Is it Possible to Prove Being the Messiah?

[Spirit of Light]

The mountain has a summit above the 10 dimensions, and each path previously described leads part of the way.

Only by understanding the whole, can we accept Oneness; as those who created the paths, reside within 0neness at the summit.

Enlightenment is about being the path of light in all aspects; not following it in someone's shadows.

In my opinion.

I understand we see this a bit different But that is natural when being on different wisdom levels

 

[susanblange]

The true Messiah is alive on earth today. God has called him and revealed himself to him. There will not be one God in the world until the death and resurrection of the Messiah/God. Zechariah 14:9.

 

[sooda]

The true Messiah is alive on earth today. God has called him and revealed himself to him. There will not be one God in the world until the death and resurrection of the Messiah/God. Zechariah 14:9.

Oh … Zechariah is talking about Judah Maccabee not Jesus and not the future.

 

[susanblange]

Oh … Zechariah is talking about Judah Maccabee not Jesus and not the future.

I respectfully disagree and you are mistaken. Jesus is Satan's counterfeit messiah. Neither he, nor Judah Maccabee returned from Heaven with all the angels on the mount of Olives. Also, everyone who was against the Messiah did not burst into flames. If you read the whole chapter of Zechariah 14, KJV, this is abundantly clear.

 

[PruePhillip]

Isn't it obvious that Jesus was a holy man who taught non-violent liberation theology as a way of coping with the Roman occupation? … a least based on the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivetti Discourse..

Jesus was more than a holy man, or a philosopher or a wise man
He came to be the Redeemer and lay down his life. This is something
no other great man would want to do (or is capable.)

Most people would agree with me that Jesus had utterly no interest
in politics. Render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar
was his statement - and to Caesar belonged the law and taxation.

Politics was not Jesus' mandate, nor was it in any way relevant
to His message.

But Rome WAS to play in part in all this - it was to kill Jesus and
destroy both the temple and Israel, as Daniel prophesied. For even
Jacob said there would be a Hebrew nation which would end with
the Messiah.

 

[PruePhillip]

Zechariah the prophet correctly predicts the fate of Israel’s neighbors during Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire in the fourth century B.C. Then in Zechariah 9:9, the prophet describes Judah Maccabees as a type of the future Messiah.

Zechariah 9
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O Daughter of Jerusalem! See,
your King comes to you, righteous and victorious, humble 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. As for you, because of the blood of My covenant, I will release your
prisoners from the waterless pit.

Now, assuming this was true, do you have all your ducks set up in a row? If not then
FAIL.
Was this Judas righteous? I understand his claim to fame was violence
Was Judas humble? Don't think so.
Did Judas proclaim peace to the nations? Most nations he didn't know about
Did Judas' dominion extend to the Euphrates? Uh, no.
Did Judas' dominion extend to the end of the earth? No, "earth" to Judas was soil, a planet was a star and the world was the Roman Empire.
Did Judas establish a New Covenant? No, he was an Old Testament guy, and besides, New Testament guys didn't fight anyone.

And Zech 9 is a part of Zech 12 - and with this chapter the comparison seriously goes pear-shaped because Judas would have to return to
earth and see the Jews mourn that they crucified him.

Sorry, this is a Super Fail. You are just thrashing around here.

 

[PruePhillip]

A thing that should never be forgotten about Paul is his bald statement Galatians 1:11 that everything he tells us about Jesus comes out of his own head. Eh?

Gal 1:11
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. "

Your reading of this statement surprises me. Where did you get this assessment from?
Jesus spoke often that His doctrine was not of man. In fact He went to great pains to
make that point, ie telling his disciples to purchase a sword but then saying it was enough
when Peter struck a man - and healed that man. And He pointed out if His kingdom was
of this earth then would His mean fight for him.
The whole New Testament (indeed even the Old Testament when talking about the
coming new covenant) was at pains to show this was not after mankind.

 

[shmogie]

Good grief. The was NO Daniel. the book was written by a committee of Jews in 167 BC to give hope to the Jews during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Daniel or Danel was a popular character in a 1500 year old Syrian poem by the northcoast Canaanites.

EVIDENCE ?

 

[blü 2]

In Isaiah 52:10-14 it states the Spirit of Salvation (Yeshuat Elohienu), is put into a human vessel...

Quote me the precise words, I don't find 'salvation' mentioned anywhere in Isaiah 52:11-14. And it's a bald error of text, principle, chronology and retrofitting to confuse the Suffering Servant with Jesus.

The Song of Moses (Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2) is that the Lord shall become (ahayah) our Salvation (Yeshua), it is contextually what the Tanakh is about.

No, the Tanakh says that God is already the savior of the Suffering Servant, the nation of Israel.

There is no reason to assume that when Isaiah 52:13-14 clearly paraphrased David in Psalms 89:19-21, that it is referring to a 'my servant' other than David.

Even if it's David, that won't help your argument.

The idea the Rabbinic Jews are arguing David out of fulfilling the prophecy, replacing themselves as their own suffering servant, doesn't make any sense, and is more from them going against other religions, than being exegetical.

What doesn't make sense is the idea that Jesus is prophesied anywhere in the Tanakh, or that the NT's Jesus in any way fits the job description of a/the messiah.

 

[PruePhillip]

And deducting the four gospellers, who are these other c. 196 preachers of whom you speak?
Eh?

I recall there are about 170 people mentioned as preaching.
There's the seventy in the Gospels and the rest in Acts and the Epistles.

These men and women went out in pairs, having given up everything.
It's not a picture that the Christian churches are comfortable with because
it begs the question, "If then, why not now?"

We know of some of Paul's companions (they changed companions on a yearly
or two yearly cycle.)


1. Paul and Silas/Silvanus - Acts 15: 40, Acts 16:19.25.29; Acts 17:4,10;
2. Paul and Sosthenes - I Cor. 1:1 ca
3. Paul and Barnabas – Acts 9:27; 11:30; 11:22, 11:25-30; 12:25; 12:25; 13:1; 13:2-4; 15:1-41; 1 Cor 9:6; Gal 2:1,9
4. Paul and Aristarchus – Acts 20:4; 27:2; Col 4:10; Phlm 1:24 See (Seven)
5. Paul and Mark/Marcus/John Mark – 2 Tim 4:11
6. Paul and Timotheus - Acts 16:1-3; 16:21; 1 Cor 4:17; 1 Cor 16:10; Phil 1:1; Phil 2:19; Col 1:1;
7. Paul and Secundus – Acts 20:4
8. Paul and Trophimus – Acts 20:4; Acts 21:29; 2 Tim 4:20
9. Paul and Sopater - Acts 20:4 see below.
10. Paul and Tychicus - Acts 20:4; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12; Tit 3:12
11. Paul and Demas – Philemon 24; Col 4:14 AD61; 2 Tim 4:10
12. Paul and Titus - 2 Cor 2:13; 2 Cor 7:6,13; 2 Cor 8:23;
13. Paul and Epaphroditus - Phil 2:25; 4:18
14. Paul and Luke - 1 Tim 4:11

 

[blü 2]

Gal 1:11
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. "

Oops, my error. I should have said Galatians 1:11-12:

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
​

In other words, as I said, it has no other source than his own head.

The whole New Testament (indeed even the Old Testament when talking about the coming new covenant) was at pains to show this was not after mankind.

Where does the Tanakh mention a 'coming new covenant'?

And as we may have discussed before, the 'Kingdom of God' has two meanings in the NT, first as an expression for the living faithful, and second as a new and imminent order on earth ruled over by 'the son of man', who may be Jesus or some other agent of God. As for the latter idea, if I recall aright only John's gnostic-flavored Jesus says "My kingdom is not of this world". In Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus expressly promises that the Kingdom will be set up on earth in the lifetime of some of his hearers, a promise which the author of John doesn't repeat because by 100 CE, approx. when John was written, that wouldn't work.

 

[blü 2]

I recall there are about 170 people mentioned as preaching.
There's the seventy in the Gospels and the rest in Acts and the Epistles.

These men and women went out in pairs, having given up everything.
It's not a picture that the Christian churches are comfortable with because
it begs the question, "If then, why not now?"

We know of some of Paul's companions (they changed companions on a yearly
or two yearly cycle.)


1. Paul and Silas/Silvanus - Acts 15: 40, Acts 16:19.25.29; Acts 17:4,10;
2. Paul and Sosthenes - I Cor. 1:1 ca
3. Paul and Barnabas – Acts 9:27; 11:30; 11:22, 11:25-30; 12:25; 12:25; 13:1; 13:2-4; 15:1-41; 1 Cor 9:6; Gal 2:1,9
4. Paul and Aristarchus – Acts 20:4; 27:2; Col 4:10; Phlm 1:24 See (Seven)
5. Paul and Mark/Marcus/John Mark – 2 Tim 4:11
6. Paul and Timotheus - Acts 16:1-3; 16:21; 1 Cor 4:17; 1 Cor 16:10; Phil 1:1; Phil 2:19; Col 1:1;
7. Paul and Secundus – Acts 20:4
8. Paul and Trophimus – Acts 20:4; Acts 21:29; 2 Tim 4:20
9. Paul and Sopater - Acts 20:4 see below.
10. Paul and Tychicus - Acts 20:4; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12; Tit 3:12
11. Paul and Demas – Philemon 24; Col 4:14 AD61; 2 Tim 4:10
12. Paul and Titus - 2 Cor 2:13; 2 Cor 7:6,13; 2 Cor 8:23;
13. Paul and Epaphroditus - Phil 2:25; 4:18
14. Paul and Luke - 1 Tim 4:11

Thanks for the clarification. It'd be fair to say that apart from Paul, the ideas of the people on your list are either indistinguishable from Paul's, or simply don't matter.

And you don't mention Thekla. No doubt by now someone's written a novel in which she and Paul live happily ever after.

 

[PruePhillip]

Thanks for the clarification. It'd be fair to say that apart from Paul, the ideas of the people on your list are either indistinguishable from Paul's, or simply don't matter.

And you don't mention Thekla. No doubt by now someone's written a novel in which she and Paul live happily ever after.

Clearly I have not read about any "Thekla"
I never read fiction. Fact is more amazing, and educational.
I understand people write about Jesus and his wife living happily every after too.

Yes, the people in the ministry has idea indistinguishable from Paul. I think the
one person who did differ, oddly, was Peter. But Paul was to remind him that
in the New Testament he wasn't to live under the rules of the Old Testament
(such as eating with Gentiles.) Other than that incident I don't see daylight
between these preachers and Jesus.

 

[PruePhillip]

Oops, my error. I should have said Galatians 1:11-12:

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
​

In other words, as I said, it has no other source than his own head.
Where does the Tanakh mention a 'coming new covenant'?

And as we may have discussed before, the 'Kingdom of God' has two meanings in the NT, first as an expression for the living faithful, and second as a new and imminent order on earth ruled over by 'the son of man', who may be Jesus or some other agent of God. As for the latter idea, if I recall aright only John's gnostic-flavored Jesus says "My kingdom is not of this world". In Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus expressly promises that the Kingdom will be set up on earth in the lifetime of some of his hearers, a promise which the author of John doesn't repeat because by 100 CE, approx. when John was written, that wouldn't work.

The new covenant is spoke of often in the OT.
This covenant would be different to the law of Moses, yet incorporating its commandments
(as opposed to the OT ordinances and judgements - which were symbols of the Messiah
which was to come.)
Jeremiah and Isaiah, for starters, referred to this covenant.

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant
that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that
I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within
them, and I will write it on their hearts...
Jeremiah 31

The difference? That in the Messiah there would have The Example. There would be no more
sacrifice because the Redeemer offered Himself "once and for all." That we would love the One
who offered Himself for our own sin. There would be no more Temple because He will dwell in
our hearts.
etc..

 

[blü 2]

The new covenant is spoke of often in the OT.
This covenant would be different to the law of Moses, yet incorporating its commandments (as opposed to the OT ordinances and judgements - which were symbols of the Messiah which was to come.)
Jeremiah and Isaiah, for starters, referred to this covenant.

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant
that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that
I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within
them, and I will write it on their hearts...
Jeremiah 31

Jeremiah 31:31-34. Thanks for that. Clearly I haven't paid Jerry enough attention. And where does Isaiah refer to it?

But regardless, as you can see, it doesn't fit Jesus. It says that this new covenant will be with 'the house of Israel'; no role for a messiah is mentioned; instead 'I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts' (which is the direct opposite of the Christian story of the persecuted 'messiah'); and 'I' ─ singular, the Jewish God ─ 'will be their God and they will be my people'. The Jews of modern Israel might (or might not) be able to make a case from such material, but if there's one thing the Christians are not, with a track record of antisemitism going back two millennia, it's 'the house of Israel'.

The difference? That in the Messiah there would have The Example. There would be no more sacrifice because the Redeemer offered Himself "once and for all." That we would love the One who offered Himself for our own sin. There would be no more Temple because He will dwell in our hearts. etc..

And where does the Tanakh say that?

 

[PruePhillip]

And where does the Tanakh say that?

Recall the Samaritan woman? Her people held to only the Torah - but even
she could say that when the Messiah comes He will show us all things.
Certainly there are "rules" within the Gospels, but essentially, the message
is to love the Messiah who gave his life (Isaiah 53) and He will bring you into
all understanding. Loving Him means no longer caring for the former things.
Thus people can "argue" over bible verses (ie justification for war) but in the
Gospel we are given a clear Example of how to live. Isaiah 53 is also a little
Gospel, so beautiful.
Yes, this Gospel came FIRST to the House of Israel. Jesus stated that plainly.
But shot throughout the OT is the theme - a covenant that brings in the Gentiles.

 

[blü 2]

Recall the Samaritan woman? Her people held to only the Torah - but even
she could say that when the Messiah comes He will show us all things.

She's a character in a tale, not a being from history, and she'll say whatever the author created her to say.

Certainly there are "rules" within the Gospels, but essentially, the message
is to love the Messiah who gave his life (Isaiah 53).

Once again, the Suffering Servant is NOT Jesus, but a personification of the nation of Israel. Claims of supernatural foreknowledge in the bible would have to be backed with evidence of utterly extraordinary quality to be credible; and since there's no sign of any such evidence, explanations such as Christian retrofitting are vastly more credible as well as being immediately obvious.

and He will bring you into all understanding. Loving Him means no longer caring for the former things. Thus people can "argue" over bible verses (ie justification for war) but in the Gospel we are given a clear Example of how to live. Isaiah 53 is also a little Gospel, so beautiful.

We're instructed in the Gospel to give away all our wealth and take to the roads to proselytize (an idea straight from Greek Cynic philosophy, though I dare say they'd let you carry a staff). I've met RCC priests and nuns who might have some claim to doing that, but as for civilian Christians of normal mental health, it simply doesn't happen. And in a test between me and Christian believers as to who most often treated people-in-general with decency, I'd back myself to finish somewhere around the middle, like most people.

Yes, this Gospel came FIRST to the House of Israel. Jesus stated that plainly.
But shot throughout the OT is the theme - a covenant that brings in the Gentiles.

And a messiah who, at the very very least, is anointed by the Jewish priesthood.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is said that Jesus did not fulfill many of the messianic prophecies.

It is not only said, it is true. And Jesus is NOT coming back to fulfill the rest of them, He said so.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope, not unless to take their scripture and change it to suit yourself.

This is what most people do, interpret scripture suit themselves.

After all, none of them have a Messiah who has actually come, so they can mix n' match scriptures in order to make the Messiah in their own image, what they want the Messiah to look like, kind of like dressing up a Barbie doll, or in this case a Ken doll.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Gorgeous... I always say that atheists are sharper than believers.