judaism.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by GDR, posted 02-09-2014 6:41 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 02-09-2014 9:01 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 83 of 169 (718968)
02-09-2014 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 7:09 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
arachnophilla writes:

so... not useful for predictions at all? look, i don't agree with this premise to start with. i think the prophets are fairly clear. they tend to speak in heavy allegory, yes, but the context is always understandable if you poke at it a bit. and the prophecies that are usually applied to jesus are a bit more clear than the one in this topic.

the prophets are also pretty clear about speaking for yahweh.

Well, just because they claim to speak for Yahweh does not mean they got it right. I still don't understand how some Christians can believe that Yahweh would tell his followers to commit genocide and stone people to death for any offence, let alone minor ones, and then through Jesus tell us that we are to forgive and love our enemies.

The whole thing hangs on whether or not Jesus was resurrected. I think that it is a very weak argument to suggest that the writers of the NT made the whole thing up. It is clear that they believed it happened. It wasn't what they had expected and it is written in such a way as to say that - I know it sounds odd but here is what happened.

The only question in my mind is whether or not they were right or wrong.
I am strongly convinced, as were the NT writers, that Jesus was resurrected by God. If God resurrected Jesus then we can go back and look at the prophesies in that light, not in an attempt to validate the resurrection but to validate the prophesies in order to understand what God wants us to take from the OT.

If God resurrected Jesus then what difference does it make if there were any prophesies or not, except to gain understanding of what God is doing in the world? The connection to the prophets connects Jesus to the Israeli narrative in order to better understand what Jesus was about and what He wanted to get across to us.

arachnophilla writes:

i mean, okay, maybe that's a metaphor. but it's an odd choice of words. jesus shook up the political establishment, at least according to the gospel, by arguing against their entire operation. by democratizing faith. that was pretty revolutionary... and it made him more enemies than it made him friends. it sort of got him killed.

He was simply pointing out that His message was extremely controversial and would cause huge divisions even within families.

aracnophilla writes:

unless you've read any of the jewish midrashim.

It's there but nobody seems to have understood it in the way that Jesus did. This includes His followers who only began to understand it after the resurrection.

=arachnophilla writes:

observant jews ran the temple.

...as long as they toed the party line.

arachnopholla writes:

perhaps, but that's not the same thing as rebuilding the temple.

Jesus understood that He was replacing the Temple as evidenced His going around forgiving sins and saying that He desired mercy not sacrifice.

arachnophilla writes:

not quite. it's pretty universally understood by christians as a condemnation of the pharisees and their practices; which were quite happy with roman rule (and the roman rule with them). it's christ arguing that this church will be done away with, and a new one (a christian one) established in its place.

Sure He was critical of the Pharisees but that is another issue. There was obviously strong support for the revolutionary movement in the country as evidence but what happened less than 40 years later.

arachnophilla writes:

which is why i said "three gospels" above. there's some worthwhile questions about whether or not this idea is really all that jewish.

Well, it wasn't anticipated to happen in the manner that it did. However once again it all hangs on the resurrection. Jesus life and ministry was lived out in an entirely Jewish context and if God resurrected Jesus, thus validating His life and ministry, then it is very Jewish.

arachnophilla writes:

well no, not if you're jewish. it sounds an awful lot like what aaron said of the golden calf: behold your god that lead you out of egypt. saying something is yahweh when it's plainly not (eg: a human being, or an inanimate object) is the definition of heresy in judaism.

Not really. The golden calf was inanimate and wasn't going around telling them that they should love their neighbour. However, same thing again. It all boils down to whether or not the writers of the NT were right or wrong about the resurrection.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 7:09 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 10:01 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 84 of 169 (718970)
02-09-2014 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by GDR
02-09-2014 9:01 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
GDR writes:

Well, just because they claim to speak for Yahweh does not mean they got it right.

why doesn't this skepticism apply double to someone who claims to be yahweh? or the son of yahweh?

I still don't understand how some Christians can believe that Yahweh would tell his followers to commit genocide and stone people to death for any offence, let alone minor ones, and then through Jesus tell us that we are to forgive and love our enemies.

genocide? yeah, pretty dick move. but i didn't write the book. as for the laws about stoning, those laws are maximum allowable punishment. it was "eye for an eye" because without it, people were tempted to take much more serious revenge than the crime warranted. the justification for this principle is in genesis, where dinah is stolen/raped, and her brothers respond by tricking the entire village into cutting off their foreskins, and then killing every one while they're recuperating.

it's still a pretty brutal principle, but jesus was trying to teach that one need not demand the maximum punishment.

The whole thing hangs on whether or not Jesus was resurrected.

well, no. even if jesus was resurrected, he still wouldn't fit the qualifications of the jewish messiah. don't get me wrong, it's a great trick. but they were looking for the resurrection of their earthly kingdom, their independence from rome.

I think that it is a very weak argument to suggest that the writers of the NT made the whole thing up. It is clear that they believed it happened.

i don't know about that. i actually think it's pretty clear that at least one of them (matthew) thought rather conclusively that it didn't happen, and that another (luke) was simply reporting stories he had heard.

matthew is an exceedingly biting satire if you read it with knowledge of the hebrew scriptures, from a jewish perspective. he does stuff like quote passages that specifically emphasize jesus's human characteristics, and leave out the surrounding verse of prophecy so that when you cross-reference the prophecies you get a picture of the messiah that sharply contrasts jesus. for instance, jesus fulfills the average human characteristic of riding into jerusalem on a donkey, a bit zechariah uses to emphasize the humanity and humble origins of the messiah. except jesus manages to ride two donkeys at once, making fun of the poetic style of zechariah by taking it over-literally. and then, the very next verse in zechariah the messiah brings about world peace. which jesus most definitely didn't do, considering that matthew was written around the time of destruction of the temple.

given the historical context, and the hebrew scriptural context, and matthew's over-the-top assertion that jesus was able to ride two donkeys at once, what do you think matthew was saying about jesus?

I am strongly convinced, as were the NT writers, that Jesus was resurrected by God. If God resurrected Jesus then we can go back and look at the prophesies in that light, not in an attempt to validate the resurrection but to validate the prophesies in order to understand what God wants us to take from the OT.

except that, even looking backwards, so much of the OT is not validated at all by christ. which is why i jokingly said don't read it; there is a genuine disparity. one or both must be inaccurate.

If God resurrected Jesus then what difference does it make if there were any prophesies or not, except to gain understanding of what God is doing in the world?

because jesus as messiah is untenable within judaism. he doesn't fit, and yet he is connected anyways. this is a legitimate problem.

It's there but nobody seems to have understood it in the way that Jesus did. This includes His followers who only began to understand it after the resurrection.

that does not seem to be true, if you read them. certainly modern commentaries shed far more insight on the text that christ did.

Well, it wasn't anticipated to happen in the manner that it did.

correct; the messiah is to be an earthly, human king who sits on the throne of david. that wasn't how jesus happened. ergo, jesus is not the jewish messiah. you can argue that the jews got it wrong, and that's fine. but it still means that jesus is not jewish messiah.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 02-09-2014 9:01 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Eliyahu, posted 06-15-2015 12:45 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


(1)
Message 85 of 169 (759818)
06-15-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 10:01 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
Bs'd

The facts of the matter are of course that JC didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies, and that therefore the was not only not the Jewish messiah, but he was also not the Biblical messiah.

As a matter of fact, he was not a messiah at all.

A messiah is an anointed one.

Messiah comes from the Hebrew word 'meshiach' which means 'anointed one' It was the custom to anoint kings with oil before they came to power. There were already many anointed kings in Jewish history. Read for instance I Samuel 9:27 to10:1; Here Saul is anointed by Samuel the prophet. And thereby he became a messiah, an anointed one, See Samuel 11:13 up to 12:3: Here in verse 3 king Saul is called G.ds anointed, in the Hebrew 'meshiach'. So also king Saul was a messiah. Look in I Samuel 16:12-13, here the prophet Samuel anoints David, the Hebrew verb for anointing is 'mashach', and he becomes an anointed one, as we can read in II Samuel 23:1; "David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed (in the Hebrew 'meshiach') of the G.d of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said; "

I Kings 1:39; "And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed (Hebrew verb 'mashach') Solomon. And they blew the trumpet, and all the people said; G.d save king Solomon." Also Solomon was an anointed one, or messiah: II Chronicles 6:42, here king Solomon prays: "O Lord turn not away the face of thine anointed, " In the Hebrew: 'meshiach'.

So now we know what is a messiah: An anointed king.

So now we understand JC was no messiah whatsoever.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 10:01 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jaywill, posted 09-15-2015 7:47 PM Eliyahu has responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 86 of 169 (769039)
09-15-2015 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Eliyahu
06-15-2015 12:45 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
I am back in the discussion as time permits.

The facts of the matter are of course that JC didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies, and that therefore the was not only not the Jewish messiah, but he was also not the Biblical messiah.

Jesus Christ is still in the ongoing process of prophecy fulfillment.

When Moses came to the Hebrews they also doubted before the plagues that he was the deliverer sent by God. After the Exodus they also had episodes of doubt. They wanted on occasion to stone him and secure another leader to take them BACK to Egypt.

The Messianic King reigns unto eternity, forever. It is not too surprising that in the unfolding of His kingdom some doubt because of the outworking of God's purposes.


As a matter of fact, he was not a messiah at all.

A messiah is an anointed one.

Yeshua, the Lord Jesus Christ surely IS the Anointed One and the Messiah.

The brothers of Joseph went through a period when he was dealing with him and they did not recognize him. He tested them and disciplined them as a Ruler in Egypt in Genesis. Yet his heart ached to make himself known to their ignorance. But he restrianed himself and kept his emotions in check.

Joseph dealt with his brothers in a number of ways and they did not know that he was the brother that they betrayed and left in a pit to die.

The story is a window into how the Jews are being tested by their Messiah in their ignorance of Him. Eventually they are made to know that He is the very one they rejected. But their Messiah, Who is Lord of all, will deal wisely with them as Joseph did to his brothers who were eventually forced to come for him for saving.

I suggest that you read again the story of Joseph in Genesis. It is pointing to the REAL Joseph who is Jesus the Son of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Eliyahu, posted 06-15-2015 12:45 PM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Eliyahu, posted 07-19-2016 7:46 AM jaywill has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 87 of 169 (769056)
09-16-2015 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Eliyahu
01-29-2014 12:03 AM


Some misc complaints
Even in the New Testament there is NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS of his resurrection. No man saw him get up from the grave and walk away.

He appeared to 500 ore more disciples at one time (First Corinthian 15:6) . Paul says most of them were still alive by the time he wrote his First Corinthian letter.


Oh, but he appeared to his disciples. Well, in that case, can you explain to me why nobody recognized him? Look in Luke 24:13-35. This speaks about the men on the road to Emmaus. JC met them, but they didn't recognize him.

Jesus trained His disciples after His resurrection over a period of 40 days (Acts 1:3)

quote:
"To whom also He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many irrefutable proofs, appearing to them through a period of forty days and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God" ( Acts 1:3 )

The things "concerning the kingdom of God" include learning to live by the His invisible presence. Though they cannot see Him He will be with them even unto the consummation of the age (Matt. 28:20) . He will live within them as the life giving Holy Spirit that He is now:

quote:
" ...the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

He was not merely about them knowing that He rose from the dead. God's plan is that He be imparted into them and they walk by that resurrection presence.

For this reason He taught them over a period of 40 days that even though He physically and spiritually was resurrected they still must see more by revelation. And they also must walk by faith and not by sight. To begin with then He hid His obvious physical recognizability from them. Meanwhile the truth of the Scriptures burned in their hearts.

quote:
"And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and He disappeared from them. And they said to one another, Was not our heart burning within us while He wasy speaking to us on the road, while He was opening to us the Scriptures?" (Luke 24:31,32)

He was training them for weeks to learn to live by His unseen and unobvious physical detection. Yet He was indeed raised from the dead.

Notice that it does not say that He went away. Rather it says that He disappeared from their sight. They would need the memory of seeing Him. But much more they would need the truth of the Scripture burning in their hearts to face the work of tesifying for Him to a hostile world.

Another reason is that Christ is now within all the believers. And though we look different, we Christians must have the deep realization that regardless of this, Jesus Christ Himself in actually living within all the followers of Jesus. How differently we would be toward each other if this essential truth was grasped. And some do grasp it.

So He did make Himself known to them in the typical way. Yet He also trained them to live by the deeper truth of His being always present with them supernaturally and until the time He physically returns to the earth.


The same thing happens in John 20:14; "At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. "Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, ... "
She thought JC was the gardener....

Since Mary was of course also a disciple, she partook of the same kind of training. She had to learn to live by His invisible presence which is not so typically recongnizable. This is part of the kingdom of God.

At the right moment, her eyes were opened and she recognized Him in the typical physical way that we would expect.


And again they didn't recognize him.

Isn't it strange that they didn't recognize the person with whom they were so close for years?

This was deliberate and temporary. It is also wonderful that just a word from Him - "Mary" and her whole being instantly recognized her beloved Teacher. The recognition of the living and available risen Son of God is a matter deep in the human spirit. It is objectively true that He rose and subjectively experiential in its enjoyment.

Remember, He told Thomas that not all would have the blessing of SEEING Him in His resurrection. He said blessed are those who have not seen and have believed. So God does all things in the right way and at the right time.

quote:
" Then He said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.

Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!

Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:27-29)



This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Eliyahu, posted 01-29-2014 12:03 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 88 of 169 (787610)
07-19-2016 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by jaywill
09-15-2015 7:47 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
Jesus Christ is still in the ongoing process of prophecy fulfillment.

Bs"d

But so far he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies.

When Moses came to the Hebrews they also doubted before the plagues that he was the deliverer sent by God. After the Exodus they also had episodes of doubt. They wanted on occasion to stone him and secure another leader to take them BACK to Egypt.

The Messianic King reigns unto eternity, forever. It is not too surprising that in the unfolding of His kingdom some doubt because of the outworking of God's purposes.

Fact of the matter is and remains: JC did NOT fulfill the messianic prophecies.

Yeshua, the Lord Jesus Christ surely IS the Anointed One and the Messiah.

How is that possible when he never was anointed to be a king by a priest and/or a prophet?


I suggest that you read again the story of Joseph in Genesis. It is pointing to the REAL Joseph who is Jesus the Son of God.

The story of Joseph has of course zero pertinence to JC.

Let's get back to the subject of this thread;

What proofs can you give from the Tanach that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah?

.

.

"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5

Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jaywill, posted 09-15-2015 7:47 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2016 9:02 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 89 of 169 (790028)
08-23-2016 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Eliyahu
07-19-2016 7:46 AM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
quote:
But so far he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies.

Yes He did or Judaism would not be spending the last 20 centuries trying to deny it.

The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner. You are ample evidence of that.

quote:

Fact of the matter is and remains: JC did NOT fulfill the messianic prophecies.

You're trained to deny that He did.

Your opposition is evidence to me that Jesus Christ is the stone that the builders rejected. He has become the head of the corner.

quote:

Yeshua, the Lord Jesus Christ surely IS the Anointed One and the Messiah.
How is that possible when he never was anointed to be a king by a priest and/or a prophet?


His words, life, deeds testify that He had every REALITY of the anointing of God.

He was so anointed that Judaism has spent 20 centuries trying to UN-anoint Him.

quote:

I suggest that you read again the story of Joseph in Genesis. It is pointing to the REAL Joseph who is Jesus the Son of God.
The story of Joseph has of course zero pertinence to JC.

Its a foreshadow.

Like Joseph's brother who spent some time ignorant as to Who this Ruler actually was, their brother, so you display that same kind of ignorance.

You don't realize Him. And as Joseph delayed unveiling Himself to them, so He is taking some time to discipline the Jews also.

It is inevitable that they will one day realize that this was their "brother" the Jewish Messiah. It is not a question of IF. It is only a question of WHEN.

quote:

Let's get back to the subject of this thread;


I haven't read any of this discussion for months. I have read enough this afternoon to realize that you are in the dark as to the identity of the Messiah.

You're expecting Someone ELSE to come along more impressive than Jesus ?

quote:

What proofs can you give from the Tanach that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah?

Israel cannot bear Israel's own sins. So it must be talking about the suffering Servant of the One crucified for their sins and raised.

Interesting, the prophet begins the chapter by complaining that NO ONE believes the report of the prophets -

Who has believed our report ?

You exemplify this unbelief.

I know in the book of Isaiah more than one person or entity is said to be God's Servant. And I know that in some instance Israel itself is said to be God's Servant. But in this chapter 53 the Servant cannot be Israel.

The better candidate is Jesus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Eliyahu, posted 07-19-2016 7:46 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 778
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 90 of 169 (806468)
04-25-2017 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2014 1:24 AM


You're reading too much into the statement

So easy to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2014 1:24 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019