How do we respond to jews who believe messiah hasn't come?

[bibleberean]

The passover was a commemorative ceremony. It was to remind the children of Israel of their deliverance out of Egypt; It is also a "type" of the great deliverance wrought by the Jesus for all his people from the doom of death on account of sin, and from the bondage of sin itself, a worse than Egyptian bondage.

Christ the lamb who is the passover for those who believe is a completion of the purpose of the lamb in the OT.

Because of the blood of Christ death will passover all who put their faith in Him.

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Christ the lamb who is the passover for those who believe is a completion of the purpose of the lamb in the OT.

Because of the blood of Christ death will passover all who put their faith in Him.

Do you think that whole deal with the smearing of the blood over doors to prevent the Angel of Death from killing the firstborns in Egypt has some kind of foreshadowing here?

 

[bibleberean]

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 

[Soma-Sight]

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Thx!

"Christ our passover"

 

[YESHUA]

Re: messiah

Bad example. The paschal lamb was not offered for the removal of sin. It was a festive or commemorative offering. BTW, was Jesus' blood ever placed on the doorpost and lintel of anything?

Hebrews 10:1-10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The doorposts were a picture of the covering that the blood of Jesus would do. Death is swallowe up through Christ our Passover. :angel:

Was the passover sacrifice actually supposed to atone for sin?

let us look at the tanak oh by the way you do believe in the Tanak?
YESHUA is mention in the Tanak you do know that don't you?
Isaiah 62
11Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. (salvation YESHUA which is Jesus in english)
12And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.

 

[D46]

YESHUA-We seem to have a somewhat different version of the Tanakh. Mine has a copyright of 1985 by the Jewish Publication Society. The copy I have for Isaiah 62:11 reads...

See, the Lord has proclaimed to the end of the earth: Announce to Fair Zion, Your Deliverer is coming! See, his reward is with Him, his recompense before Him.
...and verse 12...

And they shall be called, "The Holy People,"The Redeemed of the LORD", and thou shalt be called, "Sought out, A City Not Forsaken".

Similar but different.

Isaiah 9:6 (Tanakh)

For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And the authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "the Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruller"-In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit. Upon David's throne and kingdon, That it may be firmly established In justice and in equity Now and evermore. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts Shall bring this to pass.

This 6th verse includes verses 6 and 7 of the English bible

Isaiah 9:6-7 (KJV) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 53:5 (Tanakh)

But he was wounded because of our sins, Crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, And by his bruises we were healed.

Isaiah 53:5 (KJV) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

 

[einstein]

The JPS 1985 isn't too bad as a reasonable translation (much better than the 1917 versions) but most Hebrew scholars views the Judaica Press Tanach or Artscroll as superior.

Even a cursory scan of the JPS versions of Isaiah 9:6 and 53:5 convey a much different message than that normally put forward by Christianity. I have commented on these verses elsewhere in this forum and wont repeat these remarks but let's look at yet another example from Yeshua's post who asks if I am familiar with the Tanach.

Hebrews 10:5 (KJB) Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not,but a body hast thou prepared me

This verse is clearly derived from Psalm 40:7 (Judaica Press) You desired neither sacrifice nor meal offering;You dug ears for me;

If you know Hebrew please explain how "you dug ears for me" (meaning you opened my ears to hear" can change to "but a body has thou prepared me"??? with its obvious Christological intent??????

If you are going to quote from the Tanach at least use a proper Hebrew-English translation, not one which tampers with the original and perverts it with an established bias.

 

[YESHUA]

YESHUA-We seem to have a somewhat different version of the Tanakh. Mine has a copyright of 1985 by the Jewish Publication Society. The copy I have for Isaiah 62:11 reads...

See, the Lord has proclaimed to the end of the earth: Announce to Fair Zion, Your Deliverer is coming! See, his reward is with Him, his recompense before Him.
...and verse 12...

And they shall be called, "The Holy People,"The Redeemed of the LORD", and thou shalt be called, "Sought out, A City Not Forsaken".

Similar but different.

Isaiah 9:6 (Tanakh)

For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And the authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "the Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruller"-In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit. Upon David's throne and kingdon, That it may be firmly established In justice and in equity Now and evermore. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts Shall bring this to pass.

This 6th verse includes verses 6 and 7 of the English bible

Isaiah 9:6-7 (KJV) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 53:5 (Tanakh)

But he was wounded because of our sins, Crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, And by his bruises we were healed.

Isaiah 53:5 (KJV) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

So who is this deliverer your Tanak is talking of? And whom is this child giving unto us? And whose name shall be wonderful counsellor the mighty god ever lasting father? Who is this child? When will be born? Has he been born?
And who were healed by whose bruises?
And to Einstein just how do you know that the Tanak your quoting from have not been tampered with?
And I am sure you also have a different explanation for this scripture?

Zechariah 12

1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
4In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.
5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.
6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.
8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
I was in Jerusalem a couple a years ago I was then told be an orthodox that the King James version were the best translation, and thank you your telling me that every O.T has been tampered with just how do know that? If we translate from known sources like first edition of the rabbinic Bible by Felix 1517, Second edition of the Rabbinic Bible of first edition or Jacob Ben Chayim's Bible Venice 1524-1525, I have The Holy Scriptures Hebrew & English, and now your telling me that the only translation that will do is the one you have from 1985, so now you tell which Bible to use when I post a letter to you, way to go that's real neat And just how do I know which Bible lives up to your standard? The rabbi has tampered with even the Danish torah.
Shalom and love b'shem YESHUA my ivrit is not that good that I can do any translation but I believe that you will do it for me right?

 

[YESHUA]

God will give us a sign a young woman will have a baby.

That would surly get my attention.... ;-)

Not!

That's the way I see it. You are free to see anyway you like... :smt102

A young woman having a baby. You don't see that every day... :roll:

so why don't you give us your opnion of the Scripture and what you think it means?
Isahia 7:14,
and why should his name be Immanuel? was his name Immanuel and where is his birth recorded? just how do we know that this happen? there is no record of him ever been born is there? and why would G-D say that this would be a sign and then nothing? Shalom and love b'Sehm YESHUA

Your argument is clearly false, there is more detail to the "sign" than merely someone giving birth. In that context, there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't say "young woman". Its certainly not impressive, but it doesn't need to be because its only a part of the alleged sign.

Secondly, a "virgin birth" is a terrible sign from God. Almost no one will be in a position to verify or witness it! Only Mary would know if its really true, or possibly Joseph if he kept a very close eye on her.

 

[einstein]

You are putting words into my mouth : I never said that the 1985 JPS was the only translation I would accept. I stated that it was not too bad. It 's an improvement on the original 1917 which is really a tweaked form of the KJB but it is considered by Hebrew scholars to be inferior to several other translations.

Your question wrt "tampering" with the Tanach is commonly put forward by sceptics. Notwithstanding G-d's commands never to add or subtract from Torah, and notwithstanding that we do not have the autographic copies of the scrolls written by Moshe, the fact remains that despite centuries of dislocation and exile and separation of humdreds of Jewish communities over the centuries, Torahs from around the world are remarkably the same. Tampering really suggests a type of worldwide conspiracy where there is a unanimous decision among rabbinic authorities to "change this to that".

However despite all the centuries of dispersal that fact remains that only some Yemenite copies of the Torah (where the community was cut off from the other Jewish communities ) differ from all the other Torahs in the world by a grand total of nine letter differences out of a total of 304,805 letters or almost 79000 words! And these differences are slight differences in Hebrew spelling which do alter the meaning of the passages involved.

Additionally consider that an examination of the of scriptural remnants from the time of Bar Kochba (ca 135 C.E.) demonstrate only minute differences in some spelling from the MT we have today.

There is no evidence at all of "tampering". Yes there are spelling variations undoubtedly related to scribal errors even though the practise of copying scrolls as per the Masoretes is as demanding and exacting as is humanly possible.

In contrast with the Torah, consider that although the gospels are centuries younger, according to The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible there are more than 30,000 variants in approx 150 manuscripts of Luke, and about 400 variant readings in the GT which can cause doubt as to the meaning including about 50 which have great significant differences in meaning.

 

[einstein]

correction. The differences in the 9 letters of the Yemenite Torah DO NOT alter the meaning of the passages. Need to spend a little more time previewing. :

 

[YESHUA]

correction. The differences in the 9 letters of the Yemenite Torah DO NOT alter the meaning of the passages. Need to spend a little more time previewing. :

Sorry for the outburst.
And could you answer my questions please
Shalom and love b'shem YESHUA
plz read the book of proverbs chapter 30:15, and then tell me who is this son of g-d?

 

[einstein]

Could you please list your questions again and I will do my best to provide you with answers from a Jewish understanding of the Hebrew Bible.

 

[YESHUA]

Could you please list your questions again and I will do my best to provide you with answers from a Jewish understanding of the Hebrew Bible.

so why don't you give us your opnion of the Scripture and what you think it means?
Isahia 7:14,
why should his name be Immanuel? was his name Immanuel and where is his birth recorded? just how do we know that this happen? there is no record of him ever been born is there? and why would G-D say that this would be a sign and then nothing? and just how many woman did give birth that year did she have a special sign on her so that the people did know who she was or what? could it be a Jewish truth and not a Jewsih understanding of the Hebrew Bible, I have a Hebrew Bible
Shalom and love b'Sehm YESHUA

 

[einstein]

7:14

I will answer your question in an abbreviated summary but first I would suggest you go back to about the beginning of Oct/05 in this thread where this topic was already discussed.

Both from an linguistic and contextual perspective Is 7:14 can be demonstrated to be a near-term prophecy that is part of an historic narrative and which was fulfilled in the immediate time frame, not 700 years into the future.

Isaiah's declaration (v.14-16) was a prophecy about the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the 2 kings from the north. v. 15-16 go on to state by the time the child reaches an age of maturity ("...he knows to reject bad and choose good..") the 2 kings who Ahaz fears will be gone. This prophecy was fulfilled as confirmed in 2Kings 15:29-30 and 16:9 when the kings were assasinated.

It is the name of the child Immanu'el (G-d is with us, NOT G-d with us) which is the sign given to Ahaz which indicates divine protection that Ahaz and the House of David would enjoy.

A sign given to Ahaz, namely the birth of Jesus (who is never called Immanu'el throughout the GT) who would not be born for some 7 centuries, would not be much of a reassuring sign, would it?

Isaiah tells us that his children were given as signs from G-d (8:18) and that the name he gave to each of his sons carried a prophetic message described by these signs and identified as historical events that occurred.

The analysis of 7:14 and the verses that follow clearly indicate a son born at the time, ie contemporaneous with the events under discussion.

Additionally, consider the mistranslations involved in Christian translations such as the KJB. The translation from the original Hebrew is as follows (with mistranslation in brackets)-Behold, the young woman (NOT "a virgin") is with child (NOT "shall conceive") and she shall bear a son and you [or she] shall call his name Immanu'el.

If you wish to refute what I have stated please do so by reference to scriptures from the Hebrew Bible not from the Greek since the issue is about mistranslation and misapplication from the original Hebrew Bible. In other words please do not based your arguments on NT passages since it is the basic problem with Mat 1:23 and the Christological mistranslation from the Greek which initiates this problem.

Also, please don't bring up the faulty arguments about dual prophecy or the usage of the plural "you" (lachem) in 7:14. These arguments have been refuted many times before and I really do not want to go over the same ground again.

Finally, please don't use the usual technique of some moderators on this forum, ie expostulation with hell and brimstone calling me blind to the truth, etc if you really don't have an answer. Simply try to refute my position with appropriate reference to scripture. Thanks.

 

[einstein]

Yeshua: DO you have any further questions wrt Is 7:14 or any other passages? :o

 

[YESHUA]

Re: 7:14

I will answer your question in an abbreviated summary but first I would suggest you go back to about the beginning of Oct/05 in this thread where this topic was already discussed.

Both from an linguistic and contextual perspective Is 7:14 can be demonstrated to be a near-term prophecy that is part of an historic narrative and which was fulfilled in the immediate time frame, not 700 years into the future.

Isaiah's declaration (v.14-16) was a prophecy about the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the 2 kings from the north. v. 15-16 go on to state by the time the child reaches an age of maturity ("...he knows to reject bad and choose good..") the 2 kings who Ahaz fears will be gone. This prophecy was fulfilled as confirmed in 2Kings 15:29-30 and 16:9 when the kings were assasinated.

It is the name of the child Immanu'el (G-d is with us, NOT G-d with us) which is the sign given to Ahaz which indicates divine protection that Ahaz and the House of David would enjoy.

A sign given to Ahaz, namely the birth of Jesus (who is never called Immanu'el throughout the GT) who would not be born for some 7 centuries, would not be much of a reassuring sign, would it?

Isaiah tells us that his children were given as signs from G-d (8:18) and that the name he gave to each of his sons carried a prophetic message described by these signs and identified as historical events that occurred.

The analysis of 7:14 and the verses that follow clearly indicate a son born at the time, ie contemporaneous with the events under discussion.

Additionally, consider the mistranslations involved in Christian translations such as the KJB. The translation from the original Hebrew is as follows (with mistranslation in brackets)-Behold, the young woman (NOT "a virgin") is with child (NOT "shall conceive") and she shall bear a son and you [or she] shall call his name Immanu'el.

If you wish to refute what I have stated please do so by reference to scriptures from the Hebrew Bible not from the Greek since the issue is about mistranslation and misapplication from the original Hebrew Bible. In other words please do not based your arguments on NT passages since it is the basic problem with Mat 1:23 and the Christological mistranslation from the Greek which initiates this problem.

Also, please don't bring up the faulty arguments about dual prophecy or the usage of the plural "you" (lachem) in 7:14. These arguments have been refuted many times before and I really do not want to go over the same ground again.

Finally, please don't use the usual technique of some moderators on this forum, ie expostulation with hell and brimstone calling me blind to the truth, etc if you really don't have an answer. Simply try to refute my position with appropriate reference to scripture. Thanks.

I don't recall calling you blind it is between you and your G-D if HE says that your blind then what can I say and what can you do?
And I very seldom tell people that they are bound for hell because I am not capable of sending anybody anywhere.
I will write more later english is not my mother tongue, so it will take some time to write and express what I mean
Shalom and love b'Shem YESHUA

 

[YESHUA]

Yeshua: DO you have any further questions wrt Is 7:14 or any other passages? :o

Yes I do, and I certainly don't agree with you on Is 7 at all, are the Israeli who convert to Christianity aware of the faults in Is 7:14?

 

[Soma-Sight]

Check this out.....


Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups

The "Last and Final Sacrifice" Takes the "Ten-Count"





I. Introduction


Christian apologists and missionaries claim that those who do not accept Jesus as their lord and savior, which includes the Jewish people, are doomed to hell because they cannot ever have their sins forgiven by G-d. This claim is rationalized by alleging that, in Biblical times with the portable Sanctuary in the wilderness and, later, when a Temple was standing in Jerusalem, the only way to bring about the expiation of sins was via the blood of an animal. This animal had to be brought to the priest to be slaughtered at the altar as a sacrificial offering. However, since there has been no Temple standing in Jerusalem from the year 70 C.E. and onward, valid sacrificial offerings cannot be made at the altar. Therefore, according to the claim, the only way to have sins forgiven is through the "sacrificial" death of Jesus on the cross. In other words, the claim is that the blood of Jesus, who was allegedly sacrificed by his "Father" (G-d) as a demonstration of G-d's great love for humanity (Jn 3:16), has once and for all times removed sin from those who accept the "Son" (Jesus), and this act made Jesus the "last and final sacrifice" for ever.



II. New Testament Perspective versus Hebrew Bible Perspective


There are two aspects to the claim that Jesus was "the last and final sacrifice". First, and the subject of this essay, is the suitability of Jesus and the way he died as a sacrificial offering for the remission of sins. Second is the issue concerning the need for blood in the atonement of sins, which is the subject of another essay[1]. In this essay, the validity of the former is tested.



The process of testing this claim starts by recognizing that the following two conditions prevailed during the life of Jesus, and even at the time of his death:



¤ The Second Temple was still standing in Jerusalem

¤ The Hebrew Bible was the Scripture in force



Next, the issue to be analyzed is formulated as a question:



Question: According to the requirements set forth in the Hebrew Bible, was Jesus a valid sacrificial offering, and was his death by crucifixion an acceptable process, for the atonement of sins?



The analytical phase of the testing process identifies the elements that lead to the answer by contrasting that which is written in the New Testament against what the Hebrew Bible specifies.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/jcsac.html

 

[einstein]

Yeshua: Please list your questions or your objectiontions to what I have posted whenever you can. Whether one individual converts from Christianity to Judaism or the other way around is irrelevant to this thread. We are, for the moment attempting a coherent analysis of Is 7:14, a passage which in my estimation has caused the Church considerable difficulties over the centuries as it tries to rationalize the doctrine of the "virgin birth"- a concept which is questioned by many who call themselves Christian.