earlwooters
Active Member
It is a shame that if Jesus was the promised seed, everyone stripped him of his fruit and called it their own.
-
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!
The Credentials of Christ as the Promised Seed
- Thread starter javajo
- Start date
Shermana
Heretic
It is meant to be, to separate those who truly want to understand the whole story from those who unquestioningly accept the stories they're given.
javajo
Well-Known Member
Hi, everybody. Just a quick note to say thank-you for all your posts, whether in favor of or against Christ's credentials for being the Messiah. I have a little sinus infection or virus, so I may not be on for a bit. Thanks again for all the good arguments, both pro and con.
James Humphreys
Member
Yes, of course Elijah and the Messiah are different. However, Elijah's return heralds the appearance of the Messiah, and it is likely Elijah is meant to prepare people and even lead people to the Messiah. If things don't go well for Elijah, and some kind of terrible destruction ensues, as Malachi 4:6 implies, it's hard to imagine how that wouldn't affect the work of the Messiah as well.
If you look at Messianic prophecies such as Isaiah 11, it is talking of a time when the Messiah is already received and welcomed by all. Even the Gentiles are coming to him freely, gladly, not led in chains (11:10). Something must take place to allow the Messiah to have that kind of recognition. But who will be there to welcome him when he is born? When he is 5 years and 10 years old, even if some have recognized him, will all believe? Won't he have enemies that will try to destroy him? There is some process to go through before the glorious Messiah, uplifted by all of Isaiah 9 and 11 is realized, a process that starts with his birth. That process may be a very rocky road, even one of persecution and suffering. Because the prophecies don't make it possible to know when exactly he will be born, what his parents names will be. Only those people who receive some special revelation may recognize him immediately.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Let me say it this way... regardless of the path to his recognition during his lifetime, everyone that's bound to recognize him will do so, and the rest will be enemies who will be destroyed. If people are still doubting that a person is the messiah by the time the guy has died, he obviously hasn't accomplished what the Messiah is supposed to accomplish... and is therefore not the Messiah.
When the Temple in Jerusalem is standing, and all the Jews are in Israel and there's peace in the world, you won't have to be anyone special to recognize what's going on. And the guy whom the people of the world turn to to settle their disputes... that'll be the guy. You won't have to guess... you won't be able to doubt. It'll just be too obvious.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to javajo: I will number your arguments for easy reference.
Regarding item 1, no one knows what the religious leaders did or did not question about Jesus' genealogy. If they didn't question it, they still would not have had any way of reasonably verifying who was whose father many centuries before that time. The original written geneaologies might have been deliberately altered, or miscopied. Even correctly preserved original genealogies would only have significance if Jesus was more than an ordinary man.
Regarding item 2, there is not any credible historical, non-biblical evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Regarding item 3, even people who lived during the time of Jesus would not have had any way of knowing whether or not Mary was a virgin. Consider the following from Wikipedia:
"Hebrew has a specific word, betulah, for a virgin, and a more general word, almah, for a young woman. Since almah is the word used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, some commentators have believed it at least possible that Isaiah had in mind only a normal conception by a young mother and that Matthew applied this text of Scripture to the birth of the one he believed to be Messiah, as John seems to have applied to his death another text of Scripture that in its original context referred to the Passover lamb."
Regarding item 4, an article at McDowell in the Critic's Den easily discredits the book of Daniel.
Regarding item 5, it is very unlikely that Jesus performed, as the texts claim, many miracles in front of multitudes of people in Jerusalem, throughout all of Syria, and other places, and that many other miracles were not recorded. If the miracles actually occured, they would have been unprecedented in human history, and would have attracted a lot of attention from historians and other people all over the Middle East and beyond. Surely the Roman government in Palestine would have become very interested in the miracles and would have conducted some investigations.
The same goes for the Ten Plagues in Egypt. If they occured, they would had to have attracted lots of attention all over the Middle East and beyond, and yet, there is not any credible non-biblical evidence that they occured. By the way, the Ipuwer Papyrus is not credible evidence that the Ten Plagues occured.
Regarding item 6, there is not any credible historical, non-biblical evidence that anyone recited some of Psalm 118.
The Gospels were written decades after the supposed facts by non-eyewitnesses. The authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke never claim to be eyewitnesses, and since the book of John was probably written during the 2nd century A.D., it is not a credible sources of information.
It is well-known that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark.
The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. If a God intended to use prophecy to help reasonably prove that he exists, it is doubtful that he would inspire prophecies that would needlessly cause lots of confusion, even among many of his own followers. No Bible prophecy is credible, but a God could easily inspire prophecies that would be difficult to disprove. For example, if the Bible contained some accurate predications regarding when and where some natural disasters would occur, day, month, and year, that would be difficult to disprove. Since a God did not inspire the Bible, that easily explains why it does not contain any prophecies of that quality.
Do you believe that a global flood occured, that the earth is young, and that creationism is true?
If a God inpsired the Bible, why does he withold evidence that would cause more people to accept him?
Do you believe that might makes right?
javajo said:
Regarding item 1, no one knows what the religious leaders did or did not question about Jesus' genealogy. If they didn't question it, they still would not have had any way of reasonably verifying who was whose father many centuries before that time. The original written geneaologies might have been deliberately altered, or miscopied. Even correctly preserved original genealogies would only have significance if Jesus was more than an ordinary man.
Regarding item 2, there is not any credible historical, non-biblical evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Regarding item 3, even people who lived during the time of Jesus would not have had any way of knowing whether or not Mary was a virgin. Consider the following from Wikipedia:
"Hebrew has a specific word, betulah, for a virgin, and a more general word, almah, for a young woman. Since almah is the word used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, some commentators have believed it at least possible that Isaiah had in mind only a normal conception by a young mother and that Matthew applied this text of Scripture to the birth of the one he believed to be Messiah, as John seems to have applied to his death another text of Scripture that in its original context referred to the Passover lamb."
Regarding item 4, an article at McDowell in the Critic's Den easily discredits the book of Daniel.
Regarding item 5, it is very unlikely that Jesus performed, as the texts claim, many miracles in front of multitudes of people in Jerusalem, throughout all of Syria, and other places, and that many other miracles were not recorded. If the miracles actually occured, they would have been unprecedented in human history, and would have attracted a lot of attention from historians and other people all over the Middle East and beyond. Surely the Roman government in Palestine would have become very interested in the miracles and would have conducted some investigations.
The same goes for the Ten Plagues in Egypt. If they occured, they would had to have attracted lots of attention all over the Middle East and beyond, and yet, there is not any credible non-biblical evidence that they occured. By the way, the Ipuwer Papyrus is not credible evidence that the Ten Plagues occured.
Regarding item 6, there is not any credible historical, non-biblical evidence that anyone recited some of Psalm 118.
The Gospels were written decades after the supposed facts by non-eyewitnesses. The authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke never claim to be eyewitnesses, and since the book of John was probably written during the 2nd century A.D., it is not a credible sources of information.
It is well-known that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark.
The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. If a God intended to use prophecy to help reasonably prove that he exists, it is doubtful that he would inspire prophecies that would needlessly cause lots of confusion, even among many of his own followers. No Bible prophecy is credible, but a God could easily inspire prophecies that would be difficult to disprove. For example, if the Bible contained some accurate predications regarding when and where some natural disasters would occur, day, month, and year, that would be difficult to disprove. Since a God did not inspire the Bible, that easily explains why it does not contain any prophecies of that quality.
Do you believe that a global flood occured, that the earth is young, and that creationism is true?
If a God inpsired the Bible, why does he withold evidence that would cause more people to accept him?
Do you believe that might makes right?
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
It is plausible that in 100 A.D., the Christian church was very small. In the
best-selling book "The rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that in 100 A.D., there were 7,530 Christians in the world. That isn't very many. If Jesus did not perform and miracles, a very small Christian church in 100 A.D. makes sense.
Well-known conservative Christian scholar N.T. Wright said:
"This subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."
But If Jesus performed many miracles before multitudes of people, it is probable that his followers could easily have mounted a riot in a small village.
best-selling book "The rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that in 100 A.D., there were 7,530 Christians in the world. That isn't very many. If Jesus did not perform and miracles, a very small Christian church in 100 A.D. makes sense.
Well-known conservative Christian scholar N.T. Wright said:
"This subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."
But If Jesus performed many miracles before multitudes of people, it is probable that his followers could easily have mounted a riot in a small village.
DandyAndy
Active Member
What do riots have to with anything? If anyone was a follower of Christ at the time, they were peaceful and humble, not ready to mount a rebellion. And if they didn't believe that Christ was the Son of God as he claimed to be, whether they believed the miracles or not, they would want him crucified because they wanted a king and Christ didn't fit their description.
earlwooters
Active Member
Whatever happened to those peaceful and humble Christians? You know, the ones that turn the other cheek, give away their excess wealth, and give more than they recieve. Are they extinct.
smidjit
Member
I think where many people fail is that they do not recognize the symbolism of old testament scripture. Jesus said the old testament prophets foretold of his coming. They did not literally speak of his coming , but they did symbolically.
Proverbs 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
Psalms 78:1 Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. 2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
When Abraham was instructed of God to sacrifice his only son Isaac, he was simply painting a symbolic picture of what he himself intended to do. That being to sacrifice his one and only son Jesus....
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called,"
19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
The fact that Abraham believed that even if he were to sacrifice his only son, God would raise him from the dead in order to keep the promise made to Abraham, signified that God would one day sacrifice his only son and raise him from the dead.
As long as the reader refuses to look for the symbolic meaning of old testament scripture they will never truly understand the plan of God.
Javajo, I don't know if you have ever read the epistle of Barnabas, but it was written by Paul's companion Barnabas, and he goes to great lengths to show the symbolism of old testament scripture. It is very good reading. Here is a link if you care to check it out.....
CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle of Barnabas
javajo
Well-Known Member
Hi, I believe some verses are symbolic and others, like prophecy, while using symbolism are literal, precise, and detailed. Psalm 78:2 is a prophecy that Jesus, the Messiah would speak in parables, so hearing they would not understand, as they were disobedient.
I agree.
Thank you for sharing that. Unfortunately, I don't accept the epistle as scripture or as being by Barnabas at all. Here is a link that explains why. Why have Christians hidden the Gospel of Barnabas?
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I want to share with you a story about a Rabbi who made a startling discovery regarding the Messiah...
If you can understand why the verses Moshe presented don't prove his case that his rooster is the Messiah, then you can understand why the list of verses you prove don't prove that Jesus is the Messiah.
If you can understand why Moshe's rooster is not the Messiah, then you can understand why Jesus is not the Messiah.
I'm too lazy to read all that. What's your point?
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I'm sure if I thought about it long enough, I could probably pick out a few random verses from the Bible and distort them beyond recognition/rip them violently out of context in order to prove that Harry Potter is the long awaited Messiah.
Those lists of verses like the one you linked to all show a bunch of verses that may or may not be prophecies at all, and the ones that are prophecies may or may not be messianic prophecies. Many of the verses are violently ripped out of context, often severely mistranslated. Most, if not all, are very misunderstood by people who claim they somehow apply to Jesus.
None of them have anything to do with Jesus.
No more than those verses from Psalms, Jeremiah, Lamentations, etc... are about Moshe's pet rooster.
OK, I understand your point of view as a Jew.
But I don't think it is fair to say that all 300 prophecies on this site have nothing to do with Jesus. You have both texts and you can read for yourself to see if they have to do with Him or not.
As I understand, at least some of these prophecies where understood by early Jews as being messianic prophecies.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I respectfully disagree. It's entirely fair to say that all 300 passages (I don't say prophecies because not all of them are prophecies) have nothing to do with Jesus.
I have already done that. You figure this is the first time I've seen anyone post a list like this?
As I understand, the people who write for Christian websites want you to believe that, even though it's out of touch with reality.
I should add a point for clarity.
Certain qualifications which might technically be true aren't all that impressive to me. What do I mean by that? It's safe to say that the Messiah is expected to be Jewish. It's safe to say that Jesus was Jewish. However, this is not fulfillment of prophecy. If being Jewish is all he had going for him, it's not enough to say that he was the Messiah. I'm Jewish. I'm not the Messiah.
Which is part of what bugs me about lists like the one you provide. It uses a lot of useless filler to inflate the number to make it seem more impressive.
What would be useful is to consider what prophecies Jews consider to be actual messianic prophecies without simply dismissing them by saying "that's what will happen when he returns", because nobody has risen to the challenge of showing where in the Tanach (you might call it "Old Testament") it suggests that the Messiah will have to come twice, except perhaps by bringing a painfully misunderstood passage from Daniel that has nothing to do with the Messiah.
OK, we both have our own ways of understanding scriptures. I've posted the site for anyone to check it, and anyone is free to have their own opinions.
I don't believe something because a website wants me to believe something. I might start with a website, but I do my own research. I already have a lot of early Jewish scriptures. But I am stressing on early Jewish understanding, not the current one. I can even read them in Hebrew (or hardly in Aramaic)
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Using an example from your list, please show me, using Jewish (i.e. non-Christian) sources, how early Jewish understanding differs from current Jewish understanding.