Micah 5:1

[Tumah]

He did need to be born there to fulfill the rest of the well known prophecies of his coming. Who would Rachel be weeping over if Jesus hadn't been in Bethlehem to cause Herod to send his men there to kill all the male babies? Because Herod was going to do that another well known prophecy was fulfilled. Jesus was taken to Egypt to hide which fulfilled the "out of Egypt I will call my son" prophecy. After that, because Mary and Joseph weren't from Bethlehem, they returned to their home, thus fulfilling yet another prophecy, "He will be called a Nazarene."

All this is so clear to all Christians. Why is it so hard for you Jews to see this? What excuse do you have for not believing? I suppose you think that someone could possibly have made it all up. Not likely. Too many provable facts, like the census, Herod killing the babies, Jesus being in Egypt. I'll bet you if we look hard enough we can find prophecies that have the three wise men and the star they followed and that Jesus was born on December 25th and we should decorate a tree in his honor like the good book says or should say. Anyway, if we can't find it, maybe we can write it in somewhere or maybe take two or three obscure passages and put them together to make it fulfill what we need. What's the Jewish word for December? or at least word that's close?

Oh goodness.
The cause of Rachel's weeping in Jeremiah 31:14 is explained in Jeremiah 31:15, "So says, G-d, hold back your voice from crying and your eyes from tears...and they shall return from the land of the enemy." She is weeping over her exiled children.

What is so clear to you is because the authors of your Bible purposely based their accounts off Scriptures so that they can twist them for their needs. Once you stop looking at the NT as authoritative, you will be able to see that the way they turned verses around really doesn't make any sense. Take this reinterpretation of Rachel's crying as an example. Why in the world are you saying its about Jesus, when Jeremiah clearly puts the reason in G-d's Name, to be about the exile of Israel?

It is because, the NT is not clear at all. In fact, one could say its purposely cloudy in order to lead you to accept its reinterpretation of Scriptures. I would not say it is completely fictional. There are some parts that are historically verifiable. But that's ok because we have another category we can put it it: Historical fiction. It's clear to you, because you live in its darkness and your eyes already adjusted to it. But when you step out of the NT for just a bit, and read the OT on its own terms, you will immediately be struck with the realization that it doesn't say what the NT says it says. And that is an observation that I've heard numerous times from both former Christians, and objective (ie. neither Christian nor Jewish) third-parties.

So what you are really relying on for your belief in the NT's version of Scriptures right now, is not your intellect, but your "holy spirit". A euphemism, for your imagination, which makes up reasons why the NT makes sense.

 

[RabbiO]

Why in the world are you saying.....

Reread the post you replied to.

Call it parody, call it satire, call it sarcastic, but it is not a serious representation of what CG Didymus personally thinks.

Peter

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All this is so clear to all Christians. Why is it so hard for you Jews to see this? What excuse do you have for not believing? I suppose you think that someone could possibly have made it all up. Not likely. Too many provable facts, like the census, Herod killing the babies, Jesus being in Egypt.

Provable facts? Seriously? :biglaugh:

I suspect that attributing such nonsense to "all Christians" does many of your brethren a disservice.

What is so clear to you is because the authors of your Bible purposely based their accounts off Scriptures so that they can twist them for their needs.

The term 'twist' strikes me as overly derogatory. I prefer 'midrashic.'

 

[Tumah]

The term 'twist' strikes me as overly derogatory. I prefer 'midrashic.'

I suspect you don't realize the place Midrash has in Judaism, nor exactly what the term describes.

Please see Sabbath 63a, Yavamos 24a, "the verse does not come out of its simple meaning."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suspect you don't realize the place Midrash has in Judaism, nor exactly what the term describes.

Suspect what you wish.

 

[CG Didymus]

Reread the post you replied to.

Call it parody, call it satire, call it sarcastic, but it is not a serious representation of what CG Didymus personally thinks.

Peter

Thanks, you got it. But Tumah is so right about how the NT writers took verses, placed them in their own narrative and called them prophetic proofs.The context from where they were snatched becomes meaningless to them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Provable facts? Seriously? :biglaugh:

I suspect that attributing such nonsense to "all Christians" does many of your brethren a disservice.'

I hope not all Christians believe that way, but enough of them do. And, when I was a "Christian", I was taught that way. Then, I read the verses in context. It seems way too obvious that the NT writers had an agenda. They weren't there when Jesus was born, so how do they know the "facts" about how and where he was born? The two stories in the gospels are different, yet, somehow, made to "harmonize". But the story becomes factual because it is in the NT, therefore, to them, God said so. Thus, it is provable because that is what is written in "God's" word the NT. And, to say it is not the truth makes God, not the writers, a liar. He is the real authority behind the NT.

So the verses are not thought of as being out of context, but now they put into their proper place, as being prophetic. Hey, it all kind of made sense, sort of, to me when I was a Christian. Then, on top of that, many Christians teach that if you have doubts and get confused, it is Satan, the devil, trying to confuse you. So what is a believer to do? In a way, they really can't think for themselves. They have to just accept what they are being told on that all important little word, "faith".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So the verses are not thought of as being out of context, but now they put into their proper place, as being prophetic.

You're babbling. You claimed …

All this is so clear to all Christians. Why is it so hard for you Jews to see this? What excuse do you have for not believing? I suppose you think that someone could possibly have made it all up. Not likely. Too many provable facts, like the census, Herod killing the babies, Jesus being in Egypt.

Prove them!

 

[Tumah]

I hope not all Christians believe that way, but enough of them do. And, when I was a "Christian", I was taught that way. Then, I read the verses in context. It seems way too obvious that the NT writers had an agenda. They weren't there when Jesus was born, so how do they know the "facts" about how and where he was born? The two stories in the gospels are different, yet, somehow, made to "harmonize". But the story becomes factual because it is in the NT, therefore, to them, God said so. Thus, it is provable because that is what is written in "God's" word the NT. And, to say it is not the truth makes God, not the writers, a liar. He is the real authority behind the NT.

So the verses are not thought of as being out of context, but now they put into their proper place, as being prophetic. Hey, it all kind of made sense, sort of, to me when I was a Christian. Then, on top of that, many Christians teach that if you have doubts and get confused, it is Satan, the devil, trying to confuse you. So what is a believer to do? In a way, they really can't think for themselves. They have to just accept what they are being told on that all important little word, "faith".

My apologies. I didn't realize you were explaining the Christian viewpoint with tongue-in-cheek. I guess you would be an expert at it, so its not surprising, but your response was so typically Christian, that I thought you actually were. Sorry again.

 

[Sleeppy]

Thanks, you got it. But Tumah is so right about how the NT writers took verses, placed them in their own narrative and called them prophetic proofs.

How many of the prophets do you suppose incorporated terms and ideas from previous works, to prophesy?

The context from where they were snatched becomes meaningless to them.

Not necessarily.

 

[Tumah]

How many of the prophets do you suppose incorporated terms and ideas from previous works, to prophesy?

Probably there is a difference between incorporating ideas from previous prophecies into new prophecies that carry on along the same ideas. As opposed to incorporating terms from older prophecies into completely new and unrelated prophecies.

 

[Sleeppy]

Probably there is a difference between incorporating ideas from previous prophecies into new prophecies that carry on along the same ideas. As opposed to incorporating terms from older prophecies into completely new and unrelated prophecies.

Of course; it is as you've described. But, I'd be willing to bet that both were done. This just isn't unique to Christianity, or Judaism, or any other society.

 

[Tumah]

Of course; it is as you've described. But, I'd be willing to bet that both were done. This just isn't unique to Christianity, or Judaism, or any other society.

Why bet, when you can just prove that there are Jewish prophets that have done this and then your comments will have so much more value?

 

[Sleeppy]

Why bet, when you can just prove that there are Jewish prophets that have done this and then your comments will have so much more value?

SATAN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Job, as far as I know, calls Satan a Son of God; a unique being-- which had never been done before him.




Jesus referred to himself as the/a Son of Man.

Son of man (Judaism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I can continue to comb through these books, but these two examples should suffice.

I could create a longer list, with time.

 

[Sleeppy]

Talmud and Midrash Rabbis also continue the tradition, to this day.

 

[Tumah]

SATAN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Job, as far as I know, calls Satan a Son of God; a unique being-- which had never been done before him.



Jesus referred to himself as the/a Son of Man.

Son of man (Judaism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I can continue to comb through these books, but these two examples should suffice.

I could create a longer list, with time.

You may want to take a quick peak at your Book of Job 1:6 again. And while you have your Bible open, why don't you head right on over to Genesis 6:2.

Also, "children of G-d", is not a phrase used in a prophecy. It's a noun used in a description of events that had already occurred.

We are all sons of Man. "בן אדם", "BeN ADaM", "son [of] Adam (and Eve)." Son of Man. Adam = Man in Hebrew. According to Wikipedia, this phrase is used 107 times before Jesus appropriated it for himself.

I'm also not quite sure how this was meant to be an example of what we had been discussing though.

 

[Sleeppy]

You may want to take a quick peak at your Book of Job 1:6 again. And while you have your Bible open, why don't you head right on over to Genesis 6:2.

Also, "children of G-d", is not a phrase used in a prophecy. It's a noun used in a description of events that had already occurred.

We are all sons of Man. "בן אדם", "BeN ADaM", "son [of] Adam (and Eve)." Son of Man. Adam = Man in Hebrew. According to Wikipedia, this phrase is used 107 times before Jesus appropriated it for himself.

I'm also not quite sure how this was meant to be an example of what we had been discussing though.

As we can see, these ideas have been used and reused; defined and redefined (107 times, concerning Ben Adam). How do the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 differ from those of Job 1:6? How did Ezekiel's description of himself, as the Son of Man, differ from the other prophets?

 

[Sleeppy]

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

It's not logical to assume that Matthew sought to replace Hosea's idea. Instead, Matthew uses (calls attention to) Hosea's idea, simply stating the Jesus had fled to Egypt and returned to Israel, AS WELL. Abraham and Jacob would've also satisfied Matthew's understanding.

I've seen that not every Jew believes the literal accuracy of the Exodus. Some of you believe it never happened as described, whereas others of you believe in varying detail. Who would these two opposing views each identify as the "son" who was called out of Egypt?

 

[Sleeppy]

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

If I take this quote and reuse it to describe something I am personally experiencing-- How are you able to say God isn't consistent in fulfilling His own words?



Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.

.. And who's to say this specific quote isn't an accurate description of what happened with Martin Luther King, or Gandhi, or any other revolutionary martyr?

 

[Sleeppy]

To put this even more simply:

Hosea 11:1 is to 6+5=11, as Matthew 2:15 is to 11-6=5.

The "5" is what Matthew quotes.