Who do YOU say Jesus is?

[rrobs]

Hi. I'll just address one of your points - the "firstborn" issue. From CARM:

"
Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created," and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn," and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo, and it is not used here.

Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first-born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him . . . I also shall make him My first-born." (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family, was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence."

Col. 1:15, "firstborn of all creation" | CARM.org

That's the answer. God bless!

Thanks for the reply.

Strong's defines tikto as: to produce, to bring forth (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.). prototikto, the word you pointed out used in Col 1:15 , is used 9 times in the NT and each time it concurs perfectly with Strong's, i.e. it means the first one born into a family or some other group.

But, as you said, it also means the chief or the one with preeminence. The reason it means that is precisely because that person was the firstborn. That was their culture. It is no secret the firstborn held preeminence within a family. Jesus held the preeminence because he was the first born, not only of the family of God, but from among the dead.

So that doesn't change the truth that there was something before Jesus and that Jesus was the first offspring of that something and therefore held preeminence. Of course the something is none other than God. So unless God was the firstborn from God (makes no sense), Jesus could not have created the universe of Genesis chapter one.

Do you have any thoughts on the other stuff I wrote, particularly the mystery or secret which basically says that Jesus was the creator of a new age of grace? Could that not possibly be what Colossians is speaking about?

God bless...

 

[rrobs]

Great start but wrong deduction. If you are fully God then no, you do not sin. But if you are fully man then yes, you can sin.

Remember, Christ didn’t come here to live the life of “a God”, he came here to live the life of “a man”. He was able to do everything a man was able to do. He could thirst, he could get hungry, and he could be tempted to sin.

God doesn’t get hungry, thirsty, or tempted to sin, but Jesus didn’t arrive on earth in his pre-incarnate state. He arrived on earth as a man.

My deduction is wrong? When Jesus arrived on earth as 100% man, did he leave the 100% God part behind?

First you said Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. Now your use of the word but means he is either 100% God or 100% man.

Just think about the differences in the scriptures between God and man. How could you possibly think that someone could be both at the same time?

You implied that since I don't believe Jesus is God, I must think he is a "mere" man. First of all, as far as God is concerned, there is no such thing as a "mere" man.

Ps 8:5-6,

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all [things] under his feet:
​

Hardly a description of "mere." But to really nail down what I think of Jesus, I offer the following:

Jesus is the only man who is called “the Last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45). As the only begotten Son of God, Jesus was the genetic equivalent to the first “Son of God,” Adam (Luke 3:38). As the only man born without inherent sin, Jesus was thus the only man equipped to be the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. Romans 5:12–21 is the classic comparison of these two Adams and the respective impact each has had on mankind.

Jesus is the only man who had perfect faith (trust) in God, and who, by his free will choices to trust God, lived a sinless life, always doing the will of his Father (John 8:29). Jesus was not a robot, programmed to obey God. If so, he could not have been genuinely tempted to sin, just like all men he came to save (Heb 4:15). The absence of a sin nature was not the reason why Jesus did not sin, because the First Adam was also born without sin, but he ended up sinning royally. Jesus lived a sinless life because he chose to obey His Father.

Jesus is the only man who died as the perfect sacrifice for our sins (Heb 10:12–14, 1 John 4:10). By his virgin birth, Jesus was the genetically perfect sacrifice for the sin of mankind. By his lifelong obedience to God, all the way to his dying breath on the cross, he became the behaviorally perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind (Heb 2: 17). Thus, he is the complete propitiation for fallen men to be redeemed.

Jesus is the only man God ever raised from the dead in order to confirm that he was who he had said he was the Son of God (Acts 17:31, Rom 1:4). The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was God keeping His promise to His Son, and also His affirmation to all men that Jesus is “... the way and the truth and the life...” (John 14:6).

Jesus is the only man whom God highly exalted as “Lord” and “Head of the Church,” and to whom God has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Dan 7:13 and 14, Phil 2:9, Acts 2:36, Eph 1:22, Matt 28:18). As Pharaoh exalted Joseph to his right hand and gave him all authority in Egypt (Gen 41:37–46), so God has given Jesus functional equality with Himself. As the “Lord,” Jesus Christ is now God’s “right hand man” (Eph 1:20), carrying out the work that will eventually restore this fallen world.

Jesus is the only man who is now the Mediator between God and mankind (1 Tim. 2:5). It is Jesus Christ to whom God has given the power to “save to the uttermost” all who call upon his name, because he “ever lives to make intercession for us” (Heb 7:25).

Jesus is the only man who will gather together all Christians to meet him “in the air” (1 Thess 4:17) and give each one a new body like his own (Phil. 3:21). As the promised “seed” of the woman (Gen. 3:15), Jesus Christ will produce fruit after his kind, a race of people living forever.

Jesus is the only man who will one day return to the earth, destroy all evil men, eventually destroy Satan and his evil spirit cohorts, and rule the earth as King for 1000 years (Rev 19:11 – 20:7). At his first coming to the earth to Israel, Jesus was the sacrificial Lamb of God, but he will come again as the Lion of Judah to save his people, Israel, and destroy all God’s enemies.

Jesus is the only man who will raise from the dead every human being who has ever lived (John 5:21, 25). As God has given Jesus “life in himself,” so he will raise up all people who believed God. Jesus is the only man who will judge every man and woman of all time (John 5:22, 27). He will righteously judge all people, granting everlasting life to those who deserve it, and annihilating all the wicked (Acts 17:31; John 5:28-29).

Jesus is the only man who will restore on a new earth the Paradise that the First Adam lost (1 Cor 15:24-28). As “the Last Adam,” Jesus was God’s contingency plan to salvage His original plan that Adam’s disobedience temporarily thwarted, that is, a perfect race of people living forever on a perfect earth.

Jesus is the only man who is our Savior, our Redeemer, our Mediator, our Lord, our constant Companion, our Best Friend, our Big Brother, the Light of our lives, our Peace, our Joy, our Hope, and our Mentor in the art of faith. He is the Lover of our souls, and that is why we love him and confess him as Lord (Rom. 10:9).

If all of the above describes a "mere" man, then so be it, Jesus is a "mere" man. Personally I think the above describes, far from a "mere" man, but the most heroic man that ever lived. I believe that he is as antithetical to "mere" as antithetical gets!

 

[Wandering Monk]

In the Bible Jesus is clearly identified as the divine, pre-incarnate God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Trinity). Two articles provide backup for this:

The Deity of Jesus Christ in Scripture
Jesus Must be Jehovah

The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things: "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him." - Colossians 1:16

The Bible also says that Jesus existed as God BEFORE his incarnation as a man (Philippians 2:5-7, etc.).

The primary purpose of this thread is designed to find out who people say Jesus is. Is he God incarnate? Is he the Creator God like the Bible says or is he a created being? WAS JESUS RESURRECTED from the dead as all four Gospels attest (i.e. is Jesus the resurrected Savior)?

So I am supposed to accept the premise just because the Bible says so? What if the Bible is wrong?

 

[rrobs]

The Trinity doesn't state the Father and Son are the same individual. You're confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism again. The two are definitely not the same.

That is indeed Modalism. So then you are saying that they are not one individual, but three? There are three Gods?

An excerpt from the Athanasian Creed:

"For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one;"
​

That is like saying 1+1+1=1. I understand (at least I think I do) that trinitarians say it's 1*1*1=1, but that has no resemblance to the Athanasian Creed. It uses the word "another" which is addition, not multiplication. The whole statement is a non-sequitur if there ever was one.

God bless...

 

[rrobs]

So I am supposed to accept the premise just because the Bible says so? What if the Bible is wrong?

You are not supposed to accept anything you choose not to accept. You have free will. That is what the scriptures declare throughout. Would you say that part is wrong?

Generally speaking, apart from what you've heard about the scriptures, where do you get your understanding of what they say?

Perhaps you've read them. While many claim they have, I think it safe to say few actually have. If one is predisposed to not believe them, they would be perhaps the most boring book written. I get that. However, I have found that the deeper one studies them the more they see they make far more sense than any other doctrinal construct. The key word is study, the kind of work a law grad does when preparing for the bar exam. I've not known any that have approached the scriptures in like manner that come away not believing. I suppose there are some, so I was just wondering if you fall into that category, or is your disbelief based upon hearsay. Either way is fine, I'm not judging. Just asking for my own research into human nature as it relates to beliefs.

Take care...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's contested, but it's still credible and a viable possibility proposed by Scholar John Atwill.

I agree. It is credible. We really don't have any evidence that an actual person was the basis for the stories told about Jesus Christ.

It's also not an issue for a non-Christian. If he's not a god that actually existed and came to earth, it doesn't matter if Jesus is myth or legend, that is, completely or partially fictitious.

This was a good and cogent and well argued post.

Thank you. It contained an error that I have since corrected with an edit.

Mark is considered the earliest, and its quite heavy on miracles and exorcisms. So isn't it more rational to believe that the miracle activities go back to Jesus himself?

My understanding is that Mark leaves out much of the story found by the time of Matthew and Luke. Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 2:1-7 tell of the Virgin birth of Jesus following the migration of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Mark doesn't refer to the birth of Christ at all, nor his early life

Matthew (11:2-6) and Luke (7:18-23) report that John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the messiah, which Jesus answered in the affirmative, citing miracles as his credentials, but Mark doesn't seem to know about this obviously critical occurrence if it actually occurred.

And it's not just the miracles. Mundane aspects of the life of Jesus such as certain parables being told also appear in Matthew and/or Luke, but not in Mark. These parable were likely created in the interim.

Take a look at this link, my source for this post, to see the three synoptic gospels compared with one another, divided by category and topic. Look at how much more is contained in Luke and Matthew than Mark. This, to me, is evidence that the mythology was still actively evolving between the time of Mark and the later gospels.

Certainly, some of this embellishment had occurred by the time of Mark, including some miraculous claims as you noted. I think that we can extrapolate back excising the extraordinary claims until we are left with only the mundane, some of which is also part of the added lore as with the reported parables. Did a historical Jesus exist and actually tell these stories? Probably not if Mark doesn't report them. Is that because no such person existed, or because nobody actually told these parables until an anonymous source created them and slipped them into the evolving account.

 

[lukethethird]

Who do YOU say Jesus is?
A fictitious character.

 

[rrobs]

That symbol breaks one of the most basic tenets of logic, namely that when two or more things are equal to the same thing, they are equal to each other.

Here are two versions that make the same sense as the famous (infamous?) trinity diagram.

God is not a God of confusion. When he created the universe He did so with mathematical precision. He is responsible for all true science including, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology. God created man with a mind that functions according to the all these natural laws. All science depends on logic, not mythology. The trinity diagram is pure myth, it fails miserably under the microscope of logic and anything that remotely resemble sane thinking. In other words, it's insanity.

As the scriptures declare, Jesus is the son of God therefore not God. To say a son and his father are one is as insane as the diagram. Better look for some other doctrine. Maybe something like Jesus really is the son of God, whom God sent to redeem us from sin and death?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If I go by my interpretation of the Bible alone... Jesus is the good side of the God of the Old Testament?

Yet if I approach it as I actually do, that God and Jesus are like, exactly the same, and believe that nothing has changed and that the God of the OT was depicted wrongly when it said He produced floods to wipe people out... Well, it makes sense to me.

Actually, if you figure in Universalism, God could cause a flood and if the rest weren't bad people (just interpreted as such) and they all went to heaven... Well, that makes even more sense. To me.

 

[Kenny]

I tend to believe that the "final sacrifice" is most likely a theological construct not meant to be taken literally because human sacrifices have never been "kosher" in Judaism nor Christianity, plus how can God be sacrificed to God if one takes a more literal approach on Jesus somehow being God.

IMO, my drift of what Paul was concluding is that Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary for those who believed in Jesus because he "fulfilled" the Law.

I have a different take, but the results are the same in that the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary.

Certainly I don't take it in the sense of "human sacrifices" but rather one laying his life down for another. IMV, there is a difference.

I see the two goats that were taken to the Temple where one was placed hands on in a symbolism of transmission of sins that was taken to a far away place and the second sacrificed in representation that sins were covered as that representing Jesus in both cases.

In Hebrew the word Nasa means "to bear, carry, support, sustain, endure, to take, take away, carry off, forgive and when he "bare the sins of many" he took them away.

Having fulfilled the law and then taken the curse of the law, we are set free.

In either case, Temple sacrifices are no longer necessary!
".

 

[rrobs]

I have a different take, but the results are the same in that the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary.

Certainly I don't take it in the sense of "human sacrifices" but rather one laying his life down for another. IMV, there is a difference.

I see the two goats that were taken to the Temple where one was placed hands on in a symbolism of transmission of sins that was taken to a far away place and the second sacrificed in representation that sins were covered as that representing Jesus in both cases.

In Hebrew the word Nasa means "to bear, carry, support, sustain, endure, to take, take away, carry off, forgive and when he "bare the sins of many" he took them away.

Having fulfilled the law and then taken the curse of the law, we are set free.

In either case, Temple sacrifices are no longer necessary!
".

As an aside, I couldn't help but think what PETA would say if we actually did all the OT sacrifices. We'd get banned from Facebook for sure!

 

[blü 2]

Virtually all those quotes were from Jesus speaking from his human nature. The Bible clearly says Jesus was God before he incarnated (John chapter 1; Philippians 2, etc.).

First, each of the gospels has Jesus saying in wholly unambiguous language that he's not God. And Paul agrees. I gave you the quotes. He backs that up by never once claiming to be God. Is this because he doesn't know he's God, do you say, so he doesn't know what he's talking about? Or do you say he's a liar, one who intends to deceive?

Second, I now mention for the third time that the Trinity doctrine didn't come into existence until Jesus (given he was an historical figure at all) had been dead for more than three hundred years. Neither Jesus nor Paul nor the gospel writers had ever heard of it. How then can anyone claim that the bible supports the Trinity when it couldn't?

Third, the Trinity doctrine is "a mystery in the strict sense", meaning it "cannot be shown by unaided reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed." That, in plain English, means it's incoherent. Why would Jesus (secretly) subscribe to a notion that not only makes no sense but is declared by the churches to make no sense?

Fourth, do you think Jesus on the cross would really cry out, Me, me, why have I forsaken me?

Fifth, since the Trinity doctrine says that each of Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost is 100% of God, Matthew's Jesus and Luke's Jesus is each his own father. So on what basis is one of the elements of the Trinity called 'Father'? The claims to that title of Jesus and of the Ghost are of no less weight than the Father's, no?

Sixth, do you agree with the author of Mark that Jesus was an ordinary Jew, not descended from David, not born of a virgin, who didn't become son of God till God adopted him at his baptism (following Jewish tradition as set out in Psalm 2:7 and elsewhere)?

Or do you agree with the authors of Matthew and of Luke that Jesus got his Y chromosome from divine insemination of a virgin following Greek tradition, preceded by angelic annunciations, at his birth attended by astrological portents, and gifts from traveling astrologers, and got chased out to Egypt to avoid a 'massacre of the innocents' of which history has absolutely no independent record or support from Jesus, Paul Mark or John? And was descended from David through Joseph, who was not his father, by two irreconcilable genealogies?

 

[Spartan]

But another possibility is that Jesus was informed by God of certain things. If Jesus was omniscient, he would have no need to ask questions, and yet he does on many an occasion.

Which is because, as Philippians 2 notes, he emptied himself of his divinity when he incarnated. I believe the Holy Spirit provided whatever power and omniscience Jesus needed.

 

[Spartan]

First, each of the gospels has Jesus saying in wholly unambiguous language that he's not God. And Paul agrees.

That's incorrect. Jesus claimed he was Lord of the Sabbath. That's a divine title. Elsewhere, in Mark, when Jesus was walking on the water in Mark 6:50 the disciples were terrified at what they were seeing. Jesus said, "Take courage - it is I." But the Greek has it as "ego eimi" - I am. Jesus was telling the disciples he is the great "I AM"! The OP has additional examples from the Gospels and from Paul's epistles on the deity of Jesus. I could spend hours citing example after example of the deity of Jesus in every Gospel. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega in the Book of Revelation, another divine title. Then you have a whole article full of examples in the OP titled, "Jesus must be Jehovah"! Did you read it? Perhaps you should read that. Read here: Jesus Must be Jehovah That's a whole lot of scriptures you'd have to ignore to make your case that Jesus isn't divine.

And let me ask you one other thing: Who - other than God - has ever instituted a new major Covenant with the nation of Israel, and really with people everywhere? And a Covenant that God himself spoke about in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Jesus did that. He must be God to have that kind of authority.

The scriptural evidence from the Old Testament, the Gospels, from Paul, and Revelation, is clear - Jesus is God.

 

[blü 2]

That's incorrect. Jesus claimed he was Lord of the Sabbath. That's a divine title.

All versions of Jesus in the NT are divine, but most expressly Paul's, where as you saw from the quotes I set out, 'Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father' (Philippians 2:11), and in John, where Jesus has existed in heaven with God from the start. But he never claims to be God, and your purported example is not such a claim.

Elsewhere, in Mark, when Jesus was walking on the water in Mark 6:50 the disciples were terrified at what they were seeing. Jesus said, "Take courage - it is I." But the Greek has it as "ego eimi" - I am. Jesus was telling the disciples he is the great "I AM"!

What. every time Jesus says, 'I am' or 'It's me' he's really saying 'Don't tell anyone but secretly I AM Yahweh, monogod of the Jews, and when I say things like "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3), I'm pulling your leg, got it?'


One last thing ─ do you think Jesus is the son of God by adoption, as Mark says, or the son of God by insemination as Matthew and Luke say?

No, that's just silly. You're pretending all of Jesus' denials aren't there. And the reason you're doing it is to try to make the Trinity doctrine true, when first, in this context it's a 300 year anachronism, and second, Jesus expressly denied he was God on fifteen or more occasions and never once said he was indeed God.

Let me make myself clear. Of course you're free to believe what you like about God. But when you claim the NT supports the Trinity doctrine and pretend all Jesus' outright denials aren't there, you're saying things that aren't true, and that's the objection I'm making.

The OP has additional examples from the Gospels and from Paul's epistles on the deity of Jesus.

You're confusing Paul's use of 'Lord' (for Jesus) with 'God' (for God). As Paul says in the quote above, Jesus is not God, though he is Lord.

I could spend hours citing example after example of the deity of Jesus in every Gospel.

Well, I suppose you could, but you'd have to begin every sentence with, 'In flat contradiction of what the text says ...'

Let's cut to the chase. I've quoted John 17:3 above, Jesus' bald and wholly unambiguous denial in his own words that' he's God. Now put on the table one bald and wholly unambiguous statement by Jesus in his own words, 'I am the God of the Jews'.

And let me ask you one other thing: Who - other than God - has ever instituted a new major Covenant with the nation of Israel, and really with people everywhere?

Take me to the part where Jesus 'institutes a new major Covenant with the nation of Israel'. I'd like to be clear on which words you rely on. Then tell me why Yahweh, if he wanted to do that, couldn't do it by his earthly agent Jesus, his own son either by adoption or divine insemination.

And a Covenant that God himself spoke about in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Jesus did that. He must be God to have that kind of authority.

Go back and read those quotes again, like:

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.

John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.​

Now tell me ─ what relationship with God does Jesus say he has in those quotes? Does he, for example, claim to be God's equal? To be God's superior? To be God pretending to be human? Spell it out for me.

The scriptural evidence from the Old Testament, the Gospels, from Paul, and Revelation, is clear - Jesus is God.

Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. If you have the slightest doubt about that, ask any informed Jew ─ it's their book, after all.


And do you really think Jesus on the cross cried out, Me, me, why have I forsaken me?

 

[Spartan]

All versions of Jesus in the NT are divine, but most expressly Paul's, where as you saw from the quotes I set out, 'Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father' (Philippians 2:11), and in John, where Jesus has existed in heaven with God from the start. But he never claims to be God, and your purported example is not such a claim.

Yes, it is. Claiming to be Lord of the Sabbath is claiming to be God.

What. every time Jesus says, 'I am' or 'It's me' he's really saying 'Don't tell anyone but secretly I AM Yahweh, monogod of the Jews, and when I say things like "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3), I'm pulling your leg, got it?'

He didn't say it very often because it always started a riot. That's why you don't see it more.

Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. If you have the slightest doubt about that, ask any informed Jew ─ it's their book, after all.

I did my Masters on "Jesus in the Old Testament" and I can assure you he's all over the Tanakh, from Isaiah 53 to Jeremiah 23:5-6 to being "THE Angel ("messenger") of the Lord" (in the Burning Bush), etc. Here's the scriptural backup for that: Read it carefully and understand the issue is about Jesus being the "messenger" as explained in the opening paragraphs.
Angel of the LORD | Precept Austin

 

[Spartan]

Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. If you have the slightest doubt about that, ask any informed Jew ─ it's their book, after all.

There's a number of books titled, "Christ in the Old Testament."

Top 10 Books on Christ in the Old Testament (Updated) - Top 10 Books on Christ in the Old Testament (Updated) | HeadHeartHand Blog

By the way, there's tens of thousands, or more, of "Messianic Jews" who are believers in Jesus. The Tanakh is their book also.

And do you really think Jesus on the cross cried out, Me, me, why have I forsaken me?

Strawman. Here's a diagram to help you sort that out.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, it is. Claiming to be Lord of the Sabbath is claiming to be God.

Says who? Not the NT.

He didn't say it very often because it always started a riot. That's why you don't see it more.

He didn't say it at all.

And you are still to point to where he said 'I am God' unambiguously even once.

I did my Masters on "Jesus in the Old Testament" and I can assure you he's all over the Tanakh, from Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant. The Suffering Servant is unambiguously the nation of Israel as it was immediately after the exile when this part of Isaiah was written. That's hardly controversial history or theology.

to Jeremiah 23:5-6 to being "THE Angel ("messenger") of the Lord" (in the Burning Bush), etc

But of course Mark's Jesus is expressly NOT of the line of David, and Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses are NOT descended from David because Joseph is not the father of Jesus and anyway the two pretend genealogies are not only fakes but irreconcilable with each other. So even if we abandon the procedures of reasoned enquiry, suspend disbelief and take Jeremiah 23:5 as a prophecy, it can't be a prophecy of Jesus.

(I take it you didn't really do a Masters without noticing those things?)

 

[blü 2]

There's a number of books titled, "Christ in the Old Testament."

But they, unlike me, assume there's such a thing as magic. Prophecy ─ supernatural foreknowledge ─ is a claim of magic, but in the entirety of the bible we have not one example which could give rise even to a suspicion of such a thing. We'd need rock-solid evidence (a) of the precise and entire wording of the claimed prophecy (b) that it was indeed made at the time, in the circumstances and by the person alleged (c) that it was so detailed, unforeseeable and remote in time that its occurrence would rule out coincidence (d) that it came true unambiguously and exactly as predicted in every particular and (e) that it was impossible for the wording or the reporting to have been falsified, or to have been altered after the event.

And bear in mind Martin Gardner's dictum (said about claims of ESP, but equally applicable to claims of magic), Any evidence of ESP is overwhelming evidence of fraud. So the evidence must be strong enough to displace that conclusion.

By the way, there's tens of thousands, or more, of "Messianic Jews" who are believers in Jesus. The Tanakh is their book also.

Do they also believe in magic?

Strawman. Here's a diagram to help you sort that out.

The diagram doesn't say anything I don't. Please state exactly what you think constitutes your 'strawman' claim.

 

[Marcion]

There is the Jesus Christ created by the Christian religion and there is the Jesus/Yeshua of history who spoke the words that can still be found in (the reconstucted) sayings collection of Q-lite.

If I were to see the historical Jesus as my Master, then I would accept him as being one with the Loving Father (Babba/Abba) and I would implement his teachings (found in Q-lite) in my life and become his disciple.