Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[sojourner]

What truth is that? That you'll believe anything, even if it's obviously false?

No, it's the truth that God is found more in the meek, the downtrodden, the victim, the outcast, and the disenfranchised than God is found in the overbearing, the exalted, the perp, the included, and the authorized.

 

[1robin]

Since you are a notorious lair here, please list said 350 so we can actually count them all and ascertain that this number is even accurate. On many occasions you claim very high numbers and yet produce none.

You can't even spell the false insult correctly and so back onto the ignore list you go. I don't do psycho.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You can't even spell the false insult correctly and so back onto the ignore list you go. I don't do psycho.

Sorry if the truth hurts; but you will do anything to avoid facing how false your statements are. You do more psycho here than you realize.

Note: failure to address the actual argument.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, it's the truth that God is found more in the meek, the downtrodden, the victim, the outcast, and the disenfranchised than God is found in the overbearing, the exalted, the perp, the included, and the authorized.

So, QED then?

Is the fact that this version of the faith, deals with a figure who is a failure at the prophecies, why it attracts those who generally fail at their own tasks?

 

[sojourner]

So, QED then?

Is the fact that this version of the faith, deals with a figure who is a failure at the prophecies, why it attracts those who generally fail at their own tasks?

Who said anything about failing at their own tasks? You really do live in a fantasy world of mildly provocative drivel.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Who said anything about failing at their own tasks? You really do live in a fantasy world of mildly provocative drivel.

So you deny the fact that losers and addicts make up a large portion of evangelicals? Interesting.

The fact that Jesus failed at some of the required prophecies is not open to interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

So you deny the fact that losers and addicts make up a large portion of evangelicals? Interesting.

The fact that Jesus failed at some of the required prophecies is not open to interpretation.

I'm not making any claims about fundigelicals. But if that's the case, it only helps to bolster my argument.


I never claimed that Jesus didn't meet some of the prophecies. In fact, my take on the matter is the opposite. They were failed and they were failed for a reason. Or didn't you actually read my last few posts?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm not making any claims about fundigelicals. But if that's the case, it only helps to bolster my argument.

If you were to, would you agree with my true statement, or not?

lol.... being wrong doesn't bolster your argument.

I never claimed that Jesus didn't meet some of the prophecies. In fact, my take on the matter is the opposite. They were failed and they were failed for a reason. Or didn't you actually read my last few posts?

They were failed because he was not the moschiach. There isn't any other answer, really.

The moschiach doesn't fail them.

 

[Shermana]

The issue of the God-0man/angel is a sticking point though; where in the sources is any such thing mentioned? It's too big to simply leave out by oversight...

That's a whole debate in itself. I believe the concept is mentioned in some disputed works (Which I go by) like Ascension of Isaiah, which may have SOME Christian interpolation but I think not all of it is edited. I also believe it was going by DSS works, some which may not have even be released, its speculative but I don't think the Jews of John's day would have just wildly gone with totally new concepts.

And, if one were Hebrew, of course one would necessarily think he would finish in one lifetime. He [the mochisach] is supposed to be a great king, as his ancestors.

Again, it's up to interpretation of how it works.We'd have to go over the verses one by one, which is a debate OP I've been meaning to make for awhile, what exactly do the prophecies say.

There's no precedence to imagine such a new idea, certainly, and Maimonides certainly was specific, and his writings are considered canon, are they not? His [moschiach's] fulfilling the prophecies of his own coming, are in fact, part of the requirements which are to identify him, are they not?

Maimonedes' writings are not canonical at all, they're just highly esteemed by the more "Rationalist" post-Medieval Rabbis. And again, what exactly the prophecies say aren't very clear cut. As to the idea being "new", I don't think these ideas were new at the time, I think groups like the DSS writers had all these concepts and that's why the Nazarenes were willing to accept Jesus in large numbers.

As for the idea that there would be extraneous prophecies, they were all oral, until formally canonized. Are you suggesting that the canonization of the full Torah, was not complete?

Actually, for the TANAKH, yes. The Torah isn't really that big on Messianic prophecies (some of the Christian uses of Torah for Messianic prophecies are laughably vague though). I do not think the current Rabbinical Jewish canon is by any means complete, but that too is another debate.

I think you might be misrepresenting such uncertainty. While there might be different commentaries but what if any real ambiguity is there to speak of?

And this too is worthy of a whole OP, apparently some of these ideas are based on Rabbis receiving Supernatural encounters. I wonder what Maimonedes would say about that.

Jewish messianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talmud
The Talmud extensively details the advent of the Messiah (Sanhedrin 98a, et al.) and describes a period of freedom and peace, which will be the time of ultimate goodness for the Jews and for all mankind. Tractate Sanhedrin, contains a long discussion of the events leading to the coming of the Messiah, for example:
R. Johanan said: When you see a generation ever dwindling, hope for him [the Messiah], as it is written, "And the afflicted people thou wilt save."[II Samuel 22:28] R. Johanan said: When thou seest a generation overwhelmed by many troubles as by a river, await him, as it is written, when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him; which is followed by, And the Redeemer shall come to Zion. R. Johanan also said: The son of David will come only in a generation that is either altogether righteous or altogether wicked. 'in a generation that is altogether righteous,' — as it is written, Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever. 'Or altogether wicked,' — as it is written, And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor;31 and it is [elsewhere] written, For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it.[1]
Throughout Jewish history Jews have compared these passages (and others) to contemporary events in search of signs of the Messiah's imminent arrival, continuing into present times.
The Talmud tells many stories about the Messiah, some of which represent famous Talmudic rabbis as receiving personal visitations from Elijah the Prophet and the Messiah. For example:
R. Joshua b. Levi met Elijah standing by the entrance of R. Simeon b. Yohai's tomb. He asked him: 'Have I a portion in the world to come?' He replied, 'if this Master desires it.' R. Joshua b. Levi said, 'I saw two, but heard the voice of a third.' He then asked him, 'When will the Messiah come?' — 'Go and ask him himself,' was his reply. 'Where is he sitting?' — 'At the entrance.' And by what sign may I recognise him?' — 'He is sitting among the poor lepers: all of them untie [them] all at once, and rebandage them together, whereas he unties and rebandages each separately, [before treating the next], thinking, should I be wanted, [it being time for my appearance as the Messiah] I must not be delayed [through having to bandage a number of sores].' So he went to him and greeted him, saying, 'peace upon thee, Master and Teacher.' 'peace upon thee, O son of Levi,' he replied. 'When wilt thou come Master?' asked he, 'Today', was his answer. On his returning to Elijah, the latter enquired, 'What did he say to thee?' — 'peace Upon thee, O son of Levi,' he answered. Thereupon he [Elijah] observed, 'He thereby assured thee and thy father of [a portion in] the world to come.' 'He spoke falsely to me,' he rejoined, 'stating that he would come to-day, but has not.' He [Elijah] answered him, 'This is what he said to thee, To-day, if ye will listen to his voice.'[1]

The Jews certainly are not being gathered. There are millions of American Jews for example who would never emigrate. The Temple is not rebuilt, and the Laws are not known by all nor written on all hearts.

Yet. And it's not for ALL Jews, just for the remnant who obey the commands of the Messiah and adopt his message, at least how I interpret it.

It appears quite obvious that the idea of a second coming is a shoehorned idea being used to cover one applicant's failure, and early death; such an idea makes perfect sense in light of what is formally prophesied [as opposed to making any line of Psalms or Isaiah into prophecy when it is convenient - not that you do, I am speaking generally]. The Jews await him, but not a new return; they await his first arrival.

Trust me, I know how they use any verse possible to act as a "Prophecy", but the actual ones, like Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53:10 I think at least indicate that the Messiah is to serve as a sort of Sacrifice first (literally a "Guilt offering"), and from there usher in an age of Tribulation followed by the Messianic age of peace and prosperity after the horrible events of the 2000 year age following.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That's a whole debate in itself. I believe the concept is mentioned in some disputed works (Which I go by) like Ascension of Isaiah, which may have SOME Christian interpolation but I think not all of it is edited. I also believe it was going by DSS works, some which may not have even be released, its speculative but I don't think the Jews of John's day would have just wildly gone with totally new concepts.

Again, it's up to interpretation of how it works.We'd have to go over the verses one by one, which is a debate OP I've been meaning to make for awhile, what exactly do the prophecies say.

Maimonedes' writings are not canonical at all, they're just highly esteemed by the more "Rationalist" post-Medieval Rabbis. And again, what exactly the prophecies say aren't very clear cut. As to the idea being "new", I don't think these ideas were new at the time, I think groups like the DSS writers had all these concepts and that's why the Nazarenes were willing to accept Jesus in large numbers.

Errr, well, Maimonides IS included in what is essentially considered canon of Torah, though.

I mean, it appears at this point that we would need to wrangle as to whether speculations in outside books are as valid as those which are considered as 'canon'. If we just wish to examine any writings whatsoever then anything by me, for example, is as valid as anything one finds in a copy of the Torah which you'd pick up at a book store.

We can both probably agree that the prophesies are vague because that's how prophecies go, but taking extreme artistic license with their interpretations renders them totally useless, then. Because nobody knows what they mean and it would seem to me that God making warning statements would not be so glib, or careless. Being able to graft prophecy to any old event, really?

Actually, for the TANAKH, yes. The Torah isn't really that big on Messianic prophecies (some of the Christian uses of Torah for Messianic prophecies are laughably vague though). I do not think the current Rabbinical Jewish canon is by any means complete, but that too is another debate.

And this too is worthy of a whole OP, apparently some of these ideas are based on Rabbis receiving Supernatural encounters. I wonder what Maimonedes would say about that.

Dunno, but either of these new threads would at least be great to watch, if not participate in

Yet. And it's not for ALL Jews, just for the remnant who obey the commands of the Messiah and adopt his message, at least how I interpret it.

I think the idea of 'well not yet' is the same as 'didn't happen', for all real purposes. It's arbitrary and not really convincing. Did he complete them all? Answer: no. It doesn't really go farther than that.

Trust me, I know how they use any verse possible to act as a "Prophecy", but the actual ones, like Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53:10 I think at least indicate that the Messiah is to serve as a sort of Sacrifice first (literally a "Guilt offering"), and from there usher in an age of Tribulation followed by the Messianic age of peace and prosperity after the horrible events of the 2000 year age following.

It would make no sense though for him to serve as a sacrifice first.

Nobody said it that way and no-one expected it that way. It seems forced, not 'another possibility'.

 

[Shermana]

Errr, well, Maimonides IS included in what is essentially considered canon of Torah, though.

You're thinking of TALMUD. And even then, there are disagreements with him.

I mean, it appears at this point that we would need to wrangle as to whether speculations in outside books are as valid as those which are considered as 'canon'.

Quite a controversial subject, worthy of its own thread. But we gotta think about what they would have been reading BACK THEN, not 300 years after the fact. We're talking Dead Sea Scrolls vs Masoretic Rabbinical authority stuff here. And with that, the pre-Christian Nazarenes and Essenes weren't entirely in agreement of what was what. Even the "mainstream" Rabbis had arguments like over Ecclesiastes.

If we just wish to examine any writings whatsoever then anything by me, for example, is as valid as anything one finds in a copy of the Torah which you'd pick up at a book store.

We have to nonetheless limit it to those who were members of this "Israelite society" who were expecting an Israelite Messiah in the first place.

We can both probably agree that the prophesies are vague because that's how prophecies go, but taking extreme artistic license with their interpretations renders them totally useless, then.

You should see the artistic license the Talmud makes. I think there's room for some "artsy" (i.e. metaphorical) interpretation, but I also think it's pretty clear cut, just the time frame is in question.

Because nobody knows what they mean and it would seem to me that God making warning statements would not be so glib, or careless. Being able to graft prophecy to any old event, really?

My opinion is that back then, the language and the culture and the subsequent non-canonical writings made it extremely, crystal clear, but even a few centuries after the fact, things changed so rapidly and drastically that it became more vague than it originally was.

Dunno, but either of these new threads would at least be great to watch, if not participate in

I have so many threads by now that I want to make to solve various disputes on so many tangents, I'll get to them eventually, even it takes months.

I think the idea of 'well not yet' is the same as 'didn't happen', for all real purposes. It's arbitrary and not really convincing. Did he complete them all? Answer: no. It doesn't really go farther than that.

You can say it doesn't go farther than that, but again I think the "2000 year age of completion" may have in fact been what was in mind. This concept of a "Messianic Age" is one of Rabbinical Judaisms most bandied about subjects, they just have a different era in mind than I may have.

It would make no sense though for him to serve as a sacrifice first.

That's yet another thread topic.

Nobody said it that way and no-one expected it that way. It seems forced, not 'another possibility

I don't know about that, I have yet to read all the DSS stuff on the issue, but I'm pretty sure it said "Guilt offering" for a reason.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, at least we have fertile thread ground.

Let's see if they keep me around long enough to see them.

 

[atDissenter]

Most of those errors you mention don't change the context of what is said. A story copied by hand thousands of times doesn't mean the copies were based on real stories, it just means the stories were important enough to copy thousands of times.

...but obviously not important enough to copy CORRECTLY.

 

[sojourner]

They were failed because he was not the moschiach.

they were not met because Jesus was the messiah.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

they were not met because Jesus was the messiah.

That's contradictory, though.

If he didn't meet them, then he wasn't.
Meeting them all IS one of the requirements.

 

[sojourner]

That's contradictory, though.

If he didn't meet them, then he wasn't.
Meeting them all IS one of the requirements.

Right, which is why the Jews don't believe in him.
But Jesus came to establish a new covenant, not under Mosaic Law, so the "requirements" changed. Authority is not longer vested in the establishment.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Right, which is why the Jews don't believe in him.
But Jesus came to establish a new covenant, not under Mosaic Law, so the "requirements" changed. Authority is not longer vested in the establishment.

Really, that's a funny thing for the Jewish messiah to do, don't you think? Throw out every reason why he was coming, in the first place?

The 'requirements changed', you mean, he didn't meet them?

OK. Best of luck with that.

 

[Shermana]

Right, which is why the Jews don't believe in him.
But Jesus came to establish a new covenant, not under Mosaic Law, so the "requirements" changed. Authority is not longer vested in the establishment.

There's no reason to believe that the "New Covenant" was a ditch from Mosaic Law, and there's every reason to believe that the "New Covenant" is more of a "Renewed covenant" of Mosaic Law, where the "Law will be written on their hearts".

Especially if you ask the Jews about their own concept of their expected "New covenant."

With that said, even if it ditched from Mosaic Law as such wishful thinking may want, what would be the point of the Messianic prophecies in the first place if they don't have to be fulfilled? And how would the New Covenant enter and change the requirements if they weren't fulfilled in the first place?

 

[1robin]

There's no reason to believe that the "New Covenant" was a ditch from Mosaic Law, and there's every reason to believe that the "New Covenant" is more of a "Renewed covenant" of Mosaic Law, where the "Law will be written on their hearts".
Especially if you ask the Jews about their own concept of their expected "New covenant."

Where is the line that you draw as for what is kept in the new covenant and what is discarded? For example no one practices all that Levitical ceremonial law today. Not even the Jewish people. We no longer slaughter bulls and rams. Where is the line concerning what is kept or dismissed, and why is it there and not somewhere else? I personally think it was everything except with possible exception of the Decalogue. I think that God does operate within the heart of every Christian who is born again and that is superior to laws written in stone or on paper.

 

[Shermana]

Where is the line that you draw as for what is kept in the new covenant and what is discarded? For example no one practices all that Levitical ceremonial law today. Not even the Jewish people. We no longer slaughter bulls and rams.

Neither did the generation of the Babylonian Exile. But Zechariah 14 is clear that there will be sacrifices at the end times, presumably in the 3rd Temple age.

Where is the line concerning what is kept or dismissed, and why is it there and not somewhere else?

The Bible has no such dividing line, and if you ask a Christian who divides the Law into "Moral" and "Ceremonial", you won't get an easy answer as to which laws "still apply". With that said, certain laws require a Sanhedrin to bring the accused before, without that politically autonomous Sanhedrin in place, the Jewish conventional wisdom is that Providence will take care of it instead.

Saul was punished severely for making his own sacrifice without a priest, why would it be any different for anything else that calls for such protocol?

I personally think it was everything except with possible exception of the Decalogue.

That's a nice personal opinion, but doesn't have any scriptural rationale.

I

think that God does operate within the heart of every Christian who is born again and that is superior to laws written in stone or on paper.

You mean the Laws that God Himself laid down "For all generations"? So what exactly do you think it means that God operates in the heart of every Christian? Do you mean every TRUE Christian? Which ones are those?