There ain't no Jesus here.

[Muffled]

If you read the first chapter of John's Gospel, you understand that the relationship between Jesus and God described in those passages, is something totally incompatible with the description of the Messiah in the OT.
Saint Paul noticed this great contradiction, and all his epistles are just a desperate attempt to make these two completely different religious traditions match with one another. He didn't realize that, because of this unnatural process, most of his epistles have contradictory passages.

I believe I must have missed that part. Perhaps you could provide textual proof other than just saying so.

 

[Muffled]

If that's the case, I'd be interested to know how you ever get to Jesus?

Why do you think no one understood them, when they have clear and obvious meaning?

Somehow I think either your sabra was a Christian or it didn't really happen. I assume you are referring to Isaiah 11:1.
The first word means "rod" and its the same word found in Prov. 14:3. It has nothing to do with a tree living or dead. In fact usually rods are dead wood.
The second word means "shoot" and it refers to a live growth with no implications about its source. In fact in another place, its implied that it is growing from live roots (Isa. 60:21). So there is no such idea present in this verse.

I was brought up in a Christian Church and attended mostly continually until receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior. However I have no idea what the source was that connected Jesus to God for me before actually finding it in scripture. I figure it had to be the Spirit of God guiding me. I didn't start reading OT prophecy until after I was saved. The reading in my youth was Genesis Exodus and part of Leviticus where I got bogged down. Proverbs in my teens.

I don't believe the meanings are always clear. For instance in the Qu'ran Jesus turns himself into a bird. Is that clear in meaning to you? The Holy Spirit had to explain it to me. In the book of Revelation the Harlot sits on seven hills and Jerusalem has seven hills but some people say that Rome does also, so is that clear? In Zechariah Jeshua is told he stand as a representative of the Messaiah. Is it clear that the Messiah would be named Jeshua (Jesus)?

He was Jewish and my understanding of the passage was not his.

I believe many translations had it as "branch" and some since have revised it to "shoot." I would think a person who speaks the language as a native would know.

Zec 3:8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou and thy fellows that sit before thee; for they are men that are a sign: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch

 

[Muffled]

The Messiah dying is part of the prophecies.

So is His resurrection. The unfulfilled prophecies fall under the heading of His return and are still to happen in the future.

 

[wizanda]

So is His resurrection.

Please give the verses you think are related to his resurrection in the Tanakh.

 

[Tumah]

I was brought up in a Christian Church and attended mostly continually until receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior. However I have no idea what the source was that connected Jesus to God for me before actually finding it in scripture. I figure it had to be the Spirit of God guiding me. I didn't start reading OT prophecy until after I was saved. The reading in my youth was Genesis Exodus and part of Leviticus where I got bogged down. Proverbs in my teens.

I don't believe the meanings are always clear. For instance in the Qu'ran Jesus turns himself into a bird. Is that clear in meaning to you? The Holy Spirit had to explain it to me. In the book of Revelation the Harlot sits on seven hills and Jerusalem has seven hills but some people say that Rome does also, so is that clear? In Zechariah Jeshua is told he stand as a representative of the Messaiah. Is it clear that the Messiah would be named Jeshua (Jesus)?

He was Jewish and my understanding of the passage was not his.

I believe many translations had it as "branch" and some since have revised it to "shoot." I would think a person who speaks the language as a native would know.

Zec 3:8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou and thy fellows that sit before thee; for they are men that are a sign: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch

I'm not sure if you were just intending to tell me your life story, or if you were trying to say that you can or can't read the "OT" without seeing Jesus. That was my question and I'm not sure you answered it. I'm not even 100% sure what you're saying here. Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in Zecharia. So I'm quite lost.

The word that you have translated as "Branch". It seems like "Shoot" would be the more correct translation. The root word used comes from the word "to sprout". A shoot is something that sprouts. When the word "branch" is used in Eze. 17:8, the tree is said to have "made branch" not "sprout branches".

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.'

Rosends, I'd like a clearer explanation from you concerning these passages.

In Daniel 7:13,14 it says that 'One like a human being came with the clouds of heaven'. This must be a reference to the Messiah because it states later on that he is given an everlasting dominion as king. This Messiah is to be served by all peoples and nations. Who else can it be?

Notice that the one 'like a human being' or 'Son of man' reached the Ancient of Days. It was 'one like a human being' going or ascending to God. It was not the 'one like a human being' descending to earth. It also states that the dominion and everlasting kingdom are not given until he has ascended and been presented to the Ancient of Days.

According to you, there can be no ascension. Because for the Messiah to ascend would necessitate a second coming to bring about his dominion. Yet this passage explicitly states that there is an ascension. And, of course, this ascension is clearly evident in the New Testament. Acts 1:9-11 'And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he [Jesus] was taken up: and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.'

Daniel's prophecy, or vision, is very specific. It means that there must be a difference in 'coming' between the king who comes lowly upon a donkey and the king who is given an everlasting dominion.

 

[rosends]

Rosends, I'd like a clearer explanation from you concerning these passages.

In Daniel 7:13,14 it says that 'One like a human being came with the clouds of heaven'. This must be a reference to the Messiah because it states later on that he is given an everlasting dominion as king. This Messiah is to be served by all peoples and nations. Who else can it be?

Notice that the one 'like a human being' or 'Son of man' reached the Ancient of Days. It was 'one like a human being' going or ascending to God. It was not the 'one like a human being' descending to earth. It also states that the dominion and everlasting kingdom are not given until he has ascended and been presented to the Ancient of Days.

According to you, there can be no ascension. Because for the Messiah to ascend would necessitate a second coming to bring about his dominion. Yet this passage explicitly states that there is an ascension. And, of course, this ascension is clearly evident in the New Testament. Acts 1:9-11 'And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he [Jesus] was taken up: and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.'

Daniel's prophecy, or vision, is very specific. It means that there must be a difference in 'coming' between the king who comes lowly upon a donkey and the king who is given an everlasting dominion.

First, to clarify. Daniel might have received a prophecy but that doesn't make him a prophet. There is an important distinction in Judaism which impacts how we understand his message. That may frustrate you but it is an idea which has been a part of Judaism for 2000+ years.
Second, you assume that there is an ascension. The text never indicates an ascension. It indicates the arrival of someone who is brought before God who is judging all mankind. Why is that 2 people and 2 events? Why must God, when judging mankind, be separate? Here is a translation: "I saw in the night visions and, behold, with the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days, and he was presented before Him" so this is a singular messianic figure, not 2 or 3 (one coming, one coming to, and one being presented). No one descending or ascending. Of course, this assumes that Daniel's dream-vision was meant to be literal and any messianic figure has to arrive with clouds and not riding, say, a donkey.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

To me being familiar with the letters, they look quite different and there are two out of the three letters that are different.
גמל - camel
חבל - rope
And in Pale-Hebrew (used until 135 CE) they look even more different

- camel

- rope

Thank you Tumah very much, because I have wondered about that for a long time. The term Pale-Hebrew ( until 135 CE ) is also new to me. Thanks.
So, that just leaves me with the same question about Matthew's account later translated into Greek which now someone said the word ' cable ' is similar to camel. ? .

 

[Redemptionsong]

Rosends,
I accept that the book of Daniel appears amongst the Ketuvim, rather than the minor prophets. But do you accept that Daniel has had this vision from God?!

The reason that I conclude that there must have been an ascension is because God exists in heaven and 'the one like a human being' has been brought before God. The 'one like a human being' has not come from heaven to arrive in heaven, He has come from earth, which is where men dwell. Since God occupies all heavens, it is not possible to be with God in heaven and not be before him. So the 'one like a human being' must have come from elsewhere. And since scripture speaks of heaven as 'up' from earth, it is not unreasonable to assume this was an ascension. Even without the NT.

Also, your admitting that this must be 'a singular messianic figure' adds weight to the Christian view that Jesus came first time as a suffering servant to save, and that his second coming will be as the king with everlasting dominion. It's the same 'singular messianic figure'.

If you accept Daniel's vision of the messianic figure receiving dominion, where does the Zechariah prophecy fit in? When is Jerusalem to be visited by a king who will enter lowly and on a donkey? Your interpretation of the scriptures leaves no room for a singular messianic figure who can be both a lowly king and a king with everlasting dominion. Unless there is an ascension.

Conclusion: Jesus does appear in the Tanach. He died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven. He now has everlasting dominion.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have no particular idea but I have no reason to think they didn't. any Jews were killed by Romans.
Yes. So? You are relying on the Jewish idea of blemish if you want to consider Jesus a sacrifice. Citing Christian scripture to endorse a Jewish scriptural idea isn't very persuasive.
A blemish is a blemish, though.
So he was accursed (as an earlier post claimed), he held on to sins (which were deserving of punishment), he died FOR the sins of others, but the death wasn't that punishment. OK, then.
Yes. So did Shakespeare in Hamlet. So?
I see no point in arguing the etymology of an English word in a biblical discussion. If your claim is that death is not a punishment for sin they you and I have different views of the death penalty.
That is a reference to the power of God that created the world. You are claiming that that power was somehow inside of Jesus until it voluntarily withdrew. That makes no sense to me but believe what you want to.
I figured he had been abandoned the moment that he was arrested as God didn't save him from a trial, sentencing, scourging or execution. If your belief is that he was only abandoned at the last bit of his life, that's great for you. Illogical to me, but your religion doesn't have to make sense to me.

Even the moment Jesus was arrested even his apostles scattered. So, yes, Jesus was ' abandoned ' into the hands of his enemies, but by Jesus saying the words, 'why has God forsaken him ' then No one could say that at that moment that God was giving Jesus help or comfort.

Yes, absolutely ' death ' was the punishment. No post-mortem penalty.
Just as with father Adam ' death ' was the punishment.
Adam simply ' returned ' to the dust of the earth - Genesis 3:19 - No one can ' return ' to a place he never was before.

No, Not saying God's power (spirit) inside of Jesus, but that God withdrew His spirit in the sense God was Not helping or comforting Jesus through his trials.

 

[rosends]

Rosends,
I accept that the book of Daniel appears amongst the Ketuvim, rather than the minor prophets. But do you accept that Daniel has had this vision from God?!

Sure.

The reason that I conclude that there must have been an ascension is because God exists in heaven and 'the one like a human being' has been brought before God.

God can't exist anywhere else? That limits God and I don't believe in limiting God.

The 'one like a human being' has not come from heaven to arrive in heaven, He has come from earth, which is where men dwell. Since God occupies all heavens, it is not possible to be with God in heaven and not be before him. So the 'one like a human being' must have come from elsewhere. And since scripture speaks of heaven as 'up' from earth, it is not unreasonable to assume this was an ascension. Even without the NT.

One can be called forward and then brought into the presence of God. God exists everywhere and yet we were commanded to bring sacrifices only in the temple. Clearly, one can be brought before God in one place as distinct from the fact that we are always before God. You are reading into the text because of your idea of how God must be. The text does not say what you are reading.

Also, your admitting that this must be 'a singular messianic figure' adds weight to the Christian view that Jesus came first time as a suffering servant to save, and that his second coming will be as the king with everlasting dominion. It's the same 'singular messianic figure'.

Absolutely not. My accepting this as a messianic figure who appears once says nothing about some invention that a messiah has to appear twice. You have now dragged in Isaiah because the language of Daniel doesn't support your position.

If you accept Daniel's vision of the messianic figure receiving dominion, where does the Zechariah's prophecy fit in? When is Jerusalem to be visited by a king who will enter lowly and on an donkey? Your interpretation of the scriptures leaves no room for a singular messianic figure who can be both a lowly king and a king with everlasting dominion. Unless there is an ascension.

Or:
1. Unless Daniel's vision (because it is not intended to be a prophecy in the same way as Zechariah) is metaphorical
or
2. These are two different points on the timeline of the messiah's approach.
or
3. The king can be humble and lowly (like, say Moses) even while he is already king with everlasting dominion because that is one of the attributes of a Jewish messianic figure.

Conclusion: Jesus does appear in the Tanach. He died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven. He now has everlasting dominion.

Therefore, erroneous conclusion based on wishful thinking, theological interpolation and circular reasoning. Jesus never is mentioned nor refrerenced unless you start with an agenda of having to justify Jesus' existence and reverse engineer the text to that end.

 

[rosends]

Even the moment Jesus was arrested even his apostles scattered. So, yes, Jesus was ' abandoned ' into the hands of his enemies, but by Jesus saying the words, 'why has God forsaken him ' then No one could say that at that moment that God was giving Jesus help or comfort.

So your vision of God is that God abandons people in their moment of need. That's not exactly how I see God, nor does it bespeak a perfect faith in God.

Yes, absolutely ' death ' was the punishment. No post-mortem penalty.
Just as with father Adam ' death ' was the punishment.
Adam simply ' returned ' to the dust of the earth - Genesis 3:19 - No one can ' return ' to a place he never was before.

In Adam's case, death was not a punishment. Mortality was. And are you saying that no one else can die the way Adam did because no one else can "return" to dust? I'm lost as to your point here.

No, Not saying God's power (spirit) inside of Jesus, but that God withdrew His spirit in the sense God was Not helping or comforting Jesus through his trials.

Since his trials started well before the actual crucifixion, God must have not given him comfort for a while. Tha's not a very nice God.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Rosends, here's another passage I'd like explained.
This time from the prophets. Isaiah 61:1-2.
JSB 'The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me; He has sent me as a herald of joy to the humble, To bind up the wounded of heart, To proclaim release to the captives, Liberation to the imprisoned; To proclaim a year of the LORD's favor And a day of vindication by our God; To comfort all who mourn -'
Who is speaking here? The person claims to be 'anointed'. So the person must be known to us.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So your vision of God is that God abandons people in their moment of need. That's not exactly how I see God, nor does it bespeak a perfect faith in God.
In Adam's case, death was not a punishment. Mortality was. And are you saying that no one else can die the way Adam did because no one else can "return" to dust? I'm lost as to your point here.
Since his trials started well before the actual crucifixion, God must have not given him comfort for a while. That's not a very nice God.

No, God does Not abandon in a moment or need - 1 Peter 5:7; Psalms 55:22
Jesus' words show us what he did was of his own free-will accord for us.
Jesus knew and had confidence from the Hebrew Scriptures that his Father would resurrect him - Psalms 16:10

We all die as father Adam died - Genesis 3:19. Adam was never offered immortality. Mortal Adam was offered ' everlasting life on earth ' as long as he did Not break God's Law.
Adam was created as mortal. Adam was Not death proof as the immortal are.
We can Not resurrect oneself or another, so we need someone who can resurrect us.
According to Scripture: Jesus can and will resurrect us - Revelation 1:18; Acts of the Apostles 24:15

There was great comfort given to Jesus when an angel appears and strengthens Jesus - Luke 22:43.
Just as Elijah was given strength to continue in his assignment - 1 Kings 19:6-8.
Also, as strength given as recorded at Daniel 10:17-19

 

[Redemptionsong]

Or:
1. Unless Daniel's vision (because it is not intended to be a prophecy in the same way as Zechariah) is metaphorical
or
2. These are two different points on the timeline of the messiah's approach.
or
3. The king can be humble and lowly (like, say Moses) even while he is already king with everlasting dominion because that is one of the attributes of a Jewish messianic figure.

1. What is Daniel's vision a metaphor for? Metaphor usually takes common language to stand for something else. But Daniel is not taking common language or ideas. He is introducing us to something new which needs to be understood literally.
2. Where on the timeline of the Messiah's approach do you think these events lie?
3. It's quite possible that these qualities might exist in one messiah, but how can the coming of the Messiah be, in one instance, one of Saviour and Judge? For Christians there is a two thousand year period of salvation, or grace, leading to the point of judgment.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Rosends, here's another passage I'd like explained.
This time from the prophets. Isaiah 61:1-2.
JSB 'The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me; He has sent me as a herald of joy to the humble, To bind up the wounded of heart, To proclaim release to the captives, Liberation to the imprisoned; To proclaim a year of the LORD's favor And a day of vindication by our God; To comfort all who mourn -'
Who is speaking here? The person claims to be 'anointed'. So the person must be known to us.

All of Isaiah 61 refers to the one speaking:
Verse one being in reference to Isaiah 42:1
Isaiah 61:2 is in reference to Isaiah 34:8 and Isaiah 25:8
Isaiah 61:3 B is in reference to Isaiah 60:21
Isaiah 61:4 is in reference to Isaiah Isaiah 49:8; Isaiah 51:3; Isaiah 44:26; Isaiah 58:12 and Ezekiel 36:33-34
Isaiah 61:5 is in reference to Isaiah 60:10 and Isaiah 14:1-2
Isaiah 61:6 is in reference to Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 23:17-18; Isaiah 60:5-7
Isaiah 61:7 is in reference to Zechariah 9:12; Isaiah 35:10
Isaiah 61:8 is in reference to Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalms 33:5; Psalms 37:28; Proverbs 16:16-19; Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40
Isaiah 61:9 is in reference to Zechariah 8:13; Isaiah 65:13
Isaiah 61:10 in reference to Isaiah 65:13; Isaiah 52:1; Exodus 28:39-41
Isaiah 61:11 in reference to Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 62:1 ; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 60:18; Isaiah 62:7

Partly due to what Jesus said at Luke 4:16-18; Luke 4:19-21 in connection to Isaiah 42:1 that he is the chosen one who has God's spirit upon him to bring justice to the nations.

 

[Redemptionsong]

One can be called forward and then brought into the presence of God. God exists everywhere and yet we were commanded to bring sacrifices only in the temple. Clearly, one can be brought before God in one place as distinct from the fact that we are always before God. You are reading into the text because of your idea of how God must be. The text does not say what you are reading.

Sorry to stack up the points, but I don't want to avoid responding to this point.
You say that you were commanded to bring sacrifices only in the Temple. Yet you can't, because your idea of the temple is rooted in a temporal existence. Your temple was, and is no more. So for near on two thousand years it has been impossible to make offerings of flesh and blood. Yet God wasn't happy with these offerings, anyway. Offerings such as these were only acceptable from a pure heart.
Isaiah 43:22-25 JSB 'You have not worshiped Me, O Jacob, That you should be weary of me, O Israel. You have not brought Me your sheep for burnt offerings, Nor honoured Me with sacrifices. I have not burdened you with meal offerings, Nor wearied you about frankincense. You have not brought Me fragrant reed with money, Nor sated Me with the fat of your sacrifices. Instead you have burdened Me with your sins, You have wearied Me with your iniquities. It is I, I who - for My own sake - Wipe your transgressions away And remember your sins no more.'

Who wipes our transgressions away? Do YOU do it with your sacrifices? Or does God do it through his love and mercy for us?

How, as a Jew, dependent on the Law, are you going to please God? I suggest it is only by a completion of the law. Fulfilment of the law is LOVE. Moses didn't achieve this, despite being your greatest prophet. How do we know this? Because he died before entering the Promised Land. Joshua (the Saviour) led the Israelites into the Promised Land!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Anyhow, enough is enough. Bless you.

 

[rosends]

Rosends, here's another passage I'd like explained.
This time from the prophets. Isaiah 61:1-2.
JSB 'The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me; He has sent me as a herald of joy to the humble, To bind up the wounded of heart, To proclaim release to the captives, Liberation to the imprisoned; To proclaim a year of the LORD's favor And a day of vindication by our God; To comfort all who mourn -'
Who is speaking here? The person claims to be 'anointed'. So the person must be known to us.

Isaiah is speaking and saying he has been metaphorically anointed. How do I know it is metaphorical? Because he says that God did it. And yet he never claimed to be a priest or a king. Interestingly, he also uses the word "priest" metaphorically later on. Imagine -- the prophet using symbolic language.

 

[rosends]

No, God does Not abandon in a moment or need - 1 Peter 5:7; Psalms 55:22

But you just said God abandoned him.

Jesus knew and had confidence from the Hebrew Scriptures that his Father would resurrect him - Psalms 16:10

Why do you think that a verse said by David about his confidence that God would not kill him for the sins he committed is relevant?