Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?

i'm going to go with nothing. but since this is essentially an undefendable opinion, i'm going to wait till people actually post verses, and start shooting them down.there might be a few vague mentions about messiahs that jesus might fit into, or eventually fit into (such as apocalyptic prophesies), but we'll see.also, this going to seem strange to some. but in the interests to literalness, we should restrict this debate to just the set of books jesus actually mentioned.Torah (Law)Nevi'im (Prophets)Ketuvim (Writings)please not that this rules out the following books as valid for discussion, since jesus did not talk about them: as well as the new testament, apocrypha, and pseudpegraphica.

that was the purpose of the list, actually. we're on the same page here. i just want to explicitly state books that were OUT. deuteronomy seems to be referring to itself, and claiming authorship by moses. which is impossible, of course.as for joshua, here's one reference:

quote:

---

Jos 8:31 As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up [any] iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

---

quote:

---

Deu 27:5 And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up [any] iron [tool] upon them.

---

quote:

---

Exd 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

---

and here's another:

quote:

---

Jos 23:6 Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom [to] the right hand or [to] the left;

---

quote:

---

Num 20:17 Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink [of] the water of the wells: we will go by the king's [high] way, we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders.

---

joshua is clearly referring to more than one book. he is at the very least refering to exodus and numbers, and probably leviticus, if not the completed torah. in modern terms, the torah IS one book, singular. the book names are five of many sub-headings, each drawn from the first word of the section.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-17-2005 05:05 AM

lets take these a few at a time then, shall we?let's start at the beginning, and of course rule out the CHRISTIAN literature. it's simply not what jesus was referring to.

---

to the serpent:

quote:

---

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

---

the devil/satan/lucifer/whatever is not the son of a snake. the animal in question is strictly a serpent. the other part of the curse is as follows:

quote:

---

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

---

this is not only a description of a snake, but an explanation of why it is what it is. if this were the devil, he'd be a snake. snakes go about on their stomachs, and lick the ground as they go. if we wanna be really literal, it might even be referring to an earthworm, as those really do eat dirt.also, christ's heal was not wounded, nor was the devil's head crushed. this simply does not fit. and while we're on the topic, no duh the messiah will a descendent of eve:

quote:

---

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

---

everyone else is too.

---

yes, but.

quote:

---

Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

---

this is not a messianic prophesy of any kind. it's about the establishment of an israeli state. read the verse before it:

quote:

---

Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

---

he will be a blessing, because those that bless ISRAEL will be blessed. nothing to do with any messiahs of any kind.it should also be mentioned that the messiah being a descendant of abraham is a bit of a no-brainer. david was a descendent of abraham. the messiah must be of the davidic line. but we'll get to that later i suppose.

---

quote:

---

Gen 49:9 Judah [is] a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people [be].
Gen 49:11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:
Gen 49:12 His eyes [shall be] red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.

---

this is prophesy of a sort, but not regarding the messiah. this is actually a BLESSING, delivered by jacob to each and every one of his sons while on his death bed. it is a blessing delivered strictly to the sons. here's the hint: "until Shiloh come."he's saying that judah will be powerful and influential until his death. this probably has another meaning as well, regarding the split kingdoms. it's placing judah as the dominant, important kingdom, a trend followed in the rest of the bible. nothing to do with the bible.but still, no duh.

---

quote:

---

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Deu 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
Deu 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well [spoken that] which they have spoken.
Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Deu 18:19 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him.

---

and now the pay off:

quote:

---

Deu 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

---

and after that:

quote:

---

Jos 1:1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,
Jos 1:2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, [even] to the children of Israel.

---

wrong joshua.

---

let's find a more poetic source. here's the jps:

quote:

---

Psalm 2:5-7

​

Then He speaks to them in anger
   terrifying them in His rage,
   "But I have installed My king
   on Zion, My holy mountain!"
Let me tell of the decree:
   the LORD said to me,
   "You are My son,
   I have fathered you this day."

---

god sets the king on the mountain. god fathers the king that day. now, who wrote this psalm, do you suppose? i'm gonna guess david. it's just a guess.saying it refers to christ is impossible. christ would have to have written it (as in, not through david) and considering it was written long before christ was born, that's impossible. also, "i have fathered you THIS DAY" is a little suspicious, don't you think? on what day was christ fathered? on the day he was set up as king of israel and judah? well, considering that never actually happened.... either way, it'd be blasphemy.this verse cannot refer to jesus. it refers to david. it's about his coronation, and the politics of the ancient middle east. turns out in the middle east, calling kings living gods was quite the custom. since the israelites would have been unable to do that, they called them sons of god.

quote:

---

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

---

does this refer to jesus? it's plural. is he one of these guys?

quote:

---

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

---

---

quote:

---

Psalm 16:10 (A michtam of David)

​

For You will not abandon me to Sheol,
   or let Your faithful one see the Pit.

---

another psalm written either by or for david. that "me" is david. this also takes a bit of understanding of hebrew poetry. see the parallelism? "pit" is the parallel of "sheol" (hell/grave). "your faithful one" is the parallel of "me." ei: STILL david.sorry, NOT a prophesy at all.

---

let's just make a rule here. psalms are not prophesies. ever. you will see this play out a bit here. agains, this was written for or by david. it refers to david. and no one else. let's take them as they come. davis IS sneered at and mocked.

quote:

---

Psalm 22:15-17: (For the leader; on ayyeleth ha-shahar. A psalm of David)

​

My life ebbs away:
   all my bones are disjointed;
   my heart is like wax,
   melting within me;
   my vigor dries up like a shard;
   my tongue cleaves to my palate;
   You commit me to the dust of death.
Dogs surround me;
   a pack of evil ones close in on me,
   like lions they maul my hands and feet.

---

now, this is part of a very graphic description of dying. but where's the bit about being peirced? the literal rendering is "dig at." the description is that of LIONS and DOGS. with teeth and claws, not hammers and nails.still not referring to jesus.

quote:

---

Psalm 22:18: (For the leader; on ayyeleth ha-shahar. A psalm of David)

​

I take count of all my bones
   while they look on and gloat.

---

it mentions above that the bones are separated. let's address the john verse:

quote:

---

Jhn 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

---

is referring to:

quote:

---

Exd 12:46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.

​

Num 9:12 They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it

---

both of which are talking about the passover feast. also, more eating customs:

quote:

---

Gen 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

​

Gen 32:32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not [of] the sinew which shrank, which [is] upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.

---

jews not only do not eat the flesh around that area, but they are forbidden from removing or separatign the bones. if jesus should fulfill the passover requirements, as john suggests, his bones would not have been separated. therefor, the psalm cannot apply to jesus for another reason even if "separated" does not mean "broken" as it probably does.

quote:

---

Psa 34:19 Many [are] the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all.
Psa 34:20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

---

the verse seems to be indicating the philosophy of "could be worse." still nothing to do with the messiah. on to lots?

quote:

---

Psalm 22:19: (For the leader; on ayyeleth ha-shahar. A psalm of David)

​

They divide my clothes among themselves,
   casting lots for my garments.

---

now, i realize that this DOES happen in the nt. but lets look at how credible this argument, in light of the fact that the psalm cannot apply to jesus. it's obviously misreading the psalm, and misapplying it. how credible is the nt then?in the gospels, the lot casting happens after the crucifixion. after the whipping. tell me now, why would a bunch of roman soldiers want a bunch of bloodied rags worn by a poor smelly homeless man? make an sense to you?

---

i think i'm gonna skip all the rest of the psalms. anyone object? i've tackled the important oft-quoted ones. i think we can now all see how the psalms are ALWAYS written frist-person, and usually by/for david, and NOT jesus, the messiah, or anyone else, except the ones that say otherwise. (there's a few marked "solomon" and "moses" i think)

---

quote:

---

Isaiah 7:10-17

​

And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying: 'Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.'

​

But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD.'

​

And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.'

---

now, we've discussed this verse a number of times here. but let's do it again.here's some important points:
1. the hebrew does not contain the word virgin. it just doesn't.
2. this is a prophesy delivered strictly to ahaz, to be fulfilled within his own lifetime.
3. the child's name is IMMANUEL, not JESUS (Joshua).
4. it is not a messianic prophesy in the regards most think it is.the prophesy is not the child immanuel. he is the SIGN of the prophesy, and of no consequence other than a time-keeping device. the prophesy is that aram and israel (whom ahaz of judah is fighting in isaiah 7:1) will be defeated. the child has nothing to do with this. he'll be just having his bar mitzvah when this happens.not about jesus. at all.

---

i think that's enough for one night. i'm rather tired right now. however, i will admit that although none of these panned out, some of the other isaiah ones look promising.but let's rule out one more right now: prophesies in daniel are not allowed. we're only discussing the books jesus himself mentioned, and those do not include the book of daniel. i'd investigate this time frame at length, but the point would be moot.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-17-2005 06:42 AM

i addressed this one specifically. we know who it's referring to: joshua.in reference to genesis: genesis is a part of the torah. torah literally means "law." that makes genesis valid for discussion, unless it can be shown that it was not integrated into the torah until after jesus's time.when jesus said "the law" he was referring The Torah, not just the codes of conduct contained in it. torah means law.when jesus said "the prophets" he was referring to Nevi'im, and not just any prophetic book. nevi'im means prophets.when jesus said "psalms" he meant JUST the book of psalms. psalms refers to the musical quality, or being set to music. psalm means song. this could be extended to song of songs and lamentations, but i doubt it does.

psst. i've got most of these. go after the isaiah ones i left for later. everything after chapter 7.

there as a specific reason to rule out christian literature. it was written AFTER christ said what he said in the op. we're look for statements in two collections of books, the torah and the nevi'im, and five specifics books, the psalms. (it's five books, btw)it doesn't matter if christ is god incarnate or not. we're looking at messianic prophesies that pre-date christ. so far, i've tackled half of faith's "prophesies" and not one is actually a messianic prophesy. but the rest of the isaiah ones look promising. i'll look into those and purpledawn's post. oh that's bull. no offense or anything. we're looking for specific prophesies that fortell of the coming messiah, and are fulfilled with jesus. if something david wrote about himself, or had his psalmist write about him, it simply isn't a prophesy about jesus.for instance, psalm 22. "my god, why have you forsaken me?" when jesus said these words at his death, they were meant to refer to this psalm. it was meant to imply that feeling of being being torn apart by wild animals and political adversaries that david captured so well. there's a lot of symbolic meaning there, yes. but the psalm itself IS NOT ABOUT JESUS.i think the evidence presented in the very first post is rather conclusive that jesus had read the book of psalms. i wonder where he got it? judah. the old testament was written in judah, and exhiled judah in babylon. there's the occasional book from israel, but mostly it was written during the divided kingdom periods from a strictly JUDAIC (or "Jewish") perspective.i think jesus came as a jewish reformist, personal. i don't think he meant to found another religion. well some of these points really are "duh." i mean, the bit about jesus being from eve? every other person (or at least every other jew, depending on your reading) came from eve too. and i know we've discussed "seed of the woman" at length as well. messiah ≠ creator. a messiah is someong that leads the people, usually against oppression, adversaries, etc. the messiah in jesus's time was expected to get rid of rome, and take the rightful seat on david's throne.messiahs are also strictly mortal, not divine or angelic. this is not a problem, since jesus was mortal. (he died, right?) jesus also refers to himself as "son of man" which means "lowly mortal" and has messianic implications.

sure. here's one:

quote:

---

Jhn 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

---

interestingly enough, this verse HAS TO refer to genesis. there are no laws of circumcision in mosaic code. only in genesis.

quote:

---

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

---

that's part of the covenant of abraham, not the law of moses. it has nothing to do with moses, other than the fact it's in a collection of five books called "the law" attributed to a guy name "moses." how does that make any sense, though? what could rules speak of a messiah? they're just rules, not prophesy.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-17-2005 05:38 PM

i agree with you here. that's why i posted the list at the beginning of the thread. so we'd know what was in the law, what was in the prophets, and what was in the writings that we're not including in the discussion.

quote:

---

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

---

eve is called "the woman" because she as not been NAMED yet. she is not named until verse 20:

quote:

---

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

---

"her seed" is also nothing special. it is used in several specific expressions:
1. actual seeds, as in plants.
2. semen
3. offspring/descendents. plural.it usually refers to EVERYONE that comes from that person, especially in genesis:

quote:

---

Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

---

that wasn't just to noah and one of his sons.

quote:

---

Gen 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

---

see how it's used? it's not about one specific person. ever. look up all the references if you really want.

quote:

---

Job 14:1 Man [that is] born of a woman [is] of few days, and full of trouble.

---

quote:

---

Job 15:14 What [is] man, that he should be clean? and [he which is] born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

---

quote:

---

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean [that is] born of a woman?

---

jewish society is MATRILINEAL, btw. if your mother was a jew, so are you.

i'm not interested in those. in fact, i'm steadily disproving them, as these verse could have nothing to do with jesus at all. what we're interested in is messianic prophesy in the ot. and mot of these simply aren't even prophesy at all. then explain the seed reference. does satan have sons? daughters? the verse very plainly explains why a snake is a snake. it's an etiology of why snakes slither and lick the dust. for it to be about the devil, he'd have to be an animal that slithers and licks dust. not the devil. this action was done by the romans, not the descendants of a snake. i would call crucifixion "mortally wounded" wouldn't you? isn't the whole basis for the belief the DEATH of christ? you can't get resurrected if you didn't die. then the devil has been beaten! let's rejoice and never worry about temptation again! so basically you're saying that "god didn't do a very good job." right. did he beat satan, or not? there's the key. this verse is about the nation of israel. notice the word "nation" in the verse? not about a change in israel, about the FOUNDATION of israel the first time. actually, genesis was written several hundred years after the death of david. it's very possible it has messianiuc connotations. they might even be intended. so i'll let this one go for now as a "metaphorical reading" because it is generally accepted that the messiah would be from judah. actually, shiloh is the name of a city:

quote:

---

Jos 18:1 And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation there. And the land was subdued before them.

---

guess who was from shilod?

quote:

---

1Sa 3:21 And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the LORD.

---

who did samuel make and yet when judah is taken in babylonian exhile, the king is dethroned and priests are either shut up or executed. so if this refers to christ, the prophesy was BROKEN. um. there are jewish priests today. the last davidian king of judah was in 577 bc, dethroned in babylon, well before jesus. i'm pretty sure herod's line extended for a while after the death of jesus too. and i already touchedo n both meanings. neither of which has anything to do with jesus.

quote:

---

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

---

or those messiahs that speak out turns... kill them.

quote:

---

Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

---

so we're to be afraid of the prophet who DOES say things that come true. are we to be afraid of jesus? also, i'm still waiting on that "meek shall inherit the earth" bit. both lived on this earth. it is completely erroneous to read SECOND meanings into prophesies that have already paid off. especially if they pay off 3 verses later. it's simply not talking about anything else.if we start playing that game, i can read anything into meaning anything. it's simply not valid. they're two different forms of poetry. look at prophesy in isaiah vs poetry in psalms. they use different verb tenses. one speaks of the future, one of the present. david speaks of the present. quite. not true. part of the messiahs qualifications is the restoration of the davidian line of kings. if his line had continued like normal, there'd be no need for that sort of messiah. and god's promise to david was:

quote:

---

2Sa 7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

---

while i know you will address this as fulfilled by jesus, and i might agree that in some respect that might even be a valid reading... it really isn't. because god's mercy DID depart from david's throne. zedekiah was kicked off it when he died in 577 bc. and there never was another davidian king. the nt authors wrote jesus into filling this gap. replacing actual kingship with a metaphysical ideal. one type of son of god for the other. this verse is about literal kingship. and david would have thought nathan's prophesy would have meant that, no need for a messiah. that's silly. and it's not prophetic language. the verse i posted above from samuel is. this verse said the son of god was begotten the day he was installed as king on god's mountain. it indicates that "begotten" does not mean literal fathership, since he would NOT have been begotten before that time. it also indicates that "only begotten son of god" is a rather silly phrase. there are lots of sons of god mentioned in the bible, and only one of them is jesus. no double fulfillments. is god overcompensating for something? the verse is abotu david. is nt authors are referencing this pre-extisting text in terms of jesus, that just what they're doing: referencing. it's not prophesy regarding something if something else has already fulfilled it. i doubt it.and if it is, it can't refer to jesus. for instance, the people who are persecuting the person in question are explicitly named: the mighty ones of bashan. as in of the tribe of manasseh. other jews. not romans, and the *levites* who persecuted jesus. the details simply don't line up. heh, well that's what you get for copying and pasting a whole long list. i wanted to take these one at a time.

actually, the verse after that sort of says to kill the prophets who's prophesies don't plainly come true. yeah, if anything they should have three, right? or 7? 13? 2 is an uncommon number in the bible.

i meant that the hebrew of that verse does not contain the word virgin. i know there is a hebrew word for virgin. sorry for the confusion. the kjv translates it virgin twice in song of songs, and once in genesis. but there is no reason in any of those verses for it to be translated as such. neither of my jewish bibles do. really? i only see it in the genesis verse, and not the songs. but then again, i don't read greek very well. but a search reveals that parqenos does not appear in song of solomon at all.yet it appears three times in genesis 24, only ONE of which is translated "virgin" in the kjv rendering of the masoretic text. which means that something changed. because these are actually a different hebrew word, besides almah and betulah.it also indicates that parqenos is not being used to represent the hebrew word for virgin. uh. read isaiah 7, 8 and 9 again. it's a prophesy that will be fulfill when a child is about 13. the prophesy is that ahaz will defeat israel and aram. to just look at the part about a young woman concieving is silly.it doesn't say virgin. there's nothing special about the young woman getting preggers. and it says his name is immanuel, not jesus. ahaz was worried that god had forgotten him, or that he'd messed up. the child was a sign that god was still with him, and judah. thus, "god is with us:" immanuel. not jesus. the child is a sign that god IS with them, and that ahaz will defeat aram and israel.not that the child IS god.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-17-2005 07:01 PM

i'm well aware of that. but daniel in itself is a whole nother discussion. we're just looking at the books that jesus specifically mentioned as being contained in the torah, nevi'im, and psalms. jesus did occasionally too. but we're not looking at arguments about how jesus supposedly fulfilled prophesies. we're showing that most of these arguments are simply wrong. it's not neccessary to look at them when we have the verse they cite. we're look at the evidence, not the later mental gymnastics to make jesus fit through the hoops. genesis has a bad habit of refering to groups in the singular. for instance, it often calls who groups the equivalent of "bastard" by stating their origin in sexual misconduct. (ala lot's sons by his daughters.)in this instance, it's making a singular case out a tendancy to not like snakes. it's an explanation of our reaction to snakes.although prior to the time of christ, this was read as singular. but not as messianic prophesy. there's another book or two that has this verse refering to seth, eve's son, who is bitten by a snake and bashes its head in. also, look how seth is refered to:

quote:

---

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew

---

seth is specifically referred to as eve's seed. nothing special about that. i'm pretty sure it was the verse this was addressing. seed is referring to multiple offspring. descendents. whether or not job himself was jewish, it is still jewish literature, written by jews. and he answers to, and talks about the god of the jews, yahweh, in the sense that jewish people do. (as opposed to the people of ugarit, who refer to yahweh was the son of el) you stand corrected. yes. however, that brings up another issue. the line of kings ALWAYS goes through the father. if jesus had no earthly father, he could not have been heir to david's throne, and the messiah. whether or not he was of the house of david. actually, that whole chapter in job (indeed the whole book of job) is one long accusation against god. job is saying someone will redeem him AGAINST GOD.notice the reaction he expects in the next verse from his friends? he's expecting to get lynched. you wanna agree with job's blasphemy? job is arguing that god is unjust. do you want to agree with him? look at how job starts:

quote:

---

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

---

that doesn't jive with original sin. and if the sin comes from being born of a woman, jesus's got it too. job is very poetically accusing god of not giving him his just dues. from the same chapter:

quote:

---

Job 19:6: Yet know that God has wronged me

---

quote:

---

Job 15:14 What [is] man, that he should be clean? and [he which is] born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

---

oh, we know. trust me.for one, i am a christian myself. i'm not sure about purpledawn. i keep forgetting.but a lot of the nt literature simply misreads jewish literature. just wait till we get to the donkeys bit lower in your first post. ...and what if it's wrong? actually, i'm starting to think that referencing psalms was a subtle claim of deity. you see, psalms are usually about a very personal relationship with god, between the psalmist and god. and if jesus isn't the psalmist... i think this is closest jesus ever came to claiming to be the messiah. he implies it a lot. "son of man" etc. but i don't think that he's talking about that standard list of things we alwasy see posted. this thread is to determing what he WAS talking about.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-17-2005 07:36 PM

no, i'm really not. you are. not a law. it's a covenant. and agreement. a commandment, specific to adam and eve. explanation of a law that is mysteriously missing. not a law in itself. exactly. i'm not sure. i think jesus might have been subtley calling himself god.but onto what jesus would have said. although jesus probably spoke aramaic, if he had spoken hebrew, when he said "law" he would have actually said the word "torah." when a jewish person refers to "the law" or "the law of moses" they mean the torah. why do you think he meant anything other than "torah?" he mentions two specific divisions of the modern tanakh by name. i've even heard arguments that "psalms" is really a bad rendering of "writings" or ketuvim, the third section.i other words, he might have been saying "the entire old testament"

so god's the bad guy?you realize this is blasphemy right?