The Passion of the Christ

[TWA Dude]

This may be why there is such animosity against Messianic Jews. So-called "mainstream" Jews are not allowed to have a belief other than the one of the leading Rabbis who steer Judaism.

Sometime in the '90s the Lubavicher Rabbi Schneerson in Brooklyn died. Many amongst his Hassidic sect started calling him the Messiah. In fact, in Israel (and for all I know Brooklyn) today posters of the late Schneerson have the caption "King Messiah". It's very difficult to find a "mainstream" in Judaism. Having said that even the most Reform and liberal Rabbis accept the basic tenet that Jesus was not the Messiah -- to believe in Jesus is simply not Judaism. You can't have it both ways. I bear no animosity towards "Messianic Jews"; I simply view them as a Christians.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Re: Part I

Have you read any of the Talmud? If not then why? Seeing as you're not Jewish I wouldn't expect you to read texts that define how a Jew must lead his life. By the same token why must I read the Christian Bible? Like yours, my beliefs won't be changed so easily.

No, I haven't. Frankly, I've never had access to the Talmud. I do have a copy (many copies) of the Old Testament, which I thought represented a good portion of the Jewish religion. If I were to engage in an intellectual discussion about Judaism, I would feel compelled to seek out and read the Talmud. I thought you were engaged in an intellectual discussion about Christianity, so I find it odd that you do it from such an uninformed position.

I have on one of my bookshelves a copy of the Qu'ran that I picked up during one of my many trips to Saudi Arabia, and I would read more of it if I were to engage in an intellectual discussion about Islam. I've read enough of it to know that they condemn Jews and Christians, and that's enough for me right now. Beyond that, I know what you mean. It gets kind of boring. Might I suggest that you read the gospel of Matthew. It begins with a geneology of Jesus. I'm sure you must appreciate the importance of geneaology. I'm not asking you to believe what you read, just read it. Then at least you'll know what's being talked about. It can't hurt you.

 

[Timebuilder]

Having said that even the most Reform and liberal Rabbis accept the basic tenet that Jesus was not the Messiah -- to believe in Jesus is simply not Judaism.

Fuuny.

I'll bet that's what Caiaphas said, too. Perhaps right there is where the Jews got off the track. To my mind, a Christian is just a kind of Jew or Gentile who has recognized the Messiah. Sholom!

 

[Timebuilder]

This thread was started 15 days ago.

3,237 reads.



Someone is interested in this.

 

[Super 80]

Re: Part I

1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

A. Technically, Ezekiel says of God that His dwelling place will be with them. He will place His sanctuary in their midst, not build a third Temple. The New Jerusalem coming down from Heaven in Revelation is a multiple account to this prophecy. Another would be the rock that is cut out of mountain, but not with human hands -meaning by God- that also grew into a mountain that filled the whole land from Daniel 2:31-45.

Yes this is a prophecy not fulfilled by Jesus, yet.

B. While yes, in the minority, all the Jews will be gathered, this also recalls Ezekiel's division of the land in 47:21 into chapter 48. This future event I would assign to the Millennial period.

Note the difference between the two Temples in Ezekiel, the first I call the Tribulation Temple, measured by John in Revelation 11 and recorded by Ezekiel in 40 through 43. Note the change in the Temple as the LORD fills it at 44:4. The Living Water that pours out from the from under the threshold of the Temple marks this Temple as no earthly building could have. This water has the amazing property to deepen as it flows outward, restoring the land and providing for the people. This Temple in the last chapters of Ezekiel is the Millennial Temple in the New Jerusalem.

However, notice in the series of verses you have quoted showing the Jews coming together Isaiah 43:1-28, that while Jacob is consigned to destruction and Israel to scorn at the last that a remnant will be saved as the passage opens up. This is inline with what the LORD says in Isaiah 6:11-13. So as a conclusion, this gathering together is inline with Christian eschatology concerning the seventieth 'seven' of Daniel, and the Day of the Lord as the Prophets spoke of it. That day will not be a pleasant one for Israel as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Zephaniah and Malachi have declared. After all the destruction, God will gather a remnant to Him, and as Zechariah says:

ZEC 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Who is the "one they have pierced?"

Will it be until this time after the Day of the Lord before the veil is lifted from your eyes and you will see?

C. Again, this is the Millennial period. The thousand years described in Revelation includes not only Israel, but Syria and Egypt as well: the gentile nations surrounding Israel, being symbolic of the nations apart from God. While man will be made rare in the Wrath of God in the latter half of the seventieth 'seven,' there will be survivors. Ezekiel was witness and a participant to that in 37:1.

No doubt exists in my mind that many will misinterpret the false peace imposed by the iron rule of the fourth beast belonging to the Antichrist as he rises in the first half of the seventieth 'seven' to supremacy and crushes all that come against him as a fulfillment of Isaiah 2:4. I think this is why the second beast, the false prophet, which comes from the "Land" may indeed be rabbinical, that is from the land of Israel. It is he that forces the people to worship the Antichrist. It is he that sets up the abominations in the Tribulation Temple, the idol of himself that actually speaks at the midpoint of the seventieth 'seven.'

D. Yes, this is a Millennial prophecy, occurring after the Day of the Lord.

The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

Yes because they still yet to be fulfilled in conjunction with the Day of the Lord.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.

Oh really? How is that Daniel 9:26 says:

After the sixty-two `sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

I would say this aptly describes Jesus and the following destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

Or how about Isaiah 61:2?

...to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God...

How can the year of the LORD's favor be reconciled to the wrath that is displayed in the Day of the LORD?

No, the concept of a servant sacrificing and a King ruling are two different concepts that are found in the Prophets that cannot be fulfilled at the same time. This is why Jesus reading from Isaiah 61:2 stopped reading at the year of the Lord's favor and proclaimed it fulfilled, but not the day of vengeance. The first was done at the end of the 62 'sevens,' while the second is reserved for a period at the end of the seventieth 'seven.'

This gap in time has a gulf of some 2000 years between it. On either side are two like events: Christ's Advents; and the bridge between them is God's perspective for the Messiah.

 

[TWA Dude]

Perhaps right there is where the Jews got off the track.

I don't even know why I bothered responding to you again. It must concern you greatly that not everyone believes the way you do. Funny, it doesn't concern me at all. It's because of people like you that events like the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust took place and could conceivably happen again.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Part I

I thought you were engaged in an intellectual discussion about Christianity, so I find it odd that you do it from such an uninformed position.

That the issue here: I'm not! I claim to know very little and thus I'm arguing nothing. Please don't let that Timebuilder guy make you think I'm trying to convince anybody of anything.

I'm not asking you to believe what you read, just read it. Then at least you'll know what's being talked about. It can't hurt you.

Perhaps I might read it some day just out of curiosity.

Dude

 

[surplus1]

TWADude

I do not want to "join the dispute" but I do want to commend you for defending your faith. You have stated what you believe clearly and why you believe it. That is all you should have to do before man. We answer to the Almighty, not to other men.

I am a Christian. I don't believe the same things that you do and I do accept the Christ as the Messiah and Savior. Therefore you and I differ, but it is not for me to judge you, that is reserved to God alone. Apparently your attackers feel that it IS their domain to do that.

Feel consolation in the fact that you are not the only one being subjected to the rhetoric of the evangelical fundamentalists. I've only been reading and lurking but got my share too, unsolicited. Here is the quote provided courtesy of Tony C

Christianity contradicts Catholicism, too.

This comes from one of the literally thousand plus "sects" none of which existed for the first 1500 years of Christianity. It should be no surprise that they are attacking you.

Ever since Martin Luther started the "Protestant Reformation" in 1517 the Protestant movement has fractured Christianity and successively divided the "Protestant movement" itself into over 1,000 individual denominations, as individuals and groups interpreted the Bible in their own unique ways, and continually formed new sects that they felt were closer to Jesus' intentions for the church.

Mind you, these are the very same people that insist that the Bible is God's Word, must be taken literally and may not be altered or changed in any way. Ironically, they started out by altering and changing whatever they "interpreted" to be more correct at a given time. Today they have 4 or 5 (perhaps more) different "versions" of the Bible, each professing, of course, to be the more correct and each in disagreement with the other in may key areas. Even the King James version, which was the first "protestant directed" english language translation of scripture (puplished 1611) has been altered by them whenever it suited their purpose.

Now it's my turn. Basically, Protestants don't really know what exactly it is they believe. How could they when it changes every time a new "sect" declares itself mentor of the Christian faith? If they did they would not be so divided among themselves and they would not be wasting their time attacking the Western Rite (Roman Catholicism) as well as each other.

All religions have unfortunately been cursed from time to time with despicable humans who have used the Word of God to pursue not only ungodly but inhuman ends, mostly related to money and power. Judaism is no exception as reportedly even as long ago as the time of Jesus, it was necessary for Him to attempt to throw the money changers out of the temple. Catholicism has suffered from infamous and evil Popes who also misued the church and abused its people. The Protestants are likewise no exception as Kings and preachers alike changed the way of God to suit themselves and for personal gain.

It might do us all well to consider that God established no religion. What He did give us was a way of life and the rules we should follow in serving Him. Your faith, my faith, an even the so-called evangelists, accept the Ten Commandments. That much we do have in common. We believe in one God and one set of rules or laws coming from that God that could not be more simple.

When the people of this earth became confused and overburdened by conflicting "interpretations" of God's law, He sent someone to set us straight. Some of us accepted that someone and others did not. Even those that accepted it, do not really follow His teachings for very long, and once more are fighting among themselves over the new group of assorted "interpretations" and their version of Christianity.

The time will come when God, once more, decides to deal with that. That is when we will know if Judaism was wrong (or right) in rejecting the Messiah or if Christianity was right (or wrong) in accepting Jesus as the promised Savior.

I know what your belief is and you know what mine is. So does everyone else on this board. We might all do better in attempting to worship God and live by the rules He set forth than finding fault with each other.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

May God bless you all.

Peace. Shalom.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part I

I claim to know very little and thus I'm arguing nothing.

I was careful not to say "argue" - - I thought you were participating in a discussion. I apologize if I misunderstood or misspoke.

Perhaps I might read it some day just out of curiosity.

Fair enough - - that's all a guy can ask.

 

[Snoopy58]

Mind you, these are the very same people that insist that the Bible is God's Word, must be taken literally and may not be altered or changed in any way. Ironically, they started out by altering and changing whatever they "interpreted" to be more correct at a given time. Today they have 4 or 5 (perhaps more) different "versions" of the Bible, each professing, of course, to be the more correct and each in disagreement with the other in may key areas.

That's not really accurate. There are multiple TRANSLATIONS (not "versions") of the Bible, but they do NOT disagree with each other. To the extent that few people have enough schooling in Greek and Hebrew (and, for a couple of books, Aramaic) to read the original texts, a translation is required. To the extent that no translation will completely capture every nuance of the original language, it's not unreasonable that there are several translations into English, plus several paraphrases, plus translations into almost as many languages as there are in the wrold today. But I'm unaware of any instance where two mainstream translations differ on any significant theological point. (There are a couple of "cult" translations that ARE divergent in some gross ways, but they're rejected by essentially EVERY other denomination as being grossly inaccurate & unfaithful to the original language.)

Sure, there are 1000's of Protestant denominations, but at the root, they pretty well all (okay, most -- 95%+) hold to the same key elements: the authority & inerrancy of the Bible in its original manuscripts, the divinity & humanity of Jesus, His death, burial, and resurection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Trinity. And, in 95% of the cases, they will agree that the areas of agreement are far, far more important than the areas of disagreement. Traditional hymns, or modern worship... style, not substance. Praying the Lord's prayer in unison, or not... style, not substance. Priestly vestments, or plain clothes... whatever works for your congregation. It's the same Bible (the original was inspired, not the translations), and the same beliefs about the same Jesus. You can get wrapped around the axel about the differences, but it's not a productive thing to do, neither for the churches themselves, nor for anyone else.

As in aviation, don't get so wrapped up in the minutia that you get clobberd by the big picture... maintain your situational awareness, and don't get so concerned with the ants you get run over by the elephants. It isn't about KJV vs NIV, nor about contemporary vs traditional worship, nor about how much litergy is in the service. Who was Jesus? Was He a lunatic, was he a liar, or was he Lord? Is the Bible accurate and authoritative? Do you believe your answers to those questions enough that you'll live your life consistent with your answers?

That's what's essential. Which translation, which denomination, and all the other assorted peripheral questions, are peripheral. Don't lose the big picture.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: TWADude

The time will come when God, once more, decides to deal with that. That is when we will know if Judaism was wrong (or right) in rejecting the Messiah or if Christianity was right (or wrong) in accepting Jesus as the promised Savior.

surplus1: welcome aboard. Fortunately almost all here are able to exchange ideas and opinions without showing complete disrespect. Timebuilder just ruins it for the rest.

I disagree with your assertion that eventually G-d will settle the Jesus debate. My personal belief is that there are many ways to serve G-d and that all religions more or less try to make humans into good people. I believe that our actions are far more important than our beliefs to earn salvation. If there's a Heaven then all good people will go there, period. G-d will undoubtedly forgive those who followed the "wrong" Messiah.

Dude

 

[TonyC]

Re: TWADude

(To TWA Dude) Apparently your attackers feel that it IS their domain to do that.

Feel consolation in the fact that you are not the only one being subjected to the rhetoric of the evangelical fundamentalists. I've only been reading and lurking but got my share too, unsolicited. Here is the quote provided courtesy of Tony C

Christianity contradicts Catholicism, too.

This comes from one of the literally thousand plus "sects" none of which existed for the first 1500 years of Christianity. It should be no surprise that they are attacking you.

To set the record straight, we have NOT been attacking TWA Dude. We have exchanged opinions and thoughts, and advocated opinions. I am certain you cannot find a case where I have attacked anyone for a theological opinion. Although I strongly disagree, I have treated him with nothing but respect. The same goes for you.

The quote does not come from a "sect" as you characterize Protestants, or even from a Protestant who you apparently assume I am. I am a Christian, and I am certain you will find that title even in your Catholic Bible. I don't find Catholic or Protestant in my Bible, so I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing either name.

As for the church's history, you will read about it's establishment in Acts 2. It's been around ever since. I believe everything in the Bible, including it's claim of divine inspiration and complete adequacy. No other book, doctrine, or manual is necessary to serve God.

Mind you, these are the very same people that insist that the Bible is God's Word, must be taken literally and may not be altered or changed in any way.

Yes, I insist that the Bible is God's word, and that is must be taken at its word, and that it cannot be altered, or changed in any way. It cannot be taken away from, nor can it be added unto. It says so!

Ironically, they started out by altering and changing whatever they "interpreted" to be more correct at a given time. Today they have 4 or 5 (perhaps more) different "versions" of the Bible, each professing, of course, to be the more correct and each in disagreement with the other in may key areas. Even the King James version, which was the first "protestant directed" english language translation of scripture (puplished 1611) has been altered by them whenever it suited their purpose.

You are correct in your general observation that no single English (or Spanish or German or...) translation is perfect. Many modern translations are plagued by the influence of man-made doctrines, or imperfect methodologies, or just plain honest mistakes. But as we have original texts from which to draw, we can ascertain the majority of the message, and all of the basic doctrine. The only way to completely eliminate all objections to translations is for us all to become conversant in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. And not just the languages of today, but those languages used at the time of the writings.

No, the existence of numerous translations does not invalidate the existence of Christ's church today.

Now it's my turn. Basically, Protestants don't really know what exactly it is they believe. How could they when it changes every time a new "sect" declares itself mentor of the Christian faith? If they did they would not be so divided among themselves and they would not be wasting their time attacking the Western Rite (Roman Catholicism) as well as each other.

The same thing could be said about Catholics, and the argument would be equally invalid. The fact that disputes exist among Protestant denominations no more negates the existence of Christ's church than does the fact that there are different "brands" of Catholicism. I couldn't help but notice you took pains to differentiate your brand of Catholicism from all the others. Why? Does the existence of other "Catholic" churches negate the existence of "the Western Rite"? Of course not.

All religions have unfortunately been cursed from time to time with despicable humans who have used the Word of God to pursue not only ungodly but inhuman ends, mostly related to money and power. Judaism is no exception as reportedly even as long ago as the time of Jesus, it was necessary for Him to attempt to throw the money changers out of the temple. Catholicism has suffered from infamous and evil Popes who also misued the church and abused its people. The Protestants are likewise no exception as Kings and preachers alike changed the way of God to suit themselves and for personal gain.

You couldn't be more right on this point. So let's agree not to point to examples of how MEN have messed up in trying to serve God (or themselves) and stick strictly to what God has instructed us through His divine word. We won't compare popes with Martin Luther, we'll stick to Paul and Timothy and the like. I feel very comfortable defending ANYTHING the Bible teaches, ANY day, ANY where.

It might do us all well to consider that God established no religion. What He did give us was a way of life and the rules we should follow in serving Him.

Once again, you are absolutely right. (In fact, I think I said the exact same thing not too long ago. )

Your faith, my faith, an even the so-called evangelists, accept the Ten Commandments. That much we do have in common. We believe in one God and one set of rules or laws coming from that God that could not be more simple.

I don't accept the Ten Commandments as Law, since Christ died to abolish that law. In it's place he left a more perfect law. Mind you, the Old Law was a type of the New Law, and it served as a schoolmaster, or teacher, to prepare mankind for the New Law, so it has many similarities. But it is not binding. We do not offer animal sacrifices, and we do not keep the Sabbath Holy. True, it came from the same God, and the principles carry over, but the Ten Commandments are no longer binding as law.

When the people of this earth became confused and overburdened by conflicting "interpretations" of God's law, He sent someone to set us straight.

You make it sound like God got frustrated when man couldn't get it straight so he sent down Jesus to clarify a few points. On the contrary, God's plan from before the beginning of the earth was to send His Son. Everything has gone, is going, and will continue to go according to His plan.

know what your belief is and you know what mine is. So does everyone else on this board. We might all do better in attempting to worship God and live by the rules He set forth than finding fault with each other.

I suppose we should just disregard the command to evangelize, especially if it causes heated discussions or personal discomfort. Like I said before, we're not finding fault in any individuals, but engaging in thoughtful discussions. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these thoughts with you.

 

[Super 80]

about Bible versions...

Mind you, these are the very same people that insist that the Bible is God's Word, must be taken literally and may not be altered or changed in any way. Ironically, they started out by altering and changing whatever they "interpreted" to be more correct at a given time. Today they have 4 or 5 (perhaps more) different "versions" of the Bible, each professing, of course, to be the more correct and each in disagreement with the other in may key areas. Even the King James version, which was the first "protestant directed" english language translation of scripture (puplished 1611) has been altered by them whenever it suited their purpose.

Just as a point of order, there is nothing really special about the King James Version. As a Bible, it has many merits. It is well done in many respects. However, there are flaws with some of its translations in various parts, and the underlying Greek in the New Testament is weak, and wasn't even available for the book of Revelation: a Latin version was translated instead.

The first English Bible was the Wycliff Version of 1382.
Next was Tyndale in 1534,
Coverdale in 1535,
Great in 1539,
Geneva in 1560,
Bishop's in 1568, and
the King James of 1611 which is based largely on Wycliff's.

In the modern era we have the English Revised Version of 1895,
the American Standard Version of 1901.

The underlying Greek continues to improve with study and archaeology and the modern versions rely on a better Greek from a textual critic point of view than what was available previously.

If you can understand and want to read Shakespearean English, then the King James may be right for you. However, the Apostles wrote in the plain everyday Greek which was a common language for ideas in their time and culture. So I have no problem with my NIV or NASB editions, but I also have a revised KJV that is written in modern English.

 

[Timebuilder]

It must concern you greatly that not everyone believes the way you do.

Actually, it took me some time to care that others were saved also. As a new believer, I was still centered on myself, but God has convicted my heart to reach out according to the Great Commission.

So, while I "care", it is not in the way that you suggest, as if I need others agreeing with me to somehow "shore up" my faith.

Horse hockey.

I care only that you recognize the Messiah, and follow Him to salvation. Everything else is worthless.

Don't worry: that Timebuilder guy has nothing to gain personally whether you trust Christ or not. The loss or gain is yours.

 

[TWA Dude]

I care only that you recognize the Messiah, and follow Him to salvation. Everything else is worthless.

Ah, finally something we agree on! I assure that when the Messiah comes I shall follow. (You walked right into that, tough guy.)

Don't worry: that Timebuilder guy has nothing to gain personally whether you trust Christ or not. The loss or gain is yours.

Perfect. I'll look out for my soul and you can look out for yours. I do believe learning has occured!