• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus believers, answer this question please.

nazz

Doubting Thomas
The Tanakh prophecies are pretty clear on how things will pan out when the Messiah reigns. It speaks of total peace, even in the animal kingdom (Isaiah 2:4, 11:6-8), worldwide knowledge of G-D (Isaiah 11:9, Jeremiah 31:34), the Temple standing in Jerusalem forever(Ezekiel 37:27-28, Ezekiel 40-48), resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19), and the return of the descendants of Israel to Israel (Jeremiah 23:7-8, Isaiah 27:13).

We also find a few verses describing a righteous judge who will fear God (Isaiah 11:1-4), and I doubt God fears himself so this doesn't really work with the Trinity concept.


A few points clearly stand out. First, not only were these prophecies not accomplished in Jesus' life, but the exact opposite occurred during and after his life.
1)The Temple was destroyed.
2)The Jews were scattered and many were murdered
3)The birth of many religions occurred after his life, preaching anything but a universal knowledge of God.

Second, even if you are one of those who suggests that the prophecies are slowly coming to fruition as a result of Jesus' life, you would still be able to show somewhat of an upward slope on said prophecies. However, we see the complete complete opposite: destruction of the temple, development of countless new religions, further scattering of the children of Israel. Also, I have failed to find anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures anything about the Messiah (which he was never called, by the way) coming back x thousand years later to complete his job.

Third, I have also failed to find mention anywhere that the arrival of the messiah would warrant a new covenant that would result the previous one in being annulled.

I guess the question is:
How can you, knowing all these facts and scriptures, honestly believe that Jesus is/was indeed our sent savior?

It's very easy for me because as a Gnostic I reject the concept the Tanakh is (totally) divinely inspired, at least not in the way that term is usually used. The Jewish followers of Jesus were looking for a Liberator but they learned that the kind of liberation he offered was not what they were previously expecting. Thus in Christianity there is a change in meaning of the term "Messiah".
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I guess the question is:

How can you, knowing all these facts and scriptures, honestly believe that Jesus is/was indeed our sent savior?

I don't take the Jewish scriptures as anything important to me.

'Savior' is a term created by some early Christians with certain dogmatic views that aren't important to me either.

Jesus, who I praise as a great being, is really a Universalist born into a time that people tried to fit things into the narrow concepts of an ancient time.
 

Shermana

Heretic
The word "Messiah" does not mean "liberator", it got turned into "liberator" later on but it originally simply meant "Anointed one". Also, not all Gnostics rejected the Tanakh, many later ones did, but we have evidence such as from the Pistis Sophia that many "Gnostic" Christians were essentially Nazarene Jews who followed a version of the Gnostic Cosmology, and it's likely the Valentinians regarded the Bible as holy, they were one of the pioneers in interpreting it allegorically.

Also, James the Just, widely regarded as the foundation of the Law-abiding Jerusalem Church, was called "Jacob the Gnostic" in the Talmud for some odd reason....

Valentinians and the Bible - Valentinus and the Valentinian Tradition

Just saying because "Gnostic" does not necessarily imply that the Tanakh is wrong and that the OT god was evil, which was a Sethian and Ophite position but not necessarily the official Gnostic position. I do believe that the original Christians, the Nazarenes had many "Gnostic" beliefs which the proto-Orthodox got rid of, but they were not the same as the later groups. Just sayin'.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
The word "Messiah" does not mean "liberator", it got turned into "liberator" later on but it originally simply meant "Anointed one".

Yes, I know. But first century Jews were looking for a messiah who would liberate them from Roman domination.

Also, not all Gnostics rejected the Tanakh

True, most did not in fact. But I'm not aware of any who accepted it as orthodox Christians do nowadays.

Just saying because "Gnostic" does not necessarily imply that the Tanakh is wrong and that the OT god was evil, which was a Sethian and Ophite position but not necessarily the official Gnostic position.

Agreed.
 

Shermana

Heretic
and on the periphery the idea that the Trinity was not an alien concept in much older Jewish thought.

I think Heiser is going more for a form of "Binitarianism" with the "Two powers in Heaven", and it's not unlikely that the Targumic concept of the Word/Logos being an actual being, as Philo explained it in his essay on the Logos, was a very real concept in early pre-2nd Temple Judaism that kind of got lost in the transition to the post-Masoretic form of Judaism. The argument that it's a "Hellenistic development" I would say is wholly unfounded, as the Hellenic idea of the "logos" is not entirely similar, and it's not necessarily the case that two cultures can't just come to an independent conclusion, otherwise by the same logic we can say that the Torah's Creation account is "Sumerianistic". I believe it's very likely that the Gospel of John was invoking this tradition of the Logos and wasn't inventing it whole-cloth. The idea has roots in Proverbs 8 and is seen in works like Sirach (which was once apparently canonical to some Rabbis, according to the Talmud) and "Wisdom of Solomon" (Which I see no good reason for disputing its canonicity), that "Wisdom" was an actual personified being, an actual entity, who served as the Vehicle of God's Agency, who was the Instrument of which all things were made by, and this idea may be what inspired or was the basis of the Gnostic concepts of "Sophia" in such Cosmology.

I believe there's good reason that later Judaism discarded these ideas which were once the predominant mainstream Theology in a mad dash to not appear "Polytheistic".
 
Last edited:

psalmist23

New Member
Hi dantech,

What you have to understand is that the New Testament totally agrees with the Tanakh (what I would call the Old Testament). The last book of NT, the Book of Revelation, also speaks of a kingdom that is fully peaceful, and has true shalom. It does not disagree with Isaiah. But it speaks of what is known as the heavenly Jerusalem, which will be a place that shall be placed on the new earth, when God will create new heavens and a new earth (also described in Isaiah 66). Jesus also said, that his kingdom was not of this world (which also tells us that the kingdom of God is a firstly a spiritual kingdom). The world will fully know about the Messiah, and the descendants will return to the land of Israel. As for the righteous judge, NT even speaks of the judgment seat of Christ – and also, which true son does not fear his father? It also speaks of the resurrection of the dead (and the importance of the resurrection of Jesus).

Also, Jesus himself prophesied about the destruction of the temple, and the tough years ahead to come for the Jewish people (because they had, unknowingly, rejected their own Messiah, having him crucified, and therefore, had in fact rejected their own God). As for the question about many world religions, the NT speaks many times of the deceptive nature of Satan, and of unclean, evil, and deceiving spirits.

My point is that the Tanakh suggest two comings of the Messiah. In the first coming, he would come as the humbly and lowly-hearted servant of God, yet was to be rejected, and at the second coming, he will come in glory. If you are confused as to the Tanakh suggesting this, then please read Isaiah 53 (which, as far as I know, is never part of the weekly Parsha (Torah portion)). This is about the suffering servant of God. How well does this not fit with the description of the crucified Jesus? You can also read about the tribes of Israel one day looking to the one they have pierced, and mourning over him like a firstborn son (book of Zecheriah 12). The story of Abraham and Isaac was a foreshadowing about the death of Christ (Jesus). When Isaac asks his father where the sacrificial animal is, Abraham even replies, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son” (Genesis 22:8). That is a prophetic statement made by Abraham. Also, just like the Shekinah glory cloud would rest on the tabernacle in the desert, in the same way this was also a foreshadowing of the Holy Spirit coming to dwell within men came who believe in Jesus Messiah. That is why God, in the Tanakh, speaks of writing his commandments on the hearts of men (and not on tablets of stone). Also, was Abraham not to become the Father of many nations, not just the Jewish nation?

The NT consistently describes Jesus as a lamb, and as the lamb of God, who was slain for our sins. All other sacrifices were only foreshadowings of what was to come. Also, the bible, consisting of both the Tanakh and the NT, is a book about the love of God towards sinful Israel and sinful mankind (just think about the book of Hosea). The NT explains that the end intention with the Torah law was not to be made righteous by keeping the law, but by pointing towards a total and eternal future liberation from sin, which the blood of animals can never accomplish. Only the blood of the righteous Son of God is able to perform such a thing. In fact, the NT goes on to explain how the law is holy, yet what lives inside of men is utterly unholy. The good that we wish to do, we do not, and the evil that we wish not to do, we do.

As you know, many Jewish believers in Judaism today believe that they can find mercy by tzedakah, even though the Tanakh never abolishes the sacrifice of animals unto atonement. Is that not a breach of contract, and the same as breaking Gods law? Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Why? Because only he could. The torah law showed how a person could live in complete holiness for his entire life, thereby meeting the standard of a holy and just God, yet it also suggests that anyone who does not live by ALL its commandments and precepts chooses death over life, and curse over blessing. But the NT explains that only the living Son of God was able to live such a life, and that he was sent to do exactly that, so as to free all men from sin, who come to have faith in Him. They needed to turn from their sin, to Him, in the same way that the people would fix their attention on the sacrificial animal on Yom Kippur. We are actually told to fix our eyes on the cross, to always remember what He did for us. The blood of the Yom Kippur animal was to take away their sins for the time being, but the blood of Christ brings everlasting atonement. This is all free, and a work of God’s grace. God saves us freely through his Son (because of his sacrificial love for us), and this grace makes us want to serve him with our lives (that is our sacrifice, but not what saves us). It is about a relationship, not religion. If one truly wants to live a righteous life by the torah, then he annuls the good news of Christ the Lord, who loved him, and came to redeem him. Yet He still loves. He fulfilled the Torah law, and his blood seals the new covenant (mentioned in Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 36). This covenant is for all men, both Jew an gentile.

”For God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
The Tanakh prophecies are pretty clear on how things will pan out when the Messiah reigns. It speaks of total peace, even in the animal kingdom (Isaiah 2:4, 11:6-8), worldwide knowledge of G-D (Isaiah 11:9, Jeremiah 31:34), the Temple standing in Jerusalem forever(Ezekiel 37:27-28, Ezekiel 40-48), resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19), and the return of the descendants of Israel to Israel (Jeremiah 23:7-8, Isaiah 27:13).

yes, thats how they will eventually pan out.

But before they pan out that way, the Hebrew scriptures prophecy that times will get very bad....

Zephania 1:14“The great day of Jehovah is near. It is near, and there is a hurrying [of it] very much. The sound of the day of Jehovah is bitter. There a mighty man is letting out a cry. 15That day is a day of fury, a day of distress and of anguish, a day of storm and of desolation, a day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick gloom, ... by the fire of his zeal the whole earth will be devoured, because he will make an extermination, indeed a terrible one, of all the inhabitants of the earth.”

This is the same tribulation that Christ himself preached:

Matthew 24:29“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

It is 'after' this great tribulation that Christ appears a 2nd time from heaven, for he went on to say:

Vs30And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven

This shows that Jesus was not preaching that he would bring the blessings that were spoken of in the hebrew scriptures during his own time. Rather, he stated that things would get much worse before they got better. And it was only AFTER this great tribulation that he would step in to bring about the blessings that are promised in the hebrew scriptures.


We also find a few verses describing a righteous judge who will fear God (Isaiah 11:1-4), and I doubt God fears himself so this doesn't really work with the Trinity concept.

agreed. the trinity concept is diametrically opposed to the hebrew and greek scriptures. It is a later idea brought in to appease the romans.


A few points clearly stand out. First, not only were these prophecies not accomplished in Jesus' life, but the exact opposite occurred during and after his life.
1)The Temple was destroyed.

Jesus informed his disciples that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed.

Luke 19:43*Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, 44*and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.”

Luke 20;20*“Furthermore, when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21*Then let those in Ju·de′a begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her; 22*because these are days for meting out justice, that all the things written may be fulfilled.

His accuracy in the details of Jerusalems destruction proves him to be a true prophet.


2)The Jews were scattered and many were murdered

Yes, sadly true. Jesus also prophesied that it would happen:

Luke 20:23Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; 24*and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.


3)The birth of many religions occurred after his life, preaching anything but a universal knowledge of God.

Thats true too. This was also described by Jesus in his illustration of the Wheat and the Weeds. The field was sown with fine seed, but men came in the night and planted weeds and the two would sprout together.

Is that not what we among the religious of our world today? Some are good faithful followers while others are hypocritical imposters. Jesus words again prove themselves true.


Also, I have failed to find anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures anything about the Messiah (which he was never called, by the way) coming back x thousand years later to complete his job.

Psalm 110 is a prophecy with a fulfillment in Christian teaching:

110 The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is:
“Sit at my right hand
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
*2*The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, [saying:]
“Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.”


This prophecy was assigned to Christ by his jewish disciples.
Acts 2:32*This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. 33*Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which YOU see and hear. 34*Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, 35*until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’

the phrase 'sit...until i place your enemies as a stool for you feet' indicates that there would be a period of 'waiting' before he would actually act.


Third, I have also failed to find mention anywhere that the arrival of the messiah would warrant a new covenant that would result the previous one in being annulled.

It was in the book of Deuteronomy that Moses told the people that a prophet 'like him' would rise up from among them and they would need to pay attention and 'listen to him'
Deut 18:18A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him. 19*And it must occur that the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name, I shall myself require an account from him.


Every prophet who rose up and gave a message to the people had new instructions for them to obey. So it would be entirely possible that a prophet who was 'like Moses' could have also instituted a covenant of some sort. A prophet 'like Moses' would lead the people. A prophet 'like Moses' would provide powerful signs of his annointing. And a prophet 'like Moses' could certainly provide laws and requirements because that is exactly what Moses did.

For a prophet to be 'like Moses', isnt it at all possible that he would do the things that Moses did?

Not to mention the fact that a new 'covenant' was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 31:31*“Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32*not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers..."
This 'new covenant' would have to come at the mouth of one of Gods prophets. No other prophet of the Hebrew scriptures attempted to institute a new covenant....But Jesus did.
And this very covenant was alluded to by Moses,

Exodus 19:5*And now if YOU will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then YOU will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. 6*And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’

Notice that Moses didnt say that Isreal WERE a kingdom of Priests.... he said if they keep Gods covenant they would 'BECOME' a king of priests! When did they become such a kingdom? Never! They had a priesthood, but the entire nation were never all members of the priesthood.
However, Jesus offered such a priesthood to a select few of his disciples. And that was the covenant he instituted with them...it was a covenant for a kingdom to become a royal priesthood as mentioned by Moses and explained in the Christian Greek Scriptures

See 1 Peter 2:9 & Revelation 5:10


I guess the question is:
How can you, knowing all these facts and scriptures, honestly believe that Jesus is/was indeed our sent savior?

Knowing all these facts certainly adds weight to Jesus being the Messiah. When you really take into consideration these prophecies of Jesus, you would have to at the very lease admit that Jesus must have been a prophet. And if you accept that he might have been a prophet, then you would have to also accept that he would not have lied about his role in Gods purpose.

All these facts really prove to me that Jesus certainly was the Messiah and he will return after the Great Tribulation just as he said. And if the Great Tribulation as foretold by the hebrew scriptures has not occured yet, then there is no reason to reject Jesus as the Messiah because you could only really do that if he does not return AFTER the Great Day of God.
 
Last edited:

roger1440

I do stuff
If I’m not mistaken, Solomon’s Temple was built to house the Ark of the Covenant. If the Ark itself is a metaphor then it would stand to reason a metaphorical Temple would be needed to house it.
 

Kemble

Active Member
Hey dantech,

A blog debate and a video lecture by Hebrew scholar Michael Heiser you can look into that detail the NT's use of the OT that addresses the main thrust of your OP, and on the periphery the idea that the Trinity was not an alien concept in much older Jewish thought.

Old Testament Scholar Michael Heiser and I Discuss OT Prophecy

Jewish Trinity: Jewish Godhead

Just to extract Heiser's main argument in the first link:

Michael S Heiser said:
MSH says:
July 25, 2011 at 10:09 PM

This reply shows that you are really assuming certain trajectories that are wrong-headed. I’ll try to explain.

Brief version: The Jews of the first century had a mental mosaic of what messiah would be like and do — not a list of verses for him to “fulfill.” There are actually very few overt prophecies in the OT that need or anticipate a messianic fulfillment. Rather than asking “does this guy fulfill all these passages / prophecies?” they were asking “does he look like he fits the picture?” Consequently, to evaluate THEIR expectations on a list of verses WE (modern scholars, Bible-believing Christians, etc.) have delineated just isn’t going about the exercise the way they would have — and so it is unfair and the results will invariably be skewered.

Longer version:

Asking if the NT authors were “correct” in their use of the OT has two points of incoherence. I therefore see your criticism and simplistic proof-texting of many Christians in this regard in the same light.

1. NT authors weren’t thinking about 1:1 correspondences with so-called messianic prophecy. There are actually very few prophecies (or even passages) in the OT that even use the word “messiah.” And NONE of them are of the variety of “the messiah will say or do XYZ when he gets here.” As a result, it’s sophistry to criticize the NT authors on that basis. They’d look at you like you didn’t know what they (or you) were doing. They just weren’t doing what you assume they were trying to do. You criticize them for failing at something they weren’t attempting to do. How is that methodologically sound?

Lest readers misunderstand, I am not saying you are along in this mistaken trajectory. It’s news to Christians and pastors, too. I’ll repeat my statement above: There are actually very few prophecies (or even passages) in the OT that even use the word “messiah.” And NONE of them are of the variety of “the messiah will say or do XYZ when he gets here.” Don’t believe me? Below is a link to a PDF that shows the search results for all the occurrences of Hebrew mashiach (“anointed one”; “messiah”) in the OT. Read through them. There’s nothing there that says “when messiah comes he will do / say XYZ.” The proof is in the pudding. And so your criticism is quite misguided (but effective against people who don’t know better).

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/lemmamashiachmessiahinOT.pdf

So, in view of all this, how did Jews have a messianic expectation with so few references to an eschatological messiah? As I noted above in the brief version, while they didn’t have a list of verses, they had a mosaic of expectations as to what their messiah would be like and what they presumed he was supposed to do. Some of these are fairly specific – e.g., they expected messiah to be from the line of David, of the tribe of Judah, born in Bethlehem – but not because any verse that has the word messiah in its says these things. It was primarily because of the (in order) the covenant with David (2 Sam 7, Psalm 89), the use of royal motifs and terms in relation to Judah (Gen 49:10; Micah 5:2). These OT passages form parts of a picture (a mosaic); they are not in and of themselves terribly specific. Even Micah 5:2 could have spoken of any ruler of Israel — there is nothing in the text that says it ONLY applies to an eschatological messiah. But you, John, would over-read passages like that and press them as though they are more specific than they are (and you’d be in Christian company – many Christians I presume would be disturbed at what I just said – Micah 5:2 need not apply to “the” messiah — but I’m just letting that text be as non-specific as it is).

2. This “mosaic” approach to OT messianism means that the “rules of interpretive engagement” in the first century often don’t conform to modern constructs like the “grammatical historical method” (born as it was of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Why? Because we’re smart and they were dumb? That’s basically your argument. But the truth is much more simple and less egotistical. It’s because the first century Jew was thinking analogically, not as though “Text A produces Interpretation A” (i.e., as though we must tell that the former gave birth to the latter). The ancients were thinking in terms of patterns, motifs and other “hooks” that would reveal connections (a mosaic or network, not a single, linear 1:1 thought correspondence). In other words, a first century Jew looking at his Old Testament and, hearing your (our – modern “believers”) interpretive strategy and would either say “you’re dense” or “your method sucks” (in Aramaic or Hebrew, of course).

Now, how do I know I’m right in saying the above? Two short examples. First, there is Zerubbabel. He didn’t “fulfill” any direct messianic statement, but to Jews of his day, the second temple period, he looked like a candidate worthy of consideration. Why? Because he fit certain expectations that had nothing to do with proof-texting specific messianic statements (of which there are few). Zerubbabel was in the line of David and he was the political leader of the Jews returning from exile (their sin was “pardoned”) … to restore the nation of Israel (the “kingdom”). He was governor of Judah, so he could have fit Micah 5:2. Notice — back to the text here — that verse actually doesn’t say that the ruler from Judah had to be *born* in Bethlehem; rather, he had to “come forth” from that town. What does that mean? You could probably justify a lot of associations with Bethlehem to feel like a candidate fit the picture. My point here is that Zerubbabel was not disqualified from looking like a messianic candidate because he was born in Babylon, not Bethlehem, since Micah 5:2 never mentions birth as a requirement (but to be sure, a birth there would create a firm association). But I don’t imagine you or the sources you cite ever noticed that. And it’s not because you aren’t smart (you obviously are); it’s because you have accepted a caricatured expectation of messianism, brought with you in your flight from Christianity.

Anyway, what I’m trying to get to is this. To judge the NT authors by standards foreign to them is wrong-headed. To understand how the NT use of the OT is coherent you have to see the nodes of the conceptual network / the pieces of the mosaic. You have to understand how THEY were thinking (not how you wish they were thinking, or how you could have thought better, in your mind at least). The NT mosaic for messiah is composed of motifs, technical terms, concepts, symbols, etc. that derive from ancient Near Eastern concepts of royalty, kingship, priesthood, shepherding, warfare, hierarchy, etc. — as opposed to listing proof-texts. If it was as easy as proof-texting, the disciples could have just looked things up. Instead, they relied on 20/20 hindsight. As time went by, what Jesus did and said *reminded* them of aspects of the mosaic, the network.

The above is why your challenge was and is pointless. It is misguided because you’ve spent too much time shooting at a caricature, thinking you’re hitting something and scoring. You’re not. (But I’m sure you’ve buried lots of lay people and preachers whose view of all this is just as simplistic as your own).
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Just how many "why don't Jews accept Jesus" threads do need before realizing that they serve little function beyond providing yet another platform for Christian apologetics? If it was as simple as smugly referencing a handful of quotes from the Tanakh Christianity would have never gotten off the ground in the first place.[/quote]

I believe this is incorrect information. Christianity started with the visitation of the Paraclete that Jesus promised would come.
 

Galen.Iksnudnard

Active Member
The Jews do not know how to interpret the Torah because it is a Christian book. If you don’t believe me just read :
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle reinterprets many of the laws of the Torah. For example, the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine, who supposedly grunt when hungry but are silent when full: likewise, the people are not to pray to God when they are in need but ignore him when they are satisfied. Similarly, the prohibition on eating rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner, and the prohibition on eating weasel is actually to be interpreted as a prohibition of oral sex, based on the mistaken belief that weasels copulate via the mouth…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas

Rubbish.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Fortunately, I can refute apologetics, something you are apparently unable to do. Observe:



If Zechariah was prophesying about Jesus, then Judas was an agent of God. Zechariah is the shepherd of "the flock," and kills three evil shhepherders who try to steal the sheep. However, the sheep grow to hate him, and he likewise. So, he quits and requests payment. He is paid thirty pieces of silver, and is told by Hashem to throw it to the potter.

Does this seem familiar? Matthew thinks so. Chapter 27, verse 9.

There you have it. Either Zechariah or Matthew is wrong—unless Jesus was an evil shepherd.



Or it can mean both.



Given that Jesus has done none of these things, I think you just weakened your own argument.



Why does the New Covenant have to replace the old? Does the Nazarite covenant replace the Mosaiac covenant? Does the Mosaiac covenant replace the Abrahamic covenant? Does the Abrahamic covenant replace the covenant with Noah?





Not to insult you or your religion, but Christianity is pretty clear that those of us who reject Jesus are doomed to Hell.

"I, I am Hashem, and besides me there is no savior." Isaiah 43:11

"You are my witnesses," declares Hashem,
"And my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he."
Isaiah 43:10.

"And it shall come to pass that everybody who calls upon the name of Hashem will be saved."
Joel 2:32

And if you believe that God and Jesus are the same—

"God is not man...or a son of man." Numbers 23.

"For I Hashem do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."
Malachi 3:6

I don't beleive I need to underscore the lack of logic but I will refute the interpetation that Jesus is one of the evil shepherds. The context is that of lands around Israel having evil shepherds. The text mentions Lebanon and Jordan. As for the evil shepherd that will not heal the people (as opposed to Jesus who did) this is the Anti-Christ (False Messiah) which is to come that Israel will accept.

As for the thirty pieces of silver Jehovah is saying that in reference to Himself which undersocres that Jesus is God in the flesh.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The Tanakh prophecies are pretty clear on how things will pan out when the Messiah reigns. It speaks of total peace, even in the animal kingdom (Isaiah 2:4, 11:6-8), worldwide knowledge of G-D (Isaiah 11:9, Jeremiah 31:34), the Temple standing in Jerusalem forever(Ezekiel 37:27-28, Ezekiel 40-48), resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19), and the return of the descendants of Israel to Israel (Jeremiah 23:7-8, Isaiah 27:13).

We also find a few verses describing a righteous judge who will fear God (Isaiah 11:1-4), and I doubt God fears himself so this doesn't really work with the Trinity concept.


A few points clearly stand out. First, not only were these prophecies not accomplished in Jesus' life, but the exact opposite occurred during and after his life.
1)The Temple was destroyed.
2)The Jews were scattered and many were murdered
3)The birth of many religions occurred after his life, preaching anything but a universal knowledge of God.

Second, even if you are one of those who suggests that the prophecies are slowly coming to fruition as a result of Jesus' life, you would still be able to show somewhat of an upward slope on said prophecies. However, we see the complete complete opposite: destruction of the temple, development of countless new religions, further scattering of the children of Israel. Also, I have failed to find anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures anything about the Messiah (which he was never called, by the way) coming back x thousand years later to complete his job.

Third, I have also failed to find mention anywhere that the arrival of the messiah would warrant a new covenant that would result the previous one in being annulled.

I guess the question is:
How can you, knowing all these facts and scriptures, honestly believe that Jesus is/was indeed our sent savior?

All prophecies to be fulfilled when Jesus returns.

Are you saying God does not respect Himself? A doer of evil fears Gods judgement but a doer of good respects the power of God that is in his hands. So my God fearing means the healing of my body. I would say the ultimate healing is being raised from the dead.

Isa 42:6 I, Jehovah, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

The texts homestly say so.
 
Top