To Pug, newbie Christians, Christians

[crazy-tiger]

Didn't fulfill prophecy the first time, didn't fill prophecy on his SECOND return, what the hell makes anyone think that he'll accomplish this feet, on the third time around?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Third time lucky?

[pug]

Where in the Old Testament does it say that the Messiah is supposed to make THREE appearances?  Or even two?  Because right now this is what it looks like if we are to "believe" that Jesus is the JEWISH Messiah...

 

1.  Born

2.  Was killed, after died came back and taught a few days...goes to heaven

3.  Waiting yet another return

 

It is no wonder that the Jews reject Jesus, this was not how it was prophesied at all.  Does not the OT record the Messiah as a one time event?  Didn't fulfill prophecy the first time, didn't fill prophecy on his SECOND return, what the hell makes anyone think that he'll accomplish this feet, on the third time around?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

SerinityNow,

 

IT'S A COMMON TEACHING that the Jews of the first century rejected Jesus as the Messiah and that every generation has done so ever since.

 

As with many common teachings passed down from our elders, it's not exactly what happened—at least in this case, according to the New Testament. The NT portrays the Jewish people as being of divided opinion about him, not in complete, hostile rejection. That's also been their response over the centuries.

 

Countless Jews have believed in and followed Jesus. But their stories were discounted by the Jewish community as aberrations from the norm. Ironically, the Gentile Church hushed up stories about Orthodox Jews who followed Jesus yet remained practicing, observant Jews, because they were an embarrassment and viewed as heretical, in spite of their beliefs.

 

So the Synagogue and Church have inadvertently conspired for most of history to conceal the truth.

 

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/ntstudies/reject.html

 

 

 

And here is a critique on a book written about the subject:

 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/006/23.63.html

[MQTA]

Third time lucky?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah, third time's a charm, eh?

 

or how about....

 

 

STRIKE THREE

 

[SkepticOfBible]

Countless Jews have believed in and followed Jesus. But their stories were discounted by the Jewish community as aberrations from the norm. Ironically, the Gentile Church hushed up stories about Orthodox Jews who followed Jesus yet remained practicing, observant Jews, because they were an embarrassment and viewed as heretical, in spite of their beliefs.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just because some Orthodox Jews joined does not make christianity a valid claim. There are a countless orthodox christians who join the Mormon Sect of Christianity or JW. It is a also a known fact that these 2 sects were persecuted by mainstream christianity when they started.

 

Does that make them valid? In your eyes they are not. That's because they are a lot a christians(including your friends) who refute the these sect based on their intrepretation and the current edition of the "word of god".

 

However many chrisitians(i don't know about you) would not go and ask a orthodox Jew and ask him why rejects Christ as the messiah. Are we seeing a bit of double standard?

 

Just as Mainstream Christianity considers JW and Mormons as a cult, Mainstream Judaism considers Christianity a cult.

 

Apart from the questions that SerenityNow asked I have a question of my own

 

Where does it say in the OT that the messiah would be worship?

 

 

 

Pritish

[pug]

How OT prophecy teaching demonstrates that the Jewish Messiah is God.

 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/M...nJesusIsGod.htm

 

And another:

 

http://www.i-amfaithweb.net/ot_prphcs_flflldby_yeshua.htm

[MQTA]

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosoph...Jesus$.asp

 

 

 

It is important to understand why Jews don't believe in Jesus. The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position. The more data that's available, the better-informed choices people can make about their spiritual path.

 

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

 

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

 

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

 

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

 

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

 

At the end of this article, we will examine these additional topics:

 

5) Christianity contradicts Jewish theology

 

6) Jews and Gentiles

 

7) Bringing the Messiah

 

 

 

----------------------------------

 

 

 

http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/whynotbrief.html

 

 

It's a very popular question. Why don't Jews believe Jesus was the Messiah? Aren't the proofs convincing?

 

This is a sensitive issue, and it is hoped that no one will be offended by the candid answer provided here.

 

We do not believe that it is prophesied that the Messiah will be crucified. We do not believe that the Messiah will be the son of G-d. We do not believe that he will be raised from the dead any more than anyone else. We do not believe that he will appear twice, in what some Christians call a second coming. We do not believe that the Messiah will be our "savior" in the sense that he will redeem us from our sins.

 

These are all fascinating claims to make concerning anyone, but they are all irrelevant to the Messiah for whom the Jews have awaited these three thousand years. None of these things are prophesied in the Jewish Bible.

 

What then is this Messiah for whom we wait? The Messiah will be a mortal man, born of a normal man and woman. He will be of the undisputed scion of David through his father. He will become uncontested ruler in the Land of Israel over all the People of Israel, that is, all Twelve Tribes of Israel. He will have at least one son, who will be king after the Messiah dies a normal death at an advanced age.

[Saviourmachine]

Hi, see my blog for some additional info. The website Messiah Truth is especially outstanding. The following biblical passages are handled:

• Deut. 18
  
• Zech. 12:10
  
• Isa. 7:14
  
• Isa. 9
  
• Isa. 53
  
• Psalms
  
• The woman's Seed
  

These texts are refreshing and an eye-opener for me because I knew no other way to explain the texts than through xian interpretation. I considered the Jewish elucidations as characterizing by stubbornness, stupidity and satanic influence beforehand. When I read them they came across just as (and even more) rational as the xian explanations. Judge for yourself.

 

PS: Maybe it's an idea to have some additional rules to the Colosseum section. It's for example easier to read url descriptions than long url's with dots.

And if somebody has a problem with just linking without giving a summary. I'm willing to provide one for each of these texts, but give me some time in that case.

[Saviourmachine]

The NT portrays the Jewish people as being of divided opinion about him, not in complete, hostile rejection. That's also been their response over the centuries.

You're already trusting the NT as a trustworthy source of information. In this case especially the gospels.

I think Acts describes the situation better in this case. My view about the Jerusalem church in that time is that they were considered as a small sect in that time. Maybe even smaller than the Essenes.

It were Paul's endeavours that expanded the church. He had other ideas than the founders in Jerusalem. His quarrels with them can be made up by some chapters in Acts, but because of the appreciation that the writer had with Paul, not much is said about things that could place Paul in "bad light". It's however clear that there were problems with christianity for the heathens.

It's upto you to decide that the dream of Peter is similar to the nature of the events in the gospels or that it embeds perfectly in events like Paul's vision. Take also into consideration which verses of the last chapter of Mark are under discussion regarding their authorship. Take also into consideration which gospelwriters seem to suggest to spread the message over the whole earth and relate it to the order they are written (Mark, Luke/Matthew, John).

Summarized. It's questionable if Jesus was known in whole Israel that time. Doing miracles not recorded by Josephus* and known by all the people from Israel and neighbour countries. So, it's even harder to make reasonable that the Jewish people were fifthy-fifthy divided (exaggerated) about this doctrine or person. It could have been very well some small sect, only growing outside of Israel and remaining a minority in Israel.

 

* The Testimonium Flavianum mentioning Jesus is probably a fraud; it just labels him as the Messiah without referencing to which miracles he had done ("performed surprising deeds"), it labels his followers christians what is not appropriate for a jew for example. In Antioch they got this nickname. And many clues exist to suggest that this is really the case (regretfully).

[SkepticOfBible]

How OT prophecy teaching demonstrates that the Jewish Messiah is God.

 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/M...nJesusIsGod.htm

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you for the link I went though the claims regarding the Messiah would be God.

 

In this, Jesus Christ stands alone. Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, and other religious figures never made the claims that Jesus Christ made.

 

Obviously this man never read any other religious book apart from his. The Hindus pray to Krishna because he is considered to be a human incarnation of god(Vishnu). Some words from the Hindu Holy Scripture The Bhagwad Gita

 

Bhagwad Gita Online

 

Chapter 7, Verse 30.

Those who know Me as the Supreme Lord, as the governing principle of the material manifestation, who know Me as the one underlying all the demigods and as the one sustaining all sacrifices, can, with steadfast mind, understand and know Me even at the time of death.

 

Even Mithra claimed that he will save. Both Hinduism and Mithraism are older than Christianity. The claim of Jesus Christ is not unique, it was already proclaimed before

 

Whether Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is still a matter of debate.

 

Here we see that the Lord begets His Son. (In respect to Psalm 2)

 

To beget means to be created. So when was Jesus created?

 

This is the eternal begetting of the Son by the Father.

In other words this is the eternal creating of the Son by the Father. Does that make any sense?

 

The verse doesn't even't mentions the words "eternally begotten".

 

Then, the Son is to be worshipped - for the word “Kiss” means “to bow low before.”

Can you show where in the verse does it say the son will be worshipped?

 

obviously this apologist want the verse to say

Worship the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way

 

Rewriting the verse is very common apologetic tactic

 

What this apologist is forgetting that in middle eastern and hebrew culture kissing the hands of an elder or a leader is a form of respect and way of salutation(just as Hindus would touch their elders feet to show respect)

 

This is illustrated even by the following verse from the OT

2 Samuel 20:9

9 Joab said to Amasa, "How are you, my brother?" Then Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him.

 

Does that mean that Joab is Worshipping Amasa?

 

Other Examples of Kissing in the Bible as a form of love and respect

 

The Son, if not worshipped, will be angry and will cause men to perish in their way. The Son has wrath

 

Once again that is not stated in the Verse.

 

Having wrath does not make you a god. There are other characters in the bible who divine power and used it in their wrath.

 

Elijah was supposed to have divne power yet he used wrath to destroy those offended him.Remember the story of the 42 children (2 Kings 2:23-24). Here these 42 children were making fun of Elijah's boldness. What does Elijah do? Gets angry and curses them ,and god sends 2 bears to kill the children.

 

Did that Elijah a God?

 

It is pretty obvious what the verse is saying "Pay respect to the King, else if he get angry, his wrath will destroy you cause God is on his side"

 

Speaking of Kings, this apologetic also raised up the following point

 

Jeremiah 23:5-6. “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

 

When did Jesus sit on the on the throne of David?

 

If he supposed to be born of the Virgin birth how is supposed to be seed of David when Joseph supposedly adopted him. Show me examples of kingship being passed through adoption in the OT?

 

Never the less a lot of christians and the NT authors confuse the following

 

whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

 

In the christian mind, just because someone will be called The Lord Our Righteousness, that means he is The Lord Our Rightnessness. In other words this is how the above verse is being rewritten in the mind of the christian

 

whereby he will be, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

 

Similarly Christians are also rewriting Isaiah 9:6

 

 

his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

 

as

He will be Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

 

Just because someone name has divine meaning doesn't make him God. In the Old testament divine names was meant to glorify god.

 

A good example will be

 

1 Kings 16

1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu son of Hanani against Baasha:

 

Jehu means "YAHWEH is he" (Meaning of Jehu)

 

By that reasoning that would that make Jehu God.

 

Second of all when was Jesus ever called any of these names?

 

Along with Isaiah 9:6 as a beloved prophecy concerning the advent of the Messiah, is the prophecy of Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” The Apostle Matthew correctly interprets this in Matthew 1:23 as “God with us.” The prophecy concerns the birth narrative of the Christ, as designated and interpreted by a meticulous Jewish accountant (tax collector) is God. The Christ, born of a virgin, is God.

 

First of all he is assuming that the Apostle Mattew wrote the book of Matthew, however that is not the case. The author never identifies himself. However that is not the point of the debate.

 

I think the following 2 site present a very good rebuttal for this prophecies and plus keep in mind of the things that I said before

 

Virgin Birth

Isaiah 7:14-Deception In The Name Of Jesus

 

The following is a very good question from the first site

 

Furthermore, if it is claimed that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy", how could Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad Immanu’el?

Isaiah 7:14-16 - (14) Therefore the L-rd, of His own, shall give you a sign, “Behold the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanu’el. (15) Cream and honey he [immanu'el] shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; (16) for, when the lad [immanu'el] does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

If Isaiah’s words are the substance of a "dual prophecy", answers to the following questions need to be provided by the claimants:

§ At what age did baby Jesus mature?

§ What are the implications that Jesus sinned up to this age?

§ Which two kingdoms were abandoned during the lifetime of Jesus?

§ How could the Kingdom of Israel be dreaded during the first century C.E., when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the eighth century B.C.E.?

§ Where is the account of Jesus eating cream and honey recorded?

Does any of this make sense? From the Jewish perspective, it does not, and from the Christian point of view, it is indefensible.

 

In other words why does only Isaiah 7:14 applies and not Isaiah 7:15-7:16? Are christians just picking and choosing verses which we feel like fits their theology? The author of Mattew did exacly that. He forgot to see the context of the verse. Christians would probably accuse the Mormons of the same thing.

 

I hope you read the other rebuttals presented by SaviourMachine. I won't repeat to what they say

[scotter]

4. The Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a colt

 

Old Testament (Zechariah 9:9) says:

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

 

New Testament (Luke 19:35-37) says:

They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it. As he went along, people spread their cloaks on the road. When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen

 

The proper translation from the Hebrew is

 

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass

 

This is the quick version. Read the accounts in all 3 Gospels. Zechariah uses the grammatical “hendiadys” (that’s English) in describing one donkey upon which the messiah will arrive. He is emphasizing the peaceful nature of his entry, the agriculturally employed donkey, instead of a horse which was an instrument of war. He uses the repetition that in Hebrew grammar is used for emphasis but that the Greek translator mistook for a donkey and a foal of a donkey. Although all four gospels record Jesus coming in on the donkey, it is only Matthew, however, that has him riding in on the back of two donkeys. Matthew elaborates the mistake in Greek, and actually presents a narrative that has Jesus send the disciples out to look for a donkey and a foal tied next to it. They bring both back and he rides in on both of. The story is lifted out of Zechariah 9:9, mistaken translation and all.

 

That is a one of the best examples of what we have been saying about the evangelists tailoring the events of Jesus’ life to what they were reading in front of them. The only reason Matthew could have Jesus riding in on 2 donkeys is because the mistaken Greek was open in front of him. Mark, Luke, and John caught the mistake.

 

I suggest that this is evidence that Matthew had Zechariah open in front of him when the question arose as to how Jesus entered Jerusalem. Is it all that important how he arrived? It is if you are trying to convey the role that the evangelists ascribed to him and wanted others to understand who and what he was to them. Every one in the audience that heard the gospels read about how he entered had heard of Zech.’s description and would have associated the one coming in on a donkey, Jesus, with Zech.’s messiah. Mission, the association, accomplished.

 

Scotter’s remark:

 

Greek was the Mediterranean predominant language at that time, attributed to Alexander the Great’s conquest generations ago. Even Jews might not speak Hebrew, except perhaps the priest classes. The Greek Septuagint Bible mistranslated (one possible reason is limitations of languages) Zech 9:9 from the Hebrew version. Matthew was using a Greek Septuagint LXX Bible in front of him when he was writing his Greek gospel.

“Matthew” the author wasn’t the eye witness seeing Jesus entering Jerusalem, he adopted Septuagint Zech 9:9 (but not too smartly) to write out of thin air that Jesus entered Jerusalem with two donkeys.

 

Remark: it is said there are also rabbinic interpretations that Zech was writing about two donkeys. But the point is not about the historical investigation that Jesus entered Jerusalem in one or two donkeys, the point is to illustrate Gospel writers wrote their gospels with the OT in front of them,

 

Christians, I respectfully ask, do you get it now? The prophecies were fulfilled because the gospel writers wrote the biography around and encapsulating the Old Testament.

 

I add an adapted joke so we have a better grasp:

 

Once an archer who was very proud of his arrow skills was passing by a village, and he saw from an old wall next to a house all the arrow shots were within the white circles marked. There were still one or two arrows unplugged from the holes.

 

He asked the kid who was playing around the house, “Sir, would you tell me who made the shots?”

“It was me, mister.”

The visitor was astonished, “How did you manage to shoot so sharp every time?”

“Mister, I shot first then I drew the circles around them.”

 

300 prophecies.

[MQTA]

I heard it was that the author of Matthew didn't understand the mannerism of writing. The 2nd part is just descriptive of the initial statement.

 

Like a house, a one family house.

 

Matthew would have probably had ordered a mansion and a one bedroom apartment. Mark, and therefore Luke, would have described a one family house.

[SkepticOfBible]

4. The Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a colt

 

98718[/snapback]

 

 

A Tale Of Two Donkeys

 

A very interesting analysis with rebuttals to common apologetic tactics

[pug]

A Tale Of Two Donkeys

 

A very interesting analysis with rebuttals to common apologetic tactics

98909[/snapback]

 

AND here is another rebuttal:

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/595

 

 

Errrmmm... this

 

http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/contrad.htm

 

however, will take forever to re-butt...!!!

[scotter]

Good to know there is Christian apologetics for the two-donkeys issue.

 

Thank you Pug for pointing out the website.

 

1.

It is very possible that Matthew was specific in his numbering of the donkeys, due to the likelihood that he was an eyewitness of Jesus’ final entrance into Jerusalem. (Bear in mind, Matthew was one of the twelve apostles; Mark and Luke were not.)

 

2.

A second possible solution to this “problem” is that Jesus did ride both donkeys, but He did so at different times.

 

Notice his apologetic wordings.

 

Secondly, Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew the tax collector, but a Jew attributed it to Matthew for his Judaism congregation, who believed Jesus. It is not my opinion, but from evangelical to Catholic to secular scholars'. Point 1. is further weakened.

 

Thirdly, admittedly Point 2. is possible, as the writer suggested, but less reasonable and sensible.

 

----- In addition,

 

Quote:

The Bible student need only show the possibility of a harmonization among passages that appear to conflict, in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction really exists.

 

the Bible is not obligated to fill in every detail of every event.

 

Those wordings suggest that his apologetics are intended for Christian readers, because if it comes down to this "chess move", they don't stand before skeptics.

This sort-of "disclaimer" discounted further the integrity of his apologetic paragraphs.

[Saviourmachine]

Multiplication Theory

A second possible solution to this “problem” is that Jesus did ride both donkeys, but He did so at different times.

This is the multiplication theory (or the doubling technique) of xian apologists. The best example of this is the six-denials solution of the rooster crowing at Peter. Mark Smith is one of its proponents. Other chronological errors can be corrected by doublings too (author of this site is not an apologist). Jesus visited Nazareth twice. Jesus cleansed the temple twice.

They even use this technique outside the bible - still to apologize - in defending the statement that Quirinius gouverned twice. That's necessary to correct the birthyear of Jesus that doesn't fit very well with the census date etcetera. (See this rebuttal.)

 

Dittography

Also the parables of multiplication can be seen as an example of extensive dittography. Or the visit of Abraham/Isaac at Ahimelech in the O.T.

And the big question is: "are all these gospels dittographies?" Copying some of the older author and imagining the remaining parts. Were the authors really eye-witnessing? Or were they collecting pieces of papyrus that describes some charismatic leader of some centuries ago?

Who knows if every apologetic method is allowed!?

[SkepticOfBible]

Apart from a numerical problem, the real problem arises, the author of Matthew misinterpreted Zech 9:9. The alleged prophecy had really required only one donkey.

[scotter]

5. The Messiah would be betrayed by a friend

 

Old Testament (Psalms 41:9) says:

Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.

 

New Testament (Matthew 26:47-50) says:

While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him." Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him. Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for." Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.

 

That quote is our 41:10. It is the psalm of a sufferer of sickness who has the added trouble of a traitorous friend who was plotting against him. If the author is David, the friend could have been Ahitophel during the uprising against David by his son Absalom.

 

If you would like to discuss Judas, the source of his name (he is not from Iscaria) and the sources of the conflicting stories of his death which throw doubt on his very existence, just ask.

 

...let me explain my understanding of your gospels.

(Scotter: 'me' is the Rabbi)

 

My view is that the witnesses to Jesus life and ministry probably saw something in him that gave them the feeling that God was acting in this man. I think that their experience convinced them that Jesus was the expected messiah of their Jewish sacred history. That is the reason that they became a fellowship, a sect, a brotherhood, a “church.”

 

When it came time to write their gospels they had Paul and their own sacred history in Jewish Testament to refer to when they needed to fill in the blanks. Most of the recorded words and deeds of Jesus are lifted out of that sacred history, sometimes word for word. They were not doing anything underhanded or deceitful. They were simply trying to understand what had happened to them and Jesus using the only references they had, their past Jewish experience. They also wanted the non- witnesses to understand what they had experienced. They believed Jesus was the expected one so they marshaled all the details of the messiah written about in their Jewish texts and incorporated them into their account of his ministry. They wanted the reader to recognize the Jewish references to the messiah so they would associate Jesus with that messiah, something that they knew to be true with every ounce of their strength and life.

 

- If Micah said that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, then Mat. and Luke had to get him to Bethlehem even though everyone knew him as Jesus of Nazareth. If Zechariah said he came on the back of "two " donkeys, then that's how they recorded his entry into Jerusalem(even though that was a misunderstanding of the Hebrew grammar when it was translated into Greek.) If Psalms said, "My God , my God, why have you forsaken me," then Jesus said it on the cross(even though it was misquoted with words that made no sense to the hearer). If Jewish sacred history said that at the end of time the earth would be dark and lifeless for three days and then God’s kingdom, Olam HaBa, would begin, then Jesus would be resurrected after three days even though from Fri night sundown to Sun morning is 36 hours. If people weren't sure of Jesus' father's name (Jesus was called the son of Mary, which is very unusual in Jewish society, and usually means the father was unknown), the evangelists would name him Joseph as a reminder of other "Jesus’ ” in Jewish history whose fathers’ were Joseph. -

 

I want to emphasize, that they were not “lying.” They knew two things. Jesus was the one and Jewish sacred history was true. What they did was not underhanded or plagiarism. They were trying to turn the inexplicable, into something palpable and understandable to the non-witnesses.

 

I try not to use words like invent or fabricate for their narratives, because I know how perjorative and derogatory they sound to our modern ears. It simply was a literary technique. It was the way Jews used midrash to explain a new situation. Jews used story telling with references to well-known Bible stories to interpret and understand new circumstances.

 

They wanted the non-witness to recognize the similarities between what Jesus said and did and the sacred history with which their audience was familiar. They filled in the blanks using that sacred history. It wasn't a scam. They didn't lie. They were telling you what they knew to be true, i.e. that somehow God had presented himself to humankind in Jesus. And of course, they were so certain of their truth that they were willing to form a “church” around that belief or, perhaps, even die for that belief. I don’t think that they thought of themselves as a new religion as much as they thought that their assessment of Jesus’ messiahship, God acting through or in him was within the context of their Judaism.

 

(Scotter: some discretionary deletion applied pertaining to more personal level of engagement between the inquiring Christian and the Rabbi.)

[scotter]

6. The Messiah would be spit upon and beaten

 

Old Testament (Isaiah 50:6) says:

I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.

 

New Testament (Matthew 26:67-68) says:

Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"

 

Again, when the evangelists were writing these accounts they had Isaiah open in front of them. The more connections they could make between Jesus and Jewish testament that was familiar to their audiences when they heard the gospels read to them, the better they could make their point as to who Jesus was. Who the suffering servant in Isaiah is to Jews is another thread.

[scotter]

7. The Messiah would be wounded by His enemies

 

Old Testament (Isaiah 53:5) says:

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

 

New Testament (Matthew 27:26) says:

Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

 

Here you are misquoting Isaiah 53. It does not say “pierced,” but “wounded,” even in the notoriously poorly translated KJV. You are remembering “pierced” from the oft quoted Psalm 22:16, but the word pierced is not in the Psalm. The actual phrase is “like a lion,” but that too is another thread.

 

The subject of who was crushed and who was healed by his wounds, we believe to be the nation Israel. I know it requires a longer explanation, so if you are interested, pick one of these and we can discuss it.

 

And we believe the narrators, the ones who will be healed by Israel’s suffering, wounds, and stripes are the nations who are watching what their inhumanity has wrought.

 

Remember too that the evangelists were reading this in Jewish Testament just as you and I are when they were writing. If you didn’t approach the Jewish testament with Jesus in mind, there would have been no reason for you to make the connection between the above and Jesus. Try it. Try reading the Jewish Scripture and setting aside whom you have always been taught the suffering servant was.

[essence]

I would like to know, where in the OT does it prophesy about being "born again" in Christ? A Christian does not need to go outside to biblical sources for this. I do not recall a messianic prophecy that says one needs to be born again...period.

 

 

I can't seem to find any messanic predictions at all.

What I find God saying is he will not tolerate anything or

anyone beside him. The prophets did want to maintain

their god as "the most high" while in competition with

all the other gods.

[scotter]

8. The Messiah would be silent before His accusers

 

Old Testament (Isaiah 53:7) says:

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

 

New Testament (Matthew 27:12-14) says:

When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge--to the great amazement of the governor.

 

Do you know that Jesus did not, or do you only know because your testament described him answering that way at times. He actually does answer, btw, over 30 times, but never says plain and simple that he’s the one except one time in Mark.

[scotter]

9. The betrayal money thrown in the temple and given for a potters field

 

Old Testament (Zechariah 11:13) says:

And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.

 

New Testament (Matthew 27:5-7) says:

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.

 

We can certainly discuss the context in which you found that quote in Zechariah. (It is actually Zech. acting in the role of a good shepherd, as compared to the poor leaders Israel had that led to exile, and how Zechariah was rejected by the people at first.) But that’s somewhat off topic. Better we should just concentrate on the variations and sources of your quote.

 

There are very few details of the gospel narrative that cannot be found in some part of the Jewish testament. The cross references in your Bible are actually the footnotes of the evangelists when they were scouring Jewish testament for their narrative where the oral tradition that they inherited was silent. That is not to say that the evangelists were plagiarizing. Remember that these accounts were not initially read as much as heard. Key words in the narrative evoked an image from the memory of the listener. The purpose of the evangelist was not to write a historical account but one that conveyed what they knew to be true, i.e. that they experienced God in Jesus. The format and structural contents of the gospel was “true” in that sense, not in the sense of a chronologically accurate history of the events.

 

BTW, notice that Matthew mistakenly credits Jeremiah with the prophecy and not Zechariah. But, hey, cut him some slack. He wasn’t reading the original Hebrew, but the Greek translation.

 

Compare the version of Judas' death in Matthew with:

(Scotter’s remark: this treatise on Judas’ death is a good one, insightful.)

 

2 Samuel 17: 23: When Ahith'ophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and went off home to his own city. And he set his house in order, and hanged himself; and he died, and was buried in the tomb of his father.

 

Suicide is very rare in Jewish scripture so it would have been remembered by the listener in connection with King David in the above from Samuel. Ahith’ophel had sided with rebels against King David, God’s anointed, God’s messiah. The story then, is that when he betrayed God’s anointed, he went out and hanged himself. That may have been another source for Matthew as he wanted the audience to think David when they heard Jesus. Each had a traitor that hanged himself.

 

But did Judas hang himself? The other account of Judas’ death is the one in Acts 1:18:

 

18: Now this man Judas

bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

 

So exactly how did Judas die? Two different traditions are recorded because there was available another Jewish testament account that could get the audience thinking about David and Jesus and dissatisfied follower.

 

The above reminded the audience of another story in 2 Samuel 20:1-10. It is a story about David’s captain, Joab, who was replaced by Amasa. He was so enraged that he approached Amasa as a friend, pulled him by the beard as if to kiss him, as Judas did with Jesus, but instead, ran him through with his sword.

 

2 Samuel 20: 10: But Ama'sa did not observe the sword which was in Jo'ab's hand; so Jo'ab struck him with it in the body, and shed his bowels to the ground, without striking a second blow; and he died.

 

The “kiss” and the “bowels” caught the audience’s ear in the Judas story as reminiscent of the David story. Both accounts, again, involved an associate of God’s anointed, God’s messiah, which was the point of the evangelists in relating the events of Jesus’ betrayal and apprehension.

[scotter]

10. The Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced

 

Old Testament (Psalm 22:16) says:

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

 

New Testament (Luke 23:33) says:

When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals--one on his right, the other on his left.

 

(Scotter: this treatise on Psalms 22 is comprehensive. A bit long, but a reference deposit to be drawn upon if evangelical Christians come here to Ex-C.net and cite Psalms 22.)

 

As I said, Psalm 22 doesn’t say “pierced.” The Hebrew says “like a lion.” But a poor translation into Greek, which was the language of the evangelists’ “Jewish Testament,” could have led to that mistranslation. It’s only off by a couple of letters which turns the Hebrew into gibberish, but, hey, they were reading Greek.

 

I will address the christological interpretations of Psalm 22.

(Scotter: below words in italics is from a Christian inquirer)

 

That being said, Christians believe that Psalms 22 is a prophesy of Jesus. And when I read in the New Testament about Jesus dying on the cross, I see that it heavily alludes to Psalms 22.

 

I would agree. The Christian testament references certainly rely on their reading of Psalm 22. But the question that you might consider is whether or not Jesus said these verses or the alluding was done by the evangelists who had the Psalm in front of them when they were writing what Jesus said. For example:

 

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 allude to Psalms 22:1 or in the Tanakh I believe it's 22:2 My God, My God, why have you abandoned me

 

The line is actually left in the Aramaic followed by the translation. Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? which is translated, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.

 

One could say that Jesus remembered Psalm 22: 1or 2, or one might say that the schools of Mark and Matthew looked through their Jewish testament, probably in Greek, and found this suitable sentence and had Jesus say it. I am inclined to think the latter because Jesus could not have said such gibberish. The Psalm, in Hebrew reads: Eli, Eli, lama azavthani . No Jew, including Jesus, knew what sabach'thani was. I think that it is an indication that Mark and Matthew copied it from their Psalm source, error and all, and that it was not something Jesus said.

 

Matthew 27:28-30, 39-43, 49; Mark 15:17-20, 30-32, 36; Luke 23:35-39 allude to Psalms 22:6-8, 12-13

 

Again, are you sure that these things happened to Jesus or is it possible that the evangelists were filling in the blanks with what they were reading in their psalms. Is it fulfilling prophecy just because they wrote it about him while reading Psalms? The same for the other verses you quoted.

 

The crucifixion scene alludes to Psalms 22:16 . . . They have pierced (or mauled) my hands and feet . . .

 

That’s another indication that perhaps they were reading their Psalm 22 but mistranslating it (or transmitting the error in their Greek translation of Psalm 22) and placing into their crucifixion narrative.

 

Psalm 22:16 in your Old Testament and you will find:

 

KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

 

NRSV: For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled;

 

Jerusalem Bible says tied, not pierced.

 

In my testament it says:

 

22:017 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet

 

The Hebrew word is ka’ari, as a lion. It is in keeping with animal motif that David has used in prior verses: bulls, dogs. It simply doesn’t say pierced in the Hebrew. Curiously, the KJV translator has no trouble with the same word, ka’ari, in Psalm 17:11-12 whose wording is almost identical to Psalm 22:16 and the translator correctly says Like as a lion. The same is true of Psalm 35:17 where the KJV translator has no problem with ari as lion. In Isaiah 38:13 the KJV translator also properly translates ka’ari , as a lion.

 

How much difference can a word make? You think a Christian reading “my” Old Testament in his Bible might draw a different conclusion about whom the verse was about if he knew that the Jewish testament said lion and not pierced? Probably not. Just because this Psalm with the word pierced has always played a significant role in Christian thinking.

 

So there seems to be a parallel between Psalms 22 and what happened with Jesus on the cross.

 

Yes, and I think it was a deliberate allusion to Psalm 22 by the evangelists so that their readers would make the same identification as you did. But which came first? Jesus saying and doing and having done to him what it said in Psalm22, or did the evangelists include these details to make their case for who he was?

 

that I could find the deeper meaning in Jesus' statement "My God, My God, why have you abandoned me"

 

And now you know that he could not have said that because they left it in the Aramaic and the word sabachthani is nonsense and not from Psalm 22. That is an indication to me that they were copying it from their erroneous Greek text.

 

and all the other allusions to Psalms 22.

 

Which were available to the evangelists when they were writing their narratives about the crucifixion. Were they writing about fulfillment of prophecy or were they making the prophecy history by including it in their narrative?

 

And also I could see if Jesus really fit into the prophesies of the Tanakh and into the Jewish picture of the Messiah. Many Christians try to force fit him into the Tanakh, and I want to see if Jesus can naturally fit into the Tanakh.

 

Everyone has answered emphatically that the Jewish messiah was not expected to die for our sins.

 

It could have been either way.

 

I suppose, but I can point out other inadvertent grammatical and syntactical errors that the evangelists included in Jesus’ statements or actions that indicate they were miscopying from their Septuagint.

 

During that time these stories could have been handed down as was the Torah for the number of years that it was not written down.

 

I don’t doubt that a big source of the evangelists’ writing was just such an oral tradition of telling and retelling Jesus stories. But I think that when they tried to convert these chronologically disconnected stories and sayings into some chronological order in which the events and sayings took place, they needed filler. Their Jewish testament became the source for that filler. For example, I don’t believe the followers of Jesus stayed in town when he was hanged. Your testament itself attests to their flight. I don’t believe that folks stood at the foot of the cross recording what he said. But the story of the crucifixion begs for something from the guy during his hours on the cross. So Jewish testament, Psalm 22, is used to fill in. The proof that he could not have said what is recorded? It’s gibberish. Nobody would have understood him if he said “sabachthani.”

 

So these sayings could have been from what Jesus said that was handed down to these people who wrote the 4 gospels.

 

Except for the copying errors.

 

Or it could have been made up by evangelists who had the Psalm in front of them.

 

I try to stay away from “made up” and “fabricated” and “plagiarized” unless somebody gets me riled up. I don’t think that the evangelists thought that what they were doing was dishonest. They knew who Jesus was with every cell in their brain and body. They were trying to convey who they knew him to be for generations that would never know what they knew. The literary tools they employed to get that message across was common in that century, and is unfairly judged as “made up” by folks in our century. I am often misunderstood as hurling brick bats at the gospels because “they are made up.” I just think that people read them as accurate history of that century regarding when and where Jesus said what instead of ignoring the details of chronology and geography and focus on his message.

 

The oral tradition may have accurately passed on a lot of what he had to say, or, at least, how many thought they heard him. I don’t think that the memory of the oral tradition is good at passing along the chronological and geographical context of the message.

 

I think that if Mark and Matthew were copying from their book of Psalms, then the wording would have been correct. Obviously they were attempting to write it in Hebrew. So if they were copying it from any source, that source would have had to also been in Hebrew. And if that source was in Hebrew, then it should have been correct, unless there are some Hebrew Tanakhs out there in which the Hebrew is not correct.

 

I am not sure what you mean. My point about sabachthani versus the correct azavthani in Psalm 22 is that they were not using their Hebrew Psalms but their Greek Septuagint. They were attempting to leave the sentence in its original Hebrew in their Gospel, as one finds it today, but they screwed up the word in going from Greek to the Hebrew of Psalm 22. If their source were the Hebrew, they would have gotten the word right.

 

Another example of an obvious copying mistake is in Matthew’s narrative of Jesus coming in on

2 donkeys with a whole story of how to find the two. Matthew, or the Greek copier of Zechariah misunderstood the Hebrew idiomatic use of repetition.

 

(Scotter's remark: reiteration before concluding Post 10)

I said:

KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

 

NRSV: For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled;

 

Jerusalem Bible says tied, not pierced.

 

You said: The JEWISH meaning of Psalms 22 is not “Mistranslation”

 

Of course it’s not. The Christian Old testament is. It says

 

they have pierced my hands and my feet", (v. 16)

 

This is a mistranslation of v16 (our 17). The Hebrew reads:

 

Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.

 

I would like to continue in the vein of tolerance and understanding in regards to the KJV mistranslation, as if it is just a mistake, but I can’t with this verse. I hope you will understand why.

 

The Hebrew word is ka’ari, as a lion. It is in keeping with animal motif that David has used in prior verses: bulls, dogs. It simply doesn’t say pierced in the Hebrew. Curiously, the KJV translator has no trouble with the same word, ka’ari, in Psalm 17:11-12 whose wording is almost identical to Psalm 22:16 and the translator correctly says Like as a lion. The same is true of Psalm 35:17 where the KJV translator has no problem with ari as lion. In Isaiah 38:13 the KJV translator also properly translates ka’ari , “as a lion.”

 

This goes beyond different understandings. This is flat out wrong and it looks intentional. The RSV, by the way, translates it as “pierced” but at least makes the note that the Hebrew says “lion.” The Catholic Jerusalem Bible says “tied” and also notes the Hebrew says lion. So, if everyone knows it says lion, why is the correction, if there is a correction at all, relegated to the footnotes? I think it is the importance that this psalm has always played in traditional Christian thinking.

 

If you read Leviticus 16:16-22, you would see that there was a ritual in Judaism in which substitutionary atonement took place. One goat was sacrificed for the atonement of the sins of Aaron and the children of Israel. And then they confessed their sins on to the head of the live goat and set him free into the wilderness.

 

Therefore substitutionary atonement was made in the form of a goat.

 

Only for pagans looking on who later became Christian. It only looked that way to pagans who misunderstood the entire concept of the “sacrifices” they were watching and actually thought that the bloodthirsty Jewish God wanted animals killed and offered up to Him as payment. It only reads that way to you now because you don’t have our understanding of the events that are unfolding in Leviticus. The next thing you will bring up is the role of blood in paying the price to God. If you only knew how pagan that sounded to us.

 

Start a new thread and ask about your understanding of the Latin “sacrifice” and our understanding of the Hebrew “korban,” an approach to God.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

If you read Leviticus 16:16-22, you would see that there was a ritual in Judaism in which substitutionary atonement took place. One goat was sacrificed for the atonement of the sins of Aaron and the children of Israel. And then they confessed their sins on to the head of the live goat and set him free into the wilderness.

 

Therefore substitutionary atonement was made in the form of a goat.

 

 

 

But a human cannot be a substituary atonement for another persons sin.

 

Human Sacrfices

 

 

In Exodus 32:30-35, Moses tries to offer himself as an atonement for the sins of the people. To be written out of God's book, means to be written out of the Book of Life, which means Moses was asking to die for the sins of the People. God's response was "No, it does not work that way, each man dies for his own sin:"

 

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Eternal; perhaps I shall make an atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto the Eternal, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Eternal said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. And the Eternal plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. [Exodus 32:30-35]

 

The whole of chapter 18 of the book of Ezekiel is about this idea, that no one can die for someone else's sin. Further, this chapter of Ezekiel teaches us that all we have to do for God's forgiveness is to stop doing the Bad and start doing the Good, and God will forgive us. Nowhere in this chapter does it say that we have to have a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. (But more on this later.)

 

The word of the Eternal came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Eternal God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

 

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Eternal God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

 

When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. [Ezekiel 18:1-4; 20-24; 26-27]

 

So, the Bible is clear, no one can die for the sins of another

 

 

However in the OT, atonement wasn't just related to Blood Sacrfice.

 

Offerings of fine flour(Lev 5:11), money(Exo 30:15-16), jewelry(Num 31:50) and prayer(Hos 14:1-4) can also atone for sin.

 

BTW who is the person in italics. Which website did you refer to?

[scotter]

11. The Messiah would be crucified with thieves

 

Old Testament (Isaiah 53:12) says:

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

New Testament (Matthew 27:38) says:

Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.

 

Besides the subject of Isaiah being the nation Israel, are you sure that Jesus was crucified with “robbers.” The word in Greek to describe them is lestai, (Matt27:38, Mk15:27). That was a derogatory term used by Josephus to describe the members of the Jewish resistance, the Zealots. Were they thieves or revolutionaries?