Evidence of Jesus in the entire bible.

Ok,Jonh,lets see if it is just a mesopothanic history.
They are not by order.
Genesis 3:15
Ishaias 49:7 (is good to read the entire chapter)
Ishaias 52:13-15
Isahias 53
More verses will be added as long as i discover they location

They refer to Jesus in the Bible now?What will they think of next? [This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 08-13-2003]

The only 'Jesus' in the Old Testament is Joshua.Attempts to show that the God-Man Jesus is in the Old Testament is one of the most hilarious pursuits that Xians embark on. This should be entertaining.Brian.

Newborn, you don't have to do all that work. If you want the most comprehensive treatment of "Jesus in the OT" that there ever was or ever will be, go to Early Church Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library and follow the links for Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho" in volume 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.Surely, there's no way Justin missed a single potential reference.

Genesis 3:15 seems to predict hostility between humans and snakes. There is nothing indicating that this is even supposed to refer to a single individualIsaiah 4( 1-7 seems to be about a purely human individual - not the Christian idea of Jesus at all. The rest of the chapter appears to predict Israel ruling over the world - or at the least a large poriton of it. Something that was not the case in Jesus' time, nor at any time after that.Isaiah 52 seems to be about the Babylonian exile (52:4-5) and I do not remember Jesus being described as being deformed or ugly (52:14)Isaiah 53 is also rather dubious - the translation uses the past tense, and states that the man in question had done no violence - Jesus on the other hand had attacked the moneylenders in the Temple.

'Jesus on the other hand had attacked the moneylenders in the Temple.'No he didn't , he threw there tables over, he did NOT harm them !

'that the God-Man Jesus is in the Old Testament is one of the most hilarious pursuits that Xians embark on.'Lol - newbie's spouting off about nonsense again!

Or is it just Brian acting like a newbie? lol

quote:

---

No he didn't , he threw there tables over, he did NOT harm them !

---

if I came at you with a stick and never hit you. did I still attack you? yes I did. though I never did harm you. I can also attack you with words can I not?

So you say Jesus used no violence in the Temple ?Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,How did he throw people out of the Temple without using violence ?Mark 11:15 says the same as does Luke 19:45John 2:14-15 goes into more detail
"14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and
doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove
them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and
poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"If he was running around waving a whip, what makes you assume that he didn't use it ?

Hi Mike,Well since he momentarily halted their business transactions then he did harm them in a way. Also, throwing tables around is a violent act is it not? There are many ways of harming someone without physically assaulting them. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. John 2:15It should be noted that it is money changers and not moneylenders, these people were providing a service that benefitted the whole community, and Jesus took it upon himself to break the law.I believe that this is just another glossing of the Jesus story though, what are the chances of one man clearing out all these traders from the Temple? I would suggest that traders would have put up a bit of a fight and especially the money changers who more than likely would have had 'minders' of some description protecting them against the threat of thefts.Another example of Jesus harming someone is when he sent Legion into the herd of pigs and they ran over a cliff and into the sea. Forget the problem of the nearest sea being 20 -odd miles away for a moment, but Jesus effectively took away the pig herder's source of income, what a nasty piece of work that Jesus character was.Brian

I am sure there's a place at Scotland Yard for you Mike.

HI Brian,Remember, the man had followers, "disciplined ones" (disciples) whom he taught everything and led everywhere. These were called his "followers." No one at the time could fail to understand the implication of the term. Gideon's fighting men were his followers. David's high desert guerillas were his followers. The troops of Ben Hadad (king of Syria) were his followers. And "Follow me," had been used as a call to battle {Judges 3:28}. Why would Jesus talk this way? Why would he use traditionally militant lingo? Why not say, "Come with me;" "Join me please;" or "Let's get together, shall we." ?The mission and tactics of Jesus were much like those of "The Maccabees" (Matthew, Simon, John, Judas, et. al.). The biggest difference seems to be that in Jesus' day there was less freedom to operate; it was easier to get caught; and acts of aggression were (apparently) limited to Jew on Jew misdemeanors, and threats of hellfire and damnation. But the objectives were the same: Separate "the sheep" from "the goats;" and, Re-establish the dynasty of David.But was Jesus truly militant? Did he harbor violent intentions? It would certainly seem so, as evidenced in this freely paraphrased, and abbreviated, compilation of his sayings: Turning over a few tables in the lobby of a church would be nothing to such a man.db

Hi Bill,Regarding the 'Don't imagine that I came to bring peace. I came to bring a sword.' reference. The 'sword' in this reference is not to an actual weapon but is referring to the Word of God.The sword in this context is a sword that will divide people into followers of God's word. and those who choose not to follow. This 'sword' divides truth from lies, and darkness from light, it even divides families whose members diagree on the value of God's word. So the 'sword' is not wielded by Jesus and his followers against others, it is a sword that his followers have to suffer.But I agree that there is sufficient evidence in the gospels to support Jesus being a leader of a group of revolutionaries, for example his crucifixion is a roman punishment for sedition and not a Jewish punishment for blasphemy. His friends appear to be less that amicable too, Simon the Zealot for example and even Judas Iscariot's name can mean 'Daggerman' a type of assassin.I dont know if I agree with 'Turning over a few tables in the lobby of a church would be nothing to such a man.'I have been reading Paul Winter's On the Trial of Jesus, and apparently the incident wouldnt have been inside the Temple itself.According to Winter the incident happened on the Temple Mount and not in the Temple itself, he says that this is yet another mistranslation found in the New Testament.On page 200 he writes:In reality it denotes the precincts of the sanctuary, the Temple Mount, an extensive area comprising a vast complex of administrative buildings, offices, quarters for the accommodation of attendants, cages and pens for sacrificial birds and animals, besides several great courts. Around the sanctuary lay the Court of Priests which even Jewish men of other than priestly descent were normally not allowed to enter; on the Court of Priests bordered the Court of (Jewish) Men; beyond that lay the Court of (Jewish) Women. This was separated by a wall from the Court of Gentiles, these not being admitted beyond the wall of partition. In the south-eastern corner of the Court of the Gentiles, on the outskirts of the Temple Mount, in a place not considered hallowed ground, were the tables of the moneychangers who converted foreign coins carried by pilgrims from distant lands into Tyrian coinage, and the booths of vendors of sacrificial birds and animals. The spot was a public market-place, and the incident known as "The Cleansing of the Temple" could have amounted to little more than a brawl in an Eastern bazaar. Located at a considerable distance from the sanctuary, and even from the courts in which Jewish men and women assembled for worship, the booths of the moneychangers were not sacred objects - except, perhaps, to their owners. On the other hand, the right to sell doves etc. and exchange foreign coins for locally valid currency was reserved to relatives of the highpriests and other persons drawn from the ranks of hierarchic families. Hence a violent and unauthorized interference with the conduct of the legitimate business of the licensed vendors and bankers, possibly involving damage to their property, would outrage their sense of propriety, and if angry owners reported the incident to their influential kinsmen, the report would have contributed to incense the hierarchs against Jesus. So it seems that this is another exaggeration by the evangelists, another piece of propaganda to support Jesus' royalty as the maintenance of the santuary in Davidic times was the duty of the King.An interesting episode nonetheless, and one that I think whose historicty is impossible to prove or disprove.Brian.

I realize that this is the traditional interpretation. I must take issue with that interpretation because I believe that if he had meant The Word, he would have said, "The Word."Sword is often used as a metaphor of War itself. Surely you must also realize that his statement was a allusion to various passages from the Old Testament. There are many OT references which place a sword in the hand of the LORD. Two of these are excellent candidates for the allusion. The first, from Levitical Law (26:24,25) quotes the LORD as saying, Vengeance for those who do not follow God's Word. Yes? The covenant IS the word. But the covenant is NOT the sword.You have already alluded to what follows the initial statement. The bit about dividing families. That is clearly a quote from the prophet Micah (7:6). If you read it in context I believe you will understand that it is a general description of troubled times. Beginning with the first verse of chapter five. Sounds familiar eh? Here are a few excerpts leading up to the quote from Matthew; all from the Revised Standard Version: Cut, cut, cut. Sounds like a real sword, eh?The LORD pleads with Israel. But things do not change. {Quick side trip to Isaiah 66:16 By fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.King James Version} Now back to Micah: Under these conditions, political loyalties are uncertain. The Gospels do not use the word swordin the metaphorical sense (my premise see). That comes later with St. Paul and his neo-Judaic heresy. Paul re-invents Judaism and sees Jesus as the innocent and passive Lamb of God. Set in our time and culture, the murder of Jesus is comparable to the assasination of Bobby Kennedy. A heart wrenching trajedy. But when Jesus said "sword," did he really mean, "the word of God?" The scripture he was quoting clearly intended it to be understood as a real, and hungry, instrument of extermination. And even if Jesus did wax metaphorical in his speech - Why draw comparison with an instrument of death. In today's world it is like calling the word of God a gun. Not so strange, now that I think of how it has been used. I believe the correct metaphor would be, the cross they have to bear. I expect that death by sword is preferrable to incineration. Incineration is the death he promised those who resisted his mission. (Worse than Sodom and Gomorrah!) At any rate, are you saying that the word of God causes Jesus followers to suffer? Hmmmm. Hadn't heard that one. Thanks. Have you analyzed "boanerges." I believe it suggests artillerymen. Hope to post the argument at my website sometime soon.RE: Paul Winters Book. No, I haven't read it but am inclined to believe your excerpt. The more I study the Bible, ... well, ... it just gets curiouser and curiouser.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?