Faith in Jesus Christ

[1137]

Wow. You aren't kidding, are you. Anyone who disagrees with you about a prophecy's fulfillment is lying? If your neighbor says it's fulfilled while you know it is not fulfilled, then your neighbor is lying?

It's hard for me to believe that anyone could see language that way. Am I correct in my understanding of your view?

Anyway, all of the prophecies about the Jewish messiah have been fulfilled. I'll be happy to show you howso if you're interested.

Start with one of these 3:
- The Jews shall all be in the homeland. (I am jewish by blood, I live in the U.S., good luck).
- The Temple has been restored (it hasn't, good luck).
- There will not be war (there's plenty, good luck).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then why haven't you?

Because he says he's not interested, and I find no pleasure in talking to the wall.

How about you? If you're interested, tell me which 2-3 prophecies you believe not to have been fulfilled. I'll be happy to show you otherwise.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Start with one of these 3:
- The Jews shall all be in the homeland. (I am jewish by blood, I live in the U.S., good luck).
- The Temple has been restored (it hasn't, good luck).
- There will not be war (there's plenty, good luck).

Thanks for offering specifics, but I do not find those prophecies to actually exist. They appear instead to be your own paraphrasing of the prophecies.

Are you OK with using the KJV? Personally, i don't see how that would work either -- since we can't know whether it represents the actual prophecies -- but I'm willing to work with the KJV if you are.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because he says he's not interested, and I find no pleasure in talking to the wall.

How about you? If you're interested, tell me which 2-3 prophecies you believe not to have been fulfilled. I'll be happy to show you otherwise.

If he wasn't interested, he wouldn't be asking.

Let's start with these. I will provide a Jewish translation of the appropriate verse. I understand that you prefer the KJV, so the translation I will use will be an early JPS translation that was a modified version of that, but more accurate.

But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the land; and he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

That didn't happen; during Jesus's life and well after his death up until today, there are still wicked people. The gospels also do not recount him slaying any wicked men. Therefore, this prophecy remains unfulfilled, and so Jesus is not the prophesied Messiah.

And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

That didn't happen, either. There are still Jewish people not only living somewhere other than Israel, but against Israel the current state. In addition, this was supposed to happen when the Messiah came, and the current state of Israel is very recent, several centuries after Jesus lived. Therefore, Jesus is not the prophesied Messiah.

I actually looked up the verses, and only picked the ones that were unambiguous in their reference to the coming of the Messiah, if not in the verse itself, then in previous verses.

Now: refute these.

 

[1137]

Thanks for offering specifics, but I do not find those prophecies to actually exist. They appear instead to be your own paraphrasing of the prophecies.

Are you OK with using the KJV? Personally, i don't see how that would work either -- since we can't know whether it represents the actual prophecies -- but I'm willing to work with the KJV if you are.

Haha absolutely not. Use a strictly Jewish translation, especially not the KJV which is blatantly translated incorrectly.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If he wasn't interested, he wouldn't be asking.

He wasn't asking, in my opinion, but he seems to be asking now, so all is well with God's universe.

Let's start with these. I will provide a Jewish translation of the appropriate verse. I understand that you prefer the KJV, so the translation I will use will be an early JPS translation that was a modified version of that, but more accurate.

Actually I don't prefer any particular translation, except maybe some translation that 90% of Torah scholars would agree to be accurate.

That didn't happen; during Jesus's life and well after his death up until today, there are still wicked people.

First, the prophecy says nothing about the messiah ridding the world of all wicked people. Not the prophecy which you quoted. So I'm not sure why you are seeming to argue that it does make such a claim. Can you quote the part which says 'all the wicked'?

It does say that he will slay the wicked with the breath of his lips. And Jesus has certainly done that, I hope you'll agree. His words have been responsible for lots of evil-doer slayings over the years.

Second, how do you know there are still wicked people in the world? Is 'wicked' some kind of objectively-quantifiable thing? You and I and 100-person crowd can look out into the world and easily distinguish the wicked from the good? I don't think so. In fact, it's easy to argue that no such thing as wickedness actually exists. Some people are sick, wounded, brain-damaged... but not evil. Probably the the teachings of Jesus are why we can see people that way. Maybe he really did kill 'all' the wicked!

The gospels also do not recount him slaying any wicked men. Therefore, this prophecy remains unfulfilled, and so Jesus is not the prophesied Messiah.

As I say, he has slain many with the breath of his lips. Plus, you are simply mistaken. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for just one example, records that Jesus slew his own wicked playmates. I'm sure there are other tales of Jesus killing wicked men.

Therefore, this prophecy has been fulfilled, and Jesus is still on track to be the prophesied Messiah.

That didn't happen, either. There are still Jewish people not only living somewhere other than Israel,

You know, I just don't see the word "Jew" in the prophecy -- and I've searched it carefully. Where are you getting that?

As I mentioned to Doors, I've had (Jewish) scholar types insist that no such things as "Jews" even existed until long after Isaiah was written. They seemed to argue that "Jews" are a more-modern invention.

So let's look at what the prophecy actually says, in your translation.

"And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Obviously, the 'ensign' refers to the cross. And Jesus certainly set up that ensign. And the dispersed of Israel have certainly all gathered together under that ensign from the four corners of the earth.

Therefore, Jesus cannot be excluded from having fulfilled the prophecies.

Now: refute these.

See how easy it was? Prophecies are like that. Always easy to see from many directions.

They exist in the form of human words, after all. And words only mean what humans think they mean.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Haha absolutely not. Use a strictly Jewish translation, especially not the KJV which is blatantly translated incorrectly.

OK with me. Just present the string of English words which you claim are the prophecies.

I need something to work with.

 

[1137]

Isaiah 11:12
And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

The Jewish people will be reunited in Israel. Christians are not Jews, so your argument against Riverwolf is invalid. It does not say pseudo-Jews who pervert the religion and then create their own religion, it says the dispersed of Israel, the scattered of Judah.

Isaiah 52:13
Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. 14 According as many were appalled at thee--so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men-- 15 So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.

Those who transgressed against Israel will cease to do so and recognize their wrongs.

Ezekiel 37: 26
Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them--it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will establish them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever. 27 My dwelling-place also shall be over them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 28 And the nations shall know that I am the LORD that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever.'

The Lord will set up a permanent temple in Israel that will last forever, and the world will recognize the Hebrew God.

Isaiah 66:23
And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the LORD.

All people will worship the one Lord.

Jeremiah 31:32
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; 33 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

All people will have innate knowledge that the Hebrew God is the one true God.

Care to address any of these ones? For now, feel free to use this site, though I will validate it http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Isaiah 11:12 And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

I just now explained this one for Riverwolf.

Isaiah 52:13 Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. 14 According as many were appalled at thee--so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men-- 15 So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.

This one seems true on its face, without explanation. Jesus certainly startled many nations, starting with Rome and moving on to Europe. Kings shut their mouths because of him. Me, I would argue that they shut their mouths because they were afraid to buck Rome on the new religion, but that's a quibble. And lots of folks had revelations about Jesus. Didn't Constantine himself claim to see the cross in sky before his big battle?

So Jesus fits this one to a 'T'.

Those who transgressed against Israel will cease to do so and recognize their wrongs.

As I say, I'm not interested in opposing your personal paraphrasing of the prophecies, so I'm going to pass over your other paraphrasing contained in this
message and only address the prophecies themselves.

Ezekiel 37: 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them--it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will establish them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever. 27 My dwelling-place also shall be over them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 28 And the nations shall know that I am the LORD that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever.'

Who is 'them' in this prophecy? Do you know? Followers of the true messiah, Jesus? Or do you think it's referring to some other group?

Anyway, Jesus is surely the sanctuary, and He is set directly in the middle of the followers of the messiah, yes?

Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the LORD.

I think everyone worships some kind of God or Lord. It's part of the human condition, at least that's what a lot of people think. For myself, I prefer to say that I 'admire various ideals', rather than that I 'worship a God', but it's all the same. Just different words to express the same reality.

Jeremiah 31:32 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; 33 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

I don't get it. You're saying that Jews don't know God's law in their inward parts? You think they are not His people?

This one is obviously settled. It describes the Jews pretty well. I would say it probably described even before Jesus, though.

Care to address any of these ones?

Easy peasey. I rest my case, but I'll happy to answer any questions if you have them.

 

[Riverwolf]

He wasn't asking, in my opinion, but he seems to be asking now, so all is well with God's universe.



Actually I don't prefer any particular translation, except maybe some translation that 90% of Torah scholars would agree to be accurate.



First, the prophecy says nothing about the messiah ridding the world of all wicked people. Not the prophecy which you quoted. So I'm not sure why you are seeming to argue that it does make such a claim. Can you quote the part which says 'all the wicked'?

It does say that he will slay the wicked with the breath of his lips. And Jesus has certainly done that, I hope you'll agree. His words have been responsible for lots of evil-doer slayings over the years.

Second, how do you know there are still wicked people in the world? Is 'wicked' some kind of objectively-quantifiable thing? You and I and 100-person crowd can look out into the world and easily distinguish the wicked from the good? I don't think so. In fact, it's easy to argue that no such thing as wickedness actually exists. Some people are sick, wounded, brain-damaged... but not evil. Probably the the teachings of Jesus are why we can see people that way. Maybe he really did kill 'all' the wicked!

Except what you've just described is a very modern viewpoint; there have been many atrocities committed in Jesus's name, committed by people who believed their victims were wicked, whether they were or not.

In addition, even today there are lots of people who still believe that wickedness can be measured by an objective standard, and therefore that there are wicked people.

Therefore, your latter interpretation is invalid.

The former interpretation is basically invalidated by your latter one.

As I say, he has slain many with the breath of his lips. Plus, you are simply mistaken. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for just one example, records that Jesus slew his own wicked playmates. I'm sure there are other tales of Jesus killing wicked men.

Therefore, this prophecy has been fulfilled, and Jesus is still on track to be the prophesied Messiah.

That wasn't the Gospel of Thomas. That was one of the Infancy Gospels, and last I looked, that was an accident. The Gospel of Thomas is just a collection of teachings attributed to Jesus; there's no narrative in it to speak of.

"Slain many with the breath of his lips" is an indication that simply by speaking, he can kill, and the prophecy indicates killing wicked people by implication. If there are any Gospels that record Jesus doing that, I haven't read them. If you know of one, produce the appropriate passage, and why the gospel might be an accurate portrayal of Jesus.

So, again, that interpretation is invalid.

You know, I just don't see the word "Jew" in the prophecy -- and I've searched it carefully. Where are you getting that?

"dispersed of Israel... scattered of Judah" What else could this be referring to but Jews? Heck, the term "Jew" is clearly derived from the word "Judah".

As I mentioned to Doors, I've had (Jewish) scholar types insist that no such things as "Jews" even existed until long after Isaiah was written. They seemed to argue that "Jews" are a more-modern invention.

Which ones, and how reputable are they in the Jewish community?

So let's look at what the prophecy actually says, in your translation.

"And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Obviously, the 'ensign' refers to the cross.

How is that obvious at all? How do you know it's not a different symbol?

And Jesus certainly set up that ensign. And the dispersed of Israel have certainly all gathered together under that ensign from the four corners of the earth.

Who do you think are the "dispersed of Israel?"

Therefore, Jesus cannot be excluded from having fulfilled the prophecies.

See how easy it was?

Too easy, to the point of being sloppy.

Prophecies are like that. Always easy to see from many directions.

They exist in the form of human words, after all. And words only mean what humans think they mean.

Wrong. Words mean what large numbers of people agree they mean.

Besides, if that's true, then both of us could be considered correct. But this is a situation where both conclusions cannot be correct at the same time. You seem to stretch the terminology to fit Christian imagery, when there wasn't any indication of that being the case, either inherently or provided by you.

Now, you have a few more tasks from me: name specifically those scholars, and show me (don't just tell me) that they're well-reputed in the Jewish community. If the "dispersed of Israel" aren't Jews, or ancestors of Jews, then who are their modern equivalents?

 

[1137]

I just now explained this one for Riverwolf.

And epically failed.

This one seems true on its face, without explanation. Jesus certainly startled many nations, starting with Rome and moving on to Europe. Kings shut their mouths because of him. Me, I would argue that they shut their mouths because they were afraid to buck Rome on the new religion, but that's a quibble. And lots of folks had revelations about Jesus. Didn't Constantine himself claim to see the cross in sky before his big battle?

Again, you need to realize we are discussion the JEWISH PEOPLE, not Christianity. This is a very, very common mistake among Christians. If you honestly believe the enemies of the Jewish people have shut their mouths you need to open your eyes and practice listening as well.

As I say, I'm not interested in opposing your personal paraphrasing of the prophecies, so I'm going to pass over your other paraphrasing contained in this
message and only address the prophecies themselves.

Not my paraphrasing, it is a copied translation from the decent site provided.

Who is 'them' in this prophecy? Do you know? Followers of the true messiah, Jesus? Or do you think it's referring to some other group?

God specifically says it is His people (the Jewish people). He also says it is the whole house of Israel, the Lord talking about (literally) Resurrection or (figuratively) the resurrection of Israel. In Judaism, safe bet is to go figuratively, as this is all written by many men to symbolically and metaphorically describe a God and His ways, both of which are literally indescribable.

Anyway, Jesus is surely the sanctuary, and He is set directly in the middle of the followers of the messiah, yes?

Again, Jewish people. The sanctuary refers to the temple, in this case the third temple. This can be confirmed by the verse about the reconstruction of Israel in its entirety (too busy to find it now).

I don't get it. You're saying that Jews don't know God's law in their inward parts? You think they are not His people?

This says that all people will innately know the Hebrew God's truth. This is not so, as you are currently proving. I cannot access the Torah without looking at it, it is not ingrained in me naturally.

Easy peasey. I rest my case, but I'll happy to answer any questions if you have them.

 

[1137]

You know, I just don't see the word "Jew" in the prophecy -- and I've searched it carefully. Where are you getting that?

As I mentioned to Doors, I've had (Jewish) scholar types insist that no such things as "Jews" even existed until long after Isaiah was written. They seemed to argue that "Jews" are a more-modern invention.

So let's look at what the prophecy actually says, in your translation.

"And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Obviously, the 'ensign' refers to the cross. And Jesus certainly set up that ensign. And the dispersed of Israel have certainly all gathered together under that ensign from the four corners of the earth.

Therefore, Jesus cannot be excluded from having fulfilled the prophecies.

So you don't even know that the dispearsed of Israel / scattered of Judah are thr Jewish people? Wow, have you ever considered learning about Judaism before using our texts to support your religion? This very specifically refers to the Jewish people

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Except what you've just described is a very modern viewpoint; there have been many atrocities committed in Jesus's name, committed by people who believed their victims were wicked, whether they were or not.

Well, OK. I can't understand what relevance you see in that relating to anything I've said, but that's the fun of debate. It's all about using words to coordinate our minds, and I'm happy to continue trying for awhile.

In addition, even today there are lots of people who still believe that wickedness can be measured by an objective standard, and therefore that there are wicked people.

Of course there are lots of confused people in the world. But again I see no relevance to your remark. People believe all sorts of nonsense.

Therefore, your latter interpretation is invalid.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, and I think I'm a pretty fair logician and wordsmith. So we've apparently got a whole bunch of mind-melding ahead of us.

That wasn't the Gospel of Thomas. That was one of the Infancy Gospels, and last I looked, that was an accident. The Gospel of Thomas is just a collection of teachings attributed to Jesus; there's no narrative in it to speak of.

Yeah, that's why I described it as the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas." (And I'm aware of the nature of the Gospel of Thomas.)

"Slain many with the breath of his lips" is an indication that simply by speaking, he can kill, and the prophecy indicates killing wicked people by implication.

Really? You mean like some kind of wizard? The messiah can kill people simply by blowing air on them? That’s wild. How did you come up with that interpretation? For myself, I like my understanding much better. Heck, even John seems to agree with me. Jesus is the Word. And the Word has sure slain a lot of folks in the past 2,000 years.

If there are any Gospels that record Jesus doing that, I haven't read them. If you know of one, produce the appropriate passage, and why the gospel might be an accurate portrayal of Jesus.

I glanced online the other day and noticed that the latest gospel was written in 1996. There could be 1,000 gospels which I've never read. Heck, I’ve never even read Joseph Smith’s gospel, and it’s got millions of followers.

How do we tell if a certain gospel is an accurate portrayal of Jesus? Well, I wouldn't know the answer to that question. I don't believe that Jesus even existed in 30 CE Judea. I think all the gospels were written as fiction/theology.

How about you? Do you believe any of the gospels are historical works? If so, do you believe that each and every moment of Jesus' life is described in those gospels? In other words, how do you know that Jesus never killed anyone?

So, again, that interpretation is invalid.

A fine claim. As you please to claim, so should you claim, I guess.

"dispersed of Israel... scattered of Judah" What else could this be referring to but Jews? Heck, the term "Jew" is clearly derived from the word "Judah".

The Jews who embraced the true messiah Jesus, of course. The real Jews. Why would God talk about the tiny remnants of so-called ‘Jews’ who missed the messiah? It was the Jesus-embracing Jews and their physical and spiritual heirs who were dispersed around the world but who are reunited under the ensign of Christ.

[Please, folks. No hate mail. This is only a little innocent intellectual exercise.]

How is that obvious at all? How do you know it's not a different symbol?

Of course it could be a different symbol. Who knows. I'm just explaining to you how Jesus can easily be seen as the true Jewish messiah. I personally don't even believe in messiahs. I consider the concept complete rubbish. Primitive magical thinking. [OK, maybe a little light hate mail for that one, everyone, but please remember that I am sensitive and cry easily.]

Who do you think are the "dispersed of Israel?"

Christians, of course, whether with Jewish ancestry or not. It seems most reasonable for explaining Jesus as messiah.

Wrong. Words mean what large numbers of people agree they mean.

Nah, you're mistaken, but that probably should be a different thread.

I'll just say that I am no sort of bibliolater. Meaning exists in human minds, not in words. And anyone who believes that they can pull reliable meaning from a 3,000-year-old text, written in a now-dead language, by members of a foreign and long-dead culture... well, I can't help viewing those people as magical thinkers. The concept of ‘scripture’ has done more harm to human thinking about the nature of language than most anything else I can bring to mind right now.

Besides, if that's true, then both of us could be considered correct.

Precisely my point -- my reason for entering this thread. Not that both of us are right, but that neither of us can possibly know any truth which transcends our personal human opinions.

Truths like: Jesus absolutely does/doesn’t fulfill the prophecies.

But this is a situation where both conclusions cannot be correct at the same time.

Maybe, maybe not. I guess if you are a messiah-believer, then you can't conceive of a guy being both messiah and not-messiah at once, but I have no problem with that idea. I find the concept itself to be more magical thinking. For me, it's as if we're arguing whether Jesus was actually a Superhero Wizard Sungod or whether he only claimed to be a SWSG. I don't believe in SWSGs to start with, so the argument looks pretty silly to me. I don't know your own beliefs, so I hope that my opinion doesn't offend you.

You seem to stretch the terminology to fit Christian imagery, when there wasn't any indication of that being the case, either inherently or provided by you.

You speak in a way which seems off-kilter to me. I've noticed it before in your writings. I'm not saying you speak off-kilter. I'm saying that we seem to use language very differently. Anyway, I really don't understand your backquote above.

But I'll take a shot at it: If God can write a prophecy, God can surely infuse it with Christian terminology and imagery. Even if Christianity didn't exist yet.

Now, you have a few more tasks from me: name specifically those scholars, and show me (don't just tell me) that they're well-reputed in the Jewish community.

Nah. I don't care anything about that. I don't care who they were or whether they were well-reputed in 'the Jewish community', whatever that might be. And I sure don’t play the your-scholar/my-scholar game. Sorry.

If the "dispersed of Israel" aren't Jews, or ancestors of Jews, then who are their modern equivalents?

I don't believe in Jews. Nor in Christians. They are no more objectively-real to me than wicked people are.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, OK. I can't understand what relevance you see in that relating to anything I've said, but that's the fun of debate. It's all about using words to coordinate our minds, and I'm happy to continue trying for awhile.

Of course there are lots of confused people in the world. But again I see no relevance to your remark. People believe all sorts of nonsense.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, and I think I'm a pretty fair logician and wordsmith. So we've apparently got a whole bunch of mind-melding ahead of us.

Yeah, that's why I described it as the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas." (And I'm aware of the nature of the Gospel of Thomas.)

Really? You mean like some kind of wizard? The messiah can kill people simply by blowing air on them? That’s wild. How did you come up with that interpretation? For myself, I like my understanding much better. Heck, even John seems to agree with me. Jesus is the Word. And the Word has sure slain a lot of folks in the past 2,000 years.

I glanced online the other day and noticed that the latest gospel was written in 1996. There could be 1,000 gospels which I've never read. Heck, I’ve never even read Joseph Smith’s gospel, and it’s got millions of followers.

How do we tell if a certain gospel is an accurate portrayal of Jesus? Well, I wouldn't know the answer to that question. I don't believe that Jesus even existed in 30 CE Judea. I think all the gospels were written as fiction/theology.

How about you? Do you believe any of the gospels are historical works? If so, do you believe that each and every moment of Jesus' life is described in those gospels? In other words, how do you know that Jesus never killed anyone?

A fine claim. As you please to claim, so should you claim, I guess.

The Jews who embraced the true messiah Jesus, of course. The real Jews. Why would God talk about the tiny remnants of so-called ‘Jews’ who missed the messiah? It was the Jesus-embracing Jews and their physical and spiritual heirs who were dispersed around the world but who are reunited under the ensign of Christ.

[Please, folks. No hate mail. This is only a little innocent intellectual exercise.]

Of course it could be a different symbol. Who knows. I'm just explaining to you how Jesus can easily be seen as the true Jewish messiah. I personally don't even believe in messiahs. I consider the concept complete rubbish. Primitive magical thinking. [OK, maybe a little light hate mail for that one, everyone, but please remember that I am sensitive and cry easily.]

Christians, of course, whether with Jewish ancestry or not. It seems most reasonable for explaining Jesus as messiah.

Nah, you're mistaken, but that probably should be a different thread.

I'll just say that I am no sort of bibliolater. Meaning exists in human minds, not in words. And anyone who believes that they can pull reliable meaning from a 3,000-year-old text, written in a now-dead language, by members of a foreign and long-dead culture... well, I can't help viewing those people as magical thinkers. The concept of ‘scripture’ has done more harm to human thinking about the nature of language than most anything else I can bring to mind right now.

Precisely my point -- my reason for entering this thread. Not that both of us are right, but that neither of us can possibly know any truth which transcends our personal human opinions.

Truths like: Jesus absolutely does/doesn’t fulfill the prophecies.

Maybe, maybe not. I guess if you are a messiah-believer, then you can't conceive of a guy being both messiah and not-messiah at once, but I have no problem with that idea. I find the concept itself to be more magical thinking. For me, it's as if we're arguing whether Jesus was actually a Superhero Wizard Sungod or whether he only claimed to be a SWSG. I don't believe in SWSGs to start with, so the argument looks pretty silly to me. I don't know your own beliefs, so I hope that my opinion doesn't offend you.

You speak in a way which seems off-kilter to me. I've noticed it before in your writings. I'm not saying you speak off-kilter. I'm saying that we seem to use language very differently. Anyway, I really don't understand your backquote above.

But I'll take a shot at it: If God can write a prophecy, God can surely infuse it with Christian terminology and imagery. Even if Christianity didn't exist yet.

Nah. I don't care anything about that. I don't care who they were or whether they were well-reputed in 'the Jewish community', whatever that might be. And I sure don’t play the your-scholar/my-scholar game. Sorry.

I don't believe in Jews. Nor in Christians. They are no more objectively-real to me than wicked people are.

Oh, so all this time, you've been playing devil's advocate?

Very poorly, I must say. I thought something was a bit off in your arguments.

And I can see at last that you're approaching this entire subject with a perspective of pure, 100% subjectivity. While I can understand that, that approach is not appropriate for this debate. It essentially boils down to "well, it doesn't really matter."

Hebrew is not a dead language, and ancient Greek is very well-understood(comparatively speaking, of course). It's not like we're dealing with the Vedas, here.

As for my off-kilter way of speaking, that can be attributed to one of two reasons, maybe both:

1. I'm an artist
2. I have Asperger's Syndrome

 

[1137]

You don't... Believe in Jews? Did you really just say that?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh, so all this time, you've been playing devil's advocate?

Yes. Openly so. From the beginning. Here is my first comment in this thread:

"Hi, Doors. I have no dog in this fight, but I'm pretty sure I could make a convincing argument that all of the prophecies have ben fulfilled...."

Very poorly, I must say. I thought something was a bit off in your arguments.

Actually I've done just what I claimed I could do. Better than I expected I could do. Those old prophets probably were talking about Jesus!

And I can see at last that you're approaching this entire subject with a perspective of pure, 100% subjectivity. While I can understand that, that approach is not appropriate for this debate. It essentially boils down to "well, it doesn't really matter."

It boils down to, "No one can know." People can fight over it as much as they like, but it is a serious error to assume that one's conclusion is True, while the other guy's conclusion is a 'lie'.

Hebrew is not a dead language, and ancient Greek is very well-understood(comparatively speaking, of course). It's not like we're dealing with the Vedas, here.

I disagree with you. But it doesn't matter. Even if we had dictionaries of ancient Greek and Hebrew, compiled somehow by its native speakers, we still couldn't understand most of the old prophets. Language carries a huge cultural component.

As for my off-kilter way of speaking, that can be attributed to one of two reasons, maybe both: 1. I'm an artist 2. I have Asperger's Syndrome.

That's interesting to me. I don't know anything about Asperger's or its possible effects on language use. I might do a little reading.

[I don't know how that thumb's up icon came to be at the top of this message. My best guess is that God must be reading along.]

 

[1137]

You actually think you've done a good job here? Alright...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You don't... Believe in Jews? Did you really just say that?

I always speak the truth. Of course I said it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You actually think you've done a good job here? Alright...

That's like asking Willie Nelson if he thinks he does a good job playing country music.

Please don't make me answer your question truthfully. I'm a modest man at heart.

 

[1137]

That's like asking Willie Nelson if he thinks he does a good job playing country music.

Please don't make me answer your question truthfully. I'm a modest man at heart.

You neglect to even understand what the scripture says (like about Judah / Israel), apparently backing this ignorance by saying Jews do not exist, and think you're doing a good job?