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.
I still request a verifiable doctrinal statement explaining why Jesus came in the first century. Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with some distant Jesus. It's an old canard. The subject matter is the son of Ahaz. The Greek translation doesn't understand Hebrew anyway.
Since Jesus said that Isaiah 53 had to be fulfilled in him, your statement that Isaiah 53 had nothing to do with Jesus is silly. Also, Philip said that Isaiah 53 referred to Jesus in Acts 8:26-35.
Again I have to ask. Are you a skeptic attempting to debunk Christianity?
Ji know all the translations and commentators in Hebrew.Youcan be wedded to your mistaken interpretation, but it is not a doctrinal explanation of why salvation only became available in the first century. I wouldn't even use Isaiah 53for a Jewish theological explanation about Jewish doctrines.
Ji know all the translations and commentators in Hebrew.Youcan be wedded to your mistaken interpretation, but it is not a doctrinal explanation of why salvation only became available in the first century. I wouldn't even use Isaiah 53for a Jewish theological explanation about Jewish doctrines.
Regardless of what you would or wouldn't do, the New Testament writers attributed Isaiah 53 to Jesus. Period.
And I guess you're not going to answer the question I've asked you twice now. Are you a skeptic attempting to debunk Christianity? Or perhaps a Jew attempting to do the same?
Ji know all the translations and commentators in Hebrew.Youcan be wedded to your mistaken interpretation, but it is not a doctrinal explanation of why salvation only became available in the first century. I wouldn't even use Isaiah 53for a Jewish theological explanation about Jewish doctrines.
Salvation has always been available for man, it began when Adam and Eve fell in sin and God provided for them animal skins for the covering of their nakedness.
Those animals died to provide the covering of their sin, not only for their flesh but for their souls by the animals representing the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for the sins of man.
The knowledge of salvation to man increases as we see Cain and Abel bringing sacrifices before God. Abel brought the animal sacrifice representing Christ, and was accepted. Cain in rebellion, brought the sacrifice of the herbs from the field, and was rejected.
The knowledge of salvation increases again with Abraham. The scripture says, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now we come to justification by faith in salvation.
The knowledge of salvation increases again in the Law of Moses. The scripture says Lev. 17:11,
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."
Now we are given the reason for the blood sacrifice for salvation. We see that "it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." This is why Christ must die in order to pay the sin debt of man.
By now we see that the animal sacrifice of blood represents Christ in salvation, and faith in His sacrifice equals justification of man. So now it all comes together that the Messiah must come and offer Himself as a sacrifice for mans sin by the price of His own blood.
The knowledge of salvation is a progression throughout the Old Testament. Christ couldn't have come before it was established who He was, and why He was coming. This was established by the prophets who prophesied the many things about the Messiah that He could be recognized when He came.
And for all this He was still rejected by His own people.
Salvation has always been available for man, it began when Adam and Eve fell in sin and God provided for them animal skins for the covering of their nakedness.
Those animals died to provide the covering of their sin, not only for their flesh but for their souls by the animals representing the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for the sins of man.
The knowledge of salvation to man increases as we see Cain and Abel bringing sacrifices before God. Abel brought the animal sacrifice representing Christ, and was accepted. Cain in rebellion, brought the sacrifice of the herbs from the field, and was rejected.
The knowledge of salvation increases again with Abraham. The scripture says, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now we come to justification by faith in salvation.
The knowledge of salvation increases again in the Law of Moses. The scripture says Lev. 17:11,
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."
Now we are given the reason for the blood sacrifice for salvation. We see that "it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." This is why Christ must die in order to pay the sin debt of man.
By now we see that the animal sacrifice of blood represents Christ in salvation, and faith in His sacrifice equals justification of man. So now it all comes together that the Messiah must come and offer Himself as a sacrifice for mans sin by the price of His own blood.
The knowledge of salvation is a progression throughout the Old Testament. Christ couldn't have come before it was established who He was, and why He was coming. This was established by the prophets who prophesied the many things about the Messiah that He could be recognized when He came.
And for all this He was still rejected by His own people.
I still request a verifiable doctrinal statement explaining why Jesus came in the first century. Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with some distant Jesus. It's an old canard. The subject matter is the son of Ahaz. The Greek translation doesn't understand Hebrew anyway.
This opening posting subject has been hijacked into side issues. I have simply pointed out that given Original Sin, it is totally expected that the atonement and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross should have been available from the beginning of human history that required it. Yet nowhere in basic Christian doctrine is there a clear explanation of why Jesus ostensibly arrived in the first century instead of thousands of years earlier. But the very point has gotten sidelined.
This opening posting subject has been hijacked into side issues. I have simply pointed out that given Original Sin, it is totally expected that the atonement and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross should have been available from the beginning of human history that required it. Yet nowhere in basic Christian doctrine is there a clear explanation of why Jesus ostensibly arrived in the first century instead of thousands of years earlier. But the very point has gotten sidelined.
You have been given scripture that says those before Christ looked forward to the Messiah, while we look back.
Hebrews 11
13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
As far as why God chose the first century, scripture only says
Galatians 4
4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
From a human point of view, consider the following.
Jesus came when he did because it made the most sense for him to come then. Consider this, if he came too much earlier, then he would've been lost to time. Later, lost in the rising crowd of voices.
Rome, for the first time in history, presented a unique opportunity. A “stable” government, roads, a single dominant civilization for information diffusion, a relatively dominant language, a somewhat peaceful time.
This opening posting subject has been hijacked into side issues. I have simply pointed out that given Original Sin, it is totally expected that the atonement and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross should have been available from the beginning of human history that required it. Yet nowhere in basic Christian doctrine is there a clear explanation of why Jesus ostensibly arrived in the first century instead of thousands of years earlier. But the very point has gotten sidelined.
I think we are wasting our time. When you mentioned Rabbi's in one of your posts, the Judaism bell rang.
If that is the case, I know we are wasting our time!
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.
