Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[rosends]

Surely you know about Gen 49:8-12 and that since Judah as no ruling position now and since the time that the Sanhedrin was disbanded it mean the Messiah/Shiloh came before then.

I guess this depends on your understanding of what Shiloh is. The scepter will not leave Judah (the Davidic line is from the tribe of Judah), and then the second half might be a reference to a person, place, time or thing. It has nothing to do with the sanhedrin, though.

if you want to know why the Jews have been exiled for about 2000 years, you need look no further than the rejection of your Messiah and having Him killed. It says as much in Ps 89.

No. Rejecting false messiahs doesn't get us into trouble. The talmud makes very clear why we were exiled both times.

No problem in doing that at all. It is so easy that some people have suggested that the writers of the gospels must have gone through the Hebrew scriptures and written a story utilising quotes from those scriptures to make up the story of Jesus.

Yes, I can see that -- they reverse engineered a fictional story to comport with things they found in the Hebrew scriptures. They found what they needed to, just as I said. And the Muslims found Muhammed in the same texts.

I have to admit that with some OT quotes that are said to be about Jesus it can seem hard to fathom exactly why, but the big picture is there writ large in the pages of the OT without problems. And as I have said, there is even almost a demand in those pages that Jesus is the one when some prophecies are considered.

No demand. Just wishful thinking.

 

[Brian2]

Well, I guess that's your interpretation. It isn't what he said, though. He actually repeated many of the teachings in the oral law and told his followers to follow the teachings of Pharisees who were the proponents of the oral law.

Jesus disagreed with some teachings of the Pharisees and took all the teachings to a higher level. But of course that can only be appreciated when Jesus is seen as the one sent by God.
Jesus did also say to allow the scribes and Pharisees to administer Judaism because they sit in Mose's seat. (Matt 23:2) Jesus was not one to rebel against God's appointed order and authority. But that does not mean that everything those teaches said and did was correct.

 

[rosends]

Jesus disagreed with some teachings of the Pharisees and took all the teachings to a higher level. But of course that can only be appreciated when Jesus is seen as the one sent by God.
Jesus did also say to allow the scribes and Pharisees to administer Judaism because they sit in Mose's seat. (Matt 23:2) Jesus was not one to rebel against God's appointed order and authority. But that does not mean that everything those teaches said and did was correct.

So Jesus told his followers to do as the Pharisees taught even when it was wrong. Got it.

 

[Brian2]

I guess this depends on your understanding of what Shiloh is. The scepter will not leave Judah (the Davidic line is from the tribe of Judah), and then the second half might be a reference to a person, place, time or thing. It has nothing to do with the sanhedrin, though.

Chapter Six: The Time of Messiah's Coming by Mark Eastman
Here is a site that shows the connection between the Sanhedrin and Gen 49:10 and the coming of the Messiah and other interesting things that show that the Messiah has come already according to the Hebrew scriptures and also according to Jewish thought in the past.
But of course ideas had to change in Judaism about the interpretation of certain passages.

No. Rejecting false messiahs doesn't get us into trouble. The talmud makes very clear why we were exiled both times.

I can't imagine the Talmud saying that Jews were exiled for killing the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, I can see that -- they reverse engineered a fictional story to comport with things they found in the Hebrew scriptures. They found what they needed to, just as I said. And the Muslims found Muhammed in the same texts.

Islam might point to one or 2 texts and interpret them is strange ways and say they are about Muhammad,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jesus can be seen all through the OT in general and detailed ways.

No demand. Just wishful thinking.

Again I would point to this site and suggest you read it.
Chapter Six: The Time of Messiah's Coming by Mark Eastman

 

[Brian2]

So Jesus told his followers to do as the Pharisees taught even when it was wrong. Got it.

Read all of Matt 23 and see that it is a whole chapter devoted to the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders of the day.
But Jesus was not telling the crowds to do what was wrong. Clearly if they were advising things that were sinful or contrary to the teachings of the written Law then a person should not be following their advice.

 

[rosends]

Chapter Six: The Time of Messiah's Coming by Mark Eastman
Here is a site that shows the connection between the Sanhedrin and Gen 49:10 and the coming of the Messiah and other interesting things that show that the Messiah has come already according to the Hebrew scriptures and also according to Jewish thought in the past.
But of course ideas had to change in Judaism about the interpretation of certain passages.

That webpage is a mishmashed collection of different ideas and translated phrases pieced together to try and support a pre-existing idea. I picked a random footnote and found that it was wrong in what it pointed to. He also skips actual references which say the exact opposite. So between making things up and ignoring things, this Christian claim loses all credibility. I also want to remind you that the destruction of the second temple was over 35 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

Islam might point to one or 2 texts and interpret them is strange ways and say they are about Muhammad,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jesus can be seen all through the OT in general and detailed ways.

You mean by you and people looking for references.

Again I would point to this site and suggest you read it.
Chapter Six: The Time of Messiah's Coming by Mark Eastman

I did, and it did nothing to suggest any different from my statement. You might want to try reading it without your blinders on and check his references.

 

[rosends]

Read all of Matt 23 and see that it is a whole chapter devoted to the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders of the day.
But Jesus was not telling the crowds to do what was wrong. Clearly if they were advising things that were sinful or contrary to the teachings of the written Law then a person should not be following their advice.

The hypocrisy was between what they taught and what they did. Jesus advocated for what they taught, and what they taught was the oral law. Jesus told the people to follow the Pharisaic teachings -- the oral law, even if they didn't follow their own teachings. Jesus actually lifted statements of the oral law in HIS teachings. So why would you reject the oral law?

 

[Brian2]

That webpage is a mishmashed collection of different ideas and translated phrases pieced together to try and support a pre-existing idea. I picked a random footnote and found that it was wrong in what it pointed to. He also skips actual references which say the exact opposite. So between making things up and ignoring things, this Christian claim loses all credibility. I also want to remind you that the destruction of the second temple was over 35 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

Of course it is written to support a pre-existing ideas and those ideas seem to be that the time of the Messiah's coming is to be found in the scriptures and that the Jews before Jesus came and after knew that time. Both these things seem to have been established in the article.
The article was not to show that some Jews thought one thing and some thought something else so not all quotes were needed.
The 2nd temple was destroyed 35 yrs after Jesus death. So? The Messiah should have come by then according to those references cited from the Talmud,,,,,,,,,,,,,AND they got their ideas from scriptures.
These days it seems to be a different story from Jews. "Ahhh, those scriptures aren't Messianic" or because Jews are diverse in their understanding of scriptures, "It does not matter if the Messiah comes or is in the line of David".
The predominant ideas have changed over the years amongst Jews it seems. Why would any Jew want to admit that the Messiah had come already and then was missed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,especially if it meant admitting that Jesus was the best candidate.

You mean by you and people looking for references.

Yes, I don't expect you to see anything like references to Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. You don't even seem to think that Jesus died even when the life and death of Jesus is attested in many places and are well established facts even amongst atheist historians.

I did, and it did nothing to suggest any different from my statement. You might want to try reading it without your blinders on and check his references.

It is not necessary to check his references to know that the scriptures Christians use to show that the Messiah should have come around the time Jesus did, have also been used by Jews to show the same thing.
If you can't see that then I would say that you have blinders on or have been blinded and don't want to see.
A quote from the article:

""An astonishing quote is found in Sanhedrin 97b. Rabbi Rabh states:

"All the predestined dates for redemption (the coming of Messiah) have passed and the matter now depends only on the repentance and good deeds."[28]
Here Rabbi Rabh expresses his pain and displeasure that the Messiah did not come when he was expected. From that time onward, according to Rabbi Rabh, the coming of the Messiah depended on the nation of Israel turning to God in repentance.""

 

[Brian2]

The hypocrisy was between what they taught and what they did. Jesus advocated for what they taught, and what they taught was the oral law. Jesus told the people to follow the Pharisaic teachings -- the oral law, even if they didn't follow their own teachings. Jesus actually lifted statements of the oral law in HIS teachings. So why would you reject the oral law?

Jesus lifted statements of the oral law to show that it was not God's word even if was what the people had been taught. Jesus attacks were usually against the teachers and Jesus was there to judge these things but was not there to start a revolution against the God given institutions. He knew when He died and rose and drew all men to Himself, things would change soon enough for those who believed in Him. For the rest,,,,,,,,,,let them do what they wanted in respect of the oral law.

 

[Muffled]

It is also a shame that the Christians do not want to look at who sat on the throne in the 19th century....
Granted, Jesus is still sitting on the throne, but that throne is in heaven...

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

“The Throne upon which He sat is the Eternal Throne from which Christ reigns for ever, a heavenly throne, not an earthly one, for the things of earth pass away but heavenly things pass not away. He re-interpreted and completed the Law of Moses and fulfilled the Law of the Prophets. His word conquered the East and the West. His Kingdom is everlasting.” Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks

The throne from which Jesus rules will not be on earth, because Jesus cannot be in two places at once...

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Why would Jesus waste His time coming back to earth when He is needed in heaven? Besides, heaven is much more important than earth, since that is where we will all be spending eternity!

I believe I have seen what has been posted and find no validity in it.

I do not believe He is physically there. He has other things He said He would be doing that are more important. And the reason for His return is to be with His people.

I believe that is not true. Our destiny is the New Jerusalem which will descend to earth.

 

[Muffled]

And I agree with you. Six times they use the 1260 years?

I don't see any dates in this:
Luke 21:24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. According to History that is the case up until 1948.

 

[Muffled]

The majority of Christianity believes in the Trinity. I only believe in one God, and therefore am in the minority.

I mean, I realize Trinitarians say they only believe in one God. They have to say that because the scripture says there is only one God. But: 1 God + 1 God + 1 God cannot equal 1 God. And they aren't taking the view that each person is 1/3 of God. If you have more than one person, that is each totally and completely God, and yet claim that they are distinct individuals - that is more than one God.

The scripture gives the answer, but most won't really accept it. God is a Spirit - John 4:24 But they insist on saying he is 3 different persons.

I believe it is one God in three persons not as three persons. If it were as three persons you would be correct but it is not.

 

[rosends]

Of course it is written to support a pre-existing ideas and those ideas seem to be that the time of the Messiah's coming is to be found in the scriptures and that the Jews before Jesus came and after knew that time. Both these things seem to have been established in the article.
The article was not to show that some Jews thought one thing and some thought something else so not all quotes were needed.

So those that were wrong weren't needed and those that contradict weren't needed? OK.

The 2nd temple was destroyed 35 yrs after Jesus death. So?

So the sanhedrin continued well beyond Jesus' death. Tying the two together is a major misunderstanding.

The Messiah should have come by then according to those references cited from the Talmud

Actually not. The reference (for example) to the Babylonian talmud is inaccurate.

These days it seems to be a different story from Jews. "Ahhh, those scriptures aren't Messianic" or because Jews are diverse in their understanding of scriptures, "It does not matter if the Messiah comes or is in the line of David".

You think it is a different story because you don't know the whole story. Trying to claim some insight into what was a Jewish idea from a single statement from 2000 years ago considered in a vacuum is downright foolish. Claiming things changed because you don't know the history just makes you look ignorant.

The predominant ideas have changed over the years amongst Jews it seems. Why would any Jew want to admit that the Messiah had come already and then was missed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,especially if it meant admitting that Jesus was the best candidate.

No, they haven't. You wish they had, but that is inaccurate.

Yes, I don't expect you to see anything like references to Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. You don't even seem to think that Jesus died even when the life and death of Jesus is attested in many places and are well established facts even amongst atheist historians.

who says that I don't think he died? If he lived, he died. Did he ever live? The jury is out on that -- there are claims to historical corroboration and claims of later interpolation. There are claims that he was just a guy, and claims that he was a political rebel, or an amalgamation of different local legends. Whether or not he lived or died is irrelevant to me. Lots of people (including other messianic aspirants) lived and died.

It is not necessary to check his references to know that the scriptures Christians use to show that the Messiah should have come around the time Jesus did, have also been used by Jews to show the same thing.

You don't need to check references? So you just want to rely on stuff which is wrong. OK. Your choice.

If you can't see that then I would say that you have blinders on or have been blinded and don't want to see.
A quote from the article:

""An astonishing quote is found in Sanhedrin 97b. Rabbi Rabh states:

"All the predestined dates for redemption (the coming of Messiah) have passed and the matter now depends only on the repentance and good deeds."[28]
Here Rabbi Rabh expresses his pain and displeasure that the Messiah did not come when he was expected. From that time onward, according to Rabbi Rabh, the coming of the Messiah depended on the nation of Israel turning to God in repentance.""

You misunderstand the talmudic statement. It comes a little after the following statement:
"Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: May those who calculate the end of days be cursed [tippaḥ], as they would say once the end of days that they calculated arrived and the Messiah did not come, that he will no longer come at all. Rather, the proper behavior is to continue to wait for his coming"

The talmudic position is that to try and compute the end date is meaningless. In accordance with that, Rav (why call him "Rabh"?) says that all the dates that people tried to come up with have passed which shows how silly it is for people to try and second guess God. Instead, he says, the coming is dependent on the nation's behavior. There is no "displeasure" about anything other than that people try to guess dates instead of focusing on behavior. He is not saying that anything has changed. For some reason, the translation you quote inserts the word "now" which is not found in the text. A better translation is
"Rav says: All the ends of days that were calculated passed, and the matter depends only upon repentance and good deeds. When the Jewish people repent, they will be redeemed."

But if you prefer to take some ignorant author's word for it, without checking references, then so be it.

 

[rosends]

Jesus lifted statements of the oral law to show that it was not God's word even if was what the people had been taught. Jesus attacks were usually against the teachers and Jesus was there to judge these things but was not there to start a revolution against the God given institutions. He knew when He died and rose and drew all men to Himself, things would change soon enough for those who believed in Him. For the rest,,,,,,,,,,let them do what they wanted in respect of the oral law.

So he quoted it and endorses it to show that it was NOT God's word?

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Brian2]

So he quoted it and endorses it to show that it was NOT God's word?

Makes perfect sense.

You have not been listening.

 

[rosends]

You have not been listening.

Oh, I have been listening very carefully. Have you?

 

[Brian2]

Oh, I have been listening very carefully. Have you?

Which part of what Jesus said below would you agree with?
Do you think that some people may have thought that He was telling them to not regard their teachers after they heard Him tell them that the teachers were wrong about plenty of things and were hypocrites?
Do you think it was a good thing for Jesus to tell the people to follow the teachings of their teachers when that is what they had and what God had given them to learn from?

Mark 7:5 So the Pharisees and teachers of religious law asked him, “Why don’t your disciples follow our age-old tradition? They eat without first performing the hand-washing ceremony.”
6 Jesus replied, “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote,
‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 Their worship is a farce,
for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’
8 For you ignore God’s law and substitute your own tradition.”
9 Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition. 10 For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’ 11 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.’ 12 In this way, you let them disregard their needy parents. 13 And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”
14 Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. “All of you listen,” he said, “and try to understand. 15 It’s not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart.”
17 Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowd, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the parable he had just used. 18 “Don’t you understand either?” he asked. “Can’t you see that the food you put into your body cannot defile you? 19 Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)
20 And then he added, “It is what comes from inside that defiles you. 21 For from within, out of a person’s heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. 23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you.”

 

[rosends]

Which part of what Jesus said below would you agree with?

the parts where he doesn't contradict himself or the law

Do you think that some people may have thought that He was telling them to not regard their teachers after they heard Him tell them that the teachers were wrong about plenty of things and were hypocrites?

Yes, and those people would have been confused considering that he also told them in Matt 23:2, 3
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.

So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Do you think it was a good thing for Jesus to tell the people to follow the teachings of their teachers when that is what they had and what God had given them to learn from?

Yes. Telling people to follow their teachers as the teachings are what God gave to learn from is a good thing.
Claiming that what they teach replaces God's law, after telling people to follow what they teach is a contradiction.
And changing the law to claim that it isn't what goes in to the body which is a problem, when the law explicitly says it IS a problem is a contradiction also. That becomes hypocrisy as he attacks the Pharisees for, as he claims, replacing the law with their own traditions, and then he does exactly that. Sorry you can't see it, but it is right there.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe I have seen what has been posted and find no validity in it.

I believe it is true and valid.

I do not believe He is physically there. He has other things He said He would be doing that are more important. And the reason for His return is to be with His people.

I do not believe Jesus is physically in heaven either; I believe Jesus is in heaven in a spiritual body:

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194

What would Jesus be doing that is more important?
Why do His people need Him here?

I believe that is not true. Our destiny is the New Jerusalem which will descend to earth.

I believe that the New Jerusalem has already descended to earth and this is the Day of God.

“The time foreordained unto the peoples and kindreds of the earth is now come. The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled. Out of Zion hath gone forth the Law of God, and Jerusalem, and the hills and land thereof, are filled with the glory of His Revelation. Happy is the man that pondereth in his heart that which hath been revealed in the Books of God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. Meditate upon this, O ye beloved of God, and let your ears be attentive unto His Word, so that ye may, by His grace and mercy, drink your fill from the crystal waters of constancy, and become as steadfast and immovable as the mountain in His Cause.

In the Book of Isaiah it is written: “Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of His majesty.” No man that meditateth upon this verse can fail to recognize the greatness of this Cause, or doubt the exalted character of this Day—the Day of God Himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 12-13

 

[truthseeker7]

I believe the Gospels are an example. The story is repeated in each one of them with some variations.

interesting