Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[fallingblood]

Sorry if this has already been brought up but doesn't Paul say Love fulfills the law? My study of New Testament scripture has always centered on Jesus words and of course Jesus speaks of coming to fulfill the law and Paul speaks of the whole law being fulfilled by loving your neighbor as you love yourself.(Matthew 5, Romans 13, Galatian 5:14 for the specific)

But you know... I guess it's how you ask the question I mean... can anyone really love others in the same way they love themselves? As a believer in Christ teachings I sense that only with the help of Christ Holy Spirit can this be accomplished through the grace and forgiveness and honesty of someone who lets God be God.

Atanyrate... Fulfilling Jewish Law might also mean realizing that the Jewish Law was made so that all would see they are sinners and therefore all would sense their need for salvation. Enter Christ who looks at the heart and helps us see that murder can be done in the heart of anger and judgementalism. It seems to me that the law judges by eyes and ears but Christ came with righteous omni judgement that transcends our limited facaulties. (Isaiah 11)

The main problem I see though is that Jesus specifically states that his followers are to keep the law, all of the law

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

In that regard, Paul would have been called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. More so, it would suggest that Paul would have no place in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are not talking about fulfillment you are talking about obedience. It is quite correct to say that Jesus only needed to obey laws that were pertinent to Him. However as God how many of those laws do appertain to Him?

There are two ways that Jesus fulfilled the law.

1. He brought the law to its final state. The law is now complete as far as written law goes.

2. The law has reached an end. ie. all requirements have been fulfilled for everyone on the cross. The necessity for having the law has been removed by Jesus becoming a living law in Christians.

There's at least one more possible interpretation, and I think it fits with other aspects of the New Testament (especially the Pauline epistles):

3. Jesus fulfils the law by offering believers death. Death releases a person from all obligations under the law. The epistles go on at length about believers having "died with Christ". Admittedly, it's an odd sort of death that allows the deceased to still walk around and talk to people, but I think that's the idea that's being expressed.

 

[waitasec]

There's at least one more possible interpretation, and I think it fits with other aspects of the New Testament (especially the Pauline epistles):

3. Jesus fulfils the law by offering believers death. Death releases a person from all obligations under the law. The epistles go on at length about believers having "died with Christ". Admittedly, it's an odd sort of death that allows the deceased to still walk around and talk to people, but I think that's the idea that's being expressed.

that makes total sense...:clap
the living dead live to die
that's why the search for scientific truth stops with the ID for example.
or why it's far worse to use contraceptives then the spread aids, it's the call to maintain and exacerbate death.
ew...yuck.

 

[free spirit]

I really don't think you know what I'm on about.
However, Jesus did commit various sins. The easiest to see is the disrespect he showed to his mother. Some of the Jews on this board who are more informed of the Laws than I could point out other sins the Jesus committed.

Who accuses Jesus have no credebility they have an axe to grind, all Jesus actions and words theach spirituality.

I don't think that quite works. You stated only a sinless person could fulfill the law. You also stated only one person has fulfilled the law, which means only one person has been sinless. Thus, no one else can fulfill the law by what you stated.

You have read my post but you din't analise it.

Also, could you explain how fulfilling the law means that no one has to follow it?
there is no way that I can fulfill the law by my self, because Adam sold the flesh into slavery to sin. Therefore the flesh needs a redimer, in other words Adam broke one law and we all had to die, Jesus fulfilled all the laws and we all have justification of life. So Jesus is the equaliser if you like. We read in Romans 2:14-15,
" For when Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law. These, not having the law, are a law to themselves,
in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,"
The above is only the first part of God's plan of salvation and it is afforted to all of humanity.
The second part of salvation is for those who have faith in Jesus Christ. if they inavvertetly sin they are forgiven by only asking for it; but if they willinly sin they are discarded.
The third part of salvation is for those who suffer for Christ sake, in other words they are the saints whos character has been proven, they are Christ co-warkers, they are treated shamefully by religious people as Jesus was.

Your post still doesn't explain how one can fulfill the law in the Christian sense.
The above explanetion should be sufficient.


And more so, you haven't shown why the law doesn't have to be followed.

The law is a curse for those who try to follow it, please go to my first post my answer is there. or read Galatians 3:10-12

 

[Civil Shephard]

The main problem I see though is that Jesus specifically states that his followers are to keep the law, all of the law

In that regard, Paul would have been called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. More so, it would suggest that Paul would have no place in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yeah... you know fallingblood... when I was 12 years old and reading Jesus words I used to fanatasize that he'd heal my hand after I cut it off or restore my sight after I plucked my eyes out. I used to think that anger was a sin and that I was murdering people by being angry at them alone. And please... I won't even mention looking at woman with umm uhh

anywho... I think the whole purpose of the Sermon on the Mount was to introduce the world to why we need real grace and forgiveness. My sins against God and others as I ask for forgiveness are tempered with the sins I myself forgive. My self righteous trumpet blowing look at how holy I am pride become tempered by the things I do for others in secret as unto my God. But let me be amoung the truely lowly and learn from the 35 year old with autism and I see Jesus in ways I never dreamed I'd be capable of presenting. Love, forgiveness, honesty, friendliness... acknowledgement of anthers being and thoughts as valid... It ain't just Christians who got all that and more... but I do think that it's those who've truely called upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart that posses those qualities no matter what labels may seem to apply. (Paul taught me that in Romans 2:14-15) From my perspective the law is fulfilled in many whom Jesus said will be like suprise guest at that great wedding feast while others will be outside wondering why their engraved invitation is no good.

 

[james2ko]

However, Jesus did commit various sins. The easiest to see is the disrespect he showed to his mother.

As I stated several times on this thread, Jesus committed no sin:

2Co 5:21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ. (NLT)​

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.​

1Pe 2:21-22 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 "WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH"; ​

Verse 22 is a quote from the OT! (Isa 53:9)

Some of the Jews on this board who are more informed of the Laws than I could point out other sins the Jesus committed.

The Jews whom you speak of are nothing more than modern day Pharisees. They would naturally want nothing more than to see the Messiah-- their spiritual proteges completely rejected at His first coming-- discredited. This is not an anti-semitic remark. It is merely a historical fact!

 

[fallingblood]

Who accuses Jesus have no credebility they have an axe to grind, all Jesus actions and words theach spirituality.

I have no axe to grind. By trying to move the focus in another area, and not addressing the actual statement, is doing nothing more than dismissing an argument without giving any substance. Me saying that Jesus is a sinner is using the scripture to see what one can learn about Jesus. It does not mean I don't have any credibility.

Please, don't give me any of these cop outs.

You have read my post but you din't analise it.

Moving the focus again. Analyze: examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of (something, esp. information), typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation. Taken from the dictionary.

I did in fact analyze your post, and then I offered a rebuttal. In order to keep a discussion moving forward, the logical step for you is to offer a rebuttal to my rebuttal. That, or admit that you were wrong.

there is no way that I can fulfill the law by my self, because Adam sold the flesh into slavery to sin. Therefore the flesh needs a redimer, in other words Adam broke one law and we all had to die, Jesus fulfilled all the laws and we all have justification of life. So Jesus is the equaliser if you like. We read in Romans 2:14-15,

Why do you have to fulfill the law? Or why would you? You're not a Jew. No one is asking you to follow the Law. And really, following the law does not mean one is free from sin. It never did.

If we actually look at this, Adam was before the Jewish people. Most people actually consider the story of Adam as a symbolic story. But that really is besides the point. Because it was later on, with Moses, that the covenant and Law was created. So really, if Adam did break one law, it did seem to matter to God or future generation until some time after Jesus died. Because you won't find any suggestion of what you're saying in the Hebrew scripture or even in the words of Jesus.

As for Romans, that is not what Jesus is saying. More so, it doesn't say that Jesus is an equalizer. Maybe you want to quote the verses, and point out specifically what supports what you are saying. Anyway though, that is what Paul, who contradicts Jesus on several occasions, is saying. And since Jesus never mentions being an equalizer, there is no reason to even assume that he is.

The above is only the first part of God's plan of salvation and it is afforted to all of humanity.
The second part of salvation is for those who have faith in Jesus Christ. if they inavvertetly sin they are forgiven by only asking for it; but if they willinly sin they are discarded.
The third part of salvation is for those who suffer for Christ sake, in other words they are the saints whos character has been proven, they are Christ co-warkers, they are treated shamefully by religious people as Jesus was.

That is a theological explanation. One that does not rely even on scripture. You believe it on faith, and I have no intention of trying to prove your faith wrong or right as that is a waste of time. You're free to believe what you want, but just because you have faith it is right, does not mean it is the truth.

Scripture, and especially what Jesus states, does not support your position. That being so, there is no reason to cover that.

The above explanetion should be sufficient.

It wasn't. Half of it was a dodge, and the other half was a theological statement based on faith. Neither one actually do anything to prove an idea.

The law is a curse for those who try to follow it, please go to my first post my answer is there. or read Galatians 3:10-12

So your support is that Paul misrepresents scripture? Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 27:26. Deuteronomy is not saying what Paul claims. It is actually saying something very differently. As, Deuteronomy is stating that those who don't follow the law are cursed. And if you go to Deuteronomy, it is specially speaking to Jews. It states that Jews who do not follow the law are cursed. Not that the law is a curse, as you, and Paul are trying to falsely state and support.

You really need to learn a little about Judaism before making such an ignorant statement. The law is not a curse. Jews find it to be a blessing. And really, you don't need to follow it, because you're not a Jew.

 

[fallingblood]

As I stated several times on this thread, Jesus committed no sin:

2Co 5:21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ. (NLT)​

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.​

1Pe 2:21-22 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 "WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH"; ​

Verse 22 is a quote from the OT! (Isa 53:9)

Isaiah 53:9, and thus verse 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. So it is not evidence that Jesus was sinless. As, again, it has nothing to do with Jesus.

As for the other verses, they simply contradict the Gospels. The Gospels show clearly that Jesus committed at least one sin, as I've pointed out.

More so, Paul didn't know Jesus, so he isn't a very good witness on this. Hebrews and 1 Peter are written by people very distant from Jesus, and the fact is, we have no idea who wrote them. So again, not very good witnesses. And what is more, the Gospels clearly show that Jesus was sinful. So all you've pointed out is that the Bible contradicts itself.

The Jews whom you speak of are nothing more than modern day Pharisees. They would naturally want nothing more than to see the Messiah-- their spiritual proteges completely rejected at His first coming-- discredited. This is not an anti-semitic remark. It is merely a historical fact!

It is an ignorant remark. Also, I am always wary when one has to claim that what they stated wasn't anti-semitic, as that usually is a sign they are anti-semitic.

Jesus was not the Messiah. He did not fulfill Messianic prophecy. He failed. And really, I don't think Jesus ever even claimed to be Messiah. Because he obviously did not try to be the Messiah.

More so, why would the Jews want to see their Messiah discredited? It doesn't even make sense. It only shows that you need to do some research on to what the Jews believe the Messiah to be.

 

[james2ko]

Isaiah 53:9, and thus verse 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. So it is not evidence that Jesus was sinless. As, again, it has nothing to do with Jesus.

1. Can you prove this?

As for the other verses, they simply contradict the Gospels. The Gospels show clearly that Jesus committed at least one sin, as I've pointed out.

2. Jesus committed no sin, as the text you conveniently reject points out. The examples you pointed out were refuted. Your interpretation is just as good as mine, right?

More so, Paul didn't know Jesus, so he isn't a very good witness on this.

3. How can you not know someone whom you claim taught you everything you know about them?

Gal 1:11-12 "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. see also Gal 1:16-18; 1 Cor 9:1; 1 cor 15:8​

1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?​

Hebrews and 1 Peter are written by people very distant from Jesus, and the fact is, we have no idea who wrote them. So again, not very good witnesses. And what is more, the Gospels clearly show that Jesus was sinful. So all you've pointed out is that the Bible contradicts itself.

4. The fact you do not accept certain parts of canonized scripture that undeniably refute your claims is an easy cop out.

It is an ignorant remark. Also, I am always wary when one has to claim that what they stated wasn't anti-semitic, as that usually is a sign they are anti-semitic.

5. I live near a predominantly Orthodox Jewish community and interact with them often. They are proud to be called Modern Day Pharisees. Nothing anti-semitic about a compliment, right?

Jesus was not the Messiah. He did not fulfill Messianic prophecy. He failed. And really, I don't think Jesus ever even claimed to be Messiah. Because he obviously did not try to be the Messiah.

6. You're right. He did not at His first coming. But He will at His second, as so many scriptures indicate.

More so, why would the Jews want to see their Messiah discredited? It doesn't even make sense.

7. They discredited Him by simply ignoring, overlooking, misinterpreting, misconstruing the obvious scriptures which prophesied His first coming.

It only shows that you need to do some research on to what the Jews believe the Messiah to be.

8. I already have. The Jews use the scriptures pointing to His second coming as proof of His first appearance.

 

[fallingblood]

1. Can you prove this?

Just read any Jewish commentary on it. That or just read the actual OT. It never mentions Jesus.

More so, Isaiah 53:9 says nothing about being sinless. It speaks of one who wasn't violent or deceitful. That does not mean he was sinless. It means he wasn't violent or deceitful.

More so, it doesn't explain why Jesus was put into a tomb. At least it doesn't agree with the Gospels. The Gospels don't say he was put into a tomb because he wasn't violent or deceitful (even though Jesus did show violence in his escapade at the Temple), but more so his body wasn't dishonored.

There is no reason at all to assume it had anything to do with Jesus.

2. Jesus committed no sin, as the text you conveniently reject points out. The examples you pointed out were refuted. Your interpretation is just as good as mine, right?

I didn't conveniently reject them. I explained why they do not tell us anything of importance. And this has nothing to do with interpretation. I'm simply reading what the scripture says. It says that Jesus sinned. He disrespected his mother. That is clear in the scripture.

Thus, if scripture says Jesus sinned, and later on, it says he was sinless, there must be a contradiction. It simply logic.

3. How can you not know someone whom you claim taught you everything you know about them?

Let me rephrase. Paul didn't know Jesus as in he never met Jesus. Jesus was dead by the time Paul was around. So no, Paul did not know Jesus.

Gal 1:11-12 "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. see also Gal 1:16-18; 1 Cor 9:1; 1 cor 15:8​

It supports that Paul did not know Jesus. This is speaking of a supernatural ordeal. Thus, it does not support the idea that Paul knew Jesus in the sense that I was speaking about. As in, physically knew who Jesus was. As far as we know, he could have been making up all of his revelation, as we know that Jesus did not state what Paul claims in this letter.

1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?​

Seeing is not knowing.

4. The fact you do not accept certain parts of canonized scripture that undeniably refute your claims is an easy cop out.

It isn't a cop out as I explained why they don't work. As they contradict other parts of the canonized scripture. If there is a contradiction, obviously, one of the two choices can't be correct. And I see no reason to assume that the Gospels are incorrect when they state that Jesus sinned, as it isn't something that would be logical to make up.

5. I live near a predominantly Orthodox Jewish community and interact with them often. They are proud to be called Modern Day Pharisees. Nothing anti-semitic about a compliment, right?

Did I say anything about you calling them Modern day Pharisees? Not at all. Try again.

6. You're right. He did not at His first coming. But He will at His second, as so many scriptures indicate.

That is completely useless then. I could say that Hitler was the Messiah. Sure, he didn't fulfill Messianic prophecy, but he will on his second coming.

That simply doesn't fly.

7. They discredited Him by simply ignoring, overlooking, misinterpreting, misconstruing the obvious scriptures which prophesied His first coming.

What scripture? Can you point to any Hebrew Scripture that says the Messiah will have to come twice? What would be the point of sending the Messiah, just so they can fail the first time? And then assume there will be a second chance, even though Hebrew scripture never states that? There is no reason for the Jews to go out of there way to discredit Jesus as the Messiah. He simply wasn't. All one has to do is look at the Gospel accounts and it is clear as day.

8. I already have. The Jews use the scriptures pointing to His second coming as proof of His first appearance.

What scripture? There is no Hebrew scripture talking about a second coming of the Messiah. Again, you need to learn more about what the Jews believe about the Messiah in order to say anything on it.

 

[free spirit]

I have no axe to grind. By trying to move the focus in another area, and not addressing the actual statement, is doing nothing more than dismissing an argument without giving any substance. Me saying that Jesus is a sinner is using the scripture to see what one can learn about Jesus. It does not mean I don't have any credibility.

Please, don't give me any of these cop outs.

Moving the focus again. Analyze: examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of (something, esp. information), typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation. Taken from the dictionary.

I did in fact analyze your post, and then I offered a rebuttal. In order to keep a discussion moving forward, the logical step for you is to offer a rebuttal to my rebuttal. That, or admit that you were wrong.

Why do you have to fulfill the law? Or why would you? You're not a Jew. No one is asking you to follow the Law. And really, following the law does not mean one is free from sin. It never did.


If we actually look at this, Adam was before the Jewish people. Most people actually consider the story of Adam as a symbolic story. But that really is besides the point. Because it was later on, with Moses, that the covenant and Law was created. So really, if Adam did break one law, it did seem to matter to God or future generation until some time after Jesus died. Because you won't find any suggestion of what you're saying in the Hebrew scripture or even in the words of Jesus.


in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

As for Romans, that is not what Jesus is saying. More so, it doesn't say that Jesus is an equalizer. Maybe you want to quote the verses, and point out specifically what supports what you are saying. Anyway though, that is what Paul, who contradicts Jesus on several occasions, is saying. And since Jesus never mentions being an equalizer, there is no reason to even assume that he is.

That is a theological explanation. One that does not rely even on scripture. You believe it on faith, and I have no intention of trying to prove your faith wrong or right as that is a waste of time. You're free to believe what you want, but just because you have faith it is right, does not mean it is the truth.

Scripture, and especially what Jesus states, does not support your position. That being so, there is no reason to cover that.

It wasn't. Half of it was a dodge, and the other half was a theological statement based on faith. Neither one actually do anything to prove an idea.

So your support is that Paul misrepresents scripture? Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 27:26. Deuteronomy is not saying what Paul claims. It is actually saying something very differently. As, Deuteronomy is stating that those who don't follow the law are cursed. And if you go to Deuteronomy, it is specially speaking to Jews. It states that Jews who do not follow the law are cursed. Not that the law is a curse, as you, and Paul are trying to falsely state and support.

You really need to learn a little about Judaism before making such an ignorant statement. The law is not a curse. Jews find it to be a blessing. And really, you don't need to follow it, because you're not a Jew.

You have asked the questin, I have given you an answer in the form of how to come to a bottom line, and you do not understand: but how can you, without the Lord first opening your mind to understand the scripture. My error please accept my apoligies.

 

[fallingblood]

You have asked the questin, I have given you an answer in the form of how to come to a bottom line, and you do not understand: but how can you, without the Lord first opening your mind to understand the scripture. My error please accept my apoligies.

I understand exactly what you're saying. However, I don't believe your answer is satisfactory. I don't believe you are representing scripture completely. I believe you are misrepresenting scripture in order to suit your faith.

I understand the scripture, I simply don't accept your interpretation.

 

[free spirit]

I understand exactly what you're saying. However, I don't believe your answer is satisfactory. I don't believe you are representing scripture completely. I believe you are misrepresenting scripture in order to suit your faith.

I understand the scripture, I simply don't accept your interpretation.

you do understand the scriptures superficially, everyone does but the dept of God you do not understand.

If you consider the new testament false, jesus a sinner and Paul a lier what is there to discuss might as well talk about how the unicorn disappeared.
I do understand the scriptures because I can see the true lies in it, here is one of many that I discuss in my book.
(I) The most popular verses of scripture in the New Testament without doubt belong to the Lord’s Prayer; and most of us have memorised those verses from childhood. But young and old alike have been unaware of the lie that it contains, for in Matthew 6:13 part of it reads: “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” This verse implies that God leads us into temptation, and that there’s the need to ask Him not to do that, but to deliver us from evil.
But why should we ask Him that, when we all know or should know that the evil of temptation is not in God’s character? For we read in Romans 2:4: “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance.”
And we read in James 1:13: “Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” And 2Peter 2:9 has no ambiguity of the true work of the Lord for we read: “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under darkness for the Day of Judgment.”
So I am only putting the record straight, in harmony with God’s true character, in accordance with His true scripture by partly restoring Matthew 6:13, to read: “And lead us into repentance, and deliver us from evil.”
The above verse now reflects the true work and character of our God. After all, we are talking about our Heavenly Father, therefore, we should know what He does and doesn’t do. I am sure that an evil man, an enemy of Christ, has cleverly inserted those lies in there so they would falsely assume the power of the Sacred Word and prevent us from truly knowing and trusting our God and Father.
Fallingblood, there are many lies spread in the new testament if you can show me one, then I will say you understand.

 

[fallingblood]

you do understand the scriptures superficially, everyone does but the dept of God you do not understand.

And that shows why there is no need to discuss with you. You believe that you have some special knowledge, and if someone doesn't agree with you, they can't have that knowledge. I just see that as egotistical.

If you consider the new testament false, jesus a sinner and Paul a lier what is there to discuss might as well talk about how the unicorn disappeared

I'm sorry, but there simply is no logic there.

Fallingblood, there are many lies spread in the new testament if you can show me one, then I will say you understand.

I'm not taking your challenge. If you want to have a discussion, deal with the points I've already brought up. I'm not going to get into illogical contest on who understands the NT better.

 

[james2ko]

Just read any Jewish commentary on it. That or just read the actual OT. It never mentions Jesus.

1. God chose to indirectly refer to the Messiah by describing the essence of His identity and His character, which was a common practice in the OT:

Immanuel [God with us] (Isa 7:14) “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6)

More so, Isaiah 53:9 says nothing about being sinless. It speaks of one who wasn't violent or deceitful. That does not mean he was sinless. It means he wasn't violent or deceitful.

2. Fair enough. So if you feel it's not the Messiah then please enlighten us on who is the one being referred to in Isa 53?

More so, it doesn't explain why Jesus was put into a tomb. At least it doesn't agree with the Gospels. The Gospels don't say he was put into a tomb because he wasn't violent or deceitful (even though Jesus did show violence in his escapade at the Temple), but more so his body wasn't dishonored.

3. Sure it does:

Isa 53:9 He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But He was buried like a criminal; He was put in a rich man's grave.
​

He died between two thieves, and was buried in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man. In line with the Gospels.

There is no reason at all to assume it had anything to do with Jesus. I didn't conveniently reject them. I explained why they do not tell us anything of importance. And this has nothing to do with interpretation. I'm simply reading what the scripture says.

4. Really?? Perhaps a reminder of the definition of the term "interpretation" might help: a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something.

It says that Jesus sinned. He disrespected his mother. That is clear in the scripture.

5. The NT clearly states He did not sin. Not my problem that you do not recognize portions of it as legitimate cannon.

So no, Paul did not know Jesus. It supports that Paul did not know Jesus. This is speaking of a supernatural ordeal. Thus, it does not support the idea that Paul knew Jesus in the sense that I was speaking about. As in, physically knew who Jesus was. As far as we know, he could have been making up all of his revelation.

6. It is apparent that Paul spent some time in the deserts of Arabia (Gal 1:17). Men retreating into the desert/wilderness to meet with God to receive instruction/inspiration is a common theme throughout scripture (Moses, Elijah, Jesus). Since Paul already had knowledge of Mosaic Law, Christ fine tuned his knowledge and probably taught him the purpose of the law, his relation to the law, and the Gentiles relation to the law as is evident in much of his writings.

as we know that Jesus did not state what Paul claims in this letter.

7. Can you be more specific?

It isn't a cop out as I explained why they don't work. As they contradict other parts of the canonized scripture. If there is a contradiction, obviously, one of the two choices can't be correct. And I see no reason to assume that the Gospels are incorrect when they state that Jesus sinned, as it isn't something that would be logical to make up.

8. No contradictions exist in scripture (Heb 10:35). They only exist in the blinded minds of men who do not believe (2Cor 3:14-16).

Did I say anything about you calling them Modern day Pharisees? Not at all. Try again.

9. No but you labeled it an ignorant remark. So please explain how a compliment can be considered ignorant?

What scripture? Can you point to any Hebrew Scripture that says the Messiah will have to come twice? What would be the point of sending the Messiah, just so they can fail the first time? And then assume there will be a second chance, even though Hebrew scripture never states that? There is no reason for the Jews to go out of there way to discredit Jesus as the Messiah. He simply wasn't. All one has to do is look at the Gospel accounts and it is clear as day. What scripture? There is no Hebrew scripture talking about a second coming of the Messiah.

10. Sure there is:

The 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 not only places the Messiah's arrival by early in the first century AD but also confirms His two appearances!!

Dan 9:24-27 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy. 25 "Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. 26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off,but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."​

By applying the OT day-for-a-year principle (Num 14:33-34; Eze 4:4-6), the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks amount to 483 years (v25) "from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah the Prince." Counting 483 yrs from the time king Artaxerxes of Persia issued a decree around 457bc (Ezr 7:1, 7-9) while skipping the year "0", comes out to A.D. 27-- the start of Messiah's ministry!!!

Furthermore, note how vs 26 states the Messiah would be "cut-off", ie., killed. This certainly cannot be a reference to the Conquering Messiah whom the Jews await. This conclusively proves the Messiah will have two comings!

Again, you need to learn more about what the Jews believe about the Messiah in order to say anything on it.

I'll keep that in mind. Might I suggest you do the same.

 

[free spirit]

And that shows why there is no need to discuss with you. You believe that you have some special knowledge, and if someone doesn't agree with you, they can't have that knowledge. I just see that as egotistical.

I cannot boast that I have acquired that knowlege by my own intelligence, it is a gift from my Lord, in other words He opened my mind to understand the scriptures as He did in Luke 24:45; "Then He opened their minds to understand the scriptures." So the egotistical thing is not for me.

I'm sorry, but there simply is no logic there.
There is logic there: because if you declare That Jesus is a sinner, Paul Is a lier and the new testament a fraud, what have we left to discuss.

I'm not taking your challenge. If you want to have a discussion, deal with the points I've already brought up. I'm not going to get into illogical contest on who understands the NT better.

Understanding the suject is averything because in Proverb 9:10, we read "the knowlege of the Holy One is understanding" If you want to discuss only the politics of it thats fine with me.

 

[free spirit]

This is a common Christian belief, that Jesus fulfilled Jewish law. But is that even possible? As in, can anyone fulfill Jewish law?

To me, it simply doesn't sound right.

I must admit there is confusion among Christians how this has been accomplished that is because most Christians believe the new testament to be the perfect word of God, they do not realise that at the beginning of Christianity there were many wanting to destroy the church by preaching lies, and those people were succesful in inserting lies in the epistles of the apostles, these lies are still in the New Testament today. The following is another lie pertinent to your question that I also discuss in my book "the way God told it"
(IV) And in Galatians 3:13 I have found other lies about my Lord and about His accomplished works, for it reads: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’”
It is ludicrous to say that He redeemed us from the curse of the law by allowing Himself to become a curse for us, just by dying while hanging on a tree.
Before we go any further it is important for us to understand that the tree is only a tool to administer death to a condemned man. We must surely know that it is the sins that the man has committed that makes him accursed and not the way he dies.
That is why the law became a curse for us, because we could not keep it and consequently we merited death because of our transgressions, not because the law in itself was bad. (So death is not a curse, but it’s the consequence of sin). He came to fulfil the law for us and by fulfilling the law He absorbed the law in Himself. Therefore He became a blessing for us, because He freed us from the curse of the law written on tablets of stone, having replaced them with the law of the spirit of Himself (the Holy Spirit). I am fully convinced that it is correct for the above verse of Galatians 3:13 to read: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having fulfilled the law for us.”
We all know that our Lord became flesh for us and consequently He was made sin, because the flesh and sin are one and the same. Also our Lord (who is a type of Adam) took those of us who are faithful in Himself on the cross. He also took the sin of the whole world on the cross for the justification of all humanity as He fulfilled the law by being obedient even to death. But none of the above is a curse in itself. However, the law became a curse to us because we could not keep it. By doing all of the above He became a blessing for all those who believe and obey Him.
We would certainly and clearly see the error if we read Deuteronomy 21:23 in context with verse 22. We will then discover that part of verse 23 doesn’t apply to our Lord, for we read in Deuteronomy 21: 22-23: “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, (23) his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.” We can all sorely see that the above underlined scripture of verse 23 doesn’t apply to our Lord because our Lord was not guilty of having “committed a sin worthy of death,” required in the previous verse. In fact He was sinless, regardless of how He appeared to those who witnessed, or condemned Him to death. (Yes, He was made sin but never committed sin. Isn’t that something that we should rejoice about? For by doing that, Jesus stripped sin of the power of the law.)
Furthermore the testimony of 1Corinthians 12:3 reinforces that He didn’t become accursed for it is written: “That no one speaking by the spirit of God says, Jesus is accursed.” With those undisputable proofs in hand we should only come to one obvious conclusion: that the Scriptures suggesting that our blessed Lord become a curse for us is nothing but a “blasphemous diversion” working against the knowledge of the accomplished works of our Lord.
If you are not yet convinced, I would suggest that you insert the corrected verse in Galatians 3:13 and judge it in context and you will see that the whole chapter, and indeed all of Galatians, is explaining to us how the curse of the law has been replaced by having faith in the grace of Christ, who paid the price for us by enduring the brutal sufferings of the cross and yet died sinless. He thus fulfilled the law for us, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith in Him. Read 1Corinthians 15:55-57 and you will see that death and sin are defeated by the fulfilment of the law and not by Christ’s dying hanging on a tree. Read Romans 5:17-21 and you will also see that through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men; even so, the total obedience to the law of one Man resulted in justification of life to all men.
It is vital that all believers understand the book of Galatians, which explains faith in the grace of Christ in contrast to the works of the law. Satan knows that and so he uses all means in order to defend the written ambiguity, which clearly denigrates the character of our God, the accomplished works of our Lord, and the character and epistles of His apostles.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Regarding Isaiah 53. This is a prophecy foretelling what the nations and their kings will exclaim when they witness Israel's rejuvenation. The nations will contrast their former scornful attitude with the Jews with their new realization of Israel's grandeur.


Regarding the 70 weeks of Daniel... no. The word "annointed" or "Moshiach" used in that passage never once refers to THE Messiah.... but to other important anointed figures.The prince of verse 25 is Cyrus, who gave permission to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. The anointed one that will be cut off is Agrippa, the last Jewish king at the end of the second temple era. And the people of the prince who will come to destroy the city and the temple is Titus.


Nothing in that passage referred to the Messiah Isaiah spoke of in chapter 11, or that Ezekiel spoke of in chapter 37.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Oh yeah... Isaiah is not Emmanuel... the lengths some Christians go to to say that he is are extraordinarily sloppy and ridiculous.

There is one verse in Matthew 1 that hearkens back to the passage in Isaiah... which Matthew mistranslates... and then they go on to call him Jesus, not Emmanuel. Nevermind that the prophecy in Isaiah 7 could only have been fulfilled 700 years prior to the life and times of Jesus.

As for the Prince of Peace... that was King Hezekiah. Again.. centuries before the life and times of Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

1. God chose to indirectly refer to the Messiah by describing the essence of His identity and His character, which was a common practice in the OT:

Immanuel [God with us] (Isa 7:14) “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6)

Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus or the Messiah. It dealt with a prophecy concerning that time period, not the future. Reading the rest of the following verses really shows this.

As for Isaiah 9:6, again, can't be Jesus. Jesus never reigned on the throne of David, which verse 7 goes on to state. Neither have to do with Jesus. Which becomes exceptionally clear when they are read in context.

2. Fair enough. So if you feel it's not the Messiah then please enlighten us on who is the one being referred to in Isa 53?

Poisonshady expands on this subject, and I will just refer you to his post before mine.

3. Sure it does:

Isa 53:9 He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But He was buried like a criminal; He was put in a rich man's grave.
​

He died between two thieves, and was buried in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man. In line with the Gospels.

Jesus wasn't buried like a criminal. He might have died as a criminal, but being put into a rich man's grave is not how a criminal was buried.

As for Jesus being placed into Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, Luke and Mark for sure don't actually state that. One has to assume that.

5. The NT clearly states He did not sin. Not my problem that you do not recognize portions of it as legitimate cannon.

It also clearly indicates that he did sin. Thus, one of the two have to be incorrect.

6. It is apparent that Paul spent some time in the deserts of Arabia (Gal 1:17). Men retreating into the desert/wilderness to meet with God to receive instruction/inspiration is a common theme throughout scripture (Moses, Elijah, Jesus). Since Paul already had knowledge of Mosaic Law, Christ fine tuned his knowledge and probably taught him the purpose of the law, his relation to the law, and the Gentiles relation to the law as is evident in much of his writings.

To assume this, one then has to ignore what Jesus himself taught. Because Paul is contradicting what Jesus himself spoke.

7. Can you be more specific?

The most obvious is that Paul, in this letter, is addressing Gentiles, something that Jesus specifically stated not to do. He denies the Law, something that Jesus specifically stated not to do. Two examples are enough.

8. No contradictions exist in scripture (Heb 10:35). They only exist in the blinded minds of men who do not believe (2Cor 3:14-16).

Many contradictions exist in scripture. I've already pointed one out here.

9. No but you labeled it an ignorant remark. So please explain how a compliment can be considered ignorant?

Did I specifically say that "compliment" was the ignorant remark? No, I quoted a much longer passage from you, which I stated was ignorant.

10. Sure there is:

The 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 not only places the Messiah's arrival by early in the first century AD but also confirms His two appearances!!

Poisonshady also addresses this, and I will refer you to his post again.

I'll keep that in mind. Might I suggest you do the same.

I'm aware what the Jews believe about the Messiah.