Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you, Peacegiver. This is want I've been trying to stress in my current thread, "The Old Testament Never Says Specifically That The Messiah Will Be Crucified".
The gospel writers were less than genuous when they kept inserting Old Testament passages into their accounts to try to make them fit the Messiah in an ingenuous attempt to convince pagans that Jesus was the genuine Article foretold in the Old Testament.
In point of fact there isn't a single passage in the Old Testament that can genuinely be said to be a direct reference to Jesus, with the possible exception of Genesis 3:15 and even that would be quite a stretch.
When one looks at passages used in the gospels such as Matthew's "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I have called My son' " in their entire context instead of just one and two-liners, it is crystal clear they are speaking of anything but Jesus. Some could be interpreted to be about a Messiah but certainly not one who would be crucified. That's all made-up.
I think you are on the right track looking for more esoteric meanings behind these Old Testament passages than direct or even vague references to Jesus. Keep up the good work. We may yet demonstrate to conservative fundamentalists that they have been duped by the church hierarchy dating all the way back to Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.
Yes, they have been mislead. They take passages that say Israel is Gods son and say that it doesn't mean that when clearly God says Israel is God's son. It is rather sad.
"Israel is my son , my firstborn, let my son go so he can serve me."
The gospel writers were less than genuous when they kept inserting Old Testament passages into their accounts to try to make them fit the Messiah in an ingenuous attempt to convince pagans that Jesus was the genuine Article foretold in the Old Testament.
The Gospels were not intended to convert pagans. After all, why would pagans be impressed by one-liners from Jewish scriptures?
The Gospels were addressed to those who already believed the Jesus story but were facing challenges to their faith that came with the passage of time. A big one was the expectation of an imminent appearance of the Son of Man that was looking less and less likely as the years went by. Scriptural reference was a tool utilized in the Gospels to bolster credibility in their attempted resolutions of the challenges. Matthew, the most Jewish of the authors, not surprisingly makes the most use of these references.
That these scriptural references were aimed at an already believing audience can perhaps best be seen in Matthew’s version of the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem. He has Jesus ride on two animals to emphasize the fulfilment of a ‘prophecy’.
Quote:
Matthew 21
1 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”
4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5 “Say to Daughter Zion,
‘See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’”
6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.
Both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint seem to imply a plural. But Mark, Luke and John all have Jesus ride a single donkey. Only John makes it an explicit scriptural reference. But note how he phrases it in singular form.
Quote:
John 12
14 Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, as it is written:
15 “Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey’s colt.”
Why does Matthew want two animals when the others are satisfied with one? Why this awkward image of Jesus riding astride a pair of beasts, one of which is smaller than the other?
Simple: Riding one donkey is commonplace. Happens all the time. Riding two donkeys in front of a cheering crowd – now THAT is memorable! And guess what! Scripture said it was going to happen that way!
A community of already believing Jesus followers, especially one maintaining a strong Jewish identity like Matthew’s, will buy that. Pagans? No way.
The Gospels were not intended to convert pagans. After all, why would pagans be impressed by one-liners from Jewish scriptures?
The Gospels were addressed to those who already believed the Jesus story but were facing challenges to their faith that came with the passage of time. A big one was the expectation of an imminent appearance of the Son of Man that was looking less and less likely as the years went by. Scriptural reference was a tool utilized in the Gospels to bolster credibility in their attempted resolutions of the challenges. Matthew, the most Jewish of the authors, not surprisingly makes the most use of these references.
That these scriptural references were aimed at an already believing audience can perhaps best be seen in Matthew’s version of the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem. He has Jesus ride on two animals to emphasize the fulfilment of a ‘prophecy’.
Both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint seem to imply a plural. But Mark, Luke and John all have Jesus ride a single donkey. Only John makes it an explicit scriptural reference. But note how he phrases it in singular form.
Why does Matthew want two animals when the others are satisfied with one? Why this awkward image of Jesus riding astride a pair of beasts, one of which is smaller than the other?
Simple: Riding one donkey is commonplace. Happens all the time. Riding two donkeys in front of a cheering crowd – now THAT is memorable! And guess what! Scripture said it was going to happen that way!
A community of already believing Jesus followers, especially one maintaining a strong Jewish identity like Matthew’s, will buy that. Pagans? No way.
That makes a lot of sense to me, Alt, and I've learned from your exchanges with Dan not to go up against someone who really knows their scripture even if I disagree, which in this case I don't.
While I have you, please explain to me your opinion:
If Jesus really was the Messiah and made 3 predictions of his return to earth and that the people standing there would not die till they saw it
1. this generation shall not pass till all this is fulfilled
2. there are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man...
3. you shall not have travelled through every town in Israel before you see the Son of Man...
I mean three solid predictions he would return in their lifetimes.
*Did he just plain make a bad prediction that he thought he could fulfill and couldn't or,
*Was he speaking figuratively in some way of the end times, which leaves open the door for fulfillment till our sun novas and the earth goes out of existence.
Put another way, was he the divine Son of God or was he just another deluded albeit wise prophet?
That makes a lot of sense to me, Alt, and I've learned from your exchanges with Dan not to go up against someone who really knows their scripture even if I disagree, which in this case I don't.
While I have you, please explain to me your opinion:
If Jesus really was the Messiah and made 3 predictions of his return to earth and that the people standing there would not die till they saw it
1. this generation shall not pass till all this is fulfilled
2. there are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man...
3. you shall not have travelled through every town in Israel before you see the Son of Man...
I mean three solid predictions he would return in their lifetimes.
*Did he just plain make a bad prediction that he thought he could fulfill and couldn't or,
*Was he speaking figuratively in some way of the end times, which leaves open the door for fulfillment till our sun novas and the earth goes out of existence.
Put another way, was he the divine Son of God or was he just another deluded albeit wise prophet?
IMO the various lines of evidence point to a historic figure who likely thought of himself as a prophet intent on restoring true righteousness to justify the Jewish people as worthy of a messiah and to safeguard them from being on the wrong end of the inevitable judgment. True righteousness is simply moral charitable living according to the laws given God and not obsession with the myriad of man-made rules and regulations being stressed by the House of Shammai Pharisees. This is all in line with the prophets of old, especially Isaiah and Amos. This is just my opinion, not something I consider solidly proven.
The term ‘messiah’ had a lot of meanings in those days. It is possibly that someone who thought of himself as a precursor to the Son of Man, the judge who would descend from heaven in the clouds, might think of himself as ‘messiah’. (What the Jewish Messiah - note caps - is expected to be did not get formalized until rabbinic Judaism started writing things down, well after the putative timeframe of Jesus.) Note that in the Gospels, Jesus always talks about the Son of Man in the third person and sometimes as if he really means someone else in the future.
Did a historic Jesus really think, or at least say, that the Son of Man and the end of days would arrive within that generation? Could be. It would fit in with what prophets general say. Or was that idea imputed to Jesus to justify Paul’s theme of the resurrection of Jesus being the opening of the messianic age? In any case, a major driver of the Gospels getting written was the non-appearance of the Son of Man. Another big driver was the disastrous Jewish War that gave a black eye to Jewish messianic movements.
Mark brilliantly invokes the Book of Daniel to make the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem itself in the War the true signs of the imminent arrival of the Son of Man. In effect he has reset the clock. His ‘hidden messiah’ theme also helps separate the Jesus movement from responsibility from the war.
Another effect of the War was to decimate the Shammai Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Zealots, leaving the Hillel Pharisees the ‘last Jews standing’. With the Temple – the very heart of Judaism – gone, the Hillel Pharisees set out to rebuild Judaism on a rabbinic model. Matthew’s Gospel is an attempt to instead justify the Jesus movement as the true inheritor of historic Judaism. Toward this end he argues that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and emphasizes his Jewish character. Matthew copies Mark’s Daniel references but throws in a few disclaimers about the timeframe since some more years have passed.
Luke has a problem with Matthew. The heavy emphasis on Judaism in Matthew would not be appropriate for Luke’s community of Gentile Jesus followers. In particular, having Jesus say that Jewish Law will never go away would raise memories of the ‘Judaizers’ who insisted on circumcision for everyone. Also Matthew’s heavy King of the Jews theme would raise the shade of the terrible Jewish War. Luke writes a Gospel that inverts Matthew at every opportunity, preserving only the core story and teachings of Jesus. Like Matthew Luke retains the Daniel reference but adds his own disclaimers.
With three Gospels in circulation, John re-invents the genre. He tells a rather different story from the others, using this as a platform to expound on theology. Christianity has now become rather distinct from Judaism and John lets you know it. The core story is still there but with a few new twists. The Daniel reference is gone. What about that ‘this generation’ and ‘not taste death’ promise? Oh that was a misunderstanding. Jesus did not say that. Too many years have passed for that part of the story to be credible any more.
Acts, the sequel to Luke’s Gospel, has a clever solution. It was not the arrival of the Son of Man that Jesus was talking about. It was the arrival of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The Son of Man is off the hook time-wise.
If Jesus really was the Messiah and made 3 predictions of his return to earth and that the people standing there would not die till they saw it
1. this generation shall not pass till all this is fulfilled
2. there are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man...
3. you shall not have travelled through every town in Israel before you see the Son of Man...
I mean three solid predictions he would return in their lifetimes.
*Did he just plain make a bad prediction that he thought he could fulfill and couldn't or,
*Was he speaking figuratively in some way of the end times, which leaves open the door for fulfillment till our sun novas and the earth goes out of existence.
Put another way, was he the divine Son of God or was he just another deluded albeit wise prophet?
In answer to question #1, Jesus was saying that the wicked generation will not pass until it all takes place not a generation of years but of kind.
Question #2 He was speaking of those standing in His place or continuing in His word because they will see the son of man when they look in the mirror.
Question #3 same answer as #2 In that those who continue in His word are son of man but the town's of Israel are not of the earth but of the spirit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
