Messiah prophecies

[Shadylookin]

Mabey Elijah upon arrival commited suicide so that he could be damn to hell instead of having to go back up with biblegod for all eternity. That would explain why no one ever recognized him

Who needs prophecies from dead men long past who's works were human in nature so therefore they are flawed, translated by people who wanted to push a certain idea therefore corrupting it more(Though I don't exactly know how you can corrupt a lie) Then having it go through the clergy so they can hand pick what they want and ignore the rest. You need no prophicies to find christianity illogical. The whole story is centered around a god who sends himself down to earth in human form, to sacrafice himself to himself so that he could change a rule that he made in the first place so that he could stand to be in the sight of us heathens. A laughable folly at best has been turned into a major religion with political sway.

Ah yes the mighty pink teacup, teach me the ways curt so that I might give you 10% of my income

 

[puglover]

Edit: And please give me some examples of real prophecies that Jesus actually did fulfill!

Lineage of David, born in betlehem, born of a virgin, a sacrifice for the sins of the world, soldiers gambling over his clothes, his last words, the crucifiction, etc. etc.

 

[puglover]

One of the most famous Messiah prophecies can be found in Isaiah 7:14: “For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.” I have no reason to doubt that Jesus was born by a young woman. That is very common, so it is hardly a prophecy at all. The second part of the prophecy however is more detailed: “You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.” Unfortunately Marry did give her son the name Jesus, not Immanuel, so Jesus did not fulfill that prophecy.

Another famous messiah prophecy can be found in Micah 5:2: “As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah - from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf…” As the prophecy says, Bethlehem Ephrathah refers to a clan, not the town in Judah like the misquotation in Matthew 2:6 makes it appear to be. Since Matthew makes up a rather weak story on how Jesus fulfilled his twisted version of this prophecy instead of claiming that Jesus fulfilled the original prophecy, one could suspect that Jesus was not from the Bethlehem Ephrathah clan after all and therefore did not fulfill this prophecy.

In Jeremiah 23:7-8 “So I, the Lord, say, ‘A new time will certainly come. People now affirm their oaths with “I swear as surely as the Lord lives who delivered the people of Israel out of Egypt.” But at that time they will affirm them with ‘I swear as surely as the Lord lives who delivered the descendants of the former nation of Israel from the land of the north and from all the other lands where he had banished them…’” Jesus did not delivered the descendants of the former nation of Israel from the land of the north and from all the other lands where he had banished them, so he did not fulfill this prophecy either.

The second last sentence in the Protestant Old Testament (Malachi 4:5) promises that the prophet Elijah will return before the Messiah comes. Elijah was a prophet who physically ascended into heaven (2 King 2:11) and he is expected to physically return from heaven before the Messiah arrives. Jesus himself confirms that Elijah must come before the Messiah in Mathew 17:10-13 and Mark 9:11-13, and he suggests that John the Baptist was Elijah. That doesn’t make sense though, because John did not physically descend from heaven like Elijah is supposed to, he had a very different personality, and when somebody asked him if he was Elijah he told them the truth: “So they asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not!’ (John 1:21)”. Obviously Elijah has not yet descended from heaven, so Messiah cannot have arrived, which rules out the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah.


Apparently the Bible itself seems to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah, which implies that Christianity is a false religion. I expect that somebody can give me a convincing explanation on why this conclusion is wrong. Good luck!

Edit: And please give me some examples of real prophecies that Jesus actually did fulfill!

1. Immanuel means "son of god" IIRC. So yeah he was called the son of god.
2. David was born in Bethlehem, I suppose that would mean he was in the clan of Bethlehem Ephratath. Jesus was of the lineage of David and born in Bethlehem, thus he was a member of the clan too. That's my best guess.
3. God destroyed those nations eventually, but Israel was part of God's Eternal Kingdom, and they were his Chosen.
4. It says "the great and terrible day of the Lord" in my New American Standard.. And before it was obviously talking about the endtimes. This is not refering to the Messiah's first coming to Earth, but the second.


Remember not to take the Bible too literally. It is full of symbolism. For example, nearly all of Revelation is poetic symbolism.

 

[nihilistic]

... born of a virgin ...

I was wondering, how did they know she was a virgin? Was it recorded anywhere that somebody had "checked" her? And suppose she actually was a virgin, would giving birth break that layer of skin anyway? Since reading scriptures isn't exactly a hobby of mine, I ask somebody who has read the stories and folklores to update me on that. How did they know?

 

[Shadylookin]

1. Immanuel means "son of god" IIRC. So yeah he was called the son of god.
2. David was born in Bethlehem, I suppose that would mean he was in the clan of Bethlehem Ephratath. Jesus was of the lineage of David and born in Bethlehem, thus he was a member of the clan too. That's my best guess.
3. God destroyed those nations eventually, but Israel was part of God's Eternal Kingdom, and they were his Chosen.
4. It says "the great and terrible day of the Lord" in my New American Standard.. And before it was obviously talking about the endtimes. This is not refering to the Messiah's first coming to Earth, but the second.


Remember not to take the Bible too literally. It is full of symbolism. For example, nearly all of Revelation is poetic symbolism.

Jesus called peace keepers sons of god, does that mean we should worship canada? son of man is given to Ezikel(sp?) as well. If I bothered to look I know messiah comes up as well for someone that isn't named Jesus. You should be worshiping a lot more than Jesus.

Reread your bible Jesus lineage goes through Joseph, and we all know that since Joseph never de-virginized Mary Jesus does not follow his lineage. Therefore the bible self refutes the virgin born from david junk. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one that actually reads the bible.

 

[Warman17]

Here are some good sites explaining why he isn't the messiah.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general_messiah-criteria02.html
-jewish source

http://messiahpage.com/htmldocs/whynotj.html
-jewish source

http://www.conncoll.edu/academics/departments/relstudies/290/judaism/jesus.html
-jewish source

http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm
-jewish source

http://www.islamfortoday.com/jesus.htm
-jewish source on an islamic site(never thought i see that)

here is a line that i enjoyed reading from that site-

It has always seemed as crystal clear to me that Jesus was nothing more than a human being, as it has seemed crystal clear to many of my Christian friends that he was the Son of God.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rr.html#messiah
-atheist source

http://www.evilbible.com/jesus_false.htm
-atheist source

http://www.barnabas.net/barnabasP42.html
-Islamic Source

(sorry that most are jewish sources, i wanted to get a balance, but there was just so many more jewish sources)

The thing about this is that this is pointless. We can not make christians into non-christians by defameing their god and you can not covert non-christians into Christians by preaching the same god. This is a pointless and futile debate that will never end.

 

[puglover]

Jesus called peace keepers sons of god, does that mean we should worship canada? son of man is given to Ezikel(sp?) as well. If I bothered to look I know messiah comes up as well for someone that isn't named Jesus. You should be worshiping a lot more than Jesus.

Reread your bible Jesus lineage goes through Joseph, and we all know that since Joseph never de-virginized Mary Jesus does not follow his lineage. Therefore the bible self refutes the virgin born from david junk. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one that actually reads the bible.

I'll answer the last first. He was accepted on Earth as Joseph's child. Thus he was of the lineage of David.

The first question, no you shouldn't worship the Canadians because Jesus called them Sons of God. That there was a difference use of that phrase. They are children of God because they were a part of the creation, but certainly not equal to God. Jesus was there from the beginning, equal to God, and the same thing as God.

EDIT: Warman, your links aren't very good. Most are answered if you ask a good faithful Christian. A lot of them were examples of taking the Bible too literally.

 

[blindside]

He wasn't/isn't a God per se. he is a part of the one true god

Kind of like the Hindu religion. Aren't the other gods really just part of the one god (Brahma or something).

 

[Smidlee]

This could explain how Jesus could be the Messiah even though he did not fulfill the Messiah prophecies in his first coming, but it makes the prophecies meaningless. That Jesus might fulfill the prophecies in his second coming is not much of evidence for his claim of being the Messiah.


Wow, what a prophecy! Isaiah actually foretold that Jesus would be a boy! That removes all doubt; Jesus must be the promised Messiah!

there are many fulfilled prophecy about Jesus first coming which are loaded in the gospels themselves.

You are right that Bethlehem was once known as Ephrath, but the prophecy is talking about a clan, not a town. Read the text! It says: “As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah…” The word ‘clan’ made me think that this actually is about a clan. I wonder how you can interpret that something that is “…seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah…” must be a town . Maybe you use the King James Version where the prophecy is translated to: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah…” Are there thousands of towns like Bethlehem in Judah? Come on, This is not about a town!

you are splitting hairs now . These is the same language we use sometimes when we say "America" we are referring to the people in America.
KJV reads "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Isreal ; whose going forth have been from of old, from everlasting." It easy to see that Micah is referring to a place and the people who of this place.

What did Jesus fulfill in his first coming ?: The Mosiac Laws of course Matthew 5:17 " Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill"

 

[Pikachu]

You cite 'plenty of evidence' - Then let's see it!

The Dead Sea Scrolls predates Christ and they contain all but one of the books in the Old Testament. There are no significant differences between the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the texts in the Old Testament in the Christian Bibles. But I guess you don’t believe in carbon dating and such stuff either? In that case, take a look at the Jewish “Bible”. It includes all the books in the Protestant Old Testament. Guess what, there are no significant differences there either. If Christians have added Messiah prophecies to the Old Testament to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, the Jews must have added the same prophecies to their scriptures. Why on earth would they do that?

When I say no significant differences I mean that the meaning of the texts are the same, but of course there are some minor differences. Especially in how some names are spelled and stuff like that, and of course there are some poor translations around too.

You are welcome to think whatever you wish, Pikachu.
We all know what side you are on, so I do not expect you to
do anything other than stack the odds in your favour.

And which side do you all know that I am on? But you are right; I try to stack the odds in favor of the truth.

What you forget to mention in you revised version of our bast 'debate' was
that you refused to provide any proof othe than that produced by christian
sources or those of 'non-christians' that are obviously edited by religionists.

That is your words, but our past ‘debate’ was more like spamming up an otherwise interesting thread than a serious debate. Let’s not repeat that shameful behavior here.

Because God did it and he was all powerful supposedly.

I believe that he was the actual son of Joseph and that god jus picked him to be without sin and that stuff.

There are certain unchristian sources that suggest that Jesus was a bastard son. I think it is likely that Jesus was a product of adultery. The virgin birth story could be a way to cover up these shameful circumstances.

Lineage of David, born in betlehem, born of a virgin, a sacrifice for the sins of the world, soldiers gambling over his clothes, his last words, the crucifiction, etc. etc.

Where in the Old Testament do I find these prophecies?

Born in Bethlehem I suppose is Micah 5:2, but as I said, it refers to a clan rather than a birthplace. And historically Jesus was probably not even born in Bethlehem.

Born of a virgin is maybe the King James Version of Isaiah 7:14. It says virgin because of a poor translation of a word that usually means young woman or unmarried woman. That a young or unmarried woman will have a child is not a very convincing prophecy.

I have not been able to identify the rest of those prophecies yet.

1. Immanuel means "son of god" IIRC. So yeah he was called the son of god.

Immanuel means ‘God with us’. As far as I know he was never called ‘God with us’, but he supposedly was God and he was with us, so in a way he was Immanuel. That doesn’t make him fulfill the prophecy however, because the prophecy says: “You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.” Which she didn’t.

2. David was born in Bethlehem, I suppose that would mean he was in the clan of Bethlehem Ephratath. Jesus was of the lineage of David and born in Bethlehem, thus he was a member of the clan too. That's my best guess.

Wow, it seems like you might guessed right! It turns out that the father of David is called “ this Ephrathite from Bethlehem" in 1 Samuel 17:12. If David’s father was a member of the Bethlehem Ephrathah clan, then Jesus too could be a member of that clan, at least by adoption. It is a little strange to call the clan of the great king David for ‘seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah‘ though .

3. God destroyed those nations eventually, but Israel was part of God's Eternal Kingdom, and they were his Chosen.

???

4. It says "the great and terrible day of the Lord" in my New American Standard.. And before it was obviously talking about the endtimes. This is not refering to the Messiah's first coming to Earth, but the second.

You are probably right. However Jesus himself says that Elijah had to come before the first coming of Messiah (Mathew 17:10-13 and Mark 9:11-13). Did Jesus make a mistake there?

there are many fulfilled prophecy about Jesus first coming which are loaded in the gospels themselves.

Yes, but most of them are not correctly loaded. Please give me references to where I find them in the Old Testament.

you are splitting hairs now . These is the same language we use sometimes when we say "America" we are referring to the people in America.
KJV reads "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Isreal ; whose going forth have been from of old, from everlasting." It easy to see that Micah is referring to a place and the people who of this place.

The King James Version is not a good translation. Most modern translations says “insignificant among the clans of Judah” or “the least among the families of Judah” or something like that. I believe that is closer to the meaning of the original texts than the King James translation.

What did Jesus fulfill in his first coming ?: The Mosiac Laws of course Matthew 5:17 " Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill"

So since Jesus said this he fulfilled an important prophecy? And where in the Old Testament can I find this prophecy anyway?


@Warman17: Thanks for your links.

 

[Smidlee]

The King James Version is not a good translation. Most modern translations says “insignificant among the clans of Judah” or “the least among the families of Judah” or something like that. I believe that is closer to the meaning of the original texts than the King James translation.

.

most modern translations( most are interpretations not translations ; there is a big difference) can be crap too. I got other famous translations as well as all of them said the same thing. I notice you haven't told what translation you are using . Also I Use Strong Concordance which give me the Hebrew . the word "clan" is a someone interprrtation and not a translation of the Hebrews words in this passage. So your attack on the KJV is vain with Strong's concordance giving each word in Hebrew and Greek.
the word "little" is the Hebrew word "tsaowr" means least ,little,small, young
the word "among" is the Hebrew word "beyn" means among,asunder,at,between
the word "thousands" is the Hebrew word "eleph" means thousands.

P.S. i like to know what so called translation you found this from and what Hebrew word is being uses for the word "clan";..."eleph"???

 

[CurtSibling]

Lineage of David, born in betlehem, born of a virgin, a sacrifice for the sins of the world, soldiers gambling over his clothes, his last words, the crucifiction, etc. etc.

Calling events a prophesy is very shaky ground indeed.

Like folk who believe the Frenchman's predictions - There is too much room for chicanery.

The fanclub could have pointed to a whole host of details to try and validate JC's prophetic nature.

 

[Sarevok]

Good job Picachu! Fight the religionists with their own "stuff". I swear I can see some of them become desperate Everything they knew and believed falls apart!

Good job Pikachu!

 

[CurtSibling]

The Dead Sea Scrolls predates Christ and they contain all but one of the books in the Old Testament. There are no significant differences between the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the texts in the Old Testament in the Christian Bibles. But I guess you don’t believe in carbon dating and such stuff either? In that case, take a look at the Jewish “Bible”. It includes all the books in the Protestant Old Testament. Guess what, there are no significant differences there either.

I won't be looking at any bibles, as I have made my conclusions:
The modern man can learn nothing from the words of ancient dead men.

Unless you yourself can speak the old dialects, (which I doubt)
And can get a look at the real scrolls, (which I also doubt)

Then you are indeed reading someone else's interpretation,
And at that you are going be told what they wish you to hear.

If Christians have added Messiah prophecies to the Old Testament to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, the Jews must have added the same prophecies to their scriptures. Why on earth would they do that?

I would hate to think of you as easily fooled.
But I am sure even you can see the advantage to latter-day
religious leaders, changing holy texts to suit their agenda.

In that they can tell you what they wish you to believe.

And you are not going to challenge them, are you?

When I say no significant differences I mean that the meaning of the texts are the same, but of course there are some minor differences. Especially in how some names are spelled and stuff like that, and of course there are some poor translations around too.

And from there, misinterpretations can abound.

And which side do you all know that I am on? But you are right; I try to stack the odds in favor of the truth.

Predictable response.

Do not declare you are on the side of truth, anyone can do that.
We both also know you have nothing to back your claim up.

A bunch of metaphoric stories are not enough to convince.

That is your words, but our past ‘debate’ was more like spamming up an otherwise interesting thread than a serious debate. Let’s not repeat that shameful behavior here.

How typical.

In other words, I have you at a disadvantage and you now
use the 'spam accusation' tactic to try and shut me up?

Nice try, but I am merely asking questions.
If you find it uncomfortable, I cannot help that.

 

[Plotinus]

The modern man can learn nothing from the words of ancient dead men.

What rubbish, as usual. You think, for example, that there is nothing worth reading in the Nicomachean Ethics? I'd be interested to hear what it is that makes it pointless reading today. But I doubt you will be able to come up with anything other than prejudice. Someone who can dismiss somebody else's (good) argument that the Old Testament as it is today is much as it was in ancient times on the grounds that it is worthless even to open a Bible, even to establish what is in it before you go about refuting it, isn't really worth arguing with on the basis of reason or evidence.

I note again that there is an awful lot of arguing here with little knowledge of the facts. The fact is that there are actually hardly any prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah. Have a look at those cited at the start of the thread. How many of them mention "Messiah"? In fact, Messianic speculation was only one element of pre-Christian Jewish eschatology, and a pretty minor one at that. The truth is not that Christians added material to the Old Testament, a claim for which there is certainly no evidence at all. Rather, they interpreted much of the Old Testament as if it were prophecies, when in reality it is not. For example, Christians have always taken Isaiah 53 to be a prophecy, and pointed to how Jesus fulfilled it. Again, Psalm 22 has always been interpreted as a prophecy about Jesus. But neither of these texts is presented in the Old Testament as a prophecy. On the contrary, Isaiah 53 seems to be about some unnamed contemporary or past person, whilst Psalm 22 seems to be the psalmist's own experience. According to the Synoptics, Jesus quoted Psalm 22 before dying, and experts think that he probably really did this, and really did think that his situation parallelled that of the psalmist. But it doesn't follow that he thought that the psalm was a prophecy about himself, and it certainly doesn't follow that it actually was.

The Dead Sea Scrolls come from approximately the time of Jesus, probably a few years later. They were written by a group who almost certainly had nothing to do with Jesus but were in fact probably associated with the Essenes. There is some speculation that Jesus had something to do with the Essenes but it is based on very flimsy evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls do indicate that much of the Old Testament, as we have it, is as it was in the time of Jesus. There is no serious doubt otherwise except by polemicists with a personal agenda to push, who are uninterested in actual evidence. The views I cite are not those of Christians or Jews, among whom I do not count myself, but experts.

 

[NateDawgNY]

I think I'll jump into the fray. <ducks>

Here is what the Talmud (and other contemporary texts) have to say about
Isaiah 53:

"The Messiah, what is his name? The rabbis say, the leprous one; those of the house of Rabbi say, the sick one, as it is said, "Surely he has carried our sickness."
Sanhedrin 98b
Babylonian Talmud

"He is speaking of King Messiah: "Draw near to the throne and dip your morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities."
commentary from the Midrash Rabbah

"Behold my servant. Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the people, and their complexion beyond the sons of men."
Targum Yochanan

"In the hour in which they tell the Messiah about the sufferings of Israel in exile, and about the sinful among them who seek not the knowledge of their Master, the Messiah lifts up his voice and weeps over the sinful among them. This is what is written,He was wounded for our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities. Those souls then return to their places. In the Garden of Eden there is a Hall which is called the Hall of the Sons of Illness. The Messiah enters that Hall and summons all the disease and all the pains and all the suffering of Israel that they should come upon him, and all of them come upon him."
The Zohar 2:212a

While all of these texts may have different ideas about who the Messiah will be, there is little doubt that they all believe that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy about the Messiah.

That's all I'm going to post for now. I'll put more up later.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I think that if most Christians were to ever meet Jesus, they would be so profoundly disappointed, they would wish they worshipped him from afar still (by afar, I mean 2000 years of heresay and fallacy)

 

[Plotinus]

[NateDawgNY] Aha! Someone with some sensible evidence. Can you give dates and other details of provenance for these quotes? Note, though, that they still don't address the fact that the Old Testament passage *itself* gives no hint of being a prophecy, about the Messiah or anyone else. I would guess also that any Jewish commentary on Isaiah that postdates the New Testament might be influenced, positively or negatively, by Christian interpretations.

 

[Warman17]

The Dead Sea Scrolls come from approximately the time of Jesus, probably a few years later. They were written by a group who almost certainly had nothing to do with Jesus but were in fact probably associated with the Essenes. There is some speculation that Jesus had something to do with the Essenes but it is based on very flimsy evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls do indicate that much of the Old Testament, as we have it, is as it was in the time of Jesus. There is no serious doubt otherwise except by polemicists with a personal agenda to push, who are uninterested in actual evidence. The views I cite are not those of Christians or Jews, among whom I do not count myself, but experts.

oh really. look for yourself and listen to these experts.

http://www.physics.arizona.edu/physics/public/dead-sea.html

 

[Plotinus]

Well, there you go then - they are from a variety of dates, round about the time of Jesus - those mentioned in that article are all from before him. The point I was trying to make was that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not Christian forgeries, and this radiocarbon evidence supports that. As the article mentions, the scrolls are dated (on non-radiocarbon evidence, since by no means all the scrolls were tested in this way) up to 68AD, when the Qumran community was destroyed.