May I also request that when pointing out these alleged offers from God, that the Tankah is referenced, not Christian scriptures. After all, the Jews do not accept Christian scriptures as being from God, but only written by man.
Well, for Jesus to be the seed of david, he would have to be from the direct unbroken MALE line, decended from Solomon. Since Jesus was not Joesphes son, that disqalifies him there. (see e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16; Is 11:1; Jer 23:5, 30:9, 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24))
Next, assuming he WAS Josephs son, he would STILL not qualify, since the two conflicting genologies were not of the proper Davidic line.
Second of all, the line 'He will be called Emanual' is a quote taken out of context, and is not anything to do with the Messiah. And, for that matter, Jesus was not called 'Emanual' in his lifetime.. strike two.
As for sitting on the throne of a unified Israel and Juddah, he hasn't. The Jewish messiah will be known by what he has DONE, not by promises of what he will do.
Next, as far as can be determined, Jesus was not married, and did not have children (see Ezek 46:16-17). Thus he is disqualified that way too.
Also, the disporia has not ended. All the jews have not returned to Israel (see (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5).)
Doesn't matter. His name was not Immanual. Immanual is just a name. My grandfathers name was Immanual too, so what?
And, you are wrong. My references were what the JEWISH religion concsider messanic references.
As far as the reference to Immanual in Isaiah, that was not refering to someone who was to be born 600 years later. That particular passage was talking about Isaiah's own son. It wouldn't do King Ahaz much good for for a sign to be fullfilled 600 years in the future. The sign was that before this baby was old enough to know right and wrong, the King of Assyria would no longer be a threat to Ahaz. In other words, it was the time period for a woman who WAS pregnant to have a child that was old enough to know what right and wrong was. Isaiah 8.4 shows how Isaiah made sure it would happen (He went to the prophetess and INSURED she conceived.. )It had nothing to do with some son of god born 700 years later.
1) When was the book of Genesis written down? After the fact writing of something of course is not a prophecy. 2) There is no archelogical evidence that there WAS an Exodus, although I am sure there were Cannanites in Egypt, and familar with Egypt.
This message has been edited by ramoss, 11-25-2004 11:54 AM
However, people have been trying for over 100 years to find traces of it in the desert where it is claimed the Israeli's wandered. When you have searched enough, the absense of evidence IS indeed evidence of absense.
And one point you did not bring up , the concept of 'SALVATION' in the Jewish religion is not the same as the Christian religion. The concept of SALVATION is for THIS life, not for a hypothetical next one. So attempting to use the term 'salvation' in the tanakh to mean the same thing as what Christians refer to is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'.
The term just does not mean the same thing in the Tankah. It does not have the same connotations.
Salvation, actually, doesn't mean much in the Jewish religion, period.
The term as used just means in the Tanakh just means they were saved from that particular situation, or for a bad sitation.
You see, the term SALVATION implies a focus on the afterlife, and that just plain isn't important in Judaism. The concept of HELL as the Christians understand it does not exist either. You see, having the reward and punishment concept for doing bad/good taints the concept that you should be good for it's own sake, rather than doing good for some selfish reason (you want to get to heaven.)
So, the question you have basically means nothing.
As for Elijah and enoch, the idea that they were taken to heaven alive is not true. In other words, when they were 'taken', they died.