• 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!

Isaiah and Messiah

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
All scripture is God-breathed.
The issue of "Divine inspiration" has always been contentious within theological circles. One can have their opinions but slam-dunk facts are hard to come by.

Without the Messianic prophecy provided in the Tanakh people would have no idea what to expect of the Messiah.
Which verses are "Messianic" and which aren't is very far from being certain, thus highly conjectural. But if one is into literalistic approaches, Jesus simply cannot be the Messiah as even the likes of Aquinas lamented.

False Messiahs would be popping up everywhere. And they will, when ignorance allows it!
Which is the indicator that the verses are not as simply understood as many would like it to be.

As regards the law, you're right, the whole law was required to be followed; something sinful man proved incapable of doing!
That's like saying that if we can't stop all murders, let's legalize it. That makes no sense whatsoever as evil then wins.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I'm happy to accept that a prophet may not understand all that he/she prophesies. The point is that God does understand what is meant, and also knows who will fulfil the prophecies!

Matthew begins with a quote from Isa 7:14 about the Messiah's origin. He does not necessarily mean that the prophets themselves foresaw Jesus, but through their words Matthew sees the divine plan. Matthew's wording is closer to the Septuagint translation rather than the Hebrew. It is possible that Christians interpreted Jesus who cast light on the Scriptures.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Saul of Tarsus, before becoming a Christian, knew what it meant to live as a Pharisee under the law. Having become a Christian he says,

So your move now is to quote a source which holds no authority and to which I cede no validity.

Although you describe Judaism as a 'faith', it is only a faith in so far as the word denotes 'a religion'.
I recall saying that one can follow the law as an expression of faith. Did I call Judaism a "faith" also? If so, the words were used in different contexts and meant what each meant in its context.
To follow your religion you do not need to have faith in God at all.
This is true. But to follow it in a meaningful and successful way, one does have to have faith in God. It is one of the 13 tenets of Judaism as codified by Maimonides.
The requirement to qualify as 'righteous' is to follow all the commandments that are given to you from the prophet Moses (who, interestingly, was a man of faith).
So we can be righteous simply by performing actions? No, that's not what Judaism teaches. Performance is important even if we don't believe, but only because that will lead to belief.
To fail in one, is to fail in all.

That's not a Jewish idea.

The temple of Solomon was filled with the 'shekinah' glory, or presence of God's Spirit, and, in similar fashion, Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit at baptism.
More gobbledygook steeped in Christian belief.
Nor is it a surprise that the third temple was utterly flattened,
Your math is off.

As I see it, the end of the 'times of the Gentiles' will mark the restart of the prophetic clock for Israel the nation.
That's nice. What's a prophetic clock? Are there watches available? Maybe a prophetic sundial?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Matthew begins with a quote from Isa 7:14 about the Messiah's origin. He does not necessarily mean that the prophets themselves foresaw Jesus, but through their words Matthew sees the divine plan. Matthew's wording is closer to the Septuagint translation rather than the Hebrew. It is possible that Christians interpreted Jesus who cast light on the Scriptures.
What you fail to say is that Jesus himself interpreted the Hebrew scriptures as pointing to himself! See Luke 24:44, 45. The apostles witnessed, and testified, to the truth of his words and actions.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The issue of "Divine inspiration" has always been contentious within theological circles. One can have their opinions but slam-dunk facts are hard to come by.

Which verses are "Messianic" and which aren't is very far from being certain, thus highly conjectural. But if one is into literalistic approaches, Jesus simply cannot be the Messiah as even the likes of Aquinas lamented.


Which is the indicator that the verses are not as simply understood as many would like it to be.

That's like saying that if we can't stop all murders, let's legalize it. That makes no sense whatsoever as evil then wins.
As l have mentioned to Pearl, the scriptures have been opened to our understanding by the coming of Jesus Christ, who was able to demonstrate in both word and deed that he was the promised Messiah. Those who doubt Jesus Christ will not find a more credible witness!
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The issue of "Divine inspiration" has always been contentious within theological circles. One can have their opinions but slam-dunk facts are hard to come by.

Which verses are "Messianic" and which aren't is very far from being certain, thus highly conjectural. But if one is into literalistic approaches, Jesus simply cannot be the Messiah as even the likes of Aquinas lamented.


Which is the indicator that the verses are not as simply understood as many would like it to be.

That's like saying that if we can't stop all murders, let's legalize it. That makes no sense whatsoever as evil then wins.
It's worth mentioning that Alfred Edersheim went to the trouble of researching and recording 'A list of Old Testament passages Messianically applied in ancient Rabbinic writings'. He begins his appendix with these words: 'The following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings. They amount in all to 456, thus distributed: 75 from the Penteteuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings. Despite all labour and care, it can scarcely be hoped that the list is quite complete, although, it is hoped, no important passage has been omitted.'

In looking at Isaiah alone, there appear to have been be about 50 passages that were Messianically applied in Rabbinic writings.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
In the book of lsaiah, the first and second advents are sometimes combined within a single passage, or even sentence, meaning that it should be possible to identify the Messiah.

In other words, the same Messiah brings both mercy (as the 'Suffering Servant') and judgement (as 'the King of Kings'). But, if there is no time gap between the mercy offered and the judgement applied, then mercy has not had an opportunity to take effect.

The obvious example is Isaiah 61:1,2. But this is not the only example.
 
Last edited:

Scoop

Member
Isaiah 51:22 [KJV] says:
'Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again;'

Isaiah 51:22 [JPS] says:
'Thus said the LORD, your Lord,
Your God who champions His people:
Herewith I take from your hand
The cup of reeling,
The bowl, the cup of My wrath;
You shall never drink it again.'


Who is it that pleads the cause of His people? Who is it that champions His people?

Who is it that says, 'Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling'?

Who is it that says, Herewith I take from your hand the cup of reeling [dire fate]?

We know from Psalm 110:1 that a distinction is made between 'the LORD' and 'my Lord'. The LORD (of Psalm 110) speaks to David's Lord and says, 'Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.' So, this is clearly not an ordinary man, or even the 'son of David' by human procreation.

Matthew 26:39 tells us who takes the cup. 'And he [Jesus] went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.'

IMO, there can be no doubt that Jesus Christ is OUR Lord, and that he comes from God, as the salvation of God. It is he that brings salvation, taking away the cup of wrath. Do you agree?

Isaiah 52:7. 'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!'
No, I do not agree.
 

Scoop

Member
For too many reasons to talk about here, but basically because my views on what constitutes a justifiable belief are at odds with the evidence usually given to support Christianity. In short, a lack of evidence/reasonable justification for Christian doctrine.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Abraham was the progenitor of the Jewish people but God also said, 'in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.' This blessing comes through faith in the promised seed, something that those under the law seem not to appreciate. The law has the purpose of preparation; keeping His people in the 'way' until righteousness under the law is fulfilled in love.

Do you believe that God has elevated Abraham to sit at His right hand? Do you believe that 'The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath'? [110:5]

If YHWH cannot be seen by man, how is it that 'the LORD of hosts' is seen?
People do see in visions what cannot be seen by the eye. In such a case, what is seen is only symbolic.

I disagree with your statement that the law was only a preparation.

Whether Psalm 110:1 refers to Abraham or whether it refers to David (as is my personal opinon) yes, it promotes the person to the figurative right hand of God.

In genesis when it talks of the seed of Abraham, it is obviously talking about seed, an unnumerable plural (like, the farmer planted all of his seed). It is therefore talking of the descdents of Abraham plural, not one single man.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Since Jesus there has been Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
In every references (the Messianic signs) to the messiah to the people, these people often referred to as being 12 tribes of Israel, equating also with regions that were named after them when Joshua settled Canaan.

These 12 tribes were descendants of Jacob’s 11 sons, or descendants of 10 sons plus 2 grandsons.

I don’t see Muhammad, nor Bab & Baha'u'llah, as unifying the 12 tribes of Israel, as the Messianic signs say it would. Jesus also didn’t fulfill this important unification of Israel.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don’t see Muhammad, nor Bab & Baha'u'llah, as unifying the 12 tribes of Israel, as the Messianic signs say it would. Jesus also didn’t fulfill this important unification of Israel.

Maybe one has to consider it in a new light.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Have you ever considered that the messiah must fulfill all the Messianic signs, and not few selective signs, the way Christianity and Baha’i teach?

I consider they are all fulfilled, but many have been interpreted incorrectly.

The Bible, the Quran and the Baha'i Writings aid in that understanding.

There is now One G_d and the name is One.

The 'Glory of God' does light our path into the future.

Regards Tony
 
Top