fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
You beat me to it.Ever notice how prophecy is always dead on in hindsight.
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!
You beat me to it.Ever notice how prophecy is always dead on in hindsight.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Yes.Is it a metaphor for the Jewish nation?
No.Is he an unidentified person who is yet to appear?
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?
Ever notice how prophecy is always dead on in hindsight.
Just like the Nostradamus supposed prophecies.Ever notice how prophecy is always dead on in hindsight.
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.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.
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.Well according to the stories they did think he was a lunatic/blasphemous/devil.
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.The pharisees did not take to kindly to the view of jesus and his life was on the line several times.
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.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.
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 is obvious that Paul didn't know who Jesus really was since he never met him nor was he familiar with the gospels.
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.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.
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.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 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]
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.The vast majority did not feel Jesus was correct and was in fear of his life everywhere he went.
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.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.
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.Paul not knowing Jesus is a huge factor but your claiming WE don't know jesus either despite having the gospels.
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.How can Pauls writings be more recent when the earliest stuff we have is from John?
Modern critical scholarship.Where are you getting these dates not having originals to base it on?
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.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.
That is a misleading question. The name was never meant to be Emmanuel either way.Why wasn't he named Emmanuel? Keep it simple.
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.
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.
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.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)
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: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.