Jesus Christ: the greatest story ever told?

[Brian2]

Brian: the point is that the messiah will fulfill them all, and Jesus just didn't. If there were even one prophecy he didn't fulfill, it would mean he was not the messiah. I'll give you three:

1. The messiah will usher in an era of world wide peace. Jesus didn't.
2. The messiah will bring all Jews back to the land of Isreal. Jesus didn't.
3. The messiah will rule from jerusalem. Jesus didn't.

True Jesus has not done these yet.
But it is the Jewish idea that the Messiah was not to be killed and raised again (as Isa 53 tells us) and go to heaven to be given His Kingdom (as in Dan 7:13,14) and see His children (again Isa 53) as the word of God goes out from Jerusalem (Isa 2:3)
Jews don't see passages as Messianic and don't see the Messianic age as very long it seems. To Christians the Messiah is so important, more so than to Jews it seems and when we read certain passages, because we see the Messianic age as long, because Jesus rose and went to heaven to be crowned and is living to see His children, and see the word of God go out from Jerusalem to the gentiles we also see that the peace that is promised will not be straight away and other events in prophecy even they are in sentences next to each other are actually hundreds of years apart. This is what happens in events at the start of Isa 2. And when it speaks of LORD coming to judge the nations and sort things out, that is the Messiah who is doing that, God is coming in the person of the Son. It is the Son who is going to do the judging and ruling (as in Psalm 2) when He inherits the nations. It is the Messiah who will be the light to the nations and salvation to the gentiles. (Isa 49:6)
The Islands will come to the Messiah and He will bring forth justice (Isa 42:1-4) over time.
It is the Messiah who will crush Kings and judge the nations and drink from the brook (Psalm 110)(Isa 63:1-6)
So the Messiah does it all (including dying and rising) and it is over a long time.

Too much to take in and you have probably seen it before and not believed it because you are a Jew and see it all differently of course.
I also see Psalm 89:24-52 as being about the Messiah, the horn of David, who calls God His Father and whom God makes His firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. Read further and you will see that His crown is thrown to the ground and He is killed in His youth (unlike David) then Ethan the Ezrahite laments and wonders how long the LORD is going to be angry with His people. "Will you hide yourself forever?" he asks God.

 

[Brian2]

We translate it differently because unlike Christian translations which translate from the GREEK septuagint, we translate from the HEBREW Masoretic texts. IOW our translation is direct from the hebrew, while Christian tranlsations are "translations of a translation." It's kind of like making a copy of a copy, instead of the original.

No most, if not all translations are from the Hebrew.
I have seen a variety of Jewish translations for Isa 9:6 and they show that the Christian translation is a legitimate one. But the Jews don't like it imo because it show the divinity of the child. I wonder sometimes if putting Isa 9:1 at the end of Isa 8 is meant to hide the fact that the child is probably from Galilee (where Jesus came from) and is a great light.

 

[Brian2]

I do not accept what it says because it defies common sense.

As in, "miracles do not happen" sort of common sense.

 

[Brian2]

"The word 'echad, "one," is used in the Jewish Scriptures in either a compound or absolute sense. In what sense is 'echad used in the Shema, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" (Deuteronomy 6:4)?

Answer:
In such verses as Genesis 1:5: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day," and Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh," the term 'echad, "one," refers to a compound united one. However, 'echad often also means an absolute one. This is illustrated by such verses as 2 Samuel 13:30: "Absolom has slain all the king's sons, and there is not one of them left"; 2 Samuel 17:12: "And of all the men that are with him we will not leave so much as one"; Exodus 9:7: "There did not die of the cattle of Israel even one"; 2 Samuel 17:22: "There lacked not one of them that was not gone over the Jordan"; Ecclesiastes 4:8: There is one [that is alone], and he has not a second; yea, he has neither son nor brother." Clearly, the word "one" used in these verses means an absolute one and is synonymous with the word yachid, "the only one," "alone." It is in this sense, with even greater refinement, that 'echad is used in Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Here, 'echad is used as a single, absolute, unqualified one. There is no mention of a triune god.
© Gerald Sigal"
In what sense is 'echad' [one] used in the Shema?

It does not matter if there is no mention of a triune God. The passage cannot be used against a triune God because Echad can mean a compound one.

You cannot say that God has no son and you cannot deny it if God shows Himself to be a triune God

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"

Prov 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
Surely you know!

 

[Redemptionsong]

He's not a king when he's just a child.

The point is that Judea had not been forsaken by its kings when Hezekiah was a child. He formed part of the continuing line of kings in Judea [2 Kings 18:1,2].

 

[Redemptionsong]

It is interesting to read a variety of translations of those verses.
Isaiah 7:16 For before the boy knows enough to reject evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

Emmanuel is associated with the child of Isa 9 and many Jews say that is Hezekiah, and translate the Isa 9:6 differently to Christian translations because it shows the divinity of the child, and that cannot be. The Jews also reject the Messianic nature of Isa 9:6,7 even though Hezekiah cannot fulfil it literally and the one who does this is the Messiah, who will reign of David's throne forever, and who of course comes from Galilee (Isa 9:1) (The numbering of the verses is different in the Tanakh also btw)
It is interesting that Jews these days don't see the Messiah as very important (or many don't anyway) Christians have the Messiah as the one who sits on the throne of David forever and Jews have the Messiah as just a man who comes and does things and dies like anyone else and say that David or Abraham or someone else will rule forever even though for Christians, we can point to various passages about the great everlasting ruler and say they are Messianic obviously, it is not so with the Jews.

Yes, l agree there is some room for maneover with this verse. But like all 'shadow' types, the temporal must find its fulfilment in the eternal. If this is not the case, the Tanakh becomes a history book and not a book of prophecy.

IMO, Torah Jews are in danger of inviting a false Messiah into their midst. This danger comes from their inclination to follow after a man without divine credentials. Yet, Psalm 110:1 makes it very clear that a mediator stands between men and God the Father. And this is definitely not Abraham!

 

[muhammad_isa]

The passage should be read in context. It demonstrates that the Lord gives a sign in advance of the fulfilment! A young woman will give birth to a boy whose name will be 'God with us'.

To my understanding this is another way of saying 'the Christ' of God.

"the Christ" means the Messiah.
..and that mean "the Annointed One", a Jewish King. who will be a just ruler and free the world from evil.

That does not mean a literal "god-man".

 

[Alien826]

I was not talking about theological value and what I find attractive for salvation. I was merely speaking about the story.

While you at it Alien, also note that the Buddha is supposed to be sattha deva manussanang. As a Bodhisathva he stopped time. He had Irdhi, while the biblical Jesus didnt have that ability. His maithri is not just a gesture but a miraculous projection. He was far more miraculous in the story than Jesus as spoken of in the Bible. Can go on for a long time mentioning these kind of things.

So if you think it's just a human thing and its an opportunity to dismiss some all powerful God, it's a big mistake.

I was only referring to the story of the Buddha. It's a fantastic story.

And I was agreeing with you. It is a fantastic story.

Otherwise, all that stuff was added later, as happens with all religions, regrettably. In the original story the Buddha was just a man, like all of us. And he specifically denied the existence of an "all powerful god", or at least considered the question to be irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

In the original story the Buddha was just a man, like all of us.

Which source is this from?

 

[firedragon]

It does not matter if there is no mention of a triune God. The passage cannot be used against a triune God because Echad can mean a compound one.

Jews generally kind of laugh at this very Christian apologetic. Most don't know the language but they make this statement because they are taught by their apologists to say it. Imagine the frustration of the Jew who knows the language, while his own scripture is so badly twisted to suit an imposition. Amazing.

 

[Alien826]

Which source is this from?

My memory, mostly. This link gives a good overview of the story, though I'm not presenting it as authoritative.

The life of the Buddha | Diamond Way Buddhism

 

[firedragon]

My memory, mostly. This link gives a good overview of the story, though I'm not presenting it as authoritative.

The life of the Buddha | Diamond Way Buddhism

Not worth it Alien.

I agree with you that the Buddha, if he ever lived was an ordinary man. My contention is that this thread is not there to dismiss a so called all powerful God or whatever or and promote your theology or philosophy. Because you inserted it into your post I responded. I said this, but I will say this again. The Buddha's story is a fantastic story. But I don't believe most of it. Just like Jesus' story in the Bible. I don't believe most of it. This is not the thread to impose my theological positions so I am only stating these things to make clear what I said to you.

In order to respond to you, you don't seem to have read the Buddha's story at all. The source you gave above is useless.

If you wish to discuss this topic of the Buddha maybe it should be in another thread. I shall leave it at that.

Cheers.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

True Jesus has not done these yet.
But it is the Jewish idea that the Messiah was not to be killed and raised again (as Isa 53 tells us)

That us correct, because Isaiah 53 is about Israel, not the messiah. And it says nothing about being raised from the dead -- you made that part up.

And when it speaks of LORD coming to judge the nations and sort things out, that is the Messiah who is doing that

No, when it speaks of the LORD all caps, that is God, not the messiah. The messiah is not God. Although the messiah will administer justice, since he will rule, this is not the same as THE judgment, which is done by God, not the messiah.

Too much to take in and you have probably seen it before and not believed it because you are a Jew and see it all differently of course.

Not really. I have been debating christians a long time. And you really aren't saying anything that I haven't heard before. I think you just need to accept the fact that Jews study the Tanakh and do not see it saying the things that Christians claim.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No most, if not all translations are from the Hebrew.
I have seen a variety of Jewish translations for Isa 9:6 and they show that the Christian translation is a legitimate one. But the Jews don't like it imo because it show the divinity of the child. I wonder sometimes if putting Isa 9:1 at the end of Isa 8 is meant to hide the fact that the child is probably from Galilee (where Jesus came from) and is a great light.

You are mistaken. Christian bibles translate mostly from the Septuagint. Indeed the only Christian translation I am aware of that translates ONLY from the Hebrew, is the New American Bible, which makes it the best Christian translation IMHO.

 

[Redemptionsong]

"the Christ" means the Messiah.
..and that mean "the Annointed One", a Jewish King. who will be a just ruler and free the world from evil.

That does not mean a literal "god-man".

Yes, the Messiah is the one on whom the Spirit of God rests (in full measure). This is the anointing. It rests upon kings, priests and prophets, all of which Christ represents.

The scriptures tell us that God is the only Saviour. So how does God save mankind from sin and death?

Since all men are sinners, God cannot send an ordinary man, a man born of a sinful father. For the sins of a father can be passed down the generations. This means that God must intervene on earth to save mankind. No one else is without sin.

The record of the NT is that the man, Jesus, was not just righteous before the law, but before God. By demonstrating perfect faith, he walked by the Spirit of God at all times. Never did he stray from the path of truth.

So, yes, Jesus Christ is a God/man whilst on earth. But once resurrected he is again to be found in the midst of the throne in heaven (without corruptible flesh), and one with the Father.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As in, "miracles do not happen" sort of common sense.

Depends what you mean by miracles. To me, miracles are those things which are statistically very rare. But to clarify things, I think God went to a lot of trouble to design the Laws of Nature, and so he isn't just going to up and break them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The point is that Judea had not been forsaken by its kings when Hezekiah was a child. He formed part of the continuing line of kings in Judea [2 Kings 18:1,2].

Honestly, I'm just not following you here.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It’s “truly a bizarre story,” if you make Jesus, God. (John 17:3, in Jesus’ own words, negates that interpretation IMO.) But otherwise, him being sent by God, it’s a very touching story.

It's a 'touching' story? Requiring a human sacrifice in order to forgive creations for having been created still seems pretty dang bizarre to me.

 

[Alien826]

Not worth it Alien.

I agree with you that the Buddha, if he ever lived was an ordinary man. My contention is that this thread is not there to dismiss a so called all powerful God or whatever or and promote your theology or philosophy. Because you inserted it into your post I responded. I said this, but I will say this again. The Buddha's story is a fantastic story. But I don't believe most of it. Just like Jesus' story in the Bible. I don't believe most of it. This is not the thread to impose my theological positions so I am only stating these things to make clear what I said to you.

In order to respond to you, you don't seem to have read the Buddha's story at all. The source you gave above is useless.

If you wish to discuss this topic of the Buddha maybe it should be in another thread. I shall leave it at that.

Cheers.

That's me told!

 

[muhammad_isa]

The record of the NT is that the man, Jesus, was not just righteous before the law, but before God. By demonstrating perfect faith, he walked by the Spirit of God at all times. Never did he stray from the path of truth.

That is not in dispute..
..but it doesn't make Jesus into God.
A "perfect man", as in free from sin, is not God [our Father]

Almighty God does what he wills. He caused the Virgin Mary to give birth to Jesus, the Messiah.

He caused him to ascend [to heaven].
..and he will return to complete his mission at an appointed time.