What reward did Jesus receive for his sacrifice as God on earth?

[IndigoChild5559]

Pilate thought he was.

Pilate thought Jesus made the claim to be a King. That doesn't mean that Pilate agreed with it.

 

[Soapy]

Pilate thought Jesus made the claim to be a King. That doesn't mean that Pilate agreed with it.

Jesus said he was a king NOT OF THIS WORLD!

‘This world’ is a scriptural reference to the created fleshly realm…. This world is ruled by human rulers in each regions of a nation: Caesar is king and ruler over the Roman regions of the empire. No doubt there are other kings and rulers over other regions.

Jesus’ Rulership/Kingship is none of these because his kingdom is SPIRITUAL.

It seems that you are trying very hard to believe the truth of the scriptures and placing all your emphasis on earthly fleshly created things.

Can I advise you to argue with spiritualness in mind and then we would all be batting off the same wicket because at the moment the debate is like:

• It’s very cold here in the arctic
• No, you are wrong, it’s really hot here in the Caribbean

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus said he was a king NOT OF THIS WORLD!=

Which pretty much underscores my point. If the only kind of king he was, was a figurative king, then he really couldn't have been the messiah.

 

[Soapy]

Which pretty much underscores my point. If the only kind of king he was, was a figurative king, then he really couldn't have been the messiah.

What does the Messiah/Christ represent to you?

What kind of King is your idea of the Messiah (Hebrew) … The Christ (Greek)?

What is the difference to you between the Messiah and the Christ?

Answers to all three questions, please!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What does the Messiah/Christ represent to you?

What kind of King is your idea of the Messiah (Hebrew) … The Christ (Greek)?

What is the difference to you between the Messiah and the Christ?

Answers to all three questions, please!

The messiah predicted in the Tanakh will be the one who rules during the messianic era -- that time at the end of days when there will be worldwide peace, when all Jews will live in the land, etc. He is called David because he will rule from Jerusalem.

Both words essentially mean "anointed." Moshiach is Hebrew, and Christos is Greek, but they both translate to anointed. This is because the Kings of Israel are anointed with oil.

However, most people associate "Christ" with Jesus, and the Christian idea of Messiah is very different from what the Tanakh teaches. Christians have a terrible tendency to imagine Jesus all over in places that really aren't messianic prophecies at all. For example, Christians mistakenly believe that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah, but it's not. The metaphor of servant is used throughout Isaiah, and Isaiah himself identifies the servant as the People of Israel, not the messiah. Thus, for us Jews, we understand there is not part of being the messiah that has anything to do with suffering or saving people from their sins. This "suffering servant" Christ simply doesn't exist for us.

 

[Soapy]

The messiah predicted in the Tanakh will be the one who rules during the messianic era -- that time at the end of days when there will be worldwide peace, when all Jews will live in the land, etc. He is called David because he will rule from Jerusalem.

Both words essentially mean "anointed." Moshiach is Hebrew, and Christos is Greek, but they both translate to anointed. This is because the Kings of Israel are anointed with oil.

However, most people associate "Christ" with Jesus, and the Christian idea of Messiah is very different from what the Tanakh teaches. Christians have a terrible tendency to imagine Jesus all over in places that really aren't messianic prophecies at all. For example, Christians mistakenly believe that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah, but it's not. The metaphor of servant is used throughout Isaiah, and Isaiah himself identifies the servant as the People of Israel, not the messiah. Thus, for us Jews, we understand there is not part of being the messiah that has anything to do with suffering or saving people from their sins. This "suffering servant" Christ simply doesn't exist for us.

So you are saying that the Christ that we, as Christians, believe in was not the Christ who was ANOINTED with the holiest of oils: The Holy Spirit of God at the river Jordan?

And the Christ of God is not appointed to rule for a millennia as scriptures states?

Well, the whole point as I stated before is that you and Christian’s here are talking from different beliefs and therefore there can be no consensus nor agreement except that we consent to disagree!

This is a pointless debate, therefore!

You will eternally say that Jesus is not the Christ and we will eternally say that Jesus is the Messiah!

But just to continue for the sake of others on the fence about this:

• What does your belief say about the coming of the messiah/Christ?
• What is your belief and the signs of your messiah coming?
• Where will your messiah appear from?
• What will be the order of his rule, his realm, his kingdom… will it be earthly or spiritual?

 

[74x12]

The metaphor of servant is used throughout Isaiah, and Isaiah himself identifies the servant as the People of Israel, not the messiah.

Jesus is the eternal Israel. As I've stated before anyone who is in the resurrection is born to Jesus rather than Jacob. Jacob is head of temporal Israel but Jesus is the real Israel because he's eternal Israel that never dies. So even Jacob will be born of Jesus in the resurrection.

The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 dies for the sins of Isaiah's people. Therefore it makes no sense that this is speaking of the Hebrew nation when he literally dies for the transgressions of Isaiah's people.

It must be about someone who is righteous but dies for the sins of the nation of Israel.

Isaiah 53:8
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Thus, for us Jews, we understand there is not part of being the messiah that has anything to do with suffering or saving people from their sins. This "suffering servant" Christ simply doesn't exist for us.

No. Even Jews believe in Messiah son of Joseph and Messiah son of David.

So the son of Joseph certainly has to suffer for the sake of his brethren (Israelites) just like Joseph did.

Jesus is just both Messiahs. So he fulfills both rolls.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you are saying that the Christ that we, as Christians, believe in was not the Christ who was ANOINTED with the holiest of oils: The Holy Spirit of God at the river Jordan?

I'm saying that the Christ of the New Testament is NOT the Messiah of the Tanakh.

And the Christ of God is not appointed to rule for a millennia as scriptures states?

The Messiah will indeed rule in an earthly sense during the messianic era. How long that will last is not stated in the Tanakh. You are referring to what the New Testament says. Remember that as a Jew, I do not consdier the New Testament to be scripture -- it has no more authority for me than the quran.

• What does your belief say about the coming of the messiah/Christ?
• What is your belief and the signs of your messiah coming?
• Where will your messiah appear from?
• What will be the order of his rule, his realm, his kingdom… will it be earthly or spiritual?

There are prophecies about the Messiah, such as that he will usher in an era of worldwide peace, will bring all the Jews back to the Land, and will rule from Jerusalem. The ONLY way we will know the messiah is when he fulfills ALL the prophecies (which Jesus did not).

Directly before the appearance of the messiah, there will be a war -- Gog and Magog attacking Israel. Since countries have attacked Israel down through time, there is no way of knowing if any particular war against Israel is that war when it happens. It is not meant to be a way of predicting when the messiah will arrive.

There are contradictory verses about how the Messiah should arrive, whether on a horse or a donkey. This is usually resovled by saying that if Israel is faithful, he will arrive on a horse, and if unfaithful he will arrive riding a donkey. But as far as his origins go, he is a regular man who will be born the regular way. No virgin birth, for example.

The rule of the messiah is very much an earthly rule. He is the ruler of Israel, not some heavenly Kingdom. Only God is king of the universe.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus is the eternal Israel.

Israel is a tribal people, consiting of those maternally descended from Jacob and those lawfully adopted into the people. No one Jew is the entirety of Israel. Not even the Messiah.

The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 dies for the sins of Isaiah's people. Therefore it makes no sense that this is speaking of the Hebrew nation when he literally dies for the transgressions of Isaiah's people.

Yes, Isaiah 53 talks of the vicarious suffering of the remnant of Israel for the sake of Israel as a whole. Look up vicarious suffering.

No. Even Jews believe in Messiah son of Joseph and Messiah son of David.

Jews do not believe in a messiah who is a "son of Joseph."

 

[Soapy]

I'm saying that the Christ of the New Testament is NOT the Messiah of the Tanakh.

The Messiah will indeed rule in an earthly sense during the messianic era. How long that will last is not stated in the Tanakh. You are referring to what the New Testament says. Remember that as a Jew, I do not consdier the New Testament to be scripture -- it has no more authority for me than the quran.

There are prophecies about the Messiah, such as that he will usher in an era of worldwide peace, will bring all the Jews back to the Land, and will rule from Jerusalem. The ONLY way we will know the messiah is when he fulfills ALL the prophecies (which Jesus did not).

Directly before the appearance of the messiah, there will be a war -- Gog and Magog attacking Israel. Since countries have attacked Israel down through time, there is no way of knowing if any particular war against Israel is that war when it happens. It is not meant to be a way of predicting when the messiah will arrive.

There are contradictory verses about how the Messiah should arrive, whether on a horse or a donkey. This is usually resovled by saying that if Israel is faithful, he will arrive on a horse, and if unfaithful he will arrive riding a donkey. But as far as his origins go, he is a regular man who will be born the regular way. No virgin birth, for example.

The rule of the messiah is very much an earthly rule. He is the ruler of Israel, not some heavenly Kingdom. Only God is king of the universe.

Ok, I see how you are thinking.

Im not sure there’s much else to say to you since you are so convinced of the Old Testament prophecies which, ironically, were fulfilled and are still being fulfilled.

Just to set the record straight: The aspect of the messiah and the Jews … The Jews REJECTED the messiah, which is why the time period has been extended. Not only that but the promise to the Jews is extended to ALL MANKIND who believe in YHWH and the Christ of YHWH.

And just in case you don’t believe it, then look to the scriptures where it is written that the greatness of the firstborn (Jews) is taken away and given to another (all mankind).

Check out all the primary ‘first born’ of the patriarchs:

1. Cain…. Replaced by Seth
2. Ishmael …. Replaced by Isaac
3. Esau…. Replaced by Jacob
4. …. Joseph
5. David was not the first born of Jessie
6. Saul (as first king) … replaced by David
7. … Solomon was not the first born of David
8. Adam…. Replaced by Jesus!

There are more examples such as Joseph replacing the first born son of his Father.

And, there’s another twist!!!

Consider the word, “Firstborn”…. And consider another similar: “First Born”.

• First Born: The chronologically first male child out of the womb of the mother
• Firstborn: The most beloved male child of the Father

Initially, the first born was also the firstborn…. Naturally!!

As other male children are born one emerges as the MOST BELOVED (firstborn) than the others - this child become the firstborn although, as it turns out, not to be the First Born! (See the list above!)

What is the common theme?
The first born always sins - and the pleasure of the Father is taken away from that child and given to another: this child becomes the most beloved of the Father :the firstborn of the Father.

Wasn’t Adam first born of God… he sinned - and another was brought up to replace him: Jesus Christ.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok, I see how you are thinking.

Im not sure there’s much else to say to you since you are so convinced of the Old Testament prophecies which, ironically, were fulfilled and are still being fulfilled.

Just to set the record straight: The aspect of the messiah and the Jews … The Jews REJECTED the messiah, which is why the time period has been extended. Not only that but the promise to the Jews is extended to ALL MANKIND who believe in YHWH and the Christ of YHWH.

And just in case you don’t believe it, then look to the scriptures where it is written that the greatness of the firstborn (Jews) is taken away and given to another (all mankind).

Check out all the primary ‘first born’ of the patriarchs:

1. Cain…. Replaced by Seth
2. Ishmael …. Replaced by Isaac
3. Esau…. Replaced by Jacob
4. …. Joseph
5. David was not the first born of Jessie
6. Saul (as first king) … replaced by David
7. … Solomon was not the first born of David
8. Adam…. Replaced by Jesus!

There are more examples such as Joseph replacing the first born son of his Father.

And, there’s another twist!!!

Consider the word, “Firstborn”…. And consider another similar: “First Born”.

• First Born: The chronologically first male child out of the womb of the mother
• Firstborn: The most beloved male child of the Father

Initially, the first born was also the firstborn…. Naturally!!

As other male children are born one emerges as the MOST BELOVED (firstborn) than the others - this child become the firstborn although, as it turns out, not to be the First Born! (See the list above!)

What is the common theme?
The first born always sins - and the pleasure of the Father is taken away from that child and given to another: this child becomes the most beloved of the Father :the firstborn of the Father.

Wasn’t Adam first born of God… he sinned - and another was brought up to replace him: Jesus Christ.

Examples of prophecies which are required of the messiah and jesus never fulfilled:
1. The messiah will usher in an era of world peace
2. The messiah will bring all the Jews back to the promised land
3. The messiah will rule Israel from Jerusalem

You went into a whole long spiel about how often the first born gets passed up for the second born. I'm not sure why that is important to you, nor does it really connect to my post to you.

 

[Soapy]

Examples of prophecies which are required of the messiah and jesus never fulfilled:
1. The messiah will usher in an era of world peace
2. The messiah will bring all the Jews back to the promised land
3. The messiah will rule Israel from Jerusalem

You went into a whole long spiel about how often the first born gets passed up for the second born. I'm not sure why that is important to you, nor does it really connect to my post to you.

Which just goes to show that you don’t understand the scriptures.

Yes, the Jews were the ‘Firstborn’ of God. But they sinned and we’re passed up to another: All mankind who believe.

The Jews were to be the shepherds of God and leaders in the path back to God. Jesus came to show them the way but … like you … they rejected him: SINNED!!

So there you have it - the connection you refuse to see: The first born nation and firstborn most beloved of God SINS … and another is brought up to replace him: All who believe!

• “The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.” 1 Cor 15:46-47

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Which just goes to show that you don’t understand the scriptures.

Yes, the Jews were the ‘Firstborn’ of God. But they sinned and we’re passed up to another: All mankind who believe.

The Jews were to be the shepherds of God and leaders in the path back to God. Jesus came to show them the way but … like you … they rejected him: SINNED!!

So there you have it - the connection you refuse to see: The first born nation and firstborn most beloved of God SINS … and another is brought up to replace him: All who believe!

• “The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.” 1 Cor 15:46-47

Soapy, if you are one to believe th Bible, then you have to accept that the jewish covenant with God is EVERLASTING. Genesis 17:7
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

 

[74x12]

Israel is a tribal people, consiting of those maternally descended from Jacob and those lawfully adopted into the people. No one Jew is the entirety of Israel. Not even the Messiah.

When Jacob hadn't had children yet; then he was all of Israel. When the resurrection takes place then everyone who is resurrected will be born of Jesus and so he'll be like Jacob was then. Jesus will be the head/beginning of the eternal Israel. They won't die anymore.

Yes, Isaiah 53 talks of the vicarious suffering of the remnant of Israel for the sake of Israel as a whole. Look up vicarious suffering.

No this is not about sympathy towards suffering of others. It's about someone bearing their sins and suffering for it.

Jews do not believe in a messiah who is a "son of Joseph."

It's in the Talmud.

 

[Soapy]

Soapy, if you are one to believe th Bible, then you have to accept that the jewish covenant with God is EVERLASTING. Genesis 17:7
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

• “If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it.” (Hebrew 8:7)
• “But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.” (Hebrews 8:8-9) … (Jeremiah 31:31)
• “By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13)

You can keep on wriggling but the true scriptures don’t lie: The first covenant was replaced by a second… remember the list is gave you? remember that ‘The first erred and was replaced by a second’?

You said you can’t see a link…. There it is again!

Still can’t see it?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

• “If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it.” (Hebrew 8:7)
• “But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.” (Hebrews 8:8-9) … (Jeremiah 31:31)
• “By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13)

You can keep on wriggling but the true scriptures don’t lie: The first covenant was replaced by a second… remember the list is gave you? remember that ‘The first erred and was replaced by a second’?

You said you can’t see a link…. There it is again!

Still can’t see it?

It does no good to me to quote from the book of Hebrews if it contradicts the Tanakh. If there is this contradiction, it only goes to show that the book of Hebrews should have been nixed.

The new covenant is for the world to come, not for this world. If you read about it, you will find for example that the law will be written on our hearts. Well its not. Kids have to be taught right from wrong. Also, it says that everyone will know God. Yet we still have atheists. All proof that the new covenant has not happened yet.

Again, if you accept the book of genesis, you MUST accept that the covenant between God and Israel Is "everlasting."

 

[Soapy]

It does no good to me to quote from the book of Hebrews if it contradicts the Tanakh. If there is this contradiction, it only goes to show that the book of Hebrews should have been nixed.

The new covenant is for the world to come, not for this world. If you read about it, you will find for example that the law will be written on our hearts. Well its not. Kids have to be taught right from wrong. Also, it says that everyone will know God. Yet we still have atheists. All proof that the new covenant has not happened yet.

Again, if you accept the book of genesis, you MUST accept that the covenant between God and Israel Is "everlasting."

Oh dear, still refusing to accept reality!

Well, there’s only so far that anyone can try to drag another if the other does not desire to be led.

Thanks for your insight into the old covenant but sad that you cannot accept the new covenant.

Bye Bye!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh dear, still refusing to accept reality!

Well, there’s only so far that anyone can try to drag another if the other does not desire to be led.

Thanks for your insight into the old covenant but sad that you cannot accept the new covenant.

Bye Bye!

There is no new covenant to accept. Like I pointed out, kids still have to be taught right from wrong, and atheists still exist, so we know the new covenant has not happened yet.

 

[Soapy]

There is no new covenant to accept. Like I pointed out, kids still have to be taught right from wrong, and atheists still exist, so we know the new covenant has not happened yet.

Can a teacher MAKE a child learn a lesson?

No!

The child must WANT to learn the lesson.

And even when the child learns the lesson he must want to accept and apply the knowledge gained from learning the lesson.

So, even now, Jesus is teaching the world true lessons.

BUT there are those who will not learn the lesson and, there are those who, even though having learnt the lesson, will not accept it.

Do you forget that Satan is still at large? Do you think Satan is going to sit around and not try to mislead the world against the goodly rule of The Messiah? What does the parable of the ‘Wheat and the Tares’ tell you (Even Jews then knew what wheat and Tares meant!)

 

[sojourner]

You are right as far as the scriptures say. I was just clarifying …

I wanted to know if Jesus earned his position and received the blessing of the Father, received his reward from God.

You answered correctly.

So here is the problem: Trinitarians say that Jesus was God.

So I’m confused as to how they say that Jesus, being God, sacrificed himself and in doing so received a reward from God… even though he was God!

Of course you’re confused! Either you don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity, or you’re willfully misrepresenting it here in order to push some agenda. In either case, Your arguments are always straw men.