C
cirisme
Guest
If, as you insist, I should care what the Jews thought, why didn't they see Jesus as Messiah?
the POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royal I
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
If, as you insist, I should care what the Jews thought, why didn't they see Jesus as Messiah?
MARANATHA2002
New member
Hello Evan
I am not sure how the Jews understood Isaiah 9: 6. Looking at it from their perspective, I would say it is easier for us to believe and understand an event, which has already happened, than trying to believe and understand it as a future event. I believe they should have seen the verse as MESSIAH, GOD IN THE FLESH, and I am sure there where some Jews who did. Jews as a whole, of course have rejected this. They should have known from Genesis of the promise of the SEED of the woman. This clearly teaches a virgin birth. Why the Jews as a whole did not understand this, I do not know. They should have put the promise in Genesis with Isaiah 9: 6. It makes sense to me, but of course I am looking at it as a past event, instead of a future event.
When MESSIAH did come, the Jews as a whole rejected HIM, even though all the Old Testament prophecies pointed directly to HIM. They where looking for the conquering KING, The Lion. When HE didn’t overthrow the Romans, they rejected HIM. They failed to see HIM as the LAMB, who was to die for the sins of the world. In reading Psalm 2, we see CHRIST coming as the Conquering Lion KING, and at this future event the world we not have a choice in the matter.
Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
If Brown, Driver, and Briggs see The Everlasting FATHER, as one of the names given to the child that is born, or the son that is given, and this is the MESSIAH, and if the Everlasting FATHER is The mighty GOD. I am in agreement with them also. Peace, but not yet.
I am not sure how the Jews understood Isaiah 9: 6. Looking at it from their perspective, I would say it is easier for us to believe and understand an event, which has already happened, than trying to believe and understand it as a future event. I believe they should have seen the verse as MESSIAH, GOD IN THE FLESH, and I am sure there where some Jews who did. Jews as a whole, of course have rejected this. They should have known from Genesis of the promise of the SEED of the woman. This clearly teaches a virgin birth. Why the Jews as a whole did not understand this, I do not know. They should have put the promise in Genesis with Isaiah 9: 6. It makes sense to me, but of course I am looking at it as a past event, instead of a future event.
When MESSIAH did come, the Jews as a whole rejected HIM, even though all the Old Testament prophecies pointed directly to HIM. They where looking for the conquering KING, The Lion. When HE didn’t overthrow the Romans, they rejected HIM. They failed to see HIM as the LAMB, who was to die for the sins of the world. In reading Psalm 2, we see CHRIST coming as the Conquering Lion KING, and at this future event the world we not have a choice in the matter.
Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
If Brown, Driver, and Briggs see The Everlasting FATHER, as one of the names given to the child that is born, or the son that is given, and this is the MESSIAH, and if the Everlasting FATHER is The mighty GOD. I am in agreement with them also. Peace, but not yet.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Cirisme, It dissapoints me that you don't care about your Jewish roots.
C
cirisme
Guest
I have French roots
Actually, that's a straw man. I care about them. I care what they did, I care who they are, I even care what they thought. But what I don't care about is putting their interpretations on the same level as the Bible itself. That is exactly what EV is asking me to do, and that is exactly what I am against.
God bless.
MARANATHA2002
New member
Evan Quote:
"Maranatha, I used Brown-Driver-Briggs because (a) it is a standard authority, and (b) it is a lexicon to which Trinitarians themselves will frequently refer. They didn't "change" anything, Maranatha - they simply translated the words "el gibbor" in a slightly different way. And believe it or not, their translation is perfectly reasonable".
Evan, we will have to simply disagree on whether the translation was as you say “slightly different”. I see it as a major change from what the Bible actually says. As for Brown, Driver, and Briggs being of any authority, will have to fall under "one’s personal opinion". I do not believe it is there to be used, as the final authority, on how the Bible should have been translated. Peace, but not yet.
"Maranatha, I used Brown-Driver-Briggs because (a) it is a standard authority, and (b) it is a lexicon to which Trinitarians themselves will frequently refer. They didn't "change" anything, Maranatha - they simply translated the words "el gibbor" in a slightly different way. And believe it or not, their translation is perfectly reasonable".
Evan, we will have to simply disagree on whether the translation was as you say “slightly different”. I see it as a major change from what the Bible actually says. As for Brown, Driver, and Briggs being of any authority, will have to fall under "one’s personal opinion". I do not believe it is there to be used, as the final authority, on how the Bible should have been translated. Peace, but not yet.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Cirisme, they wrote the lion share of the Bible and I assume you beleive that the Bible is the Word of of God so you have a bit of a disconect. And it was not a straw man as you clearly stated that you did not care what the Jews thought and that implies a lack of understanding that Christianity really is just completed judaism.
Evangelion
New member
Maranatha and Cirisme have both missed the following points:
In short - they believed all the things that the OT prophets had said about him... and he confirmed every detail.
- In Jewish society, it was perfectly legitimate for a man (particularly if he was a king, or a judge) to be called "god" (elohim and/or el.) There are several examples of this in the OT. The Jews would have read Isaiah 9:6 in this light, understanding that the Messiah would be a mighty man - perhaps with supernatural abilities, like the prophets. They would have reconciled the use of el gibbor with its use elsewhere in the OT. Both el and gibbor are applied to other men in the OT, so this is not a problem for Judaism.
- Many (but not all) of the common people rejected Christ because they expected the Messiah to be a political saviour, not a humble preacher who would suffer and die. Most (but not all) of the ruling classes rejected him because he exposed their corruption of the Law. That is why they rejected him. He was not rejected for claiming to be God. There are only two or three passages where he is accused of claiming equality with God, and in each case he explains himself. The accusation never arises again - not even at his trial! So this is not the reason for their rejection of him.
- Luke 24:19.
And {Jesus} said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
- John 4:10.
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
- John 6:14.
Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
- John 9:17.
They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
- John 10:23-25.
And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
- John 4:24-26.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
- Matthew 14:32-33.
And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
- Matthew 16:15-17.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
- Mark 14:60-62.
And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
- Mark 15:38-39.
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
- Matthew 21:8-9.
And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.
And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
- John 12:12-13.
On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
In short - they believed all the things that the OT prophets had said about him... and he confirmed every detail.
Actually, He confirmed more than they wanted Him to, since they did not understand that there would be no more need for the law once it was fulfilled (I am referring to the Temple cult only). He confirmed that His next coming would be in judgment. He confirmed that He was not there to lead but to serve.
He does not really look like what they wanted at all.
He does not really look like what they wanted at all.
................
................
Let's see, 'all' and 'mighty' and 'god' are applied to Christ; therefore it is perfectly acceptable to address Jesus Christ as "Almighty God"......simple
I'll just, for the sake of argument, jump to Jn1:1, Jn20:28, 1Tim3:16, Tit2:13, etc... Additionally there are many cross-references and allusions to the OT as is applicable to Christ as pertaining to deity...
God bless,
Jeremiah L.G.
................
Let's see, 'all' and 'mighty' and 'god' are applied to Christ; therefore it is perfectly acceptable to address Jesus Christ as "Almighty God"......simple
I'll just, for the sake of argument, jump to Jn1:1, Jn20:28, 1Tim3:16, Tit2:13, etc...
Additionally there are many cross-references and allusions to the OT as is applicable to Christ as pertaining to deity...God bless,
Jeremiah L.G.
Evangelion
New member
Idiot. There is no passage (neither OT nor NT) in which Jesus is called "Almighty God."
I can't believe you even tried it on, you ignorant pillock. :down:
I can't believe you even tried it on, you ignorant pillock. :down:
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Down boy
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
why are you asking me? I'm a trinitarian
C
cirisme
Guest
Yes.
I do?! Can they give me pills for that?
It was.
I care what they thought, I don't like making it Biblical. It would be like me telling EV what you think and expecting him to take your word as though it were as important as the Bible itself. What Ev brought up is extra-Biblical commentary, and I try to ignore as much of that as possible. The Bible will interpret itself, we don't need commentaries.
I fully understand that.
Justin
New member
Well then, now all we need is for someone to tell us what the Bible, interpreting itself, is telling us. Care to tell us?
(and please don't say "read it for yourself," because a billion people in the world read it for themselves and come to millions of different--and sometimes contradicting--conclusions about what the text is saying)
Ummm, you're gonna have to tone that down a bit. That type of rebuking is reserved for only moderators and administrators of TOL.Originally posted by Evangelion
Idiot. There is no passage (neither OT nor NT) in which Jesus is called "Almighty God."
I can't believe you even tried it on, you ignorant pillock. :down:
MARANATHA2002
New member
Evan quotes: Maranatha and Cirisme have both missed the following points:
1. “In Jewish society, it was perfectly legitimate for a man (particularly if he was a king, or a judge) to be called "god" (elohim and/or el.) There are several examples of this in the OT. The Jews would have read Isaiah 9:6 in this light, understanding that the Messiah would be a mighty man - perhaps with supernatural abilities, like the prophets. They would have reconciled the use of el gibbor with its use elsewhere in the OT. Both el and gibbor are applied to other men in the OT, so this is not a problem for Judaism”.
2. “Many (but not all) of the common people rejected Christ because they expected the Messiah to be a political saviour, not a humble preacher who would suffer and die. Most (but not all) of the ruling classes rejected him because he exposed their corruption of the Law. That is why they rejected him. He was not rejected for claiming to be God. There are only two or three passages where he is accused of claiming equality with God, and in each case he explains himself. The accusation never arises again - not even at his trial! So this is not the reason for their rejection of him”.
In response to your first statement, there have been many men through out history, in many different societies that have been referred to as, “god”. However, the legitimacy of that reference “is a matter of opinion”. As for the Jewish society, some of the Old Testament Jews correlated Isaiah 9:6 with the promised SEED of Genesis as a reference, saying the child that was to be born, and the SON that was given, would be the EVERLASTING FATHER, The mighty GOD, all ONE and the same. The society as a whole however, may have seen HIM as in your description, a “god” with a little “g”. That HE would be JUST, a great man. As I stated in my earlier post, the Jews as a whole, should have seen that the promised SEED of the woman in Genesis, is the same person being described in Isaiah 9:6, as GOD in the flesh, but many failed in this perception.
In response to your second statement, this is what I was saying in my earlier post. The JEWS as a whole rejected CHRIST as the MESSIAH because he did not come as the conquering KING. They were looking for the MESSIAH to overthrow the Romans. They were looking for the MESSIAH in the verses describing HIS second coming. They ignored the verses of HIM coming as the LAMB of GOD. When HE failed their expectations, they rejected HIM. The ruling classes saw HIM as a threat to their legalistic system; very few of these people accepted HIM. CHRIST did claim to them that HE was the FATHER. This may have been more of a factor to the ruling class than to the Jewish citizen as a whole, concerning their rejection of HIM.
As for the rest of your post, I agree, CHRIST was all that the JEWS perceived HIM to be. A prophet, the SON of GOD, and yes HE was the KING of the Jews, which was HIS charge at HIS death. We are in agreement here. The scripture also describes the MESSIAH and The EVERLASTING FATHER as ONE and the same, and there were some Jews whom so perceived. Where we disagree, is whether are not the translation of Brown, Driver, and Briggs, is diluting how the scripture describes The MESSIAH, and the overall Jewish perception of it. Peace, but not yet.
1. “In Jewish society, it was perfectly legitimate for a man (particularly if he was a king, or a judge) to be called "god" (elohim and/or el.) There are several examples of this in the OT. The Jews would have read Isaiah 9:6 in this light, understanding that the Messiah would be a mighty man - perhaps with supernatural abilities, like the prophets. They would have reconciled the use of el gibbor with its use elsewhere in the OT. Both el and gibbor are applied to other men in the OT, so this is not a problem for Judaism”.
2. “Many (but not all) of the common people rejected Christ because they expected the Messiah to be a political saviour, not a humble preacher who would suffer and die. Most (but not all) of the ruling classes rejected him because he exposed their corruption of the Law. That is why they rejected him. He was not rejected for claiming to be God. There are only two or three passages where he is accused of claiming equality with God, and in each case he explains himself. The accusation never arises again - not even at his trial! So this is not the reason for their rejection of him”.
In response to your first statement, there have been many men through out history, in many different societies that have been referred to as, “god”. However, the legitimacy of that reference “is a matter of opinion”. As for the Jewish society, some of the Old Testament Jews correlated Isaiah 9:6 with the promised SEED of Genesis as a reference, saying the child that was to be born, and the SON that was given, would be the EVERLASTING FATHER, The mighty GOD, all ONE and the same. The society as a whole however, may have seen HIM as in your description, a “god” with a little “g”. That HE would be JUST, a great man. As I stated in my earlier post, the Jews as a whole, should have seen that the promised SEED of the woman in Genesis, is the same person being described in Isaiah 9:6, as GOD in the flesh, but many failed in this perception.
In response to your second statement, this is what I was saying in my earlier post. The JEWS as a whole rejected CHRIST as the MESSIAH because he did not come as the conquering KING. They were looking for the MESSIAH to overthrow the Romans. They were looking for the MESSIAH in the verses describing HIS second coming. They ignored the verses of HIM coming as the LAMB of GOD. When HE failed their expectations, they rejected HIM. The ruling classes saw HIM as a threat to their legalistic system; very few of these people accepted HIM. CHRIST did claim to them that HE was the FATHER. This may have been more of a factor to the ruling class than to the Jewish citizen as a whole, concerning their rejection of HIM.
As for the rest of your post, I agree, CHRIST was all that the JEWS perceived HIM to be. A prophet, the SON of GOD, and yes HE was the KING of the Jews, which was HIS charge at HIS death. We are in agreement here. The scripture also describes the MESSIAH and The EVERLASTING FATHER as ONE and the same, and there were some Jews whom so perceived. Where we disagree, is whether are not the translation of Brown, Driver, and Briggs, is diluting how the scripture describes The MESSIAH, and the overall Jewish perception of it. Peace, but not yet.
Evangelion
New member
Batman -
It means that he is the Son of God.
It means that he is the Son of God.
- Status