There ain't no Jesus here.

[rosends]

The Messiah dying is part of the prophecies.

No, it isn't.

 

[rosends]

I have to disagree. The whole of the Tanach is diffused with references, both in theme and in specific prophecy, that refer to Jesus.

Let's take two that have caused confusion for the sages of old.
KJV Zechariah 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***.'
JSB Zechariah 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion; Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem! Lo, your king is coming to you. He is victorious, triumphant, Yet humble, riding on an ***, On a donkey foaled by a she-***.'

KJV Daniel 7:13,14.'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.'
JSB Daniel 7:13,14. 'As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a human being Came with the clouds of heaven; He reached the Ancient of Days And was presented to Him. Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; All peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, And his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed.'

These two passages have traditionally been understood to refer to a future king, yet they cannot be easily understood as referring to the same king. How would you explain these passages?

You make a couple of mistakes here. The first is in assuming that the "sages of old" were confused by these verses. That is simply wrong.
Then you cite a verse that mentions a "king" and claim that it refers to Jesus. They simply don't. There is nothing in them that would isolate Jesus more than, in the Zechariah, anyone else who rode a donkey (note the mistaken "and" added by the KJV).

Then you cite Daniel in an effort to use his "prophecies". This fails on a couple of levels. First, you seem not to understand the entire role and purpose of Daniel within Judaism. That's fine. Then you seem not to understand how the verses in Daniel can refer to the same person as Zechariah because one rides an animal and one, in a vision, appeared to arrive on a cloud. The simplest answer, aside from the very nature of Daniel's statements (as a dream vision with an interpretation presented by Daniel which has "the man" not as the messiah...) is that Zechariah's discussion was before he was recognized as king and Daniel's is from after.

Again, nothing in the Daniel text that mentions or in any way identifies Jesus.

 

[wizanda]

No, it isn't.

Just because Rabbinic literature doesn't explain it for you, doesn't mean something isn't there in the Tanakh.

Daniel 9:26 After the sixty-two weeks the Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and its end shall be with a flood, and even to the end shall be war; desolations are determined.

 

[wizanda]

presented by Daniel which has "the man" not as the messiah

The person related in Daniel's vision is appointed by the Ancient of Days, to be king over the Messianic age; yet that isn't the Messiah according to you?

First, you seem not to understand the entire role and purpose of Daniel within Judaism.

Some people ignoring prophets, doesn't make the rest of the world that arrogant.

 

[rosends]

Just because Rabbinic literature doesn't explain it for you, doesn't mean something isn't there in the Tanakh.

Daniel 9:26 After the sixty-two weeks the Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and its end shall be with a flood, and even to the end shall be war; desolations are determined.

No, just because you need to find something and invent its presence doesn't mean it actually exists. The Daniel section has been so thoroughly explained and yet you don't like how it has been understood for over a thousand years that you insist otherwise. That's sad. I'm sure there is an emoji for "pathetic."

 

[rosends]

The person related in Daniel's vision is appointed by the Ancient of Days, to be king over the Messianic age; yet that isn't the Messiah according to you?

Well, as is explained to Daniel as the ones actually to inherit are written in the plural, you say it applies to one man? Wow.

Some people ignoring prophets, doesn't make the rest of the world that arrogant.

Some people not understanding what a prophet is doesn't make anyone change the technical term which existed before those people. Feel free to try and redefine things because you have to.

 

[wizanda]

The Daniel section has been so thoroughly explained and yet you don't like how it has been understood for over a thousand years that you insist otherwise.

Sorry yet you're the minority of people, who refuse to accept how it is commonly understood.

Some people not understanding what a prophet is

Most of the world accepts Daniel as a prophet, even Muslims do...

So again, you're just in refusal of what the Tanakh says, and would rather follow the Rabbis.

 

[rosends]

Sorry yet you're the minority of people, who refuse to accept how it is commonly understood.

Most of the world accepts Daniel as a prophet, even Muslims do...

So again, you're just in refusal of what the Tanakh says, and would rather follow the Rabbis.

Ah, an argument relying on the majority. Well, the majority of the world population is Christian so everyone else must be wrong. Everyone else's refusal to accede to whatever Christianity says is wrongheaded because they are the majority.

Right?

What's funny is that this stuff was "commonly understood" by Jews well before anyone else came up with ideas and refused to accept how it was "commonly understood" because it didn't endorse their bastardized theologies.

When Islam outnumbers Christianity and the new "common understanding" flies in the face of Christianity, will Christians then dump their beliefs?

 

[Flankerl]

rosends I don't get why you still do this.

 

[wizanda]

What's funny is that this stuff was "commonly understood" by Jews

That would depend on which sect you're talking about.

rosends I don't get why you still do this.

He does it so he can try to look superior; yet you're right, often he fails miserably.

When Islam outnumbers Christianity and the new "common understanding" flies in the face of Christianity, will Christians then dump their beliefs?

Well both of them accept Daniel as a prophet... It flies in the face of logic to say Daniel wasn't prophesying what would happen.

it didn't endorse their bastardized theologies.

lol, Yeshua isn't bastardized, and still fits into prophecy globally; it's the Pharisees who have been disowned, and are still claiming they're a chosen people.

 

[rosends]

That would depend on which sect you're talking about.

Well, clearly, the majority. isn't that what you have decided is always right?

Well both of them accept Daniel as a prophet... It flies in the face of logic to say Daniel wasn't prophesying what would happen.

So you will accept Mohammed as a prophet. Got it. And as for Daniel, you keep using words you don't understand. It is sad to watch, but also funny.

lol, Yeshua isn't bastardized, and still fits into prophecy globally; it's the Pharisees who have been disowned, and are still claiming they're a chosen people.

No, it is your bizarre inventions about some fictional "Yeshua" (haven't you learned that that isn't even his name?) that are pretend. You can feel free to disown whatever you want. Since your opinion is misinformed, your conclusions are laughable. Note -- I'm laughing at you and I appreciate that you bring such joy into my life by saying such ignorant and erroneous things.

 

[wizanda]

the majority. isn't that what you have decided is always right?

Nope the majority isn't always right.... It is just you can't say, 'Some people not understanding what a prophet is', when the majority think that way, and only Rabbinic Judaism says that he isn't a prophet, as he wasn't in Israel when he prophesied.

So you will accept Mohammed as a prophet.

Muhammad clearly said the Bible had been corrupted, just after it was canonized; so I accept him for the things he put forward.

haven't you learned that that isn't even his name?

Yeshua is a shortened version of Yehoshua; there is a reason to use it, as it fits into more prophecies within the Tanakh.

You can feel free to disown whatever you want.

I didn't need to do anything, sad you don't understand your own text; Yeshua fulfilled Zechariah 11, and thus your covenant was broken, 2nd temple destroyed, and the people expelled from the land.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It's true that Jesus died. This fact is itself a stumblingstone for Muslims. Jesus' death was a necessary fulfilment of law and prophecy. Let's not forget that whilst hanging on the cross, Jesus managed to utter the first words of Psalm 22, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? What more graphic account can one have of the inner struggles of a man being crucified? Here are some of the words of that Psalm:
'But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and roaring lion.
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
I may tell all my bones: they look upon me.
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.' (KJV)

How is this passage explained away?

 

[rosends]

Nope the majority isn't always right

Ah, so your argument about my being in the minority is now rendered obsolete. Good work

.... It is just you can't say, 'Some people not understanding what a prophet is', when the majority think that way,

So if the majority wants to say that a certain word in Basque means something, but the minority who actually speak Basque say otherwise, they can't do it. Got it.

and only Rabbinic Judaism says that he isn't a prophet, as he wasn't in Israel when he prophesied.

Actually, that's not accurate. It just shows that you don't understand what a prophet is. But that's ok. You just keep operating under your veil of ignorance.

Muhammad clearly said the Bible had been corrupted, just after it was canonized; so I accept him for the things he put forward.

And you will accept him as a prophet. Got it.

Yeshua is a shortened version of Yehoshua; there is a reason to use it, as it fits into more prophecies within the Tanakh.

Not only is this wrong for a transliterational reason but you just admitted that you selectively use a "shortened" version because it feeds your interpretation of what you see as prophecies. In other words, his actual name doesn't work so you decide to use the shortened one. The fact that your shortened one is wrong and that it actually isn't related to any prophecies is just icing on the cake.

I didn't need to do anything, sad you don't understand your own text; Yeshua fulfilled Zechariah 11, and thus your covenant was broken, 2nd temple destroyed, and the people expelled from the land.

Ah, I, and all the people who have been studying the text have it wrong and it takes someone else from the outside to get it right. That ranks up there with the Russian politician telling the American legal scholar that the American doesn't understand the Bill of Rights. You clearly don't understand Zech 11, as it is not at all a messianic prophecy, so claiming it was fulfilled because the gospels appropriate similar imagery is just sad.

 

[rosends]

It's true that Jesus died. This fact is itself a stumblingstone for Muslims. Jesus' death was a necessary fulfilment of law and prophecy. Let's not forget that whilst hanging on the cross, Jesus managed to utter the first words of Psalm 22, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? What more graphic account can one have of the inner struggles of a man being crucified? Here are some of the words of that Psalm:
'But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and roaring lion.
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
I may tell all my bones: they look upon me.
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.' (KJV)

How is this passage explained away?

Explained away? How about, "understood correctly"?

Here, you can read all about it.
http://drazin.com/?12._The_Suffering_Servant#Psalms22-2

I can get more if you need.

 

[wizanda]

Actually, that's not accurate.

Having just questioned that topic with a Jewish professor of Biblical studies; maybe explain why you don't see it that way?

In other words, his actual name doesn't work s

So what do you think his name was?

 

[rosends]

Having just questioned that topic with a Jewish professor of Biblical studies; maybe explain why you don't see it that way?

You can "question the topic" with anyone you want. Maybe your expert forgot to discuss with you the technical requirements of a biblical prophet beyond being in Israel (not every prophet was in Israel when she or he prophesied, by the way).

So what do you think his name was?

What do I think? It doesn't matter what I think. I know that the nickname for Yehoshua should not be transliterated Yeshua according to the biblical text. If you can't read the Hebrew, that's not my fault.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Rosends, it's an interesting response, and one that I half expected given the marginal notes in the JSB! But I do think that in using this response, where the subject of Psalm 22 becomes the Jewish people in exile in Babylon (Rashi), you have become guilty of cherry-picking - an accusation you made against Christian interpretation.
The weakness of this interpretation is to be found in verses 15-19 where the focus becomes the 'mortal illness' of the subject. The exiled Jews in Babylon may have suffered threats from Haman but they were not brought to extinction or death. The individual in this passage is committed 'to the dust of death'.

The web site you directed me to also said the following:

'The New Testament (Matthew 27:46) quotes the first verse of this Psalm , 22:2, as the last words of Jesus on the cross before his death. But this is absurd! Jesus' sole purpose for coming into the world is said to have been to suffer and die for the sins of others, so that they would be spared a similiar fate, and now when this moment finally arrived, he accuses G-d of abandoning him?! The reader will find evidence on page 173 that Jesus greatly feared death by crucifixion.'

A couple of things. These were not Jesus' last words from the cross - a minor point! More importantly, whilst Jesus did come to save people from sin and death his 'abandonment' is a necessary part of the punishment for bearing the sins of others. Deuteronomy 21:22, 23. 'And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.'

When Jesus bore the sins of others on the tree he became 'accursed of God'. No wonder God abandoned Jesus at this time! Is God not HOLY?

 

[rosends]

Rosends, it's an interesting response, and one that I half expected given the marginal notes in the JSB! But I do think that in using this response, where the subject of Psalm 22 becomes the Jewish people in exile in Babylon (Rashi), you have become guilty of cherry-picking - an accusation you made against Christian interpretation.
The weakness of this interpretation is to be found in verses 15-19 where the focus becomes the 'mortal illness' of the subject. The exiled Jews in Babylon may have suffered threats from Haman but they were not brought to extinction or death. The individual in this passage is committed 'to the dust of death'.

I don't see anywhere in Psalm 22 where dust of death refers to all the people. The wars, oppression and exile certainly resulted in the crushing death of many people and the loss of national identity of the nation. I do see in verse 17 a direct reference to Isaiah which makes the image precisely about Israel; I hope you see that.

When Jesus bore the sins of others on the tree he became 'accursed of God'. No wonder God abandoned Jesus at this time! Is God not HOLY?

Oh, so Jesus wasn't holy. Got it.

 

[Akivah]

rosends I don't get why you still do this.

It's educational. Personally, I get a laugh each time rosends quotes their own words (and conclusions) back to them.

I want to frame "Got it."