Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Scepter Departed and Messiah came
#11
But when we see actual Messianic prophecy, we see things that, if they ever happened, we would know about it today, like Ezekiel 36:24-28:
“For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land…And I will put My spirit in you and move you to follow My decrees and be careful to keep My laws. Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be My people, and I will be your G-d.”

And v. 33-38:
“This is what the Sovereign L-RD says: On the day I cleanse you from all your sins, I will resettle your towns, and the ruins will be rebuilt...Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the L-RD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate…This is what the Sovereign L-RD says: Once again I will yield to Israel’s plea and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed festivals. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the L-RD.”

What’s unique here is that is says we will “know,” not that we will have to “believe,” and this is crucial: Christianity is saying that once we believe in Jesus all will be well, while G-D tells us that when these events happen, we will all know as fact. Additionally, there is a comment here about all the Jews keeping the Torah. If Jesus did away with G-D's commandments, why are there so many references to Jews keeping the Torah in the Messianic Age (here, Ezekiel 37:24, Jeremiah 31:33, etc.)?

By the way, Josephus documents none of Jesus’ “prophecies,” and actually says nothing about him. There were no historians who lived in and wrote about that time who says anything about Jesus. But that is a side issue for another thread, if you wish.
#12
You seem to miss the point about the fulfillment of the prophecies collectively in one person. While individual prophecies may have been fulfilled by many, it is statistically impossible for many to fulfill ALL of them together.

No one, but Jesus, can claim to be born in Bethlehem of a virgin, from the line of David, crucified with criminals, etc (see prior list). Anyone with even a simple understanding of statistics would know that fulfilling all these things together in one person is, statistically a mathematical absurdity.

I cited some secular sources to show that all the New Testament writers didn’t conspire to make up the facts and that these things happened. This proves that Jesus was who He claimed to be because no one could randomly have this happen, nor can it be manipulated because you can’t manipulate your birthplace, being crucified, etc.

Re: your claim that you could fulfill all these in your second coming, I’ll point to my prior paragraph. Do you really believe that ONE PERSON can easily fulfill ALL those Scriptures? How many people do you know can claim even three – born in Bethlehem, crucified, heir to David’s throne? Even just taking a few – let alone the hundreds Jesus fulfilled – is a statistical absurdity. If you came back, do you think you can arrange to be crucified with criminals, etc?

Re: you discussion of how does someone know that the Scriptures were pointing to the Messiah, the Holy Spirit assists people in knowing the things of God. If someone is blinded and doesn’t have ears to hear and has a hardened heart, they will not be open to the Holy Spirit’s leading and the Scriptures will seem as foolishness to them. (Isa 6:9-10:
Isa 6:9 ¶ And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.)

Re: being called Immanuel, Matthew 1:21-23 discusses this very clearly.
Yehoshua (original Hebrew form of Jesus and Joshua) = YHVH has become salvation
"Emmanuel" means "God With Us." It is a title, more than a name.
Note that He is also called (in the Old Testament), "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
“And the angel told Mary, 'You shall call His name Yeshua (Jesus), for He shall save His people from their sins." - Only God can do that so, again, "God WITH us" (Emmanuel). Makes perfect sense to me.

Re: Isaiah 53, I’ve been pretty busy and haven’t had a chance to study your PM, so that’s why I haven’t commented (and I haven’t forgotten it). I do appreciate very much you taking the time to go over it and I intend to examine your message when things settle down (the end of the year is a pretty hectic time for me).
#13
Tricia73, you claim that it is statistically impossible for anybody but Jesus to be the Messiah because of all you say he fulfilled. However, I showed you a variety of Messianic prophecies that clearly he didn’t fulfill, like world peace, universal knowledge of G-D, etc. While you easily reject anyone else’s claim to Messiahship, your man fell short of the mark as well. Thus, if we were to say the list you gave consists of Messianic prophecies, then I would say you have two possibilities:
1. There is a Biblical source for a Messianic second coming, in which case everybody who ever existed or will exist is eligible to be the Messiah because everyone has two chances to accomplish the whole of the list, and Jesus is just who you think will win out (although the odds are not in his favor), or
2. There is no Messianic second coming, and so Jesus failed because he did not accomplish all the prophecies.

There is not enough space here to discuss all the “prophecies” you submitted, but I will show some examples to demonstrate the fallacy of these “prophecies.”

The Messiah’s bones will not be broken, based on Exodus 12 and Psalm 34.
Jn 19 only quotes the third segment of Exodus 12:46, not the whole verse. Why is this an issue? Because the first two-thirds of the verse clearly speak of the actual Pesach offering, not the Messiah (“it must be eaten inside the house; take none of its meat outside…”). When we consider the entire Exodus 12, Jesus was not qualified to be a Pesach sacrifice anyway, for he was not a first-year, unblemished male of the flock (12:5), nor was he roasted (v. 8). When we consider also the writings of Paul, we run into another issue, for although Paul says that one who is circumcised will have no benefit from Jesus (Gl 5:2), G-D says only one who is circumcised may partake of the Pesach (Exodus 12:48).

Psalm 34 doesn't openly speak of the Messiah, but rather tells us that G-D is attentive to the cries of the righteous, He hears and delivers them from troubles, and although the righteous have many troubles, G-D protects their bones. Taking this a step further, this chapter could have been an excellent opportunity for David to tell us about the Messiah: he asks the question, “Who is the man who loves life, who desires to see many good days?” Does he say to accept and believe in the Messiah? Not at all. Instead, he tells us to we can choose good from evil (“turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it”). Again, we have no clear command to accept the Messiah.
#14
The Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, based on Micah 5.
Although you claim that one cannot manipulate one’s birthplace, others can, and so if this was a real prophecy, who wouldn’t want to be the mother of the Messiah? Everyone would be going to Bethlehem late in their term!

Another problem with this is that in contrast to things like world peace and resurrection of the dead (which are clear Messianic prophecies), no one today can actually prove that he was born in Bethlehem. Even the gospels refer to him as a man from Nazareth, not Bethlehem (Mt 21:11, Mk 1:24).

Looking in the 5th chapter of Micah, it is clear Jesus does not fit because Israel still does not live securely (5:4), and idols and witchcraft were not yet destroyed (v. 12-13). Verse 2 is instead telling us that the origins of the Messiah are rooted in Bethlehem, where Jesse lived and David was born, not necessarily that the Messiah would be born there.

Messiah’s price money used to buy a potter’s field, based on Zechariah 11.
First, Mt 27:9-10 grossly misquotes Zechariah 11:12-13. Read them side-by-side. Second, Zechariah 11:13 reads, “The L-RD said to me, cast [the money] unto the potter,” showing that the one who’s money was measured was the one who threw it; they were not done by different people, as Mt 27 would have us think.

We could do this with all the sources you gave. Can you show me how any one source you provided (besides a descendant of David) clearly speaks of the Messiah?

Re: being called Immanuel
Isaiah 7:14 says clearly “she will call his name Immanuel,” so it’s to be the child’s name, not merely his title, and Jesus was never called Immanuel. In Isaiah 9 we have a similar issue, for verse 6 reads, “and his name was called,” and Jesus was never called any of these. Incidentally, this verse is in the past tense, showing that the child who has these names was already born when Isaiah said all this. Who was he speaking about? Hezekiah, which means, literally, "Mighty G-D."
#15
Mic 5:1 Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

The true Judge of Israel should be smitten with a rod upon the cheek. The Christ should be mocked and beaten.


Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Mic_5:2 describes Him in a striking manner. It was on this Verse that the scribes and chief priests rested, when they certified Herod that Christ should be born in Bethlehem. It represents Him as being born at Bethlehem, and at the same time as eternal, and as the true Ruler in Israel. The second Verse (Mic_5:2) is in parenthesis. It declares the birthplace, whence He that should rule over Israel for Jehovah should go forth; and, at the same time, it reveals the eternal glory of His Person.
Mic_5:3
Israel is given up to judgment, forsaken of God, in a certain sense, for having rejected the Christ, the Lord.
They are then brought back to there land and He, then, who had been rejected becomes the Shepherd of Israel.
#16
(10-22-2013, 07:30 AM)Tricia73 Wrote: Jacob's Final Prophecy States:
Genesis 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.

Shiloh means "He whose right it is, that which belongs to him"
The scepter refers to their tribal identity and their right to apply and enforce Mosaic Laws and adjudicate capital offenses. Even during the Babylonian captivity, the tribes retained their own judges, etc. (Ezek 1:5,8); Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, pp. 108-168.

The term Shiloh was understood by the early rabbis and Talmudic authorities as referring to the Messiah [Targum Onkelos; Targum Jonathan; Targum Yerusahlmi; Cf. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum, Samson Levy, Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, 1974.]

When Caponius was appointed Procurated (around 7 A.D.), the legal power of the Sanhedrin was restricted and adjudication of capital offenses was lost. Cf. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2:8; Antiquities 20:9.
The priests officially mourned "Woe unto us for the scepter has departed from Judah and the Messiah has not come!" (Cf. Babylonian Talmud, Chapter 4, folio 37).

While the Jews wept in the streets of Jerusalem, a young son of a carpenter was growing up in Nazareth who would present Himself as the Meshiach Nagid, Messiah the King.

The Jews wept because they believed the Word of God had failed...The scepter indeed had been removed from Judah, BUT SHILOH HAD COME!

This seems obvious to me that Jesus = Messiah. Am I missing something? How do you explain this away?

Bs'd

The scepter had been lost before, during the Babylonian exile. Where was the messiah then?
#17
Tanachreader, I appreciate you taking the time to explain the Christian interpretation of these verses. However, I disagree: not, as MAlan would suggest, because I have rejected Jesus, but because the verses simply do not read the way you present them. For example, Micah 5:1 says “they” will smite the judge of Israel; who are they? Are “they” the ones who laid the siege or are they the ones who are besieged? Further, though you say that Jesus was smitten on the cheek, Micah says this smiting was done about the same time the daughter of troops gathered into troops; who were these people exactly? Were they besieged or the besiegers?

In short, Micah 5:1 has a lot of ambiguity and no direct mention of the Messiah, and certainly not a clean fit for Jesus.

In 5:2 we are told that there is an individual whose “goings forth” will be from eternity, but does it really say “eternity?” The words the KJV and others interpret as “everlasting/eternity” are “מִימֵי עוֹלָם,” which literally means “from days of old,” as in these examples:
“In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old (“כִּימֵי עוֹלָם”).” (Amos 9:11)
“Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the L-RD, as in the days of old (“מִימֵי עוֹלָם”), and as in former years.” (Malachi 3:4)
David’s tabernacle and the offerings in Jerusalem were not from eternity (that is, there was a clear starting point to each of these), so the text is not clearly saying that the Messiah, or any human, will be god.

When we take into consideration the entire chapter, and not just one or two verses, we see that when this ruler rules, Israel will dwell securely (5:4) and idols and witchcraft will be destroyed (5:12-13). These have not yet occurred, so it is clear Jesus is not the one spoken of by Micah.
#18
(01-13-2014, 07:28 PM)benyosef Wrote: In 5:2 we are told that there is an individual whose “goings forth” will be from eternity, but does it really say “eternity?” The words the KJV and others interpret as “everlasting/eternity” are “מִימֵי עוֹלָם,” which literally means “from days of old,” as in these examples:



Micah 5:2
New American Standard Bible "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

Holman Christian Standard Bible " Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His origin is from antiquity, from eternity.

New Life Version "His coming was planned long ago, from the beginning."

Darby Translation "whose goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity."

American Standard Version "whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."

All versions of the King James: "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Amplified Bible "Whose goings forth have been from of old, from ancient days (eternity).


All the above translation say the origins of the messiah are from "everlasting" or from "eternity", hereby implying that the messiah is God.
The Hebrew words here translated with "from everlasting" or "days of eternity" are "jamei olaam", which means literally "ancient days".
Many Bible translations translate it like that, only the above hold on to "days of eternity", or something with the same implications, because they want to push the wrong Christian idea that the messiah is God himself.

However, also the above translations know how to correctly translate the words "jamei olaam". We see that for instance in Micah 7:14, were the same expression "jamei olaam" is used. See here how the above translate it there:

Holman Christian Standard Bible " Let them graze in Bashan and Gilead as in ancient times."

New Life Version "Let them eat in Bashan and Gilead as in days long ago."

Darby Translation "let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old. "

American Standard Version "let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old."

King James: "let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old."

New American Standard Bible "Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead As in the days of old."

Amplified Bible "they shall feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old."
#19
Bs'd



Another place where the expression "jamei olaam" is used, is in Isaiah 63:11

Holman Christian Standard Bible " Then He remembered the days of the past, [the days] of Moses [and] his people."

New Life Version "Then His people remembered the days long ago, the days of Moses."

Darby Translation "But he remembered the days of old, Moses [and] his people:"

American Standard Version "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people,"

King James: "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people,"

New American Standard Bible "Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses"

Amplified Bible "Then His people [seriously] remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people"




Another place where the expression "jamei olaam" is used is Amos 9:11

Holman Christian Standard Bible "In that day I will restore the fallen booth of David: I will repair its gaps,
restore its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old,"

New Life Version "In that day I will build again the tent of David that fell down. Yes, I will build it again from the stones that fell down. I will set it up again as it used to be."

Darby Translation "and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:"

American Standard Version "and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old;"

King James: "and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:"

Amplified Bible "and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old,"

New American Standard Bible "I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old;"



Another place where the expression "jamei olaam" is used is in Malachi 3:4

Holman Christian Standard Bible "And the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will please the LORD as in days of old and years gone by"

New Life Version "Then the gifts of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord, as they were in the past."

Darby Translation "Then shall the oblation of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto J-e-h-o-v-a-h, as in the days of old, and as in former years."

American Standard Version "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto J-e-h-o-v-a-h, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years. "

King James: "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years."

Amplified Bible "hen will the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in ancient years."

New American Standard Bible ""Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years."

It should be clear by now for everybody that the expression "jamei olaam" has no bearing on "days of eternity" whatsoever.
#20
(01-13-2014, 10:37 AM)Eliyahu Wrote:
(10-22-2013, 07:30 AM)Tricia73 Wrote: Jacob's Final Prophecy States:
Genesis 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.

Shiloh means "He whose right it is, that which belongs to him"
The scepter refers to their tribal identity and their right to apply and enforce Mosaic Laws and adjudicate capital offenses. Even during the Babylonian captivity, the tribes retained their own judges, etc. (Ezek 1:5,8); Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, pp. 108-168.

Bs'd

The scepter had been lost before, during the Babylonian exile. Where was the messiah then?
The answer to this question is in my original post:
Even during the Babylonian captivity, the tribes retained their own judges, etc. (Ezek 1:5,8); Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, pp. 108-168.
So, scepter not lost before.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)