Jim Larmore

To my knowledge the Hebrew language contained no punctuation to speak of. Since the book of Daniel was written in Aramaic and Hebrew you have to apply which part of Daniel your speaking of . I'm almost sure this part of Daniel was written in Hebrew by the author because he specifically wanted these prophecies to go to his people. Now the translators added punctuation etc when they translated the documents originally as they were constructing the KJV, but I don't see how this is a contradiction of my claims.

I think this is a broad assertion on your part to say "anywhere else the phrase appeared". You may be correct in this particular book but for the whole Bible its a little suspect. BTW, "annointed one" and messiah are synonymous. It was even applied to Cyrus in the O.T. but there it didn't mean Cyrus was to be the Christ. You have to look at the context of what they are saying to get the meaning. Here Daniel is specifically speaking of "messiah the prince" which is none other than the messiah or Jesus Christ.

Wallener

The punctuation (and vowels and etc) did exist, and had existed all along. We know this from the simple fact that Jews never lost the knowledge of how to read the thing - and it is not possible to read the text without such knowledge.

What do you mean "a little suspect"? Are you telling me you haven't actually checked??? Well you better, because the claim is not suspect, and it is readily verifiable. Outside of the two mentions in Daniel, the exact same phrase is translated by KJV as "annointed".

If it didn't apply to Cyrus, then "annointed" and "Messiah" are obviously not synonymous. Or, put another way, "annointed" and "messiah" can be synonymous, but then "messiah" is not synonomous with "christ". Which undermines your next statement....

This is an assertion for which you have yet to provide any evidence. And, since you are now claiming "messiah" and "christ" are not synonymous, you have raised the standard of evidence for yourself.

John A. Broussard

This quote brings up a question I've frequently asked myself. Why do Christians want to prove Christ was the messiah? It seems to me sufficient proof of Christ's divinity that he rose from the dead and then ascended bodily into heaven. If true, that would convince me. What more need be said? Why pound this totally irrelevant connection into the ground?

Diogenes the Cynic

Because they don't know what the Messiah really is in Jewish tradition. They think the Messiah is a divine redeemer of sins whose role is to be killed and resurrected. They actually think that's how the Messiah is defined and "prophesied" in the HB. They don't know there's any other definition. The majority of lay Christians I've talked to are usually surprised to hear that the Jewish Messiah isn't God, isn't supposed to die or be resurrected and isn't supposed to save anyone from their sins.

post tenebras lux

Oddly enough, I've met several Christians who do have at least a half-assed understanding of who the messiah was in jewish tradition ... when it suits them.

I've heard it used as an explanation for why the jews rejected Jesus and/or why they killed him: cos the jews were wanting a warrior messiah who would sweep the invaders away, and not a spiritual messiah who was to sweep sin and the special status of the jews away.

Luxie

Jim Larmore

Its not pounded into the ground its confirmed and re-affirmed by prophecies thru out the O.T. This validates the entire Bible to me. Many prophets prophecied of the Messiah, his birth place , the fact that He would be wounded and beaten for our transgressions, that He would be a Nazarene, the list goes on and on.

I agree with your statement that the fact that He died and was resurrected and went to heaven is solid evidence of His divinity but the whole picture starts from Gen 3:15 and ends at Rev. 22:21. The Bible is an entire package that is all about communicating the plan of salvation,,,, of course it protrays and describes the events that is much of ancient history along the way too.

ex-preacher

I'm curious, Jim, how do you decide which parts of the Bible are errant and which are inerrant?

ex-preacher

I strongly invite you to begin other threads on each of the prophecies you think are good prophecies of the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I stand by my earlier comment that the Daniel 9 prophecy is the only one that comes anywhere close. The others are very easily explained.

Wallener

There are, indeed, and every single one of them is 100% incompatible with being nailed to a tree and dying.

But there is no such prophesy in the Jewish texts. Please feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

But there is no such prophesy in the Jewish texts. Please feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Seems like a thread spinoff is in order?

Diogenes the Cynic

There are no such Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible.
No it doesn't. In point of fact, with the meaningless exception of being Jewish, Jesus failed to fulfill a single Messianic expectation as expressed in the HB. Most of the stuff that gets cited as "prophecies" for Jesus are not Messianic in context and not a few of them were written into the gospel narratives to fit the HB, not because they were historical events.