Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1752Messianic prophecies unfulfilled

Expand Messages
  • wglmp
    Sep 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I wrote:
      << Where is it written that the messiah would rise from the dead? >>
      To which you replied:
      >The precise words "rise from the dead" are not used, but the idea is
      implicit in several OT messianic texts. In Isaiah 52:13-53:12, Isaiah
      says that the suffering Servant of the LORD will be "high and lifted
      up and greatly exalted" (52:13), a reversal of the humiliation he
      will experience in his suffering for the people (see also 53:10-12).<

      That need not have anything to do with the servant dying. Also, since
      there is no mention of a resurrection from death, it makes more sense
      to believe that the Children of Israel ARE the servant of Isaiah 53
      (just as Isaiah himself said in other places of his book of
      prophecies, nor did he identify the subject of chapter 53 as somebody
      OTHER THAN Israel), for they could have been weak and humiliated at
      one time, and highly exalted later on. Also, Isaiah 53 doesn't say it
      is a messianic prophecy, so it might not be messianic.
      Again I ask, who says the messiah will die and then come back from
      the dead?

      > Jesus was a descendant of David (Matt. 1:1-17; Mark 10:47; Luke
      1:32; Acts 2:29-30; Rom. 1:3).<

      There are no credible lineages provided in any of those spots to
      suggest Jesus was of David.
      Matt 1:1-17 shows that Joseph was descended from David, yes. But
      verse 18 makes it clear that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so
      Matt 1 does not show that Jesus was descended from David.
      In Mark 10:47, Bartimaeus calls Jesus the son of David, but he was
      not in any position to know, especially in light of the fact that
      Jesus was not the son of Joseph.
      Luke 1 has a special problem, which I will come to in a minute. But
      first, in the KJV, Luke 1:32 reads, "He shall be great, and shall be
      called the Son of the Highest." For "the Son" above there is no "the"
      in the Greek. Luke might have meant "a son," but the KJV might have
      wanted to support a claimed unique nature of Jesus. Of the moderns,
      only Young's and Darby omit "the." Interestingly Luke claims no
      prophecy fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 here regarding a virgin birth,
      though Mary makes a point of saying she is a virgin.
      Also, the claim the Jesus was born of a virgin NEGATES the claim that
      he was in line for the throne of King David; the two claims are
      mutually contradictory.
      But the problem with Luke 1:32 is that it probably never happened. I
      do not say that lightly, but consider it to be fact. The reason is, I
      think Mary didn't know about this supposed marvelous mission of
      Jesus', because she never seems to have told her other children about
      it. John 7:5 and other verses say that none of them believed in Jesus.
      Acts 2:29-30 cannot be used to show that Jesus was descended from
      David, because the messiah was supposed to be descended from
      David "according to the flesh," and Jesus was not. Nor did Jesus sit
      upon the throne of David. The same problems apply to the verse in

      > By the way, David was anointed as the true king of Israel by Samuel
      when he was a young boy (1 Sam. 16:13-14) long before David actually
      began ruling at age thirty from the throne as king over all Israel (2
      Sam. 5:3-5). So a delay between God's spiritual validation of the
      Messiah and his physical assumption of a literal throne on earth has
      precedent in the example of David himself, the leading type of the

      David didn't DIE before he assumed the throne, but Jesus DID die.
      Therefore, Jesus missed the boat, and he is NOT a king of Israel.

      >You [that is to say, "I", mtillman] wrote:

      << But, I wonder, what if the REAL messiah comes, and ushers in the
      messianic kingdom, and it turns out NOT to be Jesus? >>

      > Well, then, it will turn out that Christians are mistaken. What if
      the Messiah ushers in the messianic kingdom and it turns out to be
      Jesus after all?<

      No worries; it WON'T be. One chance per customer, unless you believe
      in reincarnation. Bar Kochba was assumed to be the messiah, but when
      he died, that was it for him. Likewise, Jesus died, and with him, his
      messianic aspirations. The prophecies (many of them, anyway)
      say, "and in his days," or "in those days," or words to that effect.

      > You [again, I] wrote:
      << And I know that the first Christians were Jews, but they were
      Hellenized Jews, and quickly returned to Judaism when the prophecy
      Jesus made that those to whom he (Jesus) was speaking to would see
      the promised Davidic Kingdom turned out to be a false prophecy.
      That's one of the reasons Paul had to recruit Greeks and Romans; the
      original Christian congregations were dying out. >>
      > Your comments here are chronologically out of sync with the
      historical reality. Paul was "recruiting" Gentiles to faith in Jesus
      in the 40s, at the same time that the Jewish Christian movement was
      growing and spreading throughout the Mediterranean world. The
      original Christian congregations were thriving, not dying out.<

      What you fail to recognize is that Pauline Christology is not and was
      not the same thing the original Jewish believers believed. We know
      that because of the words of Paul, in that he complained of those who
      followed him about and refuted his teachings. A sign of this division
      from the Jewish Christian perspective can be found in the epistle of
      James where the writer points out that "a double-minded man is
      unstable." The reference seems to be to Paul, who admitted he could
      pretend to be a Jew if he was speaking to Jews, or act as a Greek to
      [Begin quote of "The Light of Reason" by S. Golding]
      Paul stated, "A man is justified by faith, without the works of the
      Law." (Rom. 3.28). James contradicted this, "Though a man say he hath
      faith and have no works? Can faith save him? Even so, faith, if it
      hath not works, is dead, being alone. Ye see then how that by works,
      a man is justified and not by faith. For as the body without the
      spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2.14,17,
      24, 26) … Thus, the major difference between the message of Paul and
      the beliefs of the apostles was that the apostles believed in a
      Jewish Messiah (Lk. 2.68-76), a fellow human being, whereas Paul
      presented a personal pagan savior, a divine being, half-man, half-
      god, who was later claimed to be all god. . That God should clothe
      himself in the body of a man, live nine months in the womb of a
      woman, suck the breasts and have his diapers changed, is clearly of
      pagan origin. The Pauline concept of sin, sacrifice and salvation
      obtained by belief in a man dying on a cross does not exist in - and
      is in no way - a fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures. [End quote
      of "The Light of Reason"]

      > Few if any Jewish Christians were abandoning their belief in Jesus
      during this period. And all, or nearly all, Jews in the first century
      were "Hellenized" to some extent.<

      By being `Hellenized,' I don't mean being able to speak Greek. I mean
      supplanting the true and pure beliefs of Moses with the impure and
      pagan beliefs of the Nations round about them. Being Hellenized is no
      badge of honor. And "everybody is doing it" is no excuse.

      Rev M Tillman
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic