Jesus Failed Right?

[IndigoChild5559]

So you don't see Jesus as the Messiah?
Jews then and now reject that idea.

Correct. Jesus cannot be the messiah because he did not do the things the Messiah is to do. For example, this:

Isaiah 2:4
He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

 

[YoursTrue]

Could you give me some quoted material from the NT please along with the context of what he was referring to about the worthlessness of circumcision? I mean, after all,

Deuteronomy 3:6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it, Because of the evil of your doings.”

As well as the other points?

Different interpretations aside, it is truly amazing to me that some like to prove points quoting the Bible when in fact they do not believe what is written.
NIV -"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.".
2 Peter 3:16

 

[Ebionite]

Zion (Hebrew: צִיּוֹן Ṣīyyōn, LXX Σιών, also variously transliterated Sion,[1] Tzion, Tsion, Tsiyyon)[2] is a placename in the Hebrew Bible, often used as a synonym for Jerusalem[3][4] as well as for the Land of Israel as a whole.
Zion - Wikipedia

In the Hebrew Bible, the Land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem are both referred to as Zion.
Zion appears in the Old Testament 152 times as a title of Jerusalem.

... and the land of Israel isn't the same as the people of Israel. The idea that land could be righteous is absurd, but that's what you get for clinging to a broken religious model.

 

[Ebionite]

Ezekiel is talking about sin as an individual responsibility, emphatically not as a universal property of humans.

The language of humanism wasn't around in Ezekiel's day, so you're trying argue over an imaginary situation.

 

[Ebionite]

Why would they want the Romans to crucify him then?

Because of the false accusation of sedition.

And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
Luke 23:1-2

 

[Ebionite]

Because we can't stop sinning we die.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Ezekiel 18:21

 

[Ebionite]

So Paul indeed create a new religion, under the name of Jesus Christ, but while rejecting some of the most core doctrines Jesus taught during his lifetime.

Symbolically this is the leaven of Christianity. Jesus identified as the bread of life, and at passover only unleavened bread was eaten. Rather than a remembrance of life, for Paul communion was a remembrance of death.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
John 6:35

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1 Corinthians 11:26

Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 16:12

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Acts 23:6

 

[blü 2]

Different interpretations aside, it is truly amazing to me that some like to prove points quoting the Bible when in fact they do not believe what is written.
NIV -"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.".
2 Peter 3:16

I do it all the time. That's because there are two views of the bible, outside and inside.

The outside view is the view of history, which excludes miracles, looks for precise dates, styles and fictions, compares the documents of and relating to the bible to see what facts can be deduced and inferences drawn from them, questions authorship, and so on. An example is the dating of Mark by Jesus' 'prediction' of the destruction of Jerusalem (historically 70 CE), and the trial of Jesus before Pilate being based on Josephus' Wars and its account of the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias aka Jesus of Jerusalem, which became available 75 CE.

The inside view is whether the bible said this, or that. or the other, or was silent on the point, whether biblical statement A is compatible with B, whether a theological proposition has biblical support or not, and so on. An example is whether there is any support for the "Fall of Man" in the Tanakh (there is none), or indeed outside of Paul's two brief mentions of it.

The books of Bart Ehrman use the first a lot and the second a little, for example.

 

[blü 2]

The language of humanism wasn't around in Ezekiel's day, so you're trying argue over an imaginary situation.

You obviously haven't read the words of Ezekiel 18. Or do you think it makes no reference to individual responsibility?

 

[Ebionite]

You obviously haven't read the words of Ezekiel 18.

The word obviously doesn't mean what you apparently think it does.

 

[PearlSeeker]

True, there’s still a lot of sin in this world because it’s a fallen world which, according to the scriptures, will be destroyed and replaced with a new heaven and earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). Jesus is called people out for eternal life there.

I don't know if this future event is true until it happens. Maybe never.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Like us, our children are imperfect due to inherited imperfection from fallen-father Adam.
If we could stop sinning we would Not die. Because we can't stop sinning we die.
We can't resurrect oneself nor resurrect another. We need someone who can resurrect us. Jesus can and will - Rev. 1:18
The reason Jesus can and will resurrect the dead is because Jesus balanced the Scales of Justice for us.
Adam under excellent conditions proved un-faithful.
Jesus under adverse conditions proved faithful, faithful to the point of torture and execution.
Both Adam and Jesus started out sinless:
* Adam chose sin which leads to death - Gen. 2:17
* Jesus chose Not to sin leading to life, life Not only for himself but for us because through No fault of our own we sin.

Jesus would accomplish this mission also if he died natural death and then resurrected. No execution necessary. Even the whole mission was unnecessary. To whom was he proving anything? To Father?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Without a sinless Jesus' faithful death there would be No hope at any time for conditions to change.

As I said, we don't know if this event accomplished anything in the future until it happens.

 

[blü 2]

The word obviously doesn't mean what you apparently think it does.

Which word are you referring to? Ezekiel 18:20 reads:

20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.​

The father is responsible for his own actions, sinful or otherwise, and the son is responsible for his own actions, sinful or otherwise. The father is not responsible for the son's sins. The son is not responsible for the father's sins.

Sin can't be inherited. Except for Paul's two mentions, not supported in any of the gospels, there is no biblical basis for the notion of original sin. Certainly nothing of the kind can be found in the Genesis garden story. Instead it's expressly ruled out.

 

[Ajax]

... and the land of Israel isn't the same as the people of Israel. The idea that land could be righteous is absurd, but that's what you get for clinging to a broken religious model.

 

[Ebionite]

Which word are you referring to?

The word "obviously". Your assumption that I haven't read the text is pretty lame.

 

[Tomef]

What is inconsistent is a just deity intending for a righteous servant to be tortured to death.

It makes sense in its own context. Sacrifice was a regular practice, and you’ve got to remember that the reality of death, blood, suffering and so on was much more a part of everyday life at the time these stories were crafted. Given the much more visceral, brutal nature of life and the fact of living under occupation - the very real sense of being in constant conflict - the idea of it being possible to resolve it all in one ultimate sacrifice makes sense. As only the best, unblemished animals were considered worthy sacrifices, the ultimate sacrifice had to be innocent. Only a sacrifice without taint or blemish would do, and the horrible nature of death involved reflects the desperate intensity of the whole business. While it all may be a fantasy, it’s a bit too easy to dismiss it all from the bland perspective of a comfortable life in a western democracy.

 

[Ajax]

Not a failure to convert, but to give the Jews the first key or privileged opportunity to become his followers.

But in the beginning of the story, he was pretty arrogant towards the Canaanite woman, implying that he was certain that the Jews would follow him.

Second, the opportunity was unlocked for the Samaritans to follow Jesus.

Same here.. “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6)

 

[Ebionite]

It makes sense in its own context.

The immediate context was repudiation of the violence of sacrifice. The cleansing of the temple, and the references to Hosea.
The original message was about repentance, and that connects to sacrifice in Matthew 9:13.

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Matthew 21:13

Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen [it], saith YHWH.
Jeremiah 7:11

But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Elohim more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:6

 

[Tomef]

The immediate context was repudiation of the violence of sacrifice. The cleansing of the temple, and the references to Hosea.
The original message was about repentance, and that connects to sacrifice in Matthew 9:13.

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Matthew 21:13

Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen [it], saith YHWH.
Jeremiah 7:11

But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Elohim more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:6

Ok