Was Jesus the Messaiah? Why or why not?

[Faithofchristian]

Firstly, you must recognize that regardless of who was in the ark, your premise is still wrong because what makes someone a "Jew" has never been about race. So arguing over who was in the ark doesnt make your original assertion any less wrong.

Second, Genesis 7:13. Only Noah and his family are said to enter the ark.
Hebrews 11:7 - only his family is said to be saved.
There is no Biblical reason to believe anyone else was in there.

Thats because you have no knowledge or understanding of what is the letter of the word or the Spirit of the word is.

The letter of the word is what people can read in black and white or in the new is in red and white.

But the Spirit of the word is given by Spiritual discernment by the Spirit of God.

Do you my friend, have ears to hear what the Spirit of God is saying.

Evidently not, otherwise you would know that there were other people in the ark of Noahs besides Noah's Family.

When God told Noah to take two of every flesh, What do you suppose two of every
flesh are?

Animals have flesh, people have flesh. So go figure it out.

Look Good created male and female on the six day, Genesis 1:26-31.

And then on the 7th day God rested
Genesis 2:2.

And then on the day after the 7th day had pass. Then God formed another male from the dust of the earth and then later God made a female. Genesis 2:7,21,22.

And those male and female that were created on the 6th day are those that God told Noah to take two of every flesh male and female in the ark.

So Noah took two of every flesh male and female animals and two of every male and female of flesh human beings.

 

[Rise]

The fact still remains that being a "Jew" has never been defined only by race. So your original claim is disproven on that basis alone, without me even having to take time to deal with your bizarre distortion of Genesis.

 

[Rise]

According to the NT, he literally did that with the argument that since the Sabbath was made for man, man is controls the Sabbath Laws.

You are distorting what Jesus said.
Mark 2:27
The context of saying that the sabbath was made for man is not to say that man gets to decide what divine law is, but merely that the sabbath was made for man's benefit and therefore men should not try to burden other men with stupid rules about how the sabbath must be observed, as though men were serving the concept of the sabbath.

Duet. 17:11-12 disagrees with you.

You are distorting scripture out of context again.
That deals with civil judgement of matters like murder trials, and does not give man the right to declare divine law that men are beholden to observe, such as the pharisees later tried to do.

Jesus never violated anything about Deut 17:11-12

There is no where in these two verses that indicates this.

There is no where in this verse that indicates this.

I have no idea how this verse is related to the topic.

Just because you missed the obvious doesn't mean it isn't there:

This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteous Savior.

And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

This is no mere man. No one else but God could be talked about this way.

 

[Tumah]

You are distorting what Jesus said.
Mark 2:27
The context of saying that the sabbath was made for man is not to say that man gets to decide what divine law is, but merely that the sabbath was made for man's benefit and therefore men should not try to burden other men with stupid rules about how the sabbath must be observed, as though men were serving the concept of the sabbath.

Contextually, that's not what it's talking about. In the NT narrative, Jesus is admonished for allowing his students to pick grain on the Sabbath. He doesn't argue that the Torah doesn't prohibit picking grain on the Sabbath. He doesn't argue against the basis for the Law against picking grain on the Sabbath. He makes no argument against the rightfulness of the Law. His argument is that man rules over the Sabbath. The implication being that its within man's power to change the rightful law to suit his needs.

That means that his argument is that he can change G-d's Law.

You are distorting scripture out of context again.
That deals with civil judgement of matters like murder trials, and does not give man the right to declare divine law that men are beholden to observe, such as the pharisees later tried to do.

That's what the previous verse is talking about. When you have a question in judgement, you go to the priest or the judge... and you shall do according to the thing they tell you.

Then the verse creates a new clause, "according to the teaching they teach you and the judgement they tell you, you shall do it..." This clause is independent of the previous one for two reasons: (1) the previous verse already said to listen to the civil judgement they render, this verse isn't adding anything to that. And (2) the verse doesn't start off with the word "and" linking it to the previous statements. Watch:

Deut. 17
v8 "If something alludes you in judgement between blood and blood... AND you shall get up and go to the place that G-d has chosen."
v9 "AND you shall come to the priests, the levites and the judge... AND you shall inquire, AND they will tell you the judgement."
v10 "AND you shall do according to the thing they tell you... AND you shall keep to do all that they tell you."

Those are all the linked statements. Describing from the point where doubt arises to the required path one must take to resolve the doubt. There's nothing more to say and yet:

v11 According to the teaching they teach you and the judgement they tell you, you shall do. Do not turn to the right or the left.

What is this verse adding that was not understood in verse 10 and why wasn't it linked to the previous passage if it's meant to be understood as a continuation of that process?

The answer is of course, that it's coming to teach you that the Judges of the Law have the right to interpret the Law according to their understanding and we are required by Divine mandate to follow that interpretation. It's saying, not only is the previous passage true when it comes to civil matters, but also any Torah Law that the Judges teach as needing to be fulfilled in a certain manner must be fulfilled in that manner.

Jesus never violated anything about Deut 17:11-12

Apparently that's false.

Just because you missed the obvious doesn't mean it isn't there:

This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteous Savior.

Nice try. That's the trouble with translations. What it actually says is:
And this is the name that he will be called, 'YHW-H our vindicator'.

Now, that makes sense if you say that the messiah is a man in whose days G-d will perform all sorts of miracles in favor of the Jews. This name represents the remembrance that with the messiah's advent G-d vindicated the Jewish people.

But if this is Jesus, than shouldn't this say "Jesus our vindicator"?

Sorry, there is no indication in this verse that the messiah is G-d.

And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I know lots of people with the word G-d in their names. It's quite common even throughout Tanach. "Everlasting Father" is actually a common name in Israel. I know two people who were called "Prince of Peace". Clearly these names are not restricted to G-d.

whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

Yes, the messiah's origins from Bethlehem are very old. If, G-d willing the messiah will come today, his origination from Bethlehem will have gone back almost 3,000 years. Quite ancient.

This is no mere man. No one else but God could be talked about this way.

Alternatively, you're imposing your interpretation on these verses in order to conform with the NT. Without it, you'd have no basis for these interpretations.

 

[Rise]

Contextually, that's not what it's talking about. In the NT narrative, Jesus is admonished for allowing his students to pick grain on the Sabbath. He doesn't argue that the Torah doesn't prohibit picking grain on the Sabbath. He doesn't argue against the basis for the Law against picking grain on the Sabbath. He makes no argument against the rightfulness of the Law. His argument is that man rules over the Sabbath. The implication being that its within man's power to change the rightful law to suit his needs.

You're changing the verse you originally cited. You originally tried to take out of context the meaning of "the sabbath is made for man", but now you've changed it to taking out of context what it means for the "son of man" to be "lord of the sabbath". Son of Man is a term Jesus only ever applies to Himself. Therefore, you cannot use it to claim that any man is lord of the sabbath. Your new claim falls apart on that basis alone.

Second, you're wrong in what you assert about what Jesus said. He specifically tells the Pharisees they are wrong in thier legalistic ideas about how to apply the law, citing several examples from
Scripture where thier standards would not work if applied, (mark 2, Matthew 12).
To further show what the true context of Jesus's statements are we see Him rebuking the pharisees because they would rather see thier law obeyed than let a crippled man be healed. Jesus rebukes them as wrong for insisting thier version of obeying sabbath is correct. Again we see contextually the issue here is that the pharisees twist the sabbath observance to harm and burden men when in fact the sabbath was suppose to be a blessing to man by ensuring them rest.

That's what the previous verse is talking about. When you have a question in judgement, you go to the priest or the judge... and you shall do according to the thing they tell you.

A question in civil judgement, like murder trials, not religous judgement on what divine law is.
You are distorting the plain context of scripture to suggest this means a man's decree about what it means to observe the sabbath is legally binding. You wont find that anywhere in scripture. Only God, through a prophet, would have that kind of binding authority on matters of divine law.

The answer is of course, that it's coming to teach you that the Judges of the Law have the right to interpret the Law according to their understanding and we are required by Divine mandate to follow that interpretation.

That is a twisted reading of an otherwise clear verse that applies to settling serious criminal disputes.

But of course when your entire orthodox Rabbinical system rests on the fallacy that the Rabbi alone has God given authority to declare what following God's law means then you've got to find some way to justify that, as threadbare and distorted as it might be.

That is, unfortunately, precisely the kind of mindset and behavior that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for.

interpretations of OT

You seem to be confused in the sense that you believe giving your opInion about what a verse means is sufficient to disprove the validity of interpreting that verse in light of the NT. It doesn't. Nothing you have said demonstrates in any way that Christian interpretations of these verses cannot be contextually true, don't follow logically, or are not consistent with the whole of scripture.

All you're really saying is that you don't accept what later prophets of God, and the Messiah, reveal about the full meaning of those verses. That may be your choice to reject thier revelation to us, but your choice doesnt disprove the validity of what they revealed about OT scripture.

 

[syo]

judaism and christianity are two different religions. so they have a different meaning of messiah. they even interpret the old testament differently. I don't think comparison is that useful.

 

[Muffled]

I believe he fulfills the prophecies.

 

[Muffled]

What bothers you about what Jesus taught? I'd especially be interested in understanding the Jewish perspective.

I'm having doubts about Jesus being the Jewish Messiah, because it doesn't make sense to me that if he was the Messiah Israel was praying for and eagerly awaiting, why did the movement he started lead to such anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews?

I'd assume the Messiah would exalt Israel, not argue with Jewish authorities, be executed as a criminal, and found a Church that brought about some of the worst anti-Semitism.

So what bothers you about Yeshua of Nazareth? Please explain why or why not he is the Messaiah. Thanks.

I'm praying that God will give Israel the Messiah they are expecting. It seems the time is ripe. He sounds like an amazing person. I hope and pray God isn't going to let his chosen people wait in vain.

Although I find Jesus quite blameless, He didn't fulfill enough prophecy in my opinion. He defied the law. The movement he started did away with much of the law. He also said he could forgive sins and that he and the Father are one, and those who see him see the Father, making himself equal to God. Is the Messiah supposed to make such claims about himself?

Please, if you feel inclined, join me in prayer that God gives his people the Messiah and Temple they are hoping for. Easy is this for God to do.

I believe that is an unreasonable expectation. God berated the Jews all the time in the OT.

I believe authorities have a tendency to not like that God is a higher authority.

It is only barely suggested in the prophecies.

I don't believe that comes from true Christianity or from Jesus.

I don't believe that is going to happen and praying for it is a waste of time. THe only Messiah Israel will get now is the antiChrist who will be the embodiment of the devil.

I believe the prophecies say so.

 

[Muffled]

?

You have a hard time believing he was Jewish and the Messiah or that he was the Jewish Messiah? Because the Jewish faith did not accept Him as the Messiah. The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. But yes Jesus was a Jew by birth.

Oh and Christian is not the most anti-semetic. There is one specific religion that despises Jews more than anyone. Just to get you clear on some facts.

I believe it is just as irrational for an adherent of that religion as it is for a Christian.

 

[Faithofchristian]

judaism and christianity are two different religions. so they have a different meaning of messiah. they even interpret the old testament differently. I don't think comparison is that useful.

Muhammad could not read or write. So what has come down is that Muhammad would listen to the Jews and christians at his time and then go and have wife to write down what he tired to remember.
Muhammad only twisted the old testament into what he wanted them to say, to support himself as a messenger.
That now many years haved pass since muhammad. That now to day Muslims take what wife of muhammad Written down to be true.

But when you look at it the old testament was about 3000 to 4000 years before Muhammad in 600 a.d.

So the question is, who's copying who?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That all depends what christians your referring to ?

Any Christian not of Jewish descent. If we all went back in time, would Jesus recognize us?

Notice that in John 8:39 That these Jews answered Jesus and said unto him, Abraham is our father, Jesus said unto them, If you were Abraham's children"

But isn't that just metaphorical whining? We have no proof of Jesus' family tree either, to be honest. Only DNA would be helpful.

And who is the off spring of the devil.

No one. I thought angel/human pairings had been frowned upon already. You don't believe that Jews are of Abraham literally but they are literally half human/half demon?

Notice that in 1 John 3:12--"Not as Cain who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother"

If you want to be nitpicky, murder isn't banned until much later.

And Cain's father being Satan.

Does Adam know Eve cheated on him?

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned"

Matthew 5:22

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Does Jesus know he's being a hypocrite?

Muhammad could not read or write. So what has come down is that Muhammad would listen to the Jews and christians at his time and then go and have wife to write down what he tired to remember.

LOL. I assume you believe the apostles were well read in Greek, then? How does the apostles doing it make it better?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Any Christian not of Jewish descent. If we all went back in time, would Jesus recognize us?


But isn't that just metaphorical whining? We have no proof of Jesus' family tree either, to be honest. Only DNA would be helpful.


No one. I thought angel/human pairings had been frowned upon already. You don't believe that Jews are of Abraham literally but they are literally half human/half demon?


If you want to be nitpicky, murder isn't banned until much later.


Does Adam know Eve cheated on him?


Matthew 5:22

Does Jesus know he's being a hypocrite?


LOL. I assume you believe the apostles were well read in Greek, then? How does the apostles doing it make it better?

Let's go back to the book of Genesis, this is where Jesus has his start with Eve and then from Adam and Eve to Seth to Noah to Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to king David to Solomon to the birth of Christ Jesus.

This being the Generation of Jesus as listed in the book of Matthew 1:1--18.

From Adam and Eve to the birth of Christ Jesus.

Christ Jesus was to come thru the seed line of Adam and Eve.
Note that in Genesis 3:15. God speaking to the Serpent, Satan, saying, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed, he shall bring your head, and you shalt bruise his heel"

At the cross of Christ Jesus, this is where the Serpent, Satan, bruised the heel of Christ Jesus.

When does the bruise to the Serpent, Satan's head happen, in the book of Revelation 20:10 tells us that the devil,Satan is cast into the lake of fire, this is the bruise to the head of the Serpent, Satan's happens.