Wrong Perspective About Christians

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about that tribe that recently came back to power after 2,000 years in Israel and this was foretold in the KJV Holy Bible. Was it the tribe of the Saucceduees ? that were welcomed into the Israeli Knesset which confirmed Biblical Prophecy
 
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NATURAL JEWS. Once Jesus born to jewish nation, He was jew, even he was christ! I acknowledged Moses, prophets and even Jesus were spoken to Jewish Nation. they never spoke to the world before jewish nation

GENTILES ARE NOT CHRISTIANS NOR JEWISHS..Therefore, you are not CHIRSTIAN because you are not jew. But you wanted to be part of christ.. yawn.. I dont know where you get an idea and preach it like BLAH BLAH BLAH ON AND ON.. I advice you dont preach about christ to me and to the world for rest of your life! You need to move on your things to do with life around me or other people also.. because you know nothing about jesus christ, even you dont know who he is what you speaking for jesus christ for whole rest..

THANK YOU!
 
XBGMER said:
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NATURAL JEWS. Once Jesus born to jewish nation, He was jew, even he is christ!

GENTILES ARE NOT CHRISTIANS NOR JEWISHS..Therefore, you are not CHIRSTIAN because you are not jew. But you want to be part of christ.. yawn.. I advice you dont preach about christ to the world for rest of your life!

THANK YOU!

To whom was this addressed to ?
 
Heath said:
What about that tribe that recently came back to power after 2,000 years in Israel and this was foretold in the KJV Holy Bible. Was it the tribe of the Saucceduees ? that were welcomed into the Israeli Knesset which confirmed Biblical Prophecy

The Sadducees disappeared along with the Temple, or are you talking about something else?

XBGMER said:
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NATURAL JEWS. Once Jesus born to jewish nation, He was jew, even he is christ!

Christianity doesn't require its followers to be Jews.
 
Teresh said:
The Sadducees disappeared along with the Temple, or are you talking about something else?

The Sadducees were in the Israeli Knesset about 2 or 3 years ago being welcomed. I saw that in the Israeli newspapers plus Biblical Prophecy website.

Christianity doesn't require its followers to be Jews.

The disciples were naturally jewish themselves and in Romans 10:1 it says to witness to jews first then to the gentiles. God told Jesus Christ to tell the jews it is time that salvation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ be preached throughout the world unto the end.
 
Heath said:
The Sadducees were in the Israeli Knesset about 2 or 3 years ago being welcomed. I saw that in the Israeli newspapers plus Biblical Prophecy website.

Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite.

Heath said:
The disciples were naturally jewish themselves and in Romans 10:1 it says to witness to jews first then to the gentiles. God told Jesus Christ to tell the jews it is time that salvation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ be preached throughout the world unto the end.

Not all of the disciplies were Jews... But the Jews almost all said "no" to the Jesus philosophy because it advocated rejecting tradition, forgoing the Torah and their covenant with God and worshiping an idol. Moreover, Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies, so he could not have fulfilled that role in Judaism either.
 
Teresh said:
Christianity isn't the only religion that believes all men are damned from birth, but it's the only major one that does. You want to convert people because you have an internal hate of humanity--or, rather, you believe all humanity is bad from birth and that Jesus is the only way to save them. Sadly, you are mistaken, but that's a purely theological issue.

Humans are saved through human action, not faith in Jesus. But you're a Christian, so you'll never understand that concept.

Sorry, but that is not according to the Old Testament:
Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
We cannot work our way to heaven. Humans cannot clean themselves up. You try wiping a table down with a filthy rag and what happens? We are the only group that believes that our God loved us enough to come down from heaven itself and die for our sins.

Louis Lapides is a Christian ordained by the Evangelical Free Church of America. If he is a Jew at all, he knows little or nothing about Judaism. He does not have a rabbinical ordination, so I have serious doubts he knows anything at all about Jewish law or the contents of the Talmud.

Cite people who actually know what they're talking about. Cite qualified rabbinic authorities, not a missionary to Jews who is willing to pretend to be qualified and knowledgable in order to deceive Jews into converting.

As a child, he grew up in a Jewish home, and started his higher education as a rabbi to support his schooling in a Jewish school, learning how to refute Christianity. It wasn't until he was given a Bible by a Christian and actually read it all the way through that he recognized what the truth THAT is when he left his home and joined a Christian college to get his education. Secondly, if you read Case for Christ's chapter on the fingerprint evidence, you will see just how educated he is in the Jewish ways. He is considered by even secular sources to be among the most knowledgeable people of the Old Testament prophecies. Here is a quote from Probe Ministries:

So far in Strobel's interviews with scholars we have affirmed that Jesus did claim to be God, He wasn't insane or emotionally disturbed, and He did things that only God would do. Now we want to review Strobel's interview with Louis Lapides, a Jewish believer as to whether Jesus actually fit the Old Testament picture of what the Messiah would be like.

One of the important pieces of evidence that convinced Lapides that Jesus was the long-looked-for Messiah was the fulfillment of prophecy. There are over forty prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, and Jesus fulfilled every one. Some say this is just coincidence. But, the odds of just one person fulfilling even five of these prophesies is less than one chance in one hundred million billion--a number millions of times greater than the number of all people who have ever lived on earth.{5}
But maybe this isn't all it seems. Objections to the correlation of Jesus' life to the prophecies of the Messiah fall into four categories. The first is the coincidence argument, which we just dispelled. Perhaps the most frequently heard argument is that the gospel writers fabricated the details to make it appear that Jesus was the Messiah. But the gospels were written close enough in time to the actual events that, if false, critics could have exposed the details. Certainly this is true of those in the Jewish community who had every reason to squash this new religion before it got started.
Third, there is the suggestion that Jesus intentionally fulfilled these many prophecies so as to make Himself appear as the Messiah. That's conceivable for some of the prophecies, such as Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, but for others it's impossible. How could Jesus arrange for his ancestry, or place of birth, or the method of execution, or that soldiers would gamble for his clothing? The list goes on.
Fourth, perhaps Christians have just ripped these so-called prophecies out of context and have misinterpreted them. When asked, Lapides sighed and replied:
You know, I go through books that people write to try to tear down what we believe. That's not fun to do, but I spend the time to look at each objection individually and then to research the context and the wording in the original language. And every single time, the prophecies have stood up and shown themselves to be true.{6}
What I found most intriguing about the interviews was the combination of academic integrity on the part of these scholars alongside a very evident love for the One of whom they were speaking. For these scholars, finding the historical Jesus was not just an academic exercise, but also a life-changing personal encounter with Jesus. Perhaps it can be for you too.


And 40 is just the number of prophecies in the Torah, he deals with those in the rest of the Old Testament as well.

The Rabbis are teachers. Are you going to make an argument that the American school system controls the country because they teach children how to read and write? If you're willing to make that argument, then and only then can you say that the Rabbis control Judaism.

No, but when the teachers filter what they are giving the students, they control the learning curve, and thus, they control what is taught. They will never tell their students that the current Hebrew copies of the Torah and Tanakh are based on the Greek Septaguint, because then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on to say that the virgin in the prophecy was mistranslated, because the Greek word literally means virgin, while the current translation in Hebrew has the word betulah, which means young woman. The Old Testament was originazlly in two languages, then it was changed to the language of the day, which was Greek, and now the meaning is lost in translation for some of the prophecies. Thank God that the KJV Bible is based on the Septaguint and not the current Hebrew words.

That is not the general consensus. It's a misconception held by some, but it is not the consensus.

held by historians, it is the general consensus. I showed you the websites. Here, I will quote each one to show you.

http://www.edwardvictor.com/GeneralFrame2main.htm said:
The consensus of opinion, however, is that the synagogue originated during the Babylonian Exile, beginning in 586 B.C., when deprived of the Temple, Jews would meet from time to time to read the scriptures. Whatever the exact origin, it is during the first century C.E., particularly after the destruction of of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. that the synagogue emerges as a well established institution and the center of the social and religious life of the people.

According to the Jewish sources, the people met on Market days to engage in their worship while in Babylonian captivity. There were Jews that wondered throughout the Roman empire, they all met together in synagogues except for passover, when they would all meet in the temple. How do you expect them to have met for daily worship with all the people who A.)didn't even return to Israel, and B.) lived outside of the Middle East?

That's not true. No one is currently trying to rebuild the temple and the opinion among the majority of the world's Jews is that the Temple should not and should never be rebuilt. Only a few elements of the Ultra-Orthodox are trying to get it rebuilt and they're as far off the fringe as one can get.

They already have the blueprints drawn up, Fulfilling a prophecy in Revelations 11.

Building the Temple is still an order from the LORD, since "he shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel FOREVER." (Chron 22:9-10 )

According to the Torah, Israel and the Temple should stand forever. Therefore, Israel and the Temple should be rebuilt after each destruction.

This is a quote from one such site.

This is a news site:
The Israeli rabbinical council involved with re-establishing the Sanhedrin, is calling upon all groups involved in Temple Mount research to prepare detailed architectural plans for the reconstruction of the Jewish Holy Temple.

The move followed the election earlier this week of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz as temporary president of a group aspiring to become Judaism's highest-ranking legal-religious tribunal.

The Baltimore Sun posted this 8 hours ago:

Conversely, some Jewish groups in Jerusalem hope to clear the path for their own messiah by rebuilding a temple on a site now occupied by one of Islam's holiest shrines. Artisans have re-created priestly robes of white linen, gem-studded breastplates, silver trumpets and solid-gold menorahs to be used in the Holy Temple - along with two 6-ton marble cornerstones for its foundation.



Right--They didn't exist until AFTER the Temple was destroyed, not before, which is what I said the first time.

AFTER SOLOMON'S TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED. The first use is recorded in the Torah. When they met on Market days to worship.

The Septuagint is a translation of the Tanakh from Hebrew to Greek. You place fault on the Jews with the Septuagint because you don't want to question your beliefs. But that's the Christian way, so you're giving the right answer in the scope of your religion.

And it is what the current translations are based on. In fact, Greek Septaguints are the only ancient documents we have of the Old Testament.

That doesn't mean they *ate* the blood.

And because the disciples drank the unfermented wine, does it mean they ate the blood? It is actually a symbol that Jesus was giving his own blood as the sacrificial Lamb for all mankind.

No, that's not the case either. You really don't understand kashrut as well as you'd like to think you do. Kashrut doesn't represent sin. Kashrut represents purity.

And if it is UN-kashrut, then it is UN-pure. Kashrut is the Hebrew word that we get Kosher from. Don't play word games with me. I ain't in the mood.

Then you have pastors, ministers, etc. which are the same thing.

No they aren't. Pastors are simply leaders. We don't confess in front of them or ask them to pray for our sins. They are simply our version of the rabbi. Our High Priest is Jesus Christ Himself.

I'm not familiar with the Blue Letter Bible. What language is it in?

originally in English, but the online version, which is what I use, has a Hebrew-Greek-English lexicon that gives a full definition for the word.

I didn't say that Jews write objectively either--Actually, I said exactly the opposite. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then why do you say that JFJ is an objective source.

It's very easy to deny it--Judaism does not have the concept of original sin. That concept was invented by Christians. Humans can and do sin in their lives, but they start with a clean slate and a capability to do both good and evil. How one is judged by God is determined by how one acts, not what one believes in.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. How do you expect our good acts to look better than our bad ones if that is true?
 
sculleywr said:
Sorry, but that is not according to the Old Testament:
Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
We cannot work our way to heaven. Humans cannot clean themselves up. You try wiping a table down with a filthy rag and what happens? We are the only group that believes that our God loved us enough to come down from heaven itself and die for our sins.

Very strange. The Hebrew text is completely different. That said, Isaiah is, of all of the Tanakh, the worst translation of any book in the Septuagint. Blame Ptolemy II for hiring poorly educated men for that book, I suppose. (If you didn't know, the sages were only involved in translating the Torah.)

In Hebrew:
.ו וְאֵין-קוֹרֵא בְשִׁמְךָ, מִתְעוֹרֵר לְהַחֲזִיק בָּךְ: כִּי-הִסְתַּרְתָּ פָנֶיךָ מִמֶּנּוּ, וַתְּמוּגֵנוּ בְּיַד-עֲוֹנֵנוּ​

And English (JPS):
6 And there is none that calleth upon Thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of Thee; for Thou hast hid Thy face from us, and hast consumed us by means of our iniquities.

sculleywr said:
As a child, he grew up in a Jewish home, and started his higher education as a rabbi to support his schooling in a Jewish school, learning how to refute Christianity. It wasn't until he was given a Bible by a Christian and actually read it all the way through that he recognized what the truth THAT is when he left his home and joined a Christian college to get his education.

Source? His own congregation's website says that he did his undergrad work at Dallas Baptist University and his graduate work at Talbot Theological Seminary. It doesn't say anything about him attending any Jewish schools at all, let alone a yeshiva. Moreover, logic holds that if he actually did study at a yeshiva, it would be stated somewhere.

Note: "Hebrew school" teaches one about as much about Judaism as "Sunday school" teaches one about Christianity. It'll impart the basics, but it's not a seminary by any means.

sculleywr said:
Secondly, if you read Case for Christ's chapter on the fingerprint evidence, you will see just how educated he is in the Jewish ways. He is considered by even secular sources to be among the most knowledgeable people of the Old Testament prophecies.

"Secular" sources? We're talking about *religion* here. There is no such thing as a "secular" source on religious issues, nor is there a such thing as a "secular" expert. Cite some Jewish sources.

sculleywr said:
There are over forty prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, and Jesus fulfilled every one.

List them. If he fulfilled "every one", it shouldn't be that hard to actually present that idea, no?

sculleywr said:
But, the odds of just one person fulfilling even five of these prophesies is less than one chance in one hundred million billion--a number millions of times greater than the number of all people who have ever lived on earth.

That number comes from where? It certainly seems as though they just pulled that number out of thin air in order to try to make a convincing argument.

sculleywr said:
No, but when the teachers filter what they are giving the students, they control the learning curve, and thus, they control what is taught.

Fortunately, Judaism doesn't do this, though since you don't understand Judaism, you obviously wouldn't know that. Ever read any of the Talmud?

sculleywr said:
They will never tell their students that the current Hebrew copies of the Torah and Tanakh are based on the Greek Septaguint,

If they told them that the Hebrew was based on the Septuagint, they would be lying.

sculleywr said:
because then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on to say that the virgin in the prophecy was mistranslated, because the Greek word literally means virgin, while the current translation in Hebrew has the word betulah, which means young woman.

So you accuse the Rabbis of mistranslating and then lying about it. Make your case here, as that's certainly not the most logical way of looking at it.

sculleywr said:
The Old Testament was originazlly in two languages, then it was changed to the language of the day, which was Greek, and now the meaning is lost in translation for some of the prophecies. Thank God that the KJV Bible is based on the Septaguint and not the current Hebrew words.

The original text was in Hebrew. The Septuagint was made because Ptolemy II wanted a copy of the Torah for the library in Alexandria. It also benefited the Alexandrian Jews, who did not know Hebrew. The Jews in Israel never adopted Greek as their language.

sculleywr said:
According to the Jewish sources, the people met on Market days to engage in their worship while in Babylonian captivity. There were Jews that wondered throughout the Roman empire, they all met together in synagogues except for passover, when they would all meet in the temple. How do you expect them to have met for daily worship with all the people who A.)didn't even return to Israel, and B.) lived outside of the Middle East?

Weekly (let alone daily) worship was not something that was done at the time. The siddur is a Rabbinical invention. Biblical Judaism's method of atoning for sins was patriotism to one's nation and sacrifices to God in the Temple. The destruction of the Temple led to the creation of Jewish prayer as we know it today.

sculleywr said:
They already have the blueprints drawn up, Fulfilling a prophecy in Revelations 11.

"They" being a group that has no respect or authority over anyone.

sculleywr said:
Building the Temple is still an order from the LORD, since "he shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel FOREVER." (Chron 22:9-10 )

The rebuilding of the Temple is the task of the Messiah.

sculleywr said:
The Israeli rabbinical council involved with re-establishing the Sanhedrin, is calling upon all groups involved in Temple Mount research to prepare detailed architectural plans for the reconstruction of the Jewish Holy Temple.

The Sanhedrin doesn't exist anymore. Anyone can claim to be the Sanhedrin, but if they don't have any legitimacy among the Jewish people, they're not, regardless of their claims.

Woo, look at me! I'm the Sanhedrin! LISTEN TO ME!!!!!!!

Oh, I can claim to be Jesus too! LISTEN TO MEE!!!!!!!

Just because some nutjob claims to be something they're not doesn't mean their claims are legitimate.

sculleywr said:
The move followed the election earlier this week of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz as temporary president of a group aspiring to become Judaism's highest-ranking legal-religious tribunal.

Aspiring, but not becoming. See Wikipedia:Sanhedrin

sculleywr said:
And it is what the current translations are based on. In fact, Greek Septaguints are the only ancient documents we have of the Old Testament.

Fortunately, we still have the original text in Hebrew too.

sculleywr said:
And because the disciples drank the unfermented wine, does it mean they ate the blood? It is actually a symbol that Jesus was giving his own blood as the sacrificial Lamb for all mankind.

I realise that, the point here is that you're trying to convince me and others that blood, literal blood, is kosher, something that is just not true.

Now, one could make the argument that the wine used for the Eucharist in Christianity is treifah because it is drank to an idol (Jesus), but that's not an argument I have the energy to make at the moment nor so I see the point in doing so.

sculleywr said:
And if it is UN-kashrut, then it is UN-pure. Kashrut is the Hebrew word that we get Kosher from. Don't play word games with me. I ain't in the mood.

No, Kashrut is Jewish dietary laws. it comes from the Hebrew root כ.ש.ר. It has the same root as the word "kasher", which has been anglised into the word "kosher", but they are not the same thing.

Kashrut is a noun, a set of laws governing what Jews may or may not eat. Kasher (in English, "kosher") is an adjective describing anything prepared in accordance with the laws of kashrut. That which is not kosher is called "treifah".

There are many things that Jews, as a matter of living, will come into contact with regularly that they may not eat, blood being among them. It's not as if a Jew won't bleed if he or she is cut by a knife. Additionally, while the dish soap in my kitchen is kosher, I would not even consider consuming it. The law does not say that contact with blood is inherently bad, just that it may not be consumed.

I'm not playing word games with you, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

sculleywr said:
No they aren't. Pastors are simply leaders. We don't confess in front of them or ask them to pray for our sins. They are simply our version of the rabbi. Our High Priest is Jesus Christ Himself.

Fair enough.

sculleywr said:
Then why do you say that JFJ is an objective source.

I didn't. You just didn't read my post.

sculleywr said:
Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. How do you expect our good acts to look better than our bad ones if that is true?

Too bad for you relying on a bad translation rather than the original text.
 
Teresh's postings carry so MUCH weight over looney Xian postings. Teresh makes more sense and clearly shows her knowledge of religions.

I am so disgusted with Xians on this forum so I decided, let them stay stupid if they won't change.

I will NEVER tolerate the spiritual threats - "You must believe in Jesus or you'll not be saved!" and that's why I reject the Bible.
 
Sculley more sense into that, as one deaf who is very devout christian taught us passover and explained. And taught similar what sculley said. As I see, non christians saying christians scripture scriptues and cite cite cite as non christians does the same. All I see is falisyfiy and lying and excuses what christians does or says. That's all I see. And sculley makes it clear and make a lot sense which teresh has a good point but not see how God works and the purposes of it. And yes, even secular studying religions and missing tremendous point of it.
 
Teresh said:
Very strange. The Hebrew text is completely different. That said, Isaiah is, of all of the Tanakh, the worst translation of any book in the Septuagint. Blame Ptolemy II for hiring poorly educated men for that book, I suppose. (If you didn't know, the sages were only involved in translating the Torah.)

In Hebrew:
.ו וְאֵין-קוֹרֵא בְשִׁמְךָ, מִתְעוֹרֵר לְהַחֲזִיק בָּךְ: כִּי-הִסְתַּרְתָּ פָנֶיךָ מִמֶּנּוּ, וַתְּמוּגֵנוּ בְּיַד-עֲוֹנֵנוּ​

And English (JPS):
6 And there is none that calleth upon Thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of Thee; for Thou hast hid Thy face from us, and hast consumed us by means of our iniquities.

Based on something that is younger than the septaguint. You must remember, the Hebrew versions were burnt or buried when they faded. This is the reason for the extremely low number of copies. The oldest copies we have are in Greek. Translated from the Septaguint, the KJV is the most accurate. Shoot, the NIV is more accurate than the JPS. We have enough copies, especially since finding the copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, to be able to say that you are incorrectly translating that.

Source? His own congregation's website says that he did his undergrad work at Dallas Baptist University and his graduate work at Talbot Theological Seminary. It doesn't say anything about him attending any Jewish schools at all, let alone a yeshiva. Moreover, logic holds that if he actually did study at a yeshiva, it would be stated somewhere.

Note: "Hebrew school" teaches one about as much about Judaism as "Sunday school" teaches one about Christianity. It'll impart the basics, but it's not a seminary by any means.

No, he went to a school for rabbis. The reason his own church says that is to impart more credibility to the pastor. However, in person, Louis is rather complete. His church, as I have read, it being the first result in a googe search for him, is not always the best way to find info. They then completely destroy his ability to credibly witness to Jews. However, in his interview on the Case for Christ, Lee Strobel mentions his education in a yeshiva.

"Secular" sources? We're talking about *religion* here. There is no such thing as a "secular" source on religious issues, nor is there a such thing as a "secular" expert. Cite some Jewish sources.

I ain't going to cite someone who has an obvious bias against Christianity.

List them. If he fulfilled "every one", it shouldn't be that hard to actually present that idea, no?

This is just a short list:

The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve) Genesis 3:15 Galatians 4:4
The Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham, through whom everyone on earth will be blessed Genesis 12:3; 18:18 Acts 3:25,26
The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah Genesis 49:10 Matthew 1:2 and Luke 3:33
The Messiah will be a prophet like Moses Deuteronomy 18:15-19 Acts 3:22,23
The Messiah will be the Son of God Psalm 2:7 Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22
The Messiah will be raised from the dead (resurrected) Psalm 16:10,11 and 49:15 Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:4-7; John 20:11-16; Acts 1:3 and 2:32
The Messiah crucifixion experience Psalm 22 (contains 11 prophecies—not all listed here) Matthew 27:34-50 and John 19:17-30
The Messiah will be sneered at and mocked Psalm 22:7 Luke 23:11,35-39
The Messiah will be pierced through hands and feet Psalm 22:16 Luke 23:33 and 24:36-39;
John 19:18 and 20:19-20,24-27
The Messiah’s bones will not be broken (a person’s legs were usually broken after being crucified to speed up their death) Psalm 22:17 and 34:20 John 19:31-33,36
Men Will Gamble for the Messiah’s clothing Psalm 22:18 Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23,24
The Messiah will accused by false witnesses Psalm 35:11 Matthew 26:59,60 and Mark 14:56,57
The Messiah will be hated without a cause Psalm 35:19 and 69:4 John 15:23-25
The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend Psalm 41:9 John 13:18,21
The Messiah will ascend to heaven (at the right hand of God) Psalm 68:18 Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; 2:33-35; 3:20-21; 5:31,32; 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20,21; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22 . . . sorry, we got carried away!
The Messiah will be given vinegar and gall to drink Psalm 69:21 Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23; John 19:29,30
Great kings will pay homage and tribute to the Messiah Psalm 72:10,11 Matthew 2:1-11
The Messiah is a “stone the builders rejected” who will become the “head cornerstone” Psalm 118:22,23 and Isaiah 28:16 Matthew 21:42,43; Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8
The Messiah will be a descendant of David Psalm 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5,6; 33:15,16 Luke 1:32,33
The Messiah will be a born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35
The Messiah’s first spiritual work will be in Galilee Isaiah 9:1-7 Matthew 4:12-16
The Messiah will make the blind see, the deaf hear, etc. Isaiah 35:5-6 Many places. Also see Matthew 11:3-6 and John 11:47
The Messiah will be beaten, mocked, and spat upon Isaiah 50:6 Matthew 26:67 and 27:26-31
The “Gospel according to Isaiah” Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
People will hear and not believe the “arm of the LORD” (Messiah) Isaiah 53:1 John 12:37,38
The Messiah will be rejected Isaiah 53:3 Matthew 27:20-25; Mark 15:8-14; Luke 23:18-23; John 19:14,15
The Messiah will be killed Isaiah 53:5-9 Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37-39; Luke 23:46; John 19:30
The Messiah will be silent in front of his accusers Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 26:62,63 and 27:12-14
The Messiah will be buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:59,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:52,53; John 19:38-42
The Messiah will be crucified with criminals Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32,33
The Messiah is part of the new and everlasting covenant Isaiah 55:3-4 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6-13
The Messiah will be our intercessor (intervene for us and plead on our behalf) Isaiah 59:16 Hebrews 9:15
The Messiah has two missions Isaiah 61:1-3 (first mission ends at “. . . year of the LORD’s favor”) First mission: Luke 4:16-21; Second mission: to be fulfilled at the end of the world
The Messiah will come at a specific time Daniel 9:25-26 Galatians 4:4 and Ephesians 1:10
The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7
The Messiah will enter Jerusalem riding a donkey Zechariah 9:9 Matthew 21:1-11
The Messiah will be sold for 30 pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12,13 Matthew 26:15 with Matthew 27:3-10
The Messiah will forsaken by His disciples Zechariah 13:7 Matthew 26:31,56
The Messiah will enter the Temple with authority Malachi 3:1 Matthew 21:12 and Luke 19:45


That number comes from where? It certainly seems as though they just pulled that number out of thin air in order to try to make a convincing argument.

By easy mathematics. Multiplication of percentages. The more prophecies you have to fulfill, the lower your chance of fulfilling them. Each one had a different percentage. Many people can sell their loyalty, but what are the chances of getting the exact price on a person's head when the person won't exist for another 500 years?

Fortunately, Judaism doesn't do this, though since you don't understand Judaism, you obviously wouldn't know that. Ever read any of the Talmud?

Actually, I have spoken to many Jews and I am surprised how little they know of the New Testament, though they know the Torah by heart. I find it fascinating to see them fascinated by the fact that Bethlehem was Jesus's birthplace, while they were taught that he was born in Nazereth. They are amazed by the accuracy of the geneology in Matthew and Luke, bringing Jesus directly into David's lineage. Their is so much that Jews are NOT taught That I have used succesfully.

If they told them that the Hebrew was based on the Septuagint, they would be lying.

True, but if they told them that the translation was based on the Septaguint, they would not. This is because there were no Hebrew translations of the scriptures at the time. There was only the Greek Septaguint.

So you accuse the Rabbis of mistranslating and then lying about it. Make your case here, as that's certainly not the most logical way of looking at it.

No, I accuse them of not knowing this.

The original text was in Hebrew. The Septuagint was made because Ptolemy II wanted a copy of the Torah for the library in Alexandria. It also benefited the Alexandrian Jews, who did not know Hebrew. The Jews in Israel never adopted Greek as their language.

Incorrect. How do you think Christianity was able to spread so readily to the Gentiles? Most of the missionaries who went were uneducated for the most part. The reason for this is because Alexander the Great, in conquering the majority of the known world, spread Greek throughout the regions. Many people know that the Roman's stole a lot from the Greeks, and this included their language. I base the fact that it was internationally used on the common concensus:

wikipedia said:
Hellenistic Greek (also known as Koine Greek): The fusion of various ancient Greek dialects with Attic (the dialect of Athens) resulted in the creation of the first common Greek dialect, which gradually turned into one of the world's first international languages.

Weekly (let alone daily) worship was not something that was done at the time. The siddur is a Rabbinical invention. Biblical Judaism's method of atoning for sins was patriotism to one's nation and sacrifices to God in the Temple. The destruction of the Temple led to the creation of Jewish prayer as we know it today.

http://scheinerman.net/judaism/synagogue/history.html said:
In the meantime, to preserve their traditions, it seems that the Jews in Babylonia gathered together on market days (Mondays and Thursdays) and participated in some combination of worship and study. Some scholars believe that these gatherings gave rise to worship services, and that prayers were composed for use at this time which were eventually brought back to the Land of Israel when some of the Exiles returned, and incorporated into the cult worship when the Second Temple was eventually built.

Not only did they meet weekly, they met TWICE weekly.

"They" being a group that has no respect or authority over anyone.

They being the current sanhedrin. Little history quiz: Who were the sanhedrin?
Answer: The Jewish "Supreme Court." They were the ones who voted Jesus to death on the cross and then pressured the government of that day into making it lawful.

The rebuilding of the Temple is the task of the Messiah.

Then why isn't "he" capitalized?

The Sanhedrin doesn't exist anymore. Anyone can claim to be the Sanhedrin, but if they don't have any legitimacy among the Jewish people, they're not, regardless of their claims.

They were voted in, by the citizens of Israel, as the current sanhedrin.

Aspiring, but not becoming. See Wikipedia:Sanhedrin

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=sanhedrin

Fortunately, we still have the original text in Hebrew too.

No, we have copies that date back to the mid 300s AD. The Greek copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls date back to 4-500 BC. By the dating, we have our cased for the best. And historians listen to the Christians for that one. They listen to the Jews for the painstaking processes that died out around the early AD's, when the Jews were so frazzled by the outburst of Christianity and the destruction of the Temple, combined with the scattering of the Jews and the fall of Rome, with it's subsequent effects of the loss of more civilised teaching methods. All of this contributed to the loss of the ritual which kept the copying of the Old Testament pure. The invention of the printing press completely made that ritual obsolete.

I realise that, the point here is that you're trying to convince me and others that blood, literal blood, is kosher, something that is just not true.

Now, one could make the argument that the wine used for the Eucharist in Christianity is treifah because it is drank to an idol (Jesus), but that's not an argument I have the energy to make at the moment nor so I see the point in doing so.

Jesus is not an idol. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, including the ressurection from the dead. Jesus is not only the Christ (Greek word for Messiah), He is God. I can walk right into the Holy of Holies and speak directly to my God. I am not just a Christian, I am a kinsman of the King. Salvation is not only for the Jews anymore, but for the Samaritans, and the Gentiles as well. This is a fulfillment of the prophecies of a New Covenant for the whole world:

Isaiah 42:6
I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Isaiah 49:6
And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Isaiah 49:22
Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.
Isaiah 54:3
For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
Isaiah 60:3
And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
Isaiah 60:5
Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.
Isaiah 60:11
Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.
Isaiah 66:19
And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.
Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

The New Covenant has been written. The New Testament is the fulfillment of that.

No, Kashrut is Jewish dietary laws. it comes from the Hebrew root כ.ש.ר. It has the same root as the word "kasher", which has been anglised into the word "kosher", but they are not the same thing.

Kashrut is a noun, a set of laws governing what Jews may or may not eat. Kasher (in English, "kosher") is an adjective describing anything prepared in accordance with the laws of kashrut. That which is not kosher is called "treifah".

There are many things that Jews, as a matter of living, will come into contact with regularly that they may not eat, blood being among them. It's not as if a Jew won't bleed if he or she is cut by a knife. Additionally, while the dish soap in my kitchen is kosher, I would not even consider consuming it. The law does not say that contact with blood is inherently bad, just that it may not be consumed.

I'm not playing word games with you, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

And you are bringing irrelevant topics into the debate.



I didn't. You just didn't read my post.

You might want to learn never to use sarcasm in your posts, because it can be a waste of both of our time.

Too bad for you relying on a bad translation rather than the original text.
I rely on the oldest. The oldest is the closest to the original text, especially considering that translating the Dead Sea Scrolls, secular linguists find that the translation of the OT in there is closest to the KJV. Those are, by popular consensus, the oldest copies. And since they predate the oldest Hebrew documents, they preclude them from the translations as a group of papers that were "caught up in myth and legend."
 
Teresh said:
Oh, of course, I'm just expressing that from my vantage point it makes more sense without that idea.

I can understand how it looks unusual for someone who is not a Christian. Mary herself did a double-take when the idea was first proposed to her. But a God capable of guiding a whole universe from singularity, or to cause an earthquake that both backs up the river Jordan AND weakens Jericho's walls to where the sound of trumpets is enough to shatter them, and to create what we see today, is not too weak to do it.

The Ancient Jews didn't know anything about genetics... The reasons some of these laws developed were practicality and others because it was what everyone else is doing. Everyone else had Kings descending patrilinearly. The Jews emulated that. The reason they had the status of a Jew conveyed matrilinearly was because it could be hard to tell who the father of a child was, but it would always be easy to tell who was the mother.

Even without the concept of genetics, I give the ancients a lot of credit; I'm sure they'd observed the similarities between the generations and understood that traits could be passed down bloodlines even if they didn't understand about genes and recessive/dominant alleles and so on.

That begs the question, though--if the ordinary descent of kings was a custom borrowed from foreigners (and I think I remember it was...isn't that why the Israelites bugged God until He gave them Saul?), then what is the legitimacy of such laws in God's view? I'm not trying to sound rude, but it wouldn't be the first time God circumvented such things as having the firstborn son be the one to be the most privileged. The establishment of the house of David certainly didn't go according to normal procedure in that regard. In other words, I'm not saying that what I allege wouldn't be unusual. But I do think it could well be possible.

I'm not sure about that. Where in Christian Scripture does that occur?

Baptism isn't a part of Jewish conversion... I'm not sure (and it may be that no one knows) what the conversion procedure was like when the Temple still stood, but baptism is a Christian idea. That said, modern conversion by the Talmud requires immersion in a mikvah, but the immersion itself doesn't make the person a Jew in any legal sense (that's conveyed by a beth din, a court of 3 learned Jews, usually rabbis), but rather in a spiritual sense.

Interesting about the immersion custom; I had not realized that custom existed in Judaism. It does suggest that there's something significant about it, though.

The first passage I have comes from the book of Matthew, and in it you have the baptism of Jesus. It really takes John the Baptist by surprise when Jesus presents Himself for baptism considering that John recognizes Jesus for who He is right off the bat.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=3&version=31

The second passage is another public instance of God confirming Jesus' status, plus some interesting questioning about how it squares up with the Law.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=12&version=31&context=chapter

The last passage is particularly interesting because it describes a third case of God announcing who Jesus is--in the presence of Moses and Elijah. Your court of three, perhaps? ;)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=17&version=31&context=chapter

Each of these links show entire chapters; you may have to do some scrolling to find the pertinent sections in some cases. I just don't like clipping passages down for obvious reasons.

I'll go whatever direction you want to go here. I enjoy the discussion for the sake of the discussion, I'm not trying to drive a point home or get you to agree with me so much as explore the different possibilities.

And I appreciate the fact that you're able to hold this discussion without getting personal as I've seen some do on BOTH sides.

Midrash (plural: midrashim) is a commentary on the Torah, the rest of the Tanakh, the Talmud, on the Shulkhan Arukh, on the Mishneh Torah, or on other midrash. Many great rabbis throughout history have written midrash. Midrash are generally not to be taken literally, but they can help when interpreting the text of the book. For example, by the way the way the creation story with Adam and Eve is written, Rashi's commentary suggests that Cain and Abel both had twin sisters. It's not as if they're to be taken literally, indeed, in many cases midrash conflict with other midrash on the same point. Still, that's fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is worthwhile to learn the opinions of another person even if you don't agree with them.

These seem kind of analogous to an Islamic "fatwa," which I've heard translated as a "finding" by an imam.

It seems like one would have to be very cautious in deciding which opinion to go with given that all of them are subject to flaws (human nature being what it is!). That's why I'm very hesitant about stuff like that.
 
"By easy mathematics. Multiplication of percentages. The more prophecies you have to fulfill, the lower your chance of fulfilling them. Each one had a different percentage. Many people can sell their loyalty, but what are the chances of getting the exact price on a person's head when the person won't exist for another 500 years?"

That particular math is totally meaningless. Mathematicians and statisticians cringe when they hear arguments like that because it is pure pseudo-science with no facts. The prophecies in the Old Testament did NOT predict Jesus Christ. It predicted Messiah but Jesus Christ simply failed to meet the Jews' vision of Messiah. Since the prophecies in the Old Testament clearly did not predict Jesus Christ, it is clear that the percentage of prophecies coming true is ZERO!

Creationists argued that the odds of creating a bacteria is one out of a number that's almost like infinity to the point that it's IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to occur but they are not using facts. They're making FALSE assumptions (more likely, LIES) and they use decieving rhetorical arguments as if they know the facts to impress ignorant Christians. They created odds... they CREATED wrong odds based on their ignorance.
 
I rely on the oldest. The oldest is the closest to the original text, especially considering that translating the Dead Sea Scrolls, secular linguists find that the translation of the OT in there is closest to the KJV.

That is not what I read. Even in Revised English Edition of the Bible (NIV), it said that KJV had too many errors that warranted some changes.
 
sculleywr said:
Based on something that is younger than the septaguint. You must remember, the Hebrew versions were burnt or buried when they faded. This is the reason for the extremely low number of copies. The oldest copies we have are in Greek. Translated from the Septaguint, the KJV is the most accurate. Shoot, the NIV is more accurate than the JPS. We have enough copies, especially since finding the copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, to be able to say that you are incorrectly translating that.

You rely on a translation of a translation rather than the original text because the original text is inconvenient and contradicts your beliefs. That's fine from a religious perspective, you're free to believe in whatever you want. It does, however, nullify your argument from an academic and logical perspective.

sculleywr said:
No, he went to a school for rabbis.

Source other than his first-hand account? His churhch says no--If his own followers don't believe he studied at a yeshiva, why should others who do not even share his religion believe it?

sculleywr said:
The reason his own church says that is to impart more credibility to the pastor.

I don't see how denying a person's past could give him more credibility. If anything, from the Messianic perspective, the statement that he did study at a yeshiva would make him *more* qualified because it would make him qualified as a Jew AND as a Christian. Moreover, it would add to the myth that he came from a very Jewish background and that he in his life came to the idea that Jesus was the Messiah.

sculleywr said:
I ain't going to cite someone who has an obvious bias against Christianity.

You're not going to because you can't, not because you don't want to. You only cite sources that have obvious bias against Judaism. You think they're unbiased because they reflect your beliefs that Judaism is an incomplete Christianity, but you can't find legitimate Jewish sources that agree, so you say that the Jews much be biased against Christianity.

That would be a convenient belief, an easy way out for you so that you don't have to justify your beliefs or support your argument. Unfortunately for you, your belief that the Jews are biased against Christianity is rooted in Christianity, not Judaism. It is rooted in your own bias.

You do not understand Judaism, so you assume it must be like Christianity. Wrong. This is one fundamental point on which Christianity and Judaism differ--Judaism does not believe itself to be the only way for spiritual fulfillment. It does not claim to be the only way to be a righteous person. One does not have to be a Jew to reap whatever benefits there are in the afterlife if there is one. The reason Judaism has traditionally discouraged conversion is that, in the scope of Judaism, it's not required for one to convert to obtain salvation.


sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve) Genesis 3:15 Galatians 4:4

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

A. That's not considered a prophecy in Judaism.
B. Assuming that was a prophecy, ANYONE could have fulfilled it! Were you born? I sure was.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham, through whom everyone on earth will be blessed Genesis 12:3; 18:18 Acts 3:25,26

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'

Doesn't sound too much like a Messianic prophecy to me.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah Genesis 49:10 Matthew 1:2 and Luke 3:33

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.

OK, so the Messiah will be Jewish. I think we established that already.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be a prophet like Moses Deuteronomy 18:15-19 Acts 3:22,23

15 A prophet will the LORD thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 according to all that thou didst desire of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying: 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.'
17 And the LORD said unto me: 'They have well said that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.


Not a Messianic prophecy as the Mesiah is not considered a Prophet but rather a King. This passage could apply to any of the Prophets.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be the Son of God Psalm 2:7 Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22

7 I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.

This isn't from the Torah, nor is it considered a prophecy, but from the Ketuvim which were never in Judaism considered be to be the Word of God. In any case, all humans are children of God as all human life comes from God.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be raised from the dead (resurrected) Psalm 16:10,11 and 49:15 Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:4-7; John 20:11-16; Acts 1:3 and 2:32

10 For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to the nether-world; neither wilt Thou suffer Thy godly one to see the pit.

15 Like sheep they are appointed for the nether-world; death shall be their shepherd; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their form shall be for the nether-world to wear away, that there be no habitation for it.

More Pslams, not prophecies. Still, it's worth noting that neither is at all related to the Messiah. The Psalms are traditionally held to have been written by King David in praise of God. The idea here is that the righteous do not simply die, they go on to an afterlife by God's providence.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah crucifixion experience Psalm 22 (contains 11 prophecies—not all listed here) Matthew 27:34-50 and John 19:17-30

What's to say that Jesus was not quoting from this very Psalm when he died? He certainly could have believed he was the Messiah, but there's several people who did that, none of them were telling the truth.

I'm going to opt to forgo comenting on the rest of the Psalms you mentioned because you obviously don't understand what the Psalms are or what their purpose was. Moreover, you don't understand that they are prayers, not prophecies. Establishing that they're not prophecies, I'm going to focus on clearing up the fact that you're distorting what they say on a textual basis as the result of your using a bad translation.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be pierced through hands and feet Psalm 22:16 Luke 23:33 and 24:36-39; John 19:18 and 20:19-20,24-27

16 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my throat; and Thou layest me in the dust of death.

Where do you get "pierced through the hands and feet" out of that?

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be a descendant of David Psalm 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5,6; 33:15,16 Luke 1:32,33

5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.

Finally, after a lot of misinterpretations and outright lies, a real prophecy! The issue here is that Jesus, as explained earlier in the conversation with Rose, did not fulfill this prophecy.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be a born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35

14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The virgin? The word 'virgin' isn't in the text anywhere. It's only in your translation of a bad translation that the idea of a 'virgin' appears.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah’s first spiritual work will be in Galilee Isaiah 9:1-7 Matthew 4:12-16

1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 Thou hast multiplied the nation, Thou hast increased their joy; they joy before Thee according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 3 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, Thou hast broken as in the day of Midian. 4 For every boot stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this. 7 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.

The translation of a translation strikes again! The original text does not even talk about Galilee.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will make the blind see, the deaf hear, etc. Isaiah 35:5-6 Many places. Also see Matthew 11:3-6 and John 11:47

5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6 Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing; for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

This is a Messianic prophecy indeed. Jesus did not fulfill this one--Look at the title of the forum you're on!

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be beaten, mocked, and spat upon Isaiah 50:6 Matthew 26:67 and 27:26-31

6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my checks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

Lots of people have been tortured for their faith, but none of them are were the Messiah either.

sculleywr said:
People will hear and not believe the “arm of the LORD” (Messiah) Isaiah 53:1 John 12:37,38

The Messiah will be rejected Isaiah 53:3 Matthew 27:20-25; Mark 15:8-14; Luke 23:18-23; John 19:14,15

The Messiah will be killed Isaiah 53:5-9 Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37-39; Luke 23:46; John 19:30

The Messiah will be silent in front of his accusers Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 26:62,63 and 27:12-14

The Messiah will be buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:59,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:52,53; John 19:38-42

Circular logic. The only way this would prove anything is if you believed in it to begin with. Again, there were many Messiah claimants--They were all wrong. Anyone could fulfill any of these prophecies.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be crucified with criminals Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32,33

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Misquote alert! Misquote alert!

sculleywr said:
The Messiah is part of the new and everlasting covenant Isaiah 55:3-4 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6-13

3 Incline your ear, and come unto Me; hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. 4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the peoples, a prince and commander to the peoples.

Taken completely out of context. Read the rest of the chapter.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be our intercessor (intervene for us and plead on our behalf) Isaiah 59:16 Hebrews 9:15

16 And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation unto Him; and His righteousness, it sustained Him;

...What? Where did you get that idea from?

sculleywr said:
The Messiah has two missions Isaiah 61:1-3 (first mission ends at “. . . year of the LORD’s favor”) First mission: Luke 4:16-21; Second mission: to be fulfilled at the end of the world
The Messiah will come at a specific time Daniel 9:25-26 Galatians 4:4 and Ephesians 1:10

The text doesn't say anything about "two missions". The Messiah doesn't need to come twice in order to do his job.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7

1 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.

It's actually Micah 5:1, but that's a moot point. There's a number of Christian scholars that dispute that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will enter Jerusalem riding a donkey Zechariah 9:9 Matthew 21:1-11

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.

I can ride into Jerusalem on a donkey too! Whee, look at me, Teresh the Messiah!

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will be sold for 30 pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12,13 Matthew 26:15 with Matthew 27:3-10

12 And I said unto them: 'If ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear.' So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said unto me: 'Cast it into the treasury, the goodly price that I was prized at of them.' And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury, in the house of the LORD.

This has nothing to do with the Messiah.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will forsaken by His disciples Zechariah 13:7 Matthew 26:31,56

7 Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the man that is near unto Me, saith the LORD of hosts; smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn My hand upon the little ones.

This verse is taken completely out of context. Read the rest of the chapter.

sculleywr said:
The Messiah will enter the Temple with authority Malachi 3:1 Matthew 21:12 and Luke 19:45

1 Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in, behold, he cometh, saith the LORD of hosts.

A Messianic prophecy indeed. Not fulfilled by Jesus, though.
 
Teresh and Netrox, I know and its very obvious, even whom we believe and the fact of who is the Messiah and you been misquote those scripture what applied. As of obvious its not really christians that's tick you off, its all out of hate and don't tell me you don't. This timidating words need to stop. The more scully point it out the more angry you becomes. And no, no doubt we don't lack and no we are not so call " know at all", its what we learned. Each doesn't have the same level, and fortunate, sculley met, studied and etc. Even I learned passover from the guy who was raised jewish and studied sooo much and found who truly is a messiah. So that's why we believe who Jeus is, and not only that what each have seen and experience who Christ is.
 
hottiedeafboi said:
Teresh and Netrox, I know and its very obvious, even whom we believe and the fact of who is the Messiah and you been misquote those scripture what applied. As of obvious its not really christians that's tick you off, its all out of hate and don't tell me you don't. This timidating words need to stop. The more scully point it out the more angry you becomes. And no, no doubt we don't lack and no we are not so call " know at all", its what we learned. Each doesn't have the same level, and fortunate, sculley met, studied and etc. Even I learned passover from the guy who was raised jewish and studied sooo much and found who truly is a messiah. So that's why we believe who Jeus is, and not only that what each have seen and experience who Christ is.


I am SECOND on Hottiedeafboi's issue!

THROWSTONES
 
hottiedeafboi,

Please get serious. It's been 15 years since I studied the Bible. I know from my memory that the Bible simply fails to meet the logical criterias that I needed.

Teresh and I have totally different beliefs, she's Jewish (I think... maybe I am wrong) and I am an athiest but what she wrote about the misquotes and false prophecies are very accurate from what I have learned.

Unlike Xian fundamentalists who supposedly take the bible literally, I interpret exactly what it meant, not what their doctrines tell them. It is a fact that the Bible says that the creation was done in 7 days. It is a fact that the Old Testament prophesized Messiah but it is NOT a fact that it predicted Jesus Christ no matter how Christians try to persuade me. That doctrine is totally false and thoroughly debunked. Jews knew that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

Unlike fundies, I see errors and contradictions. Unlike them, I don't try to "harmonize" them. The errors are there because the authors were wrong or changed their minds. Unlike fundies, the Bible is a collection of many books by different authors. God did not write the Bible, people did.

You don't want to believe anything else but what your church teaches you.
 
With all due respect, 15 years is a long time. There are things I read months ago that I'd probably fail a memory recall test on, if you were to quiz me on them. This is one reason that when I post scriptures, most of the time unless something is very clearcut, I'll post an entire chapter.

Anyway, that aside, I may not be what you would call a "fundamentalist", but I still wish that you would approach those who believe without always having to insult all Christians. It doesn't do much in terms of getting anybody to listen to the substance of any point you might be making, to be belligerent about it.

I also think it would be good to recognize that some of us are in different stages of our research into Christianity and that even if we do not yet know everything--which is such an expansive topic I'm not sure any one mind could get a perfect grip on it, any more than one person could have a uniformly perfect grip on every concept and tiny nuance in physics--that does not make us stupid. I will readily admit I am less studied on certain things than I would like to be. I do not know as much of the ancient Biblical languages as I should (a deficiency in Christian religious education that I would like to see addressed by more churches). However, that doesn't mean I'm oblivious to that, or that I have no intention to rectify it. I wish to take classes so that I DO learn those things. An important part of knowledge is to know what one does not know. Please do not assume that all of us are oblivious to where our imperfections lie.

I would also remind you once again that there is a diversity of views within Christianity. We are not a monolithic block; we can't all be pigeonholed into one unified set of viewpoints from which none of us deviates in the slightest. I know very well from my own dealings that I can't pigeonhole all atheists, all Jews, all Muslims, or whatever. Why is it fair for you to do the same thing in return? I don't find any justification for it, myself. The inherent nature of groups of people this size is that there WILL be substantial variation. Why fail to treat individuals as individuals?
 
sculleywr said:
By easy mathematics. Multiplication of percentages. The more prophecies you have to fulfill, the lower your chance of fulfilling them. Each one had a different percentage. Many people can sell their loyalty, but what are the chances of getting the exact price on a person's head when the person won't exist for another 500 years?

See, the thing is here, you're pulling "prophecies" out of parts of the Tanakh that do not contain prophecy in order to deceive the person into thinking "wow, he did all this stuff!" when, in fact, most of the things you're citing aren't even prophecies, they're prayers. Moreover, you ignore the actual prophecies he didn't fulfill on the grounds that he must be the Messiah because he did all of this other stuff.

You make it a numbers game but you ignore the numbers that are actually important. If the Messiah fails to accomplish any of the ACTUAL prophecies, he is NOT the Messiah. A hundred thousand times zero is still zero!

sculleywr said:
Actually, I have spoken to many Jews and I am surprised how little they know of the New Testament, though they know the Torah by heart. I find it fascinating to see them fascinated by the fact that Bethlehem was Jesus's birthplace, while they were taught that he was born in Nazereth. They are amazed by the accuracy of the geneology in Matthew and Luke, bringing Jesus directly into David's lineage. Their is so much that Jews are NOT taught That I have used succesfully.

They are not "taught" Christianity because Christianity is a different religion. Do you expect to be taught how to chant Hindu mantras in Sunday school? Um, no. The knowledge is not hidden from Jews, it's simply not relevant to their lives as children. Why should a Jew be raised learning about someone else's religion before his or her own?

sculleywr said:
True, but if they told them that the translation was based on the Septaguint, they would not. This is because there were no Hebrew translations of the scriptures at the time. There was only the Greek Septaguint.

What translation are you talking about?

sculleywr said:
No, I accuse them of not knowing this.

And you do know this? You think that as a Christian you know more about Judaism than the Jews do? How audacious and arrogant you are to think you who have studied none are more learned to those who have spent their lives in study.

sculleywr said:
Incorrect. How do you think Christianity was able to spread so readily to the Gentiles? Most of the missionaries who went were uneducated for the most part. The reason for this is because Alexander the Great, in conquering the majority of the known world, spread Greek throughout the regions.

The fact that many gentiles knew Greek is irrelvant. We're talking about the Jews of Eretz Yisrael here. The Jews in Israel never adopted Greek as their language.

sculleywr said:
I base the fact that it was internationally used on the common concensus...

Not only did they meet weekly, they met TWICE weekly.

Wikipedia:Synagogue said:
The destructions of Solomon's Temple, and later the Second Temple, and the dispersion of the Jews into the Jewish diaspora, threatened the nation's focus and unity. At the time of the Babylonian captivity the Men of the Great Assembly began the process of formalizing and standardizing Jewish services and prayers that would not depend on the functioning of the Temple in Jerusalem. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders at the end of the Second Temple era, promulgated the idea of creating individual houses of worship in whatever locale Jews found themselves. This contributed to the concept of "portable Judaism," which was part of what contributed to the saving of the Jewish people by maintaining a unique identity and way of worship, according to many historians. Thus, even now, whenever any group of ten men comes together, they form a minyan, and are eligible to conduct public prayer services, usually in a synagogue.

sculleywr said:
They being the current sanhedrin.

No, they are not the Sanhedrin, they are a group of posers who would like to be the Sanhedrin but do not have any legitimate claim to being that organisation.

sculleywr said:
Little history quiz: Who were the sanhedrin?
Answer: The Jewish "Supreme Court." They were the ones who voted Jesus to death on the cross and then pressured the government of that day into making it lawful.

That's just a bold-faced Anti-Semitic lie that while enshrined in Christian Scripture has no basis in fact. You want to believe it becauseit would give you justification for your hatred of Jews, but the fact of the matter is, the Sanhedrin did not have the power to execute people and the death penalty was strongly opposed by the Pharisees.

sculleywr said:
Then why isn't "he" capitalized?

Because the Messiah is a man, not a god.

sculleywr said:
They were voted in, by the citizens of Israel, as the current sanhedrin.

No, they were not. You're fabricating lies here because you've already lost the basis for your argument. There was no "vote" in Israel constituting the "new Sanhedrin"--It's a group of men who claim to be something they're not.

sculleywr said:
There's nothing on any of the results that states that the nascent Sanhedrin is legitimate. Again, why don't you READ YOUR OWN SOURCES.

sculleywr said:
Jesus is not an idol. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, including the ressurection from the dead. Jesus is not only the Christ (Greek word for Messiah), He is God.

Sure he is. I'm god too! Wheeeeeee! WORSHIP ME!!!! OR YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!

sculleywr said:
I can walk right into the Holy of Holies and speak directly to my God.

I don't need to walk anywhere to worship my God. God is with me always. My entire life is a prayer to God.

sculleywr said:
Salvation is not only for the Jews anymore, but for the Samaritans, and the Gentiles as well.

Salvation was always for everyone who sought it--It was never just for the Jews, though I'm sure you'd like to think that as it justifies your hatred for Jews and their religion.

sculleywr said:
And you are bringing irrelevant topics into the debate.

And you keep changing the subject to deflect attention from the fact that it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

sculleywr said:
You might want to learn never to use sarcasm in your posts, because it can be a waste of both of our time.

You might want to learn to read between the lines.

sculleywr said:
I rely on the oldest. The oldest is the closest to the original text, especially considering that translating the Dead Sea Scrolls, secular linguists find that the translation of the OT in there is closest to the KJV. Those are, by popular consensus, the oldest copies. And since they predate the oldest Hebrew documents, they preclude them from the translations as a group of papers that were "caught up in myth and legend."

Oldest doesn't mean best. It's an established and understood fact that Septuagint, with the exception of the Torah which was translated by Jewish sages, was a poor translation for its time. I find it hilarious that you claim legitimacy for your beliefs based on a bad translation when the the Hebrew original text, in which lies the full and unmodified representation of the Tanakh, is staring you straight in the face.

But of course, it's easier to deny the truth that your religion is a massive constructed fallacy than to accept the fact that you don't know as much as you think you do.

Rose Immortal said:
That begs the question, though--if the ordinary descent of kings was a custom borrowed from foreigners (and I think I remember it was...isn't that why the Israelites bugged God until He gave them Saul?), then what is the legitimacy of such laws in God's view? I'm not trying to sound rude, but it wouldn't be the first time God circumvented such things as having the firstborn son be the one to be the most privileged. The establishment of the house of David certainly didn't go according to normal procedure in that regard. In other words, I'm not saying that what I allege wouldn't be unusual. But I do think it could well be possible.

The idea in Judaism is that since the Torah is the law, laws derived from the Torah are equally valid in the eyes of God.

Rose Immortal said:
Interesting about the immersion custom; I had not realized that custom existed in Judaism. It does suggest that there's something significant about it, though.

The mikvah is a ritual bath of "living waters", the purest of all kinds of water and the only kind that can be used for certain purposes. (This is discussed in tractate Mikvaot of the Talmud.)

The two major uses of the mikvah today are the cleansing of niddah (the state of ritual impurity following menstruation) and as part of the conversion process.

In the conversion process, the idea is that one enters the mikvah a gentile (ritually impure) and emerges a Jew (ritually pure, at least momentarily). The actual legal status of a Jew for purposes of Jewish law can only be established by a beth din, though that status is conveyed before immersion. I'm not sure when the practice originated, though excavations on the Temple Mount have discovered no less than 100 mikvaot on the grounds of the former Temple, so it's clear that the mikvah as a Jewish practice predates Rabbinic Judaism, though exactly what fashions it was used in before are unknown.

Rose Immortal said:
The first passage I have comes from the book of Matthew, and in it you have the baptism of Jesus. It really takes John the Baptist by surprise when Jesus presents Himself for baptism considering that John recognizes Jesus for who He is right off the bat.

I'm aware of this story. I'm not sure what to make of it, honestly. A lake or river does not qualify as a mikvah because it is not "living waters", but the baptism is still a fairly important ritual in Christianity. I was raised Catholic, so I was baptised as an infant and can't remember the experience at all.

I imagine it would be more meaninfgul to me now as an adult if I actually believed in Christianity at a religious level.

Rose Immortal said:
The second passage is another public instance of God confirming Jesus' status, plus some interesting questioning about how it squares up with the Law.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=12&version=31&context=chapter

The last passage is particularly interesting because it describes a third case of God announcing who Jesus is--in the presence of Moses and Elijah. Your court of three, perhaps? ;)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=17&version=31&context=chapter

Heh. :-P I don't consider Christian Scripture to be canonical, so the texts are about as useful for my beliefs as the Gnostic gospels.

Rose Immortal said:
And I appreciate the fact that you're able to hold this discussion without getting personal as I've seen some do on BOTH sides.

Respect me and I will respect you back. Disrespect me and I will disrespect you back. So far, you've given me respect and therefore also have mine.

Others whose names I will not mention, have not qualified that statement.

Rose Immortal said:
These seem kind of analogous to an Islamic "fatwa," which I've heard translated as a "finding" by an imam.

It seems like one would have to be very cautious in deciding which opinion to go with given that all of them are subject to flaws (human nature being what it is!). That's why I'm very hesitant about stuff like that.

An opinion is not dangerous in and of itself--It depends on how that opinion is used, applied. There's a distinction here that I think is important--the difference between thought and action.

hottiedeafboi said:
Teresh and Netrox, I know and its very obvious, even whom we believe and the fact of who is the Messiah and you been misquote those scripture what applied.

I don't misquote Scripture. That's not how I do things.

hottiedeafboi said:
As of obvious its not really christians that's tick you off, its all out of hate and don't tell me you don't.

I don't hate Christians. Like scully, it would be very convenient for you if I did hate Christians and thus you undoubtedly want to believe that I do. If I hated Christians, you could just say "you hate Christians" and that would be the end of it and you wouldn't have to think.

The issue here is that I don't hate Christians. I simply call you to think about why you believe certain things and to oppose the presense of bold-faced lies about Judaism or what Jews believe.

hottiedeafboi said:
The more scully point it out the more angry you becomes.

He hasn't made any legitimate claims thus far. I'm not going to give him free reign to lie about Judaism and propagate his hatred for the Jews. You shouldn't give him that license either.

hottiedeafboi said:
Teresh and I have totally different beliefs, she's Jewish (I think... maybe I am wrong)

I'm not a Jew, but I'm cerainly enamoured with Judaism if the way I post isn't a dead giveaway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top