Certainly the piercing of the sword and missing from the grave would have been in the near future, but the point IS those that KNEW the scriptures (Old Testament) would know of the OT verses directed at the enemies of God, and when they saw or heard things coming from Jesus or from those that followed him, they would be able to put the two together. This would clearly be enough to make most Torah Jews skeptical of Jesus as the messiah because of the correlations. As time went on and more became known, such as the piercing, missing from the grave, darkness at his death etc, they would know that they had been right in rejecting Jesus.
Your points, while interesting, show the fallacy of using proof texts to understand G-d rather than the whole of Scripture. Key to all of this is the huge difference between Satan (or Lucifer) and Yeshua in how each was exalted. Satan was cast down because He attempted to exalt Himself. You pointed this out in your quote of Isaiah 14:12, (although not everyone accepts that this speaks of Lucifer. It is addressed to the King of Babylon who, I seem to remember, was often referred to as the "Morning Star." It is only in knowing how to read prophetic writings that this verse has also been attributed to Lucifer.)
The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, which was written about 300 before the Christians came onto the scene, translates heylel as "heosphoros", the Greek word for the Morning Star. Similarly, when St. Jerome wrote the Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate, written about 6 centuries later, he knew that heylel meant the Morning Star. Accordingly, he translated it as "LUCIFER", the Latin word which was used to refer to the Morning Star. Note that in Roman culture the Morning Star was considered the son of the dawn goddess, Aurora. The word, Lucifer, literally meant "Light-Bringer" and was used because the Morning Star brings the dawn.
Nearly 1200 years had passed by the time the English King James Bible was written (in 1611 C.E.). For some reason, its writers chose to leave the Latin word "LUCIFER" untranslated amid the rest of the verse which they translated into English. This unbalanced approach is why the KJV reads with the Latin word sticking out in the English sentence like a sore thumb: "How you have fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the dawn..."
Because Isa 14:12 talks about an enemy of GOD (the king of Babylon), some Christians, down through the centuries, began to assume "Lucifer" to be another name for Satan. Although there is no other place in the Bible where Satan is called by this name, Luke refers to Satan falling from the sky "like lightning". This similarity is probably what tempted Christians to make the connection. The fact that Isaiah talked about the king of Babylon is usually overlooked (and the fact that there are many more similarities to Jesus's own execution and the deeds for which he was arrested is entirely lost on them). At any rate, this man-made tradition is the only reason why "Lucifer" ever became a name for Satan. What is ironic (to anyone who knows Latin) is that the very presence in the KJV of the Latin word, "Lucifer", itself, serves as a tell-tale sign that the verse should be translated using the words, "Morning Star". But, alas, Protestants are not taught Latin in Sunday School.
Even the original 1611 edition of the KJV admits in a footnote that the word "Lucifer" really means the Morning Star. You can even see this in some KJV Bibles today. Later versions of the Bible were translated more accurately using the wording, "Morning Star". And, this is in keeping with the surrounding context -- since the "light-bearer" is called the "son of the dawn" and is directly associated with the morning.
So, what's the association with Babylon about? Babylon is the land to the east of Israel, the land of the sunrise and morning star. Also, the Babylonian religion held that the Morning Star was a manifestation of one their major deities. This is why Isaiah called the king of Babylon the Morning Star. And, this is why the major bibles, NIV, RSV, NASB, and Strong's concordance, among others, translate heylel as "Morning Star".
This said, it must not be lost upon the reader that such an appellation was given to the prideful man who would call himself God. That is the underlying message of the passage, and the fate of the king of Babylon foreshadows that of another man who thought he would ascend to the clouds of heaven (and, we should remind folks that these passages in Isa 14 do indeed say that they speak of a man, not an angel).
At any rate, for the masses of modern Christians, uneducated in Latin, the English KJV's use of the Latin word, Lucifer, masks the fact that the actual meaning is "Morning Star". It hides the meaning behind an untranslated word. One cannot help but wonder whether this masking has been intentional since Jesus is also called "Morning Star".
But Yeshua did not exalt Himself. His claim to be Messiah-El was not substantiated by Himself but by G-d through the miracles wrought in His name, especially healing of the man who was born blind and casting out of demons. If you read Yeshua's teachings you will see that He exalts G-d, not Himself. He always points to the Father. This has been noted so strongly that some scholars have suggested that Yeshua never claimed to be G-d. These scholars claim that Paul invented the G-dhood of Yeshua to "sell" the Gospel to the polytheistic Goyim. It is true that we believe that Yeshua ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of The Father. But Yeshua received that gift from The Father, He did not attempt to take that place for Himself. Note specifically Yeshua's teaching that you should always take the lowest place at the table so you may be invited to a higher one and thus exalted in front of all the guests. Yeshua remained the humble servant of G-d throughout His life and was exalted by G-d in His death. Yeshua did not exalt Himself.
Matthew 26:64 "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
WHO said the above? Jesus? Two things come to mind. 1) He says 'Son of man'.... so in this manner you are correct that he didn't call himself God... However he says that 'Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.' Who is Jesus talking about? Himself? Or someone else? If himself, then the 'implication' is there. He 'implies' that he will be exalted.
I will however agree with you that generally Jesus doesn't exalt himself except perhaps by the above verse. In most cases he is (alledgedly) exalted by either his followers or by Paul. The problem though is that Jews KNEW/KNOW that man cannot be God.
And Paul says:
Acts 2:22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:"
So, how did Jesus get turned into a 'God'? And who did it?
What was expected of the Messiah?
The Messiah was to be an earthly King. Jesus was not a King and ruled over no country. The people of Israel were supposed to 'dwell safely'. They did NOT then, nor do they now.... The Messiah is to have an earthly kingdom, whose dominion shall be throughout the world. It shall be a non-ending kingdom, teaching peace. The Messiah will have great honor and service from all people, and he will save the people of Israel from earthly troubles. These are the descriptions of the Messiah and his rule.
Nowhere does the Jewish Bible or Prophets say that the Messiah would be a god or God-like. The very idea that God would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts the concept of God as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation.
The Jewish Messiah is expected to return the Jews to their land. Jesus was born while the Jews still lived in their land, before they had gone into exile. He could not restore them to their land because they were still living in it!
The true Messiah is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem — but Jesus lived while the Temple was still standing.
The Jewish Bible says that the Messiah will redeem Israel. In the case of Jesus, the very opposite took place. About 20 years after his death, (shortly after the death of James), the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Jerusalem was laid to waste, and the Jews went into exile to begin a 1900-year-long night of persecution—largely at the hands of the followers of this self-styled "Messiah!"
The Prophets in the Bible foretold (Isaiah 45) that when the Messiah comes, all the nations of the world will unite to acknowledge and worship the one true God. "The knowledge of God will fill the earth. The world will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the seas" (Isaiah 11:9). Nothing of this nature took place following the death of Jesus. On the contrary, Islam developed and became the religion of the Arabs and many other nations, Christianity broke up into many conflicting sects which were constantly at war with each other, and a large part of the world continued to worship idols.
When the true Messiah comes, his influence will extend over all peoples who will worship God at the Temple in Jerusalem. The Prophet says, "For My House will become the House of Prayer for all the Nations." This has obviously not yet taken place, and, therefore, the Messiah has not yet come.
During the time of the Messiah a new spirit will rule the world, and man will cease committing sins and crimes; this will especially apply to the Jews. The Torah (in Deuteronomy 30:6) says that "God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your children to love God." The Prophets taught: "And your people are all righteous, they will inherit the earth forever" (Isaiah 60:21); "In that day I will seek the sins of Israel and there will be none" (Jeremiah 50:20); "I will give you a new heart and a new spirit—and you will obey My laws and commandments and do them" (Ezekiel 36:26,27). (But, I thought Paul said that the Law was dead...must be God changed His mind...NOT!)
The true Messiah is to reign as King of the Jews. Jesus' career as described in the New Testament lasted all of three years, at the end of which he was crucified by the Romans as a common criminal. He never functioned as anything but a wandering preacher and "faith healer"; certainly, he held no official position or exercised any rule of any kind.
One of the Messiah's major tasks is to bring peace to the entire world. In the time of the Messiah, there are to be no more wars, and the manufacture of arms will cease. The Prophet Isaiah (2:4) says, "And they shalt beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Nations are continually at war and wars have been going on almost non-stop since the time of Jesus up to and including today!
The New Testament itself claims that the prophecies concerning the Messiah were to be realized in Jesus' own generation. Mark (13:30) clearly says, "truthfully I say unto you that this generation shall not pass until all these things be done." In Matthew 4, Jesus is quoted saying that “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Almost 2,000 years have passed and still nothing has been accomplished.
Nowhere does the Jewish Bible teach the Messiah would come once, be killed, and return again in a “second coming.” The idea of a second coming is a pure rationalization of Jesus' failure to function in any way as a Messiah, or to fulfill any of the prophecies of the Torah or the Prophets. The idea is purely a Christian invention, with no foundation in the Bible, and created only to explain away why Jesus did not return in the generation of his followers as the New Testament attests.
While on the cross Jesus is quoted as saying, "Forgive them, Father, for they (the Jews) know not what they do." Why do some Christians insist on persecuting the Jews if Jesus himself gave instructions to forgive them?
If his rising from the dead was so crucial to demonstrate who he was, why did this take place in secret and not in the presence of his "thousands" of devotees?
Jesus claimed that he did not intend to change the Laws of Moses—"Think not that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) and the Prophets, I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5). Later on, the New Testament attests that he himself abrogated some of the laws, while his followers eventually abolished or changed nearly all of them. Personally I believe the New Testament to be less than credible in describing events where Jesus supposedly broke the Law or changed the Law. Jesus may have had a difference of opinion in interpretation but he followed the Law and taught others to do the same. Hillel vs Shammai.
Judaism believes that God is eternal, above and beyond time. God cannot be born, He cannot die, He cannot suffer, He can not "become flesh," nor can He be divided into sections ("Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"). These are pagan notions. Certainly no "God" or "Son of God" could have called out on the cross, as Jesus is supposed to have said, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" After all if Jesus was God, then he abandoned himself??? Makes no sense.
If Jesus was really the Messiah, why does the New Testament admit that all the rabbis of the time, without one exception, rejected his claim? Why was there not one man of learning, nor one prominent leader who accepted him? Because they KNEW their scriptures! They used the Masoretic texts and didn't have to rely upon Greek translations and mis-translations and deliberate false translations.
Who was in a position to judge if he was or was not the Messiah—his own people, who anxiously awaited the arrival of the Messiah, or pagan peoples who had no understanding of what the concept really meant?
If God has "rejected" the Jews for not "accepting Jesus" as Christians claim, why have the Jewish People managed to survive 2,000 years of Christian persecution? How do Christians explain the miracle of Jewish survival? Why has God restored the city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel to His "rejected" people?
Luke 21:31-33 "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."
What does 'this generation' mean to you, in the context of which Jesus supposedly said them?
You quote John 19:37 and say that John should have quoted the rest of the Scripture. I don't see any reason why John should have, the readers would know the rest. Jews will mourn for Him because they will know that He was Messiah and the firstborn of G-d. What's so odd about that?
I was thinking that John should have quoted the rest of the scripture for the 'gentiles' since they would NOT know the rest!!! It would have helped them to make an informed choice! One might wonder why any of the Apostles followed Jesus. I have heard it said that they were illiterate. If so, then that may explain why they didn't KNOW their own scriptures. James disagreed with Paul, and James was the head of the Jerusalem Church. The Bishop of Bishops. He was in charge, and Peter, Paul and the others were answerable to him. James and Paul disagreed over the Law. Antioch was about 'table fellowship'/dietary regulations. James considered Paul 'apostate' (without Law). Interesting that in the Mary visitations she speaks of the great apostasy. The 'great falling away from the Law??
Oh, and as to the line of accursed Kings, you read Matthew's geneology which goes through Yosef, Yeshua's father. But Yeshua is not of Yosef's seed and is, therefore, not of the line of accursed kings. However, as Yosef adopted Him, He still had the devine right to sit on David's throne.
Romans 1:2 "(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
According to the flesh...is sex.... 'seed' shows direct lineage. And Paul IS right about this aspect of prophecy. The Messiah is supposed to be a man, natural son of natural son of natural son.... it was the deliberate MIS-translation of Isaiah in which the early church had him born of a 'virgin', to pacify the pagans they wanted to convert. But, most of this is moot anyway, because Jesus did not fulfill prophecy. At least NOT Jewish Prophecy. He may have fulfilled the man made prophecies of the early church, but that still wouldn't make him the Jewish Messiah.
As if He really needed it. Still, it was necessary to fulfill all the prophets.
And he didn't.
I will admit to you right now that your post is too long to read. I do not believe that writing books back and forth to each other is valuable. I apologize because you spent a lot of time on both your posts and I am now making one of them a waste of time. I hate doing that to you, but doing otherwise would be a waste of my time. I have satisfied myself from your first post that your concerns are not mine. The brief look I took at your response to the idea that Yeshua did not exalt Himself demonstrated that my concerns are not yours. Maybe there was something in the post I skipped that would convince me that you had a better grasp on who Yeshua is than I do, but I'm going to take the chance that there wasn't.
I will only comment on the above quoted line. I also know that a man cannot be G-d.
But I will not limit G-d to say that He cannot be a man.
Shalom.
It was the corrupt Jewish leadership, not Jews in general who objected to Christ. The early Church was made up almost exclusively of Jews and Christianity spread like wildfire. Even the Great teacher Gamaliel observed the following:
Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council ... and said, "Men of Israel, take chare what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody; and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. And he was slain; and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. And so in the present case I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."
Gamaliel, too, would disagree with you.
The word, Lucifer, literally meant "Light-Bringer" and was used because the Morning Star brings the dawn.
This is the very first thing you've gotten right so far. Unfortunately, you continue and get it wrong:
Nearly 1200 years had passed by the time the English King James Bible was written (in 1611 C.E.). For some reason, its writers chose to leave the Latin word "LUCIFER" untranslated amid the rest of the verse which they translated into English.
Metropolis means "mother city." How sneaky of DC Comics to pull that on us. They should have called it "Mother City." Your argument borders on the absurd. Some Greek and Latin roots are generally recognized without a knowledge of the language such as Photos, Graphos, Eros, Lumenos, Pneuma and Gnosis. To blame the translators for your inability to discern the implications of LUC and IFER is exceedingly shallow. It also shows your ignorance of the process of translation. Certain other words, such as "baptism" are transliterated precisely because they have become ENGLISH words, as was the case with LUCIFER.
The problem though is that Jews KNEW/KNOW that man cannot be God.
Hmmmmm. I wonder if you can explain any of the Theophanies in the OT? Naaa.
Nowhere does the Jewish Bible or Prophets say that the Messiah would be a god or God-like.
You pretend to be well read in the Scriptures. How, then, could you miss any of the Messianic references in the Psalms?
DAVID SAYS: "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, Thou are My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Thy posession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, Thou shalt shatter them like earthenware. Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. Worship the Lord with reverence and rejoice with trembling, kiss the Son, lest he become angry and you perish in the way..."
"Kiss the Son" was bowing down before the king by kissing his feet. That passage was from Psalm 2. Here's another from Psalm 110:
The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet."
If you looked at an earlier quote from the end of Matthew 22, you would have noticed that Jesus silenced the Pharisees by asking who David's Lord was.
There are many more passages. One should have been enough to discredit your unsupported assertions. As for the rest of your post, it is rife with logical fallacies, bad history and strange etymology. I hope, for the sake of the lurkers, I have clearly exposed the wolf.
Certainly the piercing of the sword and missing from the grave would have been in the near future, but the point IS those that KNEW the scriptures (Old Testament) would know of the OT verses directed at the enemies of God, and when they saw or heard things coming from Jesus or from those that followed him, they would be able to put the two together. This would clearly be enough to make most Torah Jews skeptical of Jesus as the messiah because of the correlations. As time went on and more became known, such as the piercing, missing from the grave, darkness at his death etc, they would know that they had been right in rejecting Jesus.
This is all regarding the archetypal enemies of G-d. You point out many different archetypes and then point out how Yeshua might have had something in common with each of them. But I suggest that, if you truly wish to understand G-d and His word you need to look deeper. To scatter enemies of G-d all over the (circumstantial) map and to point to their external circumstances as evidence of their negative relationship with Him is, in my way of thinking, a stretch. All of the archetypal enemies of G-d exalted themselves over G-d. This is the one thing they have in common and, to my way of thinking, the likely cause of their enmity with G-d, just as it was the cause of Adam's sin. This common point makes all those other diverse points moot. As I pointed out, Yeshua did not exalt Himself over G-d, but waited for G-d to do that. You rightly quote Matthew 26:64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." This quote infuriated the leaders. But in this quote Yeshua did not exalt Himself. He did not say, "I will do it." Rather, He said, "You will see it." This is simply a prophecy. If it does happen, it shows that G-d has exalted Yeshua. If it doesn't happen, it shows that Yeshua was a fool. But it does not show Yeshua exalting Himself.
I have never seen this list of the archetypes of the enemies of G-d before, and I thank you for showing it to me. But my own interpretation is that Yeshua met these physical circumstances while still being glorified by G-d just to prove His favorite point. Matthew 12:34 "You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks." It's the issue of the heart that makes one an enemy of G-d, not the issue of the physical circumstances.
The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, which was written about 300 before the Christians came onto the scene, translates heylel as "heosphoros", the Greek word for the Morning Star. Similarly, when St. Jerome wrote the Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate, written about 6 centuries later, he knew that heylel meant the Morning Star. Accordingly, he translated it as "LUCIFER", the Latin word which was used to refer to the Morning Star. Note that in Roman culture the Morning Star was considered the son of the dawn goddess, Aurora. The word, Lucifer, literally meant "Light-Bringer" and was used because the Morning Star brings the dawn.
Nearly 1200 years had passed by the time the English King James Bible was written (in 1611 C.E.). For some reason, its writers chose to leave the Latin word "LUCIFER" untranslated amid the rest of the verse which they translated into English. This unbalanced approach is why the KJV reads with the Latin word sticking out in the English sentence like a sore thumb: "How you have fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the dawn..."
Dataman has answered this one well. Anyone who is serious about studying G-d's word and does not know Greek and Hebrew uses interlinear Bibles and tools such as Strong's concordance, the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament (TWOT), and others. We are not fooled. As I indicated, there is great depth in the verse referred to. A true Christian doesn't fear that depth, but mines it to the glory of HaShem.
Because Isa 14:12 talks about an enemy of GOD (the king of Babylon), some Christians, down through the centuries, began to assume "Lucifer" to be another name for Satan. Although there is no other place in the Bible where Satan is called by this name, Luke refers to Satan falling from the sky "like lightning". This similarity is probably what tempted Christians to make the connection. The fact that Isaiah talked about the king of Babylon is usually overlooked (and the fact that there are many more similarities to Jesus's own execution and the deeds for which he was arrested is entirely lost on them). At any rate, this man-made tradition is the only reason why "Lucifer" ever became a name for Satan. What is ironic (to anyone who knows Latin) is that the very presence in the KJV of the Latin word, "Lucifer", itself, serves as a tell-tale sign that the verse should be translated using the words, "Morning Star". But, alas, Protestants are not taught Latin in Sunday School.
Actually, it is not unusual to reevaluate a prophecy in light of later events. It is not wrong to attribute the verse in Isaiah as relating to the King of Babylon. It is not wrong to attribute them to Satan. Just like I said, great depth.
BTW: I notice you give King James' translators a pass at renaming the Apostle Jacob to James. All serious students know the liberties taken.
So, what's the association with Babylon about? Babylon is the land to the east of Israel, the land of the sunrise and morning star. Also, the Babylonian religion held that the Morning Star was a manifestation of one their major deities. This is why Isaiah called the king of Babylon the Morning Star. And, this is why the major bibles, NIV, RSV, NASB, and Strong's concordance, among others, translate heylel as "Morning Star".
This said, it must not be lost upon the reader that such an appellation was given to the prideful man who would call himself God. That is the underlying message of the passage, and the fate of the king of Babylon foreshadows that of another man who thought he would ascend to the clouds of heaven (and, we should remind folks that these passages in Isa 14 do indeed say that they speak of a man, not an angel).
It is not lost. No one should give Himself such a name. But if G-d gives a man such a name, what should we then do? Is it the name that condemns? Again, I point you to the self-exaltation of the King of Babylon.
Matthew 26:64
Well, I already dealt with that.
"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." He says 'Son of man '.... so in this manner you are correct that he didn't call himself God...
I said He didn't exalt Himself. G-d revealed Him as equal to G-d, but Yeshua did not shy away from that naming. He made no secret about who He was. That's why He was crucified. He could very easily have told the Sanhedrin, "I never claimed to be G-d." if He had not so claimed.
What was expected of the Messiah?
I am aware that this is the hardest part for the Jews. It is because we recognize something that was left out of the prophecy that Yeshua inserted. To whit read Luke 4:18-19 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Now read the verse in Isaiah which Yeshua was reading at the time. Isaiah 61:1-2 "The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,"
Why did Yeshua leave out the day of vengance of our G-d? It was because the day of vengance would come later. In other words, the prophecy was written as if it were one event, but Yeshua taught that it would come in two events. First would be the initial stage, preaching of the Gospel, binding up the borkenhearted, proclaiming freedom, and announcing the year of the LORD's favor. There is another stage yet to come. Is it legal for a prophecy to be split in half like this? We know that prophets do not see everything clearly. The question is, does your reading make it illegal to split the prophecy in half like this?
The Scripture leaves room. The empty tomb made it clear.
Nowhere does the Jewish Bible or Prophets say that the Messiah would be a god or God-like. The very idea that God would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts the concept of God as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation.
I've dealt with this point elsewhere.
You wrote many things about the true Messiah. They were all accurate. We wait for them with our friends the Jews. We long for them. Maranatha is our cry!
While on the cross Jesus is quoted as saying, "Forgive them, Father, for they (the Jews) know not what they do." Why do some Christians insist on persecuting the Jews if Jesus himself gave instructions to forgive them?
Some Christians do not know very much about Yeshua.
If his rising from the dead was so crucial to demonstrate who he was, why did this take place in secret and not in the presence of his "thousands" of devotees?
He met with hundereds of devotees after he arose. As for why he allowed the actual resurrection to be shrouded in mystery, you will have to ask Him.
Jesus claimed that he did not intend to change the Laws of Moses?"Think not that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) and the Prophets, I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5). Later on, the New Testament attests that he himself abrogated some of the laws, while his followers eventually abolished or changed nearly all of them. Personally I believe the New Testament to be less than credible in describing events where Jesus supposedly broke the Law or changed the Law. Jesus may have had a difference of opinion in interpretation but he followed the Law and taught others to do the same. Hillel vs Shammai.
You have it correct. Yeshua came not to abolish (improperly interpret) the Law but to fulfill (properly interpret) it. He corrected some misunderstandings, but did not break the law. However, He did not come to bring the Law, given to the Jews, to the Gentiles. They do not have the covenant of Moses.
If Jesus was really the Messiah, why does the New Testament admit that all the rabbis of the time, without one exception, rejected his claim? Why was there not one man of learning, nor one prominent leader who accepted him? Because they KNEW their scriptures! They used the Masoretic texts and didn't have to rely upon Greek translations and mis-translations and deliberate false translations.
Nicodemus, Joseph of Aramathea, Gamaliel, and Saul (later known to Christians as Paul) were all lerned Pharisees who received Yeshua's claim. It may be that no prominent leader received Yeshua's claim because of the implications for their power over the people. Or it may be that no prominant leader was named in the New Testament because such things did not interest those who wrote them.
Who was in a position to judge if he was or was not the Messiah?his own people, who anxiously awaited the arrival of the Messiah, or pagan peoples who had no understanding of what the concept really meant?
Well, considering that there were no pagans in the Nazarene sect until around 15 years after Yeshua's death, I would say it was His own people.
If God has "rejected" the Jews for not "accepting Jesus" as Christians claim, why have the Jewish People managed to survive 2,000 years of Christian persecution? How do Christians explain the miracle of Jewish survival? Why has God restored the city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel to His "rejected" people?
Use the word "some" when you write things like that. I know that G-d has not rejected Israel. The current existence of Israel is one of the chief proofs that G-d exists and that He keeps His promises. Read Romans 11-13 for the true Christian understanding of the ongoing relationship of G-d and the Jews. I don't know any Christians who believe that G-d has rejected the Jews, although I know it has been taught in our history. Careful scholarship (and a little reading of the obvious) has shown us where the political battle between the Synagogues of Yeshua and the Synagogues of the Jews crept into theology.
Luke 21:31-33 "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."
What does 'this generation' mean to you, in the context of which Jesus supposedly said them?
I believe it meant the people alive in that day. All of the things the preceeded the quote came to pass. Many saw the Kingdome breaking through in Yeshua's miracles. Three saw Yeshua glorified on a mountain top talking with Moses and Elijah. All saw the empty tomb. There is more of His prophecy yet to come, but the things that He said would happen before that generation passed, including the destruction of the Temple, came to pass.
James disagreed with Paul, and James was the head of the Jerusalem Church.
As far as I know, James did not disagree with Paul. Read Acts 15.
James considered Paul 'apostate' (without Law).
This is a new one to me. Can you cite a reference?
Interesting that in the Mary visitations she speaks of the great apostasy. The 'great falling away from the Law??
I am not a Catholic. I am not likely to be swayed from Biblical text by a visitation from anyone, not even the Holy Bearer of G-d.
According to the flesh...is sex.... 'seed' shows direct lineage.
As I understand it, Mary was also of the lineage of David, but not of the accursed king. That would make it a fleshly relationship. However, the lineage is also traced through Joseph so that Yeshua would have the right to sit on the throne.
Now, as to the reason I hate these long threads. You originally started with the archetype issue and have now seriously broadned your position. You did this because you aren't really trying to work with me or understand me, you are trying to attack me. In an attack, if I thwart your attack from one position you simply move to another. That is valid strategy. In a discussion, especially a persuasive discussion, you don't leave one point until it has been satsfied. So, even though this is a very long post, I would only like you to address the part about the archetypal enemies of G-d. Are you convinced, or do you have something else to say on the matter to convince me? Have the courage to stand on this particular ground until all is complete, as any true seeker of knowledge would do. I will stand here with you.
Shalom.