jesus called himself the son of man, which generally meant prophet, but held messianic connotations. however, the messiah must be descended from david, on the father's side. if jesus is literally the son of god, then he is not literally the son of david. you can't have both, and the messiah has to be a literal KING in house of david.
Christ is of David's blood line. He is a son of David. To suggest that it makes a difference whether he's descended from his mother or father's line seems odd.
but jesus's name was yehoshua, not immanuel.
Of course, they weren't speaking about literal name......
immanuel does mean "god is with us" but it's not implication that the man called immanuel IS god.
I've also been led to believe differently. Please supply proof for this claim.
it's not uncommon to have a hebrew name that says something about god in the bible.
But not "Immanuel".......that is the name of God incarnate and God incarnate alone.
the immanuel prophesy was indeed messianic, but did jesus liberate israel from the assyrians? no, he was several hundred years after that. the prophesy is not talking about him.
I don't understand what the physical liberation from the Assyrians has to do with anything.
but this is a requirement the jews are looking for in a messiah. jesus was not a king, he never sat on a throne.
But, again, He will.
applying this standard to him is a little unfair, but he did promise to destroy it and rebuild it in a day. he was most likely speaking metaphorically.
Three days, if I remember.......and he did. He was speaking of his own ressurection.
the temple was destroyed again in ad 70, and has not succesfully been rebuilt to this day. it extends beyond the talmud, it's in the dialy prayers of every orthodox jew. it's something the coming messiah will do.
It's in the prayers of every orthodox Jew.......who are all influenced by the Talmud. This whole "Messiah will raise the temple" thing was really basically an excuse for not having to do this themselves........because the Romans would have annhilated them if they had tried.
notice the continuation of the parallelisms. but did jesus do those things?
No......but, again, he will.
wanna explain that one to me, apologist? how did jesus ride into jerusalem on two animals at once? isn't it more likely that author misunderstood poetry.
Or he sat on one while the other was led........I don't see the relevance, either way.
because the line of kings is patriarchal. it's through the father.
The Bible never states that Messiah would be the rightful heir to David's throne via heredity, just that he'd be of David's bloodline.
yes. they were. it says a young girl still in her father's house will concieve a child and name him immanuel
I doubt this, as there have been a number of though-to-be Messiahs over the course of Jewish history, and I don't recall them all being named Immanuel. After all, a mother would be accused of blasphemy simply by naming her child Immanuel and claiming that he was the Messiah (as Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming the same thing).
my bible says "with us is God." it's just what the name means. lots of biblical names have god in it: israel, elijah, etc. joshua even contains the proper name of god. these are all names that describe qualities or actions of god, not
to think that because it contains the a name for god means that bearer IS god is silly.
My Bible says "God with us", and I've always been taught by every source that it was a name specifically suggesting the divinity of Messiah........I may have been taught incorrectly, but I'd need some proof of that.
BTW, if I'm not mistaken, there are other prophecies suggesting the divinity of Messiah.......such as that he'd live forever and his kingdom would never end.
these are people who LITERALLY oppressed the judeans and the israelites. the child that would be a harbinger of their downfall would be LITERAL.
Revelations speaks of Jesus conquering Babylon........does that mean when Jesus returns, he's gonna literally conquer Iraq? Because I think Dubbya beat him to it........
that's nice, but during his life, he was never king of israel and judah. he's not now. maybe he will be at one point. buth currently, he's not the messiah the jews are looking for.
That's because the Jews misinterpret scripture by being too literal......
actually, a roman emporer sponsered an attempt to rebuilt the temple around ad 300.
I don't know anything about this, but I'm pretty sure that was after large portions of the Talmud were already taken as Canon.
maybe the messiah the jews are looking for is the second coming of christ.
If you admit this, then you admit that there is no obstacle in the OT to Jesus being the Messiah.
What you just seem to have a hard time understanding is that Jesus is the Christ NOW........Jesus was Christ before the creation of the world.........not all prophecy has been fulfilled, but Jesus is Christ, and God is God, always has been, is, and forever more He will be.
it says he rode in on both, in order to fulfil prophesy.
This is obviously impossible........do you think Matthew was too dim to understand this?
For the sake of argument, let's say some of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled weren't really there to begin with.......still, there certainly are a great number of prophecies that he did fulfill, and the rest he still CAN fulfill.
Therefore, there's no scriptural obstacle for His divinity.
if you want to discuss more, i suggest starting a new thread.