Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[Redemptionsong]

Are you aware that it is entirely conceivable that Jesus may have done this intentionally so as to display himself, correctly or not, as "the Messiah"?

Yet to pursue this line of reasoning forces you to accept some pretty uncomfortable conclusions. By claiming he was a liar and deceiver, you must deny all that he taught and accomplished. The witnesses to his compassionate miracles are all to be ignored, and the words that still inspire admiration (even from unbelievers) have to be seen as part of his deception. It's the fact that his claims are so extreme and challenging ('I am the way, the truth and the life') that forces a person to either reject all, or accept all, that Christ stands for. In other words, you are either for him, or against him. There is no middle ground.

I assume you are referring to Isaiah 53:7 when you say that Jesus was mute. The actual passage says, :'He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.'
There was an occasion when oppressed and afflicted, standing before Herod Antipas, when Jesus said nothing at all. On the other occasions during his trial, before the High Priest and before Pilate, he was asked questions and responded. I do not see this as invalidating the prophecy.

 

[metis]

Yet to pursue this line of reasoning forces you to accept some pretty uncomfortable conclusions. By claiming he was a liar and deceiver, you must deny all that he taught and accomplished. The witnesses to his compassionate miracles are all to be ignored, and the words that still inspire admiration (even from unbelievers) have to be seen as part of his deception. It's the fact that his claims are so extreme and challenging ('I am the way, the truth and the life') that forces a person to either reject all, or accept all, that Christ stands for. In other words, you are either for him, or against him. There is no middle ground.

I assume you are referring to Isaiah 53:7 when you say that Jesus was mute. The actual passage says, :'He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.'
There was an occasion when oppressed and afflicted, standing before Herod Antipas, when Jesus said nothing at all. On the other occasions during his trial, before the High Priest and before Pilate, he was asked questions and responded. I do not see this as invalidating the prophecy.

I have to leave so I really don't have time to read and respond to this. Quote this from me as a reminder to me, and I'll try and get back with you on Sunday or Monday.

Have a great weekend.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You too.

 

[Tumah]

There is no such verse anywhere in the NT. So let's take your statement:



and make it:

So basically, you don't know what the NT actually says, but you know Tanakh, so whatever you think the Tanakh says tells you enough about Y'shua without hearing the voice of the NT.

The Tanach doesn't say a word about your god. So yes, being as the Tanach comes from G-d and the NT from man, this statement is correct.

Does the Mosaic Law teach us to judge a person before we witness what he has to say? I read the words of Y'shua first and conferred with Tanakh, too.

The Mosaic Law teaches us not to be fools.

 

[Tumah]

They are not two unrelated eras. The return of Christ, the day of the Lord, is the time appointed for Judgement. Yet in the comma (KJV), or 'and' (JSB) of Isaiah 61:2 lies a period of (at present) two thousand years.

2,000 years is enough time to make them unrelated. There is no indication in the verse of such a discrepancy between them.

According to your view, it's Isaiah who has the spirit upon him in chapter 61:1,2; yet in Isaiah 11:2 Isaiah specifically states that it's upon the Messiah that the spirit of the LORD shall alight. Would Isaiah prophesy the coming of the spirit on HIMSELF! Of course not.

You talk about reading passages in context, and using logic, well this is exactly what allows us to connect these passages.

Isaiah is not prophesying that the spirit of G-d would rest on him in 61:1, he's stating the circumstances at the time of his prophecy. That's why its written in present tense.
Throwing a messiah into there makes no sense. No where in those verses is the messiah discussed.

Another of the prophecies that relate to Jesus' first and second advents, in a single passage, is Zechariah 9:9,10
JSB, 'Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion;
Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem!
Lo, your king is coming to you.
He is victorious, triumphant,
yet humble, riding on an ***,
On a donkey foaled by a she-***.
[Note here the divide - 'shall' not 'is']
And I shall cut off chariots from Ephraim
And horses from Jerusalem;
The bow shall be cut off.
He shall speak [of] peace [to] the nations,
And his rule [shall extend] from sea to sea
And from river to land's end.

How do you explain the humility of the *** rider and the 'call on the nations to surrender'? A king would be derided and scorned if he were to humbly call on nations to surrender. Which is why humility is connected with the first coming, and swift judgement with the second.
We also have a very clear fulfilment of the first verse (v.9) in Matthew 21:1-11. Yet the second part is still future.

Allow me to fix your verses for you.
See, now that we're correctly translating the verse, there's no questions.

 

[Marsh]

None of the above. Allah means "the god" and was also a specific deity's name in lexicon before Muhammad smashed many idols, leaving one image, and declaring it "THE God".

Jehovah and Yahweh are contrivances and mispronunciations of God's true name.

How would you know that if you don't know what God's true name is? Or, would you make the assertion that you know God's true name? Also, if there is only one god then why does he need a name?

 

[Marsh]

I wouldn't call my God "The Almighty." I'd call Lord Mazda "The Ultimate Good", for he does not control everything, he does not predestine us, he did not create evil but evil is independent of him. He is the highest Good, the Perfect, The Wise Lord ('Ahura Mazda'). He sent a prophet, Zarathustra, to instruct us, and spoke with him personally. Our Lord does not set down laws or demand that we be totally perfect. In the end, all go to Ahura Mazda, even the wicked when they have been purged of their wickedness. We are just taught, Good Words, Good Thoughts and Good Deeds. The Goodness of Lord Mazda be on you

Now this is a god worthy of great respect.

 

[metis]

Yet to pursue this line of reasoning forces you to accept some pretty uncomfortable conclusions. By claiming he was a liar and deceiver, you must deny all that he taught and accomplished. The witnesses to his compassionate miracles are all to be ignored, and the words that still inspire admiration (even from unbelievers) have to be seen as part of his deception. It's the fact that his claims are so extreme and challenging ('I am the way, the truth and the life') that forces a person to either reject all, or accept all, that Christ stands for. In other words, you are either for him, or against him. There is no middle ground.

I assume you are referring to Isaiah 53:7 when you say that Jesus was mute. The actual passage says, :'He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.'
There was an occasion when oppressed and afflicted, standing before Herod Antipas, when Jesus said nothing at all. On the other occasions during his trial, before the High Priest and before Pilate, he was asked questions and responded. I do not see this as invalidating the prophecy.

To your first paragraph, let me remind you that what we read in the "N.T." are various people's takes on what they heard from others about Jesus, and there's so serous questioning by theologians whether any of the actual authors were actually witnesses to said events. Also, we need to remember that these events were written about decades after they supposedly happened, and we see variations with the narratives of these events in the gospels.

And example of the latter is: how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where were he/they located, what did he/they say, which women showed up at the tomb, and what did they tell the others after visiting the tomb. No two agree with each other.

Personally, I really don't much get into this one way or the other because my approach is very different anyway.

Did Jesus actually claim to be "the Messiah"? Realistically, it's impossible for us to know the answer to that today. Aquinas believed that one could believe as such but only if one took a more liberal position of the question of what we now call "biblical inerrancy". IOW, he was not a literalist. A while back, I posted a listing of messianic predictions, most of which have not been "fulfilled". If you want, I can repost them.

As to the second paragraph, it has long been a rule-of-thumb that either a prophecy is to be entirely fulfilled, so partial fulfillment simply doesn't work.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, Jews refer to this one as a variety of things. This includes "messiah" and "the messiah" plus at least 2 other terms.There is no Hebrew for "a messiah" but in English, Jews refer to the upcoming messiah as a messiah. Look, there, I just did it.

You insist on understanding Daniel in a certain way so you insist that it has to refer to a particular figure. That's your prerogative. Your lack of understanding doesn't impact the text. And neither does quoting "Paul."

It's a typical dodge to say "You don't understand" rather than provide an alternative explanation. Please explain (if you wish to bother to do so) why King Agrippa or Jesus per Daniel 9 need not end human sin.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Tanach doesn't say a word about your god. So yes, being as the Tanach comes from G-d and the NT from man, this statement is correct.


The Mosaic Law teaches us not to be fools.

A quick comparison with your previous post shows you are simply goalpost shifting.

PS. That is the point, which you underscored when you ducked my point--Tanakh has hundreds, even thousands of verses, referring to Y'shua.

The Mosaic Law teaches us not to be fools.

A "fool" in Tanakh is an immoral person. How will you and I pay for our crimes of immorality (see the Decalogue for coveting, for example)? That is the point. Good works do not eradicate human sin. You can review my related discussion with a fellow Jewish poster, who is trying to "prove" from Daniel 9 that King Agrippa II died for human sin.

 

[rosends]

It's a typical dodge to say "You don't understand" rather than provide an alternative explanation. Please explain (if you wish to bother to do so) why King Agrippa or Jesus per Daniel 9 need not end human sin.

It is really pretty simple. You could just read rashi on 9:24 as it explains it all. I'd give it to you in the Hebrew but that wouldn't help. Here, "so that Israel should receive their complete retribution in the exile of Titus and his subjugation, in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated, in order to bring upon them eternal righteousness and to anoint upon them (sic) the Holy of Holies: the Ark, the altars, and the holy vessels, which they will bring to them through the king Messiah. The number of seven weeks is four hundred and ninety years. The Babylonian exile was seventy [years] and the Second Temple stood four hundred and twenty [years]."

Of course, you should be asking more about Cyrus than Agrippa, but such is life.

 

[rosends]

You can review my related discussion with a fellow Jewish poster, who is trying to "prove" from Daniel 9 that King Agrippa II died for human sin.

I wonder whom you are referring to, because that certainly isn't something which I am trying to prove. Unless, of course, you are misrepresenting things because you don't understand or because you have to dissemble to make your point...

 

[Tumah]

A quick comparison with your previous post shows you are simply goalpost shifting.

Which goalpost is that?

PS. That is the point, which you underscored when you ducked my point--Tanakh has hundreds, even thousands of verses, referring to Y'shua.

It actually doesn't even have one.

A "fool" in Tanakh is an immoral person. How will you and I pay for our crimes of immorality (see the Decalogue for coveting, for example)? That is the point. Good works do not eradicate human sin. You can review my related discussion with a fellow Jewish poster, who is trying to "prove" from Daniel 9 that King Agrippa II died for human sin.

No a fool is a stupid person. Its contrast is the wise man.
Answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest he be wise in his eyes.
A wise son makes his father happy, a fool of a man, degrades his mother.

I have been following your conversation about Daniel 9, and I haven't seen anyone make that argument.

I guess I can see now why you became Christian.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Did Jesus actually claim to be "the Messiah"? Realistically, it's impossible for us to know the answer to that today. Aquinas believed that one could believe as such but only if one took a more liberal position of the question of what we now call "biblical inerrancy". IOW, he was not a literalist. A while back, I posted a listing of messianic predictions, most of which have not been "fulfilled". If you want, I can repost them.

Sorry, Metis, about the delay in replying.
I do still have the list of prophecies that you posted. But I think you've managed to pick numerous second advent prophecies without mentioning much about the first advent! In passages such as Isaiah 61:1-9 and Zechariah 9:9,10 you have texts that combine both first and second advents together in a manner that hides the Church age (the 'mystery' Romans 16:25,26).
When Jesus stood up in the synagogue in Nazareth at the beginning of his ministry he recited the words of Isaiah 61:1,2 but stopped before the 'vengeance' of God because judgment was not what he had come to fulfil. The present age is the Jubilee age, when the prisoners can be set free. We are not to know the exact time of the Lord's return to judge - but I believe it is not far off, given the general indications.
What this separation of the two advents gives us is a clearer picture of what to expect on the Lord's return (Zechariah 14:1-21). For a start, there will be no birth of a human Messiah. The birth is past. So too is the 'cutting off' of the Messiah. I also believe that since the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost there has been a steady building of an invisible kingdom, the body of Christ. This body will include the remnant of Israel (See Zechariah 13:7-9).

Here are some of the prophecies that I believe you missed out, and that refer to the first advent:

Time of his coming; Daniel 9:24-26
Born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:1
Born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14
Be adored by great persons: Psalm 72:10-11
Have his way prepared by a messenger: Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1.
Anointed by the spirit of God: Isaiah 11:2, 61:1; Psalm 45:8
Be a prophet like Moses. Deuteronomy 18:15,18.
Ministry described (Jubilee): Isaiah 61:1,2.
Ministry of healing: Isaiah 35:5-6; 42:18.
Ministry in Galilee: Isaiah 8:23 - 9:1(2)
Be tender and compassionate: Isaiah 40:11; 42:3
Be meek and unostentatious: Isaiah 42:2
Bear the reproaches of others: Isaiah 53:12; Psalm 69:10
Enter into Jerusalem on a donkey: Zechariah 9:9
Be rejected by his own people: Isaiah 53:2; 63:3; Psalm 69:9
Be rejected by Jewish leadership: Psalm 118:22
Be plotted against by Jews and Gentiles: Psalm 2:1-2
Be betrayed by a friend: Psalm 41:9; 53:13-15.
Be sold for 30 pieces of silver: Zechariah 11:12(13)
Forsaken by his disciples: Zechariah 13:7
Be struck on the cheek: Micah 4:14 (5:1)
Spat on: Isaiah 50:6
Mocked: Psalm 22:8-9
Beaten: Isaiah 50:6
Executed by crucifixion: Psalm 22:17; Zech. 12:10
Thirsty, given vinegar: Psalm 22:16; Psalm 69:22
Executed without a bone broken. Exodus 12:46; Psalm 24:31 (21)
Cut off, but not for himself: Daniel 9:24-26.
Death an atonement: Isaiah 53:5-7
Buried with the rich: Isaiah 53:9
Raised from the dead: Isaiah 53:9-10; Psalm 2:7; 16:10.
Ascend to the right hand of God: Psalm 16:11; 68:19; 110:1.
(From David Stern)[/QUOTE]

 

[metis]

Sorry, Metis, about the delay in replying.
I do still have the list of prophecies that you posted. But I think you've managed to pick numerous second advent prophecies without mentioning much about the first advent! In passages such as Isaiah 61:1-9 and Zechariah 9:9,10 you have texts that combine both first and second advents together in a manner that hides the Church age (the 'mystery' Romans 16:25,26).
When Jesus stood up in the synagogue in Nazareth at the beginning of his ministry he recited the words of Isaiah 61:1,2 but stopped before the 'vengeance' of God because judgment was not what he had come to fulfil. The present age is the Jubilee age, when the prisoners can be set free. We are not to know the exact time of the Lord's return to judge - but I believe it is not far off, given the general indications.
What this separation of the two advents gives us is a clearer picture of what to expect on the Lord's return (Zechariah 14:1-21). For a start, there will be no birth of a human Messiah. The birth is past. So too is the 'cutting off' of the Messiah. I also believe that since the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost there has been a steady building of an invisible kingdom, the body of Christ. This body will include the remnant of Israel (See Zechariah 13:7-9).

Here are some of the prophecies that I believe you missed out, and that refer to the first advent:

Time of his coming; Daniel 9:24-26
Born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:1
Born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14
Be adored by great persons: Psalm 72:10-11
Have his way prepared by a messenger: Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1.
Anointed by the spirit of God: Isaiah 11:2, 61:1; Psalm 45:8
Be a prophet like Moses. Deuteronomy 18:15,18.
Ministry described (Jubilee): Isaiah 61:1,2.
Ministry of healing: Isaiah 35:5-6; 42:18.
Ministry in Galilee: Isaiah 8:23 - 9:1(2)
Be tender and compassionate: Isaiah 40:11; 42:3
Be meek and unostentatious: Isaiah 42:2
Bear the reproaches of others: Isaiah 53:12; Psalm 69:10
Enter into Jerusalem on a donkey: Zechariah 9:9
Be rejected by his own people: Isaiah 53:2; 63:3; Psalm 69:9
Be rejected by Jewish leadership: Psalm 118:22
Be plotted against by Jews and Gentiles: Psalm 2:1-2
Be betrayed by a friend: Psalm 41:9; 53:13-15.
Be sold for 30 pieces of silver: Zechariah 11:12(13)
Forsaken by his disciples: Zechariah 13:7
Be struck on the cheek: Micah 4:14 (5:1)
Spat on: Isaiah 50:6
Mocked: Psalm 22:8-9
Beaten: Isaiah 50:6
Executed by crucifixion: Psalm 22:17; Zech. 12:10
Thirsty, given vinegar: Psalm 22:16; Psalm 69:22
Executed without a bone broken. Exodus 12:46; Psalm 24:31 (21)
Cut off, but not for himself: Daniel 9:24-26.
Death an atonement: Isaiah 53:5-7
Buried with the rich: Isaiah 53:9
Raised from the dead: Isaiah 53:9-10; Psalm 2:7; 16:10.
Ascend to the right hand of God: Psalm 16:11; 68:19; 110:1.
(From David Stern)

[/QUOTE]
Well, David is playing real fast & loose with his references. Just one example is the rather obvious fact that if one looks at the Isaiah references objectively, it becomes very clear that they have nothing to do with Jesus at all, regardless as to what one's denomination may teach. Also, some of the interpretations of said verses are sometimes bizarre based on what actually is written. IOW, it's like him saying that a grape is a bowling ball because they're both round.

Hey, I really don't lose any sleep over this, and if a Christian wants to believe Jesus is the Messiah, I seriously have no problem with that. That belief and $5 will getcha a cup of coffee at Starbucks. What's far more important to me is how we live out our life, which I also believe was Jesus' main focus in the first place-- compassion and justice for all. If we do that, then I do believe we're at least going in the right direction.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is really pretty simple. You could just read rashi on 9:24 as it explains it all. I'd give it to you in the Hebrew but that wouldn't help. Here, "so that Israel should receive their complete retribution in the exile of Titus and his subjugation, in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated, in order to bring upon them eternal righteousness and to anoint upon them (sic) the Holy of Holies: the Ark, the altars, and the holy vessels, which they will bring to them through the king Messiah. The number of seven weeks is four hundred and ninety years. The Babylonian exile was seventy [years] and the Second Temple stood four hundred and twenty [years]."

Of course, you should be asking more about Cyrus than Agrippa, but such is life.

My, oh my. Someone should have told Israel all the suffering was expiated circa millennia ago.

No.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I wonder whom you are referring to, because that certainly isn't something which I am trying to prove. Unless, of course, you are misrepresenting things because you don't understand or because you have to dissemble to make your point...

The point is Daniel 9 describes a Messiah who wasn't David, Cyrus, Agrippa. "Make an end of human sin!"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which goalpost is that?


It actually doesn't even have one.


No a fool is a stupid person. Its contrast is the wise man.
Answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest he be wise in his eyes.
A wise son makes his father happy, a fool of a man, degrades his mother.

I have been following your conversation about Daniel 9, and I haven't seen anyone make that argument.

I guess I can see now why you became Christian.

A wise man obeys Tanakh. A foolish man is immoral, a sinner, who disobeys Tanakh.

Thanks for following the conversation about Daniel 9. Perhaps read the whole chapter for yourself, and then return here to explain how Agrippa or Cyrus fulfilled it.

Thanks!

 

[rosends]

My, oh my. Someone should have told Israel all the suffering was expiated circa millennia ago.

No.

Wow. You really didn't read it at all, did you? "Should" not "did." Should I explain the difference?

 

[rosends]

The point is Daniel 9 describes a Messiah who wasn't David, Cyrus, Agrippa. "Make an end of human sin!"

No, that's your belief in the point. That doesn't make it so.