Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Trailblazer]

There is nothing in the NT about Jesus creating the world anew when He came into the world.

Indeed there is:

Colossians 1:16-17 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

And also, everyone who believed in Jesus was a new creation, born again:

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

The same process repeated itself when Baha’u’llah appeared on earth. The world was created anew and Baha'is were born again.

Jesus did not refer to Himself as God, only as the Son of God. There is nothing in the Bible about different stations. It is an imposition of Baha'i on the Bible and can have the tendency of changing the meaning.

No, it is not changing anything in the Bible, it is just clarifying the nature of Jesus, which was absolutely necessary, given that Christians from early on could never agree in the nature of Jesus (e.g., if He was God or just a man). That is why they held councils such as the Council of Nicaea, in order to formulate a doctrine that everyone could agree upon. But to this very day, Christians still do not agree on the nature of Jesus.

Knowing what the three stations of a Manifestation of God are has cleared up the confusion as to the nature of Jesus. Jesus was a human with a soul and a body, but He was also the divine appearance and heavenly splendor, because he brought the Holy Spirit. What differentiated Jesus from ordinary human beings was the divine appearance and heavenly splendor.

That Jesus is the Holy Spirit is another imposition by Baha'u'llah onto the Bible and tends to change the meanings of things also.
It certainly appears that Baha'u'llah was not the same Jesus (who was in heaven).
It also appears that you are dividing the Christ from Jesus. So you are saying that Jesus the Christ did not come in the flesh.

Jesus was not the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the appearance of the Holy Spirit, which is the same as the divine appearance and the heavenly splendor.

No, Baha’u’llah was not the same as Jesus who was in heaven after he died, because they each had an individual soul; so Jesus had a soul and Baha’u’llah had a soul and those souls were separate from each other, just as your soul and my soul are separate souls.

No, I am not dividing the Christ from Jesus and I am not saying that saying that Jesus the Christ did not come in the flesh.

 

[Trailblazer]

This imposes another Son of Man into the Bible when it is Jesus who identifies Himself as the Son of Man and it is Jesus in the New Testament who receive all authority in heaven and on earth and who is glorified after returning to His Father and receives everlasting dominion in an everlasting Kingdom when He sits on the throne of David to rule forever. So Dan 7:13,14 is about Jesus according to the Bible, the one who ascended to heaven in the clouds as one like a son of man.

There are many references to the son of man in the OT so Jesus was not the only Son of Man. Nevertheless, the title Son of Man means the perfect humanity that Jesus represented.

It was Jesus in the New Testament who received all authority in heaven and on earth and who is glorified after returning to His Father and received everlasting dominion since He sits on the throne of David to rule forever.

But according to the Bible Dan 7:13-14 is not about Jesus, it is about Baha’u’llah.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Jesus ascended into heaven in the clouds. Baha’u’llah, one like a son of man, descended from the clouds of heaven of the Will of God, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. These verses are about an earthly Kingdom, not a heavenly Kingdom. Jesus’ Kingdom was in heaven, Baha’u’llah’s Kingdom was on earth.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Psalm 2, speaking about God's begotten Son disagrees,,,,,,,,,,,so you must have a wrong understanding of John 18:36 " My kingdom is not of this world:"

Psalm 2:7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:

He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

I do not see how Psalm 2:7 contradicts John 18:36.

Either he is or is not the Ancient of Days and he said he is the Ancient of Days. If he is not the Ancient of Days then he should not have said that he is. Jesus never claimed to be whom He is not and neither does Moses nor Abraham not Adam.

You are right; He should not have said that, if He did. That could have been a translation error. I will have to check it out with some other Baha’is, so maybe I will post it on Baha’i Forums to get opinions.

Sorry if I have been offending you with my comments and it is a good thing that you pull me up on it.

Apology accepted.

 

[Brian2]

Indeed there is:
Colossians 1:16-17 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

And also, everyone who believed in Jesus was a new creation, born again: 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

The same process repeated itself when Baha’u’llah appeared on earth. The world was created anew and Baha'is were born again.

Yes those in Christ are born again and are a new creation, but Col 1 says nothing about Jesus having created all things anew.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfil His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be dissolved in the fire, and the earth and its works will not be found. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

2 Peter 3 says the Christians are waiting for the new heaven and new earth but not that it is already here, or even that it was already come in the days when Peter was writing. (see also Rev 21)

You can and will claim otherwise but unless you can tell me why you think so (because it says such and such etc) it is not interpretation, it is just a claim.

No, it is not changing anything in the Bible, it is just clarifying the nature of Jesus, which was absolutely necessary, given that Christians from early on could never agree in the nature of Jesus (e.g., if He was God or just a man). That is why they held councils such as the Council of Nicaea, in order to formulate a doctrine that everyone could agree upon. But to this very day, Christians still do not agree on the nature of Jesus.

A story of 3 stations is nowhere in the Bible and so the Baha'i additional revelations can do nothing but alter what the Bible alone tells us. The Mormons, with their additional revelations say exactly the same,,,,,,they are just clearing up the real meaning in the Bible.

Jesus was not the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the appearance of the Holy Spirit, which is the same as the divine appearance and the heavenly splendor.

What does that even mean?
From this site: Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings I find this quote below and it says Jesus is the "Spirit of God". In the Bible the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit.
"The Bahá'í Faith uses different descriptives for Jesus, such as 'Manifestation of God and 'Spirit of God. What do the Bahá'í terms mean? What is the Bahá'í understanding of the Christian terms?"

No, Baha’u’llah was not the same as Jesus who was in heaven after he died, because they each had an individual soul; so Jesus had a soul and Baha’u’llah had a soul and those souls were separate from each other, just as your soul and my soul are separate souls.

So Baha'u'llah was not the "same Jesus".

 

[Brian2]

But according to the Bible Dan 7:13-14 is not about Jesus, it is about Baha’u’llah.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Jesus ascended into heaven in the clouds. Baha’u’llah, one like a son of man, descended from the clouds of heaven of the Will of God, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. These verses are about an earthly Kingdom, not a heavenly Kingdom. Jesus’ Kingdom was in heaven, Baha’u’llah’s Kingdom was on earth.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The Bible says nothing about Dan 7:13,14 being about Baha'u'llah, that is just something imposed on the Bible.
Are you serious that Baha'u'llah descended to earth out of the presence of the Ancient of Days and was brought before the Ancient of Days?
John 18:36 means that Jesus was not the King of a country of the earth with soldiers etc. It does not mean that Jesus does not rule over the earth. In fact I gave you Ps 2 to check out and see that God does give His Son all the nations of the earth to rule over.
You seem to have read Ps 2:7 and ignored the rest of the Psalm for some reason.

 

[Brian2]

The Comforter is the Holy Spirit that the Father sent to Baha'u'llah.
The Comforter is also a title that was given to Baha'u'llah because He brought the Holy Spirit to humanity.

Yes, the Comforter is the Spirit of Truth.
The Spirit of Truth is a title of the man who was also the Comforter, so the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth designate one person, Baha'u'llah.

So the Comforter is the Holy Spirit and
the Comforter is Baha'u'llah
the Comforter is the Spirit of Truth
the Comforter is the Spirit of Truth/Baha'u'llah.
BUT you do not say that the Spirit of Truth/Baha'u'llah is the Holy Spirit.
Why?

Baha'u'llah is sitting on the earthly throne, but not forever; only until the next Manifestation of God comes to earth and brings a new Law. At least that is my understanding of it. Baha'u'llah s now in heaven with Jesus, who is ruling on the heavenly throne of David forever.[/QUOTE]

So why is Isa 9:6,7 about Baha'u'llah when it says the child will rule forever

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.

Why is Dan 7:13,14 about Baha'u'llah when the person given the Kingdom rules forever.

Dan 7:13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

 

[Brian2]

So everything is symbolism or of a type as long as it serves your purpose as a symbol.

I just look for who is who in the scriptures. When I see that someone is to sit on the throne of David forever it is the Messiah (Isa 9:6,7) When I see the Son of God being given the Kingdoms of the earth to rule and judge (Ps 2) it is the Messiah, and that the one who is made God's firstborn in Ps 89 is a Jewish anointed, a King who call God his Father, and he is killed by the Jews, I see him as the Messiah also.
When I see that David is going to rule over the Jews forever I see that as referring to the Messiah.
When I see that sins are forgiven in the New Covenant and that the servant of Isa 53 brings forgiveness of sin, I associate the 2. A lot of typology comes from stuff like this.
But I also am looking at things with hindsight.

"main"? uh huh

As opposed to Saul, or Solomon, neither of whom was specially chosen. Got it.

All the Kings were anointed and sons of God and chosen but David was the King par excellence even if even he was not perfect.

From the text. God speaks of the one whom he already established as king, but who was being threatened (a reference to Sam 2 5:17). Saying that it is ALSO about a future messianic leader doesn't change the fact that the Psalm names David as a son of God.

I see nowhere in the Psalm where David is named. I do see God's son being given the whole earth with it's people for an inheritance to rule and judge. Blessed are they who put their trust in him.

Our scriptures can be read in more ways but that doesn't make each of those readings equally correct and the Christian way is not correct, just rejected by Jews because they do not believe the gospels and have studied the original in a fuller context.

In a fuller context than Christians have studied them over the years?
Maybe by neglecting Jesus, the context has actually been narrowed.

 

[Brian2]

So the law applies but it isn't a series of laws. It identifies its content but that isn't what it means. Brilliant.

Well, we know what the text says -- that the content is the same but that we will change. Nothing in the text refers to changing the laws.

How God wants us to act towards each other does not change. God wants us to love one another and to love Him also. The Mosaic Covenant gave commands for people who did not know God, the New Covenant is for people who know God and have His Spirit and a new heart and want to do what pleases Him. If that is the case then we do not need hundreds of laws.
It is not as if the law is straight forward. It needs interpreting and knowing how to weigh competing demands of the law. And for people who may not even know the competing demands (gentiles) the Spirit guides us. The Spirit was given at Pentecost, the time Moses came down the mountain with the Law. The Spirit is a good guide and better than a list of commands.

Which means then that after death, the law disappears and when someone is resurrected, that person can't be under a law that has disappeared.

The Law is for the Jews under the Mosaic Covenant. When someone dies the Law no longer applies to them. When they are resurrected they are not under the Covenant but still should act how God wants people to act towards each other.
People learn rules when learning a musical instrument or other discipline. When the rules are learnt it is said they can be forgotten and the instrument can be played more from the heart. The laws are still kept but in a different way and when they are broken the music can sound beautiful also because it is the music which is most important just as with the God it is love that is most important.

You see -- this is the essence of your error. The text says that the renewed covenant IS the law, but you insist that the text is wrong and that the law isn't what the text says it is. The language is clear. You have to misread it and force your theology in, contrary to the explicit text. That's your choice.

I know what you mean, but maybe it is the essence of your error and you cannot see how anyone can know what God wants without commandments. and laws to stipulate from one situation to the next.
You don't have to be a Jews to do what God wants--------------esp in a covenant where God's Spirit is the guide and God is taking care of us like His little children so that we grow to know Him and what He wants from us.

 

[rosends]

I just look for who is who in the scriptures. When I see that someone is to sit on the throne of David forever it is the Messiah (Isa 9:6,7) When I see the Son of God being given the Kingdoms of the earth to rule and judge (Ps 2) it is the Messiah, and that the one who is made God's firstborn in Ps 89 is a Jewish anointed, a King who call God his Father, and he is killed by the Jews, I see him as the Messiah also.
When I see that David is going to rule over the Jews forever I see that as referring to the Messiah.
When I see that sins are forgiven in the New Covenant and that the servant of Isa 53 brings forgiveness of sin, I associate the 2. A lot of typology comes from stuff like this.
But I also am looking at things with hindsight.

So using hindsight and drawing conclusions based on your understanding of text and a translation that you choose because it validates your understanding you decide what is a type.

All the Kings were anointed and sons of God and chosen but David was the King par excellence even if even he was not perfect.

Well, based on your opinion of things.

I see nowhere in the Psalm where David is named. I do see God's son being given the whole earth with it's people for an inheritance to rule and judge. Blessed are they who put their trust in him.

The text refers to someone already in place as a king who is being threatened. I mean, you don't see Jesus named but you find him all over the place. But here, because David isn't mentioned, it isn't about him, even though he is the author of many of the Psalms and it refers to specific events in his life?

In a fuller context than Christians have studied them over the years?
Maybe by neglecting Jesus, the context has actually been narrowed.

So if I say to you that by rejecting Muhammed or Joseph Smith or any Bahai understandings, your context is too limited, you have to see those contexts as fuller than yours. I'd say that jews had a fuller context before Christianity came around, rejected part of that context and substituted its own. So, yes, Judaism has a fuller context than Christianity. The stone that you rejected when you built up your theology is an important cornerstone.

 

[rosends]

How God wants us to act towards each other does not change. God wants us to love one another and to love Him also. The Mosaic Covenant gave commands for people who did not know God, the New Covenant is for people who know God and have His Spirit and a new heart and want to do what pleases Him. If that is the case then we do not need hundreds of laws.

Those people whom you claim did not know God saw him on Sinai and experienced explicit miracles daily. TO claim they didn't know him is a bit off. Claiming that the "spirit" was given isn't totally wrong -- just see that the "spirit" is the oral law which was given to teach us how to keep the law. You reject that so you think that the law is hard to observe.

The Law is for the Jews under the Mosaic Covenant. When someone dies the Law no longer applies to them. When they are resurrected they are not under the Covenant but still should act how God wants people to act towards each other.

So a resurrected person will not have to observe any of God's laws. Got it.

People learn rules when learning a musical instrument or other discipline. When the rules are learnt it is said they can be forgotten and the instrument can be played more from the heart. The laws are still kept but in a different way and when they are broken the music can sound beautiful also because it is the music which is most important just as with the God it is love that is most important.

No. When you learn something really well, you incorporate it into your understanding so it is always there even if not consciously. No one has to forget anything. The laws are kept because they are the only way to be, and they are the natural extension of existence.

I know what you mean, but maybe it is the essence of your error and you cannot see how anyone can know what God wants without commandments. and laws to stipulate from one situation to the next.
You don't have to be a Jews to do what God wants--------------esp in a covenant where God's Spirit is the guide and God is taking care of us like His little children so that we grow to know Him and what He wants from us.

You don't have to be Jewish, that's right. You can follow the Noachide laws and be just fine. Then you would stay away from the rest of the biblical text because it is beyond the Noachide laws, and meant for the Jews. Perfect.

 

[Brian2]

So using hindsight and drawing conclusions based on your understanding of text and a translation that you choose because it validates your understanding you decide what is a type.

I don't think it is based on a particular translation.
I don't know much about typology but given examples by other Christians, I have found that they are fairly easy to pick out.
Some of it may be based on the hindsight of knowing something of Jesus but in general a lot of it is probably easy to see without knowing anything about Jesus.
But of course I don't come from that position so I'm just guessing how easy it is to for example guess that an option is that David might be a type of the Messiah when something like the passage below is read in the scriptures.
Ezek 37:…23They will no longer defile themselves with their idols or detestable images, or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all their apostasies by which they sinned, and I will cleanse them. Then they will be My people, and I will be their God. 24My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow My ordinances and keep and observe My statutes. 25They will live in the land that I gave to My servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They will live there forever with their children and grandchildren, and My servant David will be their prince forever.…

The text refers to someone already in place as a king who is being threatened. I mean, you don't see Jesus named but you find him all over the place. But here, because David isn't mentioned, it isn't about him, even though he is the author of many of the Psalms and it refers to specific events in his life?

Isn't part of typology that events in the life of one relate to events in the life of the other. David is a prophet however and sometimes he may be prophesying without writing about events in his own life.
It is fairly easy to see a possible connection between the Son of God in Ps 2 who is given ownership and inheritance of and rule over the nations of the earth and the one who calls God His Father in Ps 89 and who is made God's firstborn, higher than the Kings of the earth. It is fairly easy to see that if they are the same person then that person is probably the Messiah.
I can't think of a King of Israel of Judah whose crown was cast down and who was killed at a young age by his people,,,,,,,,,,,certainly not David.

So if I say to you that by rejecting Muhammed or Joseph Smith or any Bahai understandings, your context is too limited, you have to see those contexts as fuller than yours. I'd say that jews had a fuller context before Christianity came around, rejected part of that context and substituted its own. So, yes, Judaism has a fuller context than Christianity. The stone that you rejected when you built up your theology is an important cornerstone.

I don't see Christianity as rejecting the Hebrew scriptures. It seems to me that Christianity takes legitimate meanings of the language and understandings of the texts, unlike Islam, Baha'i or Joseph Smith.
If I believed any of those then I would have to deny parts of both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.
Christianity can be pretty much found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Christianity did not reject the cornerstone of the scriptures even if some Jewish theology is understood differently,,,,,,,,,,,but legitimately imo. The problem being that our legitimate understanding got us kicked out of Judaism.

 

[Brian2]

Those people whom you claim did not know God saw him on Sinai and experienced explicit miracles daily. TO claim they didn't know him is a bit off. Claiming that the "spirit" was given isn't totally wrong -- just see that the "spirit" is the oral law which was given to teach us how to keep the law. You reject that so you think that the law is hard to observe.

No doubt it is helpful at times to have oral law to help interpret and keep the law,,,,,,,,,but that is the way of lawyers,,,,,,,,,,,it is much better to have God's Spirit for that. The oral law may be a "type" of the "Spirit"
Certainly the scriptures are a help in this age to know what God's will is and have been given for that purpose but into Eternity it will no doubt be "knowing God" that does the same thing.

Numbers 11:24 So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again.
26 However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”
28 Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”
29 But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” 30 Then Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp.

So a resurrected person will not have to observe any of God's laws. Got it.

I did not say that.

No. When you learn something really well, you incorporate it into your understanding so it is always there even if not consciously. No one has to forget anything. The laws are kept because they are the only way to be, and they are the natural extension of existence.

I think I was saying something like that, but the knowing of what God wants is given in other ways in the New Covenant also.

You don't have to be Jewish, that's right. You can follow the Noachide laws and be just fine. Then you would stay away from the rest of the biblical text because it is beyond the Noachide laws, and meant for the Jews. Perfect.

Not all of the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures are meant for the just the Jews. Certainly Paul saw the Hebrew Scriptures differently when he said;
2 Timothy 3:15 From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.…

 

[rosends]

Isn't part of typology that events in the life of one relate to events in the life of the other. David is a prophet however and sometimes he may be prophesying without writing about events in his own life.
It is fairly easy to see a possible connection between the Son of God in Ps 2 who is given ownership and inheritance of and rule over the nations of the earth and the one who calls God His Father in Ps 89 and who is made God's firstborn, higher than the Kings of the earth. It is fairly easy to see that if they are the same person then that person is probably the Messiah.
I can't think of a King of Israel of Judah whose crown was cast down and who was killed at a young age by his people,,,,,,,,,,,certainly not David.

So here's the problem. David also sent Uriah to die in battle so he could marry Uriah's wife. Why do you choose one event in his life as relating to anyone else's life on a level of typology, but not others? The text writes in the past tense about a situation which already was established. Deciding that this one event is also a prophecy for the future is cherry picking. Psalm 89 confirms that it was David who was set up as the progenitor of the dynasty, and yet, that eternal dynasty was to be interrupted in only a couple of generations. Each king in that line was (and was supposed to continue to be) a messiah, but that kingship was stopped, way too early.

I don't see Christianity as rejecting the Hebrew scriptures. It seems to me that Christianity takes legitimate meanings of the language and understandings of the texts, unlike Islam, Baha'i or Joseph Smith.

Whereas you put Islam, Baha'i and Joseph Smith in one category and keep Christianity in another, I put all 4 together. You are 75% of the way to seeing what I see.

If I believed any of those then I would have to deny parts of both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.
Christianity can be pretty much found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

No, you see it can't. It has to reject, ignore or misquote to justify itself. The same charges you might level at Islam "finding" Muhammed in the Jewish scriptures, I level atr Christianity. No difference.

Christianity did not reject the cornerstone of the scriptures even if some Jewish theology is understood differently,,,,,,,,,,,but legitimately imo. The problem being that our legitimate understanding got us kicked out of Judaism.

No, your illegitimate rejection and misunderstanding separated you from Judaism.

 

[rosends]

Not all of the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures are meant for the just the Jews. Certainly Paul saw the Hebrew Scriptures differently when he said;
2 Timothy 3:15 From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.…

So Paul decided that the text given to Jews was for others, and you take his opinion over the opinions of all the Jews, themselves.
You know, it says "all Scripture" in what you just quoted. I guess that the Koran, the Book of Mormon and most anything else is included. Unless you draw some sort of line and decide that they aren't "scripture."

Because I draw that line and exclude the gospels.

 

[Brian2]

So Paul decided that the text given to Jews was for others, and you take his opinion over the opinions of all the Jews, themselves.
You know, it says "all Scripture" in what you just quotes. I guess that the Koran, the Book of Mormon and most anything else is included. Unless you draw some sort of line and decide that they aren't "scripture."

Because I draw that line and exclude the gospels.

We look at the scriptures Paul was referring to when speaking to Timothy and the scriptures that Jesus accepted.

 

[Brian2]

So here's the problem. David also sent Uriah to die in battle so he could marry Uriah's wife. Why do you choose one event in his life as relating to anyone else's life on a level of typology, but not others? The text writes in the past tense about a situation which already was established. Deciding that this one event is also a prophecy for the future is cherry picking. Psalm 89 confirms that it was David who was set up as the progenitor of the dynasty, and yet, that eternal dynasty was to be interrupted in only a couple of generations. Each king in that line was (and was supposed to continue to be) a messiah, but that kingship was stopped, way too early.

Most of the typology with David is probably in the Psalms, not in everything he did.
Ps 89 can be a prophecy but still written in past tense, because it is definite.
Judah was still involved in lawmaking till after the one came to whom the sceptre of King and throne of David belonged, the one who was of the line of David is the Son of God also and now has been made God's firstborn, higher than the Kings of the earth.
Then after the rejection the Lord is angry with those who rejected and killed Him.

No, you see it can't. It has to reject, ignore or misquote to justify itself. The same charges you might level at Islam "finding" Muhammed in the Jewish scriptures, I level atr Christianity. No difference.

Jesus can be see all through the OT, even without the supposed misquotes etc that the Jews claim we have inflicted.
But what difference does that make when you close your eyes and mind to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[rosends]

We look at the scriptures Paul was referring to when speaking to Timothy and the scriptures that Jesus accepted.

Ah, so you accept the Jewish Oral law that Jesus accepted, right? He would have viewed that as part of the canonical scripture.

 

[rosends]

Most of the typology with David is probably in the Psalms, not in everything he did.

So you can pick some good stuff and ignore the other stuff.

Judah was still involved in lawmaking till after the one came to whom the sceptre of King and throne of David belonged, the one who was of the line of David is the Son of God also and now has been made God's firstborn, higher than the Kings of the earth.

Judah died way before any of this happened. And you can't be in the line of David and yet have a non Davidic father.

Then after the rejection the Lord is angry with those who rejected and killed Him.

Yeah...I'd be angry at the people who killed me, also. Makes perfect sense. God is mortal but still is emotional in his post-death state.

Jesus can be see all through the OT, even without the supposed misquotes etc that the Jews claim we have inflicted.

You mean "Jesus can be found if you need to find him..."

But what difference does that make when you close your eyes and mind to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Yes, what difference does it make when you squint real hard and interpolate your theologically demanded references because without them, your religion has no foundation.

 

[Brian2]

Ah, so you accept the Jewish Oral law that Jesus accepted, right? He would have viewed that as part of the canonical scripture.

What Jesus had to say about the traditions of the elders (which at the time may not have been written down) was not that good. He did not see them as the commands of God but of men and said that they contradicted God's words at times.eg Mrk 7:1-23,
And probably some of what Jesus said in Matt 5:21-48 was comment on the oral traditions and not on the written commands.
But of course there would be parts of the oral tradition that Jesus agreed with, even if He did not see it as necessarily from God.

 

[Brian2]

Judah died way before any of this happened. And you can't be in the line of David and yet have a non Davidic father.

Surely you know about Gen 49:8-12 and that since Judah as no ruling position now and since the time that the Sanhedrin was disbanded it mean the Messiah/Shiloh came before then.

Yeah...I'd be angry at the people who killed me, also. Makes perfect sense. God is mortal but still is emotional in his post-death state.

The reasons for the first exile were easy to see, but Judaism seemed OK to the average Jew when the 2nd exile struck in 70 AD. Yet Jesus had come and pointed out things in it which God was not pleased with and this OK Judaism saw no problem with taking an innocent man and having Him killed.
Maybe if they had known whom He was they would not have done it,,,,,,,,,,,,,nevertheless if you want to know why the Jews have been exiled for about 2000 years, you need look no further than the rejection of your Messiah and having Him killed. It says as much in Ps 89.

You mean "Jesus can be found if you need to find him..."

No problem in doing that at all. It is so easy that some people have suggested that the writers of the gospels must have gone through the Hebrew scriptures and written a story utilising quotes from those scriptures to make up the story of Jesus.

Yes, what difference does it make when you squint real hard and interpolate your theologically demanded references because without them, your religion has no foundation.

I have to admit that with some OT quotes that are said to be about Jesus it can seem hard to fathom exactly why, but the big picture is there writ large in the pages of the OT without problems. And as I have said, there is even almost a demand in those pages that Jesus is the one when some prophecies are considered.

 

[rosends]

What Jesus had to say about the traditions of the elders (which at the time may not have been written down) was not that good. He did not see them as the commands of God but of men and said that they contradicted God's words at times.eg Mrk 7:1-23,
And probably some of what Jesus said in Matt 5:21-48 was comment on the oral traditions and not on the written commands.
But of course there would be parts of the oral tradition that Jesus agreed with, even if He did not see it as necessarily from God.

Well, I guess that's your interpretation. It isn't what he said, though. He actually repeated many of the teachings in the oral law and told his followers to follow the teachings of Pharisees who were the proponents of the oral law.