Is it Possible to Prove Being the Messiah?

[PruePhillip]

Is there any evidence for that? If so, is there any evidence that the amendments were not improvements?
It's the heavens and the earth, Jim, but not as we know them. I think I've mentioned biblical cosmology to you before ─ lacking all the concepts of the modern sky, eg satellites, planets, the sun as a star, stars, galaxies, colossal distances, the moon orbiting the earth, the earth orbiting the sun, nothing. Instead there was no sky till after the earth existed, Day 2, and it (the firmament) is a solid dome over the earth that you can walk on. Not till day 4 do we get (their concept of) the sun, moon and stars. They're attached to the firmament such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

Genesis 1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was
over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was
hovering over the waters.

God created the heaven --- - and the earth, in that order.

Now the earth..... we are transported to the earth. We
are not floating around in the ether. This isn't about space
or other planets - it's about the earth. Planets were just
wandering stars, and the earth was either the immediate
ground underneath you or the boundaries of your empire.

the earth was formless.... meaning it had no features.
Just water, and water, and more water.....

darkness was over the surface........ the earth at that
stage was a cloud planet, like Venus, like Titan. That's
one reason why NASA was interested in Titan, they
call it a "pre-cursor earth", ie dark and oceanic (but
later they found it was just dark with large seas and
lakes.)

and empty..... nothing, just water. No sunlight, no land,
sterile water.

surface of the deep...... could have been as much as
3km deep.


It's a deep subject, and I am busy.
But one thing - this notion of an "earth-centric
universe." We should bring it back. The earth IS
the center of the universe. In fact, YOU are the center
of the universe. Einstein declared that the observer
is the center. So on the moon you see the earth
rotating around you. Just say'n.

 

[sooda]

Look at Ezekiel 38 and 39
Ezekiel was a priest in exile in Babylon. He wrote what must have been fantastic to the
Jews - an account of their nation which was restored a second time. Second time? What
about the first time?

And here is Isaiah 11:11
On that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples. The nations will seek
Him, and His place of rest will be glorious. On that day the Lord will extend His hand a second
time to recover the remnant of His people from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush,
from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner
for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; He will collect the scattered of Judah from the four
corners of the earth.…

Root of Jesse - house of David, from which Jesus came
banner to the people - the standard of God
the nations - gentiles
a second time - written before the exile to Babylon, about a Roman exile - Rome didn't exist then
four corners of the earth - all the world, not just the Middle East

This is Jesus, and this is the coming of the Jews in our time.

Isaiah wrote about Israel not Jesus. Gog and Magog invaded about 630 BC and some stayed behind and built a city called Scythiopolis.

The Jews did return from the exile in Babylon.. two different groups.. 80 years apart I think.

Banner to the people is not about Gentiles.. Moses called God the banner to the people on their return from Egypt. Its from Exodus.

Root of Jesse is not Jesus.. Jesse was the father of David, the first anointed king of the Jews. Root meaning descendant of.... That's who Isaiah is talking about... and Jesus wasn't the king of the Gentiles.

 

[blü 2]

How can something "pre-exist" the universe?

For our universe as its own distinct entity, time can't start till T0. But that doesn't prevent mass-energy existing in some set of dimensions that like our universe exists as the result of the existence of mass-energy. And since on my hypothesis time is a quality or effect of mass-energy, and since anyway (at least on our present understanding) nothing can happen in the absence of time, and something definitely happened to generate the Big Bang, there necessarily was time somewhere before there was time here.

God, by definition, must lie outside of the universe of space, time, energy, physics etc..

Not even an imaginary being could be said to exist in any sense while having absolutely no qualities whatsoever. Instead you get the profoundest of nothings ─ nothing nowhere notime.

Before the universe there was no mass, no time, no energy, no physics, not even numbers.

What science actually says is that if, as our main model of the BIg Bang has it, there was a genuine singularity at T0, (a matter about which I'm inclined to be skeptical) then no information about any pre-existing physical state of things is accessible to us. So not, There wasn't, but We can't know. Nonetheless, stay tuned ─ you never know what we'll find next.

Science is good at finding the mechanisms for the natural world - but it cannot describe how the universe came to be when there simply wasn't a mechanism.

What brought about the Big Bang? We don't know. But science is all about starting with a question, an unknown, and then finding the answer. And unlike your team, my team is actually looking.

Some say "I have faith that science will find the answer."
Sound familiar, "faith" ?

Sure. I've already told you I'm a man of faith, using bits of paper and electronic signals as though money had real value. As long as I stay in my faith community, it works. One step beyond and the awful truth crashes on top of you.

Some say the universe is eternal, but I see that as avoiding the question.

What would prevent mass-energy from being eternal? We don't know how to create it, and we don't know how to destroy it.

And then the same people will ask "Who made God" and are not satisfied with the statement "God is eternal."

Who made God? Well, first you'd have to tell me what real thing the word 'God' denotes, such that I can tell one if I find one. Meanwhile, gods only exist as concepts in individual brains, a kind of meme to which, perhaps, we've evolved to be particularly receptive.

 

[PruePhillip]

Isaiah wrote about Israel not Jesus. Gog and Magog invaded about 630 BC and some stayed behind and built a city called Scythiopolis.

The Jews did return from the exile in Babylon.. two different groups.. 80 years apart I think.

Banner to the people is not about Gentiles.. Moses call God the banner to the people on their return from Egypt. Its from Exodus.

The banner is a metaphor - don't know what the original word was, but
it means something which proclaims. Somebody or something of
significance would proclaim "to the nations." Nations in this context
means outside of Israel and the Jews.
This was strange to many "observant" Jews who never, to this day,
got it. God wasn't going to convert the world to Judaism, He was
going to give them the thing which the Jews rejected - a Messiah
instead of a King, and from the line of David.
David was from the line of Judah, which has nothing to do with the
Levitical line of priests. Jesus wouldn't be a priest so much as he
would be King of the Jews.

 

[sooda]

The banner is a metaphor - don't know what the original word was, but
it means something which proclaims. Somebody or something of
significance would proclaim "to the nations." Nations in this context
means outside of Israel and the Jews.
This was strange to many "observant" Jews who never, to this day,
got it. God wasn't going to convert the world to Judaism, He was
going to give them the thing which the Jews rejected - a Messiah
instead of a King, and from the line of David.
David was from the line of Judah, which has nothing to do with the
Levitical line of priests. Jesus wouldn't be a priest so much as he
would be King of the Jews.

Moses built an alter and called it the banner of God..

And Moses built an altar and named it ‘The LORD is my Banner.” -Exodus 17:15 When Israel faced the Amalekites in battle at Rephidim it wasn’t with overwhelming force, an experienced army, or the best commanders. It was as a transient tribe of herdsmen escaping slavery in Egypt.

Jesus never preached to the Gentiles.. only to Jews. Jesus wasn't called the root of Jesse until Paul wrote Romans many years later.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who's 'wisdom'? One person's wisdom is another person's foolishness.

How true, which is why there is no point arguing.

Nobody can prove who the Messiah is, was, or will be, except to themselves.

Perhaps sometime in the future everyone will know, but that is probably a long way off. In the meantime sharing is fine but I am not going to argue about it or insist I know the truth.

 

[PruePhillip]

Moses built an alter and called it the banner of God..

And Moses built an altar and named it ‘The LORD is my Banner.” -Exodus 17:15 When Israel faced the Amalekites in battle at Rephidim it wasn’t with overwhelming force, an experienced army, or the best commanders. It was as a transient tribe of herdsmen escaping slavery in Egypt.

Jesus never preached to the Gentiles.. only to Jews. Jesus wasn't called the root of Jesse until Paul wrote Romans many years later.

Yes and no. Certainly finding the word "banner" anywhere doesn't mean much.
Banner in Isaiah's case wasn't some physical object to wave to people - it was
a standard.
Yes, Jesus never preached to the Gentiles. That's sounds strange, doesn't it?
Yet it was the Gentiles who came to him - and he wound up preaching to them,
ie the Samaritan woman and her village, Decapolis etc.. But yeah - He was sent
to the Jews.
But... that doesn't mean His message stays with the Jews. Jesus said His message
was to be preached in all the world - and then the end would come.

Jesus was considered the root of Jesse, not just by Paul but by his supposed lineage
through Joseph, plus the various writers going back to Jacob in Egypt.
Does it matter? Not really, in one sense, but in another, because it's in the bible, we
must presume it holds special significance - as symbolism.

 

[sooda]

Yes and no. Certainly finding the word "banner" anywhere doesn't mean much.
Banner in Isaiah's case wasn't some physical object to wave to people - it was
a standard.
Yes, Jesus never preached to the Gentiles. That's sounds strange, doesn't it?
Yet it was the Gentiles who came to him - and he wound up preaching to them,
ie the Samaritan woman and her village, Decapolis etc.. But yeah - He was sent
to the Jews.
But... that doesn't mean His message stays with the Jews. Jesus said His message
was to be preached in all the world - and then the end would come.

Jesus was considered the root of Jesse, not just by Paul but by his supposed lineage
through Joseph, plus the various writers going back to Jacob in Egypt.
Does it matter? Not really, in one sense, but in another, because it's in the bible, we
must presume it holds special significance - as symbolism.

There was NO David in the time of Joseph and the Exodus story.

 

[PruePhillip]

There was NO David in the time of Joseph and the Exodus story.

I see what you mean. By Joseph I meant the presumed father
of Jesus.
Jacob said the Messiah will come through the line of his son
Judah (the one who offered himself for his brother.)
And there would be a nation of the Hebrews, "until" the
Messiah comes.
Somewhere between a thousand and fifteen hundred
years later Isaiah says much the same thing - the Messiah
will be from the line of David - the rejected and reigning
King, like Jesus would become.

It's all hugely symbolic, and endlessly fascinating. Keep
an open mind.

 

[wizanda]

Nobody can prove who the Messiah is, was, or will be, except to themselves.

Actually it is easy to prove the Messiah; yet people won't let go of a lie they're already convinced of.

With precise exegesis, and people willing to go over the details it is provable; yet people look for opportunistic aspects before reality.

Perhaps sometime in the future everyone will know, but that is probably a long way off.

Unless all the religious texts, the global news, and the Source of our reality was lying to us: you're all doomed soon in the Great Tribulation (WW3), and then we keep the enlightened Saints who have already accepted our words.

Take into account Baha'u'llah knew there was one more Avatar before the Great Tribulation, he thought it was one thousand years, presumably based on Zoroastrian timelines; yet the planet is dying at an accelerated rate, and we've less than 100 years left before human extinction.

which is why there is no point arguing.

We shouldn't argue about the things of God, as it shows we didn't even approach it in the right way...

The humble are blessed (Micah 6:5-8), and the know it alls are Cursed (Isaiah 29:9-14).

In my opinion.

 

[blü 2]

God created the heaven --- - and the earth, in that order.

But not till Day 2 did God create the sky ─ the solid firmament to which the stars were attached on Day 4.

This isn't about space or other planets - it's about the earth.

Indeed. The authors of the bible had no concept of heliocentry or orbits or other planets or deep space. The greater light, the lesser light and the stars were just things that went around the (flat) earth.

the earth was formless.... meaning it had no features. Just water, and water, and more water.....

I've never come across a geohistory of the earth that says there was ever a time, even once, even long ago, when it was all under water. Are you aware of any science that supports such a view?

darkness was over the surface........ the earth at that stage was a cloud planet, like Venus, like Titan. That's one reason why NASA was interested in Titan, they call it a "pre-cursor earth", ie dark and oceanic (but later they found it was just dark with large seas and lakes.)

and empty..... nothing, just water. No sunlight, no land, sterile water.

Where are you getting this from?

this notion of an "earth-centric
universe." We should bring it back. The earth IS the center of the universe. In fact, YOU are the center of the universe. Einstein declared that the observer is the center. So on the moon you see the earth rotating around you. Just say'n.

The claim is that the earth is fixed and immovable. I gave you the link to the quotes.

The bible sets out the understandings of the times and places of its writers. It nowhere reflects the views of our present science ─ and why would it do otherwise?

 

[PruePhillip]

I've never come across a geohistory of the earth that says there was ever a time, even once, even long ago, when it was all under water. Are you aware of any science that supports such a view?

Until about 15 years ago I discounted the Genesis story.
I saw the early earth as molten, and after cooling water
filled the lower elevations.

But then in my country Aust they discovered, in zircon
crystals, evidence for water. A little water in the zircon
translated into lots of water on earth, they said.
So, could the early earth be oceanic?
Simulations of planet formation show many/most rocky
planets could be water worlds. Costner would be at home.

This water facilitated subduction and plate tectonics. This
created a lighter rock called granite. It formed the continents
which rose above the oceans.

NASA's Huygens probe landed on the cloud deck Titan in 2005.
Titan was seen as an early earth laboratory.

In 2018 it was agreed that life was more likely to have formed
in fresh water - marine environment is too toxic for early cell
development.

 

[PruePhillip]

The claim is that the earth is fixed and immovable. I gave you the link to the quotes.

Fixed and unmovable in relation to what?

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually it is easy to prove the Messiah; yet people won't let go of a lie they're already convinced of.

It is easy to prove that the Messiah has already come, by looking at all the prophecies that HAVE been fulfilled....

William Sears, Thief in the Night

Unfortunately, people won't let go of WHO they are already convinced the Messiah will be.

 

[blü 2]

\

Fixed and unmovable in relation to what?

You've seen what the bible says on those linked quotes. Fixed and immovable (and flat) smack at the center of everything.

 

[wizanda]

It is easy to prove that the Messiah has already come, by looking at all the prophecies that HAVE been fulfilled....

I can show by evidence exactly why Yeshua was the fulfilment of Hebraic prophecy, and how I'm the continuation of it...

Unfortunately, people won't let go of WHO they are already convinced the Messiah will be.

I'm willing to question all perspectives in detail; show us the evidence why I should even accept Baha'u'llah as a Hebraic prophet?

He had no understanding about Yeshua's real reason for coming, and instead has literally taught opposite like the Pharisees (John, Paul, and Simon).

In my opinion.

 

[sooda]

Look at Ezekiel 38 and 39
Ezekiel was a priest in exile in Babylon. He wrote what must have been fantastic to the
Jews - an account of their nation which was restored a second time. Second time? What
about the first time?

And here is Isaiah 11:11
On that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples. The nations will seek
Him, and His place of rest will be glorious. On that day the Lord will extend His hand a second
time to recover the remnant of His people from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush,
from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner
for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; He will collect the scattered of Judah from the four
corners of the earth.…

Root of Jesse - house of David, from which Jesus came
banner to the people - the standard of God
the nations - gentiles
a second time - written before the exile to Babylon, about a Roman exile - Rome didn't exist then
four corners of the earth - all the world, not just the Middle East

This is Jesus, and this is the coming of the Jews in our time.

Isaiah wrote about Israel not Jesus. Gog and Magog invaded about 630 BC and some stayed behind and built a city called Scythopolis.

The Jews did return from the exile in Babylon.. two different groups.. 80 years apart I think.

Banner to the people is not about Gentiles.. Moses call God the banner to the people on their return from Egypt.

 

[wizanda]

Banner to the people is not about Gentiles..

Isaiah 5:26 He will lift up a banner to the nations (Gentiles) from far, and he will whistle for them from the end of the earth. Behold, they will come speedily and swiftly.

Isaiah 11:10 It will happen in that day that the nations (Gentiles) will seek the root of Jesse, who stands as a banner of the peoples; and his resting place will be glorious.

Isaiah 11:12 He will set up a banner for the nations (Gentiles), and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Isaiah 49:22 Thus says the Lord Yahweh, “Behold, I will lift up my hand to the nation (Gentiles), and lift up my banner to the peoples; and they shall bring your sons in their bosom, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.

In our opinion.

 

[sooda]

Isaiah 5:26 He will lift up a banner to the nations (Gentiles) from far, and he will whistle for them from the end of the earth. Behold, they will come speedily and swiftly.

Isaiah 11:10 It will happen in that day that the nations (Gentiles) will seek the root of Jesse, who stands as a banner of the peoples; and his resting place will be glorious.

Isaiah 11:12 He will set up a banner for the nations (Gentiles), and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Isaiah 49:22 Thus says the Lord Yahweh, “Behold, I will lift up my hand to the nation (Gentiles), and lift up my banner to the peoples; and they shall bring your sons in their bosom, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.

In our opinion.

Scholars think that Isaiah was written over a span of hundreds of years by at least 3 different authors,


Three authors: Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah

Scholars generally divide Isaiah into three distinct sections based on the changes in the timeline, assuming that there were at least three authors.

Presumably, Isaiah (“proto-Isaiah”) wrote chapters 1–39, an anonymous author living during the exile (“deutero-Isaiah”) wrote 40–55, and another anonymous author living after the exile (“trito-Isaiah”) wrote 56–66.

These authors are also referred to as First Isaiah, Second Isaiah, and Third Isaiah.

Multiple authorship
Others argue that Isaiah likely wrote an even smaller section of the book, possibly as few as seven chapters (6–12). The rest of the book is the work of numerous disciples who lived over the next 400 years or so.

 

[wizanda]

Scholars think that Isaiah was written over a span of hundreds of years by at least 3 different authors,

I know what scholars think, I don't agree, and can show how the mechanisms being used in Isaiah are highly complex, and requires a certain level of understanding to write that way (computer code) throughout.

Most people who follow scholars are going the wrong way; they generally have an idea about the texts, like scientist have a hypothesis, there are always better understandings within the actual data.

In my opinion.