Israel as Jesus and as Job, Resurrection Equal to Repentance

[Brickjectivity]

The first account of Israel's resurrection is in the prophet Ezekiel. "Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel." (Ezekiel 37:11-12) Israel is like a Phoenix that keeps getting killed and brought back to life. The people fall away from moral behavior then repent, or they are invaded and then freed. When they repent it is resurrection. This is what the Christian verse Ephesians 2:1 means when it claims "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins," Note here that just as Ezekiel considers repentance to be resurrection, so does Ephesians. These are not the only two witnesses to this, either though for brevity I will leave them alone.

In two of the gospels Jesus alludes to the resurrection mentioned in Ezekiel 37:11 as if it were about himself when we know by reading it that it is about Israel.

• [Mat 24:28 NIV] 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
• [Luk 17:37 NIV] 37 "Where, Lord?" they asked. He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

No prophecy about Jesus is not also about Israel. None. I challenge that you cannot find one that isn't. This may have implications for Christianity, for Islam, for Bahai's for any preacher who says Jesus is the subject of prophecies about the messiah. Find a prophecy about him that isn't a borrowed prophecy about Israel, first.

Anyone who recognizes Christianity as a religion has this to deal with: if A = B then B = A. When we read about Jesus in gospels is everything he does a story about Israel? Is this double fulfillment? What is double fulfillment? I say at minimum everything about Jesus must also be about Israel, because that is how the gospel writers set him up -- with prophecies about Israel the people, the Jews, the Hebrews.

All four gospels associate Jesus with prophecies that are about Israel a nation whose name translates to 'The Prince'. The gospels will take a scripture that explicitly states it is about The Prince and say it is about Jesus. Not only this but *all* prophecies about Jesus are explicitly about Israel, too. You cannot find one that isn't. Therefore whenever a gospel recounts Jesus doing something it may also be talking about Israel -- probably is.

Israel attends a wedding at Cana. Israel dies on a cross. Israel rises from the dead. Israel heals the blind man. Israel rejects the teachings of the scribes and pharisees, the sadducees, the temple priests. The two cannot be separated: Jesus and Israel. This is not unprecedented.

Long before this happened in the gospels it happened in Job. Many scholars like to say that Job is only a type of Christ or a foreshadow of Christ. They neglect the similarity between him and Jesus. Job 10 expresses the complaint of every righteous person trying to do the right thing in world of compromise: "Are your days like those of a mortal or your years like those of a strong man, that you must search out my faults and probe after my sin-- though you know that I am not guilty and that no one can rescue me from your hand?" (Job 10:5-7 NIV) What person has not felt this way? In modern times we have a saying that "No good deed goes unpunished," because it honestly feels this way like you are punished when you do the right thing.

Some people like to think that Job is talking about king Hezekiah. It is after all a poem. They note that the Leviathan might be some army King Hezekiah faces or that Job is wealthy and had lots of children. Its interesting and worth reading about I guess, but Job is an every man. He is the Jewish person living through times of purges and raids and plagues and dangers, but more than that he is every Jewish person dealing with the L-RD: "Why doesn't the L-RD save me from this disaster or prevent this disaster, and what have I done wrong?" You can hear this question echoing through the millennia, millions of people asking it and going through the things Job is going through. That, however is just circumstantial and plot.

Other references in Job indicate it, too. 'Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil...' (Job 1:8 NIV) There is only one nation that the prophets declare to be the servant of the L-RD: Israel. So here the poet writing Job is alluding to this. I know that other individuals can be called servants of the L-RD, too; but this reference points out someone special: "There is no one on Earth like him." Actually you could take this two ways. It could literally suggest that no individual is like Job, that this story is about a man so good he's fiction. That would suit the tone of the book, since Job is not rewarded for his righteousness. Instead trouble comes from nowhere upon a good person. Everyone assumes he is evil because of this suffering he endures. The same thing happens to Isaiah's 'Suffering Servant'. The Suffering Servant is considered sinful by all. Similarities like this abound between Job the man and Israel the nation.

I hope I have made at least a compelling case for investigation, an introduction to a topic. Israel as Jesus and Israel as Job, and Resurrection equal to Repentance and the same thing as repentance. Obviously if correct (which it probably is) it raises many questions. No doubt its a complicated topic to go through all of the details. I've tried to keep this post short but as interesting as possible.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course the prophecies about Israel are applied to Jesus.. because much that happens in the Old testament is a foreshadowing... that doesn't make vice versa work.

 

[Lain]

The first account of Israel's resurrection is in the prophet Ezekiel. "Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel." (Ezekiel 37:11-12) Israel is like a Phoenix that keeps getting killed and brought back to life. The people fall away from moral behavior then repent, or they are invaded and then freed. When they repent it is resurrection. This is what the Christian verse Ephesians 2:1 means when it claims "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins," Note here that just as Ezekiel considers repentance to be resurrection, so does Ephesians. These are not the only two witnesses to this, either though for brevity I will leave them alone.

In two of the gospels Jesus alludes to the resurrection mentioned in Ezekiel 37:11 as if it were about himself when we know by reading it that it is about Israel.

• [Mat 24:28 NIV] 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
• [Luk 17:37 NIV] 37 "Where, Lord?" they asked. He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

No prophecy about Jesus is not also about Israel. None. I challenge that you cannot find one that isn't. This may have implications for Christianity, for Islam, for Bahai's for any preacher who says Jesus is the subject of prophecies about the messiah. Find a prophecy about him that isn't a borrowed prophecy about Israel, first.

Anyone who recognizes Christianity as a religion has this to deal with: if A = B then B = A. When we read about Jesus in gospels is everything he does a story about Israel? Is this double fulfillment? What is double fulfillment? I say at minimum everything about Jesus must also be about Israel, because that is how the gospel writers set him up -- with prophecies about Israel the people, the Jews, the Hebrews.

All four gospels associate Jesus with prophecies that are about Israel a nation whose name translates to 'The Prince'. The gospels will take a scripture that explicitly states it is about The Prince and say it is about Jesus. Not only this but *all* prophecies about Jesus are explicitly about Israel, too. You cannot find one that isn't. Therefore whenever a gospel recounts Jesus doing something it may also be talking about Israel -- probably is.

Israel attends a wedding at Cana. Israel dies on a cross. Israel rises from the dead. Israel heals the blind man. Israel rejects the teachings of the scribes and pharisees, the sadducees, the temple priests. The two cannot be separated: Jesus and Israel. This is not unprecedented.

Long before this happened in the gospels it happened in Job. Many scholars like to say that Job is only a type of Christ or a foreshadow of Christ. They neglect the similarity between him and Jesus. Job 10 expresses the complaint of every righteous person trying to do the right thing in world of compromise: "Are your days like those of a mortal or your years like those of a strong man, that you must search out my faults and probe after my sin-- though you know that I am not guilty and that no one can rescue me from your hand?" (Job 10:5-7 NIV) What person has not felt this way? In modern times we have a saying that "No good deed goes unpunished," because it honestly feels this way like you are punished when you do the right thing.

Some people like to think that Job is talking about king Hezekiah. It is after all a poem. They note that the Leviathan might be some army King Hezekiah faces or that Job is wealthy and had lots of children. Its interesting and worth reading about I guess, but Job is an every man. He is the Jewish person living through times of purges and raids and plagues and dangers, but more than that he is every Jewish person dealing with the L-RD: "Why doesn't the L-RD save me from this disaster or prevent this disaster, and what have I done wrong?" You can hear this question echoing through the millennia, millions of people asking it and going through the things Job is going through. That, however is just circumstantial and plot.

Other references in Job indicate it, too. 'Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil...' (Job 1:8 NIV) There is only one nation that the prophets declare to be the servant of the L-RD: Israel. So here the poet writing Job is alluding to this. I know that other individuals can be called servants of the L-RD, too; but this reference points out someone special: "There is no one on Earth like him." Actually you could take this two ways. It could literally suggest that no individual is like Job, that this story is about a man so good he's fiction. That would suit the tone of the book, since Job is not rewarded for his righteousness. Instead trouble comes from nowhere upon a good person. Everyone assumes he is evil because of this suffering he endures. The same thing happens to Isaiah's 'Suffering Servant'. The Suffering Servant is considered sinful by all. Similarities like this abound between Job the man and Israel the nation.

I hope I have made at least a compelling case for investigation, an introduction to a topic. Israel as Jesus and Israel as Job, and Resurrection equal to Repentance and the same thing as repentance. Obviously if correct (which it probably is) it raises many questions. No doubt its a complicated topic to go through all of the details. I've tried to keep this post short but as interesting as possible.

I think that this is mostly correct because I identify Israel as the Church which is the People of God always, and the Church is eternal. I do not agree that it applies to the Israelites after the flesh always though after the Lord destroyed their Temple after the period of about 40 years of repentance He gave to them because the they have been broken off for the most part (Romans 11) and their rejoining in will be an event which precedes the Resurrection of the Dead (also Romans 11).

But Israel, Christ, Job, the Church, prophecies about one dwelling in the other this is true because "we are the body of Christ."

The Lord said all judgment was given to Him, yet His body participates in His judgment as King David teaches in Psalm 149 (LXX/Vulgate) teaches.

Moreover all of it can not be about the Israelites of the flesh (which sometimes overlap with true Israel but most of the time do not) because they are not blameless and upright for the most part now although there is no one like them on the Earth. The reasoning that they go through what they go through is told elsewhere and their future as the last nation subdued I have already mentioned (Matthew 28/Romans 11).

Such is my opinion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think that this is mostly correct because I identify Israel as the Church which is the People of God always, and the Church is eternal.

I appreciate your replying! I think church people have played a part in bringing about a different stage of civilization - a new era. Also its important to me to get feedback from a roman catholic or two. I'm usually surprised by what you folks say.

I do not agree that it applies to the Israelites after the flesh always though after the Lord destroyed their Temple after the period of about 40 years of repentance He gave to them because the they have been broken off for the most part (Romans 11) and their rejoining in will be an event which precedes the Resurrection of the Dead (also Romans 11).

Consider this pitfall and don't fall into it: Kids of protestants grow up thinking that we the protestants are the real scripture people and you guys, the roman catholics, are borderline because you aren't like us. We are the standard, and you differ from us in A,B and C and D etc. and are just barely hanging on. We worry about you from an uninformed distance. Its kind of the same problem, thinking that you guys are 'After the flesh' because you've got all of those rites and smoke and robes and gold crosses. We're so pure, so efficient with our wooden crosses and tiny churches, and we are so after the heart but you guys over there are so ritualistic. In truth we know very little about you and have no business judging.

We shouldn't think of any group to be 'Israel after the flesh'. If we accuse someone of being Israel after the flesh we are judging them, because we're saying they don't have a circumcised heart and we do. Do we though? Do we have a tender heart, and do they have a tough heart? Its just boasting if we say something like that. Instead of saying such things we would have to show such things. 'Heart' is not a rare topic, either, in scripture. One cannot read very far without encountering something about it.

But Israel, Christ, Job, the Church, prophecies about one dwelling in the other this is true because "we are the body of Christ."

I follow what you're saying, that you don't like the idea that gospels could be talking about Israel when they say Jesus. I admit its something that is difficult, but I think its got merit, too.

The Lord said all judgment was given to Him, yet His body participates in His judgment as King David teaches in Psalm 149 (LXX/Vulgate) teaches.

This Psalm talks about a culture opposite from the nations. I'd say Psalm 149 is related to I Corinthians 15:28 where the end goal of Christ is that God will be all and in all. The nations believe that the mighty must provide order by conquering and creating order including moral order, but Psalm 149 talks about the victory through humility. It is in opposition to the ways of the nations -- this world. It opposes the powers and principalities and rulers or the darkness of this world. Take the concepts and discoveries learned in Israel and apply them everywhere, and that is the work of Christ. When you have succeeded God will be all and in all. It is a difficult and fantastic challenge.

Moreover all of it can not be about the Israelites of the flesh (which sometimes overlap with true Israel but most of the time do not) because they are not blameless and upright for the most part now although there is no one like them on the Earth. The reasoning that they go through what they go through is told elsewhere and their future as the last nation subdued I have already mentioned (Matthew 28/Romans 11).

Such is my opinion.

Its complicated, maybe too complicated because we are discussing things Paul says instead of deriving them the way that he does from previous scripture. Its easy to misconstrue what he means.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The first account of Israel's resurrection is in the prophet Ezekiel. "Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel." (Ezekiel 37:11-12) Israel is like a Phoenix that keeps getting killed and brought back to life. The people fall away from moral behavior then repent, or they are invaded and then freed. When they repent it is resurrection. This is what the Christian verse Ephesians 2:1 means when it claims "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins," Note here that just as Ezekiel considers repentance to be resurrection, so does Ephesians. These are not the only two witnesses to this, either though for brevity I will leave them alone.

In two of the gospels Jesus alludes to the resurrection mentioned in Ezekiel 37:11 as if it were about himself when we know by reading it that it is about Israel.

• [Mat 24:28 NIV] 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
• [Luk 17:37 NIV] 37 "Where, Lord?" they asked. He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

No prophecy about Jesus is not also about Israel. None. I challenge that you cannot find one that isn't. This may have implications for Christianity, for Islam, for Bahai's for any preacher who says Jesus is the subject of prophecies about the messiah. Find a prophecy about him that isn't a borrowed prophecy about Israel, first.

Anyone who recognizes Christianity as a religion has this to deal with: if A = B then B = A. When we read about Jesus in gospels is everything he does a story about Israel? Is this double fulfillment? What is double fulfillment? I say at minimum everything about Jesus must also be about Israel, because that is how the gospel writers set him up -- with prophecies about Israel the people, the Jews, the Hebrews.

All four gospels associate Jesus with prophecies that are about Israel a nation whose name translates to 'The Prince'. The gospels will take a scripture that explicitly states it is about The Prince and say it is about Jesus. Not only this but *all* prophecies about Jesus are explicitly about Israel, too. You cannot find one that isn't. Therefore whenever a gospel recounts Jesus doing something it may also be talking about Israel -- probably is.

Israel attends a wedding at Cana. Israel dies on a cross. Israel rises from the dead. Israel heals the blind man. Israel rejects the teachings of the scribes and pharisees, the sadducees, the temple priests. The two cannot be separated: Jesus and Israel. This is not unprecedented.

Long before this happened in the gospels it happened in Job. Many scholars like to say that Job is only a type of Christ or a foreshadow of Christ. They neglect the similarity between him and Jesus. Job 10 expresses the complaint of every righteous person trying to do the right thing in world of compromise: "Are your days like those of a mortal or your years like those of a strong man, that you must search out my faults and probe after my sin-- though you know that I am not guilty and that no one can rescue me from your hand?" (Job 10:5-7 NIV) What person has not felt this way? In modern times we have a saying that "No good deed goes unpunished," because it honestly feels this way like you are punished when you do the right thing.

Some people like to think that Job is talking about king Hezekiah. It is after all a poem. They note that the Leviathan might be some army King Hezekiah faces or that Job is wealthy and had lots of children. Its interesting and worth reading about I guess, but Job is an every man. He is the Jewish person living through times of purges and raids and plagues and dangers, but more than that he is every Jewish person dealing with the L-RD: "Why doesn't the L-RD save me from this disaster or prevent this disaster, and what have I done wrong?" You can hear this question echoing through the millennia, millions of people asking it and going through the things Job is going through. That, however is just circumstantial and plot.

Other references in Job indicate it, too. 'Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil...' (Job 1:8 NIV) There is only one nation that the prophets declare to be the servant of the L-RD: Israel. So here the poet writing Job is alluding to this. I know that other individuals can be called servants of the L-RD, too; but this reference points out someone special: "There is no one on Earth like him." Actually you could take this two ways. It could literally suggest that no individual is like Job, that this story is about a man so good he's fiction. That would suit the tone of the book, since Job is not rewarded for his righteousness. Instead trouble comes from nowhere upon a good person. Everyone assumes he is evil because of this suffering he endures. The same thing happens to Isaiah's 'Suffering Servant'. The Suffering Servant is considered sinful by all. Similarities like this abound between Job the man and Israel the nation.

I hope I have made at least a compelling case for investigation, an introduction to a topic. Israel as Jesus and Israel as Job, and Resurrection equal to Repentance and the same thing as repentance. Obviously if correct (which it probably is) it raises many questions. No doubt its a complicated topic to go through all of the details. I've tried to keep this post short but as interesting as possible.

I see no reason that you have given that justifies seeing Israel as Jesus. Israel is a people. Jesus is an individual person.

 

[Brickjectivity]

@IndigoChild5559
Thank you for your reply! Please forgive the brevity of this post. On the up side it is easy to read.

I think you have read Matthew the Christian gospel, which appears at first glance to be about a person, Jesus. What is strange about this person is his severe and cosmic importance to humanity and also his relationship to prophecy. In Matthew absolutely everything hinges upon his singular life, his temptation, his choice to be silent in the presence of his accusers and his refusal to fight, leading to his death. To Matthew he is the first perfected Jew, and around him revolves a theological argument that his blood can sprinkle the nations like the red heifer in your Jewish law. He can make them be at peace! When in Matthew the angels announce the birth of Jesus they sing "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will towards men."

To you it seems contrary that even at the time that Matthew is writing this the earth is not at peace and Jesus is gone, the Jews are still oppressed by the merciless Romans. Christians cannot have been ignorant of this from the beginning. They lived and saw personally what we only read about in our scary history books.

The impact of the gospel to Jesus followers is that they must each live like living sacrifices. Paul mentions this in Romans 12:1. If Jesus is the sacrifice, then why are they being sacrificed? Who is a sacrifice scattered among the nations? Is it one person or many? So Matthew may in fact be a communication about how Jews should live in post Roman times. He may be exhorting a particular way of life rather than merely telling the tale of a single person's life.

Matthew refers to Jesus as the servant of Isaiah, which if you read Isaiah is clearly a nation and not one person. See Isaiah chapters 41, 42, 43, 49.

Spoiler: NIV version Isaiah references

• [Isa 41:8-9 NIV] 8 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, 9 I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you.
• [Isa 42:1, 6-7 NIV] 1 "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. ... 6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
  
• [Isa 43:10 NIV] 10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
• [Isa 49:3 NIV] 3 He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559
Thank you for your reply! Please forgive the brevity of this post. On the up side it is easy to read.

I think you have read Matthew the Christian gospel, which appears at first glance to be about a person, Jesus. What is strange about this person is his severe and cosmic importance to humanity and also his relationship to prophecy. In Matthew absolutely everything hinges upon his singular life, his temptation, his choice to be silent in the presence of his accusers and his refusal to fight, leading to his death. To Matthew he is the first perfected Jew, and around him revolves a theological argument that his blood can sprinkle the nations like the red heifer in your Jewish law. He can make them be at peace! When in Matthew the angels announce the birth of Jesus they sing "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will towards men."

To you it seems contrary that even at the time that Matthew is writing this the earth is not at peace and Jesus is gone, the Jews are still oppressed by the merciless Romans. Christians cannot have been ignorant of this from the beginning. They lived and saw personally what we only read about in our scary history books.

The impact of the gospel to Jesus followers is that they must each live like living sacrifices. Paul mentions this in Romans 12:1. If Jesus is the sacrifice, then why are they being sacrificed? Who is a sacrifice scattered among the nations? Is it one person or many? So Matthew may in fact be a communication about how Jews should live in post Roman times. He may be exhorting a particular way of life rather than merely telling the tale of a single person's life.

Matthew refers to Jesus as the servant of Isaiah, which if you read Isaiah is clearly a nation and not one person. See Isaiah chapters 41, 42, 43, 49.

Spoiler: NIV version Isaiah references

• [Isa 41:8-9 NIV] 8 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, 9 I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you.
• [Isa 42:1, 6-7 NIV] 1 "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. ... 6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
  
• [Isa 43:10 NIV] 10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
• [Isa 49:3 NIV] 3 He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

1. The servant mentioned throughout the book of Isaiah is not the messiah, but Israel. Isaiah 41:8 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend."

2. I have no respect for Matthew. Over and over he misquotes from the Tanakh, quoting out of context, altering the translation, making up whole prophecies that don't even exist.

3. I must reject the gospels as a whole because they present Jesus as the messiah, when in fact he FAILED to fulfill the messianic prophecies and is therefore ruled out as the messiah.

4. The whole basic Christian premise that you must have blood for atonement is wrong. The idea that God would want a human sacrifice when in fact God considers it an abomination is offensive. Jesus was killed by the Romans because he made trouble for them by claiming to be the messiah, which means king of the Jews. His death accomplished absolutely nothing.

 

[Lain]

I appreciate your replying! I think church people have played a part in bringing about a different stage of civilization - a new era. Also its important to me to get feedback from a roman catholic or two. I'm usually surprised by what you folks say.

Consider this pitfall and don't fall into it: Kids of protestants grow up thinking that we the protestants are the real scripture people and you guys, the roman catholics, are borderline because you aren't like us. We are the standard, and you differ from us in A,B and C and D etc. and are just barely hanging on. We worry about you from an uninformed distance. Its kind of the same problem, thinking that you guys are 'After the flesh' because you've got all of those rites and smoke and robes and gold crosses. We're so pure, so efficient with our wooden crosses and tiny churches, and we are so after the heart but you guys over there are so ritualistic. In truth we know very little about you and have no business judging.

We shouldn't think of any group to be 'Israel after the flesh'. If we accuse someone of being Israel after the flesh we are judging them, because we're saying they don't have a circumcised heart and we do. Do we though? Do we have a tender heart, and do they have a tough heart? Its just boasting if we say something like that. Instead of saying such things we would have to show such things. 'Heart' is not a rare topic, either, in scripture. One cannot read very far without encountering something about it.

I follow what you're saying, that you don't like the idea that gospels could be talking about Israel when they say Jesus. I admit its something that is difficult, but I think its got merit, too.

This Psalm talks about a culture opposite from the nations. I'd say Psalm 149 is related to I Corinthians 15:28 where the end goal of Christ is that God will be all and in all. The nations believe that the mighty must provide order by conquering and creating order including moral order, but Psalm 149 talks about the victory through humility. It is in opposition to the ways of the nations -- this world. It opposes the powers and principalities and rulers or the darkness of this world. Take the concepts and discoveries learned in Israel and apply them everywhere, and that is the work of Christ. When you have succeeded God will be all and in all. It is a difficult and fantastic challenge.

Its complicated, maybe too complicated because we are discussing things Paul says instead of deriving them the way that he does from previous scripture. Its easy to misconstrue what he means.

When I call them "after the flesh" I basically mean "ethnic Jews." I do not mean that they are necessarily carnal, I just don't like using the term "ethnic Jews" because it creates confusion, it is not a judgment. The Lord knows I need a divinized heart myself.

I agree on Psalm 149, and it is through these means that the Church participates in Christ's Judgment of the world. But I also mean this: the reason why a prophecy applies both to Christ and to the Church is because the Church is the body of Christ. This is why the Lord Jesus sacrifices Himself and St. Paul says "I fill up with my sufferings those lacking in Christ," for he is participating in that sacrifices. The Lord also says He will judge the world and St. Paul says "do you not know that we will judge angels?" for we will participate in that.

Essentially the reason why I do not think it applies to those Israelites after the flesh after their cutting off (which has precedent, Elijah and the 7000) is because I do not think that they are Israel at all. As with the 7000 I hold that only they who came from them were Israelites and likewise those remnant first baptized in Acts are Israelites. The rest are a sort of "dead Israel" (though not true Israel or the Israel of God) which will provide be the stock from which those subdued at the end of the ages will come.

It is difficult to interpret, as St. Paul is and eschatology in general is. I need to go through the texts again one day, as the topic does intersect with political ideas and so on, so one's view on these things (Israel, eschatology, what St. Paul says) goes quite a way to determining how they will live their life.

And of course all of the above is my opinion, typical rule 8 disclaimer.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1. The servant mentioned throughout the book of Isaiah is not the messiah, but Israel. Isaiah 41:8 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend."

But according to Matthew, canon in Christianity, its talking about Jesus; so my point is upheld that when Matthew talks about Jesus he is probably talking about Israel or at least is talking about Israel, too.

2. I have no respect for Matthew. Over and over he misquotes from the Tanakh, quoting out of context, altering the translation, making up whole prophecies that don't even exist.

He makes allusions, not quotations. Quote marks are not in use; and there are no chapters or verses. What you call quotations could simply be references or allusions for you to look up. He could be making points using a type of irony, and I think he is telling us that he's talking indirectly about Israel. Israel's soul is under scrutiny by Rome around this time, so sending out a book openly about Israel would be dangerous but sending out a book about a figure like Osiris would be less dangerous. Romans might even find it flattering. There are also other reasons not to presume Matthew is misquoting, other possibilities. I don't dismiss these out of hand.

3. I must reject the gospels as a whole because they present Jesus as the messiah, when in fact he FAILED to fulfill the messianic prophecies and is therefore ruled out as the messiah.

That is the response I expect. I'm not surprised, since its been an official position for thousands of years. Your position cannot change. I grasp that. The position of Matthew and hopefully of Christians is that anyone may speak against Jesus without being harmed for it, though Matthew's term is 'Son of Man'. He says anyone who speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven, whomever that son of man is. So there should be no offense taken if you don't respect Matthew or reject Jesus as messiah. I don't think anybody should raise a single hair over it.

4. The whole basic Christian premise that you must have blood for atonement is wrong. The idea that God would want a human sacrifice when in fact God considers it an abomination is offensive. Jesus was killed by the Romans because he made trouble for them by claiming to be the messiah, which means king of the Jews. His death accomplished absolutely nothing.

Whatever preachers or priests may say, they don't have the final word on what Christianity will be.

I was the first person this century to point this out and did so as a Christian, merely as a result of reading through the laws. I remember posting on another forum about it. I had read through all the sacrifices in the first 5 books of the bible, and none of them absolutely none had a sacrifice for some of the sins that needed forgiving such as envy or murder. This among other things eventually revealed to me that atonement did not require blood. Of course and it makes sense that you can't atone for evil deeds by killing an animal or a man, but analysis of the NT shows that the NT authors don't think so either. One caveat is a statement in Hebrews which confuses people when taken the wrong way, but in its context and worldview Hebrews doesn't suggest that blood is needed for all sins. Your opinion of Christianity may change in coming centuries, and it is not nailed down to this version that you speak to me which you have been told by no doubt ignorant parties.

 

[Brickjectivity]

When I call them "after the flesh" I basically mean "ethnic Jews." I do not mean that they are necessarily carnal, I just don't like using the term "ethnic Jews" because it creates confusion, it is not a judgment. The Lord knows I need a divinized heart myself.

I agree on Psalm 149, and it is through these means that the Church participates in Christ's Judgment of the world. But I also mean this: the reason why a prophecy applies both to Christ and to the Church is because the Church is the body of Christ. This is why the Lord Jesus sacrifices Himself and St. Paul says "I fill up with my sufferings those lacking in Christ," for he is participating in that sacrifices. The Lord also says He will judge the world and St. Paul says "do you not know that we will judge angels?" for we will participate in that.

Essentially the reason why I do not think it applies to those Israelites after the flesh after their cutting off (which has precedent, Elijah and the 7000) is because I do not think that they are Israel at all. As with the 7000 I hold that only they who came from them were Israelites and likewise those remnant first baptized in Acts are Israelites. The rest are a sort of "dead Israel" (though not true Israel or the Israel of God) which will provide be the stock from which those subdued at the end of the ages will come.

It is difficult to interpret, as St. Paul is and eschatology in general is. I need to go through the texts again one day, as the topic does intersect with political ideas and so on, so one's view on these things (Israel, eschatology, what St. Paul says) goes quite a way to determining how they will live their life.

And of course all of the above is my opinion, typical rule 8 disclaimer.

My opinion is that if you teach a stone to keep the torah it will soon be an ethnic Jew. I think that the nature of torah is that it converts anything into a Jew. If there are robots keeping torah they'll become robo jews.

Why? Well there are various ways of discussing it. I point to the Psalms such as Psalm 19, but I could point at how catalysts function in chemical reactions. The catalyst bumps into raw materials and aligns them, and then they combine. Jesus is quoted to say that stones can be turned into sons of Abraham -- obviously a figure of speech but one to take seriously.

 

[Lain]

My opinion is that if you teach a stone to keep the torah it will soon be an ethnic Jew. I think that the nature of torah is that it converts anything into a Jew. If there are robots keeping torah they'll become robo jews.

Why? Well there are various ways of discussing it. I point to the Psalms such as Psalm 19, but I could point at how catalysts function in chemical reactions. The catalyst bumps into raw materials and aligns them, and then they combine. Jesus is quoted to say that stones can be turned into sons of Abraham -- obviously a figure of speech but one to take seriously.

I agree, although this does then ask what keeping the Torah is, for I would say I do it, but in a manner that Christians do. St. Theophylact says in his commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel:

"'The way,' that is, the highway, means the Gospel. The 'paths' are the ordinances of the law, which are well-trodden and ancient. He is saying, therefore, 'Prepare yourselves for the evangelic life, the life that is lived according to the Gospel, and make the commandments of the law straight, that is, make them spiritual.' For the Spirit is straight and right. So then, when you see a Jew who understands the content of the law in a fleshly manner, you may say, 'This man has not made straight the paths,' that is, he does not understand the law spiritually."

Psalm 118 (LXX/Vulgate) also speaks of the Law in this way and it disposes the soul to keep it. For I do think we must keep it, as the Lord Jesus says: "Whoever keeps them [His Commands] and teaches them, this person will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness greatly surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter into the kingdom of heaven." And He also says: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

St. Paul confirms this saying "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous."

Yet St. Paul also says: "we know that the law is spiritual..."

So it seems to me that those who keep it rightly (as St. Theophylact says the Spirit is straight and right) are Israelites raised out of stones (compare Ezekiel 36:24-27 with Matthew 13:1-23).

All the above is my opinion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I agree, although this does then ask what keeping the Torah is, for I would say I do it, but in a manner that Christians do. St. Theophylact says in his commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel:

"'The way,' that is, the highway, means the Gospel. The 'paths' are the ordinances of the law, which are well-trodden and ancient. He is saying, therefore, 'Prepare yourselves for the evangelic life, the life that is lived according to the Gospel, and make the commandments of the law straight, that is, make them spiritual.' For the Spirit is straight and right. So then, when you see a Jew who understands the content of the law in a fleshly manner, you may say, 'This man has not made straight the paths,' that is, he does not understand the law spiritually."

Psalm 118 (LXX/Vulgate) also speaks of the Law in this way and it disposes the soul to keep it. For I do think we must keep it, as the Lord Jesus says: "Whoever keeps them [His Commands] and teaches them, this person will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness greatly surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter into the kingdom of heaven." And He also says: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

St. Paul confirms this saying "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous."

Yet St. Paul also says: "we know that the law is spiritual..."

So it seems to me that those who keep it rightly (as St. Theophylact says the Spirit is straight and right) are Israelites raised out of stones (compare Ezekiel 36:24-27 with Matthew 13:1-23).

All the above is my opinion.

There are several famous scholars named 'Theophylact'. Is this the 11th century Theophylact of Ohrid or a different Theophylact? I think you mean Theophylact of Ohrid but want to make sure, because there is a long list of Theophylact persons: Theophylact - Wikipedia

Its true that a person could ignore the spiritual aspects of the law, but how would they do so? By not keeping it. We have the relevant witness of the prophets that this happens from time to time, people living with the benefits their parents have gained by following the law don't follow it themselves and thusly lose their spiritual appreciation....soon after followed by disaster. If the prophets are any indication it occurs in cycles in Israel's history.

That does not mean that a person can keep the law without knowing about its spiritual aspect. I very much doubt they could.

They could pretend not to. They could act like idiots to your face, too; but that would reflect their opinion of you not necessarily their own capability. I find people have layers, and in discovering that they have layers don't they have a responsibility to put them to good use? Then there is a use for not revealing everything that you think, not throwing your pearls before swine etc.

 

[pearl]

I see no reason that you have given that justifies seeing Israel as Jesus. Israel is a people. Jesus is an individual person.

You must keep in mind that the long historical preparation for the coming of Christ in the history of Israel is scene through the eyes of Christian faith. It is no accident that in the first chapter of the Gospel both Matthew (explicitly) and Luke (implicitly) turn to that history and begin their narratives with the story of Abraham and Sarah conceiving Isaac. For the evangelists that was already the beginning of the story of Jesus Christ.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When I call them "after the flesh" I basically mean "ethnic Jews."

All Jews are ethnic Jews. Some keep the commandments, and others don't. But since you are talking about Jews, there is no reason to add any adjective such as ethnic. Just say Jews.

 

[Lain]

There are several famous scholars named 'Theophylact'. Is this the 11th century Theophylact of Ohrid or a different Theophylact? I think you mean Theophylact of Ohrid but want to make sure, because there is a long list of Theophylact persons: Theophylact - Wikipedia

Its true that a person could ignore the spiritual aspects of the law, but how would they do so? By not keeping it. We have the relevant witness of the prophets that this happens from time to time, people living with the benefits their parents have gained by following the law don't follow it themselves and thusly lose their spiritual appreciation....soon after followed by disaster. If the prophets are any indication it occurs in cycles in Israel's history.

That does not mean that a person can keep the law without knowing about its spiritual aspect. I very much doubt they could.

They could pretend not to. They could act like idiots to your face, too; but that would reflect their opinion of you not necessarily their own capability. I find people have layers, and in discovering that they have layers don't they have a responsibility to put them to good use? Then there is a use for not revealing everything that you think, not throwing your pearls before swine etc.

St. Theophylact of Ohrid, I should have clarified. Currently I am studying his commentaries which are massively enlightening, I wish more of them were in English.

I agree about the not keeping it to ignore the spiritual aspect of it, but essential to keeping it is the Christocentric nature of it, so normally they do not keep it.

Such is my opinion.

All Jews are ethnic Jews. Some keep the commandments, and others don't. But since you are talking about Jews, there is no reason to add any adjective such as ethnic. Just say Jews.

I add the adjective in order to make the necessary distinctions. I could go into it but it would be many paragraphs, suffice to say that there are many to be made concerning this subject in my opinion, so I add the term aiming at a little more accuracy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But according to Matthew, canon in Christianity, its talking about Jesus; so my point is upheld that when Matthew talks about Jesus he is probably talking about Israel or at least is talking about Israel, too.

Which means that Matthew is wrong. If Isaiah himself identifies the servant as Israel, then that is what the servant is. Your problem is that you are treating as perfect a book that has many mistakes.

He makes allusions, not quotations.

I am 95% sure that you are being disengenuous.

Let's look at just one quote: Matthew 2:15 quotes Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt I have called my son." Saying that this is a messianic prophecy is yanking the verse so far out of context that it is an abuse. The entire quote is, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." It is crystal clear that this verse is about Israel, and is referencing the exodus from Egypt, not some future prophecy about the Messiah. Matthew needs to be ashamed of himself.

Whatever preachers or priests may say, they don't have the final word on what Christianity will be.

The Christian church gets to define its boundaries. Historically, those boundaries have been defined. There is plenty of wiggle room for many topics. But the atonement is not one of them. It's not really my battle. I don't believe in the atonement. I'm simply reporting that I know that this is what Christianity has focused in on. If you think otherwise, I would take up the issue with your fellow Christians, who care about it a heck of a lot more than I do.

One caveat is a statement in Hebrews which confuses people when taken the wrong way, but in its context and worldview Hebrews doesn't suggest that blood is needed for all sins. Your opinion of Christianity may change in coming centuries, and it is not nailed down to this version that you speak to me which you have been told by no doubt ignorant parties.

People are not confused about what Hebrews says. You all simply refuse to acknowledge that it contradicts the Torah, which exposes it as false teaching.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You must keep in mind that the long historical preparation for the coming of Christ in the history of Israel is scene through the eyes of Christian faith. It is no accident that in the first chapter of the Gospel both Matthew (explicitly) and Luke (implicitly) turn to that history and begin their narratives with the story of Abraham and Sarah conceiving Isaac. For the evangelists that was already the beginning of the story of Jesus Christ.

If "the eyes of teh Christian faith" means that you take things horribly out of context and imagine Jesus in places where he is not, then maybe you need to think twice before using "the eyes of the Christian faith." There is such a thing as the truth.

 

[pearl]

If "the eyes of teh Christian faith" means that you take things horribly out of context and imagine Jesus in places where he is not, then maybe you need to think twice before using "the eyes of the Christian faith." There is such a thing as the truth.

Except that the initial 'Christian' interpretation was through Jewish faith.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Which means that Matthew is wrong. If Isaiah himself identifies the servant as Israel, then that is what the servant is. Your problem is that you are treating as perfect a book that has many mistakes.

Wrong about everything -- so many things that Jews wouldn't take him literally in that time, but he's in a time where its dangerous to speak openly about Rome or about the destruction of the temple. To save life he speaks indirectly, but he's not saying anything that will deceive his brothers the Jews -- only outsiders. You call him wrong; but he's talking about Israel when he says Jesus. He's communicating truths as through art. What he says is not direct in many cases. He talks in parables, and his Jesus plainly states that the crowds won't understand. You aren't getting this? I'm getting it, and I think its a key to setting the bone for Christianity in our time. There's a lot of hurting out there, a lot that can be set right with clarification of this.

I am 95% sure that you are being disengenuous.

I can understand your being suspicious of me. I am of questionable origin and just some person on the internet, too.

Let's look at just one quote: Matthew 2:15 quotes Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt I have called my son." Saying that this is a messianic prophecy is yanking the verse so far out of context that it is an abuse. The entire quote is, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." It is crystal clear that this verse is about Israel, and is referencing the exodus from Egypt, not some future prophecy about the Messiah. Matthew needs to be ashamed of himself.

So far out of context that it wouldn't be taken seriously by a Jewish person, and you are a witness to that. I think an abuse would be to make it only partially out of context such that it can deceive and corrupt practice of the law, but it can't. Just like jokes if it can't reach to corruption then its not abuse, particularly if the joke serves a good purpose. It is communication in times of Roman oppression and may even have been written after AD70, a very bloody time. I see here a communication by someone trying to convince Jews to submit to the Romans but not to give up. I think this later become differently understood after some time has passed.

The Christian church gets to define its boundaries. Historically, those boundaries have been defined. There is plenty of wiggle room for many topics. But the atonement is not one of them. It's not really my battle. I don't believe in the atonement. I'm simply reporting that I know that this is what Christianity has focused in on. If you think otherwise, I would take up the issue with your fellow Christians, who care about it a heck of a lot more than I do.

Of course, and that is what I will do. I don't expect you to involve yourself. Hearing your point of view is good though, so I appreciate it.

People are not confused about what Hebrews says. You all simply refuse to acknowledge that it contradicts the Torah, which exposes it as false teaching.

I see so you're an expert on what Hebrews says. I have to object to that. You've already stated its not your problem, and its not. People are confused about what Hebrews says.

 

[Brickjectivity]

St. Theophylact of Ohrid, I should have clarified. Currently I am studying his commentaries which are massively enlightening, I wish more of them were in English.

I agree about the not keeping it to ignore the spiritual aspect of it, but essential to keeping it is the Christocentric nature of it, so normally they do not keep it.

Such is my opinion.

People die over time, and nothing we say or think remains. Its when we imagine otherwise that we get defensive about what we think is true. Is anything really constant in the hands of people?

I add the adjective in order to make the necessary distinctions. I could go into it but it would be many paragraphs, suffice to say that there are many to be made concerning this subject in my opinion, so I add the term aiming at a little more accuracy.

While I disagree I'm not worried that you don't agree. There is an opinion that is better than mine somewhere.