Why Is Jesus Considered The Pinnacle Of Perfection

[Heavenese]

 

Hey, I'm a Christian here. I wanted to come to these forums to have some in depth discussion, because most Christians are traditional in their thinking. In reference to your quote here, this simply shows Jesus wasn't yet sent out to the Gentiles. You can read in Mark's version of this episode (Which both Matthew and Luke used as a source) that He was first sent to the people of Israel. After Israel had their fill, then He would go out to the Gentiles. Of course this happened once Israel ultimately rejected Jesus with the death sentence. Interesting to note, the only ones Jesus commented as having great faith, is Gentiles. (That dog stuff is simply illustrations.)

Hi Heavenese, glad to have the chance to talk to a current Christian about this. I want to start out by observing that your opinion is, in fact, very traditional and orthodox. It's outlined in Romans chapter 11.

 

I freely admit that the case for a "racist Jesus" is a weak one. Really, it's hard to tell where Jesus stands because he reserves plenty of harsh words for his fellow Jews. And really, that's one of my many fundamental problems with Jesus. He never seems to be consistent on anything. His message is for the Jews...until they reject him. Then Paul claims that his rejection by the Jews means riches for the Gentiles. You have to admit, it all seems very contrived when viewed from an outside perspective, doesn't it? And our perspective is an informed one, since we're all ex-Christians here.

 

You say Jesus came first for the Jews, then for the Gentiles. Respectfully, here's another possibility. Jesus portrayed himself as the Jewish messiah, was called out for the fraud he is by his fellow Jews (he didn't fulfill the prophecies), and so a bunch of Jewish heretics sell him to Gentiles as an alternative messiah, knowing that they can twist biblical prophecy and hand it off to people who didn't grow up going to synagogue and learning about the actual messianic prophecies. Put yourself in my position: why should I believe the Christian perspective over the one I just suggested?

 

 

 

Yes, very interesting thoughts.  And no, Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies, and of course the Christian answer is that Jesus will fulfill the rest once He returns.  However, and I've discussed this with observant and orthodox Jews, the people of Israel have constantly been shown to not always know what God is doing.  Take a look at Jeremiah, how unpopular a prophet he was.  The people of Israel even persecuted Moses, probably the most important person next to Abraham in Jewish tradition.  There's plenty of verses, such as the suffering servant in Isaiah, that I never got a real good answer for. (They believe Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel, but that wouldn't make sense at all.)

 

Of course, Jewish people don't see those passages as referring to the Messiah.  Yet they had to be referring to someone specific, and I don't believe they know who that is.  It's my understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, but He is also this person referred to in Isaiah 53 about bearing others pain and sicknesses.  He's also the one talked about in Isaiah 7: 14.  So Jesus didn't just come to fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but also these other prophecies as well.

 

 

Besides all that, I don't see in Scripture where there was a hate for the Jewish people or the Gentiles.  The only one Jesus was hard against, were the Jewish leadership.  Paul expressed his love for Israel, even taking the Moses route that his own name would be accursed for their sakes.  Just because they are strong words against the leadership and such, doesn't mean they hated the whole people.

[Bhim]

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”-Matthew 15:24 Doesnt sound like "I have to save/help the jews first". So at least at one point in time your all-loving God/Jesus didnt care about you.

You bring up a great point, Ralet.  Let's be honest with ourselves though.  Christianity is not a Hebraic faith.  It does a poor job of portraying itself as one.  Christianity is, at its core, a Western European religion.  The New Testament is written in Greek.  The central character of the New Testament is the apostle Paul, the self-styled Apostle to the Gentiles.  And he travels through Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) to Greece, Rome, and probably afterwards to Spain.  The Apostle to the Gentiles is, in effect, the Apostle to White People.  It is thus no wonder that Christianity is so closely associated with Western European culture.

 

I have never fully understood this, but Europeans seem to have some fascination with the ancient Israelites, viewing them as an ideal civilization and tracing their lineage back to them (Google "British Israelism" if you don't believe me).  Likely not one White Christian is offended by Jesus' apparent denigration of Gentiles.  For ultimately, as Romans 11 outlines, Christians are the inheritors of Israel's heritage.

 

I have a theory on this, and perhaps its overly simplistic.  The fact is that the Old Testament is well-written and of great literary quality.  Say what you will about the genocides and strange Mosaic laws.  The Old Testament has all the makings of a good story: a well developed setting, clearly defined protagonists and antagonists, and some sense of absolute morality.  The New Testament, on the other hand, is an amalgamation of redundant gospels and letters (letters make for a terrible story).  And oh yeah, it's written in Greek.  I'm honestly surprised the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek (as opposed to Hebrew) doesn't bother more Christians.  When I was a Christian it bothered me!  Because of all this, Christians seem to have an intrinsic need to justify their faith by tracing it back to that of the Israelites.  And that involves doing some great mental gymnastics to define themselves as the "spiritual descendants" of the Israelites.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

In Matthew 15:22-30 the following happens. Jesus meets a non-Jewish woman. The woman begs to be healed. Jesus refuses and calls her a dog because she's not a jew. She begs. Jesus eventually gives in and heals her.

 

 

Hey, I'm a Christian here.   I wanted to come to these forums to have some in depth discussion, because most Christians are traditional in their thinking.  In reference to your quote here, this simply shows Jesus wasn't yet sent out to the Gentiles.  You can read in Mark's version of this episode (Which both Matthew and Luke used as a source) that He was first sent to the people of Israel.  After Israel had their fill, then He would go out to the Gentiles.  Of course this happened once Israel ultimately rejected Jesus with the death sentence.  Interesting to note, the only ones Jesus commented as having great faith, is Gentiles. (That dog stuff is simply illustrations.)

 

 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”-Matthew 15:24 Doesnt sound like "I have to save/help the jews first". So at least at one point in time your all-loving God/Jesus didnt care about you.

 

 

 

You have to remember this story is a reference to Mark's version.  So Mark's version takes eminence over Matthew's.  Yet even in Matthew's account, we know the Gospel was going to be preached to all corners of the world, so Matthew wanted to highlight something in this story.

 

 

 

Mark's story doesn't take eminence over Matthew's.  Mark is an earlier and cruder version.  Matthew's story was written to correct the errors in Mark.  Likewise John's story was written to correct all the errors in Luke and Matthew.

[Bhim]

Yes, very interesting thoughts.  And no, Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies, and of course the Christian answer is that Jesus will fulfill the rest once He returns.  However, and I've discussed this with observant and orthodox Jews, the people of Israel have constantly been shown to not always know what God is doing.  Take a look at Jeremiah, how unpopular a prophet he was.  The people of Israel even persecuted Moses, probably the most important person next to Abraham in Jewish tradition.  There's plenty of verses, such as the suffering servant in Isaiah, that I never got a real good answer for. (They believe Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel, but that wouldn't make sense at all.)

Hi Heavenese, I'm glad you responded to my post. Before I address anything else you said, I want to call attention to your statement that Jesus "didn't fulfill all the prophecies." Please read the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, which refers to false prophets and says that if what they say doesn't come to pass, then they should be stoned to death. You just admitted that Jesus has not fulfilled all the prophecies. Does that not mean he is a false prophet. Likely you'll tell me that he will come back to fulfill them. But doesn't that seem like a cop out to you? It's been 2000 years, after all. If we gave every prophet infinite time to fulfill prophecy, then it would be impossible for any prophet to be declared false. I could declare myself the messiah and say that I'll come back in a million years to fulfill the prophecies, and you couldn't label me a false prophet. Let me ask you: why would God even bother telling his people what to do with false prophets if any prophet could get out of being labeled a false prophet by simply attaching a very long time to his/her prophecies? Why would God bother creating laws that can be so easily broken?

 

In regards to Jeremiah, this isn't the best example given that his prophecies came true.  Most notably, Israel was restored to its land within 70 years.  Prophecy was given that could be fulfilled within peoples' lifetimes.  He also didn't declare himself God (which is encouragement of idolatry in Judaism).  Comparing Jesus to Jeremiah isn't apt, in my opinion.

 

Regarding Moses, I think that it is simply incorrect to say that Israel "persecuted" him.  He was, after all, the recognized leader of the nation until his death.  How can you say he was persecuted?  This is like saying that Republicans are persecuting President Obama by calling him a Muslim.  I voted for the President, and even I don't believe he's persecuted!  Persecution (at least as I understand it) involves disenfranchisement, censure, or some sort of denial of rights.  I think you are using a very liberal definition of persecution.

 

One more question here: why doesn't the association between Israel and the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 make sense to you?  The Bible regularly personifies the nation of Israel.  It makes perfect sense to me.

 

 

Of course, Jewish people don't see those passages as referring to the Messiah.  Yet they had to be referring to someone specific, and I don't believe they know who that is.  It's my understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, but He is also this person referred to in Isaiah 53 about bearing others pain and sicknesses.  He's also the one talked about in Isaiah 7: 14.  So Jesus didn't just come to fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but also these other prophecies as well.

 

Well, what you or I believe is irrelevant.  Jewish rabbis seem to have a fairly clear consensus on this.  Isaiah 53 refers to Israel.  Isaiah 7:14 refers to King Hezekiah.  Indeed, that makes more sense than the passage referring to Jesus.  Why would any prophet make a prediction that wouldn't come true in the lifetime of at least a few of its listeners?  That's like me saying that you should believe I'm a prophet because I predict humans will make contact with extraterrestrials in the year 2746.  You can't make untestable predictions and call yourself a prophet.

 

Besides all that, I don't see in Scripture where there was a hate for the Jewish people or the Gentiles.  The only one Jesus was hard against, were the Jewish leadership.  Paul expressed his love for Israel, even taking the Moses route that his own name would be accursed for their sakes.  Just because they are strong words against the leadership and such, doesn't mean they hated the whole people.

 

Oh, I don't see any hate in either the Old or New Testaments for Gentiles.  I see plenty of anti-semitism in the New Testament, though.  I see Jesus, the self-hating Jew, criticizing the Pharisees for doing precisely what God instructed them to do: not worship a man as God.  I see the apostle Paul teaching a doctrine of supercession, in which Western Europeans effectively "steal" Israel's heritage.  In the book of Acts, Paul regularly goes into a synagogue, is rejected, and goes to the Gentiles.  So it's not just some small group of leaders in Jerusalem that he rails against.  It's the whole of the Jewish people, don't you think?

[Heavenese]

 

 

 

 

In Matthew 15:22-30 the following happens. Jesus meets a non-Jewish woman. The woman begs to be healed. Jesus refuses and calls her a dog because she's not a jew. She begs. Jesus eventually gives in and heals her.

 

 

Hey, I'm a Christian here.   I wanted to come to these forums to have some in depth discussion, because most Christians are traditional in their thinking.  In reference to your quote here, this simply shows Jesus wasn't yet sent out to the Gentiles.  You can read in Mark's version of this episode (Which both Matthew and Luke used as a source) that He was first sent to the people of Israel.  After Israel had their fill, then He would go out to the Gentiles.  Of course this happened once Israel ultimately rejected Jesus with the death sentence.  Interesting to note, the only ones Jesus commented as having great faith, is Gentiles. (That dog stuff is simply illustrations.)

 

 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”-Matthew 15:24 Doesnt sound like "I have to save/help the jews first". So at least at one point in time your all-loving God/Jesus didnt care about you.

 

 

 

You have to remember this story is a reference to Mark's version.  So Mark's version takes eminence over Matthew's.  Yet even in Matthew's account, we know the Gospel was going to be preached to all corners of the world, so Matthew wanted to highlight something in this story.

 

 

 

Mark's story doesn't take eminence over Matthew's.  Mark is an earlier and cruder version.  Matthew's story was written to correct the errors in Mark.  Likewise John's story was written to correct all the errors in Luke and Matthew.

 

 

 

I don't believe it was written to correct errors, only that Mark was one source among many for Matthew's Gospel.  Luke's Gospel specifically states gathering information for an orderly account.  Plus, Matthew is talking to his audience, and probably adjusted some things for his audience.  Yet Mark's account takes precedence, simply because it was written earlier.

 

 

 

 

Yes, very interesting thoughts.  And no, Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies, and of course the Christian answer is that Jesus will fulfill the rest once He returns.  However, and I've discussed this with observant and orthodox Jews, the people of Israel have constantly been shown to not always know what God is doing.  Take a look at Jeremiah, how unpopular a prophet he was.  The people of Israel even persecuted Moses, probably the most important person next to Abraham in Jewish tradition.  There's plenty of verses, such as the suffering servant in Isaiah, that I never got a real good answer for. (They believe Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel, but that wouldn't make sense at all.)

Hi Heavenese, I'm glad you responded to my post. Before I address anything else you said, I want to call attention to your statement that Jesus "didn't fulfill all the prophecies." Please read the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, which refers to false prophets and says that if what they say doesn't come to pass, then they should be stoned to death. You just admitted that Jesus has not fulfilled all the prophecies. Does that not mean he is a false prophet. Likely you'll tell me that he will come back to fulfill them. But doesn't that seem like a cop out to you? It's been 2000 years, after all. If we gave every prophet infinite time to fulfill prophecy, then it would be impossible for any prophet to be declared false. I could declare myself the messiah and say that I'll come back in a million years to fulfill the prophecies, and you couldn't label me a false prophet. Let me ask you: why would God even bother telling his people what to do with false prophets if any prophet could get out of being labeled a false prophet by simply attaching a very long time to his/her prophecies? Why would God bother creating laws that can be so easily broken?

 

In regards to Jeremiah, this isn't the best example given that his prophecies came true.  Most notably, Israel was restored to its land within 70 years.  Prophecy was given that could be fulfilled within peoples' lifetimes.  He also didn't declare himself God (which is encouragement of idolatry in Judaism).  Comparing Jesus to Jeremiah isn't apt, in my opinion.

 

Regarding Moses, I think that it is simply incorrect to say that Israel "persecuted" him.  He was, after all, the recognized leader of the nation until his death.  How can you say he was persecuted?  This is like saying that Republicans are persecuting President Obama by calling him a Muslim.  I voted for the President, and even I don't believe he's persecuted!  Persecution (at least as I understand it) involves disenfranchisement, censure, or some sort of denial of rights.  I think you are using a very liberal definition of persecution.

 

One more question here: why doesn't the association between Israel and the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 make sense to you?  The Bible regularly personifies the nation of Israel.  It makes perfect sense to me.

 

 

Of course, Jewish people don't see those passages as referring to the Messiah.  Yet they had to be referring to someone specific, and I don't believe they know who that is.  It's my understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, but He is also this person referred to in Isaiah 53 about bearing others pain and sicknesses.  He's also the one talked about in Isaiah 7: 14.  So Jesus didn't just come to fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but also these other prophecies as well.

 

Well, what you or I believe is irrelevant.  Jewish rabbis seem to have a fairly clear consensus on this.  Isaiah 53 refers to Israel.  Isaiah 7:14 refers to King Hezekiah.  Indeed, that makes more sense than the passage referring to Jesus.  Why would any prophet make a prediction that wouldn't come true in the lifetime of at least a few of its listeners?  That's like me saying that you should believe I'm a prophet because I predict humans will make contact with extraterrestrials in the year 2746.  You can't make untestable predictions and call yourself a prophet.

 

Besides all that, I don't see in Scripture where there was a hate for the Jewish people or the Gentiles.  The only one Jesus was hard against, were the Jewish leadership.  Paul expressed his love for Israel, even taking the Moses route that his own name would be accursed for their sakes.  Just because they are strong words against the leadership and such, doesn't mean they hated the whole people.

 

Oh, I don't see any hate in either the Old or New Testaments for Gentiles.  I see plenty of anti-semitism in the New Testament, though.  I see Jesus, the self-hating Jew, criticizing the Pharisees for doing precisely what God instructed them to do: not worship a man as God.  I see the apostle Paul teaching a doctrine of supercession, in which Western Europeans effectively "steal" Israel's heritage.  In the book of Acts, Paul regularly goes into a synagogue, is rejected, and goes to the Gentiles.  So it's not just some small group of leaders in Jerusalem that he rails against.  It's the whole of the Jewish people, don't you think?

 

 

 

To your first response:

 

 

If Jesus truly healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and all those other things, He did fulfill a good bit of prophecy. (Let's say for argument's sake right now, He did heal)  Now, as I said, I don't believe Jesus was just the Messiah, but also came to fulfill other prophecies as well.  If He fulfilled the signs that are written in the Gospels, that gives Him great credit.  The stuff He did, couldn't have been done unless God was with Him.  Even your baddest false prophet in Jewish tradition, isn't reported to have done the many things that is said of Jesus.  In fact, Jesus is the only person to have reached the Gentiles with any great success.  That's a little weird for that to happen with Jesus, and not the numerous other false Messiahs around that day and earlier.

 

So what I'm saying is Jesus has credibility here.  My reference with Jeremiah is simply stating how the Jewish leadership viewed him.  That it wasn't with favor, in spite of Jeremiah actually being a prophet of God.  In fact, many thought Jeremiah was a false prophet, and he wasn't the first.  Look at the Tanakh, it's full of the people going against God's instructions and plans. (Of course some will be reading my words and say I'm saying anti Jewish stuff.  I'm not a racist, I'm not anti-semitic.  I'm showing the history of Israel as written in the Bible to make a point that Jesus could have been who He said He was, and the leadership missing it.)  So that was all I meant by my comparison with Jeremiah and Moses.  Moses certainly was complained against to almost perscecuted.  In fact, one time he went to God telling Him the people were about to stone him.

 

 

My problem with the Isaiah 53 reference being Israel is if Israel is the one suffering, who's the people in the "our" references?  That he (if this is Israel) bore our (who is this?) sicknesses and diseases.

 

 

 

To your second response:

 

 

I'll take some more time to look at this prophecy.  Of course there's many prophecies made, that didn't happen in the lifetime of the hearers.  Of course this prophecy seems to be a sign for Ahaz to see.  I'll continue to look at this one.

 

 

 

To your third response:

 

 

First thing I want to respond to is what Paul taught.  He didn't teach the stealing away of Israel's inheritence.  He was just stating that righteousness was given based on faith in God.  That Abraham was accounted as righteous because he believed God.  So it's not through the obedience of the Law that made someone a son or daughter of Abraham.  Firstly, no one kept the whole Law.  Secondly, Abraham was named a father of many nations.  Paul taught on these things, however Israel played the most important role, because they carried the oracles of God.  Israel is the key witness for the whole world.  It's hard to say Paul was anti-semitic in his outlook, while having such strong feelings for the people.

 

Next, Jesus didn't criticize the pharisees so much for not worshipping Him. (By the way the people are taught that God is not a man.  There is nothing in those teachings that prevented God from becoming one)  He got on them because they were hypocritical, and they added to the laws their own traditions.  Making the word God gave to no effect.  They made up rules concerning washing the hands, but there was no law concerning that.  So things like that Jesus got on them for.  Plus, they condemned others, for doing the very things they did.  That's hypocritical.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

 

Mark's story doesn't take eminence over Matthew's.  Mark is an earlier and cruder version.  Matthew's story was written to correct the errors in Mark.  Likewise John's story was written to correct all the errors in Luke and Matthew.

 

 

 

I don't believe it was written to correct errors, only that Mark was one source among many for Matthew's Gospel.  Luke's Gospel specifically states gathering information for an orderly account.  Plus, Matthew is talking to his audience, and probably adjusted some things for his audience.  Yet Mark's account takes precedence, simply because it was written earlier.

 

 

 

Mark's story had the Son of Man returning nearly 2,000 years ago and that clearly didn't happen.  The book of Mark was the original Harold Camping scam.  Clearly that had not happened by the beginning of the 2nd century so they had to fix this.  It also gave Christian sects a chance to authenticate all the new ideas they had developed such as the ritual cannibalism.  Of course each gospel author was spinning the story for his own audience.  Clearly the author of Luke/Act was supporting a church in Jerusalem while the author of Matthew was supporting a church in Galilee.

 

Now the interesting thing about this Gospel of Mark is that it might have been written as a novel.  It might have been a re-working of Homer's Odyssey where the Hero is made Jewish and improves upon all the exploits of the Greek hero.  The similarities are quite striking.  

[Heavenese]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark's story doesn't take eminence over Matthew's.  Mark is an earlier and cruder version.  Matthew's story was written to correct the errors in Mark.  Likewise John's story was written to correct all the errors in Luke and Matthew.

 

 

 

I don't believe it was written to correct errors, only that Mark was one source among many for Matthew's Gospel.  Luke's Gospel specifically states gathering information for an orderly account.  Plus, Matthew is talking to his audience, and probably adjusted some things for his audience.  Yet Mark's account takes precedence, simply because it was written earlier.

 

 

 

Mark's story had the Son of Man returning nearly 2,000 years ago and that clearly didn't happen.  The book of Mark was the original Harold Camping scam.  Clearly that had not happened by the beginning of the 2nd century so they had to fix this.  It also gave Christian sects a chance to authenticate all the new ideas they had developed such as the ritual cannibalism.  Of course each gospel author was spinning the story for his own audience.  Clearly the author of Luke/Act was supporting a church in Jerusalem while the author of Matthew was supporting a church in Galilee.

 

Now the interesting thing about this Gospel of Mark is that it might have been written as a novel.  It might have been a re-working of Homer's Odyssey where the Hero is made Jewish and improves upon all the exploits of the Greek hero.  The similarities are quite striking.  

 

 

 

I don't know a great deal about the speculation concerning Homer's Odyssey, but something related to this thinking, I've heard of speculation of Jesus being a copy from the Egyptian god Horus and so on.  I've looked into that, and I found more differences than similarities.  In fact, it would be better to just say Jesus is simply a made up figure using strictly Jewish tradition. (Such as Jesus have twelve main disciples being equivalent to their being twelve tribes of Israel. etc.)

 

 

I have thoughts concerning the prophecies in Mark, concerning the second coming.  I'll be back later to discuss my views on them. (Yes, it does seem that Jesus was stating He would return the people's lifetime, but I'll talk again on those things later)

[centauri]

And no, Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies, and of course the Christian answer is that Jesus will fulfill the rest once He returns.

Indeed, that is the standard Christian answer.

Just curious, where does the Old Testament confirm that a king messiah would come once, be killed, and require a second coming thousands of years later to do what he didn't accomplish the first time?

 

There's plenty of verses, such as the suffering servant in Isaiah, that I never got a real good answer for. (They believe Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel, but that wouldn't make sense at all.)

I'm not sure why you would think it makes no sense at all.

Israel is personified as a servant throughout Isaiah.

 

Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 

Israel suffered at the hands of the gentiles, being defeated and carried off into exile.

 

Of course, Jewish people don't see those passages as referring to the Messiah.  Yet they had to be referring to someone specific, and I don't believe they know who that is.  It's my understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, but He is also this person referred to in Isaiah 53 about bearing others pain and sicknesses.  He's also the one talked about in Isaiah 7: 14.  So Jesus didn't just come to fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but also these other prophecies as well.

In Isa 7:14, the sign was supposed to be for king Ahaz and his people.

How did Jesus fulfill something that was supposed to occur hundreds of years earlier?

[Bhim]

To your first response:

 

 

If Jesus truly healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and all those other things, He did fulfill a good bit of prophecy. (Let's say for argument's sake right now, He did heal)  Now, as I said, I don't believe Jesus was just the Messiah, but also came to fulfill other prophecies as well.  If He fulfilled the signs that are written in the Gospels, that gives Him great credit.  The stuff He did, couldn't have been done unless God was with Him.  Even your baddest false prophet in Jewish tradition, isn't reported to have done the many things that is said of Jesus.  In fact, Jesus is the only person to have reached the Gentiles with any great success.  That's a little weird for that to happen with Jesus, and not the numerous other false Messiahs around that day and earlier.

 

So what I'm saying is Jesus has credibility here.  My reference with Jeremiah is simply stating how the Jewish leadership viewed him.  That it wasn't with favor, in spite of Jeremiah actually being a prophet of God.  In fact, many thought Jeremiah was a false prophet, and he wasn't the first.  Look at the Tanakh, it's full of the people going against God's instructions and plans. (Of course some will be reading my words and say I'm saying anti Jewish stuff.  I'm not a racist, I'm not anti-semitic.  I'm showing the history of Israel as written in the Bible to make a point that Jesus could have been who He said He was, and the leadership missing it.)  So that was all I meant by my comparison with Jeremiah and Moses.  Moses certainly was complained against to almost perscecuted.  In fact, one time he went to God telling Him the people were about to stone him.

 

 

My problem with the Isaiah 53 reference being Israel is if Israel is the one suffering, who's the people in the "our" references?  That he (if this is Israel) bore our (who is this?) sicknesses and diseases.

OK, let's grant for argument's sake that Jesus did heal people.  Let me also grant that he fulfilled several prophecies (because I don't really believe that he did).  You are saying that Jesus is the Messiah because he fulfilled prophecies stating that the Messiah will heal people.  But you are also saying he was sent by God because he performed supernatural acts through God.  I have responses to both your claims.

 

If Jesus is the Messiah because he fulfilled several prophecies, then what do you do with the other ones that he didn't fulfill?  If I go to Jerusalem today and ride a donkey through the old city gate, can I say that I'm the Messiah because I fulfilled "some" prophecies, and that I'll get around to the rest later?  What if I was also born in Bethlehem?  What if I speak in parables?  You see where I'm going here, no doubt.  Basically I'm asking: how much fulfillment is enough fulfillment?  This is why Jews rightly reject Jesus.  You either have to fulfill every single messianic prophecy, or you can't yet be declared the Messiah.

 

If Jesus is of God because he did miracles, then what do you do with other people who do miraculous works.  There's a certain man revered by many Hindus (including my parents and a few others in my family) called Shirdi Sai Baba.  You should Google him real quick.  He lived in a village in India, said he was God, and did miraculous works including healings.  (On a sidenote, what I think makes him superior to Jesus is that he was not arrogant; he didn't force anyone to believe in him or threaten anyone with hell.  In fact he once chastised one of his own disciples for visiting him before going to the Shiva temple, because the man was a devotee of Shiva and shouldn't be neglecting that just because he found another representation of God to worship.)  Now, he's the real scary part for Christians: this person lived about 150 years ago.  Unlike Jesus, Sai Baba's existence is incontrovertible, because there are photographs of him.  How come Jesus is of God, and Sai Baba is from the devil?  Is it because what Jesus taught agrees with the Bible, whereas Sai Baba's teachings conform to Hinduism?  If so, that sounds like circular reasoning to me.

 

I'd really like to hear your response to both points.

 

To your second response:

 

 

I'll take some more time to look at this prophecy.  Of course there's many prophecies made, that didn't happen in the lifetime of the hearers.  Of course this prophecy seems to be a sign for Ahaz to see.  I'll continue to look at this one.

 

Deuteronomy 13 says that if a prophet says something that doesn't happen, then you should pay the prophet no heed.  Which is what I think should be done with Jesus.  Please feel free to look into it more.  But when I was a Christian I looked at this issue too.  Want to know what I came up with?

 

An apologetics website explained that prophecies have partial, short term fulfillment, and a longer term fulfillment.  But the thing is, Jews don't believe this; Christians need to invent this theology in order to make any of the prophecies make sense.  The telling thing was that at the end, this website told me that even though the prophecy was technically fulfilled, it's probably not a convincing argument for converting non-Christians.  To me that was an admission of bad logic on the part of the apologist.

 

You may want to read St. Justin Martyr's "Dialog With Trypho the Jew."  Trypho brings up this very point, and St. Justin responds with what I find to be an unconvincing answer.  Apparently this was an issue even in the year 150.  See if you're more convinced than I was.

 

To your third response:

 

 

First thing I want to respond to is what Paul taught.  He didn't teach the stealing away of Israel's inheritence.  He was just stating that righteousness was given based on faith in God.  That Abraham was accounted as righteous because he believed God.  So it's not through the obedience of the Law that made someone a son or daughter of Abraham.  Firstly, no one kept the whole Law.  Secondly, Abraham was named a father of many nations.  Paul taught on these things, however Israel played the most important role, because they carried the oracles of God.  Israel is the key witness for the whole world.  It's hard to say Paul was anti-semitic in his outlook, while having such strong feelings for the people.

 

Next, Jesus didn't criticize the pharisees so much for not worshipping Him. (By the way the people are taught that God is not a man.  There is nothing in those teachings that prevented God from becoming one)  He got on them because they were hypocritical, and they added to the laws their own traditions.  Making the word God gave to no effect.  They made up rules concerning washing the hands, but there was no law concerning that.  So things like that Jesus got on them for.  Plus, they condemned others, for doing the very things they did.  That's hypocritical.

It's true, no one is made a son of Abraham by obedience to the law.  That comes by being born a Jew or converting.  "Faith" never seems to be an issue.  Being a son of Abraham is, in the Old Testament, a matter of nationality, not faith or obedience.  Why else do you think that throughout the prophets, God calls Israel his people even when they're faithless?

 

If you believe that no one can keep the whole law, could you briefly read Deuteronomy 30?  It says very clearly that the Law is very close, so that you can do it.  God himself says that the Law is doable.  Who am I to argue with him?  The Law even has provisions built in for when you make a mistake, i.e. you can make offerings for restitution and repent.  If you break a rule and offer the appropriate restitution, this still counts as "following" the law.  A legal code that requires absolute obedience at all times on pain of hellfire is absurd.  Should a driver get the death penalty if he exceeds the speed limit by 1 mile per hour for a total of 1 second?

 

Regarding your last point, are you claiming that Jesus would not have criticized the Pharisees if they were not hypocrites, but nonetheless failed to worship him?  If so, can I reject the divinity of Jesus and be saved?

 

One last point.  You said, "By the way the people are taught that God is not a man.  There is nothing in those teachings that prevented God from becoming one."  I don't mean to offend you, but this is one of the most absurd lines of reasoning I've ever heard.  You're saying that when God says in the book of Numbers that he is neither a man nor a son of man, what it really means is "God is not a human being...until he decides to become one?"  What sort of God do you worship?  One who says something and then changes his mind later by cleverly lawyering his way out of his own words?  No thanks, this isn't a God I want to worship.

 

Just to be clear, when God says that he is not a man, the obvious meaning is that he is...well, not a human being.  To argue otherwise is a very clear distortion of the text.  The reason Jews reject Jesus is because he is a false idol made flesh.  God taught the Israelites to not worship anyone or anything but God.  Jews throughout history have been quite faithful to this teaching, often on pain of death by Christians.

[centauri]

 

 

...If you believe that no one can keep the whole law, could you briefly read Deuteronomy 30?  It says very clearly that the Law is very close, so that you can do it.  God himself says that the Law is doable.  Who am I to argue with him?  The Law even has provisions built in for when you make a mistake, i.e. you can make offerings for restitution and repent.  If you break a rule and offer the appropriate restitution, this still counts as "following" the law.   

 

These are wonderful points that wreck the "nobody could keep the law" mantra.

The law includes provisions on how to rectify or atone for a mistake.

The Day of Atonement is part of the law.

The law doesn't demand perfection.

And as noted, God let it be known that the law could be followed.

Even the New Testament confirms this:

 

Luke 1:5-6

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

[Heavenese]

I'm very sorry for taking so long to reply to these posts.  Very interesting questions and responses.  Let me see if I can answer them.

 

 

 

And no, Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies, and of course the Christian answer is that Jesus will fulfill the rest once He returns.

Indeed, that is the standard Christian answer.
Just curious, where does the Old Testament confirm that a king messiah would come once, be killed, and require a second coming thousands of years later to do what he didn't accomplish the first time?

 

 

Jesus wasn't just the Messiah.  But He also came to fulfill other prophecies, particularly to establish the new covenant that God promises to give in Jeremiah.  When we think about it, God used Moses to give out that first covenant.  It would make sense for another to give the new one.  Plus, even Moses prophecied another prophet like him would come.  I believe Jesus came to fulfill those prophecies.  I believe Jesus fulfilled the Isaiah 53 sayings.  Again, I can't see the one being talked about as being Israel, it wouldn't make sense for it to be Israel there.  So again, Jesus fulfilled those sayings while He was here the first time, the second time He comes will be to fulfill the Messiah prophecies.

 

 

There's plenty of verses, such as the suffering servant in Isaiah, that I never got a real good answer for. (They believe Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel, but that wouldn't make sense at all.)

I'm not sure why you would think it makes no sense at all.
Israel is personified as a servant throughout Isaiah.

Isa 49:3
And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

Israel suffered at the hands of the gentiles, being defeated and carried off into exile.

 

 

 

Isa 49:3 and Isa 53 aren't talking about the same one.  Isaiah 53 can't be talking about Israel because if it is, again who's the "our" and "we" in those sayings?  Surely it's not talking about the Gentiles there.

 

 

 

Of course, Jewish people don't see those passages as referring to the Messiah.  Yet they had to be referring to someone specific, and I don't believe they know who that is.  It's my understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, but He is also this person referred to in Isaiah 53 about bearing others pain and sicknesses.  He's also the one talked about in Isaiah 7: 14.  So Jesus didn't just come to fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but also these other prophecies as well.

In Isa 7:14, the sign was supposed to be for king Ahaz and his people.
How did Jesus fulfill something that was supposed to occur hundreds of years earlier?

 

 

 

You're likely right.  I still want to look over those verses here, to see what the Gospels were trying to get out of it.  I think if it is clear this sign was for Ahaz and the people, why does one of the NT authors see this as a fulfillment concerning Jesus?  Even if I'm making stuff up, which the Gospels writers could have been doing, I'm not going to take something that is blatantly meant for something else, and try to convince it is meant for what I'm writing about.  So I want to look into this one a bit.

[Heavenese]

 

To your first response:

 

 

If Jesus truly healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and all those other things, He did fulfill a good bit of prophecy. (Let's say for argument's sake right now, He did heal)  Now, as I said, I don't believe Jesus was just the Messiah, but also came to fulfill other prophecies as well.  If He fulfilled the signs that are written in the Gospels, that gives Him great credit.  The stuff He did, couldn't have been done unless God was with Him.  Even your baddest false prophet in Jewish tradition, isn't reported to have done the many things that is said of Jesus.  In fact, Jesus is the only person to have reached the Gentiles with any great success.  That's a little weird for that to happen with Jesus, and not the numerous other false Messiahs around that day and earlier.

 

So what I'm saying is Jesus has credibility here.  My reference with Jeremiah is simply stating how the Jewish leadership viewed him.  That it wasn't with favor, in spite of Jeremiah actually being a prophet of God.  In fact, many thought Jeremiah was a false prophet, and he wasn't the first.  Look at the Tanakh, it's full of the people going against God's instructions and plans. (Of course some will be reading my words and say I'm saying anti Jewish stuff.  I'm not a racist, I'm not anti-semitic.  I'm showing the history of Israel as written in the Bible to make a point that Jesus could have been who He said He was, and the leadership missing it.)  So that was all I meant by my comparison with Jeremiah and Moses.  Moses certainly was complained against to almost perscecuted.  In fact, one time he went to God telling Him the people were about to stone him.

 

 

My problem with the Isaiah 53 reference being Israel is if Israel is the one suffering, who's the people in the "our" references?  That he (if this is Israel) bore our (who is this?) sicknesses and diseases.

OK, let's grant for argument's sake that Jesus did heal people.  Let me also grant that he fulfilled several prophecies (because I don't really believe that he did).  You are saying that Jesus is the Messiah because he fulfilled prophecies stating that the Messiah will heal people.  But you are also saying he was sent by God because he performed supernatural acts through God.  I have responses to both your claims.

 

If Jesus is the Messiah because he fulfilled several prophecies, then what do you do with the other ones that he didn't fulfill?  If I go to Jerusalem today and ride a donkey through the old city gate, can I say that I'm the Messiah because I fulfilled "some" prophecies, and that I'll get around to the rest later?  What if I was also born in Bethlehem?  What if I speak in parables?  You see where I'm going here, no doubt.  Basically I'm asking: how much fulfillment is enough fulfillment?  This is why Jews rightly reject Jesus.  You either have to fulfill every single messianic prophecy, or you can't yet be declared the Messiah.

 

If Jesus is of God because he did miracles, then what do you do with other people who do miraculous works.  There's a certain man revered by many Hindus (including my parents and a few others in my family) called Shirdi Sai Baba.  You should Google him real quick.  He lived in a village in India, said he was God, and did miraculous works including healings.  (On a sidenote, what I think makes him superior to Jesus is that he was not arrogant; he didn't force anyone to believe in him or threaten anyone with hell.  In fact he once chastised one of his own disciples for visiting him before going to the Shiva temple, because the man was a devotee of Shiva and shouldn't be neglecting that just because he found another representation of God to worship.)  Now, he's the real scary part for Christians: this person lived about 150 years ago.  Unlike Jesus, Sai Baba's existence is incontrovertible, because there are photographs of him.  How come Jesus is of God, and Sai Baba is from the devil?  Is it because what Jesus taught agrees with the Bible, whereas Sai Baba's teachings conform to Hinduism?  If so, that sounds like circular reasoning to me.

 

I'd really like to hear your response to both points.

 

 

To your first line of questioning, I don't know if I expressed it here before, but Jesus is actually more than just the Messiah.  I believe He came to fulfill more than just the prophecies concerning Messiah.  It was necessary for Him to suffer, to fulfill the man of sorrows saying in Isaiah.  Yet even better than this, Daniel directly tells us in chapter 9 verse 26, that Messiah would be cut off.  So Jesus didn't just come to fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but the prophecies found in Isaiah 53.  And again, we see in Daniel that the Messiah would be cut off.  Jesus did just that.

 

 

To your second line of questioning, you're right because there are many people in the past who've been said to have done miracles.  So what would seperate them from Jesus?  The only answer to that question is examination.  Concerning Sai Baba, I looked up on wikipedia that he died, but there's a statement there that said he rose again after three days.  Is that true, or is that a wiki hiccup?  I ask because if Sai did die, and there's a grave marker for him, then I would say he wasn't a god in the flesh.  If there are reports he rose after three days, that sound kind of fishy to me.  Why rise on the third day?  That too close to Christian type doctrine right there.  Not that I'm saying Christianity was the first to have someone rise after three days (they could be), yet I know exactly where we get the thing about three days from concerning Christianity.  It wasn't from another religion, but it was specifically from the Tanakh, concerning the story around Jonah.  That's where Christianity gets the three day thing from.

 

Of course all of that aside, why would miracles say Jesus is from God?  Well this would specifically deal with Jewish thought here.  To the leadership, Jesus was speaking utterly blasphemous things.  Yet, if Jesus did all the things that is written about in the Gospels, Jesus couldn't have been lying about who He was.  If Jesus was a false prophet, there's no way He could have done those things.  Like I said, the worse false prophet within Scripture and even the Oral Torah, didn't do half the things it is reported of concerning Jesus.

 

 

 

To your second response:

 

 

I'll take some more time to look at this prophecy.  Of course there's many prophecies made, that didn't happen in the lifetime of the hearers.  Of course this prophecy seems to be a sign for Ahaz to see.  I'll continue to look at this one.

 

Deuteronomy 13 says that if a prophet says something that doesn't happen, then you should pay the prophet no heed.  Which is what I think should be done with Jesus.  Please feel free to look into it more.  But when I was a Christian I looked at this issue too.  Want to know what I came up with?

 

An apologetics website explained that prophecies have partial, short term fulfillment, and a longer term fulfillment.  But the thing is, Jews don't believe this; Christians need to invent this theology in order to make any of the prophecies make sense.  The telling thing was that at the end, this website told me that even though the prophecy was technically fulfilled, it's probably not a convincing argument for converting non-Christians.  To me that was an admission of bad logic on the part of the apologist.

 

You may want to read St. Justin Martyr's "Dialog With Trypho the Jew."  Trypho brings up this very point, and St. Justin responds with what I find to be an unconvincing answer.  Apparently this was an issue even in the year 150.  See if you're more convinced than I was. 

 

 

It sounds like I wouldn't agree with what that website had as an answer to why Jesus doesn't fulfill all the Messianic prophecies.  Yet what I typed above should answer some of your questions.  I would say the only thing that Jesus said that may look like it didn't happen, is His portrayal of possibly returning within that generation of apostles.  That's something I'm looking at.  That book you mentioned sounds interesting.

 

 

 

To your third response:

 

 

First thing I want to respond to is what Paul taught.  He didn't teach the stealing away of Israel's inheritence.  He was just stating that righteousness was given based on faith in God.  That Abraham was accounted as righteous because he believed God.  So it's not through the obedience of the Law that made someone a son or daughter of Abraham.  Firstly, no one kept the whole Law.  Secondly, Abraham was named a father of many nations.  Paul taught on these things, however Israel played the most important role, because they carried the oracles of God.  Israel is the key witness for the whole world.  It's hard to say Paul was anti-semitic in his outlook, while having such strong feelings for the people.

 

Next, Jesus didn't criticize the pharisees so much for not worshipping Him. (By the way the people are taught that God is not a man.  There is nothing in those teachings that prevented God from becoming one)  He got on them because they were hypocritical, and they added to the laws their own traditions.  Making the word God gave to no effect.  They made up rules concerning washing the hands, but there was no law concerning that.  So things like that Jesus got on them for.  Plus, they condemned others, for doing the very things they did.  That's hypocritical.

It's true, no one is made a son of Abraham by obedience to the law.  That comes by being born a Jew or converting.  "Faith" never seems to be an issue.  Being a son of Abraham is, in the Old Testament, a matter of nationality, not faith or obedience.  Why else do you think that throughout the prophets, God calls Israel his people even when they're faithless?

 

If you believe that no one can keep the whole law, could you briefly read Deuteronomy 30?  It says very clearly that the Law is very close, so that you can do it.  God himself says that the Law is doable.  Who am I to argue with him?  The Law even has provisions built in for when you make a mistake, i.e. you can make offerings for restitution and repent.  If you break a rule and offer the appropriate restitution, this still counts as "following" the law.  A legal code that requires absolute obedience at all times on pain of hellfire is absurd.  Should a driver get the death penalty if he exceeds the speed limit by 1 mile per hour for a total of 1 second?

 

Regarding your last point, are you claiming that Jesus would not have criticized the Pharisees if they were not hypocrites, but nonetheless failed to worship him?  If so, can I reject the divinity of Jesus and be saved?

 

One last point.  You said, "By the way the people are taught that God is not a man.  There is nothing in those teachings that prevented God from becoming one."  I don't mean to offend you, but this is one of the most absurd lines of reasoning I've ever heard.  You're saying that when God says in the book of Numbers that he is neither a man nor a son of man, what it really means is "God is not a human being...until he decides to become one?"  What sort of God do you worship?  One who says something and then changes his mind later by cleverly lawyering his way out of his own words?  No thanks, this isn't a God I want to worship.

 

Just to be clear, when God says that he is not a man, the obvious meaning is that he is...well, not a human being.  To argue otherwise is a very clear distortion of the text.  The reason Jews reject Jesus is because he is a false idol made flesh.  God taught the Israelites to not worship anyone or anything but God.  Jews throughout history have been quite faithful to this teaching, often on pain of death by Christians.

 

 

 

If being a son of Abraham only means being an Israelite, then why call Abraham a father of many nations?  If we are all Jewish, then Abraham would only be a father of one nation.  The original promise God made to Abraham, is that through his seed, all the nations of the earth would be blessed.  Paul taught on the blessing, not stealing Israel's inheritance.  Even when the people are faithless, God is still faithful.  God made a promise to Abraham, Abraham believed God, God accounted that as righteousness.  Anyone who believes God like Abraham did, can be called a son of Abraham.

 

 

Concerning Deuteronomy 30 and the commandments being doable, you are right in saying there are provisions in place for those who break the commands.  I think a good bit of the commandments cover a great deal concerning sacrifices.  So I think the point here in verse 11, is that God provided for them to follow Him.  That His word is near them.  We all know how David failed to keep the Law at times.  In fact, some of the things he did was deserving of the death penalty according to the Law.  Yet David's failures is not something God talks about.  In fact, there's statements from God that make it seem like David kept the commandments through and through.  How is that?  David worked something that went beyond the Law.  That's God's own grace.  The more I look at verse 11 here, I question if this is totally talking about the Law.  Firstly, it seems it's talking on a specific command, and this command empowers a person to do everything else.  If it were talking on the whole Law, verse 11 would say, "For this Book of the Law which I command you today is not too mysterious (difficult) for you."  Instead it reads "For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious."  So think this verse requires more examination.

 

 

Would Jesus have criticized the Pharisees if the only thing they did was not worship Him?  I don't know how to answer that.  When it came to Jesus identifying Himself, that was at the very end leading up to the crucifixion.  Before then, Jesus actually wanted His disciples to keep quite concerning who He was. (As we know from the Gospels)  Before that time, the main criticism Jesus had on the leadership, was their hypocrisy, adding on to the laws, and a lack of compassion. (For instance, their anger when someone was healed on the Sabbath)  Jesus was like an (of course I never watched the show, but it sounded interesting) undercover boss.  I don't know if Jesus ever got on anyone for not worshipping Him.

 

 

 

Finally to your last line of questioning here, let me ask this question.  Is that Numbers reference the only one that states God not being a man?  The reason why I ask it is because that statement deals specifically with showing God does not lie, and what He says will come to pass.  The main point is showing God is not a man, that He should lie.  In essence He's not a man, that He's prone to doing evil.  Even though the statement does say God is not a man, it's not the main point.

 

 

With that said, do you remember God appearing before Abraham as a man.  It mentions that God also ate food it seems.  And again, with Samson's parents, they equated the Angel of the Lord as being God, whom appeared to them as a man.  So these are two instances here, where God appears as a man.  Interesting enough with the story of Samson's parents, the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the offering Samson's father made.  What does that look like to you?  So backing up again to that Numbers reference, about God not being a man that He should lie.  The main emphasis is God is not a man, man of course now being prone to doing evil.  However, Jesus wasn't a man like we are men and women.  Jesus didn't have a father, and so He didn't inherit the corruption of Adam.  Jesus was a new kind of man.  So God became a man, but He's still not the corrupt man in that Numbers reference.

[centauri]

 

And no, Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies, and of course the Christian answer is that Jesus will fulfill the rest once He returns.

 

centauri:

Indeed, that is the standard Christian answer.

Just curious, where does the Old Testament confirm that a king messiah would come once, be killed, and require a second coming thousands of years later to do what he didn't accomplish the first time?

 

Heavenese:

Jesus wasn't just the Messiah.  But He also came to fulfill other prophecies, particularly to establish the new covenant that God promises to give in Jeremiah.  When we think about it, God used Moses to give out that first covenant.  It would make sense for another to give the new one.  Plus, even Moses prophecied another prophet like him would come.  I believe Jesus came to fulfill those prophecies.

Well, I was under the impression that a valid king messiah would actually perform the job requirements and be qualified to sit on the throne of David.

The job requirements include actually sitting on the throne, leading the people into great compliance with the law, along with being a paternal blood descendent of David.

The new covenant in Jeremiah doesn't say anything about needing to believe in a human sacrifice that dies for your sins.

 

I believe Jesus fulfilled the Isaiah 53 sayings.  Again, I can't see the one being talked about as being Israel, it wouldn't make sense for it to be Israel there.  So again, Jesus fulfilled those sayings while He was here the first time, the second time He comes will be to fulfill the Messiah prophecies.

Well, it would be useful if you could find confirmation from the Old Testament that a king messiah would come once, be killed, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven, and then come back thousands of years later to do the job he was supposed to do the first time.

[centauri]

 

There's plenty of verses, such as the suffering servant in Isaiah, that I never got a real good answer for. (They believe Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel, but that wouldn't make sense at all.)

 

centauri:

I'm not sure why you would think it makes no sense at all.

Israel is personified as a servant throughout Isaiah.

 

Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 

Israel suffered at the hands of the gentiles, being defeated and carried off into exile.

 

 

Heavenese: 

Isa 49:3 and Isa 53 aren't talking about the same one.  Isaiah 53 can't be talking about Israel because if it is, again who's the "our" and "we" in those sayings?  Surely it's not talking about the Gentiles there.

Well, to assume that Isa 53 can't be referring to the servant Israel is an interesting leap of faith, considering that Israel is clearly defined as suffering and will at some point be restored.

Israel is even named as the servant who will glorify God.

Why couldn't the speaker in Isa 53 be the Gentile nations?

In the messianic era, a restored Israel would would shock the world and cause the Gentile nations to turn to Yahweh and recognize him as the one true God.

 

This is made rather clear in the chapter immediately before Isa 53.

 

Isa 52:13-15

Behold, my servant(already defined as Israel in Isa 49) shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

 

Further confirmation:

 

Isa 49:22-23

Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.

And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.

 

Jer 16:19

O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

 

centauri:

In Isa 7:14, the sign was supposed to be for king Ahaz and his people.

How did Jesus fulfill something that was supposed to occur hundreds of years earlier?

 

Heavenese: 

You're likely right.  I still want to look over those verses here, to see what the Gospels were trying to get out of it.  I think if it is clear this sign was for Ahaz and the people, why does one of the NT authors see this as a fulfillment concerning Jesus?  Even if I'm making stuff up, which the Gospels writers could have been doing, I'm not going to take something that is blatantly meant for something else, and try to convince it is meant for what I'm writing about.  So I want to look into this one a bit.

The author of Matthew was quite fond of peppering his tale with fulfillments, which he accomplished by taking bits and pieces of scripture out of context and weaving them into his story.

 

Matt 2:14-15

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

The actual verse says:

 

Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

 

Hosea is about Israel, not Jesus.

It's not even a prophecy.

 

I'm keeping in mind that the birth narrative of Matthew is far different than that of Luke, all of which leads me to conclusion that the Gospel of Matthew was specifically designed to sell a product.

[Bhim]

To your first line of questioning, I don't know if I expressed it here before, but Jesus is actually more than just the Messiah.  I believe He came to fulfill more than just the prophecies concerning Messiah.  It was necessary for Him to suffer, to fulfill the man of sorrows saying in Isaiah.  Yet even better than this, Daniel directly tells us in chapter 9 verse 26, that Messiah would be cut off.  So Jesus didn't just come to fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but the prophecies found in Isaiah 53.  And again, we see in Daniel that the Messiah would be cut off.  Jesus did just that.

Daniel 9:25 calls this person a prince, and Jesus has never reigned in Israel.  Furthermore, "cut off" could mean multiple things in this context.  How do you know it refers to crucifixion on a cross and not, say, political or military defeat?

 

You haven't sufficiently addressed the issue of the weak connection between Jesus and Isaiah 53, beyond simply saying that the orthodox interpretation doesn't make sense to you, and you're moving on to another prophecy and interpreting it vaguely.  Put yourself in my place.  Would you completely change your lifestyle and discard your family's religion to convert to Christianity on the basis of such unconvincing arguments?

 

To your second line of questioning, you're right because there are many people in the past who've been said to have done miracles.  So what would seperate them from Jesus?  The only answer to that question is examination.  Concerning Sai Baba, I looked up on wikipedia that he died, but there's a statement there that said he rose again after three days.  Is that true, or is that a wiki hiccup?  I ask because if Sai did die, and there's a grave marker for him, then I would say he wasn't a god in the flesh.  If there are reports he rose after three days, that sound kind of fishy to me.  Why rise on the third day?  That too close to Christian type doctrine right there.  Not that I'm saying Christianity was the first to have someone rise after three days (they could be), yet I know exactly where we get the thing about three days from concerning Christianity.  It wasn't from another religion, but it was specifically from the Tanakh, concerning the story around Jonah.  That's where Christianity gets the three day thing from.

 

You seem to be drawing awfully many comparisons from the number three, especially given that he didn't remain alive and ascend into some sort of heaven.  Would you see the similarity if he came back after two days?  After six?  And the whole basis of your claim here is that the accounts of his miracles are impeachable because they bear a resemblance to Christianity.  You are forgetting that at the very least, his existence is unquestionable due to the photographic evidence.  I would be much more accurate in saying that the story of Jesus is false because many aspects of it are stolen from the story of Moses (e.g. Herod's massacre of the Bethlehem children).

 

Now, whether or not Sai Baba rose to save people from a collapsing mosque, I do not know.  Wikipedia puts it in the "reported miracles" section and does not cite his official biography.  But he is reported to have performed miracles on the same order of magnitude as Jesus, and unlike Jesus we know he existed.  I see no reason to consider the story of Jesus to be nearly as reliable as this one.

 

Of course all of that aside, why would miracles say Jesus is from God?  Well this would specifically deal with Jewish thought here.  To the leadership, Jesus was speaking utterly blasphemous things.  Yet, if Jesus did all the things that is written about in the Gospels, Jesus couldn't have been lying about who He was.  If Jesus was a false prophet, there's no way He could have done those things.  Like I said, the worse false prophet within Scripture and even the Oral Torah, didn't do half the things it is reported of concerning Jesus.

 

Actually, Jewish thought would indicate that any prophet who speaks blasphemies is not from God, regardless of how many miracles he does.  See God's warning:

 

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

 

God specifically says that false prophets can do miracles.  What matters is not the number of miracles they do, but how closely what they teach aligns with the Torah.  Jesus taught that he was God, and is thus disqualified.

 

It sounds like I wouldn't agree with what that website had as an answer to why Jesus doesn't fulfill all the Messianic prophecies.  Yet what I typed above should answer some of your questions.  I would say the only thing that Jesus said that may look like it didn't happen, is His portrayal of possibly returning within that generation of apostles.  That's something I'm looking at.  That book you mentioned sounds interesting.

Fair enough, you're under no obligation to answer for another Christian's arguments.  Incidentally, for a Christian I must say that Justin Martyr portrays the opposing viewpoint fairly well.  Trypho states that the Hebrew word translated "virgin" in the Greek Septuagint is actually the word for a young woman, not a female who has never had sex.  Seems to me the prophecy is mistranslated, in addition to being misapplied.

 

If being a son of Abraham only means being an Israelite, then why call Abraham a father of many nations?  If we are all Jewish, then Abraham would only be a father of one nation.  The original promise God made to Abraham, is that through his seed, all the nations of the earth would be blessed.  Paul taught on the blessing, not stealing Israel's inheritance.  Even when the people are faithless, God is still faithful.  God made a promise to Abraham, Abraham believed God, God accounted that as righteousness.  Anyone who believes God like Abraham did, can be called a son of Abraham.

 

God likely called Abraham the father of many nations because him came not only Israel but the Ishmaelites and the Edomites (sons of Esau). One doesn't need to be Jewish to be a son of Abraham; a lot of Israel's enemies are too. Furthermore the phrase "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" is far overused. I challenge you to find one Old Testament passage in which simple belief in God's promise is equated with being a part of God's covenant with Israel.  This seems like a far simpler explanation that Paul's contrivance of ingrafted branches via faith in Jesus.

 

And we haven't even begun to get into the issue of how the existence of hell and salvation from it is never discussed in the Old Testament. There's only one passage I ever found in my six years as a Christian which taught anything resembling eternal punishment and reward, and that's Daniel 12:2-3.

 

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

 

Here, "salvation" is only connected to being righteous.  No faith required, and certainly no Jesus.  Now, Christians get away from this by saying that no one is righteous except by faith in Jesus.  But again, see my comments on God saying that the Law is doable.  Also, it has been pointed out that even Luke referred to Zechariah as blameless.

 

Concerning Deuteronomy 30 and the commandments being doable, you are right in saying there are provisions in place for those who break the commands.  I think a good bit of the commandments cover a great deal concerning sacrifices.  So I think the point here in verse 11, is that God provided for them to follow Him.  That His word is near them.  We all know how David failed to keep the Law at times.  In fact, some of the things he did was deserving of the death penalty according to the Law.  Yet David's failures is not something God talks about.  In fact, there's statements from God that make it seem like David kept the commandments through and through.  How is that?  David worked something that went beyond the Law.  That's God's own grace.  The more I look at verse 11 here, I question if this is totally talking about the Law.  Firstly, it seems it's talking on a specific command, and this command empowers a person to do everything else.  If it were talking on the whole Law, verse 11 would say, "For this Book of the Law which I command you today is not too mysterious (difficult) for you."  Instead it reads "For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious."  So think this verse requires more examination.

 

Exodus 24:12 is an example of the words "the commandment" referring to more than one commandment.  You're misinterpreting figures of speech here, and jumping to the conclusion that "the commandment" must necessarily refer to faith in Jesus.  If you want to do that personally, this is fine.  But again, please put yourself in my position: why should I convert to Christianity on the basis of such a weak argument?

 

You are likewise reading "faith in Jesus" into the life of David.  True, David regularly trusted in God and repented of his sins when confronted with them.  But Judaism teaches that repentance is sufficient for forgiveness from sin.  None of this is an argument in favor of Jesus.

 

Would Jesus have criticized the Pharisees if the only thing they did was not worship Him?  I don't know how to answer that.  When it came to Jesus identifying Himself, that was at the very end leading up to the crucifixion.  Before then, Jesus actually wanted His disciples to keep quite concerning who He was. (As we know from the Gospels)  Before that time, the main criticism Jesus had on the leadership, was their hypocrisy, adding on to the laws, and a lack of compassion. (For instance, their anger when someone was healed on the Sabbath)  Jesus was like an (of course I never watched the show, but it sounded interesting) undercover boss.  I don't know if Jesus ever got on anyone for not worshipping Him.

 

Disregarding, for the moment, that the Gospels paint a very biased picture of first century Pharisees, what you say seems correct.  So given that: why should I worship Jesus?

 

Finally to your last line of questioning here, let me ask this question.  Is that Numbers reference the only one that states God not being a man?  The reason why I ask it is because that statement deals specifically with showing God does not lie, and what He says will come to pass.  The main point is showing God is not a man, that He should lie.  In essence He's not a man, that He's prone to doing evil.  Even though the statement does say God is not a man, it's not the main point.

This, at least, is a somewhat more reasonable interpretation of the text than what you said earlier.

 

The Jewish Bible says precious little about the worship of humans.  It likewise says nothing about God being three in one or having a divine son.  This are inventions of Christianity.  It seems to me that the Christian argument boils down to, "God did not very explicitly say that he can't become a man, so we expect that the people of Israel ought to have accepted Jesus as God."

 

With that said, do you remember God appearing before Abraham as a man.  It mentions that God also ate food it seems.  And again, with Samson's parents, they equated the Angel of the Lord as being God, whom appeared to them as a man.  So these are two instances here, where God appears as a man.  Interesting enough with the story of Samson's parents, the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the offering Samson's father made.  What does that look like to you?  So backing up again to that Numbers reference, about God not being a man that He should lie.  The main emphasis is God is not a man, man of course now being prone to doing evil.  However, Jesus wasn't a man like we are men and women.  Jesus didn't have a father, and so He didn't inherit the corruption of Adam.  Jesus was a new kind of man.  So God became a man, but He's still not the corrupt man in that Numbers reference.

You seem to be conflating a theophany with an incarnation.  These are both Christian theological terms that you may want to research.  A theophany is an act of God creating a visible manifestation of his presence (Isaiah's vision in the temple is an example of this).  An incarnation is when God is actually born as a human and lives a human life.  This is actually a common theme in Hinduism, and I thus have no personal issue with the idea of God becoming a man.  However, the concept is alluded to nowhere in the Jewish Bible.

[Luvtosew]

 

Doesn't Jesus himself ignore those things when he says "Bless those who curse you" and then turns around and threatens people with hell. He doesn't seem to follow his own teachings well.

 

A bunch of people on acid wrote the bible, then Christians try to make sense of it.

 

Well that is what started me was joining Christian message boards and all the different interpretations and beliefs, and debating and calling each other heretics made me question a lot.

[Heavenese]

 

And no, Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies, and of course the Christian answer is that Jesus will fulfill the rest once He returns.

 

centauri:

Indeed, that is the standard Christian answer.

Just curious, where does the Old Testament confirm that a king messiah would come once, be killed, and require a second coming thousands of years later to do what he didn't accomplish the first time?

 

Heavenese:

Jesus wasn't just the Messiah.  But He also came to fulfill other prophecies, particularly to establish the new covenant that God promises to give in Jeremiah.  When we think about it, God used Moses to give out that first covenant.  It would make sense for another to give the new one.  Plus, even Moses prophecied another prophet like him would come.  I believe Jesus came to fulfill those prophecies.

Well, I was under the impression that a valid king messiah would actually perform the job requirements and be qualified to sit on the throne of David.

The job requirements include actually sitting on the throne, leading the people into great compliance with the law, along with being a paternal blood descendent of David.

The new covenant in Jeremiah doesn't say anything about needing to believe in a human sacrifice that dies for your sins. 

 

 

Again, Jesus came to fulfill more than just the Messianic prophecies, but even in the Messianic prophecies, there would be a time where he would be cut off.  Now, there are observant Jews who are still waiting for the Messiah to show up.  If you asked them what was it meant by Messiah being cut off, I would interested in knowing their answer.  Because from what I can tell, it's basically expected for Messiah to show up and straighten stuff out.  There's no room in there for him to be cut off.  Jesus best anwers that prophecy.  Jeremiah states that in the new covenant, God will not remember the sins of the people anymore.  Well, He has to do that legally.  If He could just do that all willy nilly, what was the point of people dying when they broke the commandments.  Death is necessary, it's the legal result of sinning against God.  It wouldn't make legal sense for God to now just look the other way at sin.

 

 

 

 

I believe Jesus fulfilled the Isaiah 53 sayings.  Again, I can't see the one being talked about as being Israel, it wouldn't make sense for it to be Israel there.  So again, Jesus fulfilled those sayings while He was here the first time, the second time He comes will be to fulfill the Messiah prophecies.

Well, it would be useful if you could find confirmation from the Old Testament that a king messiah would come once, be killed, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven, and then come back thousands of years later to do the job he was supposed to do the first time.

 

 

 

There's enough in Scripture to say the Messiah was going to be cut off. (What does cut off mean?  It probably means death)  So this tells us Messiah would be present, and he would be cut off from the people for a time. 

 

 

 

 

 

There's plenty of verses, such as the suffering servant in Isaiah, that I never got a real good answer for. (They believe Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel, but that wouldn't make sense at all.)

 

centauri:

I'm not sure why you would think it makes no sense at all.

Israel is personified as a servant throughout Isaiah.

 

Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 

Israel suffered at the hands of the gentiles, being defeated and carried off into exile.

 

 

Heavenese: 

Isa 49:3 and Isa 53 aren't talking about the same one.  Isaiah 53 can't be talking about Israel because if it is, again who's the "our" and "we" in those sayings?  Surely it's not talking about the Gentiles there.

Well, to assume that Isa 53 can't be referring to the servant Israel is an interesting leap of faith, considering that Israel is clearly defined as suffering and will at some point be restored.

Israel is even named as the servant who will glorify God.

Why couldn't the speaker in Isa 53 be the Gentile nations?

In the messianic era, a restored Israel would would shock the world and cause the Gentile nations to turn to Yahweh and recognize him as the one true God.

 

This is made rather clear in the chapter immediately before Isa 53.

 

Isa 52:13-15

Behold, my servant(already defined as Israel in Isa 49) shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

 

Further confirmation:

 

Isa 49:22-23

Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.

And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.

 

Jer 16:19

O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

 

 

 

After reading up a little bit on Isaiah 49, I now see a problem with saying the servant here is Israel expressely.  Look at Isaiah 49 verse 6 which states:

 

"And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."

 

 

With that, I don't think we can even say the one mentioned in Isaiah 49 is Israel either, as in the nation.  If it were, it wouldn't make sense for Israel to establish Israel, or Israel bringing back Israel.  The servant here is one person it seems, someone specific and not a whole nation.  Israel it seems in verse 3, doesn't mean the nation of Israel.  It seems God calls this person "Israel", meaning prince of God if I'm not mistaken.  What's your take on verse 6?

 

 

As for the Gentiles being the "we" and "our" in 53, it would be hard to make that connection.  Every reference to the Gentile nations, such as those you give here, is specific.  If the gentiles was what is meant here in chapter 53, I believe it would have been more specific.

 

 

 

centauri:

In Isa 7:14, the sign was supposed to be for king Ahaz and his people.

How did Jesus fulfill something that was supposed to occur hundreds of years earlier?

 

Heavenese: 

You're likely right.  I still want to look over those verses here, to see what the Gospels were trying to get out of it.  I think if it is clear this sign was for Ahaz and the people, why does one of the NT authors see this as a fulfillment concerning Jesus?  Even if I'm making stuff up, which the Gospels writers could have been doing, I'm not going to take something that is blatantly meant for something else, and try to convince it is meant for what I'm writing about.  So I want to look into this one a bit.

The author of Matthew was quite fond of peppering his tale with fulfillments, which he accomplished by taking bits and pieces of scripture out of context and weaving them into his story.

 

Matt 2:14-15

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

The actual verse says:

 

Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

 

Hosea is about Israel, not Jesus.

It's not even a prophecy.

 

I'm keeping in mind that the birth narrative of Matthew is far different than that of Luke, all of which leads me to conclusion that the Gospel of Matthew was specifically designed to sell a product.

 

 

 

Okay, I'm starting to see this.

[Heavenese]

 

To your first line of questioning, I don't know if I expressed it here before, but Jesus is actually more than just the Messiah.  I believe He came to fulfill more than just the prophecies concerning Messiah.  It was necessary for Him to suffer, to fulfill the man of sorrows saying in Isaiah.  Yet even better than this, Daniel directly tells us in chapter 9 verse 26, that Messiah would be cut off.  So Jesus didn't just come to fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but the prophecies found in Isaiah 53.  And again, we see in Daniel that the Messiah would be cut off.  Jesus did just that.

Daniel 9:25 calls this person a prince, and Jesus has never reigned in Israel.  Furthermore, "cut off" could mean multiple things in this context.  How do you know it refers to crucifixion on a cross and not, say, political or military defeat?

 

You haven't sufficiently addressed the issue of the weak connection between Jesus and Isaiah 53, beyond simply saying that the orthodox interpretation doesn't make sense to you, and you're moving on to another prophecy and interpreting it vaguely.  Put yourself in my place.  Would you completely change your lifestyle and discard your family's religion to convert to Christianity on the basis of such unconvincing arguments?

 

Technically, if Jesus did ride in on a donkey and the people cheered for Him, technically the people called Him a prince/king at that time.  I believe the meaning of being cut off, probably means being rejected.  Could mean death.  Yet even if it meant a political or military defeat, the it seems that isn't something the people wasn't expecting concerning the Messiah.  If a person came about and called themselves the Messiah today, and they loss in any form (battle, politics, whatever), they would be considered a false Messiah and false prophet.  I don't believe observant Jews expect for the Messiah to fail at anything once he show up.

 

I would say these are interesting arguments, and I have more to list.

 

 

 

To your second line of questioning, you're right because there are many people in the past who've been said to have done miracles.  So what would seperate them from Jesus?  The only answer to that question is examination.  Concerning Sai Baba, I looked up on wikipedia that he died, but there's a statement there that said he rose again after three days.  Is that true, or is that a wiki hiccup?  I ask because if Sai did die, and there's a grave marker for him, then I would say he wasn't a god in the flesh.  If there are reports he rose after three days, that sound kind of fishy to me.  Why rise on the third day?  That too close to Christian type doctrine right there.  Not that I'm saying Christianity was the first to have someone rise after three days (they could be), yet I know exactly where we get the thing about three days from concerning Christianity.  It wasn't from another religion, but it was specifically from the Tanakh, concerning the story around Jonah.  That's where Christianity gets the three day thing from.

 

You seem to be drawing awfully many comparisons from the number three, especially given that he didn't remain alive and ascend into some sort of heaven.  Would you see the similarity if he came back after two days?  After six?  And the whole basis of your claim here is that the accounts of his miracles are impeachable because they bear a resemblance to Christianity.  You are forgetting that at the very least, his existence is unquestionable due to the photographic evidence.  I would be much more accurate in saying that the story of Jesus is false because many aspects of it are stolen from the story of Moses (e.g. Herod's massacre of the Bethlehem children).

 

Now, whether or not Sai Baba rose to save people from a collapsing mosque, I do not know.  Wikipedia puts it in the "reported miracles" section and does not cite his official biography.  But he is reported to have performed miracles on the same order of magnitude as Jesus, and unlike Jesus we know he existed.  I see no reason to consider the story of Jesus to be nearly as reliable as this one.

 

 

 

Of course I just felt it a little fishy, if wikipedia states it truly, that Sai rose after three days.  That just sound too close to Christian thought.  Why three days?  That was the only thing I question about Sai Baba's reported miracles.  Now my thought is, if I was a skeptical man living around the time Sai was alive, in the same culture, if Sai died, then I would say he wasn't a god.  It would be the same with Jesus if I were living back then, and had a questioning and confirming mind.  Let me ask this question, did Sai's disciples do miracles as well?

 

 

Of course all of that aside, why would miracles say Jesus is from God?  Well this would specifically deal with Jewish thought here.  To the leadership, Jesus was speaking utterly blasphemous things.  Yet, if Jesus did all the things that is written about in the Gospels, Jesus couldn't have been lying about who He was.  If Jesus was a false prophet, there's no way He could have done those things.  Like I said, the worse false prophet within Scripture and even the Oral Torah, didn't do half the things it is reported of concerning Jesus.

 

Actually, Jewish thought would indicate that any prophet who speaks blasphemies is not from God, regardless of how many miracles he does.  See God's warning:

 

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

 

God specifically says that false prophets can do miracles.  What matters is not the number of miracles they do, but how closely what they teach aligns with the Torah.  Jesus taught that he was God, and is thus disqualified.

 

 

Unless what Jesus said is true.  You brought up about God not being a man, but as I said that God wasn't a corrupt man.  There's at least two instances where God appeared as a man.  He could certainly also become one.

 

 

 

It sounds like I wouldn't agree with what that website had as an answer to why Jesus doesn't fulfill all the Messianic prophecies.  Yet what I typed above should answer some of your questions.  I would say the only thing that Jesus said that may look like it didn't happen, is His portrayal of possibly returning within that generation of apostles.  That's something I'm looking at.  That book you mentioned sounds interesting.

Fair enough, you're under no obligation to answer for another Christian's arguments.  Incidentally, for a Christian I must say that Justin Martyr portrays the opposing viewpoint fairly well.  Trypho states that the Hebrew word translated "virgin" in the Greek Septuagint is actually the word for a young woman, not a female who has never had sex.  Seems to me the prophecy is mistranslated, in addition to being misapplied.

 

 

Matthew definitely translated the word differently, but I don't think it was from a lack of knowledge concerning the Hebrew there.  Of course we discuss here that Matthew (or the writer of Matthew) took some liberty with the Scripture concerning fulfillment of prophecy.

 

 

 

If being a son of Abraham only means being an Israelite, then why call Abraham a father of many nations?  If we are all Jewish, then Abraham would only be a father of one nation.  The original promise God made to Abraham, is that through his seed, all the nations of the earth would be blessed.  Paul taught on the blessing, not stealing Israel's inheritance.  Even when the people are faithless, God is still faithful.  God made a promise to Abraham, Abraham believed God, God accounted that as righteousness.  Anyone who believes God like Abraham did, can be called a son of Abraham.

 

God likely called Abraham the father of many nations because him came not only Israel but the Ishmaelites and the Edomites (sons of Esau). One doesn't need to be Jewish to be a son of Abraham; a lot of Israel's enemies are too. Furthermore the phrase "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" is far overused. I challenge you to find one Old Testament passage in which simple belief in God's promise is equated with being a part of God's covenant with Israel.  This seems like a far simpler explanation that Paul's contrivance of ingrafted branches via faith in Jesus.

 

And we haven't even begun to get into the issue of how the existence of hell and salvation from it is never discussed in the Old Testament. There's only one passage I ever found in my six years as a Christian which taught anything resembling eternal punishment and reward, and that's Daniel 12:2-3.

 

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

 

Here, "salvation" is only connected to being righteous.  No faith required, and certainly no Jesus.  Now, Christians get away from this by saying that no one is righteous except by faith in Jesus.  But again, see my comments on God saying that the Law is doable.  Also, it has been pointed out that even Luke referred to Zechariah as blameless.

 

 

 

It can certainly be viewed that Abraham was simply the father of the nations that came out of both Ishmael and Isaac.  Yet the main thing that I argue is the blessing.  God said that through Abraham's seed, all the nations of the earth would be blessed.  So that is pretty much what Paul was getting at.  How else could the blessings of Abraham come onto the rest of the world, if they weren't apart of Abraham in some fashion?

 

I would say the idea of the human spirit was around in the OT.  That this life wasn't the end of a person's existence once they died.  Look at the story of Saul calling Samuel up from the dead.  I would say look at Job's children, how God didn't double them up at the end.  So there was definitely a thought concerning eternity in the OT.

 

Yes, Luke called Zacharias and his wife as righteous and blameless, but so was David.  Did David really keep the laws and commandments?  Scripture says David was a man after God's own heart.  The man after God's own heart committed adultery, and had a man killed ultimately.  So what does it really mean to be righteous and keeping God's laws.  We discussed there was provision in the sacrificial system.  That's it, the sacrifices.  The people were blameless based on God's provision and own grace.  The more you leaned on that, you were righteous.  Think about if Adam and Eve believed God, they would have never been kicked out of the garden, and would have never died.  So it's that belief, that enables you to be righteous.  Jesus is the fulfllment of God's provision.

[Heavenese]

 

Concerning Deuteronomy 30 and the commandments being doable, you are right in saying there are provisions in place for those who break the commands.  I think a good bit of the commandments cover a great deal concerning sacrifices.  So I think the point here in verse 11, is that God provided for them to follow Him.  That His word is near them.  We all know how David failed to keep the Law at times.  In fact, some of the things he did was deserving of the death penalty according to the Law.  Yet David's failures is not something God talks about.  In fact, there's statements from God that make it seem like David kept the commandments through and through.  How is that?  David worked something that went beyond the Law.  That's God's own grace.  The more I look at verse 11 here, I question if this is totally talking about the Law.  Firstly, it seems it's talking on a specific command, and this command empowers a person to do everything else.  If it were talking on the whole Law, verse 11 would say, "For this Book of the Law which I command you today is not too mysterious (difficult) for you."  Instead it reads "For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious."  So think this verse requires more examination.

 

Exodus 24:12 is an example of the words "the commandment" referring to more than one commandment.  You're misinterpreting figures of speech here, and jumping to the conclusion that "the commandment" must necessarily refer to faith in Jesus.  If you want to do that personally, this is fine.  But again, please put yourself in my position: why should I convert to Christianity on the basis of such a weak argument?

 

You are likewise reading "faith in Jesus" into the life of David.  True, David regularly trusted in God and repented of his sins when confronted with them.  But Judaism teaches that repentance is sufficient for forgiveness from sin.  None of this is an argument in favor of Jesus.

 

 

 

I don't see how Exodus 24:12 is the same as Deuteronomy 30:11.  And I'm saying that commandment refer to faith in Jesus directly, as in God specifically meant the people to believe in Jesus right there.  What I suppose it means is God's word specifically, if you're asking me.  Not necessarily the Law and commandments, but it's God's word that allows them to fulfill the whole essence of the Law.  Which would be a precursor for Jesus. 

 

Yet from what is written in Deuteronomy 30:11, I couldn't say that is directly referring to the Law.  Now Judaism shows us that repentance alone was sufficient forgiveness of sin.  Blood had to be shed.  That was the reason for the sacrifices.  Jesus is seen as the final sacrifice to do what the other ones couldn't.

 

 

Would Jesus have criticized the Pharisees if the only thing they did was not worship Him?  I don't know how to answer that.  When it came to Jesus identifying Himself, that was at the very end leading up to the crucifixion.  Before then, Jesus actually wanted His disciples to keep quite concerning who He was. (As we know from the Gospels)  Before that time, the main criticism Jesus had on the leadership, was their hypocrisy, adding on to the laws, and a lack of compassion. (For instance, their anger when someone was healed on the Sabbath)  Jesus was like an (of course I never watched the show, but it sounded interesting) undercover boss.  I don't know if Jesus ever got on anyone for not worshipping Him.

 

Disregarding, for the moment, that the Gospels paint a very biased picture of first century Pharisees, what you say seems correct.  So given that: why should I worship Jesus?

 

 

Simply because of what He did for us.  He's brought on the new covenant, that not only delivers Israel, but the whole world.  If that's true, worship is just a natural response.  The definition of worship I believe, is an extreme version of giving someone proper credit concerning what they've done.  We praise one another for our accomplishments and so forth, but of course we don't worhsip one another.

 

 

Finally to your last line of questioning here, let me ask this question.  Is that Numbers reference the only one that states God not being a man?  The reason why I ask it is because that statement deals specifically with showing God does not lie, and what He says will come to pass.  The main point is showing God is not a man, that He should lie.  In essence He's not a man, that He's prone to doing evil.  Even though the statement does say God is not a man, it's not the main point.

This, at least, is a somewhat more reasonable interpretation of the text than what you said earlier.

 

The Jewish Bible says precious little about the worship of humans.  It likewise says nothing about God being three in one or having a divine son.  This are inventions of Christianity.  It seems to me that the Christian argument boils down to, "God did not very explicitly say that he can't become a man, so we expect that the people of Israel ought to have accepted Jesus as God."

 

 

I think there's enough in Scripture that points to Jesus being who He said He was.  Most believe the doctrine of the Trinity for instance, is a Christian concept.  I don't think it's far fetched at all.  There are plenty of statements that God makes, referring to Himself in a plural form.  There's intances where this character known as the "Angel of the Lord", who speaks as though God Himself.  There's one instance where Samson's parents explicitily state the Angel of the Lord is God, and they were never punished by God for saying so.  So along with God referring to Himself in plural form, we have at least two mentions of God in another context.  First, the Spirit of God in Genesis.  Why say the Spirit of God, and not just God?  Second, the Angel of the Lord, which Scripture seems to indicate is God. (and interesting enough, it seems to indicate He's not God at the same time)  I know of no other reference to God.  So you have God, the Spirit of God, and the Angel of the Lord.  When you think about it, the Trinity doctrine isn't something Christians just made up, it has backing.

 

Yes, Christians have read things into Scripture that wasn't there, but there is a bunch of things that actually backs up Christianity.

 

 

 

With that said, do you remember God appearing before Abraham as a man.  It mentions that God also ate food it seems.  And again, with Samson's parents, they equated the Angel of the Lord as being God, whom appeared to them as a man.  So these are two instances here, where God appears as a man.  Interesting enough with the story of Samson's parents, the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the offering Samson's father made.  What does that look like to you?  So backing up again to that Numbers reference, about God not being a man that He should lie.  The main emphasis is God is not a man, man of course now being prone to doing evil.  However, Jesus wasn't a man like we are men and women.  Jesus didn't have a father, and so He didn't inherit the corruption of Adam.  Jesus was a new kind of man.  So God became a man, but He's still not the corrupt man in that Numbers reference.

You seem to be conflating a theophany with an incarnation.  These are both Christian theological terms that you may want to research.  A theophany is an act of God creating a visible manifestation of his presence (Isaiah's vision in the temple is an example of this).  An incarnation is when God is actually born as a human and lives a human life.  This is actually a common theme in Hinduism, and I thus have no personal issue with the idea of God becoming a man.  However, the concept is alluded to nowhere in the Jewish Bible.

 

 

 

I think those times where God appeared in human form, was at least a picture that could allude to Jesus from the OT.  I can also point out a couple of pictures that show God sacrificing Himself, another allusion to Jesus.  One, being the episode where Moses struck rock for water to come out.  The other being the Angel of the Lord ascending in the flame of the sacrifice Samson's father offered.  The whole idea of sacrifices covering  the sin of the people is established in the OT.

 

Interesting question if there are any observant Jewish people here.  It is the belief that the first covenant is pretty much going to be here forever.  Is it expected for the people to continually sacrifice animals forever?  I would like to be near God, without having to constantly sacrifice an animal.

[kolaida]

I was also kind of confused on why he was considered perfect. I mean, WHY did he go missing as a child like that? But we're supposed to obey our parents!!  And there were some other things that bothered me. But then I always felt bad for doubting his perfectness. But if he was God in human flesh supposed to be experiencing life as a human, wouldn't it mean that some mistakes would be made? I mean, didn't he have a regular, human functioning body?? Then I'd think that, "Hey, he was God, of course he could get through it!"  Then I was told that was sinful to think THAT as well.  But, really, I do kind of question why he's built up so much. I mean, compassion DID exist before Jesus was around. I'm sure there were other people that groups of people followed around back in the day. I mean, it happens TODAY even with all the alternative forms of entertainment at our fingertips. 

[centauri]

 

 

 

And no, Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies, and of course the Christian answer is that Jesus will fulfill the rest once He returns.

 

centauri:

Indeed, that is the standard Christian answer.

Just curious, where does the Old Testament confirm that a king messiah would come once, be killed, and require a second coming thousands of years later to do what he didn't accomplish the first time?

 

Heavenese:

Jesus wasn't just the Messiah.  But He also came to fulfill other prophecies, particularly to establish the new covenant that God promises to give in Jeremiah.  When we think about it, God used Moses to give out that first covenant.  It would make sense for another to give the new one.  Plus, even Moses prophecied another prophet like him would come.  I believe Jesus came to fulfill those prophecies.

Well, I was under the impression that a valid king messiah would actually perform the job requirements and be qualified to sit on the throne of David.

The job requirements include actually sitting on the throne, leading the people into great compliance with the law, along with being a paternal blood descendent of David.

The new covenant in Jeremiah doesn't say anything about needing to believe in a human sacrifice that dies for your sins.

 

Heavenese:

Again, Jesus came to fulfill more than just the Messianic prophecies, but even in the Messianic prophecies, there would be a time where he would be cut off.

 

The anointed one cut off in Dan 9 is not designated as being a king or prince.

There are two anointed ones in Dan 9, the first one being a prince or king who comes after 49 years.

The second anointed one is cut off hundreds of years later and is not designated as a king but could be a high priest.

You're assuming that that the second anointed one in Dan 9 is a king and must also be Jesus.

Jesus was never anointed king, which would have been a requirement for him to claim he was King of the Jews.

 

Now, there are observant Jews who are still waiting for the Messiah to show up.  If you asked them what was it meant by Messiah being cut off, I would interested in knowing their answer.  Because from what I can tell, it's basically expected for Messiah to show up and straighten stuff out.  There's no room in there for him to be cut off.  Jesus best anwers that prophecy.

I've seen Jewish answers that posit high priest Alexander Yanni as the one cut off.

Jesus fails to be the answer on two grounds:

 

1. Jesus was never anointed king.

2. The prophecy calls for the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem no later than one "week" (or about 7 years) after the anointed one is cut off.

 

The destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem didn't occur until over 30 years after Jesus was supposed to have died.

 

Jeremiah states that in the new covenant, God will not remember the sins of the people anymore.  Well, He has to do that legally.  If He could just do that all willy nilly, what was the point of people dying when they broke the commandments.  Death is necessary, it's the legal result of sinning against God.  It wouldn't make legal sense for God to now just look the other way at sin.

If God has to do things legally, then the sacrifice of Jesus was useless.

Humans are not valid sin sacrifices, nor did the sacrifice of Jesus meet the requirements for a sin sacrifice.

The was no Levitical priest presiding over the sacrifice of Jesus.

The new covenant states that God would infuse his law directly into the minds of the people so that they would obey it.

A king messiah would lead the people into great compliance with the law.

Jesus didn't do that.

By the way, God forgave the city of Nineveh and no bloodshed was required.

[centauri]

I believe Jesus fulfilled the Isaiah 53 sayings.  Again, I can't see the one being talked about as being Israel, it wouldn't make sense for it to be Israel there.  So again, Jesus fulfilled those sayings while He was here the first time, the second time He comes will be to fulfill the Messiah prophecies.

 

centauri:

Well, it would be useful if you could find confirmation from the Old Testament that a king messiah would come once, be killed, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven, and then come back thousands of years later to do the job he was supposed to do the first time.

 

Heavenese:

There's enough in Scripture to say the Messiah was going to be cut off. (What does cut off mean?  It probably means death)  So this tells us Messiah would be present, and he would be cut off from the people for a time.

Messiah simply means anointed.

Jewish kings and high priests are anointed with special oil per God's instructions.

Finding a verse (Dan 9:26) that says an anointed one would be cut off does not automatically mean it's the expected king who will usher in a glorious new era.

Many Christian Bibles are quite deceptive in their translation of Dan 9.

The ESV Bible is one of the few Christian Bibles that translates the passage correctly.

 

Dan 9:25-26(ESV)

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing.

 

There are two anointed ones in this passage, the first is a prince and the second is simply an anointed one.

Also, scripture states that the expected Jewish king would perform his job during his lifetime.

It does not say anything about him being killed, leaving his work undone.

 

After reading up a little bit on Isaiah 49, I now see a problem with saying the servant here is Israel expressely.  Look at Isaiah 49 verse 6 which states:

 

"And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."

 

With that, I don't think we can even say the one mentioned in Isaiah 49 is Israel either, as in the nation.  If it were, it wouldn't make sense for Israel to establish Israel, or Israel bringing back Israel.  The servant here is one person it seems, someone specific and not a whole nation.  Israel it seems in verse 3, doesn't mean the nation of Israel.  It seems God calls this person "Israel", meaning prince of God if I'm not mistaken.  What's your take on verse 6?

Isaiah also serves as a servant (verse 5-6) to initiate the process of making Israel (specifically the remnant-Isa 10:21)the primary vehicle to glorify God (Isa 41:8-9, Isa 42).

Israel is also associated with the name Jacob and Zion.

 

Note the description of the remnant:

 

Zeph 3:13

The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.

 

The restored nation of Israel would act as a beacon to draw gentile nations to God.

 

Isa 51:3-4

For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody.

Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.

 

This follows the theme already expressed in earlier chapters:

 

Isa 41:8, Isa 42:1-6

But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

 

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.

A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

 

As for the Gentiles being the "we" and "our" in 53, it would be hard to make that connection.  Every reference to the Gentile nations, such as those you give here, is specific.  If the gentiles was what is meant here in chapter 53, I believe it would have been more specific.

Ok, whom would would prefer the "we" to be?

Isa 53 transitions from Isa 52, where nations are described as being astonished and kings silenced.

Isaiah 53 could also be classified as another example of personification, which Isaiah repeatedly uses.

In Isa 53, Isaiah is speaking in the role of the gentile nations.

 

Isa 53:1(RSV)

Who has believed what we have heard?   And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

 

The restoration of Israel would shock the gentile nations and also lead them to recognize the error of their ways.

They would thereafter serve Israel and Yahweh.

 

 

Isa 60:10-12,14

Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you;

for in my wrath I smote you, but in my favor I have had mercy on you.

Your gates shall be open continually;

day and night they shall not be shut; that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations,

with their kings led in procession.

For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste.

The sons of those who oppressed you shall come bending low to you;

and all who despised you shall bow down at your feet;

they shall call you the City of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

[Blood]

As pointed out by Bhim, Jesus exhibits the signs of a cult leader.

In this case:

• The leader claims to have all authority and power, and that he will rule over a glorious kingdom.
• The leader claims to be the only conduit to salvation and promises a better life for his followers.
• The leader promises great rewards if people devote their full attention to him and obey his commands.
• The leader tells people that if they eat his flesh and drink his blood, they can live forever.
• The leader promises to kill those that offend him, and simple unbelief is enough to offend him.
• The leader overturns traditional regulations, and claims to bring disharmony and change to the old order.
• The leader promises that his followers will have great miracle working powers if they believe in him.
• The leader calls his followers "sheep", while telling them that they are superior to others.
• The leader is to be the center of attention at all times.

If Jesus doesn't set the standard for disturbing cult leader traits and desires, then nobody does.

Yet, it's all just fine and dandy because the maniac cult leader is "Jesus".

If it was any other figure, they would be condemned as a power hungry, demented despot.

 

I would also add that the "sweet perfect Jesus" image is shoved into the skulls of children at a very young age.

While at Wal-Mart I visited the children's book department and it was filled with coloring books, cartoon type books, and other more serious presentations of the "Jesus loves everyone" propaganda that is shamelessly sold to children as factual and accurate "history".

The country is infected with a Jesus fetish and has been for a very long time.

Rather than being ashamed of manipulating children with propaganda, the bulk of society cheers this as healthy education.

 

I always find it amusing that when some religious nut like David Koresh is arrested or exposed, people have no problem condemning him as a fanatic and a monster. But what exactly is the difference between Koresh and Jesus? 

[miekko]

The thing where a messiah (notice: the title messiah is also bestowed on kings of israel) is supposed to be cut off is actually fulfilled by one of the kings under the pre-Christian era. Nothing about that prophecy seems to indicate that it's about The Messiah, it seems more to be about just a king. Christian translations tend to insert 'The' into it, even though no definite article is present in the Hebrew verse.

[Bhim]

The thing where a messiah (notice: the title messiah is also bestowed on kings of israel) is supposed to be cut off is actually fulfilled by one of the kings under the pre-Christian era. Nothing about that prophecy seems to indicate that it's about The Messiah, it seems more to be about just a king. Christian translations tend to insert 'The' into it, even though no definite article is present in the Hebrew verse.

That's an excellent related point. As a Christian, what bothered me most was that Jews had perfectly sensible explanations of messianic passages that excluded Jesus as the Messiah. One of the best places to attack Christianity is in its misusage of messianic prophecy!