• 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!

Is according to Jews everything God's will?

Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Skywalker said:
Israel is not the suffering servant because Israel did not suffer vicariously. Isaiah 53:3-5 “…But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities”
Click to expand...

If you really beleived what you wrote you would do a Zoom to prove it from a Hebrew text.

How about this. You obviously don't have the ability to prove your point from a Hebrew text and you don't have the ability to convince a Torath Mosheh Jew or Orthodox Jew of your claims. So, instead let's do it this way.

You say that Jesus will make a second coming. Have him call/SMS Harel and I if what you claims happens and we will look out and see if it is really happening. ;)
 
rosends

rosends

Well-Known Member
Skywalker said:
How is this Isaiah 53:3 about foreign kings? It describes Jesus to a T.



Jesus was rejected by his own and accepted by the Gentiles. Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Yeshua

Click to expand...
Have you not read the entire chapter?
start at the end of 52:

Just so he shall startle many nations. Kings shall be silenced because of him, For they shall see what has not been told them, Shall behold what they never have heard.”

53
“Who can believe what we have heard? Upon whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

and then the KINGS describe what THEY have seen.
If you can't be troubled to read the whole thing, I can't help you.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Ehav4Ever said:
If you really beleived what you wrote you would do a Zoom to prove it from a Hebrew text.

How about this. You obviously don't have the ability to prove your point from a Hebrew text and you don't have the ability to convince a Torath Mosheh Jew or Orthodox Jew of your claims. So, instead let's do it this way.

You say that Jesus will make a second coming. Have him call/SMS Harel and I if what you claims happens and we will look out and see if it is really happening. ;)
Click to expand...

The idea of the Messiah being a political figure with an immediate worldly kingdom isn't based on the scriptures-it's based on the desires and expectations of the people during the time of Jesus. Does the Old Testament truly predict a second advent of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Does the Old Testament truly predict a second advent of the Messiah?"

Answer: The Old Testament does prophesy the second coming of Christ, also referred to as the second advent of the Messiah. Some Old Testament prophecies concern the first advent, when Christ was born as a human being. Others concern the second advent, which is the ultimate triumph of this Messiah. It’s important to remember that prophecy does not describe the future in the same detail as history describes the past. So, while the prophecies of the Old Testament certainly describe both the first and second advents, most early interpretations of these prophecies melded them into a single event. Particularly during the years leading up to Jesus’ birth, it was assumed Messiah would be a political/military figure with an immediate worldly kingdom (Luke 19:11). In the light of Jesus’ ministry, it is possible to understand the true purpose of Christ and the real nature of His kingdom.
Click to expand...
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Skywalker said:
Whether I used the Hebrew Bible or the other Old Testament, the verses are very similar.
Click to expand...

If you are not going to be honest with us, at least be honest with yourself. You are not "using" a Hebrew bible. You admitted in other threads that you don't know Hebrew. If your English bible says what you want it to then be happy with your English bible.

Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews are held to higher standards and we are happy with those standards......I.E. Actual Hebrew texts.

At some point you will need to be honest with the fact that you don't have the tools to prove your point to us. Yet, if you really want to do something go out and unite the various sects of Christianity under your system of beleif/faith. Unless that is isn't important either.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Harel13 said:
You're quoting to me Hebrews to explain the Torah. Life doesn't work like that. I quote the NT to you because you believe it's true. I don't believe it's true, therefore, contradictions between the Torah and the NT are meaningless to me.
Click to expand...

The animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were types and shadows of the coming Messiah who would die to bring salvation to people.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Ehav4Ever said:
So, in other words you are not willing to prove your points from a Hebrew text? Got it.
Click to expand...

I was responding to what you said about the second coming of Jesus. The belief that the Messiah was to have an imminent worldly kingdom is never stated in the Scriptures.
 
Harel13

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Skywalker said:
The animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were types and shadows of the coming Messiah who would die to bring salvation to people.
Click to expand...
Let's see...

An animal must be without blemish or injury - Jesus was pierced and beaten.
The sacrifice must be upon the altar - Jesus died on a cross somewhere far away from the Temple Mount.
The sacrifice must be made by priests descendants of Aharon - Jesus was killed by Roman soldiers.

According to Hebrews, animals don't rid of sins - Jesus's death rid mankind of their sins.

So no, not types or shadows of Jesus...
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Harel13 said:
Let's see...

An animal must be without blemish or injury - Jesus was pierced and beaten.
The sacrifice must be upon the altar - Jesus died on a cross somewhere far away from the Temple Mount.
The sacrifice must be made by priests descendants of Aharon - Jesus was killed by Roman soldiers.

According to Hebrews, animals don't rid of sins - Jesus's death rid mankind of their sins.

So no, not types or shadows of Jesus...
Click to expand...

The Old Testament agrees with the book of Hebrews. Contradictions: Did Animal Sacrifices Remove Sin?


For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. (Hebrews 10:4)

The Solution
This is fairly simple to resolve. Nowhere in the Old Testament is it ever claimed that sins were “taken away” (i.e., completely removed) by animal sacrifices. The root of the Hebrew word translated “atonement” in the Old Testament is kaphar, which has the idea of “covering,” not total removal. This word is also used to refer to how Noah’s ark was to be covered with pitch.

Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. (Genesis 6:14, emphasis added)

Tens of thousands of animals were ceremonially slaughtered by Jewish priests for centuries, the spilling of their blood vividly illustrated the deadly seriousness of sin. However, these sacrifices were essentially like a bandage, only acting as a covering for sin. They did not, and could not, remove sin, as Hebrews 10:4 clearly states.

They also pointed forward in time to the only One that could remove sin—Jesus Christ who shed His precious blood to accomplish that purpose.

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:10–12)
Click to expand...
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Harel13 said:
"Covering"? What does that mean?
Click to expand...

It's the meaning of the Hebrew word for atonement in the Old Testament. Contradictions: Did Animal Sacrifices Remove Sin?

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. (Hebrews 10:4)

The Solution
This is fairly simple to resolve. Nowhere in the Old Testament is it ever claimed that sins were “taken away” (i.e., completely removed) by animal sacrifices. The root of the Hebrew word translated “atonement” in the Old Testament is kaphar, which has the idea of “covering,” not total removal. This word is also used to refer to how Noah’s ark was to be covered with pitch.

Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. (Genesis 6:14, emphasis added)

Tens of thousands of animals were ceremonially slaughtered by Jewish priests for centuries, the spilling of their blood vividly illustrated the deadly seriousness of sin. However, these sacrifices were essentially like a bandage, only acting as a covering for sin. They did not, and could not, remove sin, as Hebrews 10:4 clearly states.
Click to expand...
 
Rival

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Skywalker said:
Do you think that article misrepresents what the Old Testament animal sacrifices were for?
Click to expand...
I'd say it starts with a wrong premise.

This is not my problem though. The problem is you're relying on Christians to tell you about Jewish Scripture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top