• 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!

The Credentials of Christ as the Promised Seed

javajo

Well-Known Member
The vast majority of those were never prophecies about the Messiah. And really, this has all been explained before earlier on in this thread. I don't see why you continue to try to convince us of your stance when you are unwilling to actually debate the matter anyway. That is basically just preaching at us.

Now, if you want to actually discuss this more, I would be happy; however, if you just want to keep preaching, then this really isn't the place to do it.
A vast majority of great theologians present and down through the ages would disagree with you. If you have seriously examined these scriptures and concluded Jesus is not the Messiah, I have no problem with that. I won't preach, I'm not a preacher, I am simply stating what I believe and the verses I base my beliefs on. Its only my belief and I feel personally that I am on rock solid ground in placing all my trust in Christ. I know nobody can convince another that Christ is or isn't the Messiah, we can all find good reasons to believe or not believe, all I can do is state for the record that I believe. And that's just my belief. That's all.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
A vast majority of great theologians present and down through the ages would disagree with you. If you have seriously examined these scriptures and concluded Jesus is not the Messiah, I have no problem with that. I won't preach, I'm not a preacher, I am simply stating what I believe and the verses I base my beliefs on. Its only my belief and I feel personally that I am on rock solid ground in placing all my trust in Christ. I know nobody can convince another that Christ is or isn't the Messiah, we can all find good reasons to believe or not believe, all I can do is state for the record that I believe. And that's just my belief. That's all.
I would assume you haven't read much modern scholarship on the subject. Really though, an appeal to the majority (which I think this is a false majority in the first place) really isn't an argument, or something that proves anything.

And yes, you are preaching. You may just state that it is voicing your belief, but really, there is no difference here. You posted in a debate forum, yet you refuse to debate or even discuss the subject you introduced. Instead, you just keep stating your belief and then try to provide evidence to support it. When someone challenges that evidence you present, you again refuse to engage in a discussion. Really, you're just preaching at us.

It is fine to have beliefs and opinions. However, there is a time and place to voice them. If you are not ready to debate or discuss your beliefs and opinions, this really isn't the place for you to just keep voicing them.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
I don't want to get stuck on Isaiah 53, but here the identity of the person, the suffering servant of God, is not so immediately clear.
Actually, if you read the book of Isaiah (or even at least a few chapters preceding chapter 53), the identity of the suffering servant is crystal clear.


Is it a metaphor for the Jewish nation?
Yes.
Is he an unidentified person who is yet to appear?
No.
Or perhaps is it an archetype of the suffering course, and the redemptive value it has, that any righteous person or group may have to go through?

No. It's quite specific. The servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Ever notice how prophecy is always dead on in hindsight.

Actually, that whole list is crap. Even in hindsight.

A great many of those items aren't prophecy. The few that are, a great many of those aren't messianic prophecy. The few that are, some of them were certainly not fulfilled by him, and some of them don't rise to the level of fulfillment. i.e. being born in Bethlehem. How many people in the history of the world have ever been born in Bethlehem? This alone does not make one a messiah.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
In short, what are the credentials of Jesus as the Promised Seed?

Absolutely nothing.

Nothing whatsoever qualifies Jesus to be the promised seed.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Jesus was hardly unique. John the Baptist was hardly unique. They are not formed in a bubble. They both were influenced by the Judaisms of their time.

If Jesus had taken such a fanatical view, and preached so much about him being the Messiah, while clearly taking the OT out of context, that would have been mentioned. The Jewish leaders would have had a very good case against him, and most likely, he would have been seen as a lunatic. And it is highly unlikely that a Jew like Paul would have ever followed someone who clearly wasn't working within Judaism.

Paul is our earliest source, and he doesn't mention those prophecies. It isn't until later that we see more and more supposed prophecies enter into the story of Jesus. There is a reason why these prophecies continue to grow. It isn't because people are just remembering what Jesus said, it is because his followers are adding additional information.

And really, one can discount much of what Jesus is supposed to have said and did as being non-historical.
Well according to the stories they did think he was a lunatic/blasphemous/devil. The pharisees did not take to kindly to the view of jesus and his life was on the line several times. To say that the gospels came after Paul isn't exactly right either. The oldest fragment we have of the NT is one of John I believe. It is obvious that Paul didn't know who Jesus really was since he never met him nor was he familiar with the gospels. The other apostles that Paul was disagreeing with could have easily been writing stuff around the same time which I actually find very likely even if the writing didn't survive.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Well according to the stories they did think he was a lunatic/blasphemous/devil.
You have to be more specific. A few people thought that. However, from what we can tell, the vast majority did not see him as a radical.

Putting it in context, there are some people who think President Obama is a lunatic/blasphemous/devil. However, those people are a minority. We can not take their word for the general view.
The pharisees did not take to kindly to the view of jesus and his life was on the line several times.
Again, some people had a problem with Jesus. However, from what we can tell, the vast majority didn't. We are only told that the religious leaders had a problem with Jesus. The Pharisees as a whole did not.

More so, we have to distinguish between what is actually historically accurate, and what was later added to the story. The problems between Jesus and Pharisees, for the most part, was a retrojection of the time in which the Gospels were being written onto the time in which Jesus lived.
To say that the gospels came after Paul isn't exactly right either. The oldest fragment we have of the NT is one of John I believe.
Actually, it is completely right. The first Gospel, Mark was written around 70 C.E. Even if we look at an early date, 65 C.E., that is still after Paul was writing. So yes, the Gospels came after Paul.

As for the fragment of John, that is dated to about 125 C.E. Well after Paul was dead.
It is obvious that Paul didn't know who Jesus really was since he never met him nor was he familiar with the gospels.
He wasn't familiar with the Gospels as they did not exist during that time. However, Paul did have a general idea of who Paul was. He may not have met Jesus, but he did meet the brother of Jesus, James, and Peter, Jesus's head disciple. In fact, we are told that Paul stayed with Peter for around a week. More than enough time for Paul to learn about Jesus.
The other apostles that Paul was disagreeing with could have easily been writing stuff around the same time which I actually find very likely even if the writing didn't survive.
It actually is not very likely that the disciples were writing. The main reason being that we know the disciples Jesus attracted were peasants. That almost guarantees that they were illiterate. In fact, in Acts, we are told that John and Peter were illiterate (they were two of the leading disciples after Jesus died). Illiteracy was very high. Literacy rates, in that area, were probably around 1-3%. Even fewer could write, and even less could write well. So it is not very likely anyone else was writing about Jesus.

More so, there is no mention of any other writings from that time. Whether or not there were, it really is irrelevant.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
You have to be more specific. A few people thought that. However, from what we can tell, the vast majority did not see him as a radical.

Putting it in context, there are some people who think President Obama is a lunatic/blasphemous/devil. However, those people are a minority. We can not take their word for the general view.
Again, some people had a problem with Jesus. However, from what we can tell, the vast majority didn't. We are only told that the religious leaders had a problem with Jesus. The Pharisees as a whole did not.

More so, we have to distinguish between what is actually historically accurate, and what was later added to the story. The problems between Jesus and Pharisees, for the most part, was a retrojection of the time in which the Gospels were being written onto the time in which Jesus lived.
Actually, it is completely right. The first Gospel, Mark was written around 70 C.E. Even if we look at an early date, 65 C.E., that is still after Paul was writing. So yes, the Gospels came after Paul.

As for the fragment of John, that is dated to about 125 C.E. Well after Paul was dead.
He wasn't familiar with the Gospels as they did not exist during that time. However, Paul did have a general idea of who Paul was. He may not have met Jesus, but he did meet the brother of Jesus, James, and Peter, Jesus's head disciple. In fact, we are told that Paul stayed with Peter for around a week. More than enough time for Paul to learn about Jesus.
It actually is not very likely that the disciples were writing. The main reason being that we know the disciples Jesus attracted were peasants. That almost guarantees that they were illiterate. In fact, in Acts, we are told that John and Peter were illiterate (they were two of the leading disciples after Jesus died). Illiteracy was very high. Literacy rates, in that area, were probably around 1-3%. Even fewer could write, and even less could write well. So it is not very likely anyone else was writing about Jesus.

More so, there is no mention of any other writings from that time. Whether or not there were, it really is irrelevant.
The vast majority did not feel Jesus was correct and was in fear of his life everywhere he went. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the majority of jews thought like the apostles and Paul when it came to seeing things a certain way with a certain bias towards non-jews. I have no doubt they were conservative.

Paul not knowing Jesus is a huge factor but your claiming WE don't know jesus either despite having the gospels. How can Pauls writings be more recent when the earliest stuff we have is from John? Where are you getting these dates not having originals to base it on?

Of course there would be no mention of writings when they are barely being written. I could say the same about the gospels not knowing about Pauls writings.
 

Shermana

Heretic
The first verse of the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament comences with these astounding words: "The book of the generation of Jesus [Yeshua, meaning 'Savior'] Christ [Messiah, meaning 'Anointed One'], the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Mt 1:1). In Genesis 3:15 God foretold the coming of "the seed of the woman" who would crush the serpent's head. It would come through the line of Abraham who inherited the land, and of the royal line of David, as Messiah the King forever. Consider some of the credentials of Jesus as the Messiah:

His genealogy was available for all to examine in the House of records and was never questioned by the religious leaders who doubted him.

He was born in Bethlehem, the city of King David, as the Scriptures foretold the Messiah would be (Micah 5:2).

He was born of a virgin, the seed of a woman, as Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 7:14).

He was born at the right time, as revealed by the precise chronology given by the prophet Daniel, After the sixty-two ‘sevens’ (weeks of years or 434 yrs after temple completed),the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.(Daniel 9:26, see 24-26).

He performed miracles which the Old Testament attributed to the Messiah when he appeared and these miracles were recorded by many eyewitnesses.

These along with the many prophecies he fulfilled would indicate that he was indeed the stone the builders rejected, the chief corner stone and foundation of the Christian faith. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem as King the people shouted from Psalm 118, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD." The same Psalm which said, "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone." For he came as the Lamb of God who takes away our sin the first time, but he shall come again and reign on the throne of David forever as Scripture has foretold.

[info from "Zion's Fire" vol. 22 no. 3...I don't agree with Pre-Wrath Rapture, however]

While I don't disagree with you that he filled the requirements, considering that most scholars believe the geneologies came later (Iraneus counted 72 generations as opposed to 77 for example), how did they have access to his birth records and where is the proof of this? The geneologies are most likely forged, they make him descend from a Moabite and a Canaanite prostitute for a reason. This also relates to the fact that the book of Ruth is likely a later forgery.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
The vast majority did not feel Jesus was correct and was in fear of his life everywhere he went.
Where do you get this notion? Never does the Gospels or Paul state that the majority did not feel Jesus was correct, or that they intended to kill him. We are told that Jesus entered into debate with other religious leaders. In a historical context, that is nothing unique. That was part of Judaism in the first century.

And if we are to take the Gospel accounts as historically accurate in this instance, it still never states that the majority were looking for the death of Jesus. That is always placed on the few, the religious leaders.

More so, we are never told that Jesus was constantly in fear of his life. That wouldn't even make sense in the context of the Gospels as if he was fearing for his life, he wouldn't be calling so much attention to him. He never tries to hide. He never tries to stay out of the public eye. He does nothing that would suggest he was always in fear of his life.
I wouldn't doubt for a second that the majority of jews thought like the apostles and Paul when it came to seeing things a certain way with a certain bias towards non-jews. I have no doubt they were conservative.
And that is based on what? A misunderstanding of Judaism in the first century? Paul didn't have a negative bias towards Gentiles. Even Jews, for the most part, didn't have a negative bias towards Gentiles.
Paul not knowing Jesus is a huge factor but your claiming WE don't know jesus either despite having the gospels.
You do realize that the Gospels were not written by people who knew Jesus right? They were written decades after Jesus had died, by people who never met Jesus. Paul is the closest to Jesus that we get. And he may not have personally met Jesus, but he did meet James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, the head disciple.
How can Pauls writings be more recent when the earliest stuff we have is from John?
John is not the earliest stuff we have. John is the last Gospel written. The earliest piece of actual manuscript we have may be from John, but that doesn't mean it was written earliest. Especially when it is dated, it is dated to around 125 C.E. That was long after Paul was dead.

Paul is our earliest source.

Where are you getting these dates not having originals to base it on?
Modern critical scholarship.
Of course there would be no mention of writings when they are barely being written. I could say the same about the gospels not knowing about Pauls writings.
It is possible that the Gospel writers didn't know of Paul's writings. I would say that it was probable that they didn't know of Paul's writings. Not that it would really matter anyway, as they are not dealing with Paul.

There is no evidence that the disciples wrote anything. There is no reason to assume that they even could write. Most likely, they were illiterate.
 
Actually, if you read the book of Isaiah (or even at least a few chapters preceding chapter 53), the identity of the suffering servant is crystal clear.

No. It's quite specific. The servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel.

Well, perhaps you noticed that before I did agree that one meaning of the servant of Isaiah is Israel, but I still feel its an archetype that transcends that. I don't know if you agree, but the Messiah is in a sense an embodiment of Israel. The course of Israel is closely linked to the course and destiny of the Messiah.

But to change direction a little, when the Messiah comes, what would convince you personally that that particular person is the Messiah? What would he have to do and say? How would you be convinced he is fulfilling prophecy?
 
While I don't disagree with you that he filled the requirements, considering that most scholars believe the geneologies came later (Iraneus counted 72 generations as opposed to 77 for example), how did they have access to his birth records and where is the proof of this? The geneologies are most likely forged, they make him descend from a Moabite and a Canaanite prostitute for a reason. This also relates to the fact that the book of Ruth is likely a later forgery.

I'm curious, then what do you think is the reason Matthew lists a Moabite (Ruth) and a Canaanite prostitute (Rahab) in Jesus' lineage? It might be just as worthwhile to mention that there are a lot of men, but only four women mentioned in Matthew's geneology of Jesus:Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Why those four? Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute to tempt her father-in-law Judah into a relationship, yet Judah later said "She is more righteous than I" (Gen.38:26). Bathsheba was a married woman whom David seduced into a relationship (after she bathed naked outdoors in a place she knew would be visible from the palace). Why are these the women mentioned?

So, if the Book of Ruth is a forgery, does that mean that Ruth is not in King David's lineage? Do you have an alternative geneology?
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
Someone mentioned his name of Immanuel/Emmanuel (God with us). The name is only mentioned twice in Isaiah. Here is the prophecy and the fulfillment.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Mathew 1:22-24

Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin will bear a son. The problem is dealing with the Hebrew word for virgin, which is "almah." According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word "almah" does not always mean virgin. The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (”maiden“); Exodus 2:8 (”girl“); Psalm 68:25 (”maidens“); Proverbs 30:19 (”maiden“); Song of Songs 1:3 (”maidens“); 6:8 (”virgins“)."1 Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?
The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. This translation was made around 200 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scholars. In Isaiah 7:14, they translated the word "almah" into the Greek word "parthenos." According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,2 parthenos means "virgin." This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11). If the Hebrews translated the Hebrew word "alma" into the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here.
Why would Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would also be a young woman. Is it still a prophecy? Of course. (carm.org)
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Someone mentioned his name of Immanuel/Emmanuel (God with us). The name is only mentioned twice in Isaiah. Here is the prophecy and the fulfillment.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Mathew 1:22-24

Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin will bear a son. The problem is dealing with the Hebrew word for virgin, which is "almah." According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word "almah" does not always mean virgin. The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (”maiden“); Exodus 2:8 (”girl“); Psalm 68:25 (”maidens“); Proverbs 30:19 (”maiden“); Song of Songs 1:3 (”maidens“); 6:8 (”virgins“)."1 Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?
The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. This translation was made around 200 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scholars. In Isaiah 7:14, they translated the word "almah" into the Greek word "parthenos." According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,2 parthenos means "virgin." This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11). If the Hebrews translated the Hebrew word "alma" into the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here.
Why would Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would also be a young woman. Is it still a prophecy? Of course. (carm.org)
Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a virgin, not a young woman. If Isaiah wanted to say virgin, he would have used that word, not a word that means young woman.

More so, context context context. People need to read these things in context. If one did, they would see that the woman probably was already with child (that one can be debated), but more importantly, they would see that the prophecy would have nothing to do with the Messiah, but with events happening right then. The prophecy had already been fulfilled long before Jesus was born.

That is why context is important. Taking verses out of context and pretending they mean something they don't is just bad thinking.
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a virgin, not a young woman. If Isaiah wanted to say virgin, he would have used that word, not a word that means young woman.

More so, context context context. People need to read these things in context. If one did, they would see that the woman probably was already with child (that one can be debated), but more importantly, they would see that the prophecy would have nothing to do with the Messiah, but with events happening right then. The prophecy had already been fulfilled long before Jesus was born.

That is why context is important. Taking verses out of context and pretending they mean something they don't is just bad thinking.
Well, it seems to me that the problem you have is with the Bible itself. You don't believe the Bible. You are saying that not only I am wrong about this verse, but the writer of Mathew and Jesus Christ himself and all Christians through the ages are too, along with all the rest of it. That is your right and you are not alone in your way of thinking. I really don't know what to say to you but that I sincerely wish you all the best in your journey. I was reading in Hebrews earlier today, I believe it tells us who Jesus Christ truly is:

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

1Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
2For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
5For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. Hebrews 1, 2:1-10
 
Top