Who is Jesus?

[blü 2]

Well, again, these writers say Israel will reject the Messiah as Redeemer
and lose their nation for a long time. But when the Gentiles time is fulfilled the Jews will return to Israel. How would you explain such observations?

As I told you, the establishment of the modern state of Israel was due in large part to the Zionist movement in the half-century or so before WW2, which drew freely on biblical quotes because they needed to persuade the leaders of nations that might be called culturally Christian.

That style of campaigning might well have been largely irrelevant in India, China, Africa, SE Asia, etc. But, who knows, there may have been some alternative form of campaign to appeal to whichever non-Abrahamic culture was involved.

If it weren't for the prior entitlements of the occupiers of the lands now Israel, I'd have said they were welcome to it. One of the little-sung stories is of the methodical dispossession of Arabic inhabitants who already owned and worked land there. Not all ancient wounds go back thousands or even hundreds of years.

 

[PruePhillip]

Of course David was writing about himself. Try reading those psalms again. David wrote many songs about his languish and lament about being surrounded by his enemies and cut off. He turned to God in his trials. That's why his psalms are so inspirational for us.


Goodness when you first started listing off X, Y, Z ABC, I thought you were going to engage in dumping-- barage me with a bunch of irrelevant scripture quotations that would give me a lot of busiwork. My response to dumping (in case you ever get tempted) is to only answer the first three and advise the interlocuter that I don't play that game.

But as to what you actually wrote, there is NOTHING said by Moses Malachi Zechariah, Daniel or any other in the Tanakh that talks about the Messiah dying for anyone's sins. If you want to claim it, you must prove it. Chose your very, very BEST example. I'll at least treat you with respect. If you dump, you will waste both our time.

"Dump" ????
That's a new one.

 

[PruePhillip]

As I told you, the establishment of the modern state of Israel was due in large part to the Zionist movement in the half-century or so before WW2, which drew freely on biblical quotes because they needed to persuade the leaders of nations that might be called culturally Christian.

That style of campaigning might well have been largely irrelevant in India, China, Africa, SE Asia, etc. But, who knows, there may have been some alternative form of campaign to appeal to whichever non-Abrahamic culture was involved.

If it weren't for the prior entitlements of the occupiers of the lands now Israel, I'd have said they were welcome to it. One of the little-sung stories is of the methodical dispossession of Arabic inhabitants who already owned and worked land there. Not all ancient wounds go back thousands or even hundreds of years.

That's true, "Next year in Jerusalem" was sung after every Passover,
for nearly two thousand years - even, as Napoleon found, even in
the frozen waste of Russia.
Scripture inspired the Jews.
But scripture alone would not achieve this.
Nor, without England's support, Stalin's agreement and Roosevelt's okay
would this happen. And it needed a lot of global sympathy after 1945. And
it needed miracles - I love to finger the things in the 1948 and 1967 wars
that ought not to have happened.
If Ezekiel is correct (chapter 38 or 39) then one day ALL the Jews will be
back home in Israel. As persecution rises again against Jews maybe it
would be good if Jews left all Western nations and returned to Israel, and
all Arabs go back to the Arabian peninsula.

 

[PruePhillip]

As I told you, the establishment of the modern state of Israel was due in large part to the Zionist movement in the half-century or so before WW2, which drew freely on biblical quotes because they needed to persuade the leaders of nations that might be called culturally Christian.

It's possible, I sometimes say, that the Gospels were written AFTER 1967.
How else do you explain Jesus saying that the enemy would lay siege to
Jerusalem and kill even her children within. And that Jerusalem shall be
trodden down of the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. It's
tempting to see in the cultural and moral revolution of the 1960's the end
of the old Judean/Christian world view held by the West.

 

[blü 2]

It's possible, I sometimes say, that the Gospels were written AFTER 1967.
How else do you explain Jesus saying that the enemy would lay siege to
Jerusalem and kill even her children within. And that Jerusalem shall be
trodden down of the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. It's
tempting to see in the cultural and moral revolution of the 1960's the end
of the old Judean/Christian world view held by the West.

Well, you're determined to be impressed by magic, and I remain unimpressed.

And it's scarcely impressive that the best Yahweh could do for his chosen people was Israel.

Or that Yahweh chose to do even that little by engineering the Holocaust.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, you're determined to be impressed by magic, and I remain unimpressed.

And it's scarcely impressive that the best Yahweh could do for his chosen people was Israel.

Or that Yahweh chose to do even that little by engineering the Holocaust.

As I have said before, the Jews were SYMBOLIC of God's "chosen people."
The bible says God has a "chosen people" and He gives that illustration,
just like God has a Promised Land, and gives us Palestine. ETC..
Doesn't mean the Jews or Palestine are the best God could find ---- in fact
the Jews more or less rejected all the ordinances of God right back to the
days of Moses, and this is why they were persecuted, exiled, enslaved etc..
So please, don't look at them as the authority on the bible. The bible, as the
Jewish national book, routinely condemned the Jews - yet like the Jews
themselves, the bible managed to survive being the Jewish book.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, again, these writers say Israel will reject the Messiah as Redeemer
and lose their nation for a long time. But when the Gentiles time is fulfilled
the Jews will return to Israel. How would you explain such observations?

What do you do with the fact that we Jews have the nation state of Israel again? If the diaspora was punishment for rejecting Jesus, then why is God now rewarding us, since we still do utterly reject Jesus as messiah? (Not to mention the parts about a man being God, and human sacrifice paying for sin and all.)

 

[PruePhillip]

What do you do with the fact that we Jews have the nation state of Israel again? If the diaspora was punishment for rejecting Jesus, then why is God now rewarding us, since we still do utterly reject Jesus as messiah? (Not to mention the parts about a man being God, and human sacrifice paying for sin and all.)

Certainly, it's an excellent question.
Luke 21:24 And they (those in Jerusalem and Judea, vs 20-21) will fall by the edge of the sword, and
be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the
Gentiles are fulfilled."

The operative word here is "Gentiles are fulfilled" (or finished.)
So it's not about Jews per se but about the Gentiles no longer believing in the Messiah either.

 

[blü 2]

As I have said before, the Jews were SYMBOLIC of God's "chosen people."

The Tanakh is unambiguous that the deal is made between the Jewish nation and God, to the exclusion of everyone else; and also that a very particular symbol will always identify the Chosen, towit male circumcision.

Paul found that the requirement of circumcision was bad for sales, and is said by the author of Acts to have offered arguments against the requirement which, if you've read them, you already know are entirely specious and untenable. But such is politics that, at least as Paul tells it, he wins that part of the argument. Decades later, somewhere around 85 CE, the author of Matthew has Jesus declare that not a letter, not a dot, not a single coffee stain of the law shall be changed until the whole project is finished, which is entirely incompatible with the arguments which Acts attributes to Paul.

So Paul would use your argument, and the author of Matthew would reject it out of hand.

The bible says God has a "chosen people" and He gives that illustration,
just like God has a Promised Land, and gives us Palestine. ETC.. Doesn't mean the Jews or Palestine are the best God could find ---- in fact the Jews more or less rejected all the ordinances of God right back to the days of Moses, and this is why they were persecuted, exiled, enslaved etc..

But the Christians have demonstrated their own view of your view by reviling, attacking, robbing, torturing and killing Jews for two millennia, and working on a third.

And the Jews would look like a single perfect whole compared to the Christians, who have split into two, then three, then thousands of different versions of Christianity, when in your story they'd be thinking of themselves as the unified homogeneous standard bearers of their own religion, let alone as some kind of unifying force for the three large Abrahamics.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Tanakh is unambiguous that the deal is made between the Jewish nation and God, to the exclusion of everyone else; and also that a very particular symbol will always identify the Chosen, towit male circumcision.

Paul found that the requirement of circumcision was bad for sales, and is said by the author of Acts to have offered arguments against the requirement which, if you've read them, you already know are entirely specious and untenable. But such is politics that, at least as Paul tells it, he wins that part of the argument. Decades later, somewhere around 85 CE, the author of Matthew has Jesus declare that not a letter, not a dot, not a single coffee stain of the law shall be changed until the whole project is finished, which is entirely incompatible with the arguments which Acts attributes to Paul.

So Paul would use your argument, and the author of Matthew would reject it out of hand.
But the Christians have demonstrated their own view of your view by reviling, attacking, robbing, torturing and killing Jews for two millennia, and working on a third.

And the Jews would look like a single perfect whole compared to the Christians, who have split into two, then three, then thousands of different versions of Christianity, when in your story they'd be thinking of themselves as the unified homogeneous standard bearers of their own religion, let alone as some kind of unifying force for the three large Abrahamics.

I see two OT messages about the Gentiles
1 - the religion of the bible will be to both Jew and Gentile
2 - the religion will be to the Gentile

The Jews might believe the bible is theirs. This is why the townsfolk of
Nazareth tried to kill Jesus when he said only two people were helped
during a drought in Elias' day, both were Gentiles.
Jesus "came to his own" and that was His mission. The mission of his
apostles was to take that message to the whole world. And indeed,
Isaiah speaks of the Gentiles receiving the truth of God.

I wonder how many times Luke quoted from Matthew's Gospel, and
Luke died ca AD 66.

The Jews had a real issue in debating with Catholics and Protestants
over the centuries. If indeed the Jews are still God's people, literally,
then why are they in exile and their nation remains under the feet of
the Gentiles?

The issue of circumcision has no part in the New Covenant, like all
other symbols. This covenant, which many of the prophets said would
come, has no symbols other than baptism and the Eucharist. Peter
was wrong in these issues - he was still living in the Old Testament.
The doctrine of the New Testament is enunciated in Jesus' Sermon
on the Mount - it had nothing to say about the Law of Moses. Jesus
would say, "You have heard... but I say..."

 

[PruePhillip]

And the Jews would look like a single perfect whole compared to the Christians, who have split into two, then three, then thousands of different versions of Christianity, when in your story they'd be thinking of themselves as the unified homogeneous standard bearers of their own religion, let alone as some kind of unifying force for the three large Abrahamics.

You are missing the point. It says the Gospel is available to everyone,
whether they are Jew or Gentile, male or female, young or old.
That Catholics and Protestants, as Gentiles, act badly, says Nothing
about that universalist message.

 

[blü 2]

I see two OT messages about the Gentiles
1 - the religion of the bible will be to both Jew and Gentile
2 - the religion will be to the Gentile

Quotes?

The Jews might believe the bible is theirs.

If you mean the Tanakh, there's not the slightest doubt it's theirs. It's not about the Christian religion at all.

This is why the townsfolk of Nazareth tried to kill Jesus when he said only two people were helped during a drought in Elias' day, both were Gentiles. Jesus "came to his own" and that was His mission. The mission of his apostles was to take that message to the whole world.

It'd be helpful if you routinely provided a reference, book, chapter and verse, to your statements of this kind.

I wonder how many times Luke quoted from Matthew's Gospel, and
Luke died ca AD 66.

The author of Luke wrote at much the same time as the author of Matthew, ie in the mid 80s. If the author of Luke is also the author of Acts, the latter was written c. 100 CE.

The Jews had a real issue in debating with Catholics and Protestants over the centuries. If indeed the Jews are still God's people, literally, then why are they in exile and their nation remains under the feet of
the Gentiles?

Perhaps the Jews wished to tell the Christians to stop retrofitting their tales onto the Tanakh, a particularly silly delight of Christians down the ages.

The issue of circumcision has no part in the New Covenant, like all
other symbols.

That's pure Paul and the convenience of the salesman. None of the gospel Jesuses say that. As I pointed out, Matthew's Jesus directly contradicts Paul when he says not a letter of the law shall be altered.

This covenant, which many of the prophets said would come, has no symbols other than baptism and the Eucharist.

The Christians are free to invent such tales as suit them. The point is that retrofitting is rightly offensive to Jewish beliefs, and the inference, often enough the direct statement, of Christians that they're free to tell the Jews what the Jews' own book means is nonsense. Although, after all the centuries of persecutions and pogroms, I suppose you could call it conqueror's rights.

 

[PruePhillip]

Quotes?
If you mean the Tanakh, there's not the slightest doubt it's theirs. It's not about the Christian religion at all.
It'd be helpful if you routinely provided a reference, book, chapter and verse, to your statements of this kind.
The author of Luke wrote at much the same time as the author of Matthew, ie in the mid 80s. If the author of Luke is also the author of Acts, the latter was written c. 100 CE.
Perhaps the Jews wished to tell the Christians to stop retrofitting their tales onto the Tanakh, a particularly silly delight of Christians down the ages.
That's pure Paul and the convenience of the salesman. None of the gospel Jesuses say that. As I pointed out, Matthew's Jesus directly contradicts Paul when he says not a letter of the law shall be altered.
The Christians are free to invent such tales as suit them. The point is that retrofitting is rightly offensive to Jewish beliefs, and the inference, often enough the direct statement, of Christians that they're free to tell the Jews what the Jews' own book means is nonsense. Although, after all the centuries of persecutions and pogroms, I suppose you could call it conqueror's rights.

The "letter of the law" referred to the moral law, not the Ordinances or the Judgments.
(ie eating pork or shellfish, inheritance rules etc..)
I believe Luke was the author who was with Paul on their voyage to Rome. Certainly
feels like it when you read the account. Luke was one of the greatest historians of
the Classical Age.
The problem with saying Christians have no part in the OT is that many of the writers
of that book spoke of a time when there will not only be no Israel or temple, but no
law of Moses either (beginning with Jacob's prophecy that the law will last till the
Messiah comes.) And of course, Jews cannot obey the Law of Moses - no temple or
tabernacle, not even a nation until now.
Cheers

 

[blü 2]

No letter of the law referred to the moral law, not the Ordinances or the Judgments. (ie eating pork or shellfish, inheritance rules etc..)

If you're saying circumcision was no part of the Law, I disagree. And Jesus himself was circumcised, that is, he too was a covenantee. Paul would have you think that was meaningless.

The problem with saying Christians have no part in the OT is that many of the writers of that book spoke of a time when there will not only be no Israel or temple, but no law of Moses either (beginning with Jacob's prophecy that the law will last till the Messiah comes.)

Again you fail to give references to the passages you rely on.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Certainly, it's an excellent question.
Luke 21:24 And they (those in Jerusalem and Judea, vs 20-21) will fall by the edge of the sword, and
be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the
Gentiles are fulfilled."

The operative word here is "Gentiles are fulfilled" (or finished.)
So it's not about Jews per se but about the Gentiles no longer believing in the Messiah either.

So you are saying that simply the time of the Gentiles has simply been fulfilled? Then, please, why aren't Jews flocking to Jesus?

It still doesn't answer the question. The Torah states that living on the land is conditional with being in God's good graces. Please explain how we are in God's good graces if we haven't, as you would say, accepted Jesus as our lord and savior.

 

[PruePhillip]

So you are saying that simply the time of the Gentiles has simply been fulfilled? Then, please, why aren't Jews flocking to Jesus?

It still doesn't answer the question. The Torah states that living on the land is conditional with being in God's good graces. Please explain how we are in God's good graces if we haven't, as you would say, accepted Jesus as our lord and savior.

I am sure what Jesus meant by the Gentile's time being fulfilled is there would either
be a specific time, or there would be a turning away from Judeo Christianity. I suspect
it's the latter.
IMO your land has been given back to you solely on the basis of the Gentile issue.
Most Jews returning to Israel after 1897 were secular. There is no change in the Jewish
mind concerning religion that I am aware of.
I take a lot of interest in Jews and Israel.

 

[PruePhillip]

If you're saying circumcision was no part of the Law, I disagree. And Jesus himself was circumcised, that is, he too was a covenantee. Paul would have you think that was meaningless.
Again you fail to give references to the passages you rely on.

True. Jesus was circumcised, no doubt. And Jesus fulfilled all the law, as He
was supposed to do. But... having fulfilled the law, He finished it.
Thus Jesus would have observed the Passovers. But on His last night, the
night of the Passover, He gave Himself as the sacrificial lamb. His Passover
service (aka Last Supper) bore no relation to anything in the OT.
And having entered His temple, as Daniel said, He ended the temple.
And the Veil of the Temple, which symbolically separated God from man, was
torn top to bottom.
And circumcision, under the Spirit of grace, signified nothing. The mark of a
God fearing person was to be found in their life. As should be the case.

There's echoes of all this in the OT. Moses himself speaking about the end of
the law he gave the people. The end of Israel, too, BTW.

 

[PruePhillip]

If you mean the Tanakh, there's not the slightest doubt it's theirs. It's not about the Christian religion at all.

Perhaps the Jews wished to tell the Christians to stop retrofitting their tales onto the Tanakh, .

True. The OT is not Christian.
But this book is shot through with allusions to what Jeremiah called the "new covenant"
(or new testament)
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their
fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant
which they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD. "But this is the
covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I
will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they
shall be My people."

As Jacob in Egypt put it, the law will end with the Messiah. In Christ we are no longer under
law but under grace. This is not understood by the rule making, symbol creating mainstream
churches.

You didn't answer the question? Who is David referring to in Psalm 22?

 

[blü 2]

True. The OT is not Christian.
But this book is shot through with allusions to what Jeremiah called the "new covenant"
(or new testament)

"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant
which they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they
shall be My people."

No room for Christians there, you'd have to agree. Imagine having all the rules in the Torah written on your heart! No pork or shrimp for you this Christmas! And make sure your kitchen has two sinks. But by way of consolation you can own slaves with a clear conscience ─ if not you personally then at least the menfolk of your tribe.

Or you could raise rationalization to new levels, though come to think of it, that's 95% of theology anyway.

You didn't answer the question? Who is David referring to in Psalm 22?

In fact I answered "Not Jesus". A more elaborate answer would be a list: the author, addressing the Jewish God, speaks of himself, his mother, those who mock him, bulls, dogs, a company of evildoers who are imagined surrounding him, lions, oxen, and believers generically.

A more interesting feature of Psalm 22 is how the author of Mark used it to construct the crucifixion scene he wrote. You'll recall he'd also borrowed his trial scene from Josephus, and indeed constructed all his major incidents from such borrowings, not least things it pleased him to think might be messianic prophecies. Mark is the only purported biography of Jesus, those of the authors of Matthew, Luke and John being rewrites to suit their difference theologies and tastes.

You can see why the question whether there was ever an historical Jesus at all won't go away.

 

[PruePhillip]

"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant
which they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they
shall be My people."

No room for Christians there, you'd have to agree. Imagine having all the rules in the Torah written on your heart! No pork or shrimp for you this Christmas! And make sure your kitchen has two sinks. But by way of consolation you can own slaves with a clear conscience ─ if not you personally then at least the menfolk of your tribe.

Or you could raise rationalization to new levels, though come to think of it, that's 95% of theology anyway.
In fact I answered "Not Jesus". A more elaborate answer would be a list: the author, addressing the Jewish God, speaks of himself, his mother, those who mock him, bulls, dogs, a company of evildoers who are imagined surrounding him, lions, oxen, and believers generically.

A more interesting feature of Psalm 22 is how the author of Mark used it to construct the crucifixion scene he wrote. You'll recall he'd also borrowed his trial scene from Josephus, and indeed constructed all his major incidents from such borrowings, not least things it pleased him to think might be messianic prophecies. Mark is the only purported biography of Jesus, those of the authors of Matthew, Luke and John being rewrites to suit their difference theologies and tastes.

You can see why the question whether there was ever an historical Jesus at all won't go away.

When the law is in your heart, and you live by the two laws of Jesus (to love God and your fellow man)
then this is the change within - not shown with your foreskin (!) but the indwelling of Christ's spirit.

We have no dates for the Gospels. Again, I suspect John's was first. The earliest datable reference is
Paul to the Corinthians, about 20 years after Jesus
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and
said, “This is my body which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took
the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood: do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of
me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

ca AD 55

This is the essence of the Gospel - the One who came to bear our sins. Not with an animal but with his body.
It's clear these Corinthians were long an established church (because they were going off the rails a bit) and
its clear that Paul was patiently telling them what they already knew.
I am sure there were lots of even earlier letters to this effect. And even at this stage Luke was probably writing
Acts (given the detail of his history) and this Acts was written after he wrote the Gospel of Luke.