But why do you believe J*sus and the "new testament" fulfilled those prophecies? Why do you even believe those prophecies are "messianic" prophecies at all?
Simple--you accept the "new testament" from the outset. When it says a certain prophecy is "messianic" you believe it. When it says J*sus fulfilled such and such a prophecy you believe it. But why? Why do you believe the "new testament" is trustworthy and authoritative? You basically "prove" your argument by simply assuming it from the get-go. This is illogical. But I have pointed this out so many times and had it ignored just as many, so it is obvious that no chrstian wants to deal with this at all.
By stating that every "believer" "accepts" the Torah you completely misunderstand the concept of national revelation. Only Israel received this, so only the Torah given at Sinai (and not anything that followed) is provable.
Among the "traditions" you attack are the vowels and punctuation in the Torah, which in its written form consists only of a string of over 300,000 consonants. Perhaps those vowels and punctuation marks are "doctrines and commandments of men" and should be removed?
Your attack on the Oral Torah comes from the critique given in the "new testament." For the zillionth time, what gives the "new testament" the right to do this? Why is it hard-wired into your brain that "the bible" consists of the Protestant canon? How in the world is this self-evident?
I know . . . because the "new testament" says it is, and the "new testament" is the "word of G-d" so it must be true. You don't even see how you reason in a circle, do you?
I can't believe I once used to think like this. It's ridiculous.
I am always amazed at how the NT blends in with the OT perfectly. One book opens doors to the other books all throughout the Bible.
The entire concept of what Jesus did is revealed over and over again in the OT books. Everything is going down just as predicted in the revelation of Jesus.
Im sold
Because I can read - And I am a student of the Prophecy - Not just 'The Prophets' per se, but the whole of it. Every single book is prophetic.
Simple--you accept the "new testament" from the outset. When it says a certain prophecy is "messianic" you believe it.
To a degree, I must admit that - I continually fight against what was driven into my tiny brain in my yoot. But to a larger degree, I have discarded much more than I have kept.
And SINCE I buy into the Brit Hadasha, of course I accept what it says - If Yeshua is saying 'this was fulfilled before your eyes this day', I have to accept it... But that is *not* to say I accept it as blithely as you seem to infer.
Why do you believe the "new testament" is trustworthy and authoritative? You basically "prove" your argument by simply assuming it from the get-go. This is illogical.
Well, not meaning to dissemble, but that right there is a big chunk to chew off - I decidedly *do not* accept the authority of the Brit Hadasha upon it's face, that much is not true, but the 'why' is pretty complicated. It probably revolves around the need for a 'better blood', as the Torah attests, the coming prophet who must be listened to, as the Torah attests, the time frame for the arrival of Messiah and the descriptions of him, as the Prophets (to include David) attest - It is a big complicated thing, better accomplished sitting on a porch somewhere than in this venue... And that for many glorious hours and bucket upon bucket of sweet tea : )
By stating that every "believer" "accepts" the Torah you completely misunderstand the concept of national revelation.
Not exactly - But I guess the personal revelation, the 'circumcision of the heart', bears more weight, IMO.
Only Israel received this, so only the Torah given at Sinai (and not anything that followed) is provable.
TRUTH. I see the Torah as sacrosanct. It is vitally important that it is unchanging and eternal - That is why I accuse EVERYONE of trying to change it - to include Christianity and Judaism. But, as an example, even the Great Prophets cannot be wholly proven, because until the complete fulfillment of their prophecies, (you'll have to pardon me for this) they may still turn out wrong. Now, I don't think they are wrong, not at all - But they speak of times beyond us even yet, so a 'proof positive' cannot be properly attributed. I get it.
But in that, you must also admit the traditions of everyone are equally unprovable - If it is not in Moses, there is no basis, for fear of destroying Moses (which as you rightly declare, is what we must begin with in the ascertainment of truth) - Torah is the measuring stick, as it were. Your fathers or mine, where they cross Moses, must be wrong.
Among the "traditions" you attack are the vowels and punctuation in the Torah, which in its written form consists only of a string of over 300,000 consonants. Perhaps those vowels and punctuation marks are "doctrines and commandments of men" and should be removed?
To the extent that they do harm, yes - Even this is questionable - Not that I am against vowel pointers and punctuation - and likewise chapters and verses: to the extent that they are useful, they are excellent. But often an idea transcends it's chapter (and certainly any verse)... One can make the Word say almost anything without the understanding of context. And thus I accuse verse-slingers often.
Likewise tradition - where it transcends it's means, and seeks to change, it necessarily must be questioned.
Your attack on the Oral Torah comes from the critique given in the "new testament." For the zillionth time, what gives the "new testament" the right to do this?
Yeshua said the authority in Moses remains in Moses, and I think he is right in that - How does the disciple outweigh the rabbi? It is Torah that accuses your traditions, and mine... Making null the words of the Father.
Like I accuse my own - Paul's words have to be filtered through Yeshua, and Yeshua's words through the Torah... Because the Torah cannot be changed, and Yeshua cannot have changed it... and Paul cannot change either one.
The signature of YHWH is that his words cannot be revoked, nor will they return to Him empty. THEREFORE whichever agent claims to change what was said before must NEEDFULLY be discarded, or interpreted to fall back into line. This is quintessentially the first and primary truth. That which is written MUST be upheld, and that which was written FIRST necessarily must hold precedence. Else we are left like the Muslims with their miserable god and his manifold hadiths.
In much the same way, I would accuse the rabbis. They cannot have the right to change Moses. They cannot change what was dictated anymore than the Christians can. So in a word, it is not Yeshua who accuses y'all. It is Moshe.
Why is it hard-wired into your brain that "the bible" consists of the Protestant canon? How in the world is this self-evident?
It isn't hardwired in me. I hold to no canon... I see things kinda like y'all - Torah FIRST always. Then Tanakh, Then Brit Hadasha, like rings in a pool of water. I am confident I have proven them each and every one... And I hold some things nearby that other protestants abhor - Macabees as an instance - I cannot fully embrace it, but there is something there beneath the Hellenization. And I DO rely on the rabbis and the fathers to some extent, though most of it mainly for historical context.
How in the world is this self-evident?
Nothing is self-evident except the Eternal Torah. All the rest must be proven.