gdeering

1. Be the seed (a direct descendant) of King David, through King Solomon (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16) I.e. be totally human
2. Be a spiritual and military/political leader (e.g., Is 2:3, 11:2; Dan 7:14)
3. Be married and have children during his term (e.g., Ezek 46:16-17)
4. Arrival of Elijah the Prophet (e.g., Mal 3:23-24[4:5-6][2]) N/A
5. Building the Third Temple in Jerusalem (e.g., Ezek 37:26-28)
6. In-gathering of Jewish exiles to Israel (e.g., Is 11:12)
7. Reunification of Judah and Israel into one people (e.g., Ezek 37:22)
8. World peace (e.g., Is 2:4)
9. Universal knowledge of G-d (e.g., Is 11:9)
10. Resurrection of the dead (e.g., Is 26:19)

I have fun using Google too, there is more but this is a good start: messiahtruth

Sorry but your link has too much convoluted self-serving crap to fully wade through. Mine is much simpler, why can't yours be as simple? It should be the easiest thing in the world to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Why did God make Christians go through so many hoops and mind-bending excuses if he loved us?

Besides this whole "son of God" is so Greek, hardly Jewish at all, they spent hundreds of years ridding their religion of polytheism and there the Christians go putting it back in. Just like those spoiled multi-god loving Greeks.



Gregg

IBelieveInHymn

Oh my!! I'm sorry if you have to read more than 5 sentences. What the heck was I thinking?

Failte

Once again: prove it.

Most of us don't even disagree with the interpretation that god meant to love him more than anything else -- but we will not stand back and let you continue to make false assertions about language and "what jesus REALLY said" in whatever language you have chosen to make your statements work, without demanding proof.

That's the whole point here. Unsupported assertion contrary to existing fact and scholarship are not going to be swallowed whole just because you keep repeating them. It's just frustrating, and convinces most of us that you really don't know much about the bible at all. I might not be able to parse greek, but there are those here who can and have provided excellent references for their arguments and have defended them quite clearly. It is also quite clear that you will simply not accept any of the facts if they disagree. Why, then, do you continue to post here?

So, back up your claims or stop posting them. Just show evidence that you are correct that 'jesus spoke hebrew' and that at any time, the hebrew word was documented in the GREEK gospel. (and just a hint: repeating, "I've already explained this" isn't going to work. You have not explained this.)

I know that I am harping on this one issue, but it is a definitive issue for me: to have a dialog, both parties have to be committed to being accurate and truthful - stubbornly sticking to a false proposition stifles any sort of real discussion. The only way, in this sort of forum, to move beyond that is to provide empirical, testable evidence and supporting references. It shouldn't be hard to do.

gdeering

It's many more than five lines of self-serving dreck, can you count? Why should it be so difficult to prove Jesus is the Messiah? Perhaps because the real qualities of the Messiah are not found in Jesus. Please answer my ten lines of scripture, or hang your head in shame.


Gregg

show_no_mercy

Why was Cyrus of Persia called the Messiah in Isaiah 45? He's pretty much the opposite of Jesus.

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

Doesn't this imply that the interpretation of statements by Jesus about hating one's family as really meaning loving your family less than God is very ancient ?

IE, whether right or wrong, this sort of explanation is not just a modern attempt to deal with a difficult passage.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Jesus' disciples are called upon to follow him not counting the cost. A cost that, in the time of trouble leading up to the coming of God's kingdom, is quite likely to be the loss of one's life.

Stephen, Paul and Peter followed Jesus and were killed in consequence. They are not represented as positively seeking martyrdom in the way that Ignatius of Antioch is arguably seeking martyrdom. According to Acts Peter and Paul make efforts to avoid being killed while not compromising their principles.

The sayings of Jesus about not positively seeking Martyrdom are verses like Matthew 10:23 IMO loving God more than your family means the same thing in this context as hating your family; ie that in any conflict between your committal to your family and your committal to God your family loses. Even if I'm wrong about the meaning here; the fact that the Matthean does express things in this way implies that the idea has at least some meaning.

Andrew Criddle

Dark Virtue

IBIH, you're complaining about us misinterpreting the Bible, but you keep falling back on having to have a firm understanding of Greek and Hebrew.

How many Christians have such knowledge?

What is YOUR understanding of ancient Greek and Hebrew...that you studied yourself and not from other authors?

And once again I am trying to hammer my point home...if this is God's ONE work, why is it so difficult to understand correctly and so easy to misinterpret?

Elijah

I think there is a distinction between seeking one’s death and not being afraid to die speaking for what you believe in. Walking up to a cop and pulling a gun and getting shot down doesn’t make you a martyr in the Christian sense. You’re supposed to speak out knowing that what you are saying is going to eventually get you killed but you say it anyway. That’s the example Jesus was setting and what he was expecting his followers to imitate.

It’s different times these days, calling yourself a Christian is of no threat, but back then saying you only serve a dead king is going to upset the living authority so before you consider calling him your Lord you need to know what will be coming your way. Doing anything that leads to your death (suicide, military) while your parents are still alive, knowing that your death will mentally destroy them, means you must not care much for them or hate them. He’s making it clear what is going to be expected of you so that when the time comes to face your death you don’t back down because you are worried about your crying momma.

In Mathew 10:16-39 he talks of death and hatred for his “name’s sake” and to not fear death or “those who could destroy the body” before acknowledging him before men or the authority he knows he is sending them to face in his name. All before closing with those “whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” It seems extremely obvious what he was expecting of his followers in that passage and with that in mind completely understandable why he said you have to hate your parents to follow him.

I’m still not exactly sure what your interpretation of this is, so I’m not sure about what in the Mathean version supports your interpretation. To interpret it like you are it seems that we would first have to get rid of the Messiah concept all together and go with him speaking for (or as) God which would be why we are coming to two different conclusions here if that’s how you interpret the Jesus story. I think even with that interpretation it’s still going to be dealing with the expected martyrdom of his followers. Don’t you think that was an expected outcome for his followers and something he would have prepared them for? Where do you think the commitment to god and the commitment to your family is going to come in conflict for a Christian in those days?

Oh yea, in your opinion is the kingdom they are trying to establish an earthly one where they are trying to reform the world or something supernatural like in an alternate reality? Political reformation or something else?

NoeL

... ok, listen.

THE GOSPELS WERE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN GREEK! There's no Greek translation of the gospels, THE GREEK IS THE ORIGINAL! If the word used in Luke (misew) is correct and true, then YOU are wrong!

As for the Hebrew word, what word did they use? The word we've been talking about is misew, which is a Greek word, not a Hebrew word. Are you talking about sin'ah/sinai? Does that word even appear in this passage in Luke? You've stated that Jesus said sin'ah/sinai, but this word is not written in the text - it's misew. I have asked you to show me how you know what Jesus said, by giving a source, and you either have no idea what a source is or you don't have one.

When someone asks for a source, or a reference, they want to know where YOU got YOUR information from. You claimed to know what Jesus' ACTUAL WORDS were, and so you have to provide a source - like a direct transcript of the exact words Jesus said. You tried to cite the OT, but the OT was written a thousand years before Jesus opened his mouth, and nowhere in it does it list Jesus' exact words anyway. It is NOT the source of the information you claim to posess.