Jesus; the Torah, Nevi'im, and Psalms (Part 2)

Well, repeat it for me or provide a link to the message where it is given. Sorry but I do not know exactly which Chapter and Verse you are refering to.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Matthew 11: 14-15
Luke 1:17
John 1:23

Yes, I know evangalistic Christians disagree. CHaim.org is a presbtyerian web site design to evangalise to the Jews.However, that is not looking into the text IN CONTEXT,it is not so.Let us look at the way 'Servent' is used juse before Isaiah 53.Isaiah 41.8: "But thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend."Isaiah 41.9: "Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art My servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away."Isaiah 43.10: "You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen ..."Isaiah 44.1: "But now hear, O Jacob, My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen."Isaiah 44.21: "Remember these things, O Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant. I formed you, you are My servant, O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me."Isaiah 45.4: "For the sake of My servant, Jacob, and My chosen, Israel, I call you by your name ..."Isaiah 48.20: "Go forth from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it forth to the end of the earth, say: 'The Lord has redeemed His servant, Jacob'."Isaiah 49.3: "And He said to me: 'You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified'."Why would the writer of that section of Isaiah suddenly change the way he uses 'Servent' for just one passage?And of course, the Christian view of Jesus is that he was a perfect
sacrifice, with out any blemishes ro sins, but Isaiah 53.3 is
a) Isaiah 53.3: "A man of pains and acquainted with disease ..."That contradicts the Christian view of Jesus.And Isaiah 53:10 says That he might see his seed, prolong his days ..."Jesus's days were not prolonged, nor did he have any reported children.So, even IF the writer of Isaiah 53 WAS talking about a messiah (which I do not think so), Jesus was be disqualified from being that messiah.This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-29-2005 05:22 PM

First off, this is just wrong. Acquainted with sorrows is the translation Christians follow.As far as other passages, like I said, it is the nature of prophecy to at times refer to one thing and then another somewhat obscurely, which is why Rabbis I listed thought the passage refers to the Messiah despite the passages prior, and it is the nature of prophecy to also be able to refer to more than one thing at the same time.You are trying to start with the assumption that prophecy is not spiritual, and so assume spiritual principles concerning prophecy do not exist, but they do. You just don't want to allow for them.His seed are those that are born-again, and his days are prolonged indeed, forever.

First, neither the passage from Luke or the one from John refer to reinterpreting earlier prophecy or some dual meaning of prophecy. In the passage from Matthew, if you read the whole thing instead of cherry picking quotes, you will see that Jesus is speaking allegorically, and again, does not say that you should apply dual meanings to specific prophecy.All are after the fact examples and simply do not support, IMHO, your assertions.I really believe that what is recorded of Jesus life, his message, is more than enough to justify a belief in his divinity. There is no need or reason to manufacture additional layers that cannot be supported, claims like trying to squeeze his geneology into some predicted lineages or searching for these really weak asserted prophecies. Why not just acknowledge that he is the one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, I have learned that you won't admit the truth if it shows you were wrong regardless of the evidence, but here it is anyway. Jesus says this is Elijah. You say he is speaking allegorically. So what? That is proof positive that prophecy can have more than one fulfillment since Jesus Himself uses, according to you, a prophecy as an allegorical fulfillment, something you deny is correct.So you are disproven by your own admission.Let's look futher. Luke says John was in the spirit and power of Elijah.John denies being literally Elijah. Here John says he is not Elijah, but quotes Isaiah which is very similar to Malachi 3:1.So what should we make of this? Jesus and Luke call John the Baptist Elijah, in a spiritual fashion, but John just indicates he is fulfilling aspects of that but is not Elijah.Is it not clear now?There is more than one fulfillment of the prophecy because there is more than one coming in the sense that Jesus the Messiah appeared, and will come again.

I agree that both John the Baptist and Jesus very likely made reference to parts of the OT, for example the quote "In the time of Noah", but that does not mean that the early prophecies had a dual meaning, only that the authors of the New Testament used earlier books as reference, examples and allegory.I'm not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs, you are free to believe anything you want. All I'm saying is that your explanation seems weak and the far more likely interpretation is that the authors of the New Testament used earlier resources to bolster their positions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

maybe you can't.and there's plenty of extrabiblical accounts of christ. just. your church doesn't like them.

Jesus says John the Baptist is a fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy. I showed you that. You can argue with Jesus if you want, but He still said it.

Please show where he mentions Malachi. And as I said, I don't see where there is anything other than allegory. Sorry, you simply have not convinced me.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What accounts? Just curious... I thought there was no evidence of the existence of christ outside the bible?I could have heard wrong, I am by no means a biblical scholar.Cheers

there are other books. other gospels and such. they are not canon, so i consider them extra-biblical. and i'm sure there's tons of local mythology. and there's some stuff (but not much) from that jewish guy whatsisname.but mostly i was speaking of apocryphal type stuffs.but then what proof precisely have we of the life of the buddha? and yet aren't his words and guidance enough to show us how we ought to live even if he never did? why should it matter if we ascribe to a false authority when that authority calls us to love and forgive and bring forth peace into the world?

Most of those are written in the second and third centuries. They are not really evidence. I don't think any of them can be dated before 70 C.E. at the very earliest.

Jesus specifies John the Baptist is Elijah "if one can hear it." It's clear he is referencing Malachi's prophecy. Geesh jar. Basically, you just won't admit anything if you don't feel like it, it seems, regardless how evident it is.I showed it to you, and you just refuse to accept it.

If he can hear it refers to folk hearing Jesus words.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion