Jesus, THE Messiah?

[Not3in1]

David,
Love your “tag” scripture!

Everyone….take notice of what it says as it is a warning to us all.

Thanks, brother!
Mandy

[david]

Quote

Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,21:28) You asked if I was going to be addressing the contradictions. I suppose you mean the list above of non-contradictions. Quote 1) Matthew has guards, an earthquake, and the women meeting the angel outside of the tomb. The guards and women are scared by the angel and the earthquake. The other gospels do not have these things What does this contradict? Do the other gospels specifically say “these things” never happened? Do they in any way contradict the fact that there was an earthquake for instance? Do any of the other gospels say: “There was no earthquake.” Because if not, this is a case of one gospel including details others don't. NO CONTRADICTION. —smacking forehead— Not the 'they didn't say it didn't happen' argument! I was wondering when this ploy would be used. It is an act of desperation when you've reached this point. By you same logic Jesus never says he is not the a person of a triune god nor does he ever ever say he is not santa claus. The fact is Matthew includes an earthquake, guards, and the angel on the outside. This is NOT supported by the other gospels. Therefore contradiction no matter how you slice or dice it. Does not the Bible support the idea of at least two witnesses? Matthews account makes only one. Based upon this, the earthquake, guards and angel on the outside are therefore struck down as evidence. Quote Quote 2) Mark has the women leaving, saying nothing to anyone. Not sure what you're referring to. “and they returned from the memorial tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.” (Mark 24:9) The verses beyond verse 8 of Mark 16 are spurious additions and are not found in the earliest manuscripts. Therefore anything beyond verse 8 is struck down as evidence. Quote Quote 3) Women, including Mary M. meet Jesus on the way to either Galilee or the disciples in Matthew. No mention in Mark or Luke. Again, another case of more information provided in some of the accounts. NOT CONTRADICTIONS in any sense of the word. Yes, contradiction because John says Mary M. met Jesus while still in the tomb, not on the way to Galilee. Quote Quote 3 In John, Mary M. meets Jesus in the tomb, not on the way back. Well, not “in the tomb.” We're told she was “stooping” forward to look in the tomb. We're told she “turned back” and saw Jesus. So he wasn't “in the tomb,” as you say. “So, quickly leaving the memorial tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to report to his disciples. And, look! Jesus met them and said: “Good day!” They approached and caught him by his feet and did obeisance to him.” (Mat 28:8,9) And John says: “After saying these things, she turned back and viewed Jesus standing, but she did not discern it was Jesus.” So turning around (without leaving) and meeting Jesus on the way are the same to you? OK. I understand you have to cling to your beliefs. Quote So in Matthew we have her “leaving the Memorial tomb” and “look Jesus met them.” And in John, “she turned back and viewed Jesus…but she did not discern it was” him. Is this a contradiction. No. If so, why? One is meeting them on the way back (Matthew) and the other is merely turning around and seeing him (John). But here's where the contradiction starts. Luk 24:10 Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, What 'things' did they tell the apostles? ———————— Luk 24:4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. Luk 24:5 And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? Luk 24:6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, Luk 24:7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” Luk 24:8 And they remembered his words, Luk 24:9 and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. ———————— Note here that Mary M. was included in the group that told of the encounter with the angels. It was upon this report that Peter went to the tomb. But according to John, Mary M. went to Peter BEFORE she encountered the angels. She did not encounter the angels until after Peter had left the tomb in John but before Peter wen to the tomb in Luke. CONTRADICTION. Quote Quote 4) In Matthew, disciples are to meet in Galilee, in Luke they meet in Jerusalem Ok, in Luke we have those two traveling on the road away from “Jerusalem.” And in Matthew, we have the angel telling Mary: “he is going ahead of YOU into Gal′i·lee; there YOU will see him. Look! I have told YOU.” And “, report to my brothers, that they may go off into Gal′i·lee; and there they will see me.”” How is this a contradiction? Please explain. The angel told her to tell them to go to Galillee where they would see him. And in Luke, we have two who did see him while on their way from Jerusalem. And the contradiction is what, exactly? NO CONTRADICTION. (I know you dearly want these to be contradictions, but they are not.) The distance from Jerusalem to Galilee was app. 120 miles. Go figure. Quote Quote 5) One angel outside in Matthew, one inside in Mark, two inside in Luke and John. Which of the gospels says: “There was only one angel present in this account”? None of the gospels says there was “only one angel.” Clearly there were two. If two angels appeared to a bunch of people and one of them spoke, some of those who retold what happened would simply say: “An angel spoke” not mentioning the second angel. This is not a contradiction. It would be a contradiction if one account said: 'There was only one angel.' NO CONTRADICTION. Just some people recording more details, yet again. See above. Just how many angels were there then? One outside and two inside? Or one outside and one inside with one invisible one? CONTRADICTION . Quote Quote 6) Mary M. tells Peter about the encounter with angels and he goes to the tomb in Luke. In John, Mary M. does not know what has happened before she tells Peter. So in Luke, Peter goes to the tomb with the knowledge that angels said Jesus has risen, but has no knowledge in John. Ok, I think I tried to explain this to you several times. Peter obviously went to the tomb twice. STOP. This is blatant apologetics. You are trying to explain away the discrepancies now. You are over the cliff and hanging by a thin wet root. Quote The first time to go see what Mary had said, about the tomb being empty. The second time, after being told about the angels, he ran off to the tomb again. Yes, most of the gospels don't include him running the first time. (It's inconsequential.) Is it? Only for those who HAVE to believe in the reconciling the abundance of errors. Quote But it wasn't to John, because he most likely was the second runner, the faster runner, the un-named runner. NO CONTRADICTION. (Please go back and read my previous posts on this.) I already read them and they were as weak in explaining away the discrepancies as this. Quote Quote 7) No mention in Matthew about any of the disciples going to the tomb at all but only finding out about Jesus from the women and then meeting him in Galilee. Right, Matthew leaves out a lot of the detail s, only recording what was needed. Where is the contradiction? A contradiction is when two things contradict each other. NO CONTRADICTION. True but leaving out does not help the story either. So I'll give you 'no contradiction'. Quote I feel a little awkward going over this, but: Contradiction: (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; “the statement `he is brave and he is not brave' is a contradiction” You have only succeeded in showing that one of these was not a contradiction. I would feel awkward at this point too with that kind of batting average . Quote None of the statements that you consider contradictions are necessarily false. They are largely simply statements not mentioned by others. david Sorry but only one was shown not to be a contradiction. Oh yes unless you consider the blatant absence of pertinent information.

This is nonsense.

Quote

The fact is Matthew includes an earthquake, guards, and the angel on the outside. This is NOT supported by the other gospels. Therefore contradiction no matter how you slice or dice it.

Is it a contradiction iof one person telling the story of the guy going to the dentist leaves out the fact that he paid for it?
And if so, why? You say it's not “supported” by the other gospels. What you mean is the other gospels don't mention these things.
So I ask again: Is it a contradiction if someone tells the story of the guy going to the dentist and leaves out one of the details that the others do–that he paid for the dentist?
THIS IS NO WAY, IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD, ACCORDING TO ANY DEFINITION YOU PROVIDE–A CONTRADICTION. A CONTRADICTION IS WHEN TWO THINGS “CONTRADICT” EACH OTHER.
You say:

Quote

The other gospels do not have these things

Yes, they don't “record” that these things happened. But they don't state that they didn't happen, or nothing “CONTRADICTS” that they could have happened. Please consult a dictionary.

Quote

Quote Quote 2) Mark has the women leaving, saying nothing to anyone. Not sure what you're referring to. “and they returned from the memorial tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.” (Mark 24:9) The verses beyond verse 8 of Mark 16 are spurious additions and are not found in the earliest manuscripts. Therefore anything beyond verse 8 is struck down as evidence.

Ok, spurios or not, again, THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION ACCORDING TO ALL THE DICTIONARIES OF THE WORLD.
Show me the two scriptures that contradict. One (Mark) should say something like: the women left, saying nothing to anyone. The other should say: The women left, saying something to people. Of course, no scripture says that they left, saying “nothing to anyone.” That account in Mark simply doesn't record that detail. NOT A CONTRADICTION.

I feel like I'm largely wasting my time here, UNTIL YOU AT LEAST GRASP WHAT THE WORD “contradiction” means. I truly believe you don't have an understanding of this word.
None of these things are contradictions or discrepencies.

Most of them just include different aspects of what happened. Some record more detail or focus more on certain aspects of what happened.

THERE ISN'T A SINGLE CONTRADICTION IN THIS ACCOUNT.

I want to start simple: If that guy goes to the dentist (see a couple posts back) and several people record what happens and one of them doesn't record that he paid for this, is that a contradiction?

david

[david]

Quote

David, Love your “tag” scripture! Everyone….take notice of what it says as it is a warning to us all. Thanks, brother! Mandy

“Let no man deceive you with empty words….”–Eph 5:6

That is largely what I'm trying not to let happen on this thread. It's very easy to say a lot, to spit out as much as you can, without consideration. But I want to test all things. And I want to point out errors in thinking. Is 1:18 got me looking into all the many fallacies of thinking and argumentation that we all make (often without realizing it). I have always been interested in these, but he showed me or started me looking at just how many errors there were.

Towshab, for example, often starts by saying: “Common apologetics response.” In doing so, he tries to link me and label me with people who may believe a certain thing (which has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is the Messiah.) These fallacies are often subtle. Watch out for them.
It would be like me saying to him: “You don't believe in Jesus, common Atheist response.”
Yes, athiests don't believe in Jesus. But the two thoughts aren't connected and one doesn't prove or disprove the other.

Anyway, “Let no man deceive you with empty words….”
david

[david]

Historian Durant sought to examine the Gospel accounts from a purely objective standpoint—as historical documents. Though he says that there are seeming contradictions in them, he concludes:

“The contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.”

One account uses the word “scarlet” and another account uses the word “purple.”
Is this a contradiction?
Purple is made up of red and blue.
Scarlet is a vivid red color.

Is this a contradiction?
Imagine the color purple and the color scarlet. In between is an infinite number of shades of color. If the color was actually one of these inbetween colors (a shade between purple [red/blue] and red), who are we to argue that purple is wrong or that scarlet is wrong?

These trivial details make up the vast majority of contradictions.

[david]

Have you ever read two biographies about the same famous person? If so, have you noticed that these biographies will differ without being necessarily contradictory? Often, it is because of the writer’s personal impressions or the sources he has used. It also depends on what the author feels is important to relate in his presentation, the angle he is developing, and having the audience in mind for whom the work is intended. Thus, accounts written with Gentile readers in mind would differ from those for Jewish readers, who already understood and accepted certain facts.

[david]

Belief in Messiah's arrival was nurtured among the Jews for centuries. Yet, when Jesus of Nazareth came, most Jews ultimately rejected him as Messiah. To the Jewish mind, Jesus did not live up to expectations.

Among Jews the term “Messiah” came to stand for a descendant of King David who would usher in a glorious rule. (2 Samuel 7:12, 13) By Jesus’ day the Jews had suffered for centuries under a series of harsh Gentile rulers. They longed for a political deliverer.
–The Messiah Idea in Jewish History, by Julius H. Greenstone, 1973 (originally published in 1906), page 75.

So when Jesus of Nazareth presented himself as the long-awaited Messiah, there was naturally much initial excitement. (Luke 4:16-22) But to the great disappointment of the Jews, Jesus was no political hero. On the contrary, he claimed that his Kingdom ‘was no part of the world.’ (John 18:36) Furthermore, Jesus did not then usher in the glorious Messianic age foreseen by the prophet Isaiah. (Isaiah 11:4-9) And when Jesus was put to death as a criminal, the nation as a whole lost interest in him.

Undeterred by these events, Jesus’ followers continued to proclaim him as the Messiah. What accounted for their remarkable zeal? It was the belief that Jesus’ death fulfilled prophecy, specifically the prophecy of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. This reads in part:

“Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, . . . for he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground . . . He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: He was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried . . . He was crushed because of our iniquities: The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way . . . He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, . . . he was cut off out of the land of the living. . . . And they made his grave with the wicked.”—JP

A Suffering Messiah?
Did Isaiah here foretell a suffering, dying Messiah? Most modern Jewish commentators say no. Some claim that the Suffering Servant was the nation of Israel itself during its Babylonian exile. Others relate the suffering to periods such as the Crusades or the Nazi Holocaust.
–Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65; Soncino Books of the Bible—Isaiah, edited by A. Cohen, 1949, page 260; You Take Jesus, I’ll Take God, by Samuel Levine, 1980, page 25.

But does this explanation stand up to close scrutiny? It is true that in some contexts Isaiah does speak of Israel as God’s “servant.” But he speaks of Israel as a wayward, sinful servant. (Isaiah 42:19; 44:21, 22) The Encyclopaedia Judaica thus draws this contrast: “The real Israel is sinful and the Servant [of Isaiah 53], free of sin.”
–Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65

Some, therefore, argue that the Servant represents a ‘righteous elite’ in Israel that suffered on behalf of the sinful Jews. But Isaiah never spoke of any such elite. On the contrary, he prophesied that the whole nation would be sinful! (Isaiah 1:5, 6; 59:1-4; compare Daniel 9:11, 18, 19.) Besides, during periods of affliction, Jews suffered whether they were righteous or not.

Another problem: For whom did the Servant suffer? The Jewish Soncino commentary suggests the Babylonians. If so, who confessed that the Servant suffered ‘because of our iniquities’? (Isaiah 53:5) Is it reasonable to believe that the Babylonians (or any other Gentiles) would make such an astounding admission—that the Jews suffered in their behalf?
–Soncino Books of the Bible—Isaiah, edited by A. Cohen, 1949, page 261.

Interestingly, some first-century rabbis (and a number since then) identified the Suffering Servant with the Messiah.
–The Book of Isaiah, commentary by Amos Chakham, 1984, page 575;
–The Targum of Isaiah, edited by J. F. Stenning, 1949, page 178;
–The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, by Christopher R. North, First Edition, 1948, pages 11-15;
–Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65.

Thousands of Jews came to see undeniable parallels between the Suffering Servant and Jesus of Nazareth. Like that Servant, Jesus was of humble origin. Ultimately, he was despised and shunned. Though he carried out no political conquest, he bore the diseases of others, miraculously curing their ailments. Though innocent, he died as a result of judicial miscarriage—a fate he accepted without protest.

A Dying Messiah?
Why would Messiah have to die? Explains Isaiah 53:10:
“But the LORD chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life, and that through him the LORD’s purpose might prosper.” (Ta)

This alluded to the Levitical practice of offering up animal victims to atone for sin or guilt. Messiah would suffer a disgraceful death, but like a sacrificial victim, his death would have atoning merit.

If Messiah died, though, how could he fulfill the prophecies about his glorious rule, much less “see offspring and have long life”? Logically, by a resurrection from the dead. (Compare 1 Kings 17:17-24.) Messiah’s resurrection would also resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel 7:13, which predicted that the Messiah would triumphantly come on the clouds of heaven, and Zechariah 9:9, which said that he would humbly arrive on an ass. The Talmud tried to explain this paradox by asserting: “If they are meritorious, he will come with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.” (Sanhedrin 98a)
–The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, page 664.

This would mean that the prophecy at either Daniel 7:13 or Zechariah 9:9 would remain unfulfilled. Yet, Messiah’s resurrection would allow him to fulfill both prophecies. Initially, he would come humbly to suffer and die. After his resurrection, he would return in glory and usher in the heavenly Messianic rule.

Hundreds of Jewish eyewitnesses testified that Jesus experienced a resurrection from the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:6) Can such claims be brushed aside?

Judaism and Jesus
Most first-century Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah. Still, he had a profound impact upon Judaism. Though Jesus is barely mentioned in the Talmud, what little is said tries “to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death.”
–The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1910, Volume VII, page 170.
(Says Israeli scholar Pinchas Lapide: “Talmudic passages about Jesus . . . were mutilated, distorted, or obliterated by church censors.” It is thus “more than likely that Jesus originally had a much greater impact on rabbinical literature than the fragments we have today bear witness to.”
–Israelis, Jews, and Jesus, by Pinchas Lapide, 1979, pages 73-4)

Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner admits that these tales “seem as though they are deliberately intended to contradict events recorded in the Gospels.”
–Jesus of Nazareth—His Life, Times, and Teaching, by Joseph Klausner, 1947 (first published in Great Britain in 1925), page 19.

And with good reason! The Catholic Church had exacerbated Jewish aversion to Jesus by its anti-Semitism. It further alienated Jews by declaring Jesus to be a supposed ‘God the Son’—part of an incomprehensible Trinity—in direct contradiction to Jesus’ own teachings. At Mark 12:29, Jesus quoted the Torah, saying: “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.”—King James Version; Deuteronomy 6:4.

Though Judaism resisted conversion, “Christianity affected Judaism considerably. It forced the Rabbis to change their e
mphasis and in some instances to alter their views.”
–The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, by Jakób Jocz, 1954 (first published in 1949), page 153.

Rabbis of earlier generations believed that the Messianic hope permeated the Scriptures. They saw glimmers of that hope in such Bible texts as Genesis 3:15 and 49:10. The Palestinian Targum applied the fulfillment of the former verse to “the day of King Messiah.”
–Neophyti 1, Targum Palestinense, Ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Génesis, 1968, Volume I, pages 503-4; The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, by Samson H. Levey, 1974, pages 2-3.

The Midrash Rabbah said of the latter verse: “This alludes to the royal Messiah.”
–Midrash Rabbah, translated and edited by Dr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, 1961 (First Edition 1939), Volume II, page 956; Chumash With Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary, translated by A. M. Silbermann and M. Rosenbaum, 1985, pages 245-6.

The Talmud also applied prophecies of Isaiah, Daniel, and Zechariah to the Messiah.
–The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, pages 663-5, 670-1 (Sanhedrin 98a, 98b).

“All the prophets have prophesied only for the days of the Messiah,” Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a.
–New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, edited and translated by Michael L. Rodkinson, 1903, Part IV, Volume VIII, page 312 (Tract Sanhedrin); The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, page 670 (Sanhedrin 99a).

But under the pressure of Christendom’s conversion efforts, Judaism reassessed its views. Many Scripture texts that had long been applied to the Messiah were reinterpreted.
–The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, by Christopher R. North, First Edition, 1948, page 18; The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, by Jakób Jocz, 1954 (first published in 1949), pages 205-7, 282; The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, 1929-36, Volume I, page 202; Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times, by Werner Förster, translated by Gordon E. Harris, 1964, pages 199-200.

As modern times dawned, under the influence of higher criticism of the Bible, some Jewish scholars concluded that the Messianic hope does not appear in the Bible at all.
–Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 11, page 1407; U.S. Catholic, December 1983, page 20.

The Messianic hope, however, underwent something of a rebirth with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Writes Harold Ticktin: ‘Most Jewish factions regard the emergence of the State of Israel as a great prophetic event.’
–U.S. Catholic, December 1983, page 21; What Is Judaism?, by Emil L. Fackenheim, 1987, pages 268-9.

Nevertheless, the issue of when the long-awaited Messiah is to arrive has remained unresolved in Jewish thought. The Talmud says: “When thou seest a generation overwhelmed by many troubles as by a river, await [the Messiah].” (Sanhedrin 98a)
–The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, page 663.

However, the Jewish Messiah did not come during the dark night of the Holocaust nor during the tumultuous birth of the State of Israel. One wonders, ‘What further troubles must the Jewish people yet undergo before the Messiah will come?’

Seeking the Messiah
The Messianic hope was born and nurtured with the Jews. Among them that hope has grown dim. Its brilliance has been nearly extinguished by centuries of suffering and disappointment. Ironically, millions among the nations, or Gentiles, have come to seek and ultimately to embrace a Messiah. Is it just a coincidence that Isaiah said of the Messiah: : “Unto him shall the nations [Gentiles] seek”? (Isaiah 11:10, JP) Should not Jews also seek the Messiah themselves? Why should they deny themselves their long-cherished hope?

It is in vain, however, to seek a future Messiah. Were he to arrive, how could he establish himself as a bona fide descendant of King David? Were not genealogical records destroyed along with the second temple? Though such records existed in Jesus’ day, his claim of being a legitimate descendant of David was never successfully challenged. (See: The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston, 1987, “The Life of Flavius Josephus,” 1:1-6, and “Flavius Josephus Against Apion,” footnote on 7:31, 32.)
Could any future Messianic claimant ever produce such credentials? One must therefore seek the Messiah who came in the past.

This requires taking a fresh look at Jesus, dispensing with preconceived notions. The effeminate ascetic of church paintings bears little resemblance to the real Jesus. The Gospel accounts—written by Jews—show him as a powerful, vibrant man, a rabbi of extraordinary wisdom. (John 3:2) Actually, Jesus surpasses any dream the Jews ever had of a political deliverer. As a conquering King, he will usher in, not some fragile political state, but an invincible heavenly Kingdom that will restore Paradise to the entire earth and under which “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb.”—Isaiah 11:6, JP; Revelation 19:11-16.

[david]

A similar supposed contradiction to Towshab's two angels-one angel at the tomb is the number of times the #### crowed.

Since Matthew, Luke, and John mention only one cockcrowing, while Mark quotes Jesus as saying:
“Truly I say to you, You today, yes, this night, before a #### crows twice, even you will disown me three times.” —Mr 14:30, 72.
He repeats this statement in relating what happened later.

This is evidently a matter of one writer giving a more detailed account than the others rather than being a contradiction. The incident involves Peter, and since Mark was his close companion over a period of time and doubtless wrote his Gospel account with Peter’s aid or on the basis of his testimony, it is reasonable that Mark’s account would be the more detailed one. (At other times Matthew gave the more detailed description of certain events, as seen by a comparison of Mt 8:28 with Mr 5:2 and Lu 8:27, and of Mt 20:30 with Mr 10:46 and Lu 18:35.)

So, while Mark quoted Jesus’ statement concerning the two cockcrowings, the other three writers mentioned only the second and last one, which provoked Peter’s giving way to tears; but by this they did not deny that there was an earlier cockcrowing, hence another NON-CONTRADICTION THAT SOME PAINT AS CONTRADICTION.

If the other writers denied that there was an earlier crowing this would in fact be a contradiction.
But it is not.
It is just another matter of some including more detail.

david

[david]

Apparently, you aren't allowed to swear on this site.

[david]

Here, let me give you an example of an actual true contradiction:

It was a tradition of the Jews to avoid using God's
name altogether. They stopped all mention of him.
No longer using God's Divine Name, they no longer used
it in their prayers, even making it a sin to say his
name out loud. They considered it “blasphemy” to
utter the name of God, Jehovah. Many translators
admit to following this “Jewish Tradition” and have
thus removed Jehovah's name and replaced it with Titles
such as “LORD” and “GOD” – all in capitals – to show
that they have removed God's name in those places.
Some, apparently call him Hashem to avoid using his name.

In the Bible, refusing to mention the name of a god
means refusing to worship this god (Ex 23:13)
and that is why Satan incited the Israelites,
by means of the prophets of Baal,
not to use the Name of Jehovah (Jr 23:27).

We have scriptures like this:
Isa. 12:4: “Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high.”

Are not these commands to “call upon his name” in direct contrast with the tradition of “not calling upon his name, but rather, substituting titles”?

david

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,21:51)

Quote Dan 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. Still, this kingdom must be given to him who has the legal right: EZEKIEL 21:26-27 “this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, 'Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no [one's] until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give [it] to him.'”

This may very well be messianic. If so Jesus would not fit because he died. I know Christians want to believe that he will fulfill all of the unfulfilled prophecies when he returns but this is totally contrary to the Jewish scriptures. There can be found nowhere except the Christian bible the idea that the Messiah will die, be resurrected, and then return to bring forth the messianic age. Remember what was said about the prophet that would rise up like Moses and how Christians want to fit this to Jesus as well? Was Moses from heaven? Did he have a second coming? Was he an angel or god in the flesh?

Try as you may Jesus will not fit the mold of the Jewish Messiah. He didn't even fit the mold of a typical 'anointed' one because he was never properly anointed. Therefore he was neither priest nor king. The only ones who called him a king where the ones who did not have a right to do so.

Quote

DANIEL 4:17 “By the decree of watchers the thing is, and [by] the saying of holy ones the request is, to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind.”” (Jesus was made the lowliest.) DANIEL 4:25 “….until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that to the one whom he wants to he gives it.” DANIEL 7:14 “And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.”

Take a moment and read the balance of Daniel 7 because the interpretation is given as it was shown to Daniel. The four great beasts are four kings (Dan 7:17). What does Dan 7:18 then say?

Dan 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Why was this 'son of man' not mentioned in the interpretation? Because the 'son of man' represented the 'saints of the most High', just as the four beasts represented four kings. Now match 7:14 with 7:27.

Dan 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Dan 7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Don't forget that Daniel had a vision that needed interpretation. When the interpretation was given the 'son of man' was not mentioned again but all that was said of this person in the vision was related to the 'saints of the Most High'. All you need do is read the chapter in its entirety to see that the 'son of man' represented the 'saints' and was not actually a singular person.

Let me ask, do you think that the four kings will stand alone? No they will have people under them. They represent kingdoms. In likewise fashion the 'son of man' represents a people the 'saints of the Most High'.

Quote

PSALM 2:6 “[Saying:] “I, even I, have installed my king Upon Zion, my holy mountain.””

Kind David.

Quote

PSALM 8:6 “You make him dominate over the works of your hands; Everything you have put under his feet:”

This is simply man as a collective whole not some king. Mankind was given dominion over the earth.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

Quote

PSALM 89:27 “Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn, The most high of the kings of the earth.”

King David. Just read 89:20 for context.

Psa 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

Also note that King David was anointed with holy oil something that Jesus cannot claim.

Quote

PSALM 110:2 “The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, [saying:] “Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.””

Since Jesus did not fulfill the rest of this chapter it cannot be about him. No second coming in the Jewish bible. All will be accomplished the first time.

Quote

ISAIAH 9:6 “For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Yes, there are co-rulers with Christ as you have aptly discerned.

If by 'Christ' you mean Jesus of Nazareth, no. Since 'christo' means 'anointed', yes. I know Christians think 'christos' is synonymous with Jesus but that is not true.

And Is 9:6 was already fulfilled by King Hezekiah (2 Kings 19-20). A very thorough explanation can be found at http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa9.html

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,21:52)

DANIEL 7:14 “And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.”

As pointed out above the vision was then given its interpretation where the 'son of man' was not mentioned again. All of the things said in Dan 7:14 were said of the 'saints of the Most High'.

Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,21:57)

Quote Wherever do you get the erroneous idea that the 'son of man' is the Moshiach? Because Jesus calls himself 'Son of man'? The prophecy of the coming of the Son of man into the presence of the Ancient of Days, Jehovah God, clearly applies to an individual, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The evidence is that it was so understood by the Jewish people. Rabbinic writings applied the prophecy to the Messiah. (Soncino Books of the Bible, edited by A. Cohen, 1951, commentary on Da 7:13)

Since I do not have access to that book to verify I would like to point out the proper translation of Daniel 7:13. It is not 'THE Son of Man' but 'a son of man'. Of the Christian translations, the following translate the phrase 'a son of man': NASB, Darby, ERV, WEB, YLT, CEV, ESV, RSV, NIV, and HNV. There may be more but that is all I can find on the web. There is no definite article in the Hebrew and there certainly are no capital letters!

Therefore the verse should read like this

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

This person in the vision was just a representation, not an actual person. As stated earlier the interpretation of the vision is given in the rest of Daniel 7 and it is quite clear that the one 'like a son of man' is a representation of the 'saints of the Most High'.

One thing you might consider is that if you truly believe that the person in Daniel's vision was the Messiah (you would say Jesus) then you also have to believe that G-d truly has white hair and wears white clothing. Furthermore you must then believe that these four kings will be some manner of beasts, the last one with ten horns. You cannot be literal in one verse and turn that off in the rest of the verses.

[Towshab]

OK David let’s take this a little bit at a time so that I can indeed show where there is a contradiction that fits definitions.

1)In Matthew there was an earthquake, guards, the stone was rolled away, and an angel told Mary M. and another Mary that Jesus had risen. This happened as they came to the tomb.
2)In Mark, pretty much the same except no earthquake, no guards, an the women went in and saw two angels.
3)In Luke no names are given but it is pretty much like Mark.
4)In John, Mary M. is the only one to go to the tomb. She runs back to tell Peter.

That is the basis. Now placing aside the little things, note what Mary M. says in John 20:2
——————–
Joh 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
——————–
We will base the next line of discussion on this very verse. If Mary did not enter the tomb, how would she know Jesus was not in the tomb? According to John 20:1 she came to the tomb and saw the tomb open. But that does not have to mean that Jesus was not inside.

This is where Matthew’s account comes into play. According to that account the women including Mary M. saw an angel on the outside of the tomb sitting on the rolled away stone. This angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples. If that is true how can Mary M. say that Jesus was taken away and that she did not know where they had taken him. Who is ‘they’?

Let’s assume that she saw the stone rolled away and never saw the angel but only the other women did. As soon as she saw the open tomb she could have run back to the disciples while the other women stayed.

There are problems with this. Matthew only lists two women, Mary M. and the other Mary.
——————–
Mat 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

Mat 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
——————–
According to Matthew then, the angel spoke to Mary M. and other Mary (‘women’ and ‘they’). Yet according to John Mary comes back and says that Jesus has been taken away and she does not know where.

At this point I know you will try to say that Mary M. left before the other women but again you have to then make up for the fact that she told Peter that Jesus was gone when she could not have known this without looking in the tomb. And if she had looked in the tomb she would have seen the angel sitting on the stone. The same angel that told the women in Matthew what had happened. Had she come back and simply stated that the tomb was open, come look, all would be fine but she didn’t. She specifically said that Jesus was not there and she did not know where he had been taken. Not risen but taken.

This is the contradiction. It fits all of your English definitions of the word.

Let’s take this further because it will provide more evidence to support the contradiction.

In Luke we find this
——————–
Luk 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
Luk 24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
——————–
This took place after the women had entered the tomb and encountered one or two angels. All three synoptics have one or two angels telling the women of what has happened. Based on this, we can be fairly certain that Peter is being told of the encounter with the angels and that Jesus had risen. But what happens in John?
——————–
Joh 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
Joh 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
Joh 20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
Joh 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
Joh 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
Joh 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
Joh 20:10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
——————–
Your previous answer to this was that Peter had gone to the tomb twice. May I ask why? We see no evidence in Luke or John that the women had seen Jesus yet. So if in John we see that Peter already had seen the empty tomb and the linens why would he return the second time to see the exact same thing? Gone is gone.

Here is another question. According to John 20:6 Peter went into the tomb and was followed by the other disciple in 20:8. They then left. In John 20:20, Mary M. looks in and sees two angels. Where were they when Peter and the other apostle entered? And what about the angel that rolled the stone away and was sitting on it when the women arrived, where did he go? Were they only visible to women?

I realize at his point that you will read all of this and ignore it. People all over the world live in various stages of denial about certain things and Christians have to do the same when they sit down and really study this. Faith is a weird thing sometimes. When people are shown evidence they need to cling to their beliefs so much that they will deny what is in front of them for fear that their faith will crumble. I totally understand that because I was there at one time. Someone else I know hangs onto his faith tenaciously as well even though the evidence is out there.

Of course there is another option. You could agree with more liberal Christians that the Christian bible is not inerrant and that the Gospels are likely not inspired by G-d. This makes perfect sense because I for one cannot support that G-d would inspire something with this level of contradiction. The only problem with this view is that you have to start wondering what is true and what is false. It is a slippery slope at this point.

One thing is certain. The Gospel of John is what presents the most problems. This is the case all throughout. If the Christian bible had left out John, then they would only have one account of Peter running to the tomb. That would remove the contradiction between John and the Synoptics or at least Luke.

Also the glaring discrepancy as to which day Jesus died is found between the Synoptics and John. John has Jesus dying on the eve of Passover so that he can be the Paschal lamb while the Synoptics don’t try to make such a message and instead have him dying on Passover day.

One day if I get the chance I will present the large number of contradictions between John and the other gospels. That will have to wait until I finish finding the errors in Matthew. I am finding so many problems with Matthew that I cannot even begin to predict when I can finish that job.

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Oct. 30 2007,17:02)

Historian Durant sought to examine the Gospel accounts from a purely objective standpoint—as historical documents. Though he says that there are seeming contradictions in them, he concludes: “The contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.” One account uses the word “scarlet” and another account uses the word “purple.” Is this a contradiction? Purple is made up of red and blue. Scarlet is a vivid red color. Is this a contradiction? Imagine the color purple and the color scarlet. In between is an infinite number of shades of color. If the color was actually one of these inbetween colors (a shade between purple [red/blue] and red), who are we to argue that purple is wrong or that scarlet is wrong? These trivial details make up the vast majority of contradictions.

The contradictions I show are of a greater level than shades of a color

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Oct. 30 2007,18:01)

Belief in Messiah's arrival was nurtured among the Jews for centuries. Yet, when Jesus of Nazareth came, most Jews ultimately rejected him as Messiah. To the Jewish mind, Jesus did not live up to expectations. Among Jews the term “Messiah” came to stand for a descendant of King David who would usher in a glorious rule. (2 Samuel 7:12, 13) By Jesus’ day the Jews had suffered for centuries under a series of harsh Gentile rulers. They longed for a political deliverer. –The Messiah Idea in Jewish History, by Julius H. Greenstone, 1973 (originally published in 1906), page 75. So when Jesus of Nazareth presented himself as the long-awaited Messiah, there was naturally much initial excitement. (Luke 4:16-22) But to the great disappointment of the Jews, Jesus was no political hero. On the contrary, he claimed that his Kingdom ‘was no part of the world.’ (John 18:36) Furthermore, Jesus did not then usher in the glorious Messianic age foreseen by the prophet Isaiah. (Isaiah 11:4-9) And when Jesus was put to death as a criminal, the nation as a whole lost interest in him. Undeterred by these events, Jesus’ followers continued to proclaim him as the Messiah. What accounted for their remarkable zeal? It was the belief that Jesus’ death fulfilled prophecy, specifically the prophecy of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. This reads in part: “Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, . . . for he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground . . . He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: He was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried . . . He was crushed because of our iniquities: The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way . . . He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, . . . he was cut off out of the land of the living. . . . And they made his grave with the wicked.”—JP A Suffering Messiah? Did Isaiah here foretell a suffering, dying Messiah? Most modern Jewish commentators say no. Some claim that the Suffering Servant was the nation of Israel itself during its Babylonian exile. Others relate the suffering to periods such as the Crusades or the Nazi Holocaust. –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65; Soncino Books of the Bible—Isaiah, edited by A. Cohen, 1949, page 260; You Take Jesus, I’ll Take God, by Samuel Levine, 1980, page 25. But does this explanation stand up to close scrutiny? It is true that in some contexts Isaiah does speak of Israel as God’s “servant.” But he speaks of Israel as a wayward, sinful servant. (Isaiah 42:19; 44:21, 22) The Encyclopaedia Judaica thus draws this contrast: “The real Israel is sinful and the Servant [of Isaiah 53], free of sin.” –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65 Some, therefore, argue that the Servant represents a ‘righteous elite’ in Israel that suffered on behalf of the sinful Jews. But Isaiah never spoke of any such elite. On the contrary, he prophesied that the whole nation would be sinful! (Isaiah 1:5, 6; 59:1-4; compare Daniel 9:11, 18, 19.) Besides, during periods of affliction, Jews suffered whether they were righteous or not. Another problem: For whom did the Servant suffer? The Jewish Soncino commentary suggests the Babylonians. If so, who confessed that the Servant suffered ‘because of our iniquities’? (Isaiah 53:5) Is it reasonable to believe that the Babylonians (or any other Gentiles) would make such an astounding admission—that the Jews suffered in their behalf? –Soncino Books of the Bible—Isaiah, edited by A. Cohen, 1949, page 261. Interestingly, some first-century rabbis (and a number since then) identified the Suffering Servant with the Messiah. –The Book of Isaiah, commentary by Amos Chakham, 1984, page 575; –The Targum of Isaiah, edited by J. F. Stenning, 1949, page 178; –The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, by Christopher R. North, First Edition, 1948, pages 11-15; –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65. Thousands of Jews came to see undeniable parallels between the Suffering Servant and Jesus of Nazareth. Like that Servant, Jesus was of humble origin. Ultimately, he was despised and shunned. Though he carried out no political conquest, he bore the diseases of others, miraculously curing their ailments. Though innocent, he died as a result of judicial miscarriage—a fate he accepted without protest. A Dying Messiah? Why would Messiah have to die? Explains Isaiah 53:10: “But the LORD chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life, and that through him the LORD’s purpose might prosper.” (Ta) This alluded to the Levitical practice of offering up animal victims to atone for sin or guilt. Messiah would suffer a disgraceful death, but like a sacrificial victim, his death would have atoning merit. If Messiah died, though, how could he fulfill the prophecies about his glorious rule, much less “see offspring and have long life”? Logically, by a resurrection from the dead. (Compare 1 Kings 17:17-24.) Messiah’s resurrection would also resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel 7:13, which predicted that the Messiah would triumphantly come on the clouds of heaven, and Zechariah 9:9, which said that he would humbly arrive on an ass. The Talmud tried to explain this paradox by asserting: “If they are meritorious, he will come with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.” (Sanhedrin 98a) –The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, page 664. This would mean that the prophecy at either Daniel 7:13 or Zechariah 9:9 would remain unfulfilled. Yet, Messiah’s resurrection would allow him to fulfill both prophecies. Initially, he would come humbly to suffer and die. After his resurrection, he would return in glory and usher in the heavenly Messianic rule. Hundreds of Jewish eyewitnesses testified that Jesus experienced a resurrection from the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:6) Can such claims be brushed aside? Judaism and Jesus Most first-century Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah. Still, he had a profound impact upon Judaism. Though Jesus is barely mentioned in the Talmud, what little is said tries “to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death.” –The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1910, Volume VII, page 170. (Says Israeli scholar Pinchas Lapide: “Talmudic passages about Jesus . . . were mutilated, distorted, or obliterated by church censors.” It is thus “more than likely that Jesus originally had a much greater impact on rabbinical literature than the fragments we have today bear witness to.” –Israelis, Jews, and Jesus, by Pinchas Lapide, 1979, pages 73-4) Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner admits that these tales “seem as though they are deliberately intended to contradict events recorded in the Gospels.” –Jesus of Nazareth—His Life, Times, and Teaching, by Joseph Klausner, 1947 (first published in Great Britain in 1925), page 19. And with good reason! The Catholic Church had exacerbated Jewish aversion to Jesus by its anti-Semitism. It further alienated Jews by declaring Jesus to be a supposed ‘God the Son’—part of an incomprehensible Trinity—in direct contradiction to Jesus’ own teachings. At Mark 12:29, Jesus quoted the Torah, saying: “ Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.”—King James Version; Deuteronomy 6:4. Though Judaism resisted conversion, “Christianity affected Judaism considerably. It forced the Rabbis to change their emphasis and in some instances to alter their views.” –The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, by Jakób Jocz, 1954 (first published in 1949), page 153. Rabbis of earlier generations believed that the Messianic hope permeated the Scriptures. They saw glimmers of that hope in such Bible texts as Genesis 3:15 and 49:10. The Palestinian Targum applied the fulfillment of the former verse to “the day of King Messiah.” –Neophyti 1, Targum Palestinense, Ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Génesis, 1968, Volume I, pages 503-4; The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, by Samson H. Levey, 1974, pages 2-3. The Midrash Rabbah said of the latter verse: “This alludes to the royal Messiah.” –Midrash Rabbah, translated and edited by Dr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, 1961 (First Edition 1939), Volume II, page 956; Chumash With Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary, translated by A. M. Silbermann and M. Rosenbaum, 1985, pages 245-6. The Talmud also applied prophecies of Isaiah, Daniel, and Zechariah to the Messiah. –The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, pages 663-5, 670-1 (Sanhedrin 98a, 98b). “All the prophets have prophesied only for the days of the Messiah,” Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a. –New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, edited and translated by Michael L. Rodkinson, 1903, Part IV, Volume VIII, page 312 (Tract Sanhedrin); The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, page 670 (Sanhedrin 99a). But under the pressure of Christendom’s conversion efforts, Judaism reassessed its views. Many Scripture texts that had long been applied to the Messiah were reinterpreted. –The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, by Christopher R. North, First Edition, 1948, page 18; The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, by Jakób Jocz, 1954 (first published in 1949), pages 205-7, 282; The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, 1929-36, Volume I, page 202; Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times, by Werner Förster, translated by Gordon E. Harris, 1964, pages 199-200. As modern times dawned, under the influence of higher criticism of the Bible, some Jewish scholars concluded that the Messianic hope does not appear in the Bible at all. –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 11, page 1407; U.S. Catholic, December 1983, page 20. The Messianic hope, however, underwent something of a rebirth with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Writes Harold Ticktin: ‘Most Jewish factions regard the emergence of the State of Israel as a great prophetic event.’ –U.S. Catholic, December 1983, page 21; What Is Judaism?, by Emil L. Fackenheim, 1987, pages 268-9. Nevertheless, the issue of when the long-awaited Messiah is to arrive has remained unresolved in Jewish thought. The Talmud says: “When thou seest a generation overwhelmed by many troubles as by a river, await [the Messiah].” (Sanhedrin 98a) –The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, page 663. However, the Jewish Messiah did not come during the dark night of the Holocaust nor during the tumultuous birth of the State of Israel. One wonders, ‘What further troubles must the Jewish people yet undergo before the Messiah will come?’ Seeking the Messiah The Messianic hope was born and nurtured with the Jews. Among them that hope has grown dim. Its brilliance has been nearly extinguished by centuries of suffering and disappointment. Ironically, millions among the nations, or Gentiles, have come to seek and ultimately to embrace a Messiah. Is it just a coincidence that Isaiah said of the Messiah: : “Unto him shall the nations [Gentiles] seek”? (Isaiah 11:10, JP) Should not Jews also seek the Messiah themselves? Why should they deny themselves their long-cherished hope? It is in vain, however, to seek a future Messiah. Were he to arrive, how could he establish himself as a bona fide descendant of King David? Were not genealogical records destroyed along with the second temple? Though such records existed in Jesus’ day, his claim of being a legitimate descendant of David was never successfully challenged. (See: The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston, 1987, “The Life of Flavius Josephus,” 1:1-6, and “Flavius Josephus Against Apion,” footnote on 7:31, 32.) Could any future Messianic claimant ever produce such credentials? One must therefore seek the Messiah who came in the past. This requires taking a fresh look at Jesus, dispensing with preconceived notions. The effeminate ascetic of church paintings bears little resemblance to the real Jesus. The Gospel accounts—written by Jews—show him as a powerful, vibrant man, a rabbi of extraordinary wisdom. (John 3:2) Actually, Jesus surpasses any dream the Jews ever had of a political deliverer. As a conquering King, he will usher in, not some fragile political state, but an invincible heavenly Kingdom that will restore Paradise to the entire earth and under which “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb.”—Isaiah 11:6, JP; Revelation 19:11-16.

You make a case for a suffering messiah now see if you can make a case from the Jewish scriptures for a resurrected messiah who will return after saying he'll return quickly .

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Oct. 30 2007,18:27)

Here, let me give you an example of an actual true contradiction: It was a tradition of the Jews to avoid using God's name altogether. They stopped all mention of him. No longer using God's Divine Name, they no longer used it in their prayers, even making it a sin to say his name out loud. They considered it “blasphemy” to utter the name of God, Jehovah. Many translators admit to following this “Jewish Tradition” and have thus removed Jehovah's name and replaced it with Titles such as “LORD” and “GOD” – all in capitals – to show that they have removed God's name in those places. Some, apparently call him Hashem to avoid using his name. In the Bible, refusing to mention the name of a god means refusing to worship this god (Ex 23:13)

Exo 23:13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

Hardly. Why is 'Jehovah' any better than Hashem or G-d? YHVH or YHWH is the closest we have in English not Jehovah. So be careful of who you point fingers at.

Quote

and that is why Satan incited the Israelites, by means of the prophets of Baal, not to use the Name of Jehovah (Jr 23:27).

Jer 23:27 Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.

You're reaching now but go ahead.

Quote

We have scriptures like this: Isa. 12:4: “Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high.” Are not these commands to “call upon his name” in direct contrast with the tradition of “not calling upon his name, but rather, substituting titles”? david

Again, like I said, Jehovah is not his name either so I don't know why you take an issue. It is a name that was adopted by Christianity not Jewish people.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=206&letter=J
———————-
A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew “Yhwh,” the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or “Shem ha-Meforash”). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the “ḳere” (marginal reading of the Masorites: = “Adonay”) with the consonants of the “ketib” (text-reading: = “Yhwh”)—”Adonay” (the Lord) being substituted with one exception wherever Yhwh occurs in the Biblical and liturgical books. “Adonay” presents the vowels “shewa” (the composite under the guttural א becomes simple under the י), “ḥolem,” and “ḳameẓ,” and these give the reading (= “Jehovah”). Sometimes, when the two names and occur together, the former is pointed with “ḥatef segol” () under the י —thus, (=”Jehovah”)—to indicate that in this combination it is to be pronounced “Elohim” (). These substitutions of “Adonay”and “Elohim” for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name (hence is also written , or even , and read “ha-Shem” = “the Name “).

The reading “Jehovah” is a comparatively recent invention. The earlier Christian commentators report that the Tetragrammaton was written but not pronounced by the Jews (see Theodoret, “Question. xv. in Ex.” [Field, “Hexapla,” i. 90, to Ex. vi. 3]; Jerome, “Præfatio Regnorum,” and his letter to Marcellus, “Epistola,” 136, where he notices that “PIPI” [= ΠIΠI = ] is presented in Greek manuscripts; Origen, see “Hexapla” to Ps. lxxi. 18 and Isa. i. 2; comp. concordance to LXX. by Hatch and Redpath, under ΠIΠI, which occasionally takes the place of the usual κύριος, in Philo's Bible quotations; κύριος = “Adonay” is the regular translation; see also Aquila).

“Jehovah” is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo X.'s confessor, Peter Galatin (“De Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis,” 1518, folio xliii.), who was followed in the use of this hybrid form by Fagius (= Büchlein, 1504-49). Drusius (= Van der Driesche, 1550-1616) was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of “Jehovah,” and this view has been taken since his days (comp. Hastings, “Dict. Bible,” ii. 199, s.v. “God”; Gesenius-Buhl, “Handwörterb.” 1899, p. 311; see Drusius on the tetragrammaton in his “Critici Sacri, i. 2, col. 344). But it seems that even before Galatin the name “Jehovah” had been in common use (see Drusius, l.c. notes to col. 351). It is found in Raymond Martin's “Pugio Fidei.” written in 1270 (Paris, 1651, iii., pt. ii., ch. 3, p. 448; comp. T. Prat in “Dictionnaire de la Bible,” s.v.). See also Names of God.

From http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/di.htm
——————————–
“HaShem” – (both and neither masculine nor feminine and absolutely no plural); the word means, literally, “The Name,” and it is the way that Jews refer to G-d when not in a Prayer or Torah Reading or Torah citation context. The reason is that the Torah forbids us from pronouncing the four-letter Name of HaShem in other than ritual contexts, and even then using only certain Names (other than the four-letter one, known as the Tetragrammaton) that embody characteristics, such as A-donai, E-l, E-lohim.

[Towshab]

Found some more neat stuff today

Mythological similarities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Parallels_with_Christianity

Dionysian mythology had a strong influence on the gospel, as Martin Hengel points out: “Dionysus had been at home in Palestine for a long time”. But it was most likely not simply a “borrowed story”, but rather a reaction to the commonly known Dionysian culture. There are especially many parallels between Dionysus and Jesus; both were born by a virgin mortal (although virgo was initially a social status, not a biological one), but fathered by the king of heaven, to have returned from the dead, to have transformed water into wine (the wine in antiquity was thicker than today, and usually mixed with water, otherwise it was as thick as blood; the parallels to John 2:8 are eg. Ovidius, Met. 3.690-691,[vague] and 6.488: “et Bacchus in auro ponitur” where the god is made identical with the wine) and to have been liberator of mankind. The modern scholar Barry Powell also argues that Christian notions of eating and drinking “the flesh” and “blood” of Jesus were influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of possible influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned.[22] Furthermore, it is worth noting that the story of Jesus turning water into wine is only found in the Gospel of John, which differs on many points from the other Synoptic Gospels. That very passage, a Bible commentator suggests, was incorporated into the Gospel from an earlier source focusing on Jesus' miracles.[23] John might also have referred in the marriage of Kana to Dionysus on purpose, in order to emphasize the legitimacy of Jesus, eg. by saying that Jesus could turn water into wine, which Dionysus never did (who, however, had invented wine pressing in the first place).[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris
Plutarch and others have noted that the sacrifices to Osiris were “gloomy, solemn, and mournful…” (Isis and Osiris, 69) and that the great mystery festival, celebrated in two phases, began at Abydos on the 17th of Athyr[9] (Nov. 13th) commemorating the death of the god, which is also the same day that grain was planted in the ground. “The death of the grain and the death of the god were one and the same: the cereal was identified with the god who came from heaven; he was the bread by which man lives. The resurrection of the God symbolized the rebirth of the grain.“

Although there were ethical and ceremonial considerations none of these could compare to the power of the divine eucharist, since it was literally believed to be the body (bread) and blood (ale) of the god. Since the ancient Nilotics believed that humans were whatever they eat, this sacrament was, by extension, able to make them celestial and immortal. The doctrine of the eucharist ultimately has its roots in prehistoric (symbolic) cannibalism, whose practitioners believed that the virtues and powers of the eaten would thus be absorbed by the eater. This phenomenon has been described throughout the world.

Although crude, this was a core concept, the conviction that one could receive immortality by eating the flesh and blood of a god who had died became a dominating obsession in the ancient world.

Compare the above to this passage from John
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity
The category life-death-rebirth deity also known as a “dying-and-rising” or “Resurrection” god is a convenient means of classifying the many divinities in world mythology or religion who are born, suffer death or an eclipse or other death-like experience, pass a phase in the underworld among the dead, and are subsequently reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense. Such figures might include Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, phoenix, Jesus, Baldur, and Odin. Female deities who passed into the kingdom of death and returned include Inanna and Persephone, the central figure of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna
“Lord Brahma informed the demigods: Before we submitted our petition to the Lord, He was already aware of the distress on earth. Consequently, for as long as the Lord moves on earth to diminish its burden by His own potency in the form of time, all of you demigods should appear through plenary portions as sons and grandsons in the family of the Yadus.” – Bhagavata Purana 10.1.22
————————————————
http://vedabase.net/sb/10/1/23/en1
The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, who has full potency, will personally appear as the son of Vasudeva. Therefore all the wives of the demigods should also appear in order to satisfy Him.
————————————————
http://vedabase.net/bg/10/20/en1
I am the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

[david]

Yes, he was a prophet, like Moses. One example:
MOSES:
EXODUS 34:28
“And he continued there with Jehovah forty days and forty nights. He ate no bread and he drank no water. And he proceeded to write upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Words.”
JESUS:
MATTHEW 4:2
“After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry.”

Another example:
MOSES:
NUMBERS 12:3
“And the man Moses was by far the meekest of all the men who were upon the surface of the ground.”

JESUS:
MATTHEW 11:29
“Take my yoke upon YOU and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and YOU will find refreshment for YOUR souls.”

Again:
HEBREWS 3:2
“[Jesus] was faithful to the One that made him such, as Moses was also in all the house of that One”

Jesus seems to be the Greater Moses (acts 3:22)

Yes, God did raise up a prophet like Moses. You require the word “like” to indicate that they be alike in every way. I see that scripture itself tells us and bears out they had many similarities.

While they were infants, the lives of both of them were jeopardized by tyrannical rulers, but God saw to it that the babies were spared. (Exodus 1:20–2:10; Matthew 2:7-23) Both men spent 40 days fasting at the start of their careers as Jehovah’s special servants. (Exodus 24:18; 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:18, 25; Matthew 4:1, 2) And Moses and Jesus both performed miracles by God’s power.—Exodus 14:21-31; 16:11-36; Psalm 78:12-54; Mark 4:41; Luke 7:18-23; John 14:11.

Quote

Remember what was said about the prophet that would rise up like Moses and how Christians want to fit this to Jesus as well? Was Moses from heaven? Did he have a second coming? Was he an angel or god in the flesh?

No, but he was a “prophet” “like Moses.” See above.

EZEKIEL 21:26-27
“this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no [one’s] until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give [it] to him.’”

Quote

This may very well be messianic. If so Jesus would not fit because he died.

Oh, and which scripture is it that says the Messiah would not die? I know of one in Daniel that says “Messiah the Leader” will be “cut off”
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? ? I still don't think you answered that.

And here, it speaks of bringing “low even the high one.” Yet, your vision of a Messiah doesn't fit with these scriptures, does it?

Dan 4:17: “he gives it [the kingdom] and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind.””

Quote

Try as you may Jesus will not fit the mold of the Jewish Messiah. He didn't even fit the mold of a typical 'anointed' one because he was never properly anointed.

I guess being annointed in holy spirit in the Jordon by Jehovah himself means very little to you. Just perhaps, for the Messiah himself, things would be done differently.

You know, I quote Dan 7:13,14 and Dan 7:27 a lot too.
DANIEL 7:13-14
““I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens SOMEONE LIKE A SON OF MAN happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. AND TO HIM there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all SERVE EVEN HIM. HIS rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and HIS kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.”

Quote

Why was this 'son of man' not mentioned in the interpretation?

Why is it not mentioned in 7:18 you ask? Maybe because it's mentioned just a few verses earlier in 7:13,14.

The Messiah would have co-rulers.

Who is this referring to?
DANIEL 8:24
“And his power must become mighty, but not by his own power. And in a wonderful way he will cause ruin, and he will certainly prove successful and do effectively. And he will actually bring mighty ones to ruin, also the people made up of [the] holy ones.”
DANIEL 12:7
“And I began to hear the man clothed with the linen, who was up above the waters of the stream, as he proceeded to raise his right [hand] and his left [hand] to the heavens and to swear by the One who is alive for time indefinite: “It will be for an appointed time, appointed times and a half. And as soon as there will have been a finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces, all these things will come to their finish.””

[david]

Quote

Of the Christian translations, the following translate the phrase 'a son of man': NASB, Darby, ERV, WEB, YLT, CEV, ESV, RSV, NIV, and HNV. There may be more but that is all I can find on the web. There is no definite article in the Hebrew and there certainly are no capital letters! Therefore the verse should read like this Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

Yes, I agree.

Quote

This person in the vision was just a representation, not an actual person. As stated earlier the interpretation of the vision is given in the rest of Daniel 7 and it is quite clear that the one 'like a son of man' is a representation of the 'saints of the Most High'.

Apparently it's not “quite clear” to many many people.

Quote

One thing you might consider is that if you truly believe that the person in Daniel's vision was the Messiah (you would say Jesus) then you also have to believe that G-d truly has white hair and wears white clothing. Furthermore you must then believe that these four kings will be some manner of beasts, the last one with ten horns. You cannot be literal in one verse and turn that off in the rest of the verses.

What do the “Rulership and dignity and kingdom” represent? Not all things represent other things.

In your opinion, whywould the holy ones be called a son of man? What does this signify?

[david]

Quote

This is where Matthew’s account comes into play. According to that account the women including Mary M. saw an angel on the outside of the tomb sitting on the rolled away stone. This angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples. If that is true how can Mary M. say that Jesus was taken away and that she did not know where they had taken him. Who is ‘they’?

John 20:1-13
–Mary M–tomb early
–Notices stone gone
–ran to Peter and John
–Said: “they’ve taken Jesus”
–Peter and John run to tomb
–they entered tomb
–went home
–Mary stayed, weeping
-she saw 2 angels
[[This account doesn’t mention Mary going to tell the disciples about the angels or about Peter running back a second time to check the tomb]]

Then, continuing on, Matthew mentions some things that John doesn't.
Mat 28:1-10
…..–Jehovah’s angel had rolled stone away and was sitting on it.
–clothing white as snow.
[[This account doesn’t include Peter and the faster runner going to see the tomb the first time.]]

Quote

This angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples. If that is true how can Mary M. say [[In John's account]] that Jesus was taken away and that she did not know where they had taken him. Who is ‘they’?

At first, the first time there, Mary obviously didn't know where Jesus was or who [the “they”] took him. In her mind at first, obviously someone took him. This is the “they.”
But then she goes and tells Peter and probably John this and they come and see.
Then, the angels. Matthew leaves out the going to tell Peter the first time.

Let's look at what you asked again. Notice that it is out of order:
This angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples.
If that is true how can Mary M. say [[In John's account]] that Jesus was taken away and that she did not know where they had taken him.

First, Mary said that Jesus was taken away [[in john's account]] and that she did not know where they had taken him. Later on in time, after going back and seeing the angels, she knew what had happened.

So, straightening out what you said:

“Jesus was taken away and she did not know where they had taken him.”
THEN, AFTER GOING TO TELL PETER AND COMING BACK, THE
“angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples.”

Notice that when I just said that, I left the other guy out. I only mentioned Peter, even though there was a second guy. Did I just commit a contradiction or did I just leave out a detail?

“Jesus was taken away and she did not know where they had taken him.”
THEN, AFTER GOING TO TELL PETER AND COMING BACK, THE
“angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples.”

You had taken two things from different accounts and tried to put one in front of the other. The accounts do not contain all the same information. But they also don't contradict, unless you purposely try to jumble the information in the wrong order.

Quote

At this point I know you will try to say that Mary M. left before the other women but again you have to then make up for the fact that she told Peter that Jesus was gone when she could not have known this without looking in the tomb. And if she had looked in the tomb she would have seen the angel sitting on the stone.

Right, except you're wrong about the tomb. Who said she didn't stoop over and look in the tomb? And why do you assume the angels were sitting there the whole time. The account certainly doesn't say this.

Quote

At this point I know you will try to say that Mary M. left before the other women but again you have to then make up for the fact that she told Peter that Jesus was gone when she could not have known this without looking in the tomb. And if she had looked in the tomb she would have seen the angel sitting on the stone. The same angel that told the women in Matthew what had happened. Had she come back and simply stated that the tomb was open, come look, all would be fine but she didn’t. She specifically said that Jesus was not there and she did not know where he had been taken. Not risen but taken. This is the contradiction. It fits all of your English definitions of the word.

By contradiction, I assume you mean this sentence: “She specifically said that Jesus was not there and she did not know where he had been taken.

Here is what I would like you to do. Find the two scriptures that contradict. Please actually quote them.

Yes, Jesus was not there the first time she was there, and of course she dind't know where he was. When back, the angel told her what had happened. So, then she did know.

[david]

Quote

In Luke we find this ——————– Luk 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. Luk 24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. ——————– This took place after the women had entered the tomb and encountered one or two angels. All three synoptics have one or two angels telling the women of what has happened. Based on this, we can be fairly certain that Peter is being told of the encounter with the angels and that Jesus had risen. But what happens in John? ——————– Joh 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Joh 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. Joh 20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. Joh 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Joh 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. Joh 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Joh 20:10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. ——————– Your previous answer to this was that Peter had gone to the tomb twice. May I ask why? We see no evidence in Luke or John that the women had seen Jesus yet.

Why? If this was the Messiah, I can understand someone wanting to go to his tomb to see if someone stole his body or if his body vanished.
And then, after being told by Mary what the angel said, I can also see him running there, even faster this time. Maybe the angel would still be there. Maybe it would appear to him. He wanted answers. Why wouldn't he go.

Quote

So if in John we see that Peter already had seen the empty tomb and the linens why would he return the second time to see the exact same thing? Gone is gone.

I wonder if an invesitagor ever visits a crime scene more than once. Gone is gone. Dead is dead.
In this instance, something changed. The angels had been there.

Quote

And what about the angel that rolled the stone away and was sitting on it when the women arrived, where did he go? Were they only visible to women?

Perhaps they “went home” as the Bible says in the account.

[Author]

Posts