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

None of the New Testament books existed at the time of Christ. Any references that he made had to be to the then available Scriptures, so Arch's limitations are certainly reasonable.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Predictions are far more accurate if done after the fact.Anyway, prophecy was not originally meant as a synonym of prediction. Prophecy was the transmittal of instruction or knowledge.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which shows once again that the Bible is simply a document written by man to meet man's needs.Thank you Faith.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If GOD is the kind of person who would be concerned about Jesus being called a Bastard (which was not a very great problem in those times anyway) He certainly is a small and insignificant critter. Why if it weren't for Bastards we would not have the Smithsonian.LOLFurthermore, until you can show where the Talmud was redacted to take out scripture, scripture written by those very scribes you describe as being so meticulous and careful, I think you're simply blowing smoke.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course Christians consider the Talmud, Torah and Tanaka as scripture. Jesus certainly did. He was a Jew.But you still have not supported your wild assumption that Jews considered Jesus a bastard or that the Talmud, Torah or ANY other scripture was modified to remove such statements (and it would be a very un-Christian thing to do). Afterall, Christians like Paul and the author of John were trying hard to demonize Jews.You made a claim, now how about supporting it?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But it was that very Oral History, the interpretations of the Talmud that Jesus was discussing so very often. For example, the very first book (and there are books) of the Talmud concerns the Sabath, what exactly can and cannot be done, what qualifies as work, which was the very point Jesus was disputing when healing on the holiday.The Talmud has always been the arbitor or behavior covering everything from hygene to fire fighting.To say that the Talmud is not Scriptural is to lose much of what governed the day to day life, thinking and religion at the time of Jesus.I only know of one English translation of the Talmud and it is incomplete. If you know of others, please share with me.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I wouldn't totally disagree with that. The biggest difference is that the letters of Paul were personal correspondence and directed to specific and limited audiences.The contents of the Talmud on the other hand are addressed to the whole Faith and are certainly instructive in nature. The also have the very great advantage of often being annotated.The detail involved in the Talmud is something that must be understood if one is to have any real comprehension of much of what Jesus is speaking about. For example, take the book of Ester. There were only five days when the book could be and must be read, and which day depended on whether you lived in a walled city or unwalled city and on the day of the week in relation to actual date.This seems like a very small matter until you dive into long and ranging discussions of the Talmud. Only then can you understand the discussions between Jesus and the different Jewish elders.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The site you use as your source is not even evidence. It is simply more Anti-Semitic rhetoric. Sorry Faith but that seems like a great example of the dishonesty of the Christians, not of any fault of the Jews. And it certainly has nothing to do with the Jews at the time of Christ.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why do you exclude the second wave of (IIRC) fifty that were sent out?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is exactly the point.Jesus was termed Rabbi, teacher. And if you examine the role of a Rabbi, it is not very similar to the Christian concept of priest. It is rather half scolar/archivist, the other half judicial, a legalistic position, one who examines the evidence and then makes a ruling.Jesus relationship with the Jewish heirarchy as well as with everyone he met was IMHO very Talmudic. In particular, to understand what was going on between Jesus and the Church Elders you really need to have read the Baba Kama, Metzia and Bathra. (don't let some of our members get into the last, the discussions would never end)

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's certainly possible. It could also be a functional reference, a description of what he did as opposed to position he held.The other issue is that we know so little about Jesus life. We only get small glipses of it and then only highly filtered. The fact that major people from among the Pharisees and other religious leaders agreed to discuss such issues with him seems to imply some recognition of his status at at least that level.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would like to add that there is one other factor which must be considered in any of our discussions of Biblical interpretations. That factor is that there is not one moment of translation and interpretation but rather a series of such actions.Each time this happens it is done within the constraints of two (or more) differing languages, two (or more) differing cultures and two (or more) differing epochs.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but that is simply an incorrect statement. If I am mistaken please show where we have even discussed the content of the DSS. What you have asserted is that the copy of Isaiah found in the DSS is similar but not identical to copies of Isaiah in circulation today. That says nothing about any document other than Isaiah.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What SOME Christians claim. In fact, the sermon this morning was on "How the Church Corporate should make decisions". Three steps were outlined, prayer for guidance, use of the brains GOD gave you, and the third was to examine scripture. But Scripture alone was most definitely ruled out. One concrete point was that so many issues were simply not addressed in scripture and that so much scripture has been simply lost.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes. In fact, in another post today I touch on today's sermon at Church. It was on understanding and decision making in today's world. It stressed three steps, first to pray for guidance, ask GOD "Just what the hell do you mean by that?" or "What the hell do you want us to do?"Second was to use the brains GOD gave you. Think!Third was to look to Scripture, but to look at scripture using and through the first two.What strikes me as funny is how many of such issues that come up here at EvC parallel the same arguments and discussions I took part in way too many years ago as a St. Paul's School for Boys Upper School Dormie. We would sit around drinking coffee and feeling growed up debating these very same questions with Father Cantler or Mr. French or Mr. Young.The answer most came up with then, and I believe would hold true if you sampled the same groups today, is that many of the parts of the OT were later used as prophecy and quite often shoehorned in to make them fit.Was Isaiah a prophecy of Jesus? Probably not.Was it used as a prophecy of Jesus? Certainly.Does it add any weight, support or additional content to Jesus' message? Nope!But remember, two facts that you can be sure of.

1. As an Episcopalian you can be sure that at least one other Episcopalian will agree with you.
2. ... but on the other hand ...
   

The Crusaders vs the Saracens

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion