Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: ET(end tyranny)
As the Baboon said, "It is time."

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 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.


269 posted on 11/12/2001 6:27:42 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]

To: ArGee
The same words were used regarding the archtypes, that were used regarding Jesus.

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

John 10:33-36 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82

Unfortunately the gods mentioned in Psalm 82 are 'wicked', and why did Jesus say 'is it not written in your law'??? Psalms is NOT Law!!!! The first 5 books are Torah/Law!

270 posted on 11/12/2001 1:38:17 PM PST by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson