- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ July 08 2010,00:29) Adam. Have you actually read the law?
Here are some questions for you to ponder and answer.
Do modern Jews teach that the foundation of the law is love your neighbor as yourself?
Are the commands about unclean foods in Leviticus 11 addressed to God fearing Gentiles?
If they are not then why not?
I would like you to answer these questions as they bear on the foolishness you chose to post.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Hi brother Kerwin,
Christianity claims as if it is super religion. In fact they forget that their founder was also a Jew who interpreted the Mosaic Law. You ask questions on the integrity of Jews in following the Laws of God. Christians have to sit and learn from a Jew to properly interpret the law. 'Loving thy neighbour' is nothing new to a Jew. Regarding commandments of unclean and clean foods you have to learn from them only.Peace to you
AdamAdam,
Did you see the command about diet in the Noahide Laws?
Some laws God gave to the people of Israel just to show they were different than the people around them. These laws also were symbolic, i.e. touch no unclean desire. This makes them useful for teaching props.
These laws did not apply to the Gentiles and I am not sure how hard and fast the Jews were held to them.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
I agree brother Kerwin it all depends on how a person upholds the Laws of God whether Ten Commandments or Noahide laws.
Thanks and peace to you
AdamAdam,
Accoding to New Testiment scripture we are to obey the authorities God put over us. God placed the law of Moses over the children of Isreal but not over the Gentiles though some parts do apply to them as well.
If a Jew is living by the Spirit then he wil display the fruits of righteousness and one of those fruits is obedience to the authorities God placed over you. The Gentile will also display the same fruit though his athorities will not be the same.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
I agree brother Kerwin,
But do you think that Jews are following God's commandments without being led by God's spirit?Adam.
I believe Jews are living under the old covenant that depended on human effort to obey the law of God. Human effort is limited by the fact that humans are chained to sin because the spirit they were born with is impure. This corrupt spirit means that in the end all humans chose to sin despite the good acts they choose to do in other ways. Only those who enter the new covenant foretold in the old testament will gain a new spirit that is free from that bondage to sin because it depends on godly effort instead of human effort.
There are many of those that call themselves Christian that live in the same situation the Jews do because the doctrine adhere to is false and does not grant them entry into the new covenant.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Quote (kerwin @ July 20 2010,03:04) Adam. I believe Jews are living under the old covenant that depended on human effort to obey the law of God. Human effort is limited by the fact that humans are chained to sin because the spirit they were born with is impure. This corrupt spirit means that in the end all humans chose to sin despite the good acts they choose to do in other ways. Only those who enter the new covenant foretold in the old testament will gain a new spirit that is free from that bondage to sin because it depends on godly effort instead of human effort.
There are many of those that call themselves Christian that live in the same situation the Jews do because the doctrine adhere to is false and does not grant them entry into the new covenant.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Thanks for your response brother Kerwin for my query. Jews don't beleive in Christian New covenant but they are waiting for such one in the future when Messiah will bring forth Knowledge of Yahweh in this whole world the new covenat will be fulfilled for them.Peace to you
AdamWho Will the Jewish Messiah Be?
The Messiah will be a human restorer of the throne of David. The messiah will be a descendent of King David and will be born of human parents.
What will the messiah do?
The messiah will:
Bring about the spiritual and political redemption of the Jewish people
Resurrect the dead and restore all Jews to the Land of Israel
Restore the city of Jerusalem to its former glory
Bring permanent peace to the world.Does the Torah mention a messiah?
No. The Torah does mention moshiach, which the English word messiah comes from, but not in context of our current understanding of the messiah. In the Torah, moshiach means “anointed one” and refers to kings or high priests. Post-biblical Judaism came to understand the messiah as a king who would bring about the end of times.
Where is belief in the messiah found in Jewish texts?
Belief in the eventual coming of the messiah is one of Maimonides' 13 principles of faith. His twelfth principle states, ” I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the moshiach, and though he may tarry, still I await him every day.” Belief in the eventual coming of the messiah is also a prominent part of the Amidah prayer, said three times daily by observant Jews. The Amidah includes prayers for all the elements that will mark the coming of the messiah.
Why don't Jews accept Jesus as the messiah?
The primary reason that Jews do not believe Jesus was the messiah is that the world was not redeemed by Jesus' arrival and death
Please see this link: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths….us.aspx
Gollamundi,
Your chosen source states:
Quote The primary reason that Jews do not believe Jesus was the messiah is that the world was not redeemed by Jesus' arrival and death
I happen to know better as God is changing me more each day even as he leads me to the Anointed who teaches me how to find God. It is my choice to believe God even as Abraham the father of my spirit also believes God. Abraham is my father because I do as he does and he came before me.
It is true what is writen and that is “Seek God and his kingdom and all else will be given you.”
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 06 2009,14:26) Mattherws account: Matthew's genealogy traces the ancestors of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus.
Abraham to David:
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nashon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David,
David to Captivity:
David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah,
Release to Christ:
Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus Christ
Matthew and Luke showed that Joseph was a legal parent, but not a genetic parent to Jesus.
By virtue of being Mary's husband, Joseph was considered the father of Jesus.
Since Jesus was born into Joseph's family, he was a legal heir.
Through Joseph, Jesus obtained a rightful claim to the throne of David.
NOTE: The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke could rightfully call Joseph the “son of Heli” because this was in compliance with use of the word “son” at that time. Moreover, designating a son-in-law as a son had scriptural precedent. Thus, Joseph was the son of Jacob, and the son-in-law of Heli.
Joseph, the father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim's descendants (through Jeconiah). Joseph's offspring could not claim David's throne because of the curse. Jesus laid claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 12:2). If Jesus had been born of Joseph, the curse would have been contradicted.
Also, God had promised David that one of his physical descendants would reign on the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13). As explained above, Joseph was excluded from being the genetic father of the future king of Israel.
It was impossible to fulfill the requirements of both curse and promise by natural means. One man had to be both heir to and offspring of David, without being the genetic descendant of Jehoiakim. This problem required a divine solution.God created a solution through the miracle of the virgin birth. Although Joseph was one of Jehoiakim's offspring (through Solomon), Mary was not. She was a descendant of Nathan, one of David's other sons (Luke 3:31). God's promise to David was fulfilled because Mary was the biological parent of Jesus.
The virgin birth also addressed the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Kingship was an inherited right. By Joseph, Jesus inherited a legal claim to the throne of David. However, he was exempt from the curse of Jehoiakim because Joseph was not his genetic father.
So the miracle of the virgin birth accomplished God's will in two ways. First, it granted Jesus a legal claim to the throne of David. And second, it maintained the integrity of the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Indeed, Jesus was not one of Jehoiakim's offspring.
this was an awesome responseQuote (kerwin @ Aug. 07 2010,01:24) Gollamundi, Your chosen source states:
Quote The primary reason that Jews do not believe Jesus was the messiah is that the world was not redeemed by Jesus' arrival and death
I happen to know better as God is changing me more each day even as he leads me to the Anointed who teaches me how to find God. It is my choice to believe God even as Abraham the father of my spirit also believes God. Abraham is my father because I do as he does and he came before me.
It is true what is writen and that is “Seek God and his kingdom and all else will be given you.”
Ken,Mark 12:35 – 37 And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? (36) “David himself said in the Holy Spirit, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET.”' (37) “David himself calls Him 'Lord'; so in what sense is He his son?” And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him.
Sounds like the same debate 2,000 years ago. The same people that had the opportunity to disprove him couldn't and then they crucified him. Then they couldn't keep him in the grave and began to persecute and kill his disciples.
They saw his miracles, the resurrections from the dead, the casting-out of demons, etc and rejected to believe at that time. Why would they change today?
It is by faith that we are called children of Abraham…much further back than David..than biologically. Whom the Jews claim to be their father (of the faith).
Ironic how we, Christians, want to claim to be “Jewish” while the Jews don't want to be “Christians”. We accept their Messiach whom they rejected. Funny isn't it?
Today they want to justify why their fathers didn't believe. Jesus said it rightly:
Luk 11:47 “Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them.
Luk 11:48 “So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build their tombs.
Act 7:52-53 “Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; (53) you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.”
The Professor
PS Our Father is much greater than David or Abraham, and I am proud to be called a son of God. Thanks to God's only begotten son, Yahshua/Jesus.
If Jesus' heavenly body was emptied and he took on the human form, then the Holy Spirit was only the “surgeon” that implanted Jesus' DNA (which came from God; son of God) into Mary. The Holy Spirit did not “beget” Jesus (son of God)AGAIN but transplanted that which existed into Mary….to become the son of Man.
Imagine talking about in-vitro fertilization 50 years ago and see how the last comment would have been received?
davidbfun,
I like to be called Kerwin if you were calling me Ken.
You are correct that the debate has been going on for thousands of years.
Thank you for quoting from Mark 25. I never realized that the passage Jesus quoted from Psalms stated “sense”. Jesus is David's Son in the sense that he is genetically decended from him.
In the sense of the spirit though Jesus is God's Son and David is the son of Jesus because Jesus has authority over David and is the Anointed of God.
This is what I believe Jesus was addressing by pointing to Psalms as Paul teaches that Jesus is the Son of David according to human nature, i.e. genotype, in Romans 1:3.
God is spirit and so does not have any flesh that can be transported. You seem to be treating God like a created being in the way he has offspring. His offspring are therefore spiritual offspring and not those with his genotype or the equivilent.
I believe spirit is linked to character in that a man who walks according to the spirit of righteousness has a character that is righteous as God is righteous. On the otherhand a man who walked according to an impure spirit would have an impure character.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 07 2010,15:32) davidbfun, I like to be called Kerwin if you were calling me Ken.
You are correct that the debate has been going on for thousands of years.
Thank you for quoting from Mark 25. I never realized that the passage Jesus quoted from Psalms stated “sense”. Jesus is David's Son in the sense that he is genetically decended from him.
In the sense of the spirit though Jesus is God's Son and David is the son of Jesus because Jesus has authority over David and is the Anointed of God.
This is what I believe Jesus was addressing by pointing to Psalms as Paul teaches that Jesus is the Son of David according to human nature, i.e. genotype, in Romans 1:3.
God is spirit and so does not have any flesh that can be transported. You seem to be treating God like a created being in the way he has offspring. His offspring are therefore spiritual offspring and not those with his genotype or the equivilent.
I believe spirit is linked to character in that a man who walks according to the spirit of righteousness has a character that is righteous as God is righteous. On the otherhand a man who walked according to an impure spirit would have an impure character.
That is a good post brother Kerwin. God can not have literal flesh and blood sons as many think here. Infact Israel was His firstborn son. The 'son' is only metaphorical not ontological.Love and peace
Adam1
Why Jews Don't Accept Jesus
An answer to Christian missionaries
BY: Rabbi David Wolpe
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths….us.aspxWhy don't Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah or Son of God?
Growing up in Philadelphia, I attended Akiba Hebrew Academy, a private Jewish
school. In 11th grade, a Southern Baptist preacher came to speak to our class. He looked
around the room, and with a kindly smile said, “You seem like nice boys and girls. But I
must tell you that unless you change your ways, you are all going to hell.”
I admired his honesty, but not his theology. I spent the next hour trying to think of a
question that would stump him. As the class was ending, I raised my hand.
“Is Jesus perfect?” I asked.
“Yes,” he answered.
“Is the Father perfect?” I asked.
“Yes,” he said again.
“And is the Holy Ghost perfect?” Once again, he answered affirmatively.
“Well then,” I said, “two of the three are superfluous. Perfection does not need anything.
That is why it's perfect. Since by definition, you can't add anything to perfection, the
idea makes no sense.”
He paused for a minute, and said, “That is the mystery of the Trinity.”
Since that time, I have been intrigued by the deep division between Jews and Christians
over the question of Jesus. It has always seemed as crystal clear to me that Jesus was
nothing more than a human being, as it has seemed crystal clear to many of my
Christian friends that he was the Son of God.There is a long tradition of back and forth about this question. It is not my intention to
try to “prove” to Christians that Jesus is not God. I am neither so imperialistic nor so
arrogant as to take upon myself such a task. Rather, in the spirit of pluralism, I want
Christian readers to understand why Jews have traditionally rejected the Christian
understanding of Jesus' life and mission. Along the way, perhaps I can offer some clarity
to Jewish readers who may wonder about many of the same questions.
I am going to stick to a few broad philosophical arguments. One of the most common–
and least enlightening–exercises in religious history is the batting back and forth of
biblical verses. I think it is fair to say there is no conclusive argument from the Bible,
and that Jews and Christians read similar passages very differently.
1. The primary reason that Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah is that after his
arrival and death the world was not redeemed. There is at least as much suffering, pain,
and tragedy in the world as there was before Jesus–probably much more. If the
Christian answers that the suffering is a result of the world's rejecting Jesus, two related
questions arise, which I will take up below: Why did the majority of those who knew him
reject him in his own lifetime (as the majority of the world still does today)? And if
suffering is a result of rejecting Jesus, why has so much of the suffering historically been
inflicted by (and even upon) those who accepted him, that is, Christians?
2. There is reason to believe Jesus himself was a staunch upholder of the law. That
which defined early Christianity, the rejection of Mosaic law, may not have been Jesus'
intention at all. As Jesus says, “Think not that I have come to abolish the Torah and the
Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For I truly say to you, until
heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Torah until all is
accomplished. Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches
men to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5).This is not to
suggest that Jesus did not differ at certain points with orthodox rabbinic teachings. But
the points of contact are closer and more numerous than is usually supposed, and the
variations, from a Jewish point of view, far more problematic.
3. Some of Jesus' teachings seem to Jews either contradictory or simply immoral. This
does not negate the possibility that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but he was far from
perfect in his moral outlook. The idea that eternal punishment would follow from
rejecting Jesus seems downright evil. That someone could live a noble life and not be
saved, when another could live a depraved and cruel life and through a true conversion
of his heart at the end of life still be saved, is hard to tote up on the moral balance sheet.
I am aware that many Christian groups reject this doctrine today, but for centuries it
was normative church doctrine.
The Jesus who said (in Matthew 10:34-37), “Think not that I am come to send peace on
earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance
against his father, and the daughter against her mother” is not a Jesus whom I can
accept as a moral model. The statement is consistent, however, with the Jesus of Luke
14:26, who says, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple.”
In addition, the Jesus who withers a fig tree because it did not provide him with fruit
when he was hungry seems peevish rather than exemplary (Matthew 21:17-19).
There are many remarkable and wonderful teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.
However, they are the teachings of a human being, not a God, and many of them–
including the most morally enlightened–are paralleled in rabbinic literature. One
cannot truly understand Jesus without understanding the climate in which he grew up.
When one studies the Talmud, the image of Jesus becomes sharper–and still very
impressive–but less original.
Jesus' criticisms of the rabbis of his day are echoed in the literature of the prophets
centuries before. When Hosea writes, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6), or
Isaiah thunders, “I cannot endure sin coupled with solemn ceremonies (Isaiah 1:13), we
are hearing the same themes Jesus so deftly expounded later on.
4. The idea of the Second Coming seems to have grown out of genuine disappointment.
We are told in the Gospels, “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” When
Jesus died, true believers had to theologically compensate for the disaster. It remains
significant, I believe, that the vast majority of people who knew him did not see Jesus as
divine. Unless the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem at the time was either wicked
or foolish, they–who knew Jesus far better than we–did not respond to his presumed
divinity because he was clearly human.
5. The history of Christianity is not such as would persuade Jews that Christians are in
possession of a superior moral truth. The history is too long and painful to summarize
here, but many good books are available that elaborate on what the historian Jules Isaac
called “the teaching of contempt.” The thousands, even millions, of innocents who lost
their lives, their children, their hope, from a refusal to be other than they were make it
difficult to see Christianity in its historical garb in anything but a dark, forbidding light.
The chronicle of Christian anti-Semitism is one of the most gruesome, disheartening
chapters of human history. Even the most abominable tragedy, the systematic slaughter
of millions in World War II, the Holocaust, cannot be entirely separated from centuries
of Christian teachings of the abjectness of the Jew. As the theologian Elieser Berkowitz
put it, the Nazis who killed Jews may not have been Christians, but they were all the
sons and daughters of Christians.
6. Although many faiths, including some Roman mystery religions, spoke of a man/god,
Judaism sought to keep clear
the boundaries between the human and the divine. The
blurring was taken to be the sign of betrayal of the tradition.
7. Jesus did place great emphasis on internal spirituality. This was not because he was
more spiritually advanced, but because society was more advanced materially. Moses
had to set up a system of courts, of civil and criminal law. Jesus was born in Rome, with
the most advanced civil society of the time. He did not need to discuss external rites,
either religious or civil. They were taken care of by Roman law and the developed
Jewish law. In this sense, Islam bears a closer kinship to Judaism; it, too, is a religion of
law, necessitated by Muhammad's melding desert tribes into a religious community,
much in the manner of Moses. Hence, as Moses Montefiore said of Jesus, “Public justice
is outside his purview.”
8. The idea that one can be saved only through Jesus is contrary to simple compassion
and justice. Judaism teaches that “the righteous of all nations have a share in the world
to come.” Maimonides writes in a letter that there are non-Jews who “bring their souls
to perfection.” That is the simple truth that all faiths should acknowledge and celebrate.
Otherwise, there can be no kinship. As Abraham Joshua Heschel once wrote about
attempts to convert the Jews: “How can we take seriously a friendship that is
conditioned ultimately on the hope and expectation that the Jew will disappear? How
would a Christian feel if we Jews were engaged in an effort to bring about the
liquidation of Christianity?”
A related note: There are some today who speak of themselves as “Jews for Jesus.” This
is nonsense. It makes as much sense as saying “Christians for Muhammad.” A Jew who
accepts Jesus has cut himself off from the faith community of Jews, and that has been so
for 2,000 years. Moreover, that Christians argue with the Jewish community about the
legitimacy of “Jews for Jesus” is presumption of a high order. I would not presume to
tell Christians who is a Christian and emphatically reject the idea that the Christian
community can tell me who qualifies as a Jew.
Many Jewish thinkers have seen Jesus as they have seen Muhammad, as God's
instrument to advance monotheism in the world. Franz Rosenzweig spoke of Judaism as
the sun–that is the source–and Christianity as the rays of the sun–that which spreads
monotheism to the world. The greatest Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, of the Middle
Ages saw Islam and Christianity as the preparation for God's eventual Kingdom.
Jesus exercises a powerful historical fascination. He was without doubt a profound and
enigmatic personality. Nonetheless, he remains for many Jews a man whose wisdom
and wit place him among the great teachers of humanity, but neither a messiah nor a
god.Did the Old Testament really prophesy about Jesus? Matthew's case;
Here is how an honest seeker of truth comes out in black and white… ( http://rantsnrants.blogspot.com/2005….sy.html )
Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.
Why do Christians believe this? Because according to the New Testament he said so, and also because he fulfilled the prophesies made in the Old Testament. That's what they believe anyway. But is it true?
To find out I consulted multiple translations of the Bible through BibleGateway.com, and compared the passages cited in the New Testament and compared them to the passages in the old Testament. I then laid them out here. The red passages are New Testament, the green passages are Old Testament. I used mostly New International Version of the Bible, but if they used wording that I didn't understand, I went to other translations for help. Also before I found out about BibleGateway.com I was using my own Bible, which is the Good News Bible. The only other thing I should mention is that I'm not Jewish- I was raised a Christian.
So let's begin:First, did Jesus ever say he was the Messiah?
Yes he did: Math 16:15-17 (Good News Bible GNB):
“What about you?” he asked them. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
“Good for you Simon son of John!” answered Jesus. “For this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven.”That's clear enough.
So what are the prophesies that predicted Jesus' coming? I'm not going to quote prophesies that are highly symbolic because I don't need to. The straight forward predictions should be enough.
OK- let's go through them one by one as listed in the New Testament.
Let's start with Matthew 1:21-23 GNB:
“She will have a son and you will name him Jesus- because he will save his people from their sins.”
Now this will happen in order to make true…….
“A virgin will become pregnant and have a son and he will be called Immanuel (which means God is with us).OK- Without even referring to the Old Testament I've already got a problem with this. He was not named Immanuel. He was given the name of Jesus. The two names even mean different things. If he was the child meant in this prophesy he would have been named Immanuel. HE WASN'T! The prophesy does not match.
But let's go to the Old Testament anyway and see what it actually says:
Isaiah 7:14 GNB:
“Well then, the Lord Himself will give you a sign. A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him Immanuel. By the time he is old enough to make his own decisions people will be drinking milk and eating honey. Even before that time comes, the lands of the two kings who terrify you will be deserted.”
This was a sign to King Ahaz who was afraid of King Rezin and his Syrians and King Pekah. Even if it wasn't, the prophesy doesn't work for Jesus.
Also, the word used in the Old Testament was “maiden” not “virgin”. The Greeks mistranslated this word 500 years after Isaiah was written. It was this mistranslation that is quoted in the New Testament.
Okay fine. Let's move on to another prophesy: Matth 2:3-6 GNB:
When King Herod heard of this he became very upset and asked
“Where will the Messiah be born?”
“In the town of Bethlehem in Judea,” they answered. “For this is what the prophets wrote:“Bethlehem in the land of Judah,
You are by no means the least of the leading cities of Judah;
for from you will come a leader
who will guide my people Isreal.”from the Old Testament: Micah 5:2-5 GNB:
Bethlehem Ephratha you are one of the smallest towns in Judah, but out of you I will bring a ruler for Isreal, whose family line goes back to ancient times.”
So the Lord will abandon his people to their enemies until the woman who is to give birth has her son. Then his fellow countrymen who are in exile will be reunited with their own people. When he comes he will rule his people with the strength that comes from the Lord and with the majesty of the Lord God himself. His people will live in safety because people all over the world will acknowledge his greatness, and he will bring peace.Ok, so when he is born, those in exile will return home. He will by a ruler of Isreal. There will be peace.
This hasn't happened yet. Even if you believe Jesus rose from the dead you acknowledge that he is not the leader of the Jewish people, and they certainly have not had peace in their long history.
So say Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and say he is descended from David, that still doesn't mean he's the one they're talking about here. People do say that the Jewish people lost their right to be his people, but in that case the prophesy is false and definitely doesn't apply to him.
Also, how could he be a descendant of David if Joseph wasn't his biological father? Maybe through the mother, but no information on that is given.
Verdict: An unfulfilled prophesy. It doesn't count until it comes true.Matth 2:14-15 GNB:
Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and left during the night for Egypt, where he stayed until Herod died. This was done to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet, “I called my Son out of Egypt.”
From the Old Testament: Ho 11:1-2 GNB:
The Lord says,
“When Isreal was a child, I loved him and called him out of Egypt as my son. But the more I called to him the more he turned away from me.”Do Christians really want to say that Jesus turned his back on God? Why say the first sentence of that paragraph applies to Jesus and the second doesn't?
Verdict? not a prophesy at all. It's talking about Moses taking his people out of Egypt and to the promised land.Try another one: Matth 2:16-18 GNB:
When Herod realized that the visitors from the East had tricked him he was furious. He gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its neighborhood who were two years old and younger…
In that way what the prophet Jeremiah had said came true:
A sound is heard in Ramah
the sound of bitter weeping.
Rachel is crying for her children;
she refuses to be comforted, for they are all dead.This is a blatant lie!
Look at the Old Testament passage it is quoting from: Jer 31:15 GNB:The Lord says,
A sound is heard in Ramah,
the sound of bitter weeping.
Rachel is crying for her children;
They are gone and she refuses to be comforted.
Stop your crying
and wipe away your tears.
All that you have done for your children
will not go unrewarded; your children will come back home.
I, the Lord have spoken.”The kids aren't dead, furthermore, the mothers will see them again.
Verdict: The New Testament passage lied. If the passage from Jeremiah was a prophesy then it was WRONG.Next prophesy: Math 2:22-23 GNB:
He was given more instructions in a dream, so he went to the province of Galilee and made his home in a town called Nazareth. And so what the prophets had said came true: “He will be called a Nazerene.”
Maybe Matthew was quoting from some other source, but there's nothing in the Old Testament that says this.
Verdict: DodgyLet's try again: Math 3:1-3 GNB:
John was the man the prophet Isaiah was talking about when he said
Someone is shouting in the desert.
Prepare a road for the Lord:
make a straight path for him to travel!Isa 40:3-5 GNB :
A voice cries out
“prepare in the wilderness a road for the Lord!
Clear the way in the desert for our God!
Fill every valley;
level
every mountain
the hills will become plain
and the rough country made smooth.
Then the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
and all mankind will see it. The Lord himself has promised this.That John was quoting this passage may be true, but that the passage refers to Jesus hasn't been proven yet because it hasn't happened yet.
Verdict: unfulfilled prophesyIt is believed that John is Elijah. Their proof? Matth 3:4 New International Version (NIV):
John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey.
Meanwhile Elijah wore a cloak of animal skins tied with a leather belt. (Elij 1:8)
So they must be the same person right?………… Because they both wore a belt?On to the next one. Matth 4:13-16 GNB:
He did not stay in Nazareth but went to live in Capernaum, a town by lake Galilee in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali. This was done to make come true what the prophet Isaiah had said,
Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali
on the road to the sea, on the other side of the Jordan, Galilee, land of the Gentiles.
The people who live in darkness will see a great light.
On those who live in the dark land of death
the light will shine.Guess what- this passage actually matches the one in the Old Testament! And it's an important one because this is the chapter in which Isaiah introduces the idea of a born Savior. So let's check it out. Isa 9:1-7 GNB:
The land of the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali was once disgraced, but the future will bring honor to this region, from the Mediteranean eastward to the land on the other side of the Jordan, and even to Galilee itself, where the foreigners live.
The people who walked in darkness
have seen a great light.
They lived in a land of shadows,
but now the light is shining on them.
You have given them great joy, Lord.
They rejoice in what you have done,
as people rejoice when they harvest grain
or when they divide captures wealth.
For you have broken the yoke that burdened them
and the rod that beat their shoulders.
You have defeated the nation that oppressed and exploited your people
just as you defeated the army of Midian long ago.
The boots of the invading army
and all their bloodstained clothing
will be destroyed by fire.A child is born to us!
A son is given to us!
And he will be our ruler.
He will be called “Wonderful”
“Counselor”
“Mighty God”
“Eternal Father”
“Prince of Peace”
His royal power will continue to grow;
his kingdom will always be at peace.
He will rule as King David's successor.That last bit doesn't even seem like it fits here, but that's where it is.
OK- so
The Old Testament says this region is honored because this is where God defeats the enemy nations and sets his people free from the invading armies,and the New Testament says the region is blessed because Jesus taught there, and presumably defeated the forces of evil and set his people free from its influences. I'd be willing to accept that these are the same in a symbolical sense.
Either way you'll know the prophesy came true because “his kingdom will always be at peace”.
Well, we're still waiting on that, so again, this is an unfulfilled prophesy. It didn't happen, so how do we know the prophesy wasn't meant to be taken literally? Also, Jesus had complete control over where he taught, and would have known this region was significant in regards to the Messiah, so anyone- even you could do that and say that proves you're the Messiah….
After all he did know the scriptures and he could read.
On the other hand he did bring light to the darkness of the area so in that sense that piece of the prophesy was true.………………..
Let's go to Matthew 26:27-28 NIV
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Interesting. So what's relevant to this passage in the Old Testament?
Ex 24:3-8 NIV:
When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the LORD has said we will do.” Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.
He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Jesus asked his disciples to drink the wine that symbolized his blood. Moses sprinkled blood on the people, and sprinkled blood on the altar, but no one drank the blood- that was a big taboo!
Look at Leviticus 3:12-17 NIV:
” 'If his offering is a goat, he is to present it before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it in front of the Tent of Meeting. Then Aaron's sons shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. From what he offers he is to make this offering to the LORD by fire: all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys. The priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made by fire, a pleasing aroma. All the fat is the LORD's.
17 ” 'This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.' “
For remaining please go through the above link
<!–E
Adam,
I looked at the NIV translations version of Matthew 2:16-18 and Jeremiah 31:15 and the words it uses in both cases are “no more”. That would tend to show the GNB mistranslated the word(s) in Matthew to “dead” probably going by the immediate context and not by the original source.
Your source is either not aware of longstanding Jewish methods of interpretation or purposely not using them. I feel the former is more likely. My doubt is the use of the GNB to back his argument about Matthews writing when he had access to the NIV which would not have backed it.
To properly understand Matthew one must understand the Drash, aka Midrash, method of Jewish scriptural interpretation. More precisely it is the Aggadic Midrashim as it is a non-legal part of scripture he often applies it to.
Here are my sources:
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2010,15:04) Adam, I looked at the NIV translations version of Matthew 2:16-18 and Jeremiah 31:15 and the words it uses in both cases are “no more”. That would tend to show the GNB mistranslated the word(s) in Matthew to “dead” probably going by the immediate context and not by the original source.
Your source is either not aware of longstanding Jewish methods of interpretation or purposely not using them. I feel the former is more likely. My doubt is the use of the GNB to back his argument about Matthews writing when he had access to the NIV which would not have backed it.
To properly understand Matthew one must understand the Drash, aka Midrash, method of Jewish scriptural interpretation. More precisely it is the Aggadic Midrashim as it is a non-legal part of scripture he often applies it to.
Here are my sources:
Hi brother Kerwin,
I don't rely NIV because it supports most of Trinitarian doctrines and added words at many places where originals differ with its views. Forget about which version you read you see whether writer of Matthew was honest in applying Jewish scriptures? The context of Jer 31 is important there it talks about Jewish children who had been taken as captives to Babylon and 'were no more' means what they didn't die but they will come back to their land after 70 years as per God's prophecy to Jeremiah. It is available in the next verse itself; Jer 31:16
“Thus says the LORD: Cease your cries of mourning, wipe the tears from your eyes. The sorrow you have shown shall have its reward, says the LORD, they shall return from the enemy's land.”Where is the question of slaughter of children which had been executed by King Herod? Please see the dishonesty of this writer to suit his ideas by taking Hebrew scriptures in bits and parts taking them out of their original context. This is where I get frustrated by reading N.T.
Thanks and peace to you
AdamAdam,
As I stated previously if you apply the Aggadic Midrashim to the words of Matthew then you will understand where Mattew, a Jew who obviously adhered to that teaching, is comming from.
The fact that the particular scripture is true about an event is enough for that scripture to be applied to that event even though the litteral or implied aplications of the scripture do not fit the event. Was a maiden with child a sign of Jesus being the Messiah. Matthew believed it was and thus applied the passage of Isaiah to the event. Was Jesus the Son of God and called from Egypt. Matthew once again believed that to be the case and applied a scripture that said the same even though the litteral aplication of the scripture did not fit.
You are not thinking like a Jew of the First Century. Both Matthew and his origional audience, if they were Jews, would have been.
I believe that the NIV is a mixture of paraphrase and litteral translation.
Hi brother Kerwin,
I don't want to go into any mystical nature of application of Hebrew scriptures as done by the writer of Matthew who was bent to apply Jewish scriptures to prove his ideas for example we know how foolishly he said that Jesus sat on two donkeys. I don't need more evidence than this for this dogmatic writer.Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 25 2010,17:12) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2010,15:04) Adam, I looked at the NIV translations version of Matthew 2:16-18 and Jeremiah 31:15 and the words it uses in both cases are “no more”. That would tend to show the GNB mistranslated the word(s) in Matthew to “dead” probably going by the immediate context and not by the original source.
Your source is either not aware of longstanding Jewish methods of interpretation or purposely not using them. I feel the former is more likely. My doubt is the use of the GNB to back his argument about Matthews writing when he had access to the NIV which would not have backed it.
To properly understand Matthew one must understand the Drash, aka Midrash, method of Jewish scriptural interpretation. More precisely it is the Aggadic Midrashim as it is a non-legal part of scripture he often applies it to.
Here are my sources:
Hi brother Kerwin,
I don't rely NIV because it supports most of Trinitarian doctrines and added words at many places where originals differ with its views. Forget about which version you read you see whether writer of Matthew was honest in applying Jewish scriptures? The context of Jer 31 is important there it talks about Jewish children who had been taken as captives to Babylon and 'were no more' means what they didn't die but they will come back to their land after 70 years as per God's prophecy to Jeremiah. It is available in the next verse itself; Jer 31:16
“Thus says the LORD: Cease your cries of mourning, wipe the tears from your eyes. The sorrow you have shown shall have its reward, says the LORD, they shall return from the enemy's land.”Where is the question of slaughter of children which had been executed by King Herod? Please see the dishonesty of this writer to suit his ideas by taking Hebrew scriptures in bits and parts taking them out of their original context. This is where I get frustrated by reading N.T.
Thanks and peace to you
Adam
Hi Adam,Do you believe that Psalm 22 is a depiction of Jesus' crucifixion?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
