Is it Possible to Prove Being the Messiah?

[sooda]

The thread is to question can we prove it or are people too argumentative.

We could go over each different aspect of them prophecies; yet if you continually just point to poorly fitting history, we won't get anywhere comprehending it.

In my opinion.

None of them are about Jesus... not one. You should try and find out when the prophet lived and who he was talking about instead.. Its very dishonest to change Jewish scripture.. and it isn't necessary to believe in Jesus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have numerous religious textual references, and ideas to backup the idea of who is the Messiah; yet as we see with Yeshua's fulfilment of prophecy, some people will go against it through a lack of study...

So is it ever really possible to actually prove it for sure using careful exegesis or are people to argumentative to really listen?

In my opinion.

Sure, it's possible. All you need to be able to demonstrate is:

- that God exists.
- that God wrote some religious text - or at least made sure that it's exactly what he wanted.
- that the religious text has been transmitted to us intact.
- that God's intended meaning in this text can be discerned.
- that this intended meaning lays out that a Messiah exists and the criteria for messiahship.
- that we can accurately measure people against these criteria.
- that God wasn't lying.
- that the criteria in God's intended meaning establish a given person as the Messiah.

Good luck with all that. Personally, I can't see how you could demonstrate a single one of these.

 

[sooda]

You are welcome to your belief but it is not strong enough to stand up in court. The only way jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies is by cherry picking those he did meet and ignoring the others.

Approaching the bible with jesus glasses does not change Jewish scripture.

Daniel, Isaiah and Zecheria are NOT about Jesus.

 

[sooda]

Yes the person according to prophecy with the new name of Christ (Revelation 3:12) is here on earth.

Already explained how if we study my name in many of the world's religious texts, it shows how what I've known since 4-5 years old is the same, that I was sent from Heaven before the Great Tribulation, and then the Messianic Age comes after.

In my opinion.

The tribulation was local and ended in 70 AD.

Jesus had told them that when they saw the abomination of desolation like what Antiochus IV had done they should flee to the mountains and that's what they did. They went to Pella.

 

[JJ50]

I wonder what the real Jesus was actually like? I bet he was nothing like way he is portrayed in the Bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't think that guy Jesus was anymore of a Messiah than I am. He seemed to be a very human guy with faults and failings like the rest of us.

What was his faults?

 

[PruePhillip]

I wonder what the real Jesus was actually like? I bet he was nothing like way he is portrayed in the Bible.

I understand the bible account is accurate - what is portrayed of Him in religion
(ie iconography, doctrines) is problematic.

 

[sooda]

I understand the bible account is accurate - what is portrayed of Him in religion
(ie iconography, doctrines) is problematic.

The gospels were written long after Jesus and contradict one another. Luke never met him and Matthew changes Jewish scripture to "prove " Jesus.

 

[PruePhillip]

The tribulation was local and ended in 70 AD.

Jesus had told them that when they saw the abomination of desolation like what Antiochus IV had done they should flee to the mountains and that's what they did. They went to Pella.

You mean that fight that saw the destruction of the temple?
What about the Kitos War which followed it?
And the Bar Kochbar War which ended Israel?

This tribulation concerns all people and is the greatest
tribulation ever known. Are you sure AD70 fits that bill?
How many nations were involved? How many people
died? Was there the great Rapture? Was Satan hurled
to the earth?
The account in Revelations (ca AD90) doesn't read
like a local war, fought with knives and spears. But I
could be wrong. Better brush up on my history.

 

[JJ50]

I understand the bible account is accurate - what is portrayed of Him in religion
(ie iconography, doctrines) is problematic.

How do you know the Biblical account is accurate, it was written many years after he was dead?

 

[sooda]

You mean that fight that saw the destruction of the temple?
What about the Kitos War which followed it?
And the Bar Kochbar War which ended Israel?

This tribulation concerns all people and is the greatest
tribulation ever known. Are you sure AD70 fits that bill?
How many nations were involved? How many people
died? Was there the great Rapture? Was Satan hurled
to the earth?
The account in Revelations (ca AD90) doesn't read
like a local war, fought with knives and spears. But I
could be wrong. Better brush up on my history.

Look at a map of the Roman Empire in the first century.. Syrians, Egyptians and Arabs fought with Titus' Roman legion to destroy the Temple .. so Israel was "surrounded by enemies".

 

[PruePhillip]

The gospels were written long after Jesus and contradict one another. Luke never met him and Matthew changes Jewish scripture to "prove " Jesus.

Well, as said before - it's possible John wrote his account as it
happened. Reads like it.
Paul mentions Jesus and his resurrection 20 years after Jesus.
Luke wrote his gospel around, what ?? We don't know. He died
about AD 68 and by this time he had compiled his gospel and
written Acts. Maybe Luke's Gospel was written in 40's or 50's?
And clearly he was quoting from existing documents written
even earlier than this.

Remember, when scholars say "The earliest document dates
to..." That doesn't mean that document was the first one. It just
means "the earliest document we have..."
Science teaches us that the universe is more strange than we
can imagine. It tells us it's more wondrous and things go back
further than we first imagined.

 

[PruePhillip]

How do you know the Biblical account is accurate, it was written many years after he was dead?

A lot of it was written many years BEFORE He died.
Read Jacob, Moses, Job, King David, Zechariah, and most of
all, Isaiah. The whole Gospel is in the Old Testament.

 

[ChristineM]

Daniel, Isaiah and Zecheria are NOT about Jesus.

I am talking messianic prophecies not met by jesus

 

[sooda]

I am talking messianic prophecies not met by jesus

That he would be a warrior king who would defeat their enemies.. Jesus didn't do that.

 

[ChristineM]

That he would be a warrior king who would defeat their enemies.. Jesus didn't do that.

Nor was he a direct descendant of David

 

[sooda]

Nor was he a direct descendant of David

This one is VERY straightforward.

The Context of Isaiah 53
The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:

• “You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)
• “You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)
• see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and
refer to someone other than the Jewish people.

One obvious question that needs to be addressed: How can the “Suffering Servant,” which the verses refer to grammatically in the singular, be equated with the entire Jewish nation?

continued

Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant

 

[PruePhillip]

That he would be a warrior king who would defeat their enemies.. Jesus didn't do that.

You are talking about one of two prophecies. Why not mention the other?
The Messiah must first come as Redeemer and then as King.

The bible says Israel will reject her Messiah. But those who embrace his humility and accept his "blood
covenant" will reign with Him when He returns.


Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! See, your King comes to you,
righteous and victorious, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. And I will cut off the chariot
from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem, and the bow of war will be broken. Then He will proclaim peace to
the nations; His dominion will extend from sea to sea, and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth

Zechariah 12:9
On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will
look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly
for him as one grieves for a firstborn son

 

[firedragon]

The Messiah is human, he is from the line of David, in other words a Son of Man.... Yeshua in the Synoptic Gospels calls himself a Son of Man, others called him a Son of God.

Was Ezekiel a messiah?

 

[PruePhillip]

This one is VERY straightforward.

The Context of Isaiah 53
The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:

• “You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)
• “You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)
• see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and
refer to someone other than the Jewish people.

One obvious question that needs to be addressed: How can the “Suffering Servant,” which the verses refer to grammatically in the singular, be equated with the entire Jewish nation?

continued

Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant

So this is interesting. SOME Jews suffered and died to Redeem OTHER Jews.
And the dead Jews, in heaven, see the results of their suffering, and are glad.
Wow. There's nothing like this anywhere else in scripture - but it must be right
because this story was invented by a Rabbi in the Middle Ages. This Rabbi
couldn't explain what he was doing in exile in Europe and his Promised Land
lay in ruins.