• 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!

The prophesied Messiah

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I can think of many example where an old testament prophesy points to Jesus as God somehow.

Actually none of them do or the Jews would also believe that the Messiah would also be God.
Psalm 68 is about the Ark of the covenant in the Old testament and about Jesus in Ephesians and the Ark represents God's pressents

Psalm 45 is about the wedding of a Jewish king and used in Hebrews about Jesus saying in Hebrews 1:8 They throne Oh God is forever and ever and the righteous septer is the septer of your kingdome in the New Testament.

All these point to the earthly power of the Messiah as King as before descendant from the House of David, and not being an incarnate God, which would be against all of the Torah and Tanach. "God is not a man."

Numbers 23:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Zechariah speaks of God being insulted at being valued at 30 pieces of silver yet in the New Testament applied to Jesus with Judas betrayal

An extreme interpretative stretch out of context.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Actually none of them do or the Jews would also believe that the Messiah would also be God.


All these point to the earthly power of the Messiah as King as before descendant from the House of David, and not being an incarnate God, which would be against all of the Torah and Tanach. "God is not a man."

Numbers 23:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?



An extreme interpretative stretch out of context.


I also add "The Lord is our righteousness" from the prophets
and clearly in the New Testament, that is Jesus

The Lord Our Righteousness. "This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness"—Jeremiah 23:6

“Because of [God] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’” - 1 Corinthians 1:30–31
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I also add "The Lord is our righteousness" from the prophets
and clearly in the New Testament, that is Jesus

The Lord Our Righteousness. "This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness"—Jeremiah 23:6

No problem, in the context of the Old Testament reference to One as 'Lord' does not equate to the One being 'God.' Conflating context of the OT scripture for an agenda.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
No problem, in the context of the Old Testament reference to One as 'Lord' does not equate to the One being 'God.' Conflating context of the OT scripture for an agenda.

The Lord Our Righteousness. "This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness"—Jeremiah 23:6

in context? Jeremiah 23:2 "the LORD, the God of Israel, "

But it gets better... God condemns the false and says he himself will shepherd his people in Ezekiel and finally says he will set David as shepherd of his people.
Somehow Jesus, represented as David is God himself

Ezekiel 34:15 I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord God.

Ezekiel 24:23 And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
in context? Jeremiah 23:2 "the LORD, the God of Israel, "

Bad interpretation out of context you need to ask the Jews for their proper interpretation of the verse. First, reference to the Lord has different meanings in the OT.

This citation refers to God speaking and NOT a man God on earth. Saying that: "And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd." The 'one shepherd' on earth does not translate to 'God' on earth.

Numbers 23:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
 
Last edited:

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Bad interpretation out of context you need to ask the Jews for their proper interpretation of the verse. First, reference to the Lord has different meanings in the OT.

This citation refers to God speaking and NOT a man God on earth.

Numbers 23:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Additionally many titles of the Old Testament applied to Jesus. First and last, beginning and end, alpha and Omega.

God will not share his glory with another in Isaiah, but Jesus is the Lord of Glory in the New Testament

To God every know will bow and every tongue confess in Isaiah and in the New testament that is applied to Jesus

The glory of God is in 'the face of Christ' as Corinthians suggests
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
The word used in Numbers 23:19 is EL (H410), applicable to the God Most High singular, which is not like Elohim (H430)...

This understanding is stated in Isaiah 46:9 (that El is not like Elohim), where it starts by pointing back to the concepts found within Deuteronomy 32:7-9 of the Divine Council, and One God Most High; yet people follow a faulty eisegetical Rabbinic translation.

EL Elyon (God Most High) is the Source of reality, and Elohim are Divine Beings that interact with mankind for the Source.

The Bible is then easier to be understood exegetically, in terms of the physical interactions by Elohim (Divine Beings) being acceptable without creating polytheism, as they're all aspects of the one Divine Source (EL).

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Zion & Israel always have a Spiritual meaning, even if they can be connected to actual places. Those are very interesting verses, there is some meaning that presents itself right off, however there seems to be other meaning, there, as well. Takes further consideration.
There is no problem with using "Zion" and "Israel" metaphorically, so long as an individual understands that REALLY they are an actual literal place, and Israel is an actual literal tribe of people that has existed for thousands of years and is connected to that place.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
In times past, Jews have perhaps been more messianic. Certainly in the second temple era, it was a hotbed of messianic fervor. But today, except for certain groups such as Chabad, the coming messiah is really an afterthought.
I think it would be more accurate to say aside for Orthodoxy as a whole, not specific groups of it.

The Lubavitchers (Chabad) are a notable exception to this. They truly believe that the Rebbe IS the messiah, and that he will rise from the dead. However, unlike Christians, they do not believe that he is God. Chabad may be "out there" in their messianic views, but they are still firmly Jewish, and we love them to death.
Not all Lubavitchers believe this. I'm not even sure if the majority of them believe this.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I think there is a difference between those who attend Chabad (such as myself whenever I can) and those who run it.
Chabad isn't really an organization. They're a branch of hassidism and they have members just like any other branch. It happens to be that this particular branch is known to run various organizations. But the members themselves, the hassidim themselves don't have a unified stance on this.
 

Tranquil Servant

Was M.I.A for a while
There is no problem with using "Zion" and "Israel" metaphorically, so long as an individual understands that REALLY they are an actual literal place, and Israel is an actual literal tribe of people that has existed for thousands of years and is connected to that place.
I find that a lot of the time in the bible when God is speaking or speaking through people, not only is he speaking literally but metaphorically; especially when prophesying
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
The Messiah will:
  1. be a descendant of King David. This necessarily excludes adoptive/foster parents. There is also a descendant that was cursed by God and the messiah cannot be descended from him.
  2. will rule from the throne in Jerusalem
  3. will bring peace on earth
  4. will bring all the Jews back to Eretz Yisrael
You will notice that Jesus fulfilled none of these prophecies, which is why Jews ignore him. Indeed there have been many contenders for messiah and all have failed. Bar Kochba was probably the most hopeful contender, and he too failed.

It can be the way these are interpreted and having an expectation of how they will be fulfilled that become the clouds that Christ returns on.

Clouds prevent the Sun from shining through.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
I just wanted to share this to see what you guys think and I posted this in another thread I started...
Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
What do you guys think about this?:handpointdown:.....
Isaiah 35
The Glory of Zion
(Matthew 9:32-34; Mark 7:31-37)

1 The wilderness and the land will be glad;
the desert will rejoice and blossom like a rose.
2 It will bloom abundantly
and even rejoice with joy and singing.
The glory of Lebanon will be given it,
the splendor of Carmel and Sharon.
They will see the glory of the LORD,
the splendor of our God.
3 Strengthen the limp hands
and steady the feeble knees!
4 Say to those with anxious hearts:
“Be strong, do not fear!
Behold, your God will come with vengeance.
With divine retribution He will come to save you.”
5 Then the eyes of the blind will be opened
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
6 Then the lame will leap like a deer
and the mute tongue will shout for joy.
For waters will gush forth in the wilderness,
and streams in the desert.
7 The parched ground will become a pool,
the thirsty land springs of water.
In the haunt where jackals once lay,
there will be grass and reeds and papyrus.
8 And there will be a highway
called the Way of Holiness.
The unclean will not travel it,
only those who walk in that Way—
and fools will not stray onto it.
9 No lion will be there,
and no vicious beast will go up on it.
Such will not be found there,
but the redeemed will walk upon it,
10 and the ransomed of the LORD will return.
They will enter Zion with singing,
crowned with everlasting joy.
Joy and gladness will overtake them,
and sorrow and sighing will flee.

One quick note is that Carmel and Sharon have seen the 'Glory of the Lord'.

It is a great passage and has unfolded.

Regards Tony
 

Tranquil Servant

Was M.I.A for a while
There is no problem with using "Zion" and "Israel" metaphorically, so long as an individual understands that REALLY they are an actual literal place, and Israel is an actual literal tribe of people that has existed for thousands of years and is connected to that place.
I find that a lot of the time in the bible when God is speaking or speaking through people, not only is he speaking literally but metaphorically; especially when prophesying
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Additionally many titles of the Old Testament applied to Jesus. First and last, beginning and end, alpha and Omega.

God will not share his glory with another in Isaiah, but Jesus is the Lord of Glory in the New Testament

To God every know will bow and every tongue confess in Isaiah and in the New testament that is applied to Jesus.

Sound bites as to what you believe is not an argument.

The glory of God is in 'the face of Christ' as Corinthians suggests

I agree, but this does not translate to Jesus Christ is God incarnate.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
There is no problem with using "Zion" and "Israel" metaphorically, so long as an individual understands that REALLY they are an actual literal place
Words have additional meaning based on sentence structure, inside paragraph structure, inside integral structuring...

Yet generally people only look at the surface levels they want to believe in...

Which is why they didn't understand Yeshua Elohim in Isaiah 52:10 or Psalms 98:3... Plus Salvation's evolution in the Tanakh (H3444).

If they did, they'd already have the wisdom to see who the Messiah is.

Israel & Zion can mean multiple things depending on their context. :oops:

In my opinion. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Jesus having the same titles as God is not a sound bite.

Titles as 'Lord' do not translate as to being an incarnate God. The tittle(?) the Alpha and Omega simply describes Jesus Christ has always existed.

It is a unresolvable conflict that OT theology that a 'Man cannot be God' as cited.

Numbers 23:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The word used in Numbers 23:19 is EL (H410), applicable to the God Most High singular, which is not like Elohim (H430)...

This understanding is stated in Isaiah 46:9 (that El is not like Elohim), where it starts by pointing back to the concepts found within Deuteronomy 32:7-9 of the Divine Council, and One God Most High; yet people follow a faulty eisegetical Rabbinic translation.

EL Elyon (God Most High) is the Source of reality, and Elohim are Divine Beings that interact with mankind for the Source.

The Bible is then easier to be understood exegetically, in terms of the physical interactions by Elohim (Divine Beings) being acceptable without creating polytheism, as they're all aspects of the one Divine Source (EL).

In my opinion. :innocent:

This is a tough stretch of interpretation of OT references inherited from Canaanite/Ugarite polytheism. Once you extend this interpretation to the Trinity you are already down the slope to polythesim, an in this case Tritheism.
 
Top