Was Jesus the messiah of the Hebrew bible?

[Nickman]

Cholland said he would like to debate this point so here it is.

Was Jesus the the messiah as prescribed by the Hebrew bible?

What prophecies does he fulfill and why?

Can he be shown to not fulfill the Hebrew text?

Cholland your up.....

[bluethread]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualifed, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

[Nickman]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualifed, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture. No one else mentions a virgin birth except for Matthew and Luke. We know that Matthew and Luke are not originals and are made from Mark and a possible Q. We also know that Luke borrowed extensively from Matthew. So here we have Mark written first, of all the gospels, and he does not mention a virgin birth. Then Matthew emerges using Mark as a template and with an erroneous assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14. Later Luke uses Matthew for material and adds even more but never mentions any fulfillment of Isaiah. John never mentions a virgin birth either. The story hangs on two texts out of the entire NT. One which says it fulfills Isaiah 7:14, which was already fulfilled and another that doesn't mention any type of fulfillment at all.

[bluethread]

No No No, Matthew makes it explicit that Jesus was born of a virgin in order to fulfill Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel[g] (which means God with us).

The word plerothe means
accomplish (1), accomplished (1), amply supplied (1), approaching (1), complete (1), completed (3), completing (1), elapsed (1), fill (3), filled (16), fills (1), finished (1), fulfill (20), fulfilled (20), fully carry (1), fully come (1), fully preached (1), increasing (1), made complete (2), made full (5), make...full (1), make...complete (1), passed (2), supply (1).

Isaiah 7:14 was a sign to Ahaz not to anyone else and it was fulfilled in chapter 8. Matthew disregards the fact that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled, probably because he liked to quote mine like most christians do. It seems to be an inherent trait amongst you's guys. There is no way that Isaiah 7:14 has anything to do with Jesus.

You have done a good job of copying Strong's list of the various uses of the term in the KJV. This just happens to be one of the 20 times it is determined by the translaters to most closely related to the english term fulfill. Along with the definition to complete, fulfill can also refer to filling full, from whence it was derived. It can also mean to satisfy or to meet similar criteria. It took place to fill full what was said, to satisfy or meet the criteria similar to what Yesha'yahu was talking about. Namely that Adonai is with us. Wouldn't this be obvious to those who were familiar with the story?

By the way, I am not a christian, or at least "you's guys" do not generally consider me to be. Also, why did you ignore my question about Yeshua having goy talmidim and why Mattityahu quotes so much from the Tanakh, if he is a goy talking to the goyim? Oh, I just realized, why do jews acknowledge that these guys were jewish? They believe that they were commiting blashphemy, but they were also jewish.

[The Tongue]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

No, no, no, my friend the virgin birth has nothing whatsoever to do with the teaching of the pre-Jerome translation of the bible. The so called virgin birth of some eternal and immortal god, who was supposed to have been the co-creator of the entire cosmos, was a deliberate lie that was introduced by those who had abandoned the Jesus of the gospels as taught by the apostles, and invented their own Jesus who has nothing to do with the truths as revealed in the holy scriptures.

[bluethread]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualifed, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture. No one else mentions a virgin birth except for Matthew and Luke. We know that Matthew and Luke are not originals and are made from Mark and a possible Q. We also know that Luke borrowed extensively from Matthew. So here we have Mark written first, of all the gospels, and he does not mention a virgin birth. Then Matthew emerges using Mark as a template and with an erroneous assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14. Later Luke uses Matthew for material and adds even more but never mentions any fulfillment of Isaiah. John never mentions a virgin birth either. The story hangs on two texts out of the entire NT. One which says it fulfills Isaiah 7:14, which was already fulfilled and another that doesn't mention any type of fulfillment at all.

Nice neat story line, but we do not know these things. They are speculation. You and many others believe that speculation to be the most probable, but speculation it is none the less. I speculate that two of the accounts are written by Yeshua's talmidim and the other two were written by contempararies of Paul as they profess. I speculate that Mattityahu is jewish, because he was one of Yeshua's talmidim and because jews think he was jewish. If you wish to hang everything on a misunderstanding that is based on RCC doctrine and not rabbinic practice, have at it. I to am disappointed in the way Mattityahu has been misused by "you's guys". That passage is clearly not a direct reference to Yeshua. However, I believe, Yeshua does fulfill what is written by Yesha'yahu.

[Nickman]

No No No, Matthew makes it explicit that Jesus was born of a virgin in order to fulfill Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel[g] (which means God with us).

The word plerothe means
accomplish (1), accomplished (1), amply supplied (1), approaching (1), complete (1), completed (3), completing (1), elapsed (1), fill (3), filled (16), fills (1), finished (1), fulfill (20), fulfilled (20), fully carry (1), fully come (1), fully preached (1), increasing (1), made complete (2), made full (5), make...full (1), make...complete (1), passed (2), supply (1).

Isaiah 7:14 was a sign to Ahaz not to anyone else and it was fulfilled in chapter 8. Matthew disregards the fact that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled, probably because he liked to quote mine like most christians do. It seems to be an inherent trait amongst you's guys. There is no way that Isaiah 7:14 has anything to do with Jesus.

You have done a good job of copying Strong's list of the various uses of the term in the KJV. This just happens to be one of the 20 times it is determined by the translaters to most closely related to the english term fulfill. Along with the definition to complete, fulfill can also refer to filling full, from whence it was derived. It can also mean to satisfy or to meet similar criteria. It took place to fill full what was said, to satisfy or meet the criteria similar to what Yesha'yahu was talking about. Namely that Adonai is with us. Wouldn't this be obvious to those who were familiar with the story?

By the way, I am not a christian, or at least "you's guys" do not generally consider me to be. Also, why did you ignore my question about Yeshua having goy talmidim and why Mattityahu quotes so much from the Tanakh, if he is a goy talking to the goyim? Oh, I just realized, why do jews acknowledge that these guys were jewish? They believe that they were commiting blashphemy, but they were also jewish.

Isaiah 7:14 does not leave the verse open for a further fulfillment. All that was stated and required for the sign in Chapter 7 was fulfilled in Chapter 8.

[Mithrae]

The gospel of Matthew appears to be from a Greek or Roman author because of the mentality used within its pages. Mark however appears to be from a Jew. Luke also appears to be from a pagan origin as well as John. Mark is the only one that appears to show Israelite mentality.

It's well-known that the Word (logos) notion with which John's gospel begins was used in Jewish thought by Philo long before the gospel was written.

• Forum member Student wrote:
  As for Johns Greek, according to Wallace [Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament; p.30], the range of literary levels of the NT authors is as follows:
  Most semitic / vulgar : Revelation, Mark, John, 1-3 John, 2 Peter
  
  NT scholar Richard Bauckham wrote:
  It seems to have become quite widely accepted that the parallels between the Johannine literature of the New Testament (the Gospel and Epistles of John) and those texts from Qumran which most likely express the communitys own theology are probably the most impressive parallels between the New Testament and Qumran, and are so impressive as to require a historical connection closer than could be provided merely by the common Jewish milieu of late Second Temple Judaism. . . . I do not think they amount to a case for influence or for any particular historical connection between John and Qumran.

The author of John obviously has some concern or pre-occupation with Jewish followers of Jesus being "put out of the synagogue." John seems the work of a Jewish Christian after a definite split between the two groups. Matthew on the other hand emphasises the Tanakh and the law of Moses more than any other gospel, not to mention the carefully-structured parallels between Jesus and Moses built up in the earliest chapters (both lack human father, both endangered in infancy, both associated with Egypt, both give instruction from a mountain). Mark has the most obviously Semitic/Aramaic elements in explaining certain customs to a gentile audience, but Matthew's themes and imagery are the most Jewish-oriented of the four.

Even Luke might show surprising associations with the Tanakh, considering the author was a gentile.

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

Where did you get these qualifications from, exactly? Its a remarkable (and remarkably obvious) fallacy to pick out a handful of passages from the Tanakh and say these are the ones which show "the qualifications for the messiah" when none of them even mention the messiah!

[cholland]

I never once said that Isaiah says virgin. What I did say is that it most certainly does not mean virgin. Matthew says it does which is incorrect. Matthew tried to make Isaiah mean virgin. Jesus birth is said to be that of a virgin. This has nothing to support it in the Hebrew bible.

Then are you saying that the jewish translators of the Septuagint were doing the same thing? They use the same greek word. What makes you think Mattityahu is not understanding Is. 7:14? Could he not be saying that Yesha'yahu spoke of what has been translated (almah), but here we have a true (virgin) and the child of this true will truly save Adonai's people?

Several things.. in the older times, the term 'parthenos' was not necessarily virgin. For example, Dinah, in Genesis 3.4, was referred to as "Parthnos" in the Septuagint , even after she got raped. There is also the following references in ancient Greek literature where the term 'Parthenos' refers to a non virgin.

Homer, Iliad 2.514 "Actor, son of ... Astyoche, the honored maiden"
Aristophanes Clouds 530, about a "parthenos" who exposed her baby.

Pindar, Pythian 3.34
and
Sophocles, Trachiniae 1219 of Iole (1220) who slept with Heracles (1225).

So, well, the meaning changed over the years.

Virginity is a matter of the heart, not the physical act of having sex. In my opinion, a person can maintain their virginity even after being raped if they do not enjoy it.

And the meaning of words go through changes all the time. Welcome to etymology. What you can't do is take a word as it is understood in one year (e.g. 1220) and apply it to another (e.g. Isaiah). change of meaning, change of concept.

[Rkrause]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualifed, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture. No one else mentions a virgin birth except for Matthew and Luke. We know that Matthew and Luke are not originals and are made from Mark and a possible Q. We also know that Luke borrowed extensively from Matthew. So here we have Mark written first, of all the gospels, and he does not mention a virgin birth. Then Matthew emerges using Mark as a template and with an erroneous assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14. Later Luke uses Matthew for material and adds even more but never mentions any fulfillment of Isaiah. John never mentions a virgin birth either. The story hangs on two texts out of the entire NT. One which says it fulfills Isaiah 7:14, which was already fulfilled and another that doesn't mention any type of fulfillment at all.

I didn't notice this until now. You keep admitting that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled. Does that mean you believe Isaiah predicted the future and was successful?

[ThatGirlAgain]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualified, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

The Messiah must be a descendent of David but as far as I know this need not be by strictly patrilineal descent. If a virgin woman who was a descendent of David somehow gave birth, the Davidic descent requirement would still be satisfied, would it not?

Old time notions of royal inheritance were typically from father to son so this may be a source of confusion for some people. There is also the example of Matthew who does an elaborate tap dance to have Jesus 'inherit' patrilineal Davidic descent from Joseph via marriage to Mary even though Joseph is not the biological father.