Jesus; the Torah, Nevi'im, and Psalms (Part 2)

From what I have researched there are actually very few passages that are interpreted as authentic messianic prophecies; these are Isaiah 8:23-9:6; 11:1-9, and Zechariah 9:9. Since Micah 5:1-4 and Isaiah 7:10-17 refer to people and events in the prophet's own time, I don't feel they qualify as referring to a future messiah.As Arach mentioned Isaiah 7:10-17 was done in the first thread and not open to discussion in this one.I feel that these "authentic" passages talked about the coming of a messiah in the Jewish tradition, one who is mainly a political leader. IMO, they are not referring to Jesus.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

I have a proposition. If you read the Tanakh, there is no place that a messiah is actually mentioned. While there are individual phrases that are taken to be messanic, the designantion of those phrases as messanic are oral tradition, taken much later.The concept of there being a messiah is a later development, and all the phrases that are used as 'messanic' passages are taken bits and peices from the older writings.

quote:

---

If you read the Tanakh, there is no place that a messiah is actually mentioned. While there are individual phrases that are taken to be messanic, the designantion of those phrases as messanic are oral tradition, taken much later.

---

That is what we are trying to discern about these passages that are presented as messianic. Can you shed some light on the Jewish teachings concerning these passages?You notice I have 8:23 listed which shows a difference in the Tanakh and the Bible's 9:1. Is Isaiah talking for God or making a speech. Who is he talking about when he speaks of wonderful counselor, etc.?

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

heh. funny. my mom said that last night. when i was telling her what is bouncing around in my head and asking her for advice.just get the love from everyone don't we?amd what the hell is asia minor. no one but christians use that term...This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-28-2005 11:12 AM

quote:

---

Is Isaiah talking for God or making a speech. Who is he talking about when he speaks of wonderful counselor, etc.?

---

How can there be a question? A child is born, a son is given, who will rule the government. Who is He? ...The mighty God, the everlasting Father...I guess you could still be waiting for this child to be born if you don't believe it was Jesus Christ, but I don't see how you could fail to recognize that this refers to the Messiah who is to be God Himself in human flesh.

From my reading.. Isaiah 9:5-6 is specifically talking about Heizkel (Which translates to be 'THe Mighty God' btw). As for Isaiah 9:1-2, he discussed who that was in 8:18.. He was talking abouthis own son, Immanual. This is a sign talking about Ahaz's own son Heizekel as a greater one. (remember, Isaiah was the prophet for 4 different kings, and if nothing else , he knew how to smooze up to the kings.Note: I found a Jewish site that discusses Isaiah 9 from the Jewish perspective (actually, from a Jewish anti-missionary perspective), so it
addresses the messanic claims. It also discusses the hebrew words and grammer, as well as how the KJV sort of changes the translation of certain words in that passage compared to other passages. The site isForbiddenThis message has been edited by ramoss, 12-28-2005 02:45 PM

i think it's interesting when they choose to translate names and when they don't.

Indeed. It is also interesting to see how words are translated on way, pretty consistantly, and then suddenly get translated another in a 'messanic' passage.

The rules of interpreting scripture here seem to differ. In the Christian tradition, prophecy can have more than one fulfillment and meaning. For example, just because a passage refers to a historical person in the Old Testament does not mean it does not also refer to Jesus or the Messiah.That's an important distinction to note. Paul went as far as to say the things in the Old Testament were shadows of things in Christ. "Does God take care for oxen?" he writes for instance and says it is written that the ministers of God partake of natural substance when "plowing" or ministering the word of God.Now, you can retort that God does take care for oxen, and Jesus says He notices the sparrow even, but it really doesn't change the point and just shows someone is being overly argumentative. God takes more care for His people than for oxen either way.Once you employ this principle, the Old Testament is read differently and it is amazing how many prophecies Jesus fulfills, and other areas of truth open up.For example, why did God tell Moses to say to Pharoah they needed to take 3 days journey to make a sacrifice? If you look at the use of 3 days throughout the scripture, and 3 main feasts ordained in the Law, you see a pattern, I believe. God intended more than a 3 natural day journey, but there is a 3 day spiritual journey necessary for all Christians to get completely out of Egypt and the world, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, which coorelate to spiritual truths and experiences, and all 3 are necessary.So arguing without understanding each other's evidentiary standards is a little silly. Saying to a Christian that just because Isaiah or someone could also be referring to something that happened back then just doesn't change the fact that from the Christian perspective, both can be equally true, and in fact, the references to Christ even more true.Moreover, there are some prophecies that imo, although appear to refer to natural things, refer almost exclusively to spiritual things and spiritual principles (see Ezekiel's vision of the Temple).

this thread is in the "accuracy and inerrancy" forum because it was created before we had a "bible study" forum. i suspect it should be there, but it works in either forum.

---

אָרַח

well, that's a little different than fulfillment of prophecy, isn't it? christ continues themes and emulated story elements. it's kind of like saying that william shakespeare's "hamlet" is prophecy regarding the lion king. it just don't make sense. but that's not truth. if i say i'm going to the store, and then go to the store, and three years later someone else buys something in a market in kabul, which event was i refering to?it seems entirely disigenuous to read the an entire book of another culture as some sort of code, where everything really means something completely unrelated. three is a sacred number in traditional judaism. lots of stuff comes in threes. lots of stuff also comes in sevens and thirteens. and a lot of stuff comes in pairs. tell me what the number seven has to do with jesus?i think this is a very basic logically fallacy, one i've only ever seen committed by religious people. i call it "pre-hoc propter-hoc." it's like post-hoc, except the claim is that the first event is caused by the second.now, i'm sure you have no problem with this, randman, but please refrain from babbling about what you think quantum mechanics means in this thread.a much more rational and straightforward readign is that the first event influenced the second. for instance, it's possible that jesus had READ zachariah about the messiah coming in through the east gate on a donkey, and used that passage to get the attention of jerusalem. fulfillment of prophecy -- maybe. but ezekiel influenced jesus, not the other way around. we're arguing it because it doesn't actually make any sense. it's not that we don't get it.

---

אָרַח

No, not at all. Prophecies can and often do have more than fulfillment and intent. That's a longstanding Christian stance. You just don't agree with it.The idea is the intent is more than the initial fulfillment.

quote:

---

The rules of interpreting scripture here seem to differ. In the Christian tradition, prophecy can have more than one fulfillment and meaning.

---

Out of curiosity, where does God state that his prophecies will have more than one fulfillment?
How do you tell which ones will be fulfilled again?
How do you know which act is the final fulfillment of a prophecy?My intent from the first thread is to look at the text in this manner. Now if you have a Christian equivalent to the rules of PaRDeS then list the rules and how they are applied.Show us the path of interpretation using your rules.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

quote:

---

a much more rational and straightforward readign is that the first event influenced the second. for instance, it's possible that jesus had READ zachariah about the messiah coming in through the east gate on a donkey, and used that passage to get the attention of jerusalem. fulfillment of prophecy -- maybe. but ezekiel influenced jesus, not the other way around.

---

I woudl say that it was MATTHEW who read Zachariah (from the greek, apparently), rather than Jesus. It seems like Matthew liked looking for an odd phrase, than writing as if it was a prophecy (IMO at least)

Jesus and the writers of the New Testament indicate that prophecy can be seen in this manner. I quoted Paul.If you want to know where God says this directly, frankly you would have to talk with people that have heard the Spirit of God show them this in some fashion, people like Paul for example.If you don't want to accept the New Testament as the word of God, that's your business.