EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[TransmutingSoul]

You mean as Messiah, what more should he have done? Try:

• Issuing in an era of peace
• Ruling from Jerusalem (being "David")
• Bringing all the Jews out of diaspora back to the Land of Israel

It's not just our expectations, it's what G-d said through the prophets in writing we consider holy and inspired. Nothing will therefore change our expectations.

These are Prophecies where man builds expectations out of their own limited understanding of scripture. As we have One God, we must likewise beleive God looks after all His creation, God is all embracing.

God has always sent His Messenger or Prophet to warn the people that unless they returned to God, trouble would soon visit them. History has shown the vast majority reject Gods new Covernant. Thus this is important to consider. God will send the Messiah to give adequate warning.

So lets consider these 3 points.

• Issuing in an era of peace

The starting date for Gods promise was may 23rd 1844. The Elijah for this age the Bab came to prepare us for the promised 'Day of God', in this respect the day could be a thousand years. Baha'u'llah was the one the Bab prepared humanity for and it was Baha'u'llah as a prisioner that sent out the offer of the Most Great Peace to all humanity.

That humanity as a majority rejected it at that time, does not negate tye fact that the Most Great Peace was given and that it will still unfold. The rejection brought more warnings for humanity to cling to a Lesser Peace, now to be built by the governments of the world.

The way to acheive it is available to all people. God gives us the choice and always has.

• Ruling from Jerusalem (being "David")

If we look at what Jerusalem in a material sense, it means an 'Abode of Peace'. When this has been lost, Christ offered that when the new Messiah comes, that there will be a New Jerusalem, a new 'Above of Peace'. Likewise a new Jerusalem can also be seen as a new Covenant or Message from God.

Baha'u'llah's genealogy is supportive.

• Bringing all the Jews out of diaspora back to the Land of Israel

The event that started this process was the Edict of Toleration that was signed before the May 23rd declaration of the Bab.

The Bab was the Gate, that opened to those that choose to return to the Holy Land. The material land is but one step, the heart is what God always asks of us.

These are just a glimpse of other ways to view the same prophecies.

Regards Tony

 

[Catholicus]

No, evolution refers to the natural history of life on earth.



Too simplistic of a generalization.

First, Spiritual Laws as found in the scriptures of the world are neither immutable nor actually consistent. For example "Thou shalt not kill" is inconsistently defined as to what is 'wrongful death' over time, even though some form of this law exists in all human cultures.

The present view of science is that life constantly evolves, and homo sapiens has and is evolving over time with an unclear well defined beginning of our species, with various sub-species existing at the same time, such as Neanderthals, and mixing over time.

The spiritual, or cultural, evolution of the cultures of human is well documented in human history.

The title of Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species" - there is no evolution WITHIN species; we are no better or wiser than our Stone Age ancestors.

The evolution of cultures has zilch to do with Evolution.

 

[metis]

Some Atheists do believe in God as revealed in Jesus Christ

Then they are not atheists because the word means that the person doesn't have a belief in a deity.

 

[shunyadragon]

The title of Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species" - there is no evolution WITHIN species; we are no better or wiser than our Stone Age ancestors.

The evolution of cultures has zilch to do with Evolution.

The title of Charles Darwin's book published over 150 years ago most definitely does not define the science of evolution. Science has come along way since Darwin. Yes, as determined by the contemporary science of evolution and genetics there is evolution within species.

 

[metis]

The title of Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species" - there is no evolution WITHIN species; we are no better or wiser than our Stone Age ancestors.

The evolution of cultures has zilch to do with Evolution.

Actually there still is an evolutionary process going on, including within a given species. For one example, the average American height has increased by roughly 2", and diet has been taken into consideration to arrive at this figure.

Basically, evolution never really stops, nor is the Catholic Church opposed to accepting it as long as it is understood God ultimately was and is behind it all.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Here is a (lengthy) section from a book called "Their Hollow Inheritance"
----------------
Isaiah 53:3

He was despised and forsaken by men; a man of pains, and accustomed to disease, and like one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised and we esteemed him not.

In contrast, Jesus was supposedly very popular:

Luke 4:15

And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.

Isaiah 53:7

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb led to the slaughter and like a sheep that is dumb before its shearers, he opened not his mouth.

Jesus did "open his mouth" on the cross:

Matthew 27:46

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice: "E--li, E--li, lama sabachthani?" that is: "My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken me?"

Although the New Testament translates "sabachthani" as "forsaken me" (echoing Psalms 22:2), it means "slaughtering me." Compare:

Deuteronomy 12:21

...then you shall slaughter [sabachta] of your herd and of your flock....

In other words, Jesus screamed out, "My G-d, my G-d, why are You slaughtering me?" A self--styled messiah, Jesus was shocked that G-d was actually letting him die!

Isaiah 53:9

And they made his grave with the wicked and his deaths among the rich, although he had done no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Jesus made his grave with the rich, not the wicked:

Matthew 27:57, 59--60

When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph....And Joseph took [Jesus'] body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new tomb....

Conversely, Jesus died among the wicked, not the rich:

Matthew 27:38

Then the two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right hand, and one on the left.

The phrase "in his deaths" is also inappropriate for Jesus, for he died only one death.

Even more problematic, Jesus is known to have committed violent acts:

1.

Matthew 21:18--19

In the morning, as [Jesus] was returning to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it: "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree dried up at once.

If this really happened, what wrong did the tree do, especially since we learn:

Mark 11:13

...it was not the season for figs.

2.

Jesus is said to have permitted "demons" to possess two thousand herd of swine, which promptly stampeded off a cliff and drowned in the sea (Mark 5:11--13). Surely he could have exorcised these "demons":

Matthew 12:27

And if I [Jesus] cast out demons by Be--el'zebul (Prince of demons), by whom do your [Pharisees'] sons cast them out? Therefore, they shall be your judges.

G-d also enabled [Solomon] to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a science useful and sanative to men. He composed such incantations also by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return, and this method of cure is of great force to this day: for I have seen a certain man of my own country[,] whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demonical in the presence of Vespasian [king of Rome], and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers.Josephus Antiquities book 8, chapter 2, section 5

How can I believe anything from a source that uses a translation such as 'accustomed to disease', as compared to 'acquainted with grief'! The Messiah, whether individual or corporate, does not become 'accustomed to disease'! The word 'accustomed' suggests an habitual revisiting, whereas 'acquainted' suggests a passing encounter. Disease is associated with those who live in a condition of vanity and sin, for why else would God say,
'[And said,] If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.' [Exodus 15:26]

And a few other points raised in this post:
1. Jesus was popular in Galilee, except in his home town of Nazareth ['No prophet accepted in his own country']. So Jesus was well-considered in the synagogues where he preached.
His following increased and by the time of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem at Passover, we are told 'a whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice'.[Luke19:37]

And in Matthew 26:31, at the Last Supper, we have this: 'Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.' [Matthew 26:31, Zechariah 13:7]

Then, at the time of his crucifixion, when the shepherd was smitten, the sheep scattered. They knew that they, too, were in danger of being killed.

2. Did Jesus speak whilst on the cross? Yes. Did he answer the accusations made by his 'shearers'? No, he remained silent.

3. Did Jesus use the words of Psalm 22:1. Yes. There was a clear and definite purpose to this reference. Check your Greek and Hebrew carefully and you'll see the word is 'forsaken' or, as the JPS translation prefers, 'abandoned'.

4. Jesus was buried in the tomb of a rich man. All who go to the grave are considered wicked, for there is no life in the grave.

5. Nor is the phrase 'in his deaths' inappropriate. When Jesus took on the sin of others, he died spiritually. When he gave up the ghost, he died physically. Two deaths, same as Adam in Genesis.

6. The reference to the fig-tree is important. It symbolizes the pretensions of an unbelieving Israel. This tree had leaves but no fruit. It had nothing good to offer. It was therefore cursed with the words, 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.'

7. [Luke 8:32] The demon spirits were expelled by the Word of Jesus. The demons asked to be permitted to go into the swine, an unclean animal. Jesus permitted them, but the fear created in the swine caused them to run into the lake.

8. The response given by Jesus to those that doubted the source of his power (to deliver people from demons) is clever. He says that if an evil spirit, causing obvious grief, is cast out, it is nonsense to claim the power of deliverance comes from Beelzebub, the prince of devils. For Satan to cast out Satan is for a house to be divided. It makes no sense at all!

 

[rosends]

How can believe anything from a source that uses a translation such as 'accustomed to disease', as compared to 'acquainted with grief'! The Messiah, whether individual or corporate, does not become 'accustomed to disease'!

I had to stop here because I was already laughing too hard.
The Hebrew is וִיד֣וּעַ חֹ֑לִי and if you think that the first word is only "acquainted" and the second is "grief" then you don't know basic Hebrew and seem unwilling to learn it, or accept it when someone who DOES know basic Hebrew points it out to you. I can't help you.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It doesn't matter that blood sacrifices were the ideal for sin offerings (which btw were only for unintentional sins). The point is that many sin offerings were not blood, and they were sufficient for atonement. Contrast this with the verse in Hebrews that makes the absolute statement that without blood there can be no remission of sin. You cannot have both be true at the same time!!!!!! Either the Torah is flawed or Hebrews is flawed.

I see the Bible as one book; all God's Word. If there is a problem, it's far more likely to lie with me, or you!

Where does it say that a sin offering is not offered with blood? The reference given by Wandering Monk [Leviticus 5:11] is not valid because it states that 'the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin' [Leviticus 5:13] So blood is offered.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I had to stop here because I was already laughing too hard.
The Hebrew is וִיד֣וּעַ חֹ֑לִי and if you think that the first word is only "acquainted" and the second is "grief" then you don't know basic Hebrew and seem unwilling to learn it, or accept it when someone who DOES know basic Hebrew points it out to you. I can't help you.

What I am able to do is turn to scholars, with great learning and experience, and consider what they have to say.

As it happens, the KJV, now over 400 years old, brought together scholars from three separate establishments; the Westminster group, 10 men who translated Genesis to Kings; the Oxford group, 7 men who translated Isaiah to Malachi; and the Cambridge group, 8 men who translated 1 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes.

Maybe you think your knowledge of basic Hebrew is better than theirs. Somehow, I doubt it.

More to the point, the theology that accompanies the translation that you've given makes no sense whatsoever! Why should the Messiah be diseased when he is anointed of God?!

 

[shunyadragon]

What I am able to do is turn to scholars with great learning and experience, and consider what they have to say.

As it happens, the KJV, now over 400 years old, brought together scholars from three separate establishments; the Westminster group, 10 men who translated Genesis to Kings; the Oxford group, 7 men who translated Isaiah to Malachi; and the Cambridge group, 8 men who translated 1 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes.

Maybe you think your knowledge of basic Hebrew is better than theirs. Somehow, I doubt it.

More to the point, the theology that accompanies the translation that you've given makes no sense whatsoever! Why should the Messiah be diseased when he is anointed of God!

The KJV is very good, but the collective knowledge of scholars since the KJV and the archaeological finds like the Dead Sea scrolls have increased the quality of the Bible as we know it today. I would not rely on my knowledge of Hebrew Greek or any other ancient language, and I rely one the hundreds of scholars and archaeologists over the past hundreds of years.

Regardless of all the scholars and archaeological finds that have contributed to compilation of the Bible it remains an edited, redacted and compiled collection of writings of many writers over time with questionable provenance, and most of the books have unknown first authors.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The KJV is very good, but the collective knowledge of scholars since the KJV and the archaeological finds like the Dead Sea scrolls have increased the quality of the Bible as we know it today. I would not rely on my knowledge of Hebrew Greek or any other ancient language, and I rely one the hundreds of scholars and archaeologists over the past hundreds of years.

Regardless of all the scholars and archaeological finds that have contributed to compilation of the Bible it remains an edited, redacted and compiled collection of writings of many writers over time with questionable provenance, and most of the books have unknown first authors.

All the great revivals, since the Church first existed, have come about under the power of the Holy Spirit. The preaching of the Word goes hand-in-hand with the ministering spirit of God.

Has the Bible changed substantially since the canon of the New Testament was established? Not really. But external evidence to support the Bible has grown. In fact, I was reading only today about the ossuary of James the brother of Jesus.

The scriptures are, in my view, the inspired word of God. So beautiful and perfect are they, despite small inaccuracies caused by man, that they lead us to the Saviour, to the place where we are able to receive of his grace and love.

I like to think of the words of Jesus who said, 'scripture cannot be broken'. It is so tightly woven, and so immaculately designed, that no devilish device has the power to undermine its truth.

 

[rosends]

What I am able to do is turn to scholars, with great learning and experience, and consider what they have to say.

As it happens, the KJV, now over 400 years old, brought together scholars from three separate establishments; the Westminster group, 10 men who translated Genesis to Kings; the Oxford group, 7 men who translated Isaiah to Malachi; and the Cambridge group, 8 men who translated 1 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes.

Maybe you think your knowledge of basic Hebrew is better than theirs. Somehow, I doubt it.

More to the point, the theology that accompanies the translation that you've given makes no sense whatsoever! Why should the Messiah be diseased when he is anointed of God!

The theology makes no sense according to what you need it to say but when translation is driven by theological need, it starts becoming interpretation. And I will take my scholars who have been speaking, explaining and using Hebrew for a lot longer than 400 years over your Johnny come latelies.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The theology makes no sense according to what you need it to say but when translation is driven by theological need, it starts becoming interpretation. And I will take my scholars who have been speaking, explaining and using Hebrew for a lot longer than 400 years over your Johnny come latelies.

I believe these 'Johnny come latelies' were driven by a need to find accuracy. They placed the Word of God above their own personal bias.

What remains is an awkward question that you have failed to address. Why would the Anointed One be suffering disease?

To me the answer lies in verse 4 [Isaiah 53], where the JPS translates the next line as 'Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, Our suffering that he endured.'

The Messiah was not accustomed to being diseased, but became sick/weak/diseased as a result of bearing our sin!

 

[rosends]

I believe these 'Johnny come latelies' were driven by a need to find accuracy. They placed the Word of God above their own personal bias.

No, they needed to find support so they invented it.

What remains is an awkward question that you have failed to address. Why would the Anointed One be suffering disease?

Can you show me where in Isaiah the servant is called a messiah? Just a chapter and verse so I can look it up. If the servant isn't called a messiah then there is no question about why he might suffer a disease.

To me the answer lies in verse 4 [Isaiah 53], where the JPS translates the next line as 'Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, Our suffering that he endured.'

But extra points if you understand who is saying this. It might clear up what it means.

The Messiah was not accustomed to being diseased, but became sick/weak/diseased as a result of bearing our sin!

Then you don't understand "our". Here, the Malbim can explain it: ר"ל איש מכאובות ע"י אחרים שהכל מכים ומכאיבים אותו במכות אכזריות, וידוע חולי מעצמו יש בו חולי מתדבקת מושרשת בו מיצירתו

 

[shunyadragon]

All the great revivals, since the Church first existed, have come about under the power of the Holy Spirit. The preaching of the Word goes hand-in-hand with the ministering spirit of God.

Has the Bible changed substantially since the canon of the New Testament was established? Not really. But external evidence to support the Bible has grown. In fact, I was reading only today about the ossuary of James the brother of Jesus.

The scriptures are, in my view, the inspired word of God. So beautiful and perfect are they, despite small inaccuracies caused by man, that they lead us to the Saviour, to the place where we are able to receive of his grace and love.

I like to think of the words of Jesus who said, 'scripture cannot be broken'. It is so tightly woven, and so immaculately designed, that no devilish device has the power to undermine its truth.

Tripping through the fields of poppies clinging to ancient mythology.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, they needed to find support so they invented it.

Can you show me where in Isaiah the servant is called a messiah? Just a chapter and verse so I can look it up. If the servant isn't called a messiah then there is no question about why he might suffer a disease.

But extra points if you understand who is saying this. It might clear up what it means.

Then you don't understand "our". Here, the Malbim can explain it: ר"ל איש מכאובות ע"י אחרים שהכל מכים ומכאיבים אותו במכות אכזריות, וידוע חולי מעצמו יש בו חולי מתדבקת מושרשת בו מיצירתו

Isaiah 53 begins with the words of the prophet Isaiah to Israel: 'Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?'

Isaiah knew that old Israel would be slow to believe the message that he had to deliver!
But in this one chapter we have the following expressions of the vicarious suffering of the Lord's Righteous Servant [53:11].
1. 'He bore our griefs;'
2. 'He carried our sorrows;'
3. 'He was wounded for our transgressions'
4. 'Bruised for our iniquities;'
5. 'The chastisement of our peace was upon Him;'
6. 'By His stripes we are healed;'
7. The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all;'
8. 'For the transgression of My people was He stricken;'
9. 'When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin;'
10. 'He shall bear (or, carry) their iniquities;'
11. 'He bare the sins of many'.

Christians know that Jesus Christ fulfilled all these prophecies as the Righteous Servant. Ask yourself, Does a righteous servant carry their own disease? [Exodus 15:26] If you believe the scriptures, then the answer must be 'No'.

So does Isaiah tell us that the Righteous Servant was also to be the Messiah? Sure he does!

Isaiah 55:3,4,5:
'Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.'

Isaiah lived well after David, so this prophecy must be about the Son of David, the Messiah. Only the Messiah can make the covenant everlasting.

David, son of Jesse, is called a servant of God, yet he became a messiah. The Son of David, Jesus, fulfilled the role of a righteous servant whilst anointed as Messiah, yet only sat upon his throne following his resurrection and ascension to heaven.

So Isaiah says, 'nations that knew not thee [i.e.Gentiles] shall run to thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel'.
Nations run to the representative of Israel, the righteous Servant and Messiah, Jesus Christ.

The difference between the Israel of the old covenant, and the Israel of the new covenant all boils down to sin. The Israel of the new covenant is the body of Christ, made up of Jew and Gentile. It is made sinless by the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The picture of this is given in the Exodus and wanderings in the wilderness. Who, amongst the Israelites in the wilderness, were not permitted to enter the Promised Land? Was it those born in Egypt, or those born in the wilderness [the born-again?] Was Moses permitted to enter the Promised Land?

 

[rosends]

Isaiah 53 begins with the words of the prophet Isaiah to Israel: 'Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?'

Ooooh, swing and a miss.

So does Isaiah tell us that the Righteous Servant was also to be the Messiah? Sure he does!

No, he doesn't. Clearly you don't even know what is happening in the 52/53

Isaiah 55:3,4,5:
...

Isaiah lived well after David, so this prophecy must be about the Son of David, the Messiah. Only the Messiah can make the covenant everlasting.

You should check your verb tenses and pronouns.
"And I will make with you an everlasting covenant, The enduring loyalty promised to David, As I made him a leader of peoples, A prince and commander of peoples,"
God makes the covenant with the people that he will be there for him and that, in the future, other nations will come to serve Israel.

David, son of Jesse, is called a servant of God, yet he became a messiah.

Why "yet"? He was the king. Others were kings and priests and each was a messiah. So?

The Son of David, Jesus, fulfilled the role of a righteous servant whilst anointed as Messiah, yet only sat upon his throne following his resurrection and ascension to heaven.

Not anointed, not the son of David. The other claims are from gospel mythology which is meaningless to me.

Nations run to the representative of Israel, the righteous Servant and Messiah, Jesus Christ.

No, they run to Israel. No mention of anyone else.

The difference between the Israel of the old covenant, and the Israel of the new covenant all boils down to sin. The Israel of the new covenant is the body of Christ, made up of Jew and Gentile. It is made sinless by the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

No, the difference is that the renewed covenant will be inscribed on the heart and won't need to be taught. No body of anything. No vicarious anything.

Who, amongst the Israelites in the wilderness, were not permitted to enter the Promised Land? Was it those born in Egypt, or born outside of Egypt [the born-again?] Was Moses permitted to enter the Promised Land?

actually, it was anyone under a certain age, no matter where they were born (plus a couple of exceptions like Joshua.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ooooh, swing and a miss.


No, he doesn't. Clearly you don't even know what is happening in the 52/53

You should check your verb tenses and pronouns.
"And I will make with you an everlasting covenant, The enduring loyalty promised to David, As I made him a leader of peoples, A prince and commander of peoples,"
God makes the covenant with the people that he will be there for him and that, in the future, other nations will come to serve Israel.

Why "yet"? He was the king. Others were kings and priests and each was a messiah. So?


Not anointed, not the son of David. The other claims are from gospel mythology which is meaningless to me.

No, they run to Israel. No mention of anyone else.

No, the difference is that the renewed covenant will be inscribed on the heart and won't need to be taught. No body of anything. No vicarious anything.

actually, it was anyone under a certain age, no matter where they were born (plus a couple of exceptions like Joshua.

Isaiah 59:20; 'And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.'

Please explain who the Redeemer is, and when you think this will happen.

 

[oldbadger]

I see the Bible as one book; all God's Word. .

You'll see what you'll see.
But the bible is a whopping great collection of books.

And if the bible is all God's word, then God made a whole bunch of mistakes. For one example, in Luke's nativity Mary was pregnant for ten years, from the life of Herod the Great (pre 4BC) to the Judean, Idumean and Samaritan census of 6AD. Ten years...........

And the errors just don't stop......

 

[Redemptionsong]

You'll see what you'll see.
But the bible is a whopping great collection of books.

And if the bible is all God's word, then God made a whole bunch of mistakes. For one example, in Luke's nativity Mary was pregnant for ten years, from the life of Herod the Great (pre 4BC) to the Judean, Idumean and Samaritan census of 6AD. Ten years...........

And the errors just don't stop......

Well, let's see if we can clear up one mistake at a time. Which verses are you referring to in Luke:1/2?