Isaiah says God will kill Jesus?

[PruePhillip]

Who would recognize a Jewish messiah better than a Jew?

And the Jews didn't recognize him as a Jewish messiah ─ why should they? He wasn't.

And why would God sent the Jews a messiah ─

a) whom [his] chosen people wouldn't recognize and

b) who was going to found a cult that has murderously and rapaciously practiced antisemitism for 2000 years?

Yes, as Isaiah wrote, 'Who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed'?
It's something profoundly mysterious to Jews why the nation that destroys the temple and Jerusalem
could also kill the Messiah.

Daniel 9:25
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street
be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Daniel of the Babylonian captivity was told that Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Troubled times included the
effort of the Samaritans to stop this reconstruction (Ezra and Nehemia)
And then the Messiah will come.
But he will be 'cut off' or destroyed, but 'not for himself', meaning he will die for others. The people of
the prince is Rome - the prince is Titus, his father is emperor. Rome and her auxillaries flooded the
land. And 'desolations are determined', meaning the suffering of the Jews is planned by God.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, as Isaiah wrote, 'Who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed'?
It's something profoundly mysterious to Jews why the nation that destroys the temple and Jerusalem
could also kill the Messiah.

You're ducking the central questions ─

Is it credible that the covenanted God of the Jews would send [his] chosen people a messiah [he] must know they wouldn't recognize?

Is it credible that the covenanted God of the Jews would sent them a messiah whose chief result would be to require an intermediary between God and man when none was ever necessary before, break the covenant of circumcision, shift the holy day from Saturday to Sunday, and found a cult that would persecute, rob and murder [his] chosen people for two thousand years and counting?

 

[PruePhillip]

You're ducking the central questions ─

Is it credible that the covenanted God of the Jews would send [his] chosen people a messiah [he] must know they wouldn't recognize?

Love the questions - it makes me think. As I said to you in that difficult question last year (?) about why was the
blood sacrifice necessary, I don't convince you but I learn to think through the intent of the biblical story.
One of the THEMES of the Tanakh was having faith and believing. Abraham had to believe the promise of a son
even when he was 100 years old. He had to believe the promise of a Hebrew land though it was 500 years in the
future (the 'Promised Land') He even had to accept that God wanted the sacrifice of his only son (typology of God
offering up his 'only begotten son')
And of course, if a Jew would ask a question of a Messiah 'they wouldn't recognize' then remember, the Jew had
to believe in God through faith alone - and their faith was tested constantly.

 

[PruePhillip]

You're ducking the central questions ─

Is it credible ... found a cult that would persecute, rob and murder [his] chosen people for two thousand years and counting?

The promise God made in (?) Isaiah and Ezekiel (5th-6th Century BC) that God would bring back His people
A SECOND TIME from the four corners of the earth to dwell again in Israel - from nations that were their
'graves.'
Think about it. Why would God, in the midst of the Babylonian captivity, speak of a SECOND return when
the FIRST return had no yet happened? And what is this 'graves' business ? And why would the Jews be
hated like no othe people?
So anti-semitism wasn't invented by Christians.

 

[blü 2]

Love the questions - it makes me think. As I said to you in that difficult question last year (?) about why was the blood sacrifice necessary, I don't convince you but I learn to think through the intent of the biblical story.

No one's ever given me a sensible reason for that. It remains gratuitous barbarism as far as I can tell.

One of the THEMES of the Tanakh was having faith and believing. Abraham had to believe the promise of a son even when he was 100 years old. He had to believe the promise of a Hebrew land though it was 500 years in the future (the 'Promised Land') He even had to accept that God wanted the sacrifice of his only son (typology of God offering up his 'only begotten son').

None of which reflects well on God.

And of course, if a Jew would ask a question of a Messiah 'they wouldn't recognize' then remember, the Jew had to believe in God through faith alone - and their faith was tested constantly.

But they were able to communicate directly with their God through prayer. Whereas Jesus ─ or more accurately the gnostic Jesuses of Paul and the author of John ─ claim that you can't talk directly to God, you have to go through Jesus. Those guys can't have read their Tanakh with any care.

 

[blü 2]

So anti-semitism wasn't invented by Christians.

No, not invented, but perfected.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, not invented, but perfected.

And of course, if you are a Christian you cannot persecute anyone. You cannot even be
angry with anyone. You have to love your enemy... you know the rules as well as I do.
It's only the BREACH of Christianity which allows church people to forcibly convert or
harm other people.
And for hate of Jews - the Arabs seem to have the monopoly.

 

[blü 2]

And of course, if you are a Christian you cannot persecute anyone.

Of course you can! Christians are dab hands at persecuting folk, including of course each other.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall have very long downtimes!

As for forced conversions, why do you think Africa is in no small part Christian and South America in no small part RCC?

 

[PruePhillip]

No one's ever given me a sensible reason for that. It remains gratuitous barbarism as far as I can tell.
None of which reflects well on God.
But they were able to communicate directly with their God through prayer. Whereas Jesus ─ or more accurately the gnostic Jesuses of Paul and the author of John ─ claim that you can't talk directly to God, you have to go through Jesus. Those guys can't have read their Tanakh with any care.

Of course you can! Christians are dab hands at persecuting folk, including of course each other.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall have very long downtimes!

As for forced conversions, why do you think Africa is in no small part Christian and South America in no small part RCC?

I think we need to define that 'Christian' actually means.
Some say it means being like Jesus
Some say it's being faithful to the doctrines of your church
and some say it means being kind or honest.

I think Jesus says, somewhere in the New Testament, that there will be those who would kill you in his name.

 

[blü 2]

I think we need to define that 'Christian' actually means.
Some say it means being like Jesus
Some say it's being faithful to the doctrines of your church
and some say it means being kind or honest.

There are countless possible meanings of "Christian" but perhaps they boil down to two ─ anyone who ticks "Christian" on the form (which is the one churches use when they're arguing), and "anyone who accepts Jesus as their savior" ─ which I take to mean an actual state of mind, not someone who just knows the words, which raises the question whether children can be Christians in any meaningful way.

 

[PruePhillip]

There are countless possible meanings of "Christian" but perhaps they boil down to two ─ anyone who ticks "Christian" on the form (which is the one churches use when they're arguing), and "anyone who accepts Jesus as their savior" ─ which I take to mean an actual state of mind, not someone who just knows the words, which raises the question whether children can be Christians in any meaningful way.

I would say anyone who accept Christ as their Lord is a 'Christian'
and anyone who wants to be a 'good' person is a 'cultural Christian'

If you call Jesus your Lord then you cannot kill another human - that would mean that Jesus
is not your Lord at all. As He put it, 'Why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?'

So yeah, Christians kill Christians - but is that saying anything about the bible?

 

[blü 2]

I would say anyone who accept Christ as their Lord is a 'Christian'
and anyone who wants to be a 'good' person is a 'cultural Christian'

If you call Jesus your Lord then you cannot kill another human - that would mean that Jesus
is not your Lord at all. As He put it, 'Why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?'

So it's fine to take a whip to lawful traders, assault them, smash their tables, fling their money around, and try to put them out of business ... but no killing.

Got it!

 

[PruePhillip]

So it's fine to take a whip to lawful traders, assault them, smash their tables, fling their money around, and try to put them out of business ... but no killing.

Got it!

If you refer to the money changers. Doesn't say that Jesus assaulted anyone. He was making the point
that these people were breaking the law in Gods own temple.

 

[blü 2]

If you refer to the money changers. Doesn't say that Jesus assaulted anyone. He was making the point that these people were breaking the law in Gods own temple.

First of all they weren't breaking any laws ─ they were traders authorized by the Temple authorities, and their role was traditional.

Second, according to the author of John, Jesus indeed assaulted them:

John 2:14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
​

Third, if you have half a brain and you object to the work of the money changers, your argument is not with the money-changers but with the Temple authorities. So the real reason was probably girl-friend trouble or maybe creditors pressing him.

 

[PruePhillip]

First of all they weren't breaking any laws ─ they were traders authorized by the Temple authorities, and their role was traditional.

Second, according to the author of John, Jesus indeed assaulted them:

John 2:14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
​

Third, if you have half a brain and you object to the work of the money changers, your argument is not with the money-changers but with the Temple authorities. So the real reason was probably girl-friend trouble or maybe creditors pressing him.

I take your point about the whip.
'The zeal of thine house has eaten me up' was the prophecy.
But not the 'tradition' and 'authorities' of the temple - the authority was scripture and Jesus, not
the ruling Jews. And this point was labored in the Tanakh - there's a way and a time to do things.
People didn't have to bring a sacrifice, they could buy one right there in the temple, a ready made
market for hapless animals. And it was profitable, like Eli's sons in 1 Samuel.
That someone 'legalized' this practice is not the point, tradition and commercialism must take
second place to God.

 

[blü 2]

I take your point about the whip.
'The zeal of thine house has eaten me up' was the prophecy.
But not the 'tradition' and 'authorities' of the temple - the authority was scripture and Jesus, not
the ruling Jews.

Let me confine myself to a polite, No, that's not so. For one thing, Jesus had no authority within the Jewish hierarchy, let alone the Temple authorities.

That someone 'legalized' this practice is not the point, tradition and commercialism must take second place to God.

The Jewish God made no objection. And all churches and all public buildings need money. And there needed to be a service for visitors to the Temple, which the money-changers provided.

So if Jesus had a beef with that, he should never have resorted to physical and moral violence. He should have called on the Temple authorities and made his case to them. It's the plainest of common sense.

So I think the girlfriend hypothesis is a strong contender to explain why he was having a bad day. I mean, it could have been debt, or just one of those hangovers, but the girlfriend idea's more interesting.

 

[PruePhillip]

Let me confine myself to a polite, No, that's not so. For one thing, Jesus had no authority within the Jewish hierarchy, let alone the Temple authorities.
The Jewish God made no objection. And all churches and all public buildings need money. And there needed to be a service for visitors to the Temple, which the money-changers provided.

So if Jesus had a beef with that, he should never have resorted to physical and moral violence. He should have called on the Temple authorities and made his case to them. It's the plainest of common sense.

So I think the girlfriend hypothesis is a strong contender to explain why he was having a bad day. I mean, it could have been debt, or just one of those hangovers, but the girlfriend idea's more interesting.

There's this account in Samuel I think. David wanted to bring home the Ark of the Covenant - you know, the one in Raiders
of the Lost Ark. Well the Jews made a nice, brand new ox cart to carry it. Only God was displeased and the Ark went nowhere.
Years later King David had the Ark brought up to Jerusalem (Shiloh was now in ruins) on the shoulders of the Levites. That's
how the Ark was to be carried. What's the diff ? Plenty, some people think of an easier way to carry out biblical mandates, but
without authority. That's how people were able to go on Crusades and begin Inquisitions - doing some religous function in a
different way. Hence the money changers, and politicization of the priesthood, and "traditions which make God's way of no
effect" as Jesus put it. If God is your Lord you respect and obey - not create you own ideas.

 

[blü 2]

There's this account in Samuel I think. David wanted to bring home the Ark of the Covenant - you know, the one in Raiders
of the Lost Ark. Well the Jews made a nice, brand new ox cart to carry it. Only God was displeased and the Ark went nowhere.
Years later King David had the Ark brought up to Jerusalem (Shiloh was now in ruins) on the shoulders of the Levites. That's
how the Ark was to be carried. What's the diff ? Plenty, some people think of an easier way to carry out biblical mandates, but
without authority. That's how people were able to go on Crusades and begin Inquisitions - doing some religous function in a
different way. Hence the money changers, and politicization of the priesthood, and "traditions which make God's way of no
effect" as Jesus put it. If God is your Lord you respect and obey - not create you own ideas.

Jesus in mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh. Jesus is not a Jewish messiah. These are Christian claims, based on the use the gospel authors made of the Tanakh when plotting their stories.

There is no such thing in reality as supernatural foreknowledge. There is no such thing in reality as "supernatural" ─ that's what "supernatural" means, "outside of nature".

 

[PruePhillip]

Jesus in mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh. Jesus is not a Jewish messiah. These are Christian claims, based on the use the gospel authors made of the Tanakh when plotting their stories.

There is no such thing in reality as supernatural foreknowledge. There is no such thing in reality as "supernatural" ─ that's what "supernatural" means, "outside of nature".

So this Messiah who died for his people, 'cut off' by the 'people of the prince' who would destroy the
temple and Jerusalam - I asked Jews, 'Who do YOU think this is. Seems as if its someone important'?
Sure, doesn't say his name is Jesus, doesn't mention any name at all. Could it be the Jewish nation?
Could it have been some important Rabbi? What we know is the Romans, who's general was the son
of the Emperor, did destroy the Temple and Jerusalem.
And I ask Jews, 'Do you think the enemy pierced David's hands and feet? Cast lots for his garments?
And did David die and saw his own resurrection? And will people preach forever that David has done
this?'
And WHO is Job speaking of when he see his Remeemer standing on the earth one day?
And WHO is this person 'to whom all things belong' coming when Israel is finished?

They simply don't know. But they should, because this mysterious Messianic figure is in nearly every
book of the Tanakh.

 

[blü 2]

So this Messiah who died for his people, 'cut off' by the 'people of the prince' who would destroy the
temple and Jerusalam - I asked Jews, 'Who do YOU think this is. Seems as if its someone important'?
Sure, doesn't say his name is Jesus, doesn't mention any name at all. Could it be the Jewish nation?
Could it have been some important Rabbi? What we know is the Romans, who's general was the son
of the Emperor, did destroy the Temple and Jerusalem.
And I ask Jews, 'Do you think the enemy pierced David's hands and feet? Cast lots for his garments?
And did David die and saw his own resurrection? And will people preach forever that David has done
this?'
And WHO is Job speaking of when he see his Remeemer standing on the earth one day?
And WHO is this person 'to whom all things belong' coming when Israel is finished?

They simply don't know. But they should, because this mysterious Messianic figure is in nearly every
book of the Tanakh.

As I said before, if you want to know what the Tanakh means, ask a Jewish friend.