Is Jesus the Messiah?

[GraceBwithU]

This is getting off topic but nevertheless, please let me know which lexicon you are referencing wherein it states that almah is translated as "virgin". Thanks.

You only argue this point because you refuse to accept it. Nothing I could say would convince you, so why bother. It will all be revealed to you at His second coming. However, let's hope you see the light before then.

 

[francisdesales]

I am not sure of what you are trying to say. There is substantial evidence from multiple sources that the original Septuagint was a translation only of the Law, ie the Five Books of Moses. Over the course of centuries additional Greek translations were made of the Prophets and the Writings most of which were not Jewish in origin with some exceptions (eg Aquila).

I am not arguing about the ORIGINAL Septuagint's contents. Rather, the Septuagint available to the writers of the New Testament, which existed by the latest the second half of the first century. There is absolutely no doubt that the writers of the NT were quoting ANOTHER set of Sacred Scripture - as most of the NT quotes of the OT do not follow the Hebrew translation. They follow the Greek version of Isaiah, the prophets, the Psalms,etc.

By th 2nd century, the Septuagint had essentially become a translation of the Church. Aside from the Mosaic Law, the Septuagint translation were never used in any authoritative sense by ancient Jewry.

That's not true, as the Diaspora continued to use the Greek Old Testament, even while Paul was evangelizing Timothy, who clearly was well versed in the Septuagint, being raised by a Jewish mother living outside of Palestine. Now, it is only natural that the Septuagint would become the "OT of the Church" because the majority of converts were Gentiles who spoke Greek. Even Jews such as Philo, for example, quotes from the OT Septuagint himself. After the destruction of Jerusalem, I would imagine that the number of Jewish Christians who used the Hebrew Bible were greatly diminshed.

In addition, as I have already stated, the Septuagint does not use the term "parthenos" as an exclusive word for virgin. As well the term is ha'almah ie THE young woman, ie a specific female known to the prophet, not some unknown virgin 700 years in the future. If you read the entire chapter of Isaiah, you will see contextually, it has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

I have no doubt that you are correct, that contextually, from Isaiah's point of view, and the Jewish readers of Isaiah's time, they did not consider a Suffering Messiah or a Virgin Birth Messiah. However, the first Christians experienced a cognitive dissonance. The old "ways" and "presumptions" and "interpretations" were destroyed when they considered what they had witnessed. This cognitive dissonance called for new means of interpretations, new manner of coming to the Scriptures, taking seriously Luke's words in the Gospel:

And he (Jesus) said unto them, These [are] the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and [in] the prophets and [in] the psalms, concerning me. Then he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day Luke 24:44-46

Thus, Paul's words came true - that Christ was a stumbling block for the Jews. They had not experienced the cognitive dissonance, the experience of being taught one thing and SEEING another thing! Thus, Christians look to the OT with Christ in mind.

Regards

 

[einstein]

Your statement is, of course, based on your belief that everything recorded in the gospels is an exact record of what historically transpired. It is self-evident that there many Christians who raise doubts about the veracity of certain events as passed down by the authors of the Greek Testament. Even someone as esteemed in Christendom as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has stated for the record he doubts the veracity of many aspects of the nativity story. Notwithstanding this important issue, can you provide a significant example of an event which was witnessed (at least according to the synoptics) and which "destroyed" what had been taught to the Jewish people from the Tanakh with regards to the mission, character, or agenda of the Messiah and which was specifically fulfilled in Jesus?

 

[einstein]

Drew, I view Moses as being authoritative, not Paul. Peace and shalom. :D

Assuming that management is OK with this line of inquiry (and I will not complain if they are not), can you give me a thumbnail overview of where you think Paul is "wrong" in the sense of being at variance with those Scriptures that you do think are authoritative?

Drew- I'll respond to this shortly. Really pressed for time right now.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Your statement is, of course, based on your belief that everything recorded in the gospels is an exact record of what historically transpired. It is self-evident that there many Christians who raise doubts about the veracity of certain events as passed down by the authors of the Greek Testament. Even someone as esteemed in Christendom as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has stated for the record he doubts the veracity of many aspects of the nativity story. Notwithstanding this important issue, can you provide a significant example of an event which was witnessed (at least according to the synoptics) and which "destroyed" what had been taught to the Jewish people from the Tanakh with regards to the mission, character, or agenda of the Messiah and which was specifically fulfilled in Jesus?

Perhaps the Tanakh that you base your believe on is also flawed or perhaps you just simply do not understand its meaning. Why don't we all just say there is no truth. :

You are one of the first Jews that I have met that was ashamed of being one.

 

[einstein]

I think it's obvious to anyone reading this thread that when you are challenged your only response is with invective and derogatory remarks. Keep them to yourself.

I take great pride in my religious heritage as a Jew, from the nation that gave you your saviour, but my religious beliefs, while providing my perspective, are not the subject of this thread.

Why don't you respond to questions regarding genealogy or to my request regarding your 10 lexicons instead of merely spouting off your anti-Jewish crap?

 

[francisdesales]

Your statement is, of course, based on your belief that everything recorded in the gospels is an exact record of what historically transpired. It is self-evident that there many Christians who raise doubts about the veracity of certain events as passed down by the authors of the Greek Testament. Even someone as esteemed in Christendom as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has stated for the record he doubts the veracity of many aspects of the nativity story. Notwithstanding this important issue, can you provide a significant example of an event which was witnessed (at least according to the synoptics) and which "destroyed" what had been taught to the Jewish people from the Tanakh with regards to the mission, character, or agenda of the Messiah and which was specifically fulfilled in Jesus?

First of all, arguing that the New Testament witnesses "do not give an exact record of what historically transpired" naturally calls into question the idea that the Jews walked through the Red Sea or were given the Ten Commandments "from God" into question, as well. We BOTH believe, by faith, that the historical witnesses are true - when that was the intent of the author. That is how historians view historical writings - they give the benefit of the doubt to the author until his reliability is impinged upon by other records.

Regarding the infancy narratives... Are they strictly historical, is there theological reflections added in? People 2000 years removed can have their opinions, but frankly, they are not in a position to make that judgment on a strictly "factual" basis, because we do not have video or audio recordings of the event/non-event. It is strictly based on faith whether it happened that way or not. Thus, the ramblings of an archbishop 2000 years after the event say very little on the historical veracity of the event - as is. Thus, it is up to the reader to believe the writings, and how much of them are narratives and how much are theological reflections. We just cannot go back in time and ask Matthew or Luke "so, did you mean this part literally, or is this a theological reflection"? We take them to be literal because that is the way the first Christians took them. If they include theological reflections, as well, so much the better - since God does not act randomly.

As I said previously, the crucifixion is THE example of cognitive dissonance. The Jews expected a triumphant Messiah. They also attributed to this Messiah one who would heal the people and save the nation. As you can read in the Synoptics, the apostles have this attitude within them and find the idea of a crucified Messiah at odds with their view of things. Peter tells Jesus "it is not to be"... And then, the Apostles witness something beyond their wildest dreams - but something foretold by Christ Himself - HIS RESURRECTED PERSON! This FORCED the Apostles to view things differently. They underwent a cognitive dissonance in that they were taught "x", and God provided "y". Thus, the Apostles had to return to the Old Testament with a new way of looking at things. What they witnessed FORCED them to re-think their presumptions on who or what the Messiah would be and how he would act. And with the coming of the Holy Spirit, it all made sense to them - although the whole thing was a stumbling block for the Jews, since they had not witnessed the Resurrection and did not believe that God would work that way.

Regards

 

[einstein]

Yes, I can understand that scenario, if I were a Christian. It is interesting that you admit that the paradigm of a suffering messiah was unknown to the Jewish people. It had never been taught to them by God through his prophets. So if your scenario is correct, does that mean that God's word through his prophets regarding the nature and mission of the Mashiach and the coming Messianic age were wrong? Why was God deceiving his "chosen people" through the centuries and misleading them? The foundations of your scenario presume that what the Hebrew bible teaches about the Mashiach, repentance, human vicarious atonement, and many other teachings, some taught directly to the Jewish people through God's greatest prophet, Moses, are false. Do you really think the Eternal would act that way? :crazyeyes:

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, I can understand that scenario, if I were a Christian. It is interesting that you admit that the paradigm of a suffering messiah was unknown to the Jewish people. It had never been taught to them by God through his prophets.

I don't know about unknown, per sec, but unaccepted or untaught might be better. I am not familiar with any Jewish rabbi who taught that the Messiah would be a suffering servant - but when looking at the passages through a Christian lenses and in a different time frame, it makes sense and fits in with the experience of the first Christians. I think IF a rabbi or prophet actually taught a suffering messiah, not many people would have taken it very seriously. To the Jewish mindset of the time (as if I know!), it seems that temporal success and blessings is a sign of God's favor. Thus, how would you convince people that suffering innocently, being tortured and having everything taken away incurs God's favor?

So if your scenario is correct, does that mean that God's word through his prophets regarding the nature and mission of the Mashiach and the coming Messianic age were wrong?

No, I do not think God's Word was "incorrect". I believe that God's Word is so profound that it can be useful for people who first read it as well as people of the future - even in different ways and unheard of by the original readers. Have the Jews interpreted passages of Scriptures the same way all the time? God's Word can bring different messages to different people, using the same words. Some people can take something literally, others later on can take a metaphorical approach. Both peoples come to experience God through those Words, even people of today. I do not think that the Jews (or the Catholics today) have fully expounded upon God's Word and its complete meaning.

Why was God deceiving his "chosen people" through the centuries and misleading them? The foundations of your scenario presume that what the Hebrew bible teaches about the Mashiach, repentance, human vicarious atonement, and many other teachings, some taught directly to the Jewish people through God's greatest prophet, Moses, are false. Do you really think the Eternal would act that way? :crazyeyes:

Well, we both know that it is a mistake to try to figure out what God would do or should do. With that said, I'll try anyway!

I think if you look at the ENTIRE Scriptures, to include the New Testament that the Jews do not accept, you will find buried within there the message that God has consistently given - Love God with our entire selves and our neighbor as ourselves. By doing this, we are fulfilling the covenant relationship that we have with Him. God, being righteous, has promised a reward to those who follow God's Spirit and obey Him. This message was given even to the Jews as the foot of Mount Sinai. In the end, Jesus came to complete revelation, not to overturn it or bring "new" commands. Thus, the command given to Moses - "you shall not murder" is more than just "do not physically kill someone, but it's OK to hate him". God made us and knows what is best for us. He knows that His revelation, to be freely accepted, had to come gradually. He knew that commanding us to "love even your neighbors" wouldn't be freely accepted by His people.

Apparently, the Jews of Moses time were not ready for that message - only two of the original host made it to the promised Land. God formed His people, disciplined them, we could say, to train them to accept only One God. To be set apart from other people. To be the light of the world. And while Christians know this as their calling, God began this forming with the Jews - thus, salvation is from the Jews. I see the Old and New Testament as one, ongoing continuation of God gradually expanded His Covenant to include all sorts of people, not just the family of Abram or the tribes of Jacob, or the nation of David - but a universal people, where there were no national barriers, no gender barriers, etc...I see all of this as God's plan to gradually form a People. And apparently, He foreknew that rushing this ahead of "schedule" would not have enabled men to freely come to Him as He deemed we ought to.

Those are my thoughts, any way.

Regards

 

[IRONBARK]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1).

The same was in the beginning with God (John 1:2). All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1;3

In John 1:14 we read that the Word, who was with God became flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the father), full of grace and truth.

Jesus Christ existed in His Spirit body throughout all eternity past, as a member of the Diety, or Godhead, as the Word, untill He divested Himself of His Spirit body and became a man. As God He has always existed. But, as a man, in taking human form, flesh and blood, He had a beginning.
He became flesh and blood so that He could die in mans stead. As Man He could die of our sins, as God He could not die.

Scripture, show that Jesus Christ was one of the three divine persons of the Deity and that as God he had no beginning.

Mic. 5:2 states He existed from all eternity.

John states of Him as existing in the very beginning with the Father (John 1;1-5).

Jesus Himself said He was before Abraham, and before the World was created (John 8:58; 17:5, 24).

Paul states Christ as existing before all things and as the creator and upholder of all things (Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:1-3, 8; 2:10). God the Father created all things by Jesus (Eph. 3:9).

Divine names are ascribed to Him.
These divine names and titles proves that He is by nature divine and a member of the Godhead.
He is called God and Immanuel in (Matt. 1:23; John 1:1; 20:28 and Acts 20:28).

Christ the Lord (Luke 2:26); The Son of God (Matt. 4:3; 14:33; Luke 22:70; John 1:34; Rom. 1:4). He is called "MY SON" by the Father in (Matt. 3:17); The only begotten Son (John 1:18; 3:16-18; 1 John 4:9).

He is called the First and the Last. Alpha and Omega, The beginning and Ending (Rev. 22:12, 13, 16). The Lord (Acts9:17); The Son of the Highest (Luke 1:32; Mark 14:61).

The Holy Child Jesus (Acts 4:30); King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 19:16); Lord and Savious (2 Peter 3:2); and The Word Of God (Rev. 19:13), and many more such titles show He is a member of the Divine Godhead.

In Phil. 2:5-11 Paul speaks of Christ being in God's form and that He laid aside this form and limited His attributes and powers as God to become a man. These powers were given back to Him when He was exalted to the highest place with God, (Coll. 3:1; Mark 16:19), after His lowest humiliation and limitation before God-even to do nothing, say nothing, be nothing and depend entirely upon God the Father for needed grace for body, soul, and spirit, and make a sucess of the work the Father sent Him into the world to do (Phil 2:9-11; Eph. 1:21-23; Col. 1:15-24; 1 Pet. 3:22). We know He did not keep His powers and position whilst a man, else He could not have been exalted back to it.

If He had not laid aside all His Glory and power He could not have had it restored to Him as stated in John 17:5. If He had retained all His riches while on Earth He could not have become poor for our sakes as taught in 2 Cor. 8:9. If He had kept His divine form He could not have taken on human form as taught by Phil. 2:5-11.

His incarnation proves He was limited as a man and grew to manhood as we all do, and He developed normally as any other human child. All the traditional theories of Him making toy birds and animals of mud and breathing life into them so they became real creatures and ran and flew away, and the many other miraculous powers He allegedly had from birth are mere theories and traditions made up by suspicious pagans to make Him equal with their pagan gods. He was a normal man as we are, and He did no miraculous works untill He was anointed fully by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16-17; John 2:11).

After Jesus was annointed by the Holy Spirit to the full, He then posessed all the gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit to the full, and He demonstrated what being like God among men really is like and He encouraged one and all who aspire to this exalted position, of sons of God with Power (John 3:34; Acts 10:38).
He laid aside His natural and divine attributes, and their use, and became a perfect example of yieldedness to God and His Spirit to overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil (Heb. 10:5-9; Acts 10:38).

Regarding His Humanity. Human names were ascribed to Him. Rabboni (John 20:16), Jesus (Matt. 1:21), Son of Abraham and David (Matt. 1:1), Seed and Offspring of David(Rom. 1:3; Rev. 5:5; 22:16). The second man and the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45-47). The King of the Jews (Matt. 2:2).

Jesus Christ existed in His Spirit body throughout all eternity past, untill He divested Himself of His Spirit body and became a man. As God He has always existed. But, as a man, in taking human form, flesh and blood, He had a beginning.

Scripture, show that Jesus Christ was one of the three divine persons of the Deity and that as God he had no beginning.

Mic. 5:2 states He existed from all eternity.

John states of Him as existing in the very beginning with the Father (John 1;1-5).

Jesus Himself said He was before Abraham, and before the World was created (John 8:58; 17:5, 24).

Paul states Christ as existing before all things and as the creator and upholder of all things (Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:1-3, 8; 2:10). God the Father created all things by Jesus (Eph. 3:9).

Divine names are ascribed to Him.
These divine names and titles proves that He is by nature divine and a member of the Godhead.
He is called God and Immanuel in (Matt. 1:23; John 1:1; 20:28 and Acts 20:28).

Christ the Lord (Luke 2:26); The Son of God (Matt. 4:3; 14:33; Luke 22:70; John 1:34; Rom. 1:4). He is called "MY SON" by the Father in (Matt. 3:17); The only begotten Son (John 1:18; 3:16-18; 1 John 4:9).

He is called the First and the Last. Alpha and Omega, The beginning and Ending (Rev. 22:12, 13, 16). The Lord (Acts9:17); The Son of the Highest (Luke 1:32; Mark 14:61).

The Holy Child Jesus (Acts 4:30); King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 19:16); Lord and Savious (2 Peter 3:2); and The Word Of God (Rev. 19:13), and many more such titles show He is a member of the Divine Godhead.

In Phil. 2:5-11 Paul speaks of Christ being in God's form and that He laid aside this form and limited His attributes and powers as God to become a man. These powers were given back to Him when He was exalted to the highest place with God, (Coll. 3:1; Mark 16:19), after His lowest humiliation and limitation before God-even to do nothing, say nothing, be nothing and depend entirely upon God the Father for needed grace for body, soul, and spirit, and make a sucess of the work the Father sent Him into the world to do (Phil 2:9-11; Eph. 1:21-23; Col. 1:15-24; 1 Pet. 3:22). We know He did not keep His powers and position whilst a man, else He could not have been exalted back to it.

If He had not laid aside all His Glory and power He could not have had it restored to Him as stated in John 17:5. If He had retained all His riches while on Earth He could not have become poor for our sakes as taught in 2 Cor. 8:9. If He had kept His divine form He could not have taken on human form as taught by Phil. 2:5-11.

His incarnation proves He was limited as a man and grew to manhood as we all do, and He developed normally as any other human child. All the traditional theories of Him making toy birds and animals of mud and breathing life into them so they became real creatures and ran and flew away, and the many other miraculous powers He allegedly had from birth are mere theories and traditions made up by suspicious pagans to make Him equal with their pagan gods. He was a normal man as we are, and He did no miraculous works untill He was anointed fully by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16-17; John 2:11).

After Jesus was annointed by the Holy Spirit to the full, He then posessed all the gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit to the full, and He demonstrated what being like God among men really is like and He encouraged one and all who aspire to this exalted position, of sons of God with Power (John 3:34; Acts 10:38).
He laid aside His natural and divine attributes, and their use, and became a perfect example of yieldedness to God and His Spirit to overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil (Heb. 10:5-9; Acts 10:38).

Regarding His Humanity. Human names were ascribed to Him. Rabboni (John 20:16), Jesus (Matt. 1:21), Son of Abraham and David (Matt. 1:1), Seed and Offspring of David(Rom. 1:3; Rev. 5:5; 22:16). The second man and the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45-47). The King of the Jews (Matt. 2:2).

He was called a "BABE," a "CHILD," and a "MAN" (Luke 2:16; Isa. 9:6; Acts 17:31; 1 Tim. 2L4-5; Rom. 5:12-21; John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:21, 45-47).

It was prophecied that He would be born of a human mother (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1; 53:1-12; Ps. 22).

And He had flesh and blood like all other men (John 1:14; Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 4:1-6; Luke 24:39; John 19:34).

Jesus Christ, in His glorified flesh and bone body, now sits beside the Father in Heaven (Luke 24:39; John 20:27; Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69), for the Father, who is and did remain a Spirit being, is Spirit and has a Spirit body, and must be worshiped in Spirit and truth (John 4:24).

He was called a "BABE," a "CHILD," and a "MAN" (Luke 2:16; Isa. 9:6; Acts 17:31; 1 Tim. 2L4-5; Rom. 5:12-21; John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:21, 45-47).

It was prophecied that He would be born of a human mother (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1; 53:1-12; Ps. 22).

And He had flesh and blood like all other men (John 1:14; Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 4:1-6; Luke 24:39; John 19:34).

Jesus Christ, in His glorified flesh and bone body, as the frist of the first fruits, now sits beside the Father in Heaven (Luke 24:39; John 20:27; Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69), for the Father, who is and did remain a Spirit being, is Spirit and has a Spirit body, and must be worshiped in Spirit and truth (John 4:24).

 

[GraceBwithU]

I take great pride in my religious heritage as a Jew, from the nation that gave you your saviour, but my religious beliefs, while providing my perspective, are not the subject of this thread.

Why don't you respond to questions regarding genealogy or to my request regarding your 10 lexicons instead of merely spouting off your anti-Jewish crap?

Bravo you finally said it!!...No problem!...never was with me...I'm not anti-jewish...I was married to one. Wonderful lady...she passed. :wink:

the nation that gave you your saviour

Hum. it is God that gives such gifts not your nation or anyother, (please note here...anyother). :wink:

Anyway let's continue.

 

[einstein]

Your statement is, of course, based on your belief that everything recorded in the gospels is an exact record of what historically transpired. It is self-evident that there many Christians who raise doubts about the veracity of certain events as passed down by the authors of the Greek Testament. Even someone as esteemed in Christendom as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has stated for the record he doubts the veracity of many aspects of the nativity story. Notwithstanding this important issue, can you provide a significant example of an event which was witnessed (at least according to the synoptics) and which "destroyed" what had been taught to the Jewish people from the Tanakh with regards to the mission, character, or agenda of the Messiah and which was specifically fulfilled in Jesus?

First of all, arguing that the New Testament witnesses "do not give an exact record of what historically transpired" naturally calls into question the idea that the Jews walked through the Red Sea or were given the Ten Commandments "from God" into question, as well. We BOTH believe, by faith, that the historical witnesses are true - when that was the intent of the author. That is how historians view historical writings - they give the benefit of the doubt to the author until his reliability is impinged upon by other records.

Regarding the infancy narratives... Are they strictly historical, is there theological reflections added in? People 2000 years removed can have their opinions, but frankly, they are not in a position to make that judgment on a strictly "factual" basis, because we do not have video or audio recordings of the event/non-event. It is strictly based on faith whether it happened that way or not. Thus, the ramblings of an archbishop 2000 years after the event say very little on the historical veracity of the event - as is. Thus, it is up to the reader to believe the writings, and how much of them are narratives and how much are theological reflections. We just cannot go back in time and ask Matthew or Luke "so, did you mean this part literally, or is this a theological reflection"? We take them to be literal because that is the way the first Christians took them. If they include theological reflections, as well, so much the better - since God does not act randomly.

As I said previously, the crucifixion is THE example of cognitive dissonance. The Jews expected a triumphant Messiah. They also attributed to this Messiah one who would heal the people and save the nation. As you can read in the Synoptics, the apostles have this attitude within them and find the idea of a crucified Messiah at odds with their view of things. Peter tells Jesus "it is not to be"... And then, the Apostles witness something beyond their wildest dreams - but something foretold by Christ Himself - HIS RESURRECTED PERSON! This FORCED the Apostles to view things differently. They underwent a cognitive dissonance in that they were taught "x", and God provided "y". Thus, the Apostles had to return to the Old Testament with a new way of looking at things. What they witnessed FORCED them to re-think their presumptions on who or what the Messiah would be and how he would act. And with the coming of the Holy Spirit, it all made sense to them - although the whole thing was a stumbling block for the Jews, since they had not witnessed the Resurrection and did not believe that God would work that way.

Regards

I think your use of the term cognitive dissonance is quite appropriate here since that term usually means anxiety generated by simultaneously held INCONGRUOUS or CONTRADICTORY beliefs.

That is why from a logical perspective the vast majority of Jews who were cognizant of the teachings of the Tanach rejected what Paul was promoting. His message found much more fertile ground among the Gentiles who had little or no knowledge of the Torah and the Prophets.
Let's say a verse can reasonably interpreted in two ways. One interpretation makes it fit smoothly into the entire pattern of what the scriptures have been saying all along, while the second interpretation makes it state something altogether unexpected and peculiar or frankly contradictory to the previous context of the bible as a whole. I am sure you would agree that it is a more reasonable course of action to choose the first interpretation.

The Creator provided an outline of the pedigree, and characteristics of the Mashiach. Simply defined he is the future King of Israel who reigns during the Messianic Age. The Mashiach is a human being not a god or demi-god and his ascendance will make a visible difference in the real world not in some invisible spiritual world. He will accomplish this when he arrives, not in some second or third coming- something that is totally unbiblical.

For the sake of brevity I will not cover what the Hebrew Bible states will be accomplished in the Messianic Era by the Mashiach. These things which are recognized as elements of the Messianic Era (universal peace, rebuilding of the Third Temple,etc) by both Chrisitan and Jewish scholars , were not accomplished by Jesus, nor have they yet been accomplished. And as I have previously stated, a close examination of the Jesus' genealogies as per Luke and Matthew exclude him as a candidate if you apply the LAW in analyzing the pedigree. I am speaking of the LAW which prevailed at the time of Jesus, the very Law he himself venerated and accepted.

 

[GraceBwithU]

For the sake of brevity I will not cover what the Hebrew Bible states will be accomplished in the Messianic Era by the Mashiach. These things which are recognized as elements of the Messianic Era (universal peace, rebuilding of the Third Temple,etc) by both Chrisitan and Jewish scholars , were not accomplished by Jesus, nor have they yet been accomplished. And as I have previously stated, a close examination of the Jesus' genealogies as per Luke and Matthew exclude him as a candidate if you apply the LAW in analyzing the pedigree. I am speaking of the LAW which prevailed at the time of Jesus, the very Law he himself venerated and accepted.

I have given you the genealogies of Jesus through scripture and you respond with just more of YOUR words. Please give scripture facts.

What is the true genealogy of Mary and Joseph then?

You could have better served brevity by using scripture other than your very wordy responses that are simply your words...not scripture.

 

[GraceBwithU]

einstein,
Does this remind you of anyone....?

Isa 53:6-12
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
KJV

 

[GraceBwithU]

The Mashiach is a human being not a god or demi-god and his ascendance will make a visible difference in the real world not in some invisible spiritual world.

Obviously Jesus has made a visible difference in the real world.
Does the scripture below describe a human being? Are we to believe that this human being that you are looking for will…live forever, and be called..."Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."?

Isa 9:6-7
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.
7 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.
KJV

 

[einstein]

I have already responded using scripture demonstrating how your use of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke is faulty. The ball is in YOUR court to show how these pedigrees prove that Jesus could be the Messiah. To summarize, using Joseph's line is of no avail since your faith states that Jesus' father is the holy ghost. Assuming the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, I have already shown using scripture that tribal affiliation is through one's biological father, hence Mary's line is useless. Furthermore, the scenario in Numbers shows that only tangible assets, property, land could be passed on to a daughter. It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation. That was demonstrated through scripture with proper translation from the Hebrew (your translation was incorrect). Notwithstanding that, Mary's line is traced back through Nathan, whereas scripture states that David's heir to sit on the throne in the Messianic era is through Solomon. Your play. :D

BTW Is 53 does not REMIND me of anyONE. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the righteous remnant of Israel. That is not only the Jewish perspective. There are many Christian scholarly sources that agree with this interpretation. Please name one reputable Jewish source that specifically states that Is 53 is about Jesus.

 

[einstein]

The Mashiach is a human being not a god or demi-god and his ascendance will make a visible difference in the real world not in some invisible spiritual world.

Obviously Jesus has made a visible difference in the real world.
Does the scripture below describe a human being? Are we to believe that this human being that you are looking for will…live forever, and be called..."Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."?

Isa 9:6-7
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.
7 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.
KJV

Yes, it actually does describe a human being. :-D Especially when one knows the proper translation from the Hebrew text. Yours (I presume it being the KJB) is faulty in many parts. I think you should prove me wrong wrt to the genealogies first before any discussion of Is 9:5 takes place. Otherwise there is no focus to the discussion.

 

[biblecatholic]

using Joseph's line is of no avail since your faith states that Jesus' father is the holy ghost.

Adoption(in the jewish world), whether of a child or an adult, was common and affected which genealogical line one was ascribed to...... Caleb was biologically the son of a non-Jew named Jephunneh (Num. 32:12), but he was adopted into the tribe of Judah and put into the line of Hezron (1 Chron. 2:18).


So it is possible to not have the blood but to be a descendent

 

[GraceBwithU]

[

Yes, it actually does describe a human being. :-D Especially when one knows the proper translation from the Hebrew text. Yours (I presume it being the KJB) is faulty in many parts. I think you should prove me wrong wrt to the genealogies first before any discussion of Is 9:5 takes place. Otherwise there is no focus to the discussion.

I ask you Please sir to enlighten us with this PROPER tranlation that you speak of.
I have givrn you genealogies ...and you still refuse to quote anything. Only your words.

I have stated much proof to you...and you answer me in the same manner. (which says nothing).

I looked back in your post and I could find NO scripture quoted by you from your PROPER translation of the scripture.

 

[GraceBwithU]

einstein,

Born in Bethlehem

Mic 5:2
2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Luke 2:4-5, 7
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.... And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.