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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What are you suggesting? That Bethlehem was a clan and not a place? It was clearly the place where the clan was located. Jesse and his clan came from Bethlehem, a place of habitation located in Ephratah. David was born in Bethlehem, and it follows the script that 'My servant David' will also be born there. Hence the prophecy in Micah 5:2.
Yes, you are rightly pointing out that Israel, as descendants of Abraham, are the servant of God. As descendants of Abraham, the servant walks by faith.
Yes, but one has to distinguish between the Gentiles who form a part of the body of Christ, and the Gentiles who do not. The nations that come against lsrael are not the body of Christ.
Can one receive the Holy Spirit without first believing in Jesus as Saviour?
Me? You chose the translation and it explains the name as "least of the clans" (which is actually what the Hebrew says).
No one says it wasn't a place, nor that it wasn't the place from which David came, but then the verse refers to, quite explicitly, the clan which developed after David was born there, which is known as the "least" (because of heritage reasons)
Yes, all the past facts.
No, there is no "script" and there is no reason to expect that anyone in the future, who comes from the clan also has to come from the exact place where the clan started.
Well, you may argue that Micah 5:2 is not a Messianically applied verse, but according to Edersheim's listing of Messianically applied passages from rabbinic writings it's applied 'in the Targum, in the Pirqe de R. Eliez.c.3, and by later Rabbis'.
In post #30 I believe I agreed that it is speaking of a future messiah, so attributing a contrary position to me is intellectually dishonest.
And the Harry Potter series gives insight into non-magical people. Isn't agendized fiction grand?
So nearly 2000 years ago, people were wrong also? Or even, 2000 years ago, someone invented a text and assigned a statement to nameless people to bolster his own erroneous claims? Who woulda thunk it?
Not the baptism of the holy Spirit; no.
No, and everyone who died already believes in Jesus even those who were imprisoned. (1 Peter 3:19) They know he is the resurrection. (John 11:25) So, Jacob, Abraham etc. all wait with Jesus for the redemption of their bodies. Jesus came not just to be Savior for us now; but he is the Savior of all those who came before and were obedient to the Law of Moses. Even David calls him Lord. (Matthew 22:43) So then they will all believe in Jesus and call him Lord.
The things that you interpret here have nothing to do with the Church. You may have noticed in your reading of the Tanakh, and the NT, that the Church Age is a 'mystery', hidden from view in the Hebrew scriptures. There are hints of this Age, but nothing explicit.
I agree with much of what you say here, but was there anyone totally obedient to the Law of Moses? Can a man be a sinner and still fulfil the Law?
Sometimes yes, sometimes now. Sometimes Israel had good kings and was obedient, other times it had bad kings and was disobedient. Individual Jew vary, some being obedient, and others not. But there has always been a faithfully obedient remnant, and this is the Israel that is the servant.
Exactly, that's why they needed Jesus also. Psalm 51 is a good example of how David really relied on Jesus for salvation. So once they did their best to obey the law and invariably came up short they had to be forgiven. David says in Psalm 51 that God didn't desire sacrifice or else he would give it. That's because there was no sacrifice provided in the Law of Moses that would cover the sins David had done. But God does have a sacrifice which covers all those sins that the Law cannot forgive. We know the sacrifice of God is Jesus Christ who is called Israel and is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53.
The standard was never being "totally" obedient.
Never? Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden for one single sin. At that time total obedience was apparently required.
We aren't talking about Adam and Eve. We are talking about obedience to 613 laws. So tell me, do you just not agree iwth Proverbs 24:16?
Let's be clear. Sin offerings were only for unintentional sins. If you sinned on purpose, the you had to repent. No sacrifice atoned for intentional sins.
He doesn't. At least, not in th Tanakh. The idea that blood is necessary is a New Testament idea only.
He doesn't.
Well, they only had one law so singular obedience was the same as total obedience.
No, that makes no sense at all. Human sacrifice doesn't do anything more than disgust God.
Neither is the death of another person. People die for their own sins.
In a statement stating that we shouldn't EAT blood.