Faith in Jesus Christ

[AmbiguousGuy]

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?

That's funny. You really can't conceive that another person might legitimately disagree with you about the meaning of a 3,000-year-old text?

Curious business, if so.

Some Jews might exist, but only if they are preceded by adjectives. Orthodox Jews are somewhat recognizable on the street, but you never know. They could be gentiles on the way to a costume party.

Anyway, it doesn't even cross my mind to try and distinguish a Messianic Jew from a LIberal Jew. They just look like people to me.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

The book of Isaiah was written around 700 B.C. (700 years before Christ walked the earth and about 750 years before the book of Matthew was written).

Isaiah 45:17 "But Israel shall be saved by the Lord With an everlasting salvation; You shall not be ashamed or disgraced Forever and ever.

Isaiah 45:17 prophesies salvation through Christ.

Did the other Prophets/Messengers of God (i.e. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David ... etc.) preach faith/belief in Jesus ? Please respond with reference.

 

[1137]

That's funny. You really can't conceive that another person might legitimately disagree with you about the meaning of a 3,000-year-old text?

Curious business, if so.

Some Jews might exist, but only if they are preceded by adjectives. Orthodox Jews are somewhat recognizable on the street, but you never know. They could be gentiles on the way to a costume party.

Anyway, it doesn't even cross my mind to try and distinguish a Messianic Jew from a LIberal Jew. They just look like people to me.

Oh you can certainly interpret such texts differently, but in cases like this you're simply wrong. The verse being debated specifically refers to the Jewish people. You can modernize it as you have, but that just leads to being incorrect as the prophecies were not related to modern time but, as you said, the time the were written thousands of years ago. You've shot yourself in the foot here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh you can certainly interpret such texts differently, but in cases like this you're simply wrong.

I'm not a bibliolater. Sorry. And I see no reason to accept you as a prophet of God whose personal opinion is actually God's Own Truth. Sorry.

The verse being debated specifically refers to the Jewish people.

You can certainly interpret the old texts as you please, but in cases like this, you are simply wrong.

 

[1137]

I'm not a bibliolater. Sorry. And I see no reason to accept you as a prophet of God whose personal opinion is actually God's Own Truth. Sorry.



You can certainly interpret the old texts as you please, but in cases like this, you are simply wrong.

Take a class man, and stop using texts you obviously don't understand. Once you learn that the people of Israel in the Hebrew scriptures are the Jewish people we can talk again.

 

[Desert Snake]

Really?

Are you saying a jewish prophecy made a claim that one of their own, would become a deity for enemies of Judaism?

Actually that statement is a bit convoluded. "Jewish prophecy" and "Judaism are not two indistinguishable concepts.

 

[InChrist]

I believe anyone that denies the existence of the Jewish people... is living outside of reality and blind to God's hand in bringing them back to the land of Israel after 1900 years of being scattered throughout the world, just as the prophets foretold.

 

[Riverwolf]

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...."

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!

No, you didn't come up with convincing arguments; they are speculation at best.

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'.

Except that that's not what I did.

My conclusion is based on support, while yours is not. I never said there was absolutely no chance the prophets weren't talking about Jesus; I was saying that there's no Scriptural indication of that.

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.

And that culture is brought forth through contemporary writings that aren't in the Bible, as well as the Talmud. The language is also very similar to modern Hebrew, according to brief fact-checking, and I'm sure some speakers can give us an Anglic comparison if they so choose.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not a bibliolater. Sorry. And I see no reason to accept you as a prophet of God whose personal opinion is actually God's Own Truth.

Did he claim to be such?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Did he claim to be such?

Not to my memory, no. Why do you ask?

I know lots of people who seem like GreedyGuys to me, even though they never claim to be such. Don't you have that same experience with people and their labels?

Or do you think a person can't be a GreedyGuy (or prophet) unless he claims to be a GreedyGuy (or prophet)?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, you didn't come up with convincing arguments; they are speculation at best.

Yes, just like yours. It's speculation standing on the shoulders of speculation... all the way down.

But my arguments were the finest and most convincing that I have ever seen. I actually startled myself by how well I demonstrated that Jesus fulfilled the messiah prophecies. It was way easier than I imagined it would be.

Except that that's not what I did.

Correct. You didn't. I was referring to Door's assertion that it's "just a blatant lie" for anyone to claim that the prophecies have been fulfilled. I actually gasped when I read that.

My conclusion is based on support, while yours is not.

Nonsense. All my conclusions are fine things, based on solid support. But I haven't yet seen any support underlying your conclusions.

I never said there was absolutely no chance the prophets weren't talking about Jesus; I was saying that there's no Scriptural indication of that.

Really I haven't had much of a problem with your attitude and outlook, Riverwolf. I entered this thread because I had an issue with another poster's outlook. I just went ahead and proved the scriptural basis of Jesus-as-messiah while I was passing through.

And that culture is brought forth through contemporary writings that aren't in the Bible, as well as the Talmud. The language is also very similar to modern Hebrew....

If that's how you choose to see it, OK. But I don't have nearly so much confidence in our ability to understand ancient cultures, most especially the magic-thinking aspects of those cultures. Even though many have sworn that today is doomsday, I admit that I have smirked and gone about my daily business.

I don't think we have one chance in a million of decyphering the ancient Aztec mind. (Nor Isaiah's.)

And even if we did, I don't believe in Doomsdays or messiahs... so.

 

[InChrist]

The Hebrew scriptures do not say the Messiah comes twice. This idea was created specifically to address Christ's failure to fulfill the prophesies. If they have not been completed, Messiah has not come.

[FONT=&quot]I agree the Hebrew scriptures do not come right out and say that the Messiah will come twice, but are you sure they do not reveal that He comes twice? Why are there prophecies which describe the Messiah as a conquering ruler for Israel and then those which indicate he is a suffering, humble servant? Are these prophecies showing two different Messiahs or one Messiah and two different purposes for coming to earth at different times in history?[/FONT]

Well, first of all, God told us how he would send the messiah according to you, and a virgin birth means God lied. Either way, your quotes show exactly why God wouldn't come in the flesh. There is no God the father / God the son, there is God. One God, no others besides him. We do not worship the flesh, God is not of the flesh. Not even Messiah is to be worshipped, he is not God.

[/quote]


[FONT=&quot]What do you mean ‘God lied”? Can you explain further? Why would or could God not choose to come in the flesh? Is there a better way God could have related to His human creation? Just because God could have come in the flesh does not limit Him to the flesh or mean that it is merely a human that is worshiped.[/FONT]


Are you positive God the Father does not exist or have a Son?

Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know? Proverbs 30:4

 

[Riverwolf]

Not to my memory, no. Why do you ask?

I know lots of people who seem like GreedyGuys to me, even though they never claim to be such. Don't you have that same experience with people and their labels?

Or do you think a person can't be a GreedyGuy (or prophet) unless he claims to be a GreedyGuy (or prophet)?

Greedy people and prophets are not the same. A greedy person is not something we want to be; on the other hand, most people want to know all things, including the future.

IOW, false analogy.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, just like yours. It's speculation standing on the shoulders of speculation... all the way down.

But my arguments were the finest and most convincing that I have ever seen. I actually startled myself by how well I demonstrated that Jesus fulfilled the messiah prophecies. It was way easier than I imagined it would be.

That's how all of us view out own arguments. But your view of your arguments doesn't matter; how the ones your argument is presented to see it is what's important.

Correct. You didn't. I was referring to Door's assertion that it's "just a blatant lie" for anyone to claim that the prophecies have been fulfilled. I actually gasped when I read that.

Nonsense. All my conclusions are fine things, based on solid support. But I haven't yet seen any support underlying your conclusions.

Look again. I have Scriptural support for this Scriptural matter.

If that's how you choose to see it, OK. But I don't have nearly so much confidence in our ability to understand ancient cultures, most especially the magic-thinking aspects of those cultures. Even though many have sworn that today is doomsday, I admit that I have smirked and gone about my daily business.

I don't think we have one chance in a million of decyphering the ancient Aztec mind. (Nor Isaiah's.)

And even if we did, I don't believe in Doomsdays or messiahs... so.

In other words, working back from the conclusion that since we can't know, all possibilities are equally valid.

That's simply not true.

 

[InChrist]

Then you obviously haven't read Revelation beyond your cherry picked verses, or you need to reread it, because Jesus isn't the only who speaks. God and Jesus interchange in their speaking roles. Only a Trinitarian presumption would think they're the same being speaking. And the First and the Last is simply him stating a similar concept as God would have, not as God himself.

This is an excellent article, even if by a JW, on this "Speaker Confusion trick" which many Trinitarians employ.

I have read and thoroughly studied the book of Revelation several times over the last twenty years. At first I used to be amazed/shocked that you would use JW material for support, as if such material was really valid. It especially surprises me that you would reference to anything with a Watchtower slant concerning Revelation when they totally spiritualize away Rev. 7:1-8 and deny the literal interpretation that the 144,000 are actually those of the tribes of Israel, saying instead they are the first 144.000 JW's in heaven. But I have realized that you do like using such material for the sole reason that it supports your most important goal of denying the deity of Christ and delegating Him to the lowered position of a created being...right in line with Watchtower theology. I think it is a terrible article.

I’ve read enough Watchtower literature to last me a lifetime and am very familiar with their twisted approach to scriptures. I have no question about that the One speaking in Revelation is Jesus and I have no confusion that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End and God Almighty and that He is the One who is coming quickly.

As you can see, it's God who is speaking there in the beginning.


That's the end of the Angels' message who is speaking for the Father.


And that is Jesus's conclusion of the letter itself.



Jesus comes quickly, and so does God. That does not make them the same being. Again, read that article.


Again, it's a closing of the letter, whereas 22:13 is the closing of the Angels' message of the Father. Speaker confusion is a major problem when reading Revelation.

I have no confusion and see Jesus speaking throughout or His angel speaking to the churches through John concerning His return (Christ) to judge the earth. Jesus is the WORD of GOD and it is He who speaks for His Father and who is coming soon to judge the earth and reign from Jerusalem for the millennial kingdom, God the Father does not dwell with men until after this time period when the old earth passes away and He dwells with men in the new Jerusalem and new heaven and earth.

Confusion comes when the rightful place of Christ is denied.

If Jesus's name means "Yah is salvation", then that would mean they're not the same being.

[FONT=&quot]I believe the scriptures show that it is Christ before His incarnation who was YHWH in the OT.[/FONT]

And Immanuel means God IS with us.

Matthew apparently believed God was literally with them in the flesh.

Why would God anoint Himself? The word "Anointed" means one who was chosen to be anointed. God does the anointing for others, not Himself.

God the Father anointed His Son in the Person of Jesus Christ for the mission He came to earth to fulfill.

With that said, Isaiah 7:14 is not even reffering to Jesus, so it's pointless to even consider that he's called IMmanuel.

You have your perspective and I have mine and I believe Matthew quotes Is.7:14 because it did refer to Jesus, as God, who came to earth to be with us, His creation, to live a human life and go to the cross as our human representative in payment for the sins of the world.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Greedy people and prophets are not the same. A greedy person is not something we want to be; on the other hand, most people want to know all things, including the future.

IOW, false analogy.

You're mistaken. I happen to be a semi-professional analogist, and I can report that mine was a very fine analogy indeed.

But I champion your right to present faulty opinions about my analogies or anyone else's analogies. This is America.

 

[1137]

You're mistaken. I happen to be a semi-professional analogist, and I can report that mine was a very fine analogy indeed.

But I champion your right to present faulty opinions about my analogies or anyone else's analogies. This is America.

You should learn about both Judaism and logical fallacies.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Greedy people and prophets are not the same. A greedy person is not something we want to be; on the other hand, most people want to know all things, including the future.

By the way, I'm curious. Do you believe that prophets can foretell the future any better than non-prophets?

 

[1137]

God the Father anointed His Son in the Person of Jesus Christ for the mission He came to earth to fulfill.

Hear oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. One, not two, making this perspective that of worshiping a false idol, something that is not God. God cannot be represented by idols, inanimate, human, whatever. This is why idol worship is forbidden by God. So, God forbids idol worship and then requires us to worship one by coming to us in the flesh, a representative of his divine awesomness? You believe in a strange God (though don't we all).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's how all of us view out own arguments.

Nah. I was joking. I find hubris to be hysterically funny. Not sure why. Some people enjoy whoopie cushions. I like arrogance.

But your view of your arguments doesn't matter; how the ones your argument is presented to see it is what's important.

Right. Which is why all of your argument so far have failed. You presented them to me, and I have found them to be quite weak. I'm sorry.

Look again. I have Scriptural support for this Scriptural matter.

I've looked again and found your arguments to have no scriptural support while my arguments have tons of such support. How could I so easily prove the messiahship of Jesus without using scriptural support?

In other words, working back from the conclusion that since we can't know, all possibilities are equally valid. That's simply not true.

Say what?

My arguments that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies are way more valid that your (and Door's) poor counterarguments that Jesus did not fulfill the scriptures. Mine were based on scriptural support and rock-solid rationality, after all, while yours came with no such support. How can you say that both possibilities are equally valid? Don't you respect hard evidence and powerful argumentation?

[There's that thumb's up icon again. What's the deal with that? I know that God loves me special, but do you think He is really following me around the forum, expressing His approval?]