Convince Me!

[amosman]

Was Abrahams's sacrifice about sin? That is news to me.

Abraham's sacrifice was a test to see if he would obey YHVH. Any time YHVH asks us to do anything it is a test. Such as keeping His commandments is a test.

But this story about the offering of Isaac is also about sin. At this time in history YHVH had not as yet layed out the sacrificial system which He gave through Moses. So I am forced to make some assumptions here. I assumed that since Abraham and YHVH were on speaking terms that YHVH would have spoken His Torah to Abraham and others like Job. Job being a contemporary of Abraham offered burnt offerings to YHVH as a sin offering. Abraham evidently made sacrifices of lambs regular enough that Isaac knew they needed a lamb.

Basically anytime we see disobediance of man to YHVH's commandments it will lead to death. But YHVH made it possible through the sacrificial system to make substitutions.

 

[logos_x]

Take the Chair challenge! Convince me that Christianity is true. Many of you have been trying to do this in various threads, so here is a chance to go at it in a straightforward way, instead of hijacking other threads.

There are some rules:

1. Please define, BRIEFLY, what you mean by Christianity before you start. There are differing views about this, so I would like to know what exactly you are trying to convince me of.

That Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the promised deliverer. and through Him we are reconciled to the Father and Creator...YHWH

2. Give some evidence or reasoning for your statements.
3. Avoid circular reasoning. If you want to prove something from the Bible, you will have to convince me that the Bible is true first.
4. Please be brief. I get lost in long-winded lengthy posts.

Jesus, in spite of a Roman execution by crucifixion, was raised to life again. He makes ordinary people Sons of God and therefore heirs.

But there is more I want you to consider, chair.

For if the casting away of them (the Jews) is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee.

For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved: even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: And this is my covenant unto them, When I shall take away their sins.

As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of.

For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience, even so have these also now been disobedient, that by the mercy shown to you they also may now obtain mercy. For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!

how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever. Amen.
(The Apostle Paul, a Pharisee that came to know Christ, Romans 11:15-18; 24-36 ASV)​

And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. And he will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
(Isaiah 2:2-4 ASV)​

There is still a lot of trouble ahead...but that will not always be so.

I understand you'll be leaving TOL at the end of October. I appreciate what you have had to say.

The Lord bless you and keep you.
The Lord make his face to shine upon you.
The Lord lift his countenance upon you
And be gracious unto you
And give you peace. Amen.

So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.'" (Numbers 6:22-27)

"In this manner therefore pray: 'Our Father who art in Heaven, may Thy name be kept holy; let Thy kingdom come; let Thy will be done, as in Heaven so on earth; give us to-day our bread for the day; and forgive us our shortcomings, as we also have forgiven those who have failed in their duty towards us; and bring us not into temptation, but rescue us from the Evil one.'
(Jesus, Matthew 6:9-13)

God bless you,
Stephen.

 

[daddyugi]

Hello chair,

1) I know you deny inherited sin, but you never explained to me why no one has to be
taught to sin. Why do very young children instinctivly know how to lie and steal? If sin
were not part of their nature from their birth, they would need to be taught to do these
things. If you want to deny inherited sin that's ok, but you still need to answer this
question to yourself "Why do very young children lie and steal without being taught how or
why.

2) Bathsheba was not a prophet speaking for God, Isaiah was.

3) In the Talmud, we read that Rabbi Johanan said, "The world was created for the sake
of the Messiah, what is this Messiah's name? The school of Rabbi Shila said 'his name is
Shiloh, for it is written; until Shiloh come". We also read in the Targum Onkelos "The
transmission of domain shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his children's children, forever, until Messiah comes". In another, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,
we read "King and rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah...until King Messiah
comes". Still another, Targum Yerushalmi, "Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah...until the time of the coming of the King Messiah...to whom all the dominions of the earth shall become subservient". These are the rabbinical writings of old and they
were convinced that Shiloh meant Messiah.
Who say the sceptor represents the authority to administer capitol punishment? Rabbi
Rachmon. We find his comments in the Babylonian Talmud, Chapter 4. "When the
members of the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right over life and death, a
general consternation took possession of them: they covered their heads with ashes, and
their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming: 'Woe unto us for the scepter has departed from
Judah and the Messiah has not come.'"
You are right. I did not get my assumptions from the text. I got my assumptions from
the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbinical writings.
As to Jesus not having the "ability to enforce capitol punishment", I have to disagree. In
John 8:1-11, looking at this as an historical account NOT saying Jesus is Messiah, we find
Jesus teaching in the temple when the scribes and Pharisees brought in a woman that
they had caught in the act of adultery. The quoted Moses concerning what to do with
someone caught in adultery (that they must be stoned) and then put the ball in Jesus's
court. They asked Him what He said about it. They were trying to trap Him. If He said
"yes, she deserves to die", then they could say that He spoke against Roman law, but, if
He said "no, she doesn't deserve to die", then they could say that He spoke against the
Law. Jesus had every right to say "yes", after all the law was the law. Instead, Jesus
stooped down and started writing on the ground. We don't know what He wrote, maybe
He wrote "liar",or "coveter", or "idolater", but either way He ignored them and wrote. As
they pressed Him for an answer, He stood and told them that those without sin should
cast the first stone, and then went back to writing. They all left. The scribes and Pharisees gave Jesus the right to enforce capitol punishment that day and He chose to
enforce mercy and forgiveness instead.

I would like to point you back to Isaiah 52 for a minuet and see what the Talmud says
about a particular Scripture. Isaiah 52:14: "His – the Messiah's – appearance was marred
more than that of any man, and His form more than the sons of men" Sanhedrin 97b,
Yalkut volume II p. 53c and also Shemoth R, 15-19. Zechariah 12:10-12, which I'm sure
you will say is not Messianic in nature, the Sukkah 52a says "They will look upon Me –
the Messiah – whom they have pierced". It's late and I must get to bed. I look forward to
your response.

God Bless you.

 

[chair]

Hello chair,

1) I know you deny inherited sin, but you never explained to me why no one has to be
taught to sin. Why do very young children instinctivly know how to lie and steal? If sin
were not part of their nature from their birth, they would need to be taught to do these
things. If you want to deny inherited sin that's ok, but you still need to answer this
question to yourself "Why do very young children lie and steal without being taught how or
why.

2) Bathsheba was not a prophet speaking for God, Isaiah was.

3) In the Talmud, we read that Rabbi Johanan said, "The world was created for the sake
of the Messiah, what is this Messiah's name? The school of Rabbi Shila said 'his name is
Shiloh, for it is written; until Shiloh come". We also read in the Targum Onkelos "The
transmission of domain shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his children's children, forever, until Messiah comes". In another, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,
we read "King and rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah...until King Messiah
comes". Still another, Targum Yerushalmi, "Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah...until the time of the coming of the King Messiah...to whom all the dominions of the earth shall become subservient". These are the rabbinical writings of old and they
were convinced that Shiloh meant Messiah.
Who say the sceptor represents the authority to administer capitol punishment? Rabbi
Rachmon. We find his comments in the Babylonian Talmud, Chapter 4. "When the
members of the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right over life and death, a
general consternation took possession of them: they covered their heads with ashes, and
their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming: 'Woe unto us for the scepter has departed from
Judah and the Messiah has not come.'"
You are right. I did not get my assumptions from the text. I got my assumptions from
the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbinical writings.
As to Jesus not having the "ability to enforce capitol punishment", I have to disagree. In
John 8:1-11, looking at this as an historical account NOT saying Jesus is Messiah, we find
Jesus teaching in the temple when the scribes and Pharisees brought in a woman that
they had caught in the act of adultery. The quoted Moses concerning what to do with
someone caught in adultery (that they must be stoned) and then put the ball in Jesus's
court. They asked Him what He said about it. They were trying to trap Him. If He said
"yes, she deserves to die", then they could say that He spoke against Roman law, but, if
He said "no, she doesn't deserve to die", then they could say that He spoke against the
Law. Jesus had every right to say "yes", after all the law was the law. Instead, Jesus
stooped down and started writing on the ground. We don't know what He wrote, maybe
He wrote "liar",or "coveter", or "idolater", but either way He ignored them and wrote. As
they pressed Him for an answer, He stood and told them that those without sin should
cast the first stone, and then went back to writing. They all left. The scribes and Pharisees gave Jesus the right to enforce capitol punishment that day and He chose to
enforce mercy and forgiveness instead.

I would like to point you back to Isaiah 52 for a minuet and see what the Talmud says
about a particular Scripture. Isaiah 52:14: "His – the Messiah's – appearance was marred
more than that of any man, and His form more than the sons of men" Sanhedrin 97b,
Yalkut volume II p. 53c and also Shemoth R, 15-19. Zechariah 12:10-12, which I'm sure
you will say is not Messianic in nature, the Sukkah 52a says "They will look upon Me –
the Messiah – whom they have pierced". It's late and I must get to bed. I look forward to
your response.

God Bless you.

Well, It is early in the morning here, and I have to get to work, so I have no time ot check out these sources..

But don't you think it odd to prove that Jesus was the Messiah by quoting Rabbis who completely rejected him?

 

[chair]

Hello chair,

1) I know you deny inherited sin, but you never explained to me why no one has to be
taught to sin. Why do very young children instinctivly know how to lie and steal? If sin
were not part of their nature from their birth, they would need to be taught to do these
things. If you want to deny inherited sin that's ok, but you still need to answer this
question to yourself "Why do very young children lie and steal without being taught how or
why.

2) Bathsheba was not a prophet speaking for God, Isaiah was.

3) In the Talmud, we read that Rabbi Johanan said, "The world was created for the sake
of the Messiah, what is this Messiah's name? The school of Rabbi Shila said 'his name is
Shiloh, for it is written; until Shiloh come". We also read in the Targum Onkelos "The
transmission of domain shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his children's children, forever, until Messiah comes". In another, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,
we read "King and rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah...until King Messiah
comes". Still another, Targum Yerushalmi, "Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah...until the time of the coming of the King Messiah...to whom all the dominions of the earth shall become subservient". These are the rabbinical writings of old and they
were convinced that Shiloh meant Messiah.
Who say the sceptor represents the authority to administer capitol punishment? Rabbi
Rachmon. We find his comments in the Babylonian Talmud, Chapter 4. "When the
members of the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right over life and death, a
general consternation took possession of them: they covered their heads with ashes, and
their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming: 'Woe unto us for the scepter has departed from
Judah and the Messiah has not come.'"
You are right. I did not get my assumptions from the text. I got my assumptions from
the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbinical writings.
As to Jesus not having the "ability to enforce capitol punishment", I have to disagree. In
John 8:1-11, looking at this as an historical account NOT saying Jesus is Messiah, we find
Jesus teaching in the temple when the scribes and Pharisees brought in a woman that
they had caught in the act of adultery. The quoted Moses concerning what to do with
someone caught in adultery (that they must be stoned) and then put the ball in Jesus's
court. They asked Him what He said about it. They were trying to trap Him. If He said
"yes, she deserves to die", then they could say that He spoke against Roman law, but, if
He said "no, she doesn't deserve to die", then they could say that He spoke against the
Law. Jesus had every right to say "yes", after all the law was the law. Instead, Jesus
stooped down and started writing on the ground. We don't know what He wrote, maybe
He wrote "liar",or "coveter", or "idolater", but either way He ignored them and wrote. As
they pressed Him for an answer, He stood and told them that those without sin should
cast the first stone, and then went back to writing. They all left. The scribes and Pharisees gave Jesus the right to enforce capitol punishment that day and He chose to
enforce mercy and forgiveness instead.

I would like to point you back to Isaiah 52 for a minuet and see what the Talmud says
about a particular Scripture. Isaiah 52:14: "His – the Messiah's – appearance was marred
more than that of any man, and His form more than the sons of men" Sanhedrin 97b,
Yalkut volume II p. 53c and also Shemoth R, 15-19. Zechariah 12:10-12, which I'm sure
you will say is not Messianic in nature, the Sukkah 52a says "They will look upon Me –
the Messiah – whom they have pierced". It's late and I must get to bed. I look forward to
your response.

God Bless you.

Before I respomd to your points, a few comments and questions of my own:

A. First of all, I would like to tell you that you are doing better than I expected. What or who do you use as a source on Jewish texts,like the ones yoiu mentioned in this post?

B. Secondly, our conversation has gotten to a point where we are going over the interpretation of some unclear Biblical texts. That is OK, but I think that we are missing the basic questions:

i. What is the Messiah? What is he expected to do?
ii. Is the Messiah also God?
iii. Is the Law no longer applicable?
iv. Is the New Testament report of what Jesus did and said accurate?

These are the major differences in our viewpoints, and I think we are not really dealing with them.

Now, on to your points.

I will agree that children need to be taught how to behave. But to behave really badly, they need to taught as well. Think of the kids who get drawn into street gangs. If anything this raises the question of free will, which is not our topic here. In any case it is one thing to say that men are capable of sin, and another alotogether to say that they are automatically sinners, guilty as if they had personally sinned.

Think about Cain, compared to Adam. Adam had to be taught that he shouldn't eat from a particular tree. Cain, on teh other hand, should have known on his own not to murder. He was never specifically told that it was wrong. The Bible views murder as something that humans inately know is immoral.

Regarding the Rabbis who identify "Shiloh" as being the Messiah. Yes, that is a Rabbinical explanation of the text. It is one of many. Some others are that it is David himself, or the location called Shiloh. There are many viewpoints that are expressed in the Talmud and other sources.

By the way, I would like to know where that quote about the members of the Sanhedrin comes from. "Chapter 4" is not enough of an identifier for the Talmud- you need to know what Tractate you are talking about. I tried googling part of the text, and only got a few Christian sites that did not really specify where the quote was from. Thanks.

I find myself in a situation similar to that of Nachmanides in the 13th century, who in a famous disputation with a Christian (a former Jew), had to deal with a Midrash that said that the Messiah was born immediately after the destruction of teh Temple. He had two responses:
1. That he didn't believe that the Midrash was literally true.
2. EVen if the Midrash was true, it didn't serve the Christian viewpoint, since Jesus died before the Temple was destroyed.

So, I don't necessarily accept that interpretaion of "Shiloh". Nor do I think that the Rabbis who liked that interpretation thought that Jesus was the Messiah.

But beyond that, as I have pointed out, Jesus didn't have the power of capital punishment. He could, and supposedly did, point out moral problems with it, but that is a far cry from a "scepter", as his own arrest and death show quite clearly. Not only that, but even your optimistic chronology doesn't make too much sense. Why should this happen when Jesus is nine or ten, and not when he was born, or when he entered Jerusalem, or was crucified?

 

[daddyugi]

Hello chair,

No, I don't think it odd to show that Jesus is Messiah by quoting Rabbis, after all, men of
God are men of God, and not all Rabbis completely rejected Him. I'll discuss that
tomorrow when I have more time.

Thank you for the compliment about doing better than you expected.
I have been through hundreds and hundreds of websites. Some are so anti-Jesus that
they twist Scripture and I have to discard them, others are so pro-Jesus that they apply
Scripture to Him that are obviously not talking about Messiah and I have to discard them
also. Finding websites with little bias is difficult but not impossible. I've found one website
that has the Babylonian Talmud translated into English (sacred-texts.com) and I spent
several hours searching and will continue to spend searching. I am obsessive-compulsive
in nature which is bad as far as sleep goes but good as far as learning goes. Once I start
on something, I have a hard time stopping, which is why I don't get to bed until 1:00 a.m.
or after some nights ( I get up at about 5:45 a.m.). In fact, it's after 11:30 p.m. now and I
need to get to bed shortly. I'll post more tomorrow night, when I'll have a little more time.

God bless you.

 

[chair]

I spend far too much time on this forum myself. That's why I have decided to leave at the end of the month.

 

[Yorzhik]

I spend far too much time on this forum myself. That's why I have decided to leave at the end of the month.

I would have liked to have dialoged more.

 

[PKevman]

Hello chair,

No, I don't think it odd to show that Jesus is Messiah by quoting Rabbis, after all, men of
God are men of God, and not all Rabbis completely rejected Him. I'll discuss that
tomorrow when I have more time.

Thank you for the compliment about doing better than you expected.
I have been through hundreds and hundreds of websites. Some are so anti-Jesus that
they twist Scripture and I have to discard them, others are so pro-Jesus that they apply
Scripture to Him that are obviously not talking about Messiah and I have to discard them
also. Finding websites with little bias is difficult but not impossible. I've found one website
that has the Babylonian Talmud translated into English (sacred-texts.com) and I spent
several hours searching and will continue to spend searching. I am obsessive-compulsive
in nature which is bad as far as sleep goes but good as far as learning goes. Once I start
on something, I have a hard time stopping, which is why I don't get to bed until 1:00 a.m.
or after some nights ( I get up at about 5:45 a.m.). In fact, it's after 11:30 p.m. now and I
need to get to bed shortly. I'll post more tomorrow night, when I'll have a little more time.

God bless you.

Don't overdo yourself brother! :zoomin:

PK

 

[amosman]

I spend far too much time on this forum myself. That's why I have decided to leave at the end of the month.

Did you read post #121? I was wondering what you might say.

 

[daddyugi]

Hello chair,

Sorry about not having all of what was supposed to follow chapter 4, I should have had
folio 37. Sorry. That particular quote I found in "Jesus before the Sanhedrin" by Augustin
Lemann.

I'm only going to answer one or two of the points that you want to discuss tonight and not
in the detail I want to. We had a parent/teacher conference tonight and got my son's
grades. He made one B+ and the rest A-, A's, and A+'s. We're very proud of him.
He's in the Excel program, a gifted program here in Indy, and his homeroom teacher (and
the rest of his teachers as well) said he was a pleasure to have in class and was always
well behaved. After that we had to go spend money to buy a new printer. :down: He
needed to print off a report and our original printer decided to quit, so I wound up spending
most of the night shopping and setting up the new printer. Bummer.

i) "What is Messiah?" is more who is Messiah. According to Micah 5:2, He will be ruler
of Israel. Isaiah 11:4 tells us that He shall be a righteous Judge. He shall bring an
everlasting peace, Isaiah 9:7. He shall cause all the remnant of Israel scattered across
the globe to return to Israel, Isaiah 11:11-12. Again it's late and I apologize for having to
leave our discussion so soon, but I'll pick it up as soon as I can.

God bless you, Joel.

 

[daddyugi]

Hello chair,

In my last post I very briefly gave what Messiah was going to do. There are a lot more
things that he will do, destroy Israel's ememies, cause all people to worship and serve
God, rebuild the temple, and rule during the time that all Jewish people follow God's
commandments.

ii) "Is Messiah also God?" People have been asking that question for mellinia. The only
way to answer this question is to go back to Scripture. Does Scripture say if Messiah is
God is the better question. Jeremiah 23:1-8, verse 3 God says "I myself will gather the
remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them
back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number." And in vs 6 we
read "In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by
which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness." I wanted to make sure of what
I was reading, so I looked up the word "LORD" in my Hebrew dictionary. The word that
was translated as LORD in english is the Jewish word "Yehovah" the Jewish national
name of God. Jeremiah was quoting God and throughout this chapter we read phrases
such as "declares the LORD", and "this is what the LORD Almighty says". God knows
what He's talking about and HE decided to calls Messiah (vs 5 calls him a "righteous
Branch") "Yehovah our Righteousness" or Jehovah-tsidkenu. Before you say that this
isn't a passage talking about Messiah (Moshiach), jewfaq.org lists the entire chapter of
Jeremiah 23 as Messianic. Is Moshiach also Yehovah? Yes, according to God and His
Word.

iii.) "Is the Law no longer applicable?" I want to make sure that I understand this
question properly. You are asking, if I understand, "Is the Law abolished". The answer is
no. The Law is God's Law and until He repeals it. Even Jesus said this in Matthew 5:18-
19 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or
stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the
least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven."

I'll try to tackle the last point next time.

God bless you.

 

[chair]

I have a busy day ahead of me, so I won't be able to answer in detail.

1. I will point out, though, that Jesus did not fulfill many Messianic expectations, and the idea that he will someday is not very satisfying, to say the least, to a non-Christian. Can you see why?
2. Careful with how you read the Bible. God brings Israel's redemption. By means of the Messiah. It does not mean that messiah is god, any more than Moses was God.

Chair

 

[daddyugi]

Hello chair,

I understand about being busy. I stay that way sometimes. At least it keeps me out of
trouble.

1) I understand that it's disappointing that the time of peace and worship of God is not
here. There are a lot of times that I wish the Messianic age would start yesterday. But,
we have to go back to what the Scripture say in order to see if our expectaions are in line
with God. There are other prophesies that we haven't discussed yet. I would like to point
your attention to Daniel 9:24-27. It's interesting that this is the only passage in Scripture
that actually says Messiah. Daniel is visited by Gabriel and was given an answer to his
prayer. In this answer we read in verse 26 we read "After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the
Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come
like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." I looked
up 'karath' and found that it meant "to cut (off, down or asunder); by implication to destroy
or consume; specifically to covenant (ie. make an alliance or bargain, originally by cutting
flesh and passing between the pieces); - chewed, be con-[feder-] ate, covenant, cut
(down, off), destroy, fall, feller, be freed, hew (down), make a league ([covenantly]), X lose,
perish, X utterly, X want." In reading the verse in context, we see that we can throw out
anything applying to a covenant since the verse say that He will have nothing. We also
have to strike the "con-[feder-] ate", "feller", "be freed" and "make a league" due to the
fact that He will have nothing. If you are "confederate" you are banded together with
something and therefore have something. Scripture tells us that He will have nothing, so
we have to throw "confederate" out as well as "make a league". If you are a "feller" then
you have what you fell or cut down. Again, He will have nothing, so we have to throw
"feller" out. That leaves "be freed". That doesn't match with verse 25 that calls the
Messiah "ruler". Why would a ruler need to be freed? Thus, we have to rule out "be
freed". What that leaves us with are definitions that deal with destruction. Not quite the
"expectation" of the Messiah, but this is something that we can't deny without denying
Scripture.

I want to direct your attention to Daniel chapter 7. We read about Daniels vision of the
four beast, "the Ancient of Days" (meaning God), and Messiah. We find Messiah in
verses 13 and 14. We see Messiah coming in clouds of heaven and God giving Him rule,
glory, and a kingdom. Now I want to direct your attention to Zechariah chapter 9 starting
with verse 1 and going through verse 10. In this portion of Scripture we see Messiah riding
on a donkey, on the foal of a donkey. Now, I am familiar with the Talmudist that claims
that "if" Jerusalem was worthy, Messiah would come in the clouds, and "if" Jerusalem
wasn't worthy, then Messiah would ride in on a donkey but not reveal Himself. The
problem with that theory is that there are no qualifiers on the two Scripture passages. You
don't find "if this then this" like you find in 2 Chronicles 7:14. "If my people which are
called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from
their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their
land." The "if/then" situation is conditional; if you do this, then I will do this. You don't find
this in any of the Scripture verses I directed you to. Now, either one of two things is true.
Either the Scriptures are false and you can't believe anything you read in it, Messiah
included, or Messiah must fulfill both prophesies. I am also familiar with the theory that
says that Messiah comes at two different times (which I whole-heartedly agree with) but as
two different people, Moshiach ben Yosef and Moshiach ben David. The problem with that
theory is that neither one fulfilled the prophies that their kingdom would last forever, peace
would be on the earth, only God worshipped, and Israel's enemies destroyed. Thus, we
have to disregard that theory. There are other prophesies to be discussed in another
post.

God bless you.

 

[daddyugi]

Hello chair,

iv) "Is the New Testament report of what Jesus did and said accurate?" To answer that,
we must ask first is what we find in the New Testament historically accurate? Let's take
a look first at Luke, both the book and the author. Luke, a physician by trade, was also
a notable historian. Why would I confer on him the title of historian? Because Luke was
extremely careful to record people, places, positions, and events in detail. In both Luke
and Acts, Luke describes people, like Pilate. Most Roman Governors are virtually
unknown to modern historians. Pilate is a rare exception. We find the Inscription of
Pilate, a limestone tablet inscribed to Tiberius Ceasar from Pontius Pilate. Josephus
tells us a little bit about Pilate in Antiquities. Philo's Legatio ad Gaium describes Pilate
in less than favorable light, but yet it does describe him. In other archaeological studies
we find cities that Luke identified that for centuries had been lost. In fact, most people
rejected Luke and Acts. A renouned archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, went to explore
Asia Minor to prove that Luke and Acts didn't belong in the New Testament. After
hundreds of hours of research, and a careful study of Acts 14:5-12, Sir Ramsay began to
believe that Luke was quite familiar with the people, places, and events that he wrote
about. Cities that were in question were found. All in all 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9
islands were named without error according to Norman Geisler in the Baker Encyclopedia
of Apologetics. In The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New
Testament, we read Sir Ramsay, the renouned archaeologics, write "The present writer
takes the view that Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness." I can
start giving examples if you'd like. I'll return later to give more examples of the historical
accuracy of the New Testament.

God bless you.

 

[chair]

Hello chair,

iv) "Is the New Testament report of what Jesus did and said accurate?" I'll return later to give more examples of the historical
accuracy of the New Testament.

God bless you.

The fact that a document mentions some real historical facts does not mean that everything iin the document is historical.

Today we call it historical fiction.

 

[Berean Todd]

The fact that a document mentions some real historical facts does not mean that everything iin the document is historical.

Today we call it historical fiction.

When it is written down by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and passed around as truth, and the result is such as we see happened in this case ... it's hard to call it fiction as you seem to want to.

 

[Middlemoor]

Boycott this thread, stake a stance against attention-seeking trolls.

 

[Berean Todd]

Boycott this thread, stake a stance against attention-seeking trolls.

And your posting here a pointless post, and bumping the thread accomplishes this how? If you want to avoid the thread, by all means avoid it.

 

[chair]

When it is written down by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and passed around as truth, and the result is such as we see happened in this case ... it's hard to call it fiction as you seem to want to.

You only have the evidence of the book itself that there were eyewitnesses to the events.