rosends
Well-Known Member
Yup.Ok so from your answer, I guess I can safely say Rabbi Schneerson was not the Messiah, would you agree?
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!
Yup.Ok so from your answer, I guess I can safely say Rabbi Schneerson was not the Messiah, would you agree?
The easy answer is "no" but then that begs the logical paradox of "can God make a rock he can't lift?" We are trying to impose our human sensibility and logical system on God.Is it possible God chooses not to know some things? Since He is God and the Creator, He could make it so that He does not know every detail, every choice, in advance.
Yes, I think it was God's will. A sect that teaches someone is the messiah who has not fulfilled all the prophecies has no place in the religion God established. A sect that teaches God became a man has no place in the religion God established. A sect that teaches faith is more important than obedience has no place in the religion God established.Do you think that was God's will? Just because two beliefs are categorized or even can be distinct religions, doesn't mean that they cant be both of God, because God gave both the Old and New Covenants are from different dispensations. I think the Jewish sect of believers at this dispensation can be God's will if the person chooses the Old and New Covenant with the right intentions.
Yes, I think it was God's will. A sect that teaches someone is the messiah who has not fulfilled all the prophecies has no place in the religion God established. A sect that teaches God became a man has no place in the religion God established. A sect that teaches faith is more important than obedience has no place in the religion God established.
If you actually read the passage there, you'll see that the new covenant isn't a change to the content of the original covenant, but to the way the content will be accessible.Does that mean that the concept of a new covenant wasn't mentioned in the Old Testament? In a way I think it was God's will because Jeremiah mentions a New Covenant.
If you actually read the passage there, you'll see that the new covenant isn't a change to the content of the original covenant, but to the way the content will be accessible.
The problem is that there is no Scriptural support for the "New Covenant" that Christians follow now or (according to you) followed then. As I explained in my previous post, Jeremiah's new covenant bears no similarity to the Christian one.I believe it's somewhere in the middle. The first Christians followed the Old and the New Covenant together, and over time, they only followed the New Covenant, and some Old Covenant followers later only chose to follow the New Covenant alongside the Old Covenant. I believe that the New Covenant is of God but the Old Covenant is available to Jews and also Gentiles who find it appropriate to follow it.
The problem is that there is no Scriptural support for the "New Covenant" that Christians follow now or (according to you) followed then. As I explained in my previous post, Jeremiah's new covenant bears no similarity to the Christian one.
The text does not say that the messiah bears anyone else's sins, no.The Old Testament doesn't say that the Messiah suffers for his own sins, he was bearing the sins of others and suffering on their behalf, and by his wounds there was healing for them.
The Old Testament doesn't say that the Messiah suffers for his own sins, he was bearing the sins of others and suffering on their behalf, and by his wounds there was healing for them. What about Yeshua returning before the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD?
Well here is where the disconnect is. You are referencing the Christian "Old Testament" in English no doubt. First thing is that we Jews don't have any "testaments", second thing is that the Christian bible says is based on the desires of the Christian translators, and last the concept that Christians have concerning a "messiah" is not found in the Hebrew Tanakh.
In terms of Jesus returning before the destruction of the 2nd temple. Can you answer the following?
- Can you provide the names of about 50 Jews, first name and father's name, who saw him return from somewhere?
- Can you provide a non-NT a account of what kind of returning he did? Did him come back from the shuq or the makolet? If so, what did he bring back from there?
- At what time of the day did he go to the Sanhedrin to display himself, like the author of the gospels claimed he said he would?
- Is it true what the gospel of Phillip states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdeline?
What is the Gospel of Philip?
Question: "What is the Gospel of Philip?"
Answer: Similar to the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip is a collection of sayings, supposedly of Jesus. The Gospel of Philip focuses a great deal on the “sacrament of marriage” as a “sacred mystery.” The Gospel of Philip does not claim to have been written by Jesus’ disciple Philip. It is titled “the gospel according to Philip” due to Philip being the only disciple of Jesus who is named in it (73:8).
The most complete manuscript of the Gospel of Philip was discovered in the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt in 1945. It is written in the Coptic language and is dated to approximately the 4th century AD The Gospel of Philip is a Gnostic gospel, presenting a Gnostic viewpoint of Jesus and His teachings. While there are a few verses in the Gospel of Philip that resemble the four biblical Gospels, a reading of the Gospel of Philip will reveal many irreconcilable differences and a completely different message regarding who Jesus was and what He came to do.
Of most interest in the Gospel of Philip is what it has to say about Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene. In his popular book The Da Vinci Code, author Dan Brown points to the Gospel of Philip as evidence of Jesus’ marriage / relationship with Mary Magdalene. However, the Gospel of Philip nowhere states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. It does not even state that Jesus was romantically involved with Mary. The one section that deals with this issue is heavily damaged, with several portions unreadable. Here is what the Gospel of Philip states, with “…” representing missing portions: “and the companion of the … Mary Magdalene … more than … the disciples … kiss her … on her … the rest of the disciples … they said to him … why do you love her more than all of us?” Even if we assume that Jesus was kissing Mary Magdalene, the text does not imply anything other than a friendly relationship. A single man kissing a single woman on the cheek, while rare in that culture, is by no means indicative of a romantic relationship.
Whatever the case, even if the Gospel of Philip explicitly stated that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that would not make the idea true. The Gospel of Philip was not written by the Apostle Philip or anyone who had ever met Jesus. The original writing of the Gospel of Philip is dated to the 3rd century AD at the earliest, at least 200 years after Jesus’ death. The only value in studying the Gospel of Philip is in learning what heresies existed in the early centuries of the Christian church.
The text does not say that the messiah bears anyone else's sins, no.
Does that verse mention the messiah?How is "the lord laid on him the iniquity of us all" in Isaiah 53:6 not a reference to the Messiah bearing the sins of people?
Does that verse mention the messiah?
The problem is that there is no Scriptural support for the "New Covenant" that Christians follow now or (according to you) followed then. As I explained in my previous post, Jeremiah's new covenant bears no similarity to the Christian one.
The thing is that he doesn't do that at all. Like I said before, he pretty clearly explains that the content of the covenant is not what's going to change.He mentioned the prototype of the Christian covenant, without giving the details, because they weren't important at the time.
The thing is that he doesn't do that at all. Like I said before, he pretty clearly explains that the content of the covenant is not what's going to change.
So you are happier saying that the verse is in the plural so it is about the messiah? In fact, that phrase is about neither the messiah nor the nation of Israel (and by the way, the plural can, depending on the 'person', be in the masculine or the feminine, and the masculine and feminine can be in the singular or the plural).People think that verse talks about Israel bearing their sins, but it talks about we like sheep have all gone astray. We is not a reference to the nation of Israel. Nations are talked about in the masculine or feminine, not in the plural. The belief that that verse is about the Messiah has more biblical support than it being about Israel.
It is inconsistent with the teachings of the Tanach because it's completely novel and has no basis in it.The content of the covenant isn't what was going to change, for those who kept both the Old and New Covenant, so believing that Jeremiah was talking about the New Covenant mentioned in the Bible is not inconsistent with the teachings of the Tanakh.
So you are happier saying that the verse is in the plural so it is about the messiah? In fact, that phrase is about neither the messiah nor the nation of Israel (and by the way, the plural can, depending on the 'person', be in the masculine or the feminine, and the masculine and feminine can be in the singular or the plural).
The first person plural here is the 11th first-person plural in Isaiah 56, tracing back to the first verse. They all refer to the same noun, which appears in the final verse of the preceding chapter (chapter breaks are actually alien to the text, inserted well after the fact). "Kings".
Chap 53 is a collection of things that the kings realized about themselves when they see the nation of Israel (the servant, dealt with in the singular, masculine).