hezekiah jones

Merely an assumption? Good grief. Of course you realize there is an infinite series of gradations among the circumstances surrounding successful guesses, predictions, prophecies, stabs in the dark, and so on. There will be reasons whether or not each claim to miraculous prescience stands up to scrutiny. I think that's what this whole exercise is about.

I, for one, hope you continue to defend your position. This is a very interesting thread. If you don't, based on your statements above, I think the designation "Martyr of the Week" would be more appropriate.

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any reader with average intelligence and reading ability can easily see Jesus is neither mentioned or alluded to in this chapter. The same goes for all of the OT.
rodahi


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnV: Thanks for presenting your view, but I'd prefer to discuss this with people with above average intelligence and reading ability.

I think that is precisely what you got, but you don't seem too happy with the results.

rodahi

Rich

While I agree that the Isaiah passage does not explicitly show Jesus do any of you think it could implicitly?

Here's what I am having a hard time grasping (which James did reply to a similiar question but I'm still left with questions): Why did the NT writers think that various OT passages referred to Jesus and why did they subsequently use them in their writings if:

1) The Jews would never believe that Jesus could be the Messiah based on his life?

2) Some of the passages were not fulfilled in obvious ways?...which would seem only to weaken their case.

They all had plenty of time to weed out the stuff that wouldn't help and yet it is there...why?

JohnV

Yes, when it's presented along with an appeal to a majority of today's scholars, excluding those who disagree, it's merely an assumption.
I doubt it'll do any good (oops, more martyrdom), but here's something to think about:

Acts 17
{10}As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
{11}Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
{12}Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Many people who studied the Scriptures concluded that they did apply to Jesus. While we can't know exactly what Scriptures are meant here, I think this puts a dent in the position that no OT passages can reasonably be applied to Jesus. It's rather arrogant to say, two thousand years later, that these people were all stupid, or just wishful thinkers.

JohnV

I think I got sarcasm from a moderator on my first or second day here, in response to a very innocuous post. I responded in kind. However, you dish it out a lot better than you take it, and you have friends to back you up.

James Still

If this dodge weren't so typical it would be funny. What makes your assumptions about Isaiah more valid than those who have spent a lifetime studying these texts? Despite the fundamentalist penchant for anti-intellectualism there is nothing wrong with citing authority to make a case. I don't just dismiss F.F. Bruce out of hand; if his arguments are strong then I must take them by the horns.

Actually we do know what is meant by "Scripture," it was the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul's letters and the gospel (oral and written) were not considered particularly authoritative until much later. Thus, in the late second century Justin's student Tatian could compose his "Diatesseron," a harmony of the four gospels, and no one considered this to be particularly problematic. The gospels were worked and reworked by Christians in the first few centuries because they were interpretive works (midrash) of Scripture rather than Scripture itself. (It's always funny to see an apologist parse a verse from Paul's letter as if it were something out of Deuteronomy; such people are bewitched by the binding of these texts together and have forgotten the different situations in which these texts were composed.)

No one is arguing that Jewish-Christians did not pore over Scripture looking for references to Jesus. The gospels are full of such references. What we're saying is that these attempts are (how did you put it?) "mere assumptions" that fail to convince the unbiased observer that the Scripture foretold or made reference to Jesus.

critical thinking made ez

Anyway... Why didn't the Romans line up by the thousands? Why didn't other people from other lands come by the camel load?

Did God make everyone in the Middle East Blind and dumb. I'm sure a Christian on the board can find another OT scripture that would also support that assertion if he use scripture out of context again.

The Jewish people were following the laws and practicing their religion, just as Jesus had told his cult group to do. Where is the blindness here? They could see and understand perfectly well, just as Jesus was.

One last observation, if God does make people blind and dumb to his secret ways... when does he release them from such a state? Are they still in such a state? Did they screw up so badly as to be punished by separation from Jesus and a free heaven ticket for 2000 years? This time frame seems excessive judging from God's previous punishment tantrums which lasted only a generation or two.

sighhswolf

Rich,
That friend is a very good question.
At this point I dont have a good answer for that one but I can give you a few ideas.

The Jewish people are unique among all the worlds many myths and religions in that their
belief system does not rely on "Miracles"
to validate their "Faith".

If you read the Jewish laws you would find
the underlying cause for the belief that Jesus was not, nor could he ever be the "Messiah".

The Maimonides-Laws of Kings 11:3
"The true messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like all other people.
He will not be a Demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities."

The Jews gathered around to watch these so-called "Miracles" performed by Jesus would not have accepted these events as a validation of his claim to divinity.

In point of fact, Jewish people are taught that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans in order to test
Jewish loyalty to the Torah.
Deut.13:4

Rabbis say that the Jews did not believe in Moses their teacher because of the Miracles he performed.

They point out strongly, whenever anyones belief is based on seeing miracles, they have lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery.

So the crowds of Jews watching so-called
miracles being performed by Jesus, would have had very little, if any, bearing on the recognition of Jesus as the messiah.

As far as the book of Matthew is concerned
I think it is unwise to use any NT gospels
to try and justify Jesus as the messiah, to
the Jews.

Hebrew law and the oral tradition of the Jews does not recognize truth in any works other than the Torah and the Talmud, and the oral teachings of the Rabbis.

Actually, many Rabbis will say that the real
messiah may already be among us.
And the messianic conditions, could be filled by anyone with a geneology traced to
King David.

The New Testament gospels werent written for the Jewish people, they were written for gentiles and for the specific purpose of building a "faith" "after the fact".

Matthew didnt even get the correct geneology
down, and disagrees with Lukes tracing of the House of David.

Matthew and Luke even disagree about a single little bit of information such as Names....who was the child "Emmanuel" or "Jesus"?
Was Isaiah correct, or was the "Angel" correct?

And about this "mass slaughter" by Herod,
I wonder why mark luke and john do not mention this horror?

If you are willing to accept the New Testament and the gospel of Matthew, then you must also be aware that Jesus is quoted
as saying,"Till heaven and earth pass, not one word, nor one letter shall pass from the law till all is finished."

To recognize Jesus and his so-called miracles
as being divine would be a violation of Hebrew law, therefore, from the mouth of the subject comes his own disqualification as the "True Messiah".
Nope, no miracles....no supernatural events
no healing of the sick and raising of the dead, or walking on water would ever qualify Jesus as messiah according to the Hebrew law.

Wolf

JohnV

Nothing at all. The point is (and has been), why are the conclusions of those who've spent a lifetime studying these texts, and decided they do refer to Jesus, dismissed out of hand because these people have become Christians?
Yes, I took that as understood. I meant that we can't know if Isaiah 6 is one of the specific passages they read as applicable to Jesus, but we do know that they must have found some OT passages to be applicable to Him.
Because they didn't hang out at synagogues discussing religion with Jews by the thousands.
They have.

Rich

That's all I'm asking for so...thanks

I think not basing faith on miracles is a good thing because it does create those lingering doubts. However, you seem to be under the assumption that Jesus used miracles to validate him being the Messiah...is this the case? If so, where do you draw this idea from?

That may be why Matthew quotes the OT Scriptures extensively and portrays Jesus as more of a king figure. Many scholars believe that the book was addressed toward Jews.

Why do you think Matthew made references to the Jewish Scriptures then? This would have been meaningless to the gentiles.

This is where I have a hard time with this line of thought. So did Matthew write the book or not? If others were editing it and revising it and it was all an attempt to build a faith after the fact, why didn't they do a better job of reconciling those differences?

I am not a Jewish scholar but I know that they differentiate between the Law and the law. The first (big 'L') being the 10 commandments (and possibly other texts...I really don't know) and the second (little 'l') being the priests and rabbis interpretation of God's will. That is why today Jews don't practice the Levitical law of animal sacrifice among other things.

So anyway I don't know how to reconcile this with the fact that many Jews did indeed believe (including Paul himself who clearly knew the Law...Nicodemus is another example).
Why would they bother if it was so clear?