There ain't no Jesus here.

[URAVIP2ME]

When people die, they ascend to heaven. That's a function of theology, not text. If you need a verse for every single person to "prove" that each person went to heaven then your belief system is completely alien to me.
The rest of what you write is a pastiche of irrelevant references to the gospels and misuses of the tanach. For example, Psalms 110 says nothing about resurrection. You cite it as if it does.
Psalm 45 doesn't mention David. The Ezekiel reference isn't to David and his being resurrected. Isaiah 32 is about Achaz.
And the Jewish idea of the resurrection has it accomplished by God. We don't need anyone else to do it.

Psalms 45 and Isaiah 32 does mention princes and Ezekiel names one of those princes-to-be at Ezekiel 34:23-24 which is David.
David died as King, Not as a prince. Because Jesus is called King of Kings is why David will be Prince in the messianic resurrection era of a thousand years in length- Revelation 19:16

Shouldn't theology agree with text such as found at Psalms 6:5; Psalms 13:3; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Daniel 12:2; Daniel 12:13

Going directly to heaven sound more like a teaching that a person is more alive at death then before death ( afterlife )
If father Abraham thought he was sending Isaac to heaven, what would be the point of Abraham's resurrection confidence? - Genesis 22:5
Isaac would have to have an earthly physical resurrection in order to have offspring.
Didn't Abraham say ' they ' ( I and the lad ) would return in verse 5 ? _______ Thus, showing his confidence in a physical resurrection for Isaac.

- Hebrews 11:17-19

 

[URAVIP2ME]

First, you would still not be fulfilling a law, no matter when you did it. Laws simply aren't fulfilled. Second, if the text says that the law is eternal, anyone later saying that the law has ended is contradicting the text.

The Rainbow Covenant or Law is permanent - Genesis 9:15-17 - eternal
Whereas Not all covenants in Scripture are eternal but temporary.

 

[rosends]

Psalms 45 and Isaiah 32 does mention princes and Ezekiel names one of those princes-to-be at Ezekiel 34:23-24 which is David.
David died as King, Not as a prince. Because Jesus is called King of Kings is why David will be Prince in the messianic resurrection era of a thousand years in length- Revelation 19:16

So you are using "Revelations" to try and justify your misunderstanding of the biblical text. That's fine, but please, just see it for what it is. Psalm 45 is not about David. It is written to the group of people compared to roses because of their actions. The whole thing is about those "roses" and that isn't David. In Ezekiel, the mention of David's name isn't a reference to David. He isn't going to come back to life and be a prince or a king. And there is certainly no Jesus in there.

Shouldn't theology agree with text such as found at Psalms 6:5; Psalms 13:3; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Daniel 12:2; Daniel 12:13

6:5? David, asking God to return from being angry, and save David? (you really should read the whole thing and not isolate a verse...)
13:3? Same thing -- David wants to be saved so he doesn't die (see verse 4...)
115:7 -- third identical statement -- God, save me from death because if I die, I can't sing your praises.
146:4 -- Again, don't trust in men because they die and their thoughts are lost. Trust in God.
The Eccl. says nothing different, while Dan 12:2 and 13 mention a future resurrection, which is part of Jewish belief. So I'm not sure of your point.

Going directly to heaven sound more like a teaching that a person is more alive at death then before death ( afterlife )

The soul is judged and receives either its reward or punishment after death. There is, of course, substantial discussion in Jewish sources about the precise timeline but that's neither here nor there. If you want a master class on Jewish teachings of the afterlife and the Rambam vs. Ramban disagreement over the nature of bodily resurrection, then you should ask.

If father Abraham thought he was sending Isaac to heaven, what would be the point of Abraham's resurrection confidence? - Genesis 22:5
Isaac would have to have an earthly physical resurrection in order to have offspring.
Didn't Abraham say ' they ' ( I and the lad ) would return in verse 5 ? _______ Thus, showing his confidence in a physical resurrection for Isaac.

Not exactly. The Avot d'rabbi Natan comments that he certainly wasn't going to tell the others "I intend to kill my child" but he inadvertently prophesied when he said they would both return. And he was right.[/QUOTE]

 

[rosends]

The Rainbow Covenant or Law is permanent - Genesis 9:15-17 - eternal
Whereas Not all covenants in Scripture are eternal but temporary.

Start with Ex 12:17 and 31:16-17. There are many others.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So because the text doesn't fit what you want it to say, you find a new context for it?
You understand though, that its not the chapter that's compelling you to do so, its your New Testament. As was pointed out to you, the chapter already has a meaning within its own context. Isaiah has been charged with letting Israel know that G-d will redeem them from their exile. The language used here is found in other places about Israel as well. Deut. 28:41, Psalms 9:13, 137:3, Lam. 1:4.
Or in Isaiah itself.
61:2 "To announce [the] year of will, to G-d. = 60:10 "Because in my anger, I struck you, and in My













will, I had mercy on you."
61:3 "the planting of G-d [in which] to be to be glorified." = 60:21 "the branch of My planting, the work of my hand [in which] to be glorified."
61:4 "And they will build the old ruins" = 58:12 "And they will build from you, the old ruins"

The trouble with the interpretation that you apply to these passages of scripture is that they have limited application to the period of history to which you apply them.
You say that the events Isaiah prophesies are to do only with the exile of the Jews in Babylon. But the prediction of Isaiah is of an ensuing era of peace among all nations; and the restoration did not have this effect.
Does this make Isaiah a false prophet in your eyes?
As regards the comparable language of the passage, you might liken some of the phrases to those used in Leviticus 25 regarding the jubilee. Was the advent of the Messiah to be in a jubilee year? Or is it that the Messiah will bring about 'Liberation to the imprisoned; (61:1)?
Maybe the cyclical nature of prophecy allows for recurring fulfilment, but the perfection of the prophecy can only occur in the Messianic accomplishment.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The soul is judged and receives either its reward or punishment after death. There is, of course, substantial discussion in Jewish sources about the precise timeline but that's neither here nor there. If you want a master class on Jewish teachings of the afterlife and the Rambam vs. Ramban disagreement over the nature of bodily resurrection, then you should ask.

Not exactly. The Avot d'rabbi Natan comments that he certainly wasn't going to tell the others "I intend to kill my child" but he inadvertently prophesied when he said they would both return. And he was right.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, father Abraham absolutely knew he and Isaac would return from Moriah - Genesis 22:5 - thus Abraham was confident of a physical resurrection for Isaac.

Did father Adam have judgement 'after' his death?
Wasn't the judgement already previously expressed at Genesis 2:17?
God already told what was good, and what was bad/evil.
The bad/evil part was: death
There is nothing saying anything past death.
There was No post-mortem penalty for Adam. Adam brought the established judgement of ' death ' upon himself.
Adam simply ' returned ' to the dust of the ground - Genesis 3:19
Can a person ' return ' to a place he never was before? _____So, Adam simply went back to where Adam started which was non-life.

Since the soul dies - Ezekiel 18:4; Ezekiel 18:20 - then a soul is Not immortal.
Adam was never offered immortality, but was offered ' everlasting life on Earth ' as long as Adam did Not break God's Law.
When God breathed the ' breath of life ' into life-less Adam, then Adam became a living person. At death Adam became a dead person, or a dead life-less soul - Genesis 2:7

 

[rosends]

Yes, father Abraham absolutely knew he and Isaac would return from Moriah - Genesis 22:5 - thus Abraham was confident of a physical resurrection for Isaac.

Did father Adam have judgement 'after' his death?
Wasn't the judgement already previously expressed at Genesis 2:17?
God already told what was good, and what was bad/evil.
The bad/evil part was: death
There is nothing saying anything past death.
There was No post-mortem penalty for Adam. Adam brought the established judgement of ' death ' upon himself.
Adam simply ' returned ' to the dust of the ground - Genesis 3:19
Can a person ' return ' to a place he never was before? _____So, Adam simply went back to where Adam started which was non-life.

Since the soul dies - Ezekiel 18:4; Ezekiel 18:20 - then a soul is Not immortal.
Adam was never offered immortality, but was offered ' everlasting life on Earth ' as long as Adam did Not break God's Law.
When God breathed the ' breath of life ' into life-less Adam, then Adam became a living person. At death Adam became a dead person, or a dead life-less soul - Genesis 2:7

You misunderstand the language of "that 'soul' shall die".

The text throughout the tanach refers to the person (human) who dies as a "soul" even when it talks about the body's being killed. The word nefesh appears 91 times on its own int he 5 books and generally speaks of a human being. Otrwise, you must believe that verses like Ex 21:23 allows man to kill a soul, or that in Lev. 4:2, a soul can sin. Lev 5 has other things a soul does...and let's not focus too hard on Lev 22:4. Numbers 10:6 says that a nazir can't approach a dead soul. Num 19:11 talks about touching a "soul"... This is the problem with trying to understand the Hebrew based on simplistic and literal translations.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Start with Ex 12:17 and 31:16-17. There are many others.

First of all, Exodus 31:16-17 is directed exclusively or only to the sons of Israel, and Not all nations. - Psalms 147:19-20
The weekly Sabbath was just one of many Sabbaths to observe - Leviticus 16:29-31; Leviticus 23:4-8; Leviticus 25:4; Leviticus 25:11; Numbers 28:26

One Jewish professor mentioned that 'forever' without stating 'forever and ever' for emphasis can stand for a lengthy or undefined period of time as in time indefinite.

Because of the International Date Line, the Sabbath would Not all fall at the same day of the week, meaning the Sabbath could Not be kept at the same time.

 

[rosends]

First of all, Exodus 31:16-17 is directed exclusively or only to the sons of Israel, and Not all nations. - Psalms 147:19-20
The weekly Sabbath was just one of many Sabbaths to observe - Leviticus 16:29-31; Leviticus 23:4-8; Leviticus 25:4; Leviticus 25:11; Numbers 28:26

One Jewish professor mentioned that 'forever' without stating 'forever and ever' for emphasis can stand for a lengthy or undefined period of time as in time indefinite.

Because of the International Date Line, the Sabbath would Not all fall at the same day of the week, meaning the Sabbath could Not be kept at the same time.

Again, this comes from not understanding the Torah. The use of the word Shabbat has very particular meanings depending on the context. The fact that the word refers to a variety of different things doesn't change the fact that the law is eternal so the claim that other covenants (post 404) are temporary is proven wrong. And if it is permanent (as it says it is) then anyone who preached from within Judaism either has to concede that it is eternal, or is contradicting the text.

As for the "Jewish professor" whom you claim said something, there is actually significant discussion about the terms for "forever" (va'ed, l'olam, l'doroteichem among others) but there is no one who would say that the covenants labeled as eternal end any time soon or be considered temporary.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Again, this comes from not understanding the Torah. The use of the word Shabbat has very particular meanings depending on the context. The fact that the word refers to a variety of different things doesn't change the fact that the law is eternal so the claim that other covenants (post 404) are temporary is proven wrong. And if it is permanent (as it says it is) then anyone who preached from within Judaism either has to concede that it is eternal, or is contradicting the text.
As for the "Jewish professor" whom you claim said something, there is actually significant discussion about the terms for "forever" (va'ed, l'olam, l'doroteichem among others) but there is no one who would say that the covenants labeled as eternal end any time soon or be considered temporary.

From what I can see is that the term ' forever and ever ' is Not mentioned in connection to the Law which is found at Exodus 15:18
If eternal or permanent, they why aren't the whole systems of the Sabbath still in tact.

 

[rosends]

From what I can see is that the term ' forever and ever ' is Not mentioned in connection to the Law which is found at Exodus 15:18
If eternal or permanent, they why aren't the whole systems of the Sabbath still in tact.

The systems of the weekly Sabbath are, the laws of Yom Kippur are, Lev 23:4-8 doesn't mention a sabbath, and the laws of the shmittah in Israel are still intact (25:11 discusses the yovel, which is still intact, but doesn't mention the Sabbath) and Num 28:26 doesn't mention the Sabbath. Some of the verses you list do describe the holidays (which often involve 7 days) and, yes, those are intact as well. So you will excuse me if I am not persuaded by what you "see" about a term you don't really understand.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Tumah, Rosends, maybe you would like to explain to me what you do believe about the future Messiah. What do you think the Tanach has to say about him?

 

[rosends]

Tumah, Rosends, maybe you would like to explain to me what you do believe about the future Messiah. What do you think the Tanach has to say about him?

Here are a few basic resources -- some light reading.

http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/1121893/jewish/The-Basics.htm
http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/101679/jewish/The-Personality-of-Mashiach.htm
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2811/jewish/Sighting-Moshiach.htm

 

[Redemptionsong]

Let's take a look at what is said in 'The basics'.
'The Messianic Redemption will be ushered in by a person, a human leader, a descendant of Kings David and Solomon, who will reinstate the Davidic royal dynasty. According to tradition, Moshiach will be wiser than Solomon, and a prophet around the level of Moses.

Ever since the destruction of the Holy Temple, in every generation there is an individual, a scion of the House of David, who has the potential to be the Moshiach. If at any moment the Jews are worthy of redemption, this person would be directed from Above to assume the role of the redeemer.'

This is interesting because it raises a few important issues. Whereas Jesus was descended from David and Solomon (Matthew ch.1), how are you to know that your claimant has the credentials?
How long do you expect your human messiah to reign for? Is he not mortal, therefore liable to die after a few years of reigning?
In Jesus, these problems do not exist, because whilst he was born a human being he was transformed from mortality to immortality in resurrection from the dead. Thus the two 'comings' of the Messiah are essential to allow for both his humanity and his eternal kingdom.

Once again, we find that Jesus fulfils all the scriptures.

 

[rosends]

Let's take a look at what is said in 'The basics'.
'The Messianic Redemption will be ushered in by a person, a human leader, a descendant of Kings David and Solomon, who will reinstate the Davidic royal dynasty. According to tradition, Moshiach will be wiser than Solomon, and a prophet around the level of Moses.

Ever since the destruction of the Holy Temple, in every generation there is an individual, a scion of the House of David, who has the potential to be the Moshiach. If at any moment the Jews are worthy of redemption, this person would be directed from Above to assume the role of the redeemer.'

This is interesting because it raises a few important issues. Whereas Jesus was descended from David and Solomon (Matthew ch.1), how are you to know that your claimant has the credentials?
How long do you expect your human messiah to reign for? Is he not mortal, therefore liable to die after a few years of reigning?
In Jesus, these problems do not exist, because whilst he was born a human being he was transformed from mortality to immortality in resurrection from the dead. Thus the two 'comings' of the Messiah are essential to allow for both his humanity and his eternal kingdom.

Once again, we find that Jesus fulfils all the scriptures.

First off, while you can claim that Jesus is descended fro Solomon, the lineage is problematic because of the curse of Yechoniah (unless you subscribe to the authority of the Talmud)....
Second, we will know the credentials because of who the person is and what he does (that is covered, I think, in one of the other pages).
Third, the messiah will be a man, but the messianic age will change the nature of men so questions of "how long" do not apply. I can give you more reading on that when you completely read the ones I listed but start with http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/1128725/jewish/The-Basics.htm
Once again, nothing in the scripture calls forth Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If one is sculpting a Yeshua Hamashiach one would evolve a narrative informed by and consonant with as many "proof texts" as possible.

The gospel is more character development than history. Sometimes the resulting product seems to work reasonable well (e.g., the suffering servant) and sometimes the result is simply ludicrous (e.g., the virgin birth).

 

[metis]

During and after the Babylonian exile, the records of the lineages from the tribes mostly were lost, whereas 500+ years later it was virtually impossible to follow the line of David. Therefore, anyone could claim to be of that line, and it was virtually impossible to prove them wrong. And, according to historians, there were indeed a great many who claimed to be "the messiah" both before, during, and after Jesus' time.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I haven't yet seen, or been shown, any texts from the Tanach that undermine my belief, arrived at after much study, that Jesus must be the Messiah.
Let's take an issue that clearly offends you - that of a virgin birth. You will, no doubt, want to refer to the translation of Isaiah 7:14 and say, as the JSB says, 'Look, the young woman ('almah') is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel ['God with us'].
Now let's give this some thought. You believe in a personal messianic figure. You believe he must be descended from Abraham [Genesis 12:3], through the Davidic line [2 Sam. 7:12-15], born in Bethlehem [Micah 5:2], a King of Israel [Psalm 2], and a priest [Psalm 110].
If God is to choose a mother to bear the Messiah he will clearly want to follow the very law he provides in Leviticus 21, 9-15. Yes, this law applies at an individual and national level. Leviticus 21:13, 'And he shall take a wife in her virginity' or JSB, 'He may marry only a woman who is a virgin.'
Now I'm fully aware that God is not marrying the mother of the Messiah, but it's quite clear that God would apply the same principles when choosing a woman as the righteous mother of the Messiah as he does when talking about a High Priest taking a wife. It is therefore quite reasonable to say that in choosing Mary, God would choose a young woman who was also a virgin.
Now, you wonder, why is it necessary to have a virgin conception? For the very reason that the baby is then genuinely the son of God. This is prefigured in the story of Abraham and Isaac. But Jesus still has a human gestation and birth, and his upbringing is under the law without miraculous power. It is only at the age of about 30 that he receives the anointing of the Holy Spirit and the approval of his heavenly father, 'Thy art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'

 

[rosends]

I haven't yet seen, or been shown, any texts from the Tanach that undermine my belief, arrived at after much study, that Jesus must be the Messiah.
Let's take an issue that clearly offends you - that of a virgin birth. You will, no doubt, want to refer to the translation of Isaiah 7:14 and say, as the JSB says, 'Look, the young woman ('almah') is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel ['God with us'].
Now let's give this some thought. You believe in a personal messianic figure. You believe he must be descended from Abraham [Genesis 12:3], through the Davidic line [2 Sam. 7:12-15], born in Bethlehem [Micah 5:2], a King of Israel [Psalm 2], and a priest [Psalm 110].
If God is to choose a mother to bear the Messiah he will clearly want to follow the very law he provides in Leviticus 21, 9-15. Yes, this law applies at an individual and national level. Leviticus 21:13, 'And he shall take a wife in her virginity' or JSB, 'He may marry only a woman who is a virgin.'

You are citing the laws of who a priest or the Aaronic line ust marry. Since the messiah will be of the Davidic family, the tribe of Judah, he will NOT be a priest and these laws cannot apply to his parents. Why are you citing completely inapplicable laws?

Now I'm fully aware that God is not marrying the mother of the Messiah, but it's quite clear that God would apply the same principles when choosing a woman as the righteous mother of the Messiah as he does when talking about a High Priest taking a wife.It is therefore quite reasonable to say that in choosing Mary, God would choose a young woman who was also a virgin.

No, completely unreasonable. David was chosen to be king and he was the youngest of the sons in his family. This means that when he was conceived, his mother was NOT a virgin. Moses' mother wasn't a virgin when he was conceived. Why are you intimating a requirement which isn't there?

Now, you wonder, why it's necessary to have a virgin conception? For the very reason that the baby is then genuinely the son of God. This is prefigured in the story of Abraham and Isaac. But Jesus still has a human gestation and birth, and his upbringing is under the law without miraculous power. It is only at the age of about 30 that he receives the anointing of the Holy Spirit and the approval of his heavenly father, 'Thy art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'

"Genuinely the son of God"? Except that the messiah is not any more the son of God than I am. I mean, the text does say
Exodus 4:22

And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Hosea 11:1

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

Loads of others were called the son of God, including Angels, David and Solomon. Are you claiming God sired them all physically? Neither Abraham nor Isaac was conceived by God so invoking them is ridiculous. Again, citing irrelevant material to piece together what you see as a logical argument is stacking fallacy upon fallacy.

 

[Muffled]

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".

I believe when I did read the prophets I still did not see Jesus in them as I can remember but I did see Jesus in them later as the Holy Spirit guided my understanding. I have had a pastor tell me that this is progressive revelation. Things are revealed as I become able to understand them.

I believe you can't see what is there because you are not yet able to understand it.