• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus Christ actually die?

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Jesus wasn't talking about drinking blood in that verse.
The NT disagrees with you.
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
It says: "Very truly I tell you". So you're saying Jesus was lying about eating the flesh and drinking his blood?

Very truly I tell you....

Here it is in the original Greek:

Screenshot_20201221_071034.jpg

You can't change scripture, Skywalker. The verse says, "Truly, Truly..."
 
Last edited:

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The NT disagrees with you.

It says: "Very truly I tell you". So you're saying Jesus was lieing about eating the flesh and drinking his blood?

Very truly I tell you....

Here it is in the original Greek:

View attachment 46270
You can't change scripture, Skywalker. The verse says, "Truly, Truly..."

Jesus said verily verily to emphasize his statements. Jesus was lying he was speaking in parables.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The idea of the Messiah being a Savior is not easy for our prideful nature to accept. They interpreted the prophecies in a vague Nostradamus like way because of that.
No, you're interpretting scripture in a vague way. I'm intrepretting it in a precise way.

Here's another example.

Isaiah 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.
The government was not on Jesus' shoulders. And he wasn't the prince of peace per Matthew 10:34.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
The NT says that Jesus did not come to bring peace. Therefore precisely interpretting the prophecy disqualifies Jesus from being the future king from Isaiah.

I say again. Rejecting Jesus as the Jewish messiah is not about pride. It's about clear contradictions between the story told in the NT and what is said in Torah.
 
Last edited:

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
No, you're interpretting scripture in a vague way. I'm intrepretting it in a precise way.

Here's another example.

Isaiah 9:6


The government was not on Jesus' shoulders. And he wasn't the prince of peace per Matthew 10:34.


The NT says that Jesus did not come to bring peace. Therefore precisely interpretting the prophecy disqualifies Jesus from being the future king from Isaiah.

I say again. Rejecting Jesus as the Jewish messiah is not about pride. It's about clear contradictions between the story told in the NT and what is said in Torah.

The government will be on the shoulders of Jesus when he returns. Jesus will bring 1000 years of peace during the Millennium. The teaching of the second coming isn't explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament but it resolves apparently contradictory details in the Old Testament that sound like two Messiahs are mentioned.

Jesus didn't come to bring peace as in the gospel was more important than people agreeing about Jesus or not. The context of that verse wasn't about the second coming of Jesus.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The point is, that rejecting Jesus is not about pride, it's about what's written in the NT.

The New Testament talks about Jesus ruling the government in the future and bringing a thousand years of peace. Revelation talks about the second coming of Christ.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The New Testament talks about Jesus ruling the government in the future and bringing a thousand years of peace. Revelation talks about the second coming of Christ.
He neither ruled government nor was the prince of peace. Jesus was not the one spoken of in Isaiah 9:6 per Matthew 10:34.

Precisely interpreting the prophecy disqualifies Jesus.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
He neither ruled government nor was the prince of peace. Jesus was not the one spoken of in Isaiah 9:6 per Matthew 10:34.

Precisely interpreting the prophecy disqualifies Jesus.

That verse doesn't rule out the second coming of Jesus, but it's not cryptic like n
and the second coming of Jesus resolves details about the Messiah that are vague. The verses about the reappearance of the Messiah could sound like they are talking about two Messiahs.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
That verse doesn't rule out the second coming of Jesus, but it's not cryptic like n
and the second coming of Jesus resolves details about the Messiah that are vague. The verses about the reappearance of the Messiah could sound like they are talking about two Messiahs.
"... could sound like ..."

You're not being precise. Please don't forget what you accused Jewish people of doing.

The idea of the Messiah being a Savior is not easy for our prideful nature to accept. They interpreted the prophecies in a vague Nostradamus like way because of that.

You claim that rejecting Jesus is about pride and interpreting the prophecies in a vague way. And yet, your interpretation is repeatedly vague. Basically you're saying Jesus "could sound like" the Jewish messiah IF there's a second coming. That's vague. It's not precise.

I say again, rejecting Jesus is not about pride. It's about what is written in Torah and what's written in the NT. They simply don't literally agree. If "could sound like" is good enough for you, fine. But don't accuse others of being vague while doing the same thing yourself. That's hypocritical. Matthew 7:5. ;)
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
"... could sound like ..."

You're not being precise. Please don't forget what you accused Jewish people of doing.



You claim that rejecting Jesus is about pride and interpreting the prophecies in a vague way. And yet, your interpretation is repeatedly vague. Basically you're saying Jesus "could sound like" the Jewish messiah IF there's a second coming. That's vague. It's not precise.

I say again, rejecting Jesus is not about pride. It's about what is written in Torah and what's written in the NT. They simply don't literally agree. If "could sound like" is good enough for you, fine. But don't accuse others of being vague while doing the same thing yourself. That's hypocritical. Matthew 7:5. ;)

Some jewish scholars believe that there are two Messiahs. How can the mentioning second advent of the Messiah be cryptic? It's mentioned there but because people don't think it's Jesus they interpret it in different ways.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Some jewish scholars believe that there are two Messiahs. How can the mentioning second advent of the Messiah be cryptic? It's mentioned there but because people don't think it's Jesus they interpret it in different ways.
It would be better to speak for yourself and not postulate on other people's beliefs. The Jewish perspective on 2 messiahs includes one that is from Judah and one that isn't. Again, Jesus is disqualified. He can't be both from Judah, and not from Judah. It's a clear contradiction in the Christian concept of a 2nd coming.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
It would be better to speak for yourself and not postulate on other people's beliefs. The Jewish perspective on 2 messiahs includes one that is from Judah and one that isn't. Again, Jesus is disqualified. He can't be both from Judah, and not from Judah. It's a clear contradiction in the Christian concept of a 2nd coming.

He would be from Judah in his first coming but not his second coming. Why would there be two Messiahs? The suffering servant is mentioned as one person, not two.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Nazareth and Bethlehem aren't Judah but that doesn't mean that the second coming of Jesus won't involve ruling from Judah.
You're changing the subject.

You said:

"Some jewish scholars believe that there are two Messiahs. How can the mentioning second advent of the Messiah be cryptic? It's mentioned there but because people don't think it's Jesus they interpret it in different ways."

The point is, you don't know what Jewish Scholars believe about 2 Messiahs. Just like you don't know why Jewish people reject Jesus. You shouldn't talk about other people's beliefs. You should speak for yourself. Jewish people have good reasons for rejecting Jesus; it's not vague interpretation; it's not our prideful nature. You claimed both; you're wrong about both.
 
Top