Soul Invictus

First and foremost, I'd like to say congrats on the search function being operational again. I am pressed for time, so I'll cut to the chase.

A friend and I were discussing the prophecies surrounding the coming messiah, commonly referred to as Jesus in the NT. I told her that I was not persuaded that these references were totally exclusive for Jesus, convincing or conclusive. Forgive, as I know this is an oft-discussed subject. I do recall there has been a recent thread of the last couple of weeks, however I forget the name. It was about midnight when we kicked that topic off, and we mutually decided to pick up the conversation during a more conducive time. I did, however want some sources to pour over, as I'd like to properly have material to discuss, which to date, I do not have this issue in my personal notes, to any extensive level. Would any members care to:

1) list the prophecies that are often discussed, critiqued, or debated, OR

2)refer me to URLs (IIDB threads included) OR

3) care to offer general commentary surrounding the debate

I do expect us to pick this up within the next day or so, that's why I'm getting the thread out there early. Again, if I were not pressed for time, I'd do my own due diligence. To note, I did recall that kings were referred to as messiahs and that the actual "Savior" term was reserved for other parties. This coupled with the lack of Jesus ever definitively being called Immanuel was what I mustered up earlier tonight.


To add another element, I would appreciate any commentary as to why you feel Jesus is the messiah, although I'm looking to more to learn of what the earlier Jewish people considered to be their coming messiah and why they reject Jesus as the one to fit that bill.

Thanks in advance.

Invictus

mark9950

was not a messiah of the OT or anyone else for that matter.

The ancient jews I would assume have read the OT and if jesus the god was to be born of flesh they would have known and not accuse him of blasphemy.

If he was a prophecy in the OT as a messiah.

Why would they kill their messiah if they knew from the OT that he was the messiah in the first place

Magus55

Because they are blinded by the truth like so many others? Yes, Jesus was the Messiah of the OT because we can see the trinity present in other parts of the Old Testament, as well as Genesis saying, the word of God became flesh and dwelt among us.

Many Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah because they didn't expect Him to be divine, and He didn't restore Israel yet ( prophecy to be fulfilled at His second coming). They also don't believe God had a "son", but most don't bother to realize the trinity is implied in Genesis.

mark9950

We restored Israel,until after WWII there was no Israel.I guess the US is the messiah or jesus done that already and has already come which makes this statement false.

EstherRose

Israel is not fully restored yet. That will happen when Jesus returns.

Evangelion

The Trinity is found nowhere in the OT.

This statement is found nowhere in Genesis. It comes from the Johannine prologue (John 1:1-14.)

The first half of this statement is false; the second half is true. The Jews rejected Jesus because he did not fulfill their Messianic expectations. Indeed, his own disciples abandoned him for the very same reason.

Some do, some don't. It depends on which particular form of Judaism we're talking about. Certainly, the OT Jews believed that the Messiah would be the Son of God.

Thus:

• Psalm 2.
  Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
  Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
  
  He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
  Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
  Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
  I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
  
  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
  Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
  Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
  
  Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
  Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Later Jewish scholars would affirm (a) that this psalm is Messianic, and (b) that it defines the Messiah as the Son of God.

Sukkah (52a reads:

• Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May He reveal Himself speedily in our days), ‘Ask of Me anything, and I will give to Thee’, as it is said (Psalm 2:7,8): ‘I will tell of the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give the nations for throe inheritance’.

Eben Ezra agreed. In his own commentary on Psalm 2, he wrote:

• 'Kiss the Son' refers to the Messiah.

Likewise Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai, who wrote:

• Kiss the Son! You are the faithful Shepherd. Concerning You is said: ‘kiss the Son!’ You are the Mighty One of the earth, the Head of Israel, the Lord of the serving angels, the Son of the Highest, the Son of the Holy One, blessed be He, yea, the Shechinah.
  
  Zohar III.

The popular Jewish belief in the Messiah as the Son of God had already been confirmed by the high priest in the closing moments of Jesus' trial:

• Matthew 26:63-65.
  But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
  Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
  Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Here the high priest equates "Messiah" with "Son of God", and asks Jesus to confirm if he is claiming this title for himself. The question makes no sense unless the high priest believes that the Messiah would indeed be the Son of God.

Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible) comments:

• The Son of God -
  The Jews uniformly expected that the Messiah would be the Son of God. In their view it denoted, also, that he would be “divine,” or equal to the Father, Joh_10:31-36.
  
  To claim that title was therefore, in their view, “blasphemy;” and as they had determined beforehand in their own minds that he was not the Messiah, they were ready at once to accuse him of blasphemy.

The Sanhedrin did not accept Jesus' Messianic claims, and on this basis condemned him as a Messianic pretender. What needs to be emphasised with particular care, however, is that simply being "the Son of God" does not make Jesus divine, nor does it mean that he himself is Almighty God.

The Trinity is neither mentioned nor implied in Genesis.

Peter Kirby

Did you see my post on Some Alleged Messianic Prophecies? I put a lot of work into it, and it seems to be just what you need.

In a nutshell, all the impressive and unambiguous prophecies about the Messiah (world peace, etc.) are claimed to be fulfilled at the Second Coming of Jesus. This is very convenient. There is not the slightest hint outside of Christianity that the Messiah would come once to die for sin and then come again for real ("in glory").

best,
Peter Kirby

Secular Pinoy

I think your post is excellent, PKirb. I saved it in my Hard Drive. I hope the resident apologists would acknowledge it exists.

CJD

For the love of it all, people. You can be so pathetically self-aggrandizing it makes me sick.

Peter, you have been accused around here of being an erudite fellow, yet the post you "put a lot of work in" is tantamount to picking up a copy of LaHaye's Left Behind and smacking it. That is, you fault a particular hermeneutic—which is nothing more than hollow popular theology—and presume you have done something worthwhile. Why not engage what's going on in the academy? I assure you, it is not that statistical junk peddled on websites mentioned in the other thread you started. When you wrote "There is not the slightest hint outside of Christianity that the Messiah would come once to die for sin and then come again for real ("in glory")," you hit on something right, but fail to see how academic Christian theology accounts for that tension. In a nutshell, you, like many others here, have gone after the slowest, fattest calf.

Of course, I will recant every bit of this, if you have actually engaged what I have written elsewhere re: prophecy, and concluded that it is irrelevant. I would argue, though, that if in 20 years you're still around, there will not be many folks left who argue over the "statistical odds" of Jesus' messiahship. Good scholarship, I am sure you know, necessarily engages the strongest opposing argument. If you're not willing to give this the fullest run possible, then might I suggest refraining from posting on OT prophecies?

I think the key here is understanding not how modern Xians think the NT writers used OT texts, but how the NT writers actually used the OT texts.

CJD

Celsus

CJD,

I am somewhat puzzled by your outburst. Given that you have only substantially engaged in a few prophecy threads, and that others are constantly giving the regular theist interpretation, how then can you complain when these are debunked? If you started some threads, outlined your position, and then someone like Peter posted a 3000-word refutation of the typical Tim LaHaye prophecy, then you'd have good grounds for complaint. Otherwise, you don't. As for Isaiah 7:14, as I recall, Apikorus roundly thrashed you on that one (just to live up to your expectation that we need to be pathetically self-aggrandising )

Joel