What proves Jesus is the Messiah? Did he fulfill prophecies

[Avoice]

What proof can anyone give that Jesus is the Messiah? Did he fulfull prophecies? If so, what orophecy and how did he fulfill it? Riding into into Jeusalem on an ass proves nothing. Many rode into Jerusalem on an ass. I too could ride in to Jerusalem on an ass. What else ya' got?

Needless to say any evidence MUST be supported by the Hebrew Scriptures

[JehovahsWitness]

Needless to say any evidence MUST be supported by the Hebrew Scriptures

Are you asking for scriptures in the Hebrew Scriptures that outline how Jesus fulfilled prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures? Is this not like asking for a birth certificate written in 1975 for someone born in 1990?

[shnarkle]

Needless to say any evidence MUST be supported by the Hebrew Scriptures

Are you asking for scriptures in the Hebrew Scriptures that outline how Jesus fulfilled prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures? Is this not like asking for a birth certificate written in 1975 for someone born in 1990?

Or perhaps a death certificate written long before the person died.

Regardless, I think they do have a point. When they note that certain words have been changed, or that what was once applied to Israel is now being applied to an individual person,some explanation does seem necessary

The religion of Islam does the same thing with the Christian scriptures, and Christians don't seem to be all that happy about it either.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 22 by shnarkle]

I just don't understand what is being asked... if the prophecy is in the Hebrew bible and Jesus was born after the Hebrew canon was fixed, where but the Christian scriptures can one read about his actions in order to determine if he did indeed fulfill scripture previously recorded ?

What am I missing?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 22 by shnarkle]

I just don't understand what is being asked... if the prophecy is in the Hebrew bible and Jesus was born after the Hebrew canon was fixed, where but the Christian scriptures can one read about his actions in order to determine if he did indeed fulfill scripture previously recorded ?

What am I missing?

You're missing out on some tell tale signs that the gospel narratives are not historical accounts to begin with. You are assuming this as a Given. The gospel accounts are portraying the meaning of the kingdom within the context of their liturgy.

[JehovahsWitness]

You're missing out on some tell tale signs that the gospel narratives are not historical accounts to begin with.

How is that relevant? Whether they are historical or fictional the writings were produced in the stream of time.

You are assuming this as a Given...

I made a supposition, not an assumption .... *IF* Jesus was born after the Hebrew canon was closed, where but in new writings or from new accounts would we be able to gather the information about him to make a comparison?


JW

[shnarkle]

You're missing out on some tell tale signs that the gospel narratives are not historical accounts to begin with.

How is that relevant? Whether they are historical or fictional the writings were produced in the stream of time.

Sure, but that's why it's relevant. A fictional portrayal isn't meant to show that Jesus is the messiah. It's meant to show what it means to be the messiah. It's showing what it means to follow the messiah. When Christians look at the personage rather than the meaning of his life, they get sidetracked on personalities rather than the message of the gospel. The authors even point this out so you won't miss it.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

You are assuming this as a Given...

I made a supposition, not an assumption ....

I see no effective difference in this distinction. What is the difference in assuming a Given and supposing a Given?

assume
[soom]

VERB
suppose to be the case,

*IF* Jesus was born after the Hebrew canon was closed, where but in new writings or from new accounts would we be able to gather the information about him to make a comparison?

Nowhere. You're begging the Question. The accounts are works of fiction. They aren't about him at all. They're about the church community a few decades later.

As I pointed out earlier, you can't debate the issue when you are working under the assumption that they're historical narratives.

Again, the gospel narratives follow the liturgical calendar; something most Christians are oblivious to begin with. If you would like to confirm this simple fact for yourself, you need look no further than the readings for each and every one of these Feasts yourself. What you'll immediately notice is that not only are the references blatant, but they're in chronological order. Just a coincidence?

[Avoice]

Okay,

I'm reading that, well, they aren't actual events but stories to inspire Christians.
And that they shouldn't be taken literally. If you don't take things the way they are written then everyone can passage them to suit themselves.

Let's take the very first page of the Christian testament. On the first page we have the first fulfillment citation jesus' birth wasn't an ordinary event. Oh, no .no...no. His birth was foretold by the prophet Isaiah. Then the writers of Mathew quotes from chapter 7.

Chapter 7 or isaiah isn't about the Messiah. It's about a pending battle between the southern and northern kingdoms. The child in the chapter is merely used as a clock. God said that by the time that child reached a certain age Ahazs enemies would be no more. And it happened. And in Hebrew it says YOUNG WONAN not virgin. And it doesn't say WILL CONCEIVE it says she is already with child. She was pregnant already when isaiah went to king ahaz. Lastly, the chapter begins with: "AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE DAYS OF AHAZ...". In simple terms that means what you are about to read already happened

The writer of Mathew was trying to convince people Jesus was the Messiah. The only way was to lie to people. Go ask your average Christian if they read chapter 7;of isaiah. They haven't.
It was meant to be taken literally. It was mean to be proof text to convince oeople jesus was special. I can understand the ignorance if people back then. Most were illiterate and scrolls were scarce. But today...we can all read. Most all. And Bibles are everywhere. The difference between believers now and believers then is that back then if they could have read Isaiah 7 on their own they would have seen the deception. Today, people can read but refuse to see it. They defend the liar and make excuses for hm.

[shnarkle]

Okay,

I'm reading that, well, they aren't actual events but stories to inspire Christians.And that they shouldn't be taken literally. If you don't take things the way they are written then everyone can passage them to suit themselves.

People will always come up with interpretations to suit themselves, but most are incapable of providing the figure of speech to support their claims. There are hundreds of figures of speech used in thousands of different ways in the Old and New Testament. Being able to show which figure is being employed goes a long way to proving that one isn't just making it up. For example, a literal interpretation of the "serpent" in the garden points to a talking snake, and people being banished from garden for eating fruit. The Hebrew "naXash" means "shining ones, burning ones", and when God tells Moses to construct pole and place a Seraph on it, the text informs us that Moses built "a naXash of brass". The terms Seraph and naXash are being used synonymously. However, snakes are also referred to as naXashim because of the burn of their bite.

So the author of Genesis has used a word that has multiple meanings. We still refer to people we view with contempt as snakes or serpents today, but no one today would assume that they are a literal snake, and is there really any good reason to suppose that eating fruit can make one wise? ttruescot has pointed out a few times that there's also a wordplay with these words "subtle" and "wise" and the shine of the serpents skin etc. These authors love to play with words.

An observant Jew begins to instruct their children in Torah at an early age, and when he gets to the part where "Adam knew his wife", he has to decide if his child is mature enough to understand what that means. Some children figure it out on their own eventually, but until that happens they're going to view this knowledge Adam has of his wife as some vague means of producing children. So it is with the rest of the texts as well. The bible censors itself until we're mature enough to understand the deeper meanings.

Let's take the very first page of the Christian testament. On the first page we have the first fulfillment citation jesus' birth wasn't an ordinary event. Oh, no .no...no. His birth was foretold by the prophet Isaiah. Then the writers of Mathew quotes from chapter 7.

Chapter 7 or isaiah isn't about the Messiah. It's about a pending battle between the southern and northern kingdoms. The child in the chapter is merely used as a clock. God said that by the time that child reached a certain age Ahazs enemies would be no more. And it happened. And in Hebrew it says YOUNG WONAN not virgin. And it doesn't say WILL CONCEIVE it says she is already with child. She was pregnant already when isaiah went to king ahaz. Lastly, the chapter begins with: "AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE DAYS OF AHAZ...". In simple terms that means what you are about to read already happened

The writer of Mathew was trying to convince people Jesus was the Messiah.

This is your interpretation. This is your conclusion. The writer of Matthew was writing to Jews who were familiar with those passages, much more familiar with them than you are, and much better equipped to understand that Matthew was in no way attempting to prove Jesus was the messiah. They immediately knew that the author of Matthew was simply presenting a narrative that fits quite nicely with their liturgy which coincidently also includes these references, except it's no coincidence at all. That's how they knew this narrative wasn't intended to be taken literally.

As long as you continue to view these narratives through the eyes of gentile Christians, you'll continue to come up with these false conclusions. Again, if you were to simply familiarize yourself with the readings which accompany Temple liturgies today, you'd see what's really going on. Go to Temple and see for yourself.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 28 by shnarkle]

Your response is nonsense. The writer if Mathew said Jesus' birth fulfilled a prophecy foretold by the prophet Isaiah. Then he quotes the passage that us suppose to prove it.

Simply a narrative that fits nicely with temple liturgies? Like about the Messiah being born from a virgin who was impregnated by God? I must have missed shul that week .

The book of Mathew was such BS that it kept Jews from believing in Christianity.

Your argument is rediculous. It can be a catch all for all the churches lies. Oh they really didn't mean it literally.

He meant every word of it. And yes, he was saying it to convince people to believe Jesus was the messiah

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

I'm saying that any doctrine that us taught by the church must be supported by the Hebrew scriptures

One can't say, for example, that the Messiah will be born of a virgin and to prove it quote from the book if Mathew that says it was a fulfilled prophecy. To prove that the Messiah is indeed to be born from a virgin you have to provide the Hebrew scriptures saying it to be so.

Proving the Church as true by using their testament is circular reasoning. Fir example:. If I tell you black and white mixed together makes green and to prove it I get out the book I WROTE. And of course in my book I say it's green. Am I the authority? No. It is unacceptable evidence.

When it comes to Christianity and Judaism it is Christianity that has the burden if proof. And their claims must be supported by the Hebrew scriptures.

Where did Christians hear about a messiah? They just come up with the idea? How about God? They learned about them from the jews. Man is introduced to God where? Garden of Eden. Who brought that book to Christians? The Jews

Therefore, whatever ideas you have about the Messiah has to be upheld by the Hebrew scriptures. The church has borrowed from the Hebrew scriptures and molded Jesus into something that does not match what the Hebrew scrips say. One can't do that. It would be like taking the Mona Lisa and painting her hair red, cutting it short or whatever suits your idea if how she should be then saying it is the Mona Lisa. Davinci is the only one who has the final word in whether it is the Mona Lisa. Not the person who touched up the picture