Jesus fits true Messianic Criteria

Image result for church of the Holy Sepulchre
Church of the Holy Sepulcher: sight of both  Crucifixion
and resurrection



Alfred Edersheim 
(7 March 1825 – 16 March 1889)



The Diversity of First century Judaism:"The Essenic movement and heterodox Judaism spread throughout the entire Jewish world. Reflecting the power of the 'spindled isolation' that gave rise to the Hasiedam movement.... Pharisaic Judaism and Christianity represent different offshoots of old Testament religion. The one emphasized the Law of Moses but in terms of oral tradition and adaptability of ancient revelation to contemporary conditions. The other places stress on prophecy and fulfillment of promises in terms of the Messianic fulfillment....It is clear that the Essenes were closer to the Jewish-Christian in terms of Messianic expectation and eschatological fulfillment, although they were at different points on the time table. Thus the people of Qumran awaited royal and priestly Messiahs, while in the New Testament the term "Messiah" is clearly of the Dividic King." --Gallayah Cornfeld [1]

Most Christian arguments about fulfillment of Messianic prophesies seem unbelievable to skeptics, and that's because we really don't understand the way the early church looked at them. We tend to look at them and say "how could so many predictions be fulfilled? The odds are agaisnt it being a natural occurrence." Yet most of these things do not look like prophecies. This is because they did not have the notion of statistical probability. They didn't look at it in that way.They excepted Jesus as Messiah because of his teachings, his miracles and his character, plus some superficial fulfillment such as his linage and place of birth.But the real reason the early church looked at prophesy was to explain his death. Jesus died a shameful death, whereas the Messiah was expected to reign in triumph. Upon closer examination they realized that there were deeper assumptions and that Jesus fit them, more importantly, his death was in the plan of God for the Messiah. As we look at these expectations which people in Jesus day had for the Messiah,we realize that the story they describe is the story of Jesus, right down to his death and resurrection.

It is alleged by Jewish expositors today that the verses sited in the Gospels pertaining to Jesus fulfillment of Messianic prophecy are not really Messianic verses. Hence, the expositors argue, Jesus did not fulfill any prophecies because the Jews did not expect a Messiah like Jesus. They argue the Messianic expectations were never applied to the verses that Christians have sited for 2000 years.


However, there were many groups, with a diversity of expectations, that even verses which don't seem to apply at all can be assumed to apply.After all, why would the Jews of the first century be so daft as to just allow someone to come and tell them what their expectations were? Wouldn't they know? The main point of this page is to argue that he actual Messianic passages and expectations of the Messiah held by the Jews of Jesus day were not only fulfilled by him, but that they actually mark out the Jesus story as it is presented in the Gospels, with the exception of those verses that pertain to the end of times, but even where those are concerned the Jews expected a gap between the first appearance of the Messiah and his eventual Kingdom.


Rabbinical tradition of Jesus' time was diverse. Judaism today is nothing like it was in the first century. As Steven Neil said, "Judaism has not stood still and what may apply for the fourth century may be wholly misleading if applied to the time in which Jesus lived." [2] After the temple was destroyed in AD70 several sub-traditions and factions were swept away. Essntially only the Pharaseical tradition survived and became the mainstream of what we know as Judaism today. The Essenic type survived, and became the Hassidem, but they are less "mainstream." The Hassiedics are more fringe, being neither Orthodox, nor conservative, nor even liberal. The groups that were swept away were the bitter rivals of the pharisees. Their opinions are not recognized, and they are forgotten. We can see the efforts of the surviving tradition to change certian facts which favored Christian views. First, the LXX (Greek Translation of the Old Testament) was the favored text for Hellenized judaism before the destruction. It was also the Bible of the early chruch because it favored the Christian views of prophecy. Don't forget, it has already been documented taht the LXX renders Pslam 22 as "peirced hands and feet," and that the LXX is closer to the Dead Sea Scroll. In the early second century Judaism produced another Greek translation, "Aquilla's translation" which replaced the LXX and was taylored to be less Messianic.[3]




I.Major Messianic Expectations



The general "qualifications" for Messiah were: descendant of Jesse, of David, through the line to Solomon, through the kings of Judah and finally through Zerubbabel. This means of course that he would come from the tribe of Judah. They expected him to free them from the Romans and bring in a great time of world peace and a holy nation. But they also had many other expectations which are in differing degrees, not necessarily those recognized by Jews today. Edersheim reveals most of these and they will be demonstrated within the context of arguments below. IT is not clear exactly how common or universal all of these expectations were, but they did exist and some were common within first century Judaism. Since it is absurd to think that Jews would just give up their faith and dash off to join another religion, we should expect that all of the claims Jesus made and that are made about him by his early followers were present in Jewish expectation, and so we do.


What we find when we examine these, and others below, is not a host of random fulfillment but that they tell the whole Jesus story as presented in the Gospels. Suffering, rejection, disappearance, death, return. These expectations will be demonstrated in the course of the following arguments.




Overview



What we find when we examine these, and others below, is not a host of random fulfillment but that they tell the whole Jesus story as presented in the Gospels. Suffering, rejection, disappearance, death, return. These expectations will be demonstrated in the course of the following arguments.


(1) Linage: Tribe of Judah, decent through David.

(2) Decent through line of Zerubabel.

(3) associated with Galilee

(4) Star will Herald Birth

(5) Mystery concerning his seed

(6) Son of God

(7) Unrecognized by his people

(8) Rejected by his people--imprisoned

(9) He would be the Suffering Servant of Is 53

.........(a) wounded for the people's transgressions

........(b) wounded (pierced)

........(c) flogged--stripes form beating

........(d) cut off from land of living

........(e) See the light of life



A.Expectations.


(1) Linage: Tribe of Judah, decent through David.



The whole of chapter 11 (Isaiah) is designated by more than one ancient rabbinical source as pertaining to the Messiah. Targum v 1-6 as Messianic.(Jer. Berach 5a and Snah 93b) and number of passages in the Midrashim . v 1 says "a shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse." Jesus was descended from Jesse, father of King David.

Edersheim demonstrates through many many passages of Rabbinical origin that "branch" and "branch of David" are terms specifically designating the Messiah, but Eisenman and Wise also document this fact specificially using the whole phrase "Branch of David." (24). Of course this phrase is used often in describing Jesus, and in fact is a pun on the word "Nazareth" since no prophesy of the OT predicts the Messiah coming form Nazareth.[4]



Eisenman and Wises translation of "Genesis Florolegium" coloum 5.1 "The Government shall not pass from the tribe of Judah. During Isreal's dominian a Davic decendant on the Throne shall not cease...[elipseies mine] until the Branch of David comes because to him and to his seed was given the covenant of the Kingdom of his people in perpetuiy.." (89).(4q252)[5]


(2) Decent through line of Zerubabel.



Haggi 2:23, after describing how their supplies and harvest yeilds were low the Lord would take them back and an abundant harvest will come. He makes an apocalyptic statement about nations being shaken and armies being defeated and then pronounces that Z (Zeubabel) is his choice and he will "use you like a signant ring" Why does the book end with this statement, after building up to it through description of Messianic times and forgiveness for Israel? Zerubbabel becomes the final focal point. He is the line of the Messiah.

Zechariah 4:7 "What are you O mighty Mountain before Zerubbabel you will become level ground, then he will bring out the capstone..." IT goes on to say Z will lay the foundation for the temple. That really happened. So that's not so amazing, but it is linked to Messianic prophesy as the language of the capstone is seen by Rabbis Quoted by Edersheim as a reference to Messiah, and in Gospels of course that is what is meant when Jesus speaks of Himself as "the stone that the builders rejected."

In 3:8 God tells Joshua the priest that he will bring a branch. In the Notes to the Oxford Bible (RSV), [6]of Messianic prophesy, it says "8 Branch a Davidic figure who is to usher in the Messianic age (compare Psalm 132:17...) here refurs to Zerubbabel (see 6:9-15n) Now that note says "This section abounds with difficulties. Originally it probably directed crowning of Zerubbabel as Messianic King but was revised to refer to Joshua."

Zech. 3:8 "The designation 'Branch' is expressly applied to King Messiah in the Targum. Indeep this is one of the Messiah's peculiar names." Thus these branch references link Z to Messiah in some fundamental way.

Now look again at 4:7 where it speaks of Z and the Capstone. Zech 4:7 is generally applied to the Messiah, expressly in the Targum and also in several of the Midrashim, thus as regards both clauses of it Tanchuma (Par. Toledoth 14 ed. Warsh p. 56 at the top.) --Edersheim, 735).[7]

So Z is clearly linked to Messiah. And as he lays the corner stone, which, though it was literally something he did do in history, can also have a double meaning, especially since that very verse is linked Messianichally. So the Messiah comes through Z's line, which links Jesus closer and removes the curse a priori.

(3) Associated with Galilee

From Isaiah 9:1-3 "In the future he will honor Galilee of the gentiles, by the way of the Sea...The people who walked in Darkenss have seen a great light..." This whole chapter showed to be Messianic by Edersheim and leads into the declaration of Messiah's divinity (see below).


John Allegro documents Isaiah suffering servant Messianic. [8] Allegro was the only member of the original translation team (Dead Sea Scrolls) who was neither Christian nor Jew, but claimed "neutrality." However, he was criticized by other members of the team as being anti-Christian and skeptical.

"In one of their hymns the sect pictures itself as a pregnant woman suffering the pangs of parturition as she gives birth to her 'firstborn' who is described in terms reminiscent of the Child of Isaiah 9:6, the 'Wonderful Counselor.' Most scholars agree that the passage retains its biblical Messianic significance, in which case it appears that the Sect believed that out of its suffering of atonement for 'the land' would come the Anointed One or Christ."(161).



Is. 8:14 is applied to Messianic times by the Talmud(sanh 38a) and of 9:6 Edersheim says "is expressly applied to the Messiah in the Targum also Haggada in Debarim and Bemidbar." (Edersheim, 723).

(4) Star will Herald Birth

"There is however testimony which seems to us not only reliable, but embodies most ancient Jewish tradition. It is contained in one of the smaller Midrashim of which a collection has lattley been published. ...the so called Messiah Haggadda...'a star shall come out of Jacob' ...'the star shall shine out of the East and this is the Star of the Messiah.'" (Dr. Jellineck a work in six part Beth ha Midrash LIep and Venne 1853--in Edersheim 211-212). Edershiem also quotes three other midrashim. These are presented in the same book. Edershiem goes on to document (Ibid) from the works of Keppler that a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn did actually occurr two years before the birth of Chrsit, and the following year was joined by Mars making for an extremely bright sideriol event.


There is also the star prophecy from Numbers referring to a star out of Jacob and linked to the world ruler at Qumran (see above reference). Eisenman and Wise document many times the importance of this prophecy at Qumran, in the revolt of 66 and the bar Kochba revolt of 135 (and indeed the name bar Kochba itself which means son of the star). Perhaps it could be that, though the star in Numbers is the Messiah himself, the notion of a Star as a herald and symbol of the birth of the 'true Star' somehow was prophecied in an oral tradition, or at least transposed. This thought must have crossed Edersheim's mind for he does mention the numbers prophecy here in passing.


(5) Mystery concerning his seed (Virgin Birth?)

Edersheim states:
It is is not without hesitation that we make reference to the Jewish allusions to the miraculous birth of the Savior. Yet there are two expressions which convey the idea of, if not super human origin, yet of some great mystery attaching to his birth. The first occurs in connection with the birth of Seth R. Tanocum said in the name of R. Samuel "Eve had respect [regard, looing to] the seed which is to come 'form another place' and who is this? This is King Messiah [Ber R. 23 ed. Warsh] The second appears in the narrative of the Crime of Lot's daughters 'it is not written that we may preserve a seed from our father," but 'seed form our father.' This is that seed which is coming form another place. And who is this? This is Messiah the king.'" (Edersheim p178, in Ber R. 51= Bereshith Rabba on Genesis).

(6)Messiah would be Divine (or at least Pre mundane)



Neverhteless we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls "Sons of Light" already understood the Messiah as the Son of God before Jesus came onto the scene. "He will be called Son of God and they will call him son of the Most High.... His Kingdom will be an eternal kingdom and all his paths in truth and uprightness. The earth will be in truth and will make peace. The Sword will cease in the earth and all the cities will pay him homage."[9] The concept of Son of God existed at Qumran before Christianity, and thus was in Judaism, and was not made up by Jesus' followers.

Isaiah 9:1-3 quoted as Messianic in Edersheim's list and at Qumran, the Messiah to come from Seed of Jessy, from Galilee. "The people who walk in Darkness have seen a great light." Light related to Messiah (see above). This verse in particular is Messianic at Qumran and on list. v6 "to us a child is born, to us a son is given, the government will be on his shoulders and he will be called 'wonderful conselor, Almighty God, Everlasting Father Prince of Peace." "Prince of David" was a Messianic title at Qumran. "Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end...with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever."


Now Rabbinical apologists today say that this merely refers to the child born in chapter 7 as a sign to the King that God will support them in battle. This is a verse often quoted by Christians because it speaks of a "Virgin Birth." Most Christians take this as the expectation of the Messiah as born of a virgin, as was Jesus. Yet Modern day Jewish apologists disagree. They say that the child was not born of a virgin, but that the word is mistranslated in chp 7. But the passage in nine indicates that, while the interpretation fits with the ostensible story of the chapter, the birth of Mahar-Shalal-Hash-Baz" (the child), the passage in verse nine has double meaning. For not only does it fit with the story in Isaiah, but it was also understood by Rabbis of Jesus' day to herald the Messiah. This can only be the case unless Mahar-Shala-Hash-Baz was to be called "every lasting father, almighty God."

"Isaiah 9:6 is expressly applied to Messiah in Targum" Debarim R1 (ed. Wash p4) The Child referred to in Chp. 9 is the Messiah, HE will be called "everlasting father, almighty God," Which the Jewish expositors would not call the Messiah, but Jesus Christ has been so called! As further proof that this passage is Messianic Edersheim also shows that the next verse, 7, "the government shall be on his shoulders," is attested by Rabbinical authorities as Messianic. Whose shoulders shall the government be on? The child in v6, the "almighty God."

It is argued by the Jewish apologists of today that nowhere do the scriptures speak of a man being sacrificed for the sins of the people; nor does it speak of a resurrection of the Messiah form the dead. It is not very likely hat any Jews of Jesus' day understood what was about to befall him. But it is not true that the scriptures don't teach these things. When the first followers of Jesus turned to the Scriptures to try and understand what had happened they saw in them the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. They understood this as a fulfillment of Messianic prophesy, though understood expost facto. While this leaves us open to the charge of reading in a meaning that is not there, it can be argued that it is a sound interpretation of scripture.

(7) Unrecognized by his people

Is. 8:14 "...he will be a sanctuary but to both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall and to the people of Jerusalem he will be a snare" [not the application to Christ, the evangelists even furred to the stumbling stone in the Gospel's] it makes perfect sense within the context of the story in Is. and no one would think it refers to something else, and yet the rabbinate says it does. This is more evidence of interspersed Messianic prophecy; or "double meaning." It makes sense on one level and then is interpreted on another. Is. 10:27 says: "in that day their burden will be lifted from their shoulders; their yoke from their neck." Again, Edersheim quotes rabbinical sources which show that these verses speak of the Messiah.


(8) Rejected by the masses and Imprisoned



"Jewish writings speak frequently of the so called sorrows of the Messiah (Chebhley shel Mashiech ) [Sabb.118]. These were partly those of the Messiah and partly those coming on Israel and the word previous to coming of the Messiah...period of internal corruption..." Edersheim 433. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98bThe Rabbis said: His name is "the leper scholar," as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].

Ruth Rabbah 5:6The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the Messiah. Come hither: approach to royal state. And eat of the BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions.

(Isa. LIII, 5).-- Soncino Midrash Rabbah (vol. 8, p. 64).
The Karaite Yefeth ben Ali (10th c.)
As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne: for the prophet begins by speaking of his being seated in a position of great honour, and then goes back to relate all that will happen to him during the captivity. He thus gives us to understand two things: In the first instance, that the Messiah will only reach his highest degree of honour after long and severe trials; and secondly, that these trials will be sent upon him as a kind of sign, so that, if he finds himself under the yoke of misfortunes whilst remaining pure in his actions, he may know that he is the desired one....

(9) He would be the Suffering Servant of Is 53

(a) wounded for the people's transgressions

We need not expect that the correspondence between the sin offering of the temple and the Crucifixion be one to one. In other words, the temple offering was to be without blimpish, Christ was sinless, but why must he also correspond one to one with all the requirements? If so, he would have to be less than a year old. Jewish Apologists often quote injunctions from the Deuteronimical code against human sacrafice and argue that to sacrifice a man for the sins of the people violates the law of Moses.Obviously this doesn't apply in the case of the Messiah, because he was the perfect offering and because it was God's will and God himself as the offering.

That being said the OT clearly teaches that the Messiah will take upon himself the sins of the people.


"Surely he took up our infirmaties and carried our sorrows and yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted, but he was periced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed...the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all, the was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth, he was like a lamb to the slaughter...for the transgression of my people he  was stricken..." [Isaiah 53:4]

(727) Also see below on suffering servant where this same passage interpreted as bearing the sins of the people in suffering). v"yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer...the Lord make shis life to be a guilt offering..."

This remarkable passage clearly teaches that the Messiah would take upon himself the sins of the people, that he would be stricken for them. Moreover the Jews of Jesus day did expect that, though they did not necessarily think of it as curcifiction, they did expect that the messiah would be striken for them in his sufferings, which has already been point out. Edersheim shows that Rabbinical authorities views these passages as applicable to the Messiah.



-- S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, [10] The English translations used here are taken from volume 2. The original texts are in volume 1. Cf. Soloff, pp. 107-09. Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:By the words "surely he hath carried our sicknesses," they mean that the pains and sickness which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. . . . And here I think it necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the sake of Israel. . . . The nation deserved from God greater punishment than that which actually came upon them, but not being strong enough to bear it. . . God appoints his servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated."-- Driver and Neubauer, pp. 23 ff.; Soloff pp. 108-109.


Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali"And the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all." The prophet does not by avon mean iniquity, but punishment for iniquity, as in the passage, "Be sure your sin will find you out" (Num. xxxii. 23).-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 26; Soloff p. 109.


In his list of Messianic passages, drawn from the most ancient sources, Yalkut, Targrum, Talmuds, Midrashim, Edersheim deomonstates all the passages of the suffering servant are Messianic. "how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that bring good news," Messianic. v 13 of Is. 53 the Targum applies to Messiah. "and he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed."is Messianic, R Huna says in the name of R Acha "all sufferings are divided into three parts, one part goes to David and the patriarchs, another to the generation of the rebellion and third to King Messiah, as it is written (ps 2:7) 'yet have I set my Kind upon my holy hill of Zion.'" Edersheim adds a quotation from the Midrash on Samuel, in which theMessiah indicates that his "dwelling is on Mount Zion and that guilt is connected to the destruction of it's walls."


(b) wounded (pierced)


Overview of veres:

*Isaiah 53:5

*Crucifiction in Psalm 22: 1,7,14-18

*Zechariah 12:10 "They will look upon me, the one they preiced."

evidence on verses:

Is 53

Ps 22



v1 "My God, my God, why have you forsken me?" Jesus last words on the corss. v7 "all who see me mock me, they hural insults..." v14 "I am poured out like water and all my bones are out of joint/my heart has turned to wax/...my touge sticks to the roof of my mouth..." v"they have pierced my hands and my feet ...they divide my garments among them." This is a picture of Christ on the cross. The mocking of the crowd, the physical effects of being crucified upon the heart and internal organs, and the piecing of hands and feet, and the acts of the soldiers at the cross. Of course one can argue that gambling for his clothing is a detail added latter to the Gospel account for veri similitude, but what are the chances of the effects of Crucifixion, a means of elocution totally unknown in Isaiah's time?


The Jewish apologists argue that the verse is wrongly rendered. They say it speaks of animals tearing at the persona, and that the line about piercing hands and feet should really read "like lions my hands and feet," or "lions tear at my hands and feet." This is arguable if one only goes by the Hebrew text. But in the Septuagint (LXX) the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in Alexandria before the time of Christ, and used as the Bible of the early church, it says "pierced." Moreover, they cannot dispute the physical description of Crucifixion, its effects upon the heart and internal organs, nor the statement of bones being out of joint, through the beating prior to the resurrection, and the breaking of legs to hasten death.

Of Pslam 22 Yalkut views as Messianic and relates it to Is. 9. Edersheim writes "using almost the same words of the Evangelists to describe the crowd's mocking behavior at the cross." The verse says "all who see me mock me, they hurl insults shaking their heads." He also shows Yalkutlinks v.15 to the Messiah, and this is the exact verse put foreword as a description of Crucifixion! "my strength is dried up as a potshred my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death."


Zechariah 12:10

New American Standard Bible (©1995) "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

the hebrew used here for "pierced" is dqar, meaning to bore or dig or pierce. It clearly means pierced. Perhaps it could be translated another way, this pierced is clear

(c) flogged--stripes form beating

Is 53 "by his srtipes we are heald"

(d) cut off from land of living

Is 53:10

(e) See the light of life

The resurrection is clearly seen in the account of the "suffering servant" from Isaiah 53:8

"...he was cut off from the land of the living, for the transgression of my people he was stricken, he was assigned a grave with the wicked..." One thinks of the two thieves on the their crosses crucified on either side of Christ. But in v 11 "after the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied. By his knowledge my righteous  servant will justify many and he will bear their iniquities...for he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.."


B.Fulfillment in Jesus

There are some telling differences between the Mesoretic and the LXX and again the LXX agrees with the DSS on these points. MT does not have "light of life" on v11 but DSS and LXX do. And also on v11 rather than his knowledge "knowledge of him. (from Margin notes in New International Version).

This list of expectations outlines the story of Jesus' life as recorded in the gospels: His brith, his family, the claims to his divine nature, his mission.Jesus meets everyone of these requirements, most of them, like his family and the star at this birth would have been beyond his control:

(1) Decendent of David (Matt 1:1-22) (Luke 3) (Rom 1:3)

(2)From line of Zerubabel (Mat 1:12 "And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel...")

(3)Born in Galilee (in Nazerath)

(4)Mystery--claims of virgin birth

(5)Star heralds birth--Keppler proved conjunction of planets in 4BC

(6)Son of God--claimed to be

(7)Not accepted by masses

(8)Rejected by the masses:by crowd in favor of Bar Abas

(9)Manner of his death and mission--crucified for sins of world and rose from dead.


II.Why the Suffering Servant cannot be Israel as a nation.

The Jewish apologists cliam that this passage in Isaiah (53) speaks of Israel rather than of the Messiah. They argue that all the references to the servant are in the plural rather than the singular. But this is not the case in the LXX or DSS. Those references are singular. Furthermore, to read the passage as the nation of Israel would necessitate the absurdity of the nation of Israel taking upon itself its own sins in order to be a guilt offering for itself. Let's read it that way:

Surely [they] took up their infirmaries and carried [their] sorrows and yet [they] considered [themselves] stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted, but [they] were pirced for [their own] transgressions, [they] [were] crushed for [their own] iniquities, the punishment that brought [themselves] peace was upon [they themselves] and by [their own] wounds [they heal themselves]...the Lord has laid upon [them] the iniquity of [them] all, [they were] oppressed and afflicted, yet [they] did not open [their] mouth[s], [they] [were] like a lamb to the slaughter...for the transgression of my people [my people were stricken]

In that sense it looses all meaning. What would be the point? Especially in the line

"the punishment that brought them peace was upon them." What sense does that make? It totally looses the meaning of someone who was thought to be unworthy who suffers on behalf of the people, and makes the people themselves their own guilt offering. Moreover, the Jews have never been totally cut off from the land of the living. I also challenge anyone to find a Rabbi with that reading from before let's say the beginning of the third century. The actual verse does not have the plural but the singular! "Surely He took upon himself their infirmities and carried our sorrows and yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted, he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities..."

R. Elijah de Vidas (16th c.)Since the Messiah bears our iniquities which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself.-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 331.

Rabbi Moshe Alshekh (El-Sheikh) of Sefad (16th c.)I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves also adhere to the same view.-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 258.







Sources


[1] Gallayah Cornfeld, Archaeology of The Bible Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, p. 265.

[2] Steven Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961,Oxford, London: Oxford University Press, 1964, 295
There are several updates of this book such as 1989. I had first edition ,it;s one of the best books I;ve ever read,

[3] Ibid


[4] Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, Grand Rapoids:Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953

 Original publication  London 1883.

Christian Classics Ethereal Library" read online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.i.html
 You can also download from their site,

Edersheim was one of the greatest scholars of the modern world, he was trained as a Rabbi from childhood and taught at both Oxford and Cambridge at the same time, Amazom saysof this book:"One of the best known and most important references on the life of Christ ever written, Alfred Edersheim's "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" is a storehouse of information on the background of the New Testament. This classic work successfully portrays the streets, the marketplaces, the religious conflicts, the people, and the places of Jesus' earthly ministry."

Emmalon Davis

CCEL Staff Writer
Alfred Edersheim believed that some knowledge of ancient Jewish society was necessary for the general reader of the New Testament to fully understand Jesus' life and works. Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah is an informal commentary on the Four Gospels, which highlights the intellectual and religious perspectives of the people who lived during the time of Jesus. By consulting both Rabbinic Law and Talmudic writings, Edersheim paints a vivid picture of the various locations where Jesus would have walked, prayed, and preached. Not only does Edersheim provide useful geographical and political clarifications, he also offers insight into the emotional and psychological experiences of individual Biblical characters as well. From Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, to His death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven--Edersheim reports the stages of Jesus' life in exceptional detail, bringing animation and color into a set of stories that may seem distant to readers today.


[5] Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Shaftisburry, Dorset: Element, 1992, 10.


Robert Eisenman (Pof. of Middle East Religions and chair of Religious Studies Department at California state University Long Beach) and Michael Wise (Arimaic, University of Chicago) 

[6] The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version note  on Zechariah 3:8


[7] Edersheim op cit
thus as regards both clauses of it Tanchuma (Par. Toledoth 14 ed. Warsh p. 56 at the top.) --Edersheim, 735) These are notations in Ederheim of various Talmudic sources, These are his Talmud footnotes, You see it on his page 735.

[8]John Alegro Dead Sea Scrolls, Pelican, 1956, 160-161.

[9] F.G.Martinez: Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 2nd ed. New York:E.J. Brill Leiden,1992.


[10] S. R. Driver and A.Neubauer, editors, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (2 volumes; New York: Ktav, 1969), pp. 19-20.



Adolf Neubauer, 1841-1907, Reader in Hebrew at Oxford Universility. Best known for La Géographie du Talmud (1868),


Samuel  Rolls Drkver 1846-1914.an English divine and Hebrew scholar. He devoted his life to the study, both textual and critical, of the Old Testament. He was the father of Sir Godfrey Rolles Driver, also a distinguished Bible scholar. (wiki)




Comments

Joe Hinman said…
This was Skep's comment on the previous thread about Rom 1:3, and my answer to it:


im-skeptical said...
MeIf we honor Martian Luther King by saying he was a maryter for his cause, he was defeated bit we honor him , his assignation was a tragedy but we turn it into a victory because he is a Martyr, doe that mean that James Earl Ray was really trying to honor him? does that make the assassination a good thing it was not a rejection by the assasin but JER was really honoring King?


- This is a complete non-sequitur. There was no prophesy about MLK. And his assassination is not any kind of fulfillment. When Jesus died, that very act was how he is supposed to have saved you. The two things aren't even comparable



This is an analogy, if you can;t understand analogy then you don;t need trying to argue with me,just because it was supposed to happen does not make it an honor it doesn't doesn't make a positive thing it doesn;t negate its role a prophesy fulfillment


- Yes, Jesus dying was an honor. According to your own dogma, it was the ultimate sacrifice - an act of love that was for your benefit. It honors you. And you're now trying to deny that it was a positive thing? .

No he was killed among thieves at the lowest level of society only scum bags got crucified, it was a shame I don't think you know what honor is,this is basic Christian stuff



he did fulfill it, you are trying so hard to deny what's in front of your face you can;t even understand the idea you are talking abouit. you do not have the slightest idea what Messiah was supposed to be because Jesus fulfilled it exactly. How the hell does Crucifixion being what was supposed to happen prevent it being fulfillment of prophesy?


- That is not what the Jewish prophesies foretold. They were talking about a king on earth - someone who would save the Jewish people from their oppressors.



after he returns, modern Jews took all that out to distance it from Jesus,but this is the way it was in Jesus' day that;s seen in the dead sea scrolls



-When you call Jesus the messiah, you mean something different from that. The Christian concept and the Jewish concept of the messiah are two different things, and Jesus did NOT fulfill the Jewish concept. Why do you think the Jews do not accept him as their messiah? It's because he wasn't the guy the prophesies are about.

I know what the Jewish concept was better than you do, I have a Masters degree in religious studies from a major university. The original Messianic expectations differ from what modern Jews understand, Jesus fit the criteria of his day,





he created the grounds for all salvation when he died and rose from the dead,but then each individual has to accept it, you have to receive the gift in your own heart,that is on going.


- You are conflating two different kinds of messiah.

No I am recovering what Jews lost after the fall of the temple







he did it can be shown so according to the Talmud

- So now you speak for the Jews? They disagree with you, and it's their scripture.

I am quoting Rabbinical scholars talking about the Talmud





you don;t have the facts, you don;t want the facts, you are brain washed and you are greatful to be brain washed, we'll see how that holds up in eternity


- I am not brainwashed by your religious dogma. You CAN'T believe anything that disagrees with it, no matter what evidence there is. YOU are locked in to this ideology, and you have no choice in the matter. You aren't allowed to give fair consideration to evidence or a scientific understanding of reality. It's against your religion.

you don;t know the first thing about this, I am quoting from a world of evidence you don;t even know exists you are still trying to pretend you know more,







The Pixie said…
Joe: What we find when we examine these, and others below, is not a host of random fulfillment but that they tell the whole Jesus story as presented in the Gospels. Suffering, rejection, disappearance, death, return. These expectations will be demonstrated in the course of the following arguments.

What we find is a whole bunch of OT texs twisted to mean something they did not, and a whole bunch of story made up to fulfill the supposed prophecy. The best example is the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, supposedly prophesised in Isaiah 7:14. The reality is that the prophesy in that text is that the kingdoms threaten Judah would fall within a couple of years, but by taking a mistranslated verse out of context, they get a prophesy about a virgin birth. Based on that supposed prophesy, they then invent the Virgin Birth to fit the prophesy.

Here is a clear prophecy, specifically about the messiah:

Jeremiah 33:14 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will fulfil the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’

Did Jerusalem dwell securely after Jesus arrived? No. Prophecy failed.
The Pixie said…
(1) Linage: Tribe of Judah, decent through David.

This is a real prediction, which Jesus fulfills only if we ignore the Virgin Birth. By the way, these verses make clear the King has to be of the male line - the seed - so not via Mary:

2 Samuel 7:12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the [d]blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before [e]you. Your throne shall be established forever.” ’ ”

Note also the king gets adopted by God. All the kings were sons of God.

(2) Decent through line of Zerubabel.

The text actually says Zerubabel, not a descendant.

(3) associated with Galilee

This is part of a prophecy about the messiah, but it does not say the messiah will be from Galilee.

(4) Star will Herald Birth

In the prophecy, the star IS the messiah. "A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the people of Sheth." It is not saying a literal scepter will float about the land!

(5) Mystery concerning his seed

This is so tenuous it is laughable. And contradicts (1) too!

(6) Son of God

This is because the King of The Jews was traditionally thought to be adopted by God. Christians (including Paul and Mark) thought Jesus was the messiah, and so therefore concluded he was adopted by God.

(7) Unrecognized by his people

Failed. Jesus preached to crowds of 5000, a huge number given the population of Jerusalem was around 100,000, and was greeted by jubilant crowds when he arrived at the city - if the gospels are to be believed.

(8) Rejected by his people--imprisoned

See above.

(9) He would be the Suffering Servant of Is 53

.........(a) wounded for the people's transgressions


What is the basis for thinking Jesus was wounded for the people's transgressions? It looks like this was the prophecy leading Christians to conclude what had happened, rather than a fulfillment.

........(b) wounded (pierced)

The verb gets translated as "pierce" in many Bibles to make it look like an accurate prophecy, but elsewhere it is translated as "profaned". The second half of the verse is "he was crushed for our iniquities". Jesus was never crushed, so is that a failed prophecy? Or cherry-picking?

........(c) flogged--stripes form beating

Okay.

........(d) cut off from land of living

The text indicates he was not cut off, but merely CONSIDERED to be:

Isaiah 53:8 By oppression and judgement he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?

Compare to Isaiah 53:10 that states "he shall see his offspring". The messiah was expected to live, to herald the general resurrection and the coming of God's kingdom. If he died, he was a false messiah.

........(e) See the light of life

Not sure what the prophecy is for this one.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: What we find when we examine these, and others below, is not a host of random fulfillment but that they tell the whole Jesus story as presented in the Gospels. Suffering, rejection, disappearance, death, return. These expectations will be demonstrated in the course of the following arguments.

Pxe:What we find is a whole bunch of OT texs twisted to mean something they did not, and a whole bunch of story made up to fulfill the supposed prophecy.


The problem with that theory is there are many scholar Jews both in ancient times and now now who disagree. They see the clear not taken out of context, what you are missing is these guys are jews they are not interested in helping Jesus look like Messiah, they are not all Christian Jews,but they say these passages are about Messiah they are the expectations of Jesus' day. You have Rabbks in the Talmud and modern scholars Eisenman and wise.


Pxe: The best example is the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, supposedly prophesised in Isaiah 7:14. The reality is that the prophesy in that text is that the kingdoms threaten Judah would fall within a couple of years, but by taking a mistranslated verse out of context, they get a prophesy about a virgin birth. Based on that supposed prophesy, they then invent the Virgin Birth to fit the prophesy.

The problem there is conventional understanding. Gentiles assume the point is it prophesies Mary's Virgin conception but not necessarily,no net passage says that,That;s why Edersheim says "mystery concerning his birth:not "virgin birth,"

Now that is not say that VB isn't doctrine and it is not say not taught by Nt not to say don;t believe it i do. it is,but it does not say that this passage in Isaiah is about Mary. My position is it is a midrashic connection.



Pxe:
Here is a clear prophecy, specifically about the messiah:

Jeremiah 33:14 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will fulfil the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’

Did Jerusalem dwell securely after Jesus arrived? No. Prophecy failed.

This i a very typical misunderstanding, There are two different periods of time in which Messiah cones to earth,one is the incarnation which has already happened the other is at the end of times when the world ends as we know it and final judgement happens, That is what this is about, it has not happened yet, the millennial kingdom
The Pixie said…
Joe: The problem with that theory is there are many scholar Jews both in ancient times and now now who disagree. They see the clear not taken out of context, what you are missing is these guys are jews they are not interested in helping Jesus look like Messiah, they are not all Christian Jews,but they say these passages are about Messiah they are the expectations of Jesus' day. You have Rabbks in the Talmud and modern scholars Eisenman and wise.

I accept the Jews do it too. But what you have in the end is a bunch of events that someone has then trawled through the OT looking for any kind of match up, and then declaring that a prophecy. When you do that, of course you get plenty of matches, but you are just cherry-picking what gets labeled a prophecy. No need to invoke the supernatural to explain that.

Joe: The problem there is conventional understanding. Gentiles assume the point is it prophesies Mary's Virgin conception but not necessarily,no net passage says that,That;s why Edersheim says "mystery concerning his birth:not "virgin birth,"

Now that is not say that VB isn't doctrine and it is not say not taught by Nt not to say don;t believe it i do. it is,but it does not say that this passage in Isaiah is about Mary. My position is it is a midrashic connection.


By conventional understanding, you mean what is stated in the Gospel of Matthew, right? The author of Matthew states that Isaiah is talking about a virgin birth, and uses that to support a virgin birth for Jesus.

The reality is the Hebrew version just says young woman and the prophecy is the fall of two nations within a couple of years. All the virgin birth is fabrication.

Joe: This i a very typical misunderstanding, There are two different periods of time in which Messiah cones to earth,one is the incarnation which has already happened the other is at the end of times when the world ends as we know it and final judgement happens, That is what this is about, it has not happened yet, the millennial kingdom

Where in the OT does it say two different periods of time? It does not. This is something that has been invented to rationalise all those failed prophecies. See, it is easy to say prophecies have been fulfilled if you get creative. Make a list of what happened, then find anything vaguely similar in the OT and call it a prophecy. For any actual prophecies, pretend they did happened or say they will at some vague time in the future.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
(1) Linage: Tribe of Judah, decent through David.

This is a real prediction, which Jesus fulfills only if we ignore the Virgin Birth. By the way, these verses make clear the King has to be of the male line - the seed - so not via Mary:


It is not that the kingshikp can;t be recooked trough a woman,Israel had a queen she continued the line of Messiah, but had to come though Solomon and Mary was not fro Solomon Jesus was understood to be Joe's son.

2 Samuel 7:12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the [d]blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before [e]you. Your throne shall be established forever.” ’ ”

Note also the king gets adopted by God. All the kings were sons of God.

I have already proven the messiah was expected to be quasi divine that is apart from being called son of God.

(2) Decent through line of Zerubabel.

The text actually says Zerubabel, not a descendant.

wrong, Z was not the Messiah he also died before he was crowned king, so his line gones on and Mesisah comes from it,

(3) associated with Galilee

This is part of a prophecy about the messiah, but it does not say the messiah will be from Galilee.

doesn;t have to that;s the way they understood it,


(4) Star will Herald Birth

In the prophecy, the star IS the messiah. "A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the people of Sheth." It is not saying a literal scepter will float about the land!

I answered that in the material on the main post,not you are wrong, Bar Kochba;s name a was son of the star look again at what I said on that point

(5) Mystery concerning his seed

This is so tenuous it is laughable. And contradicts (1) too!

It requires study

(6) Son of God

This is because the King of The Jews was traditionally thought to be adopted by God. Christians (including Paul and Mark) thought Jesus was the messiah, and so therefore concluded he was adopted by God.

I answered that above

(7) Unrecognized by his people

Failed. Jesus preached to crowds of 5000, a huge number given the population of Jerusalem was around 100,000, and was greeted by jubilant crowds when he arrived at the city - if the gospels are to be believed.

Unrecognized doesn't mean unheard,they did not proclamation Jesus Messiah, they saw him as a wonder worker and heater they had not said he was messiahs. The crowd the crowd rejected him after his arrest



(8) Rejected by his people--imprisoned

See above. you see above also see"Mark 15:6-15". Now it was the custom at the festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.

9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.

12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.

13 “Crucify him!” they shouted.

(9) He would be the Suffering Servant of Is 53

Joe Hinman said…
.........(a) wounded for the people's transgressions

What is the basis for thinking Jesus was wounded for the people's transgressions? It looks like this was the prophecy leading Christians to conclude what had happened, rather than a fulfillment.

Jesus was crucified that is historical fact it;is most likely why they began seeking to explain his death, this the passage they found to explain it, but it was already an expectation at Qumran,

........(b) wounded (pierced)

The verb gets translated as "pierce" in many Bibles to make it look like an accurate prophecy, but elsewhere it is translated as "profaned". The second half of the verse is "he was crushed for our iniquities". Jesus was never crushed, so is that a failed prophecy? Or cherry-picking?

there are three different passes from three separate book only in ps 22 does it use verb can be understood that way,there is no question in Zachariah or Isiah,Metaforocal crushingm, weighed down by sins

........(c) flogged--stripes form beating

Okay.

........(d) cut off from land of living

The text indicates he was not cut off, but merely CONSIDERED to be:

Isaiah 53:8 By oppression and judgement he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?

show me what the original Hebrew means, NIV:

By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished


Compare to Isaiah 53:10 that states "he shall see his offspring". The messiah was expected to live, to herald the general resurrection and the coming of God's kingdom. If he died, he was a false messiah.

I researched the term for offspring it is the same term used for kings of Israel when call son of God metaphorical sons , believers in Christ are his offspring,

........(e) See the light of life

Not sure what the prophecy is for this one.

first it says he will be cutoff from living then says he will see the ightoflife,resurrection

10/22/2018 02:55:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
What we find is a whole bunch of OT texs twisted to mean something they did not, and a whole bunch of story made up to fulfill the supposed prophecy.

- This is quite true. It's pretty easy to search through mountains of ancient texts, looking for little bits and pieces that may be construed, AFTER THE FACT, to be applicable to just about any particular situation. That's what makes Nostradamus so appealing. What he wrote isn't clear enough to make actual predictions beforehand, but you can take just about any historical event in hindsight and find some passage he wrote that, with a little imagination, you can say "that kind of fits what happened". This is especially true if you take the passage in isolation, and ignore the larger context of the story where it appears, which often contains other details that don't fit the "prophesy" at all.

In the case of Jesus, many of the details provided by the gospels were obviously invented in order to make it seem as if the life of Jesus fulfilled prophesy. One of the the most notable of these is the star of Bethlehem. Every objective examination of real astronomical information tells us that there was no such event that would fit with the time and place, but the best apologists can come up with is a near alignment of planets in the sky - something that would not have been seen as extraordinary at the time. In any case, even if they did look at some particular astronomical event, there's no way it could have been used to provide navigational clues leading to a particular place on earth. The story is simply absurd.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: The problem with that theory is there are many scholar Jews both in ancient times and now now who disagree. They see the clear not taken out of context, what you are missing is these guys are jews they are not interested in helping Jesus look like Messiah, they are not all Christian Jews,but they say these passages are about Messiah they are the expectations of Jesus' day. You have Rabbks in the Talmud and modern scholars Eisenman and wise.

I accept the Jews do it too. But what you have in the end is a bunch of events that someone has then trawled through the OT looking for any kind of match up, and then declaring that a prophecy. When you do that, of course you get plenty of matches, but you are just cherry-picking what gets labeled a prophecy. No need to invoke the supernatural to explain that.

you can see for your self most of then are clear,all you are really saying is if there;s room for doubt I will doubt,that;s as a;ways possible, It doesn't even our to you how many of these passages the RAbbis in Talmud said are of Messiah they fit so clearly, the main one is his name,I;ll get to that latter, those guys had a motive to cover up Jesus; messiah ship and yet they left enough for conversion,guys like Edersehiun and Niebauer

Joe: The problem there is conventional understanding. Gentiles assume the point is it prophesies Mary's Virgin conception but not necessarily,no net passage says that,That;s why Edersheim says "mystery concerning his birth:not "virgin birth,"

Now that is not say that VB isn't doctrine and it is not say not taught by Nt not to say don;t believe it i do. it is,but it does not say that this passage in Isaiah is about Mary. My position is it is a midrashic connection.


Px:
By conventional understanding, you mean what is stated in the Gospel of Matthew, right? The author of Matthew states that Isaiah is talking about a virgin birth, and uses that to support a virgin birth for Jesus.

the Rabbis in the Talmud say that passage is of the Messiah.

The reality is the Hebrew version just says young woman and the prophecy is the fall of two nations within a couple of years. All the virgin birth is fabrication.


wrong. The Hebrew word can mean either but the Greek in LXX Clearasil virgin porthonos,

Joe: This i a very typical misunderstanding, There are two different periods of time in which Messiah cones to earth,one is the incarnation which has already happened the other is at the end of times when the world ends as we know it and final judgement happens, That is what this is about, it has not happened yet, the millennial kingdom

Where in the OT does it say two different periods of time?

It doesn;t have to say it, Firs of all the Rabis in the Talmud said it that their explanation, they set up the time table,Eisenman supported that,He shocked hte Jewish world by showing the Dead SeaScrolls say Messiah will be imperiousness rejected and killed by his own people then will cone back,



It does not. This is something that has been invented to rationalise all those failed prophecies.


no you are gainsaying the evidence because you can't answer it, First of all none of them are failed taht;s the poin that Jesus did then,secondly. Edershiem;s list has 400 passages he shows they fit Jesus in someway


See, it is easy to say prophecies have been fulfilled if you get creative. Make a list of what happened, then find anything vaguely similar in the OT and call it a prophecy. For any actual prophecies, pretend they did happened or say they will at some vague time in the future.

the problem many of these were chosen as expectations of messiah by Qumran (the Dead sea Scroll guys_) before Jesus was born,

the Rabbis of the Talmud changed their expectations to make Jesus not be Messiah the dumped the LXX get away fron those fulfillments they still left enough in that Edersheim converted and he knew that stuff as welll as any Rabbi,
Anonymous said…
Joe: you can see for your self most of then are clear,all you are really saying is if there;s room for doubt I will doubt,that;s as a;ways possible, It doesn't even our to you how many of these passages the RAbbis in Talmud said are of Messiah they fit so clearly, the main one is his name,I;ll get to that latter, those guys had a motive to cover up Jesus; messiah ship and yet they left enough for conversion,guys like Edersehiun and Niebauer

They are certainly NOT clear. The only clear prophecy is the messiah has to be of the line of David.

Joe: the Rabbis in the Talmud say that passage is of the Messiah.

Can you substantiate that claim? The whole virgin birth thing reeks of paganism.

And so what? That does not indicate Iasaiah meant it to refer to the messiah.

Joe: wrong. The Hebrew word can mean either but the Greek in LXX Clearasil virgin porthonos,

Obviously a young woman could be a virgin! And I did specifically say the Hebrew, i.e., what Isaiah actually wrote. What he wrote was that a young woman - probably already pregnant - would give birth.

Joe: It doesn;t have to say it,

Sure. But then it did not happen according to prophecy.

Joe: Firs of all the Rabis in the Talmud said it that their explanation, they set up the time table,Eisenman supported that,He shocked hte Jewish world by showing the Dead SeaScrolls say Messiah will be imperiousness rejected and killed by his own people then will cone back,

You got a link to that?

Joe: no you are gainsaying the evidence because you can't answer it, First of all none of them are failed taht;s the poin that Jesus did then,secondly. Edershiem;s list has 400 passages he shows they fit Jesus in someway

But any clear prophecies that he failed to fulfill you say will be fulfilled later, most of those 400 are either not real prophecies or prophecies where the narrative has been massaged to ensure they work or both. This is a clear case of painting the target where the arrow fell, and then being amazed at the accuracy.

The only real prophecy you have is of the line of David.

Joe: the problem many of these were chosen as expectations of messiah by Qumran (the Dead sea Scroll guys_) before Jesus was born,

So it sounds like the messianic prophecies at Qumran are vital. Can you point me at them?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: you can see for your self most of then are clear,all you are really saying is if there;s room for doubt I will doubt,that;s as a;ways possible, It doesn't even our to you how many of these passages the RAbbis in Talmud said are of Messiah they fit so clearly, the main one is his name,I;ll get to that latter, those guys had a motive to cover up Jesus; messiah ship and yet they left enough for conversion,guys like Edersehiem and Niebauer

Px:They are certainly NOT clear. The only clear prophecy is the messiah has to be of the line of David.

they are not clear to you because you have not studied the old testament,you don't have a back ground.



Joe: the Rabbis in the Talmud say that passage is of the Messiah.

Can you substantiate that claim? The whole virgin birth thing reeks of paganism.


yes that's what I've told you already, four groups of scholars who interpret this stuff in show how it fits the early Christian view,or first century Jewish expectations, the first is the Rabbis in the Talmud,they had no motive to see Jesus as Messiah in fact quite the opposite. The other three groups interrupter the Talmudic Rabbis they all agree, Edersheim, who was set to become Rabbi then converted due to what he found in the Talmud that fit Jesus. Then Driver and Nebauer who were also Jewish Rabbinical converts then Eisenman and Wise contemporary Jewish scholars who are not concerned with Jesus being Messiah at all, they are Jews,


A
Joe Hinman said…
nd so what? That does not indicate Iasaiah meant it to refer to the messiah.

the Rabbis of Jesus day understood it that way, that's all that matters. Because we can't read Isaiah's mind all we can do is ask what did the culture of Jesus' expect of Messiah and this is it.



Joe: wrong. The Hebrew word can mean either but the Greek in LXX Clearasil virgin porthonos,

Obviously a young woman could be a virgin! And I did specifically say the Hebrew, i.e., what Isaiah actually wrote. What he wrote was that a young woman - probably already pregnant - would give birth.

the Hebrew word can be rendered either way, but the Rabbis of just before Jesus; time understood it this way because they translate it into Greek with a word that has to virgin no question.Remember the early church used the LXX as their bible.btw I also showed the guys at Qumran understood this passage as virgin and as a sign of Messiah coming they were Hebrew readers very little Greek and they were before Jesus,

Joe: It doesn;t have to say it,

Sure. But then it did not happen according to prophecy.

we can't impose our understanding of prophesy on the, we have to hear what they thought it meant that's what matters.

Joe: Firs of all the Rabis in the Talmud said it that their explanation, they set up the time table,Eisenman supported that,He shocked hte Jewish world by showing the Dead SeaScrolls say Messiah will be imperiousness rejected and killed by his own people then will cone back,

You got a link to that?

no I got it out of books, look at my sources

Joe: no you are gainsaying the evidence because you can't answer it, First of all none of them are failed taht;s the poin that Jesus did then,secondly. Edershiem;s list has 400 passages he shows they fit Jesus in someway

But any clear prophecies that he failed to fulfill you say will be fulfilled later, most of those 400 are either not real prophecies or prophecies where the narrative has been massaged to ensure they work or both. This is a clear case of painting the target where the arrow fell, and then being amazed at the accuracy.

saying they are not real prophecies is total bull shit. Have you ever seen an English film like the kind they used to make at Pine Tree studios and in the 1940s starring Richard Green?Like a different world but you probably know people who saw those films when they came out, That's like saying Shakespeare couldn't have been talking about anything important you can barely understand what he says. They call As You Like It a comedy but it's not funny,

The only real prophecy you have is of the line of David.

read thee page again this time read the boring bits,

Joe: the problem many of these were chosen as expectations of messiah by Qumran (the Dead sea Scroll guys_) before Jesus was born,

So it sounds like the messianic prophecies at Qumran are vital. Can you point me at them?

Pix

yes but it will take some time. I would like to make it into another post, would Monday be ok?
Joe Hinman said…
I notice Skepie the science guy is not around,He's the one I did this for, so when It comes to put up or shut up he runs away. he'll come back latter saying You didn't prove noth'n about that,but he will not have read it.


The important thing about these prophesies is not the individual fulfillment things like born of a virgin and so on but the major shape of the narrative that emerges. First we see emerging two different time periods in which the Messiah opp orates.This in the Talmud talmudic Rabbais say messiah will go away and then come back at the end with an army of angels and beat up the bad guys. We see that depicted in they book of Revelation.

Modern Jews only focus on the end of the world stuff they ignor the stuff Jesus already did when he came and was rejected and died and went away. The early church had to explain how it was that Jesus was killed, That the was reputed to have raised again with eye witnesses didn't change they fact that this seemed a breach of what messiah was supposed to do, So they began looking, the book of Acts refers to their search of scripture, and they used the LXX.

There is an argent here will call the duel time argument remember it. The Duel time argument is actually inherent in the counter apologist arguments agaisnt Jesus messiahship.

Joe Hinman said…
But any clear prophecies that he failed to fulfill you say will be fulfilled later, most of those 400 are either not real prophecies or prophecies where the narrative has been massaged to ensure they work or both. This is a clear case of painting the target where the arrow fell, and then being amazed at the accuracy.

easy to tell which periods which if you understand there are two periods. The end of the world stuff usually involves the end of the world,great battles and peace on earth,just look at the context,
The Pixie said…
Joe: they are not clear to you because you have not studied the old testament,you don't have a back ground.

You mean Christian-tinted glasses.

Talk me through the "Star will Herald Birth". Do please explain why it is not about David. Also explain what the sceptre is. If it was a literal star, it must be a literal sceptre, right? Oh, and what actually was the star over Bethlehem? I am thinking a helicopter or that sort of height, if the wise men followed it to a specific village. Something in geosynchronous orbit would be too far away to use to navigate accurately.

I appreciate Numbers 24:17 was considered a messianic prophesy, but I think it is uniquely Christian to consider it to refer to an actual star.

Joe: yes that's what I've told you already, four groups of scholars who interpret this stuff in show how it fits the early Christian view,or first century Jewish expectations, the first is the Rabbis in the Talmud,they had no motive to see Jesus as Messiah in fact quite the opposite. The other three groups interrupter the Talmudic Rabbis they all agree, Edersheim, who was set to become Rabbi then converted due to what he found in the Talmud that fit Jesus. Then Driver and Nebauer who were also Jewish Rabbinical converts then Eisenman and Wise contemporary Jewish scholars who are not concerned with Jesus being Messiah at all, they are Jews,

You need to find a guy from the nineteenth century in Edersheim for a potential Rabbi who converted. I would suggest Biblical scholarship has come a long way since then, and a quick scan of his works suggests he uncritically accepted the gospels as true.

Samuel Rolles Driver died in 1914 (and was not Jewish), Adolf Nebauer in 1907. Damning article on their works here.

I think Robert Eisenman considers the virgin birth to have been made up some years after the crucifixion (and has an unorthodox view of early Christianity - though an appealing one). I appreciate it could still be part of the messianic expectation, but I found nothing to suggest Eisenman holds that view.

Can you clarify who Wise is?
The Pixie said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Pixie said…
Joe: the Rabbis of Jesus day understood it that way, that's all that matters. Because we can't read Isaiah's mind all we can do is ask what did the culture of Jesus' expect of Messiah and this is it.

We do not have to read his mind, we can read the text.

The prophecy was made to reassure the king that the two nations threatening him would not attack. The birth of the child merely gives a time-frame. This young woman, who is pregnant right now, will have son, and before the boy can tell right from wrong, those two nations will fall.

There is nothing messianic about it at all.

Joe: the Hebrew word can be rendered either way, but the Rabbis of just before Jesus; time understood it this way because they translate it into Greek with a word that has to virgin no question.Remember the early church used the LXX as their bible.btw I also showed the guys at Qumran understood this passage as virgin and as a sign of Messiah coming they were Hebrew readers very little Greek and they were before Jesus,

If the woman was not already pregnant, then the prophecy offers no reassurance to the king. Consider:

Isaiah: Do not worry about those two nations that stand ready to invade, for those nations will fall.

King: But when will they stop threatening us? How soon?

My view:

Isaiah: A woman with child will have a son. The nations will fall before he can tell right from wrong.

King: Just a few years. I suppose we can stand for a few years, knowing we will have peace soon.

Your view:

Isaiah: A virgin will conceive and have a son. The nations will fall before he can tell right from wrong.

King: And when will that be?

Isaiah: I do not know, perhaps seven centuries...

King: So after we are all but dust? In what manner is that of any help to anyone?

By the way, history is on my side here. Those two nations fell within a few years.
The Pixie said…
Joe: This in the Talmud talmudic Rabbais say messiah will go away and then come back at the end with an army of angels and beat up the bad guys. We see that depicted in they book of Revelation.

I have not come across anything to suggest Talmudic Rabbis believe the messiah will arrive, and then come back in many generations to beat up the bad guys.

In fact, everything I see from Jesus time and before indicates they were expecting/hoping for a messiah who would beat up the bad guys within a generation. Both Paul and Jesus expected the end times within the lifetime of those they spoke to.

easy to tell which periods which if you understand there are two periods. The end of the world stuff usually involves the end of the world,great battles and peace on earth,just look at the context,

Great. Find some examples that make clear the end of the world stuff was expected generations after the messiah arrived.
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: they are not clear to you because you have not studied the old testament,you don't have a back ground.

You mean Christian-tinted glasses.

No I mean for real. Even to be a skeptic if you don't know the culture your skepticism is just culture shock rather than real criticism

Talk me through the "Star will Herald Birth". Do please explain why it is not about David. Also explain what the sceptre is. If it was a literal star, it must be a literal sceptre, right? Oh, and what actually was the star over Bethlehem? I am thinking a helicopter or that sort of height, if the wise men followed it to a specific village. Something in geosynchronous orbit would be too far away to use to navigate accurately.

you think they had helicopter in the first century? you are tring to treat a metahorina literal way, I told you BarKoaba seen as sonofthestar, he claimedtober messiah,Thevolksat Qumran madea lotoutofthe Starof nubers too, Eisenman says: "This was the prophecy that was of such importance to all resistance groups in this period, including those responsible for the documents at Qumran and the revolutionaries who triggered the war against Rome, not to mention the early Christians"

I appreciate Numbers 24:17 was considered a messianic prophesy, but I think it is uniquely Christian to consider it to refer to an actual star.

si? doesn't mean it's wrong. Keppler proved there was an actual "star" (a bright light) in the time of Christ, even if the Hebrew prophets did not understand. It's nuts to refuse to accept the obvious filament, a star is seen but no hey it's it doesn't say it's going to be literal so let's ignore the actual star that shows up.

Joe: yes that's what I've told you already, four groups of scholars who interpret this stuff in show how it fits the early Christian view,or first century Jewish expectations, the first is the Rabbis in the Talmud,they had no motive to see Jesus as Messiah in fact quite the opposite. The other three groups interrupter the Talmudic Rabbis they all agree, Edersheim, who was set to become Rabbi then converted due to what he found in the Talmud that fit Jesus. Then Driver and Nebauer who were also Jewish Rabbinical converts then Eisenman and Wise contemporary Jewish scholars who are not concerned with Jesus being Messiah at all, they are Jews,

You need to find a guy from the nineteenth century in Edersheim for a potential Rabbi who converted. I would suggest Biblical scholarship has come a long way since then, and a quick scan of his works suggests he uncritically accepted the gospels as true.

more obfuscation, I didn't go out looking for a convert in history I happen to discover this guy, if he knew Jesus was Messiah why not convert? that's is such phrase you will take excuse to ignore the truth!, Kings X it;

btw I also knew Edersheim's great Nephew so I know his story and it's real. He was a total\hero, he ran a aid to the homeless lived in poverty and did his research late at night because he spent the day helping people.





Joe Hinman said…
Samuel Rolles Driver died in 1914 (and was not Jewish), Adolf Nebauer in 1907. Damning article on their works here.

Nebauer like Esienman was the major guy Driver was more like the side kick,His being a Christian doesn't change his scholarship.

I think Robert Eisenman considers the virgin birth to have been made up some years after the crucifixion (and has an unorthodox view of early Christianity - though an appealing one). I appreciate it could still be part of the messianic expectation, but I found nothing to suggest Eisenman holds that view.

I told you he is not a Christian. you are trying to have it both ways. If he is conventional he's biased you can't trust him but if he has radical ideas the's nuts you can't trust him so which is it? he;s your guy he is a radical with wild ideas he;s not a christian but you are treating him like he is a Christian,or your trying to dismiss him because he's not one but you would if he was, bottom line you don't like what he says so you find excuses to ignore the truth,

Can you clarify who Wise is?

Dr. Michael Wise, an assistant professor of Near Eastern languages at the University of Chicago. I see he's a Christian but was he always? I can;t find evidence on that. Eisenman is really the main guy.

Robert Eisenman is from New Jersey. He was born to assimilated Jewish parents[1] His brother is deconstructionist architect Peter Eisenman — best known for his design of the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, the Visitor’s Center at Santiago de Compostela in Spain, and the Arizona Cardinal Football Stadium...From about 1986 onwards, Eisenman became the leading figure in the struggle to release and free the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Scrolls had been discovered from 1948 to 1956 in several waves, but after a suggestive article by literary critic Edmund Wilson in The New Yorker magazine,[18] editing more or less ground to a halt from about 1959 onwards.

don't put anything else up until I get all this answered this will take all day,

Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: the Rabbis of Jesus day understood it that way, that's all that matters. Because we can't read Isaiah's mind all we can do is ask what did the culture of Jesus' expect of Messiah and this is it.

Px:We do not have to read his mind, we can read the text.

You have to know how to read, have to understand the langauge

Px:The prophecy was made to reassure the king that the two nations threatening him would not attack. The birth of the child merely gives a time-frame. This young woman, who is pregnant right now, will have son, and before the boy can tell right from wrong, those two nations will fall.There is nothing messianic about it at all.



you don;t know how to read it. It has double meaning, this is not unknown in Hebrew lit, As I said this is the way the Qumran guys saw it, the way Barkoba saw it. the way the Talmudists saw it



Joe: the Hebrew word can be rendered either way, but the Rabbis of just before Jesus; time understood it this way because they translate it into Greek with a word that has to virgin no question.Remember the early church used the LXX as their bible.btw I also showed the guys at Qumran understood this passage as virgin and as a sign of Messiah coming they were Hebrew readers very little Greek and they were before Jesus,

Px:If the woman was not already pregnant, then the prophecy offers no reassurance to the king. Consider:

Isaiah: Do not worry about those two nations that stand ready to invade, for those nations will fall.

King: But when will they stop threatening us? How soon?

My view:

Isaiah: A woman with child will have a son. The nations will fall before he can tell right from wrong.

King: Just a few years. I suppose we can stand for a few years, knowing we will have peace soon.

Your view:

Isaiah: A virgin will conceive and have a son. The nations will fall before he can tell right from wrong.

King: And when will that be?

Isaiah: I do not know, perhaps seven centuries...

King: So after we are all but dust? In what manner is that of any help to anyone?

By the way, history is on my side here. Those two nations fell within a few years.

that;snot my view that is based upon ignoring what I said:

(1) It's not important that individual fiddly bits get processed it is not important that Mary's V birth fufills this passage what is important is the dual time argument, which you are totally ignoring,

(2) Double fulfillment would mean what you said is true that's the the proximate meaning then there;'s the distal meaning which is Matthew looks back at that from his time point and says hey this is like back then, A child produced by a virgin was the sign then so it is that such a child is also the sign now,
Joe Hinman said…
he Pixie said...
Joe: This in the Talmud talmudic Rabbais say messiah will go away and then come back at the end with an army of angels and beat up the bad guys. We see that depicted in they book of Revelation.

Px:I have not come across anything to suggest Talmudic Rabbis believe the messiah will arrive, and then come back in many generations to beat up the bad guys.

You red Hebrew? how much of the Talmud have you read? I told you modern Jews do not say this stuff.the asperities say it but Talmud Jews don;t, which is odd because its in the Talmud, Baht must be why finding it was so conversion producing for Edersheim, I listed the documents E. draws upon go back and look at the original post.


PxIn fact, everything I see from Jesus time and before indicates they were expecting/hoping for a messiah who would beat up the bad guys within a generation. Both Paul and Jesus expected the end times within the lifetime of those they spoke to.

what have you read?

Joe:easy to tell which periods which if you understand there are two periods. The end of the world stuff usually involves the end of the world,great battles and peace on earth,just look at the context,

PxGreat. Find some examples that make clear the end of the world stuff was expected generations after the messiah arrived.

Read Edershiem's book



10/23/2018 03:35:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
Px as to your last missive, here iswhati saidunder 8 rejected andimpresionwed;

"Jewish writings speak frequently of the so called sorrows of the Messiah (Chebhley shel Mashiech ) [Sabb.118]. These were partly those of the Messiah and partly those coming on Israel and the word previous to coming of the Messiah...period of internal corruption..." Edersheim 433. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98bThe Rabbis said: His name is "the leper scholar," as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].

Ruth Rabbah 5:6The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the Messiah. Come hither: approach to royal state. And eat of the BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions.

(Isa. LIII, 5).-- Soncino Midrash Rabbah (vol. 8, p. 64).
The Karaite Yefeth ben Ali (10th c.)
As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne: for the prophet begins by speaking of his being seated in a position of great honour, and then goes back to relate all that will happen to him during the captivity. He thus gives us to understand two things: In the first instance, that the Messiah will only reach his highest degree of honour after long and severe trials; and secondly, that these trials will be sent upon him as a kind of sign, so that, if he finds himself under the yoke of misfortunes whilst remaining pure in his actions, he may know that he is the desired one....

In other words he will be rejected then come back and succeed--last line not sure if it should say he or we may know
Joe Hinman said…
PX do you understand that I am a scholar, I was on the door step of getting my Phd in history of ideas,I'm not just regurgitating William Lane Craig. Some of these ideas are my own some are from other scholars. I am not a OT language scholar so have no expertise in that. So I am the one who pt it all together to make the time line of the dual history. I did not male it up out of whole cloth,many scholars see it that way but I'm drawing on many sources to produce my own understanding of it,

You ought to read this page:

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/01/preview-re-will-atheism-replace.html


Eaisenman and Wise:"Though they differ in many detalis, this conclusion has much in common with that of John Allegro who demonstrated many parallels between the Qumran community and the early Chruch, espeically in their view of the Messiah (Dead Sea Scrolls, Pelican, 1956). There is, therefore, no basis for the charge that the early chruch made up any of its Messianich claims."
im-skeptical said…
I'm sad to see that Joe has ignored my comment.

But I'll continue anyway. I said that many of these prophetic passages are isolated,cherry-picked statements, taken out of the larger context. I'll give you an example. You make a big deal about Isaiah 53. I'll grant you that this is one that can be fitted to the Jesus narrative without as much overt stretching as some of the others require. But it's still pretty clear that this does not refer to Jesus. I ask you to read what comes before that, in Isaiah 52, where it gives the reason for his rejection. Is says that the people would find his physical appearance appalling, because he is grossly disfigured and ugly. That's not about Jesus. If Jesus was rejected by the Jewish community, it had nothing to do with his appearance. It's things like this that you have to take into consideration if you want to claim that a prophesy applies to some particular person or event. It's not good enough to just look at the passages that seem to fit. You have to look at the whole thing, and take note of the parts that don't fit.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
I'm sad to see that Joe has ignored my comment.

didn;t see ittoo may ny Pix

But I'll continue anyway.

brave lad

I said that many of these prophetic passages are isolated,cherry-picked statements, taken out of the larger context. I'll give you an example. You make a big deal about Isaiah 53. I'll grant you that this is one that can be fitted to the Jesus narrative without as much overt stretching as some of the others require. But it's still pretty clear that this does not refer to Jesus. I ask you to read what comes before that, in Isaiah 52, where it gives the reason for his rejection. Is says that the people would find his physical appearance appalling, because he is grossly disfigured and ugly. That's not about Jesus. If Jesus was rejected by the Jewish community, it had nothing to do with his appearance. It's things like this that you have to take into consideration if you want to claim that a prophesy applies to some particular person or event. It's not good enough to just look at the passages that seem to fit. You have to look at the whole thing, and take note of the parts that don't fit.

You have a profound talent for missing the point. What is going on in 52 sets up 53 it; complex and important. The reason heis ugly is because he takes the sins of the people on himself, follow my close reading this is two pages read the whole thing my analysis capers 52-53

http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Servant1.html

Joe Hinman said…
from above

What we find is a whole bunch of OT texs twisted to mean something they did not, and a whole bunch of story made up to fulfill the supposed prophecy.

- This is quite true. It's pretty easy to search through mountains of ancient texts, looking for little bits and pieces that may be construed, AFTER THE FACT, to be applicable to just about any particular situation. That's what makes Nostradamus so appealing. What he wrote isn't clear enough to make actual predictions beforehand, but you can take just about any historical event in hindsight and find some passage he wrote that, with a little imagination, you can say "that kind of fits what happened". This is especially true if you take the passage in isolation, and ignore the larger context of the story where it appears, which often contains other details that don't fit the "prophesy" at all.

these are a hell of a lot clearer than Nostradous. what you are not getting you haven't read what I wrote.the same ideas were ceased upon by guys at Qumran before Jesus came and by Talmudists after Jesus who wanted to distance themselves from him,yet both groups saw certain things the same way because were cultural currents.

In the case of Jesus, many of the details provided by the gospels were obviously invented in order to make it seem as if the life of Jesus fulfilled prophesy. One of the the most notable of these is the star of Bethlehem.

Missing the point again, you said there was no idea of Messiah being rejected by his people and killed then coming back latter at the end, you said the only Jewish ideas were end times messiah takes over the world I have proven that is totally wrong, that is all I'm trying to prove. you think they write Jesus life to fit stuff fine i don;t care,the point is what were they trying to fit if there were no such expectations?

btw Keppler proved there was a penance the ancients could have called a star,



Every objective examination of real astronomical information tells us that there was no such event that would fit with the time and place, but the best apologists can come up with is a near alignment of planets in the sky

wrong Keppler proved otherwise

"Kepler and the Star of Bethlehem. On the evening of the 17th of October 1604, as the clouds finally lifted over the city of Prague to reveal a clear night sky, the German astronomer Johannes Kepler observed a new star in the feet of the Constellation of Serpens.Dec 24, 2011" Keppler and Star of B.

im-skeptical said…
The reason heis ugly is because he takes the sins of the people on himself, follow my close reading this is two pages read the whole thing my analysis capers 52-53
- Talk about post-hoc rationalization. Tell me, do YOU think Jesus is ugly? I doubt it. Besides that, 1) That's not what Isaiah actually says. And 2) The rejection was while he was still alive, but he didn't take on the sins of mankind until the crucifixion. Face it, Joe - Isaiah doesn't fit the Christian narrative.
im-skeptical said…
these are a hell of a lot clearer than Nostradous. what you are not getting you haven't read what I wrote.the same ideas were ceased upon by guys at Qumran before Jesus came and by Talmudists after Jesus who wanted to distance themselves from him,yet both groups saw certain things the same way because were cultural currents
- The Jews didn't accept that Jesus was the messiah, and they still don't. Only Christians do. At first it was only a tiny little band of followers. Then, they turned their cult leader into a God, and the rest is history (heavily edited by the church).

you think they write Jesus life to fit stuff fine i don;t care,the point is what were they trying to fit if there were no such expectations?
- Joe, most historians agree that the gospel stories do not reflect historical reality. It is only die-hard Christian religionists who think all that stuff is true. The Jews had expectations of a messiah, but they are not that same as the Christian narrative.


- Kepler didn't prove anything about the star of Bethlehem. That story is nothing more than speculation. The reality is that even after a nova fades from view by the naked eye (if there was one that was visible at the time), it doean't just vanish. It would still be detectable today. But let's give your wild speculation the benefit of the doubt, and assume that there was one. How could anyone use that to navigate to the town of Bethlehem? That's just stupid. Stars don't hover over cities.
Joe Hinman said…
Talk about post-hoc rationalization. Tell me, do YOU think Jesus is ugly? I doubt it. Besides that, 1) That's not what Isaiah actually says. And 2) The rejection was while he was still alive, but he didn't take on the sins of mankind until the crucifixion. Face it, Joe - Isaiah doesn't fit the Christian narrative.

You are trying to treat a metaphor like a literal condition, Obviously it doesn;t mean he systemically really had actual sins on him,the reference to not being attractive( doesn;t say he was ugly) refer to his humanity, he;s human he;sin contrast to the story o pre mundane Messiah who was too beautiful for satan to behold,





these are a hell of a lot clearer than Nostradous. what you are not getting you haven't read what I wrote.the same ideas were ceased upon by guys at Qumran before Jesus came and by Talmudists after Jesus who wanted to distance themselves from him,yet both groups saw certain things the same way because were cultural currents

- The Jews didn't accept that Jesus was the messiah, and they still don't. Only Christians do. At first it was only a tiny little band of followers. Then, they turned their cult leader into a God, and the rest is history (heavily edited by the church).

that fits the prophesy rejected by his people

you think they write Jesus life to fit stuff fine i don;t care,the point is what were they trying to fit if there were no such expectations?

- Joe, most historians agree that the gospel stories do not reflect historical reality. It is only die-hard Christian religionists who think all that stuff is true. The Jews had expectations of a messiah, but they are not that same as the Christian narrative.

That;s bullshit, you Know nothing about historian, that;s an irrelevant commitment as also garbage has nothing to do with Jesus fitting first century expectations for messiah. you have dropped my argument I just argued there must be expectations for him to fit you dropped it,so you lose

- Kepler didn't prove anything about the star of Bethlehem. That story is nothing more than speculation.


The reality is that even after a nova fades from view by the naked eye (if there was one that was visible at the time), it doean't just vanish. It would still be detectable today. But let's give your wild speculation the benefit of the doubt, and assume that there was one. How could anyone use that to navigate to the town of Bethlehem? That's just stupid. Stars don't hover over cities.


"...The supernova (now known as SN 1604)...Kepler was convinced that the new star was the same as the one that the Three Kings followed on their way to Bethlehem. With somewhat tortured logic, he reasoned that the new star was the equivalent of one that appeared in the same constellation around the time of the birth of Christ. He identified the supernova with a star that appeared in a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn during the years 7-5 B.C. Since the supernova of 1604 appeared in the same conjunction, he reasoned, it had to be the same as the Star of Bethlehem that showed the Magi the way to Jesus."


You didn;t even bother to read it did you? you can chart back in time and predict planetary continuations, arrogance and ignorance in the same fevered little brain




10/23/2018 10:14:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
You are trying to treat a metaphor like a literal condition
- You still didn't answer my two objections.

that fits the prophesy rejected by his people
- Jews disagree with you. Jesus wasn't the guy, according to their own understanding of prophesy.

That;s bullshit, you Know nothing about historian, that;s an irrelevant commitment as also garbage has nothing to do with Jesus fitting first century expectations for messiah.
- No serious historian believes the details of the life of Jesus found in the gospel stories are true. And it's very relevant, because all those prophesy fulfillment stories were just made up by the gospel authors.

Kepler was convinced that the new star was the same as the one that the Three Kings followed on their way to Bethlehem.
- So what? It's still speculation on his part. He had no knowledge or proof of any such thing. And you still didn't explain how they could follow a star to Bethlehem. In those days, people thought stars were part of the firmament, much closer to earth. But now we know better. Now we realize that such a story has to be made-up bunkum.
Joe Hinman said…
You are trying to treat a metaphor like a literal condition
- You still didn't answer my two objections.

BS I;ve disproved every thing you said as usual, you have nothing to stand on,

that fits the prophesy rejected by his people

- Jews disagree with you. Jesus wasn't the guy, according to their own understanding of prophesy.

that is meaningless drivel! You have proven you know so little about Christian ideas you actually think the cross was an honor for Jesus,you are totally oblivious to the whole suffering servant thing which is like half the devotionalis; the whole 'let this cup pass from me' thing over your head. Such an honor he asked God to take it away from him. The whole passion concept is based upon it,that's why it;s called passion,


That;s bullshit, you Know nothing about historian, that;s an irrelevant commitment as also garbage has nothing to do with Jesus fitting first century expectations for messiah.

- No serious historian believes the details of the life of Jesus found in the gospel stories are true. And it's very relevant, because all those prophesy fulfillment stories were just made up by the gospel authors.

William S. Babcock, Kenneth Scott Latterate, Sir William Ramsey, Lightfoot, Wescot,Hort

Kepler was convinced that the new star was the same as the one that the Three Kings followed on their way to Bethlehem.


- So what?

so you are wrong again


It's still speculation on his part. He had no knowledge or proof of any such thing. And you still didn't explain how they could follow a star to Bethlehem. In those days, people thought stars were part of the firmament, much closer to earth. But now we know better. Now we realize that such a story has to be made-up bunkum.


how can you pretend to know anything about science you are the genius who said a nova would be visible for centuries here is the nova,
The Pixie said…
Joe: you think they had helicopter in the first century? you are tring to treat a metahorina literal way, I told you BarKoaba seen as sonofthestar, he claimedtober messiah,Thevolksat Qumran madea lotoutofthe Starof nubers too, Eisenman says: "This was the prophecy that was of such importance to all resistance groups in this period, including those responsible for the documents at Qumran and the revolutionaries who triggered the war against Rome, not to mention the early Christians"

Just to be clear I do not think there was either a helicopter or a star over Bethlehem. The pint about the helicopter is you need something that hovers at a relatively low altitude to fit the Biblical description.

It is you (and Christianity) that is being literal here. It is you who is claiming the star in the verse is actually a star ("Star will Herald Birth"). Everyone else thinks it refers to a person. Originally David, but later believed to be the messiah.

Joe: si? doesn't mean it's wrong. Keppler proved there was an actual "star" (a bright light) in the time of Christ, even if the Hebrew prophets did not understand. It's nuts to refuse to accept the obvious filament, a star is seen but no hey it's it doesn't say it's going to be literal so let's ignore the actual star that shows up.

The idea that there was an actual light out is space (star, planet, nova, whatever) is nonsense. Planet Earth is turning, so anything in space, if not in geostationary orbit, will be over different points on the planet, just as the sun does from sunrise to sunset.

The idea that a star could be set in place is because back then they believed in a flat earth, with the sun, moon and stars traveling across the firmament. A stationary star, in a set position on the firmament, is perfectly reasonable in that cosmology. Furthermore, it would not be too high, so it is conceivable the wise men could follow it to a specific location.

There was no star, which is why three gospels do not mention it. Just as with the Virgin Birth, the author of Matthew has taken a prophecy from the OT, mangled it into something quite different, and then made stuff up to make the narrative fit.
The Pixie said…
Joe: you don;t know how to read it. It has double meaning, this is not unknown in Hebrew lit, As I said this is the way the Qumran guys saw it, the way Barkoba saw it. the way the Talmudists saw it

Christians have subsequently decided it has a double meaning. That does not mean it originally did.

I appreciate Jews did (and do) just the same, and that there is a long history of extracting double meanings from scripture. Nevertheless, this is no different from the people that get supposed prophecies from adding Biblical numbers together, and "remarkably" it turns out the apocalypse is next year, whatever year it is that they do it.

Joe: that;snot my view that is based upon ignoring what I said:

(1) It's not important that individual fiddly bits get processed it is not important that Mary's V birth fufills this passage what is important is the dual time argument, which you are totally ignoring,


Your position is that Isaiah 7:14 is about a virgin giving birth, right? So the poor king was given an assurance the two nations would fall a few years after a virgin gave birth, right? And that happened seven centuries later. Or do you think there was another virgin birth before then?

Joe: (2) Double fulfillment would mean what you said is true that's the the proximate meaning then there;'s the distal meaning which is Matthew looks back at that from his time point and says hey this is like back then, A child produced by a virgin was the sign then so it is that such a child is also the sign now,

Okay, so your position is that a virgin gave birth shortly after Isaiah made the prophecy, before Syria and Israel fell, seven centuries before Mary gave birth to Jesus, right?

I have to say, that is very much a minority position, and I note that the account in Isaiah makes very little of the miracle of the first Virgin Birth.
Joe Hinman said…


Joe: you think they had helicopter in the first century? you are trying to treat a metaphor in a literal way, I told you BarKoaba seen as son of the star, he claimed to be r messiah,Thevolksat Qumran made a lotout of the Star of numbers too, Eisenman says: "This was the prophecy that was of such importance to all resistance groups in this period, including those responsible for the documents at Qumran and the revolutionaries who triggered the war against Rome, not to mention the early Christians"

PX:
Just to be clear I do not think there was either a helicopter or a star over Bethlehem. The pint about the helicopter is you need something that hovers at a relatively low altitude to fit the Biblical description.

I figured. but the star is an astronomical fact

It is you (and Christianity) that is being literal here. It is you who is claiming the star in the verse is actually a star ("Star will Herald Birth"). Everyone else thinks it refers to a person. Originally David, but later believed to be the messiah.

but if there realty was a brightness it's only logical that people in that day would draw that association. are you thinking people in that culture in that ancient world understood star like movie star? you have not explained why Bar Kaba did not call himself the star but the son of the star?

Joe: si? doesn't mean it's wrong. Keppler proved there was an actual "star" (a bright light) in the time of Christ, even if the Hebrew prophets did not understand. It's nuts to refuse to accept the obvious filament, a star is seen but no hey it's it doesn't say it's going to be literal so let's ignore the actual star that shows up.

The idea that there was an actual light out is space (star, planet, nova, whatever) is nonsense. Planet Earth is turning, so anything in space, if not in geostationary orbit, will be over different points on the planet, just as the sun does from sunrise to sunset.

no I don't think it was actually over Bethlehem like helicopter but it would be permanent in that sky, like the songstress cross can't be seen from north of the equator

The idea that a star could be set in place is because back then they believed in a flat earth, with the sun, moon and stars traveling across the firmament. A stationary star, in a set position on the firmament, is perfectly reasonable in that cosmology. Furthermore, it would not be too high, so it is conceivable the wise men could follow it to a specific location.

we have to think terms of luminosity rather than location. Ok the idea of the wise men following the star that is charming folklore. The important point is the early Christians were drawing the connection between Jesus and Messianic expectations

There was no star, which is why three gospels do not mention it. Just as with the Virgin Birth, the author of Matthew has taken a prophecy from the OT, mangled it into something quite different, and then made stuff up to make the narrative fit.

what did I just say? you are right the actual visible star in the heavens is not the important thing although Keppler really did think he proved there was one.There may have been but even if not in a yawing by telling the story of the star they are still saying something abut who Jesus was that tells us something about the expectations we don';t normally associate, they are telling us there are messianic expectations we don;t know about

10/24/2018 01:26:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…

Joe: you don;t know how to read it. It has double meaning, this is not unknown in Hebrew lit, As I said this is the way the Qumran guys saw it, the way Barkoba saw it. the way the Talmudists saw it

Px:Christians have subsequently decided it has a double meaning. That does not mean it originally did.

I showed that the guys at Qumran saw it the same way that was not Christian,I showed Bar Kaba saw it that way that was not Christian the guy who documented that is an atheist, you have dropped this argument,

you are too intelligent to play that stupid atheist's ploy. If all Christians are idiots and none are valid shoals and any argument I make can be ignored because that;s a Christian idea the same can be said of all atheist arguments so what do you want to talk about now?


Px:I appreciate Jews did (and do) just the same, and that there is a long history of extracting double meanings from scripture. Nevertheless, this is no different from the people that get supposed prophecies from adding Biblical numbers together, and "remarkably" it turns out the apocalypse is next year, whatever year it is that they do it.

the Dead sea scroll scholar I quoted (John Allegro) was an atheist so it's not a Christian idea at all, it rooted in Qumran and bar Kaba neither of them are Christian then inherited by modern atheist Sharon get it thorough your head,

BS it is totally different use your brain. my explanation makes perfect sense. all it requires is the idea that the Virgin birth means something to first century Jews that you don't get,Matt is just drawing an analogy between the role of the child in Isaiah and the role of a child in story of Jesus, you did not answer that so you lose that point

Joe: that;snot my view that is based upon ignoring what I said:

(1) It's not important that individual fiddly bits get processed it is not important that Mary's V birth fufills this passage what is important is the dual time argument, which you are totally ignoring,

Px:Your position is that Isaiah 7:14 is about a virgin giving birth, right? So the poor king was given an assurance the two nations would fall a few years after a virgin gave birth, right? And that happened seven centuries later. Or do you think there was another virgin birth before then?

The Jews at Qumran and those who translated the LXX understood it as a virgin birth,

Joe: (2) Double fulfillment would mean what you said is true that's the the proximate meaning then there;'s the distal meaning which is Matthew looks back at that from his time point and says hey this is like back then, A child produced by a virgin was the sign then so it is that such a child is also the sign now,

Okay, so your position is that a virgin gave birth shortly after Isaiah made the prophecy, before Syria and Israel fell, seven centuries before Mary gave birth to Jesus, right?

or at least Jews in Jesus day thought she did

I have to say, that is very much a minority position, and I note that the account in Isaiah makes very little of the miracle of the first Virgin Birth.

I said it;s a midrash go look it up what that means. i Matt was saying just as a child was the sign then a child is the sign now,
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
BS I;ve disproved every thing you said as usual, you have nothing to stand on
- You STILL didn't answer the two objections I raised. 1) That's not what Isaiah actually says. And 2) The rejection was while he was still alive, but he didn't take on the sins of mankind until the crucifixion.

You have proven you know so little about Christian ideas
- This question was about JEWISH theology. It was THEIR prophesy, not a Christian one. And THEY disagree with you. You need to take off the blinders, Joe.

you actually think the cross was an honor for Jesus
- Tell me that Christians don't revere the cross. Tell me that they don't go around wearing it as jewelry, crowning their temples with it, and sticking it in my face every damn place I look. And please tell me how it is not the very thing that turned Jesus into Christians' savior. As I said, it's an honor for YOU.

William S. Babcock, Kenneth Scott Latterate, Sir William Ramsey, Lightfoot, Wescot,Hort
- They are religionists. Anyone who believes the gospels is a Christian by definition. But no other historian is credulous enough to believe it.

how can you pretend to know anything about science you are the genius who said a nova would be visible for centuries here is the nova
- Let me explain something to you. Novas don't just go away after a short time. They expand and cool and become less visible. It might be visible to the naked eye for a short time, but the remnants are still detectable with modern equipment. Yes, there could have been a nova at the time of Jesus' birth. But that's not what Kepler saw. When he saw a new nova in his own time, he SPECULATED that it might be the same kind of event that was described in the bible. He did not have any knowledge of that, and he certainly didn't prove anything. IT WAS SPECULATION. But with our modern equipment, we might be able to see the remnants of a nova if there was one. Now go back to your coloring book. No matter how much you pretend, when it comes to science, you still don't have a clue.
Joe Hinman said…
BS I;ve disproved every thing you said as usual, you have nothing to stand on
- You STILL didn't answer the two objections I raised. 1) That's not what Isaiah actually says. And 2) The rejection was while he was still alive, but he didn't take on the sins of mankind until the crucifixion.

You have proven you know so little about Christian ideas
- This question was about JEWISH theology. It was THEIR prophesy, not a Christian one. And THEY disagree with you. You need to take off the blinders, Joe.

Wrong the people I am quoting are major schoolgirls, Edersheim was huge he was highly respected, you don;t get to teach at both Oxford and Cambridge by being stupid.

The line of scholarship that embraces SS Isaiah 53 as a literal man who is Messiah is stretches back to before Christ to Qumran, it includes most of the great scholars. the Zionist version used now is new it only started in the Middle ages,

btw that version you take is the Rashi view started by a guy named Rashi in the middle ages,



you actually think the cross was an honor for Jesus

- Tell me that Christians don't revere the cross. Tell me that they don't go around wearing it as jewelry, crowning their temples with it, and sticking it in my face every damn place I look. And please tell me how it is not the very thing that turned Jesus into Christians' savior. As I said, it's an honor for YOU.

I've answered before why don't you read my Andrews you asshole.*(by calling him names he will read that part wait and see)

William S. Babcock, Kenneth Scott Latterate, Sir William Ramsey, Lightfoot, Wescot,Hort

- They are religionists. Anyone who believes the gospels is a Christian by definition. But no other historian is credulous enough to believe it.

that's pretty stupid dumbass, you said no historian ever thinks that so I named some that do. But they thinking that makes them "bad people, N;s so they don;t count.

your logic: No authority figure of knowledge thinks X.

Me: here are several authority figures of kmnoweldege who think X

y: they don;t count because thinking X makes them stupid so I can write them off,see now one thinks X.


how can you pretend to know anything about science you are the genius who said a nova would be visible for centuries here is the nova


- Let me explain something to you. Novas don't just go away after a short time. They expand and cool and become less visible. It might be visible to the naked eye for a short time, but the remnants are still detectable with modern equipment.

but that just means Keppler could have proven it was there.
let me explained something to you little atheist ignoramus. Nothing you say about science can be trust because that's your religion so you are not objective about it so your views are null and void,




Yes, there could have been a nova at the time of Jesus' birth. But that's not what Kepler saw. When he saw a new nova in his own time, he SPECULATED that it might be the same kind of event that was described in the bible. He did not have any knowledge of that, and he certainly didn't prove anything.

suits me, but hey area atheoid so we can't trust you your views are null and void,


IT WAS SPECULATION. But with our modern equipment, we might be able to see the remnants of a nova if there was one. Now go back to your coloring book. No matter how much you pretend, when it comes to science, you still don't have a clue.

exactly scientismism so it;s gone poof

10/24/2018 11:39:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
Wrong the people I am quoting are major schoolgirls, Edersheim was huge he was highly respected, you don;t get to teach at both Oxford and Cambridge by being stupid.
- I diodn't say they were stupid. This is typical of the responses I get from you when I disagree with what YOU say. It WAS a Jewish prophesy, and the Jews DID have an understanding of it that does not match the Christian understanding. You only see it from one perspective.

I've answered before why don't you read my Andrews you asshole.*(by calling him names he will read that part wait and see)
- You claim the cross was not an honor. I would agree with that, except for the fact that Christians definitely revere it. They kiss it, they pray to it. You can find pieces of it in practically every church in Europe. It is the very symbol of their religion.

that's pretty stupid dumbass, you said no historian ever thinks that so I named some that do. But they thinking that makes them "bad people, N;s so they don;t count.
- I said this: "most historians agree that the gospel stories do not reflect historical reality". I never said "no historians". I said that religious historians believe it, and that's exactly what you demonstrated, by naming several religious historians.

your logic: ... they don;t count because thinking X makes them stupid so I can write them off,see now one thinks X
- My actual logic: You have to be deluded to believe the patently ridiculous stories in the NT. Religious people believe them (even though nobody else does). Therefore, religious people are deluded.

but that just means Keppler could have proven it was there.
- It does NOT mean that. Kepler didn't see it. He only SUPPOSED that it might have happened that way. He didn't prove anything You don't understand the article you were quoting from.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
JoeWrong the people I am quoting are major scholars Edersheim was huge he was highly respected, you don;t get to teach at both Oxford and Cambridge by being stupid.

Skep- I didn't say they were stupid. This is typical of the responses I get from you when I disagree with what YOU say. It WAS a Jewish prophesy, and the Jews DID have an understanding of it that does not match the Christian understanding. You only see it from one perspective.

They are also Jewish, I guess you just didn't read what I said: Edersheim, Neabuher, an Eisenman, all Jewish



Joe:I've answered before why don't you read my Answers you asshole.*(by calling him names he will read that part wait and see)


Skep- You claim the cross was not an honor.

No I said it waws not an honor

I would agree with that, except for the fact that Christians definitely revere it. They kiss it, they pray to it. You can find pieces of it in practically every church in Europe. It is the very symbol of their religion.

because they embrace Jesus' sacrifice,Ihe cross is elevated to a higher status then it had when Jesus was put up on it,

Joethat's pretty stupid dumbass, you said no historian ever thinks that so I named some that do. But they thinking that makes them "bad people, N;s so they don;t count.


Skep- I said this: "most historians agree that the gospel stories do not reflect historical reality". I never said "no historians". I said that religious historians believe it, and that's exactly what you demonstrated, by naming several religious historians.



No you said no historian, that's why i decided to name some, if you had said most I would say i wot care. your stupid little attempt to dismiss all religious thinkers a priori is nothing more than a childish ploy, you would never taken seriously in graduate school, you are doing it because you can;t argue,



your logic: ... they don;t count because thinking X makes them stupid so I can write them off,see now one thinks X
- My actual logic: You have to be deluded to believe the patently ridiculous stories in the NT. Religious people believe them (even though nobody else does). Therefore, religious people are deluded.


obligated stupidity. narrowmidned know nothing atheioid,

but that just means Keppler could have proven it was there.

- It does NOT mean that. Kepler didn't see it. He only SUPPOSED that it might have happened that way. He didn't prove anything You don't understand the article you were quoting from.


even a person of your limited intelligence can figure out according to your own words if the sight on the nova lasts for entries then it would have been viisloble in the time of Christ,
im-skeptical said…
They are also Jewish, I guess you just didn't read what I said: Edersheim, Neabuher, an Eisenman, all Jewish
- What difference does it make? The Jewish religion in general disagrees with your Christian interpretation of the scriptures. They don't accept Jesus as the messiah.

Skep- You claim the cross was not an honor.

No I said it waws not an honor

- So you are arguing against what I said because I correctly stated your position??? You make no sense at all.

Ihe cross is elevated to a higher status then it had when Jesus was put up on it
- My point exactly.

No you said no historian, that's why i decided to name some, if you had said most I would say i wot care.
- I gave you a direct quote. It's not my fault that you can't read and follow an argument.

obligated stupidity. narrowmidned know nothing atheioid
- Let it be noted that you have no substantive response to what I said, because it's true.

even a person of your limited intelligence can figure out according to your own words if the sight on the nova lasts for entries then it would have been viisloble in the time of Christ
- You need to learn to read and understand a simple a simple explanation of what Kepler was thinking when he observed a nova. I explained it to you. It's not complicated. You just don't understand.


Joe Hinman said…
No you said no historian, that's why i decided to name some, if you had said most I would say i wot care.


- I gave you a direct quote. It's not my fault that you can't read and follow an argument.
pied directly from the exchange:

You said:"No serious historian believes"- the details of the life of Jesus found in the gospel stories are true. And it's very relevant, because all those prophesy fulfillment stories were just made up by the gospel authors.

I said: "William S. Babcock, Kenneth Scott Latterate, Sir William Ramsey, Lightfoot, Wescot,Hort"

found at 10/24/2018 01:16:00 AM
Joe Hinman said…
that above on no historian that is direct copied from the source,





JoeThey are also Jewish, I guess you just didn't read what I said: Edersheim, Neabuher, an Eisenman, all Jewish


- What difference does it make? The Jewish religion in general disagrees with your Christian interpretation of the scriptures. They don't accept Jesus as the messiah.

The Jewish religion in general is not based upon scholarship this is a matter of fact concerning historical belief systems not offending or appeasing modern people in their beliefs,funny how a commitment to scholarship is so easily tossed when it does't support your agenda.

Skep- You claim the cross was not an honor.

No I said it was not an honor

- So you are arguing against what I said because I correctly stated your position??? You make no sense at all.

the classic christian concept the cross was a sandcastle and a shame and an outrage and a negative taint on anyone crucified. But in Jesus it is redeemed and elevated because of the nobility and holiness of his sacrifice, your concept is it was a trophy.

Ihe cross is elevated to a higher status then it had when Jesus was put up on it
- My point exactly.

no that was not your point, you said up front Jesus was honored to die on the cross even though I pointed out he prayed not to have to do it, he clearly saw it as a trial. You are backpedaling



obligated stupidity. narrowmidned know nothing atheioid
- Let it be noted that you have no substantive response to what I said, because it's true.

Here's the big cleaver argent I failed to address: "- My actual logic: You have to be deluded to believe the patently ridiculous stories in the NT. Religious people believe them (even though nobody else does). Therefore, religious people are deluded." translation "you are stupid cause you like stuff what I hate."

you really think that deserves an answer? Ok the answer it deserves,I:m rubber you'r glue what you say bounces off me and sticks on you,


even a person of your limited intelligence can figure out according to your own words if the sight on the nova lasts for entries then it would have been viisloble in the time of Christ

- You need to learn to read and understand a simple a simple explanation of what Kepler was thinking when he observed a nova. I explained it to you. It's not complicated. You just don't understand.

comment in valid ahteoids know nothing,


Joe Hinman said…
ps

"- My actual logic: You have to be deluded to believe the patently ridiculous stories in the NT. Religious people believe them (even though nobody else does). Therefore, religious people are deluded."

go back an read Unicorn thing again, this time pay attention to concept of unnecessary appeal to popularity,

there is something intrinsically stupid about arguing "no one believes this except these 2 billion people."
im-skeptical said…
I said: "William S. Babcock, Kenneth Scott Latterate, Sir William Ramsey, Lightfoot, Wescot,Hort"
- Not a serious historian in the lot. They are Christians. Their belief is determined by their faith - not by historical facts. Only Christians believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection.

The Jewish religion in general is not based upon scholarship this is a matter of fact concerning historical belief systems ...
- That's hilarious. You dismiss the Jewish faith as being "not based upon scholarship", and yet you think yours is - miracles and all. Not a hint if bias going on there, eh?

the classic christian concept the cross was a sandcastle and a shame and an outrage and a negative taint on anyone crucified. But in Jesus it is redeemed and elevated because of the nobility and holiness of his sacrifice, your concept is it was a trophy.
- "classic christian concept"??? There was no Christianity before the crucifixion. Christians have ALWAYS revered the cross, from the very beginning of the faith.

no that was not your point, you said up front Jesus was honored to die on the cross
- Learn to read, Joe. That's not what I said. I said it was an honor to YOU.

translation "you are stupid cause you like stuff what I hate."
- I said religious people are deluded. Because they are. They must be deluded to believe those ridiculous stories. To believe a dead, rotten corpse gets up and walks and talks is absurd. To believe a star would hover above a city and lead people to it is pre-scientific mumbo-jumbo. To believe a pregnant girl was actually a virgin is just naïveté. And to believe that all these things are true just because someone wrote it in a book requires that you set aside your rational faculties and critical thinking. You are deluded.

comment in valid ahteoids know nothing
- Kepler did not see the star of Bethlehem, and he knew nothing about it except what the bible says. That's a fact.

there is something intrinsically stupid about arguing "no one believes this except these 2 billion people.
- Argumentum ad populum is a logical FALLACY. Lots of people are deluded.
Joe Hinman said…
I said: "William S. Babcock, Kenneth Scott Latterate, Sir William Ramsey, Lightfoot, Wescot,Hort"

- Not a serious historian in the lot. They are Christians. Their belief is determined by their faith - not by historical facts. Only Christians believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection.

you have proven your self to be a first class idiot. These guys are to of the line, wall of the began as skeptics and came to the lord through their own research why would that be biased? just because they r smarter than you.

The Jewish religion in general is not based upon scholarship this is a matter of fact concerning historical belief systems ...

- That's hilarious. You dismiss the Jewish faith as being "not based upon scholarship", and yet you think yours is - miracles and all. Not a hint if bias going on there, eh?

where did I say I'm dismissing it? My argument is Jesus is the Messiah so that means the faith that produced Messiah is the basis of my own, is that dismissing?


the classic christian concept the cross was a sandcastle and a shame and an outrage and a negative taint on anyone crucified. But in Jesus it is redeemed and elevated because of the nobility and holiness of his sacrifice, your concept is it was a trophy.

- "classic christian concept"??? There was no Christianity before the crucifixion. Christians have ALWAYS revered the cross, from the very beginning of the faith.


why are you so stupid? this is not a hard concept. It's basally redemption. open your stupid bigoted little mind,


no that was not your point, you said up front Jesus was honored to die on the cross

- Learn to read, Joe. That's not what I said. I said it was an honor to YOU.

like your no historian statement you are lying, you are restating your logging position.

translation "you are stupid cause you like stuff what I hate."

- I said religious people are deluded. Because they are. They must be deluded to believe those ridiculous stories.

that's not bias that' not a loaded statement that;s such fair analysts. No historian has ever beloved anything religious,it's stuff what i don;t like.

To believe a dead, rotten corpse gets up and walks and talks is absurd. To believe a star would hover above a city and lead people to it is pre-scientific mumbo-jumbo. To believe a pregnant girl was actually a virgin is just naïveté. And to believe that all these things are true just because someone wrote it in a book requires that you set aside your rational faculties and critical thinking. You are deluded.

of course not being scientific well that says it all. sickness is the territory of important people right? Like you.big guys very important, i bet you've really shown those mean people who hurt you hu?

im-skeptical said…
These guys are to of the line, wall of the began as skeptics and came to the lord through their own research why would that be biased? just because they r smarter than you.
- Began as skeptics, and then dropped any claim they may have had to skeptical thinking. You know, Joe, Christians who claim to be former atheists or skeptics are a dime a dozen. You are one of them. It's a badge of honor for a Christian to say he has skeptically evaluated the evidence and then found the truth. The reality is that in almost all of these cases, the "ex-atheist" was a believer all along, but may have denied it, even to himself. He was only looking for some excuse to believe.

where did I say I'm dismissing it? My argument is Jesus is the Messiah so that means the faith that produced Messiah is the basis of my own, is that dismissing?
- So are you saying that your own belief is not based on scholarship? It's often difficult to figure out what you really think, because you're not very consistent - especially when you say something to make a point, and then say the opposite when you're trying to make a different point. I think you do that a lot more than you realize.

why are you so stupid? this is not a hard concept. It's basally redemption. open your stupid bigoted little mind
- That's essentially what I told you. That's why you revere the cross. You're trying to tell me on the one hand that Jesus death on the cross was a bad thing, but at the same time, you love and revere the instrument of his death, because that death was the best thing that ever happened. It's the foundation of your faith. This goes to my previous remark.

like your no historian statement you are lying, you are restating your logging position.
- I'm only asking you to read what I said, and not put your own spin on it. You are attributing words to me that I didn't say.

that's not bias that' not a loaded statement that;s such fair analysts. No historian has ever beloved anything religious,it's stuff what i don;t like. ... of course not being scientific well that says it all. sickness is the territory of important people right? Like you.big guys very important, i bet you've really shown those mean people who hurt you hu?
- It is provocative, to be sure. And boy, did it succeed in getting you into a lather. I wonder if you understand the hypocrisy in your own constant harping about scientism, and atheists, and how stupid everyone is who doesn't agree with your own ranting and raving. I have said nothing more provocative than what you say routinely.
Joe Hinman said…
JoeThese guys are top of the line, all of them began as skeptics and came to the lord through their own research why would that be biased? just because they are smarter than you.


- Began as skeptics, and then dropped any claim they may have had to skeptical thinking. You know, Joe, Christians who claim to be former atheists or skeptics are a dime a dozen.

I was an atheist, don't be stupid and try to tell me I wasn't you are not a real atheist compared to me. I was more atheistic than you will ever be.

You are one of them. It's a badge of honor for a Christian to say he has skeptically evaluated the evidence and then found the truth. The reality is that in almost all of these cases, the "ex-atheist" was a believer all along, but may have denied it, even to himself. He was only looking for some excuse to believe.

you do not know jack shit about me, the only thing I can say with certinty is I am smarter than you are; you know nothing about my life my thought my experiences.

Joewhere did I say I'm dismissing it? My argument is Jesus is the Messiah so that means the faith that produced Messiah is the basis of my own, is that dismissing?


- So are you saying that your own belief is not based on scholarship? It's often difficult to figure out what you really think, because you're not very consistent -

Especially if you are basically ignorant of both religion and the nature of a well rounded world view.



especially when you say something to make a point, and then say the opposite when you're trying to make a different point. I think you do that a lot more than you realize.

so it takes some intelligence to decipher my banter,and also I am actually nuts,that helps.

Joewhy are you so stupid? this is not a hard concept. It's basally redemption. open your stupid bigoted little mind

sorry about that man,sometimes your narrow mindedness is just hard to take

- That's essentially what I told you. That's why you revere the cross. You're trying to tell me on the one hand that Jesus death on the cross was a bad thing, but at the same time, you love and revere the instrument of his death, because that death was the best thing that ever happened. It's the foundation of your faith. This goes to my previous remark.

ok here it is, put on the thinking cap. calcification was socially stigmatizing; in addition to being very painful it was usually reserved for the dregs, for criminals, it was also used as a sociopolitical control mechanism by being used upon seditious people and radicals who challenged Roman authority. Even though being crucified was a stigma the church embraced it in relation to Jesus' and his atonement. It becomes in a religious context a sing of God Grace, God entered humanity as a man and died at the lowest strata of society, sharing the worst fate of humans in order to say I am in solidarity with you I share in your fate, I care about the lowliest of people.


Joe Hinman said…
like your no historian statement you are lying, you are restating your logging position.


- I'm only asking you to read what I said, and not put your own spin on it. You are attributing words to me that I didn't say.

read what I say

that's not bias that' not a loaded statement that;s such fair analysts. No historian has ever beloved anything religious,it's stuff what i don;t like. ... of course not being scientific well that says it all. science is the territory of important people right? Like you.big guys very important, i bet you've really shown those mean people who hurt you hu?


- It is provocative, to be sure. And boy, did it succeed in getting you into a lather. I wonder if you understand the hypocrisy in your own constant harping about scientism, and atheists, and how stupid everyone is who doesn't agree with your own ranting and raving. I have said nothing more provocative than what you say routinely.

trying to save face now hu? Just can't figure it out can you? It's not disagreement that offends me it's arrogance teamed with ignorance. I don't have this kind of pissing contest with atheists like Eric Sotnack Because he's not arrogant he's not ignorant,
im-skeptical said…
I was an atheist, don't be stupid and try to tell me I wasn't you are not a real atheist compared to me. I was more atheistic than you will ever be.
- I'm telling you that you have always had religious beliefs lurking within you. And this is based on your own descriptions of your conversion. It's just like so many others I've heard. There is no underlying acceptance of naturalism. You never rejected the elements of religious belief, like the feeling that you have an immaterial soul. They were there all along, calling to you, urging you to come back to the fold - which is exactly what you did.

you do not know jack shit about me, the only thing I can say with certinty is I am smarter than you are; you know nothing about my life my thought my experiences.
- Joe, you have openly discussed these things. I listen to what you say.

Especially if you are basically ignorant of both religion and the nature of a well rounded world view.
- My point was that you contradict yourself. Part of it might be your difficulty with communicating. But it is worth noting that being religious does not make you "well rounded". It only provides an intellectual bubble that has no view or understanding of the secular world. Everything in your world-view is about God. That's not well-rounded.

so it takes some intelligence to decipher my banter,and also I am actually nuts,that helps.
It takes more than that when you contradict yourself.

ok here it is, put on the thinking cap. calcification was socially stigmatizing; in addition to being very painful it was usually reserved for the dregs, for criminals, it was also used as a sociopolitical control mechanism by being used upon seditious people and radicals who challenged Roman authority. Even though being crucified was a stigma the church embraced it in relation to Jesus' and his atonement. It becomes in a religious context a sing of God Grace
- Fair enough. Now listen to MY point. To Christians the crucifixion of Jesus was NEVER a stigma. And Jesus was NEVER ugly, or unwanted, or rejected in any way. This is what I've been trying to say to you. I'm talking about the way YOU see him.

trying to save face now hu? Just can't figure it out can you? It's not disagreement that offends me it's arrogance teamed with ignorance.
- Then you should be appalled at your own words and your own attitude.

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

Cosmological Argument: from contingency

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology