Is Jesus the Messiah?

[Madhuri]

Originally Posted by ReligiousGirl

One could argue that if people trusted in Him as Lord and Messiah, then there would be world peace.

Does it have to be literal?

Why wouldn't it be literal? If everyone believed the exact same thing about another religious founder or leader there would also (arguably) be world peace.

[Nerthus]

Originally Posted by Madhuri

Why wouldn't it be literal? If everyone believed the exact same thing about another religious founder or leader there would also (arguably) be world peace.

I don't believe that a lot if things in the Bible should be taken literally.

[Madhuri]

Originally Posted by ReligiousGirl

I don't believe that a lot if things in the Bible should be taken literally.

I thought you were referring to the prophesies being taken literally..were you? And if so, I find it hard to imagine that they were anything but literal based on the wording. But I admit that I could be wrong.

[Nerthus]

Originally Posted by Madhuri

I thought you were referring to the prophesies being taken literally..were you? And if so, I find it hard to imagine that they were anything but literal based on the wording. But I admit that I could be wrong.

I have to go out, but I know my answer to this - just it's too long for right now!

I'll be back though

[idea]

Okay, then let's start from the beginning: Is Jesus a direct descendant of David? Can you show me the scripture that says he is? I bet all my money that you cannot.

Originally Posted by Pegg

Jesus genealogy shows that he was a son of David, from the tribe of Judah through Mary's husband, Joseph...as Jesus was the son of God, Joseph was only his 'adoptive' father. And its important to note that the genealogy was never shown to be incorrect by Jewish scholars in the first century...the Jews who became believers were those trained in the rabbinical schools and they certainly would have rejected Jesus had his genealogy proved him not to be in the line of David.

Two genealogies are given - Mathew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. (Luke does not say "King David" - he just says "David" - Luke was a gentile, not a Jew, did not care about Jewish Kings... Luke did recognize that Joseph was not Jesus’ real father though – after Jesus is baptized and introduced by a voice from heaven as “this is my beloved Son” – he tries to explain to those present who Jesus is the child of by giving Mary’s (not Joseph’s) genealogy, which concludes with “son of Adam, son of God” – ie, Luke was trying to show everyone that Jesus was the son of “Mary and God” – those were the two dominant people in Luke’s geneology. Mathew – the Jewish scriptorium – took the traditional “cite the genealogy of the step-father” – worried about King David being in there… we could talk about adoptive laws in the Jewish culture, but it does not really matter. Jesus was the son of David through both his mother and his adoptive father.

(New Testament | Luke3:37 - 38)
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Kind of cool way to link Jesus with God, as it links all of the children of Adam to God .
I believe that Jesus is not just another grandchild of God, God was his Father, not just grandfather... it was a first step for those that were around / heard the voice from heaven / to try and explain to them who Jesus was though.

[idea]

Originally Posted by kosherzombie

Does it bother any Christians that Jesus didn't seem to fulfill most of the requirements to be the Messiah?

When talking about prophecies:

There is a question of time lines - you can['t really say when something is supposed to happen, because God does not see time in the same way that you and I see it....
Isaiah (55:8) wrote, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither your ways my ways, saith the Lord." God's reckoning of time cannot be compared to that of man. Peter wrote that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8; compare with Psalm 90:4).

• Is it clearly intended to be literal (not poetic, a figure of speech, etc.)?
• Is there a definite time limit set for its fulfillment, not simply "shortly," "nigh," "soon," etc.?
• Can it be shown beyond dispute that the time of fulfillment is past?
• Are there any stated conditions to the prophecy?
• Are there any possible unstated conditions to the prophecy?
• Is there only one possible interpretation?

Does the Bible or the Torah contain all the revelation God ever gave to man or ever will give?
Are there no longer any prophets? Has God ceased to talk with those on Earth?


Squabble over the interpretations, times, literal/figurative, meanings of the prophecies all you want... to me it comes down to getting the answer straight from God Himself. God introduced Jesus as "His only begotten Son" - isn't that good enough? If God tells everyone "this is the man" then I guess that settles it.... and if you don't believe the accounts of those who listened to God proclaim Jesus as the one - then go, pray, find out for yourself. Revelation has not ceased, God has not ceased to be a God of miracles and revelations. God communicates truths now, just as He always has, and always will.

[ATAT]

Where does the bible define 'begotten' as being God?


Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

[Nerthus]

In Matthew it is stated that as soon as Jesus was baptised the Spirit of God descended and a voice from Heaven said "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". If God said this, then it's enough for me.

[Madhuri]

Originally Posted by ReligiousGirl

In Matthew it is stated that as soon as Jesus was baptised the Spirit of God descended and a voice from Heaven said "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". If God said this, then it's enough for me.

What was the significance of saying it immediately after baptism? Is baptism a ritual that symbolises an official entry into a father-child relationship with God?

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Originally Posted by ReligiousGirl

I don't believe that a lot if things in the Bible should be taken literally.

This right here is one of its main downfalls.

At what point does the Bible stop being figurative and start being literal? How does one tell?