Judaism vs Christianity: Second Coming of Messiah

[gnostic]

I would say it became a lot easier for the early Christians after Jesus showed them what the scriptures said about Him and it became easier after they had seen what Jesus had done and relate it to what the scriptures said.

Show them what?

Jesus didn’t write a thing.

All you get is third hand accounts.

The earliest writings we that can confirmed be authentic author is Paul, who wrote most, if not all the epistles that were attribute to him, and they existed before the gospel of Mark (70-75 CE).

And Paul never met Jesus, and Paul didn’t narrate Jesus’ life nor his ministry.

And we don’t know who wrote those 4 gospels, but they certainly weren’t by the names traditionally attributed to them by the 2nd century church.

What can be determined is that the other gospels were written even later than Markian gospel 80s & 90s CE, so definitely not eyewitness accounts.

And you are forgetting that 2 of these gospels narrated the pregnancy of Mary and birth of Jesus. It is highly doubtful that Mary was still alive to pass these orally to the authors during the 80s when Matthew and Luke were composed. Plus, both versions are completely different. The only thing they have in common, Jesus was born in Bethlehem; the rest were invented.

And if the anonymous authors were really really the apostles Matthew and John, and indeed eyewitnesses, then why did they over 50 years later, and not straight away after Jesus left the apostles?

A huge gap between Jesus’ ministry and when each gospels were composed, tell me none of these gospels were written by the people claiming to be the authors.

Take for instance, the 2 books of Samuel. Considering that Samuel appeared in book 1, but also died part way, it is highly doubtful Samuel himself wrote either books.

Names are often applied to books, don’t necessarily mean those books were written by them.

I have already some of the epistles were written by Paul, but few of them weren’t, because they appeared to compose after Paul’s death.

Plus there are more books said to be composed by apostles, eg the gospels, acts and epistles (eg the Apocrypha texts) that were clearly in the next 2 centuries.

Anyway, the gospel authors wrote the narratives, not Jesus, and those authors weren’t eyewitnesses, nor contemporary.

Your claims that Jesus told them what to write, don’t hold much credibility. It would be more credible if they were 1 to 10 years later, not beyond 70 CE.

 

[Rival]

Israel, as the firstborn of God is a type of the Messiah in various places in the Hebrew scriptures.

This is a Christian doctrine.

 

[rosends]

It does not look like a grammar thing to me. It looks like you have decided that God's servant Israel (verse 3), in this passage can refer to one person, Isaiah, but cannot refer to the one chosen to be bring salvation to the whole earth, the Messiah.

It is grammar (the word atah has an etnachta underneath indicating the end of a phrase which makes the object of the direct address discrete from the next noun), and it follows the logic established in the previous verses about the actual object of the direct address which shifts from the first person subject through the word vayomer li.

I was chosen to do x.
And he said to me, "you are the one"

pretty simple grammar.

 

[dybmh]

Why will you say that a servant passage can be about one Israelite, Isaiah, but not about another one, Jesus?

Isaiah, the entire book, can't be talking about Jesus. In Isaiah 42:8 it says:

“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
​

In the book of John 17:1-5 Jesus is quoted as saying:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
​

Isaiah says the Glory of The Lord is not shared. Jesus says the glory of the father is shared. It's a clear contradiction. The book of Isaiah doesn't agree with the Book of John; therefore, Isaiah is not talking about Jesus as the messiah.

 

[Brian2]

Show them what?

Jesus didn’t write a thing.

I was speaking of Jesus post resurrection visits to the disciples and His explaining to them where He was in the Hebrew scriptures.

All you get is third hand accounts.

The earliest writings we that can confirmed be authentic author is Paul, who wrote most, if not all the epistles that were attribute to him, and they existed before the gospel of Mark (70-75 CE).

And Paul never met Jesus, and Paul didn’t narrate Jesus’ life nor his ministry.

And we don’t know who wrote those 4 gospels, but they certainly weren’t by the names traditionally attributed to them by the 2nd century church.

What can be determined is that the other gospels were written even later than Markian gospel 80s & 90s CE, so definitely not eyewitness accounts.

And you are forgetting that 2 of these gospels narrated the pregnancy of Mary and birth of Jesus. It is highly doubtful that Mary was still alive to pass these orally to the authors during the 80s when Matthew and Luke were composed. Plus, both versions are completely different. The only thing they have in common, Jesus was born in Bethlehem; the rest were invented.

The stories of Mary and the birth of Jesus aren't different at all, they just give different versions of the same event.

And if the anonymous authors were really really the apostles Matthew and John, and indeed eyewitnesses, then why did they over 50 years later, and not straight away after Jesus left the apostles?

A huge gap between Jesus’ ministry and when each gospels were composed, tell me none of these gospels were written by the people claiming to be the authors.

The huge gap you speak of is just the assumption of historical critical scholars that the prophecy of the Temple destruction is not a true prophecy.

Take for instance, the 2 books of Samuel. Considering that Samuel appeared in book 1, but also died part way, it is highly doubtful Samuel himself wrote either books.

Names are often applied to books, don’t necessarily mean those books were written by them.

I did not think that the books of Samuel bore his name because they had been written by him.
It is a different thing with the gospels. The names attached to them are what has been passed down to us as the authors and what the evidence seems to indicate.

I have already some of the epistles were written by Paul, but few of them weren’t, because they appeared to compose after Paul’s death.

Plus there are more books said to be composed by apostles, eg the gospels, acts and epistles (eg the Apocrypha texts) that were clearly in the next 2 centuries.

Anyway, the gospel authors wrote the narratives, not Jesus, and those authors weren’t eyewitnesses, nor contemporary.

Your claims that Jesus told them what to write, don’t hold much credibility. It would be more credible if they were 1 to 10 years later, not beyond 70 CE.

Jesus post resurrection appearance gave the disciples the prophecies about Him from the Hebrew text.
Jesus said to the disciples that the Holy Spirit would bring back to their remembrance the things that He had said.
It is interesting that the scientific naturalistic methodology is introduced into the study of books on the supernatural and end up giving conclusions about them which (authors, date of writing) which are then used as evidence that the gospels are wrong.
I hope you can see the circular reasoning there.

 

[Brian2]

This is a Christian doctrine.

Yes it is, just as the idea that David the Son of God (Ps 2) also is used in the scriptures as a type for the Messiah.

 

[Brian2]

It is grammar (the word atah has an etnachta underneath indicating the end of a phrase which makes the object of the direct address discrete from the next noun), and it follows the logic established in the previous verses about the actual object of the direct address which shifts from the first person subject through the word vayomer li.

I was chosen to do x.
And he said to me, "you are the one"

pretty simple grammar.

I'm not familiar with the Hebrew so you will need to be more clear in your explanation.

 

[Brian2]

Isaiah, the entire book, can't be talking about Jesus. In Isaiah 42:8 it says:

“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
​

In the book of John 17:1-5 Jesus is quoted as saying:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
​

Isaiah says the Glory of The Lord is not shared. Jesus says the glory of the father is shared. It's a clear contradiction. The book of Isaiah doesn't agree with the Book of John; therefore, Isaiah is not talking about Jesus as the messiah.

No not all of Isaiah is about Jesus.
It is true that the New Testament reveals the Messiah as the Son of God, the one who owns and inherits all that the Father has, including His glory and name. See Psalm 2 for this information.
Any place in the Hebrew scriptures that speak of someone being given rulership on David's throne forever (eg Isa 9:6,7) or being God's firstborn of God (eg Ps 89:27-29) or being given a Kingdom that will last forever (eg Daniel 7:13,14) refers to this Messiah.
(It's interesting that He is given this Kingdom in heaven according to Daniel 7:13,14 and that is after He is dead)
He is also the sacrifice (foreshadowed by the sacrifices in the Law of Moses etc) to take away the consequences of death and gain forgiveness and salvation for all as in Isa 53.
The Jews have an idea of God and that cannot include a Son it seems even though the Torah says that God is what He is and will be what He will be, but the Jews think they know what God is and have rejected God's Son for whom He said He was, God's Son, and whom the Hebrew scriptures say will be the Messiah, the one who will come to rule and judge His Kingdom that He has inherited.
(Ezek 37:24)

 

[rosends]

I'm not familiar with the Hebrew so you will need to be more clear in your explanation.

I translated the flow of the text already.

 

[Brian2]

I translated the flow of the text already.

Isa 49:1Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”

It looks like you are assuming that it is Isaiah speaking in verse 1 even though Isaiah was a man of unclean lips and so his mouth was not like a sharpened sword who was hidden in the shadow of God's hand, a polished arrow concealed in his quiver.
Do you really think that much of Isaiah to think that God was going to display his splendor in him?

The one hidden and sharpened and polished was God's Son. The one in whom God would display His splendor is God's Son. He is the only one who could do that.

 

[rosends]

Isa 49:1Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”

It looks like you are assuming that it is Isaiah speaking in verse 1

Well, I'm not assuming -- this is the flow of the section of Isaiah and the first person use makes the most sense. This has been a standard way of understanding this section for over 1000 years.

even though Isaiah was a man of unclean lips and so his mouth was not like a sharpened sword who was hidden in the shadow of God's hand, a polished arrow concealed in his quiver.

Except the text says explicitly that it was like those things. Just because you don't like that tension doesn't mean that you can insert some other unnamed character into your reading.

Do you really think that much of Isaiah to think that God was going to display his splendor in him?

I think that Isaiah was reporting his actual experience with God. Do you think so little of him that you assume he was lying when he said what happened?

The one hidden and sharpened and polished was God's Son. The one in whom God would display His splendor is God's Son. He is the only one who could do that.

Again, this ignores what the text explicitly says and inserts a character that you need to be there, out of left field.

 

[gnostic]

I was speaking of Jesus post resurrection visits to the disciples and His explaining to them where He was in the Hebrew scriptures.

That's pure speculations.

In John 21, the thing it say is this:

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

This would be logical if this gospel was written shortly after Jesus left his apostles, but no. Instead this gospel (John) was composed about 70 years later.

If the author had decades to write what Jesus did after his resurrection, THEN he would have actually written everything down what Jesus did when he spent ONLY 40 DAYS with them.

This make you claim sounds illogical. The gap of around 70 years would have given the author of gospel of John plenty times to write what Jesus did in the 40 days before his departure.

 

[gnostic]

I did not think that the books of Samuel bore his name because they had been written by him.
It is a different thing with the gospels. The names attached to them are what has been passed down to us as the authors and what the evidence seems to indicate.

No. The gospels were written anonymously. Names were only applied afterward in the next century.

 

[Brian2]

Well, I'm not assuming -- this is the flow of the section of Isaiah and the first person use makes the most sense. This has been a standard way of understanding this section for over 1000 years.

Still there is an initial assumption that the "I" is Isaiah, and that should change when we find out that the one speaking could not be Isaiah because of what is said about him.
It sounds like there were other ways of understanding this section over 1000 years ago and probably still exist somewhere in Judaism.

Except the text says explicitly that it was like those things. Just because you don't like that tension doesn't mean that you can insert some other unnamed character into your reading.

The character is unnamed no matter who you want to insert and the description does not fit Isaiah. Of course Christians see Jesus in it because of the belief in what Jesus did and what and who He is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the Son, the splendor of God in human form, who showed God's splendor in coming and completing what His Father wanted Him to do, to love us and suffer and die for us all even while being spat upon and degraded and lied about.

I think that Isaiah was reporting his actual experience with God. Do you think so little of him that you assume he was lying when he said what happened?

I'm not the one who is assuming it is Isaiah. If I thought it was Isaiah I would esteem him even more than I do and maybe even see him as the one whom God chose to save the world.

Again, this ignores what the text explicitly says and inserts a character that you need to be there, out of left field.

Not really, I see myself as actually taking note of what the text says and you as inserting someone who does not fit with the text but you need to be there.

 

[Brian2]

That's pure speculations.

In John 21, the thing it say is this:



This would be logical if this gospel was written shortly after Jesus left his apostles, but no. Instead this gospel (John) was composed about 70 years later.

If the author had decades to write what Jesus did after his resurrection, THEN he would have actually written everything down what Jesus did when he spent ONLY 40 DAYS with them.

This make you claim sounds illogical. The gap of around 70 years would have given the author of gospel of John plenty times to write what Jesus did in the 40 days before his departure.

I don't see how it is illogical. The apostles did what was needed initially, and that was to preach the gospel to a reasonably uneducated people, orally and with examples of the power from the Lord by way of miracles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The need to write things down probably came later when they realised the extent of the spread of the gospel and that they would not be around forever and the need to write down what had happened as witness into the time after they were not there.
That said, there were probably those who did write things down in the very early years.
The conservative dating, without the assumption that the gospels are not true, has the synoptics being written in the 50s.
It is interesting that the only gospel that did not contain the prophecy of the temple was the one that was definitely written after the destruction.

 

[rosends]

Still there is an initial assumption that the "I" is Isaiah, and that should change when we find out that the one speaking could not be Isaiah because of what is said about him.

The assumption because the text says so...

It sounds like there were other ways of understanding this section over 1000 years ago and probably still exist somewhere in Judaism.

Does it? Can you show me some?

The character is unnamed no matter who you want to insert and the description does not fit Isaiah.

Accoring to you. According to me (and Judaism) it does.

Of course Christians see Jesus in it because of the belief in what Jesus did and what and who He is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the Son, the splendor of God in human form, who showed God's splendor in coming and completing what His Father wanted Him to do, to love us and suffer and die for us all even while being spat upon and degraded and lied about.

So Christians insert all this fiction because they need to. Got it.

I'm not the one who is assuming it is Isaiah. If I thought it was Isaiah I would esteem him even more than I do and maybe even see him as the one whom God chose to save the world.

God chose all of us to save the world.

Not really, I see myself as actually taking note of what the text says and you as inserting someone who does not fit with the text but you need to be there.

I'm not inserting -- I'm just reading the text and using what it says, and choosing not to deny it because I don't like what it says. You are taking a character who is no where in any relevant text and deciding that he is in it.

 

[Brian2]

No. The gospels were written anonymously. Names were only applied afterward in the next century.

Written anonymously in that they did not say in the gospels what their names were,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,as if that would make any difference for people who don't want to believe the gospels to be witness document.
The authors were know however and that is why people in the second century could say who they were.

 

[Harel13]

Sorry, I was too busy this week to answer.

He suffered and was killed and buried as a sin offering and to bear our sins but He lived to see His children.

I'm not familiar with this verse. Which one is this? Or is this your summation of the chapter?

I see mentions of a cutting from "a" land of (the?) living, a mention of his grave, but not that he lived to see his children. What the verse says is that if he gives his soul as a guilt offering, he might see children.

Strangely, Isaiah seems to be mincing words because he doesn't outright say this person will die, nor that he will certainly resurrect. Wonder why Isaiah would do that.

But again, let's ignore Isaiah's terminology. Are you implying that Jesus had children?

 

[Brian2]

Does it? Can you show me some?

I just said that because you seemed to be implying that before 1000 years ago there were other interpretations.

So Christians insert all this fiction because they need to. Got it.

No not really, it is just that Jesus was chosen by God to be the Saviour of both gentiles and Jews.

God chose all of us to save the world.

We are the ones who need to be saved. Saved from death that A@E brought into the world.
We can't pay the price for our own life let alone anyone else's.

I'm not inserting -- I'm just reading the text and using what it says, and choosing not to deny it because I don't like what it says. You are taking a character who is no where in any relevant text and deciding that he is in it.

Isn't that what both Jews and Christians do with what we call Messianic texts.
It is a matter of seeing the relevance of the New Testament texts and then you will see it is Jesus who fulfils Isa 49.
When it comes to Messianic texts it does however seem to me that Judaism is not consistent in which ones it has chosen and which ones rejected.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, I was too busy this week to answer.

I'm not familiar with this verse. Which one is this? Or is this your summation of the chapter?

I see mentions of a cutting from "a" land of (the?) living, a mention of his grave, but not that he lived to see his children. What the verse says is that if he gives his soul as a guilt offering, he might see children.

Jesus did that. Died and was buried as a criminal but in a rich man's grave. He gave His life as an guilt offering and in this way became a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110:4)

Strangely, Isaiah seems to be mincing words because he doesn't outright say this person will die, nor that he will certainly resurrect. Wonder why Isaiah would do that.

Being cut off from land of the living, (verse 8) being buried,(verse 9) making His life a sin/guilt offering, they all imply death.
Our iniquity was laid on Him by God. (verse 6)The judgement of God on sin is death.
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. (verse 7)That implies death.
He poured out His life unto death. (verse 12)

But again, let's ignore Isaiah's terminology. Are you implying that Jesus had children?

His salvation comes because He gave up His innocent life, a life worthy of eternal life because He had not sinned and took our place and we are invited to share in the eternal life that He sacrificed.
As we get our eternal life from Him, He is our Father.