Jesus believers, answer this question please.

[Philomath]

opcorn:

This is what I was referring to in my "Is Christianity Arrogant?" Thread.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

opcorn:

This is what I was referring to in my "Is Christianity Arrogant?" Thread.

What do you mean?

 

[Philomath]

What do you mean?

Christians proclaim to know more about Judaism by the fact that they've recognized the Messiah while the Jews, whose religion and concept it is, have not. This is very arrogant to me.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Christians proclaim to know more about Judaism by the fact that they've recognized the Messiah while the Jews, whose religion and concept it is, have not. This is very arrogant to me.

In their defense, some Jews have converted. I don't think it's personal pride on their part though; they just...need to slow down and think about what they're saying. It can also be that they're misguided, or biased, or haven't read the prophecies much or at all. Still, it's amusing watching Christians in real life attempt to convert religious Jews.

 

[Philomath]

In their defense, some Jews have converted. I don't think it's personal pride on their part though; they just...need to slow down and think about what they're saying. It can also be that they're misguided, or biased, or haven't read the prophecies much or at all. Still, it's amusing watching Christians in real life attempt to convert religious Jews.

I don't think their consciously doing it....but their still doing it. I have yet to witness a Christian attempt to convert a religious Jew but I imagine it's pretty funny to watch.

 

[roger1440]

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?

If one is at peace with the world, would that be world peace?

 

[Sleeppy]

World peace occurs over time, and is only completed after the resurrection. After the resurrection, Israel must extend beyond its original borders to accommodate the influx of Abraham's sons. World peace occurs after the Judgement, after the resurrection, and after an almost innumerable people are forced to realize that there are no permanent borders for Israel.

If you didn't realize that the Kingdom would grow from a stone cut from the mountain, without hands, refer to Daniel 2.

 

[Shermana]

The Tanakh prophecies are pretty clear on how things will pan out when the Messiah reigns.

Pretty clear eh?

First off, they're not clear. Rabbis have been arguing for over a millenium over how to interpret them. Rabbi Akiva, the Father of the Talmud, thought that Bar Kokhba was the fulfillment. We also have "prophecies" that various groups like factions among the Essenes may have gone by which didn't make it to the final copy of the Tanakh. There's also the question of what exactly is a "Messianic Prophecy" and what is a symbolic representation of perhaps a deeper aspect of general Theology, like with Daniel's seeing the dead rise.

And that's not even getting into whether or not those prophecies are directly for a one-time instantaneous 123 operation, or as I believe, a long drawn out "age" which culminates in a period of "happily ever after" after a long dramatic struggle against a wide variety of opponents of God and His will.

It speaks of total peace, even in the animal kingdom (Isaiah 2:4, 11:6-8),

Which can be interpreted as what happens at the end of this "age"

worldwide knowledge of G-D (Isaiah 11:9, Jeremiah 31:34),

If you haven't noticed, over the last 1900 years, worldwide recognition of the Jewish god as the Chief Supreme Being has been gaining ground. Were you interpreting this to be a one time event where everyone all over the world suddenly, instantly has knowledge of God? What exactly does this "knowledge of God" imply? It's probably not talking about knowledge of Torah altogether. This also begets an argument of whether people have an innate "knowledge" of God from their very birth as some may say. So how exactly do you interpret this "worldwide knowledge of God" exactly? So far, over half the world has this knowledge of the Jewish god, regardless of arguments of whether Muslims and Christians believe in the same god as the Jews. And this also begins an argument over whether the concept of the "god of the gods" in other cultures which are Henotheistic are believing in a radically different being or just have different ideas about who this being is. Is it about acknowledging that this god has the Israelites as his people and wants them to obey his Law? That's a different story. Either way, like the gathering of the Exiles to Israel, it seems to be playing out into a grand conclusion.

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).

Returning of the descendents to Israel has been going on strong since the late 1800s, and 1948 was a particular milestone. I'd say it's pretty "clear" that the foundations are being set for the endgame. Resurrection of the dead in Daniel's vision may simply be an allusion to general reincarnation along with Isaiah 26:19, a problem here is what exactly "Olam" means. It can mean "long-lasting" and not necessarily "everlasting". It could be referring to a restoration of the Kingdom in between the Greek and Roman eras.

It's far from "clear". Very far. In fact, I'd place my bets those verses are simply an allusion to reincarnation at a better era.

Reincarnation in the Bible – Part I | 144000.net

To insist that those verses are about a ressurection in the Messianic age I'd say is little better than Christian assertions of the Rapture, there's simply no reason to believe they MUST only be talking about a one time ressurection of the dead in a Messianic era, unless you think the context clearly states this.

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.

Indeed, the Trinity is a trash concept which should be ultimately disregarded, if you haven't noticed, I do enjoy a good Trinity debunking. It's safe to say the Trinity was most likely not a concept believed in by the early Nazarenes. The idea that Jesus was the incarnation of the Logos/personification of Wisdom, that's another story. If I could accomplish one thing in life it's to eliminate these strawmen of Yeshua's message such as the Trinity and Pauline Antinomianism and Biblical inerrancy.

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.

One could say the stage was thus set for the next era. The only theological way I can imagine to interpret what happened in context to the rest of scripture, is that the ancient Israelites once again had angered God to the point of being conquered and dispersed, just like every single time before that. This time however, it must have been something SO bad that the exile was to last 1900 years. However, within that time, the Israelites were accomplishing some kind of purpose where they were scattered, now what was that purpose? Could it have been to sow the seeds of the future Messianic age, regardless of the terrible events that may have transpired in between?

On a side note, the dimensions of the New Jerusalem, at least to me, seem to be about the length of would-be borders of the Nile to the Euphrates. Just sayin'.

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.

Again, what does "universal knowledge of God" mean? If you insist that Islam's Allah is not the same god as the Jewish god, that's not exactly a concrete concept.

Second, even if you are one of those who suggests that the prophecies are slowly coming to fruition as a result of Jesus' life,

Which I am, ahem....

you would still be able to show somewhat of an upward slope on said prophecies.

Consider it shown. But it doesn't necessarily need to be a constantly upward motion, it's more like an unfolding drama, with obstacles and opening doors.

However, we see the complete complete opposite: destruction of the temple, development of countless new religions, further scattering of the children of Israel.

Why don't you name some of these "Countless new religions" that have developed since 0 A.D. specifically and demonstrate how they teach an entirely difference god altogether. Again, if your argument is that a different idea about the nature and will of this god constitutes a different god, that's far from concrete.

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.

I don't particularly believe he "Comes back", I believe when he came back it was in 70 A.D. in spiritual form to guide those who received his message away from destruction and has existed as a sort of Universal Guardian Angel in the service of God, cosmologically speaking.

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.

This I most certainly agree, this begins a debate on the issue of the Pauline heresy.

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

Absolutely, in fact I'd be willing to bet my life with God as judge that I be crushed in the most painful way possible if I was wrong for punishment of apostasy if it went against His will, that Yeshua was the savior and remains as the Highest archon of God. I have such confidence that history portrays it as such, and that the scriptures can be easily interpreted to such a way.

But I would certainly not say that they are as "clear" as some might think.

Christians proclaim to know more about Judaism by the fact that they've recognized the Messiah while the Jews, whose religion and concept it is, have not. This is very arrogant to me.

What's arrogant is assuming you know for a fact how to interpret Messianic prophecies as if there's only one way to interpret them, and what's naive is thinking the Post-Masoretic Jews have a monopoly in how to read them. However, I most certainly believe that Pauline Antinomianism and Supercessionism are arrogant to the extreme.

 

[sojourner]

So the "Old" Covenant made with the Israelites remains valid?

The old covenant was for land and descendants. (Descendants were how Jews received salvation). The new covenant was for inheritance of God's kingdom and salvation. I don't really see a theological difference between the two. Both are a promise of reconciliation and salvation.

 

[sojourner]

Christians proclaim to know more about Judaism by the fact that they've recognized the Messiah while the Jews, whose religion and concept it is, have not. This is very arrogant to me.

It's not a knowledge thing, though, Phil. It's an enlightenment thing. Enlightenment isn't arrogant. It doesn't have anything to do with "we know more about you than you do." Remember: the Christians began as a Jewish sect. So, there wasn't this chasm of difference between "us" and "them" as you're making it out to be here. Some Jews were enlightened as to the identity of the Messiah. Some are still waiting for enlightenment. Neither one is "right" or "wrong," because we're not dealing with verifiable evidence -- we're dealing with spiritual awareness.

 

[dantech]

If one is at peace with the world, would that be world peace?

Perhaps for that one person, but certainly not for the creator of the world watching all his children fight and kill each other.

 

[dantech]

World peace occurs over time, and is only completed after the resurrection. After the resurrection, Israel must extend beyond its original borders to accommodate the influx of Abraham's sons. World peace occurs after the Judgement, after the resurrection, and after an almost innumerable people are forced to realize that there are no permanent borders for Israel.

If you didn't realize that the Kingdom would grow from a stone cut from the mountain, without hands, refer to Daniel 2.

Who ever said anything about borders?
Say I agree with you about world peace occuring after the resurrection, do you have any evidence that would suggest that the resurrection would occur two thousand+ years after the death?
Now say you do, and have a sound argument, how do you explain the prophecie about ONE knowledge of God, and attribute it to Jesus. Since Jesus, two major religions developped: Christianity and Islam. You have billions of people in both groups now, do you think Jesus helped build one universal and agreed upon knowledge of God? Or is he still working on it? The fact that you and I, two complete strangers who never met and are probably thousands of miles away from eachother, are both arguing about this right now shows you how far we are from one knowledge of God. I believe before Jesus was born, we were way closer.

 

[dantech]

First off, they're not clear. Rabbis have been arguing for over a millenium over how to interpret them. Rabbi Akiva, the Father of the Talmud, thought that Bar Kokhba was the fulfillment

I don't think they were so confused as how to interpret the prophecies. Rabbi Akiva thought it was Bar Kochba because he came very close to fulfilling all the prophecies, which they were clear on, in his lifetime. When he failed to do so, there was nomore debate whatsoever as to whether or not he was the Messiah. Even if he had accomplished all the prophecies but one, they would have no doubt.
As for Jesus, the same argument is shown over and over again. People claim that he is fulfilling the prophecies over a span of 2000+ years, after his death, when really we are just witnissing the natural revelation of things as they happen over milleniums.
I have no problem with people telling me Jesus was a great man, he accomplished so much, etc etc... I just cannot understand him being the Messiah when he has accomplished none of the major prophecies.

If you haven't noticed, over the last 1900 years, worldwide recognition of the Jewish god as the Chief Supreme Being has been gaining ground. [...My thread is too long so I am shortening it...] Either way, like the gathering of the Exiles to Israel, it seems to be playing out into a grand conclusion.

I'm going to be extremely leniant and just accept most of what you said. But how can you attribute these things to Jesus?

Now you asked me if I believed what I believed knowledge of God was. Well, who is God to us?
He is the creator of us all. He is the one who gave us laws to live by (Leviticus 18:5). If the three major religions who do believe in this same God can't even agree on what these laws are, how can you say we have knowledge of him? How can I believe in a God, who is completely spiritual, someone else believe he is both 100% Godly, and 100% Human (Not syaing you believe in the trinity, but many do), both at the same time, and accept that we have universal knowledge of him? And this is only comparing the people who actually believe in him. Atheism is on the rise, and has been for quite a while. I believe, if I am not mistaking, that there are around 500 million buddhists out there. Universal knowledge of God? Not only do I not think so, but there is absolutely no evidence that will show that we are getting closer to unversal knowledge of Him than before Jesus' death. In fact, it seems like the complete opposite.

Returning of the descendents to Israel has been going on strong since the late 1800s, and 1948 was a particular milestone. I'd say it's pretty "clear" that the foundations are being set for the endgame. Resurrection of the dead in Daniel's vision may simply be an allusion to general reincarnation along with Isaiah 26:19, a problem here is what exactly "Olam" means. It can mean "long-lasting" and not necessarily "everlasting". It could be referring to a restoration of the Kingdom in between the Greek and Roman eras.

Returning to Israel has been going up, I agree. However, this movement was started by a man who was an atheist. He didn't even believe in God, yet you pin this Jesus? What did Jesus have to do with the progressive return to Israel we are seeing?

It's far from "clear". Very far. In fact, I'd place my bets those verses are simply an allusion to reincarnation at a better era.
Reincarnation in the Bible – Part I | 144000.net

To insist that those verses are about a ressurection in the Messianic age I'd say is little better than Christian assertions of the Rapture, there's simply no reason to believe they MUST only be talking about a one time ressurection of the dead in a Messianic era, unless you think the context clearly states this.

So to you it's not clear that the Temple will stand on Jerusalem forever, yet In Jesus' era, the temple got destroyed?
As for the resurrection. We haven't witnessed one is supposedly 2000 years. How can you just attribute the next one to Jesus? You see what I mean? No disrespect, but it just seems like Jesus believers attribute everything to him because it fits their agenda... And I really say this with no disrespect.

Indeed, the Trinity is a trash concept which should be ultimately disregarded, if you haven't noticed, I do enjoy a good Trinity debunking. It's safe to say the Trinity was most likely not a concept believed in by the early Nazarenes. The idea that Jesus was the incarnation of the Logos/personification of Wisdom, that's another story. If I could accomplish one thing in life it's to eliminate these strawmen of Yeshua's message such as the Trinity and Pauline Antinomianism and Biblical inerrancy.

Yes I have realized. At least we agree on one thing.

One could say the stage was thus set for the next era. The only theological way I can imagine to interpret what happened in context to the rest of scripture, is that the ancient Israelites once again had angered God to the point of being conquered and dispersed, just like every single time before that. This time however, it must have been something SO bad that the exile was to last 1900 years. However, within that time, the Israelites were accomplishing some kind of purpose where they were scattered, now what was that purpose? Could it have been to sow the seeds of the future Messianic age, regardless of the terrible events that may have transpired in between?

As you probably know, I believe in Tikkun Olam, which as you say, is pretty much fixing the world as much as we can until the Messiah gets here. For our temple to be destroyed and for us to be in exile, I agree, we certainly deserved it. Otherwise, God wouldn't have exiled us since, as we know, He is the fairest judge out there. But why would God send you the Messiah, kill him, and then send him back thousands of years later? Couldn't he just send a Prophet like he has before to send us the message he wanted to send us? Why the Messiah, who would eventually die in torture, publicly, and with shame?

On a side note, the dimensions of the New Jerusalem, at least to me, seem to be about the length of would-be borders of the Nile to the Euphrates. Just sayin'.

Yes, I am aware that the biblical Israel is not eqeual to today's Israel.

Again, what does "universal knowledge of God" mean? If you insist that Islam's Allah is not the same god as the Jewish god, that's not exactly a concrete concept.

To sum up what I wrote earlier... Of those of us who do believe in the same God, the major three Abrahamic religions have completely different ways of understanding him. Add in the rest of the people on earth who just don't believe in Him, or in anyone at all, and explain to me how we have universal knowledge of God, or even a trace of us getting close. And if you can, show me how you attribute it to Jesus.

Consider it shown. But it doesn't necessarily need to be a constantly upward motion, it's more like an unfolding drama, with obstacles and opening doors.

As I have shown, most are actually in a downard slope, or have been since Jesus' time.

Why don't you name some of these "Countless new religions" that have developed since 0 A.D. specifically and demonstrate how they teach an entirely difference god altogether. Again, if your argument is that a different idea about the nature and will of this god constitutes a different god, that's far from concrete.

Christianity
Shinto
Islam
Sikhism
Bahai
And I'm sure there are many more minor religions I've never even heard of.
I think I've explained thoroughly enough why I don't believe we have universal knowledge of God. We might just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I don't particularly believe he "Comes back", I believe when he came back it was in 70 A.D. in spiritual form to guide those who received his message away from destruction and has existed as a sort of Universal Guardian Angel in the service of God, cosmologically speaking.

This I guess already makes more sense than what I have seen before. But then according to you, all the positive movements towards the Messianic deliverance as prophecied has been and is beeing done thanks to Jesus. Care to show me how?

This I most certainly agree, this begins a debate on the issue of the Pauline heresy.

I love when all I have to write is just : "Great!"

Absolutely, in fact I'd be willing to bet my life with God as judge that I be crushed in the most painful way possible if I was wrong for punishment of apostasy if it went against His will, that Yeshua was the savior and remains as the Highest archon of God. I have such confidence that history portrays it as such, and that the scriptures can be easily interpreted to such a way.

I'd take that bet, but wouldn't want to see you crushed in the most painful way possible. Hey, when we both leave this earth, we'll toast to who ever was right, how about that?

But I would certainly not say that they are as "clear" as some might think.

Oh how I regret having used that word! I should have said: "clear to me"

 

[Philomath]

It's not a knowledge thing, though, Phil. It's an enlightenment thing. Enlightenment isn't arrogant. It doesn't have anything to do with "we know more about you than you do." Remember: the Christians began as a Jewish sect. So, there wasn't this chasm of difference between "us" and "them" as you're making it out to be here. Some Jews were enlightened as to the identity of the Messiah. Some are still waiting for enlightenment. Neither one is "right" or "wrong," because we're not dealing with verifiable evidence -- we're dealing with spiritual awareness.

Of course the original Christians started off as a sect of Judaism but that is no longer the case. Christianity isn't a sect of Judaism anymore it's another religion. You are dealing with verifiable evidence. You have the prophecies concerning the Messiah and Jesus did not fulfill them. You can say Jesus is the Christian Messiah(whatever that means, but he certainly isn't the Jewish Messiah.

 

[ebgebg]

You said "when the Messiah Reigns"...did you not? Christianity spreaks of Jesus as the messiah who's time to reign is yet to come...is not that correct?

 

[sojourner]

Of course the original Christians started off as a sect of Judaism but that is no longer the case. Christianity isn't a sect of Judaism anymore it's another religion. You are dealing with verifiable evidence. You have the prophecies concerning the Messiah and Jesus did not fulfill them. You can say Jesus is the Christian Messiah(whatever that means, but he certainly isn't the Jewish Messiah.

Evidence is based on predictable outcomes. Prophecy is based on a theological perception of God's will. Prophecy is, by definition, not verifiable evidence.

 

[sojourner]

Of course the original Christians started off as a sect of Judaism but that is no longer the case. Christianity isn't a sect of Judaism anymore it's another religion. You are dealing with verifiable evidence. You have the prophecies concerning the Messiah and Jesus did not fulfill them. You can say Jesus is the Christian Messiah(whatever that means, but he certainly isn't the Jewish Messiah.

The "original (Jewish) Christians" certainly didn't think in terms of "Christian Messiah" and "Jewish Messiah." They thought in terms of "Messiah." And they believed Jesus was it.

 

[roger1440]

Perhaps for that one person, but certainly not for the creator of the world watching all his children fight and kill each other.

The starting point for world peace must always begin with the individual. From that point the rest will follow.

 

[dantech]

You said "when the Messiah Reigns"...did you not? Christianity spreaks of Jesus as the messiah who's time to reign is yet to come...is not that correct?

Welcome to the forums. I'm honored to reply to your first post!

That's fine if you want to see it that way. However, you just added to the number of prophecies he hasn't accomplished yet.
You are basically all prophecising that he will at some point in time accomplish all the prophecies regarding the Messiah. But the problem is that without these prophecies ALREADY accomplished, he cannot be the Messiah.

 

[Philomath]

The "original (Jewish) Christians" certainly didn't think in terms of "Christian Messiah" and "Jewish Messiah." They thought in terms of "Messiah." And they believed Jesus was it.

The Messiah they believed in is not the one of today. He was not the son of God who came to die for everyone's sins.