nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
Suppose that there had been no Turin cloth at all. Presumably, you would reject the claim of the resurrection of Jesus.
Then the only evidence would be textual evidence. If there were no textual evidence, only then would the claim have no justification at all.
But the textual evidence runs counter to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah.
I've spent many pages arguing for the Bible as authoritative before I even broached the Turin Shroud.
Then why did you assert that simply invalidating the cloth would invalidate the resurrection?
It was because Thomas didn't believe Jesus was resurrected unless he saw evidence. It could be Jesus is saying this to our scientifically minded culutre and saying we have the TS as evidence for his resurrection.
How can he be talking about something he doesn't mention? If the Turin cloth is something which can be seen, then Jesus is pronouncing a blessing on those who believe in him without seeing it.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:04 pm
But the textual evidence runs counter to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah.
I'll let readers judge.
Then why did you assert that simply invalidating the cloth would invalidate the resurrection?
I'm claiming this to up the ante on the discussion of the TS for the skeptics. If skeptics can demonstrate the TS is a fake, then I'll consider it case closed for the resurrection.
It was because Thomas didn't believe Jesus was resurrected unless he saw evidence. It could be Jesus is saying this to our scientifically minded culture and saying we have the TS as evidence for his resurrection.
How can he be talking about something he doesn't mention? If the Turin cloth is something which can be seen, then Jesus is pronouncing a blessing on those who believe in him without seeing it.
What Jesus was referring to was evidence of his resurrection. Standing right in front of Thomas would be such evidence.
Rabbi Skobac argues why Jesus is not the Messiah in the video:
How Christian Missionaries Twist & Distort the Jewish Bible to Prove Jesus is Messiah
8:30
We listen to their case. They present to try to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. And for many Jewish people it sounds compelling. It sounds like they seem to have a good point.
Interesting admission by Rabbi Skobac.
8:48
So King Solomon wrote in the book of Proverbs you have it on your sheets at second source Proverbs 18:17 the first one to present his case seems right when you hear someone make a presentation and they try to prove what they believe. It could often sound right. They often can make you sound that it's convincing but then Solomon says until the other one comes and questions him. Meaning that there's going to be a second way of looking at this.
Yes, and I'll be countering what Rabbi Skobac says in his talk.
10:40
It doesn't really make any sense to speak about whether or not Jesus is the Messiah unless you have before the discussion a clear and accurate definition of what is the Messiah.
11:37
The word the Messiah or the expression the Messiah in Hebrew never appears in the Bible. Strange you would think from a Christian point of view where they believe that the idea of the Messiah is the most important concept in their entire religion you'd think that at least the word would appear in the Bible once or twice so it I point out to them that they should realize that the Bible never speaks about someone that's called the Messiah.
It works both ways. Why would the Jews believe "the Messiah" would come if the Bible never mentions "the Messiah"?
12:55
There are actually many Messiahs in the Jewish Bible.
Yes, that's true.
13:00
The word Messiah in Christianity is usually just a title for one person. The word Christ in Greek is the word from Messiah.
Yes.
13:36
In the Jewish Bible there are many Messiahs. Messiah simply means anointed. Anointed means that oil was smeared on your head and you were initiated into the service of God. So you either were anointed as a king or you were anointed as high priest or some prophets were anointed. So in the times of the Bible if you were to ask someone where's the Messiah they would say which one are you referring to? The king, to the high priest, to the prophet. So there are many many Messiahs in the Bible. But the Bible never refers to someone who is called the Messiah some ultimate special anointed one.
Yes, that is true for the Jewish Bible.
If we apply this to the New Testament, for argument sake, we can simply refer to Jesus as a messiah, not the Messiah.
Also, technically, Jesus never referred to himself as a messiah. He referred to himself as the son of man.
So, would Rabbi Skobac be willing to at least acknowledge Jesus was a messiah and not the Messiah? That he was anointed during his baptism by John and by the Holy Spirit descending on him by God?
15:41
Another thing that you have in the Bible are descriptions of the future. You have many parts of the Bible that talk about what's going to be in the future and the dominant theme of all of these future oriented passages in the Bible is about a utopian world that would come about in the future.
Yes, that's true. But we have to separate a messiah and the future ideal state. Those two can happen independently. As Rabbi Skobac acknowledges, there were many messiahs in the Tanakh. And obviously the ideal future state didn't happen with them.
16:32
Jewish people all returning to their ancestral homeland.
The nation of Israel forming in 1948 would be a significant milestone for this to happen. I think it can even be argued this part of prophecy has been fulfilled.
16:40
Ten of our tribes we call them the ten lost tribes of Israel. Where have they gone but the Bible says they're going to return one day.
It's dubious the ten lost tribes even exists. Rather, they got assimilated into the Assyrian civilization. So, literally the Israelites as a people do not exist as an entity anymore. Rather, it is only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi that exists as an entity (the Jews).
Even if some of the ten lost tribes exist to this day, why have they not revealed themselves to the world and remained hidden? The only people that could be related to the ten lost tribes would be the Samaritans, which the Jews have historically considered apostate.
17:06
All Jewish people will come to a close relationship with God and God's Torah and the observance of God's Torah. The Bible says that we're going to rebuild our temple after we return from the exile. The Bible says that when this happens the Jewish people are going to be sought out by the nations of the world. The Bible told the Jewish people you have a special role to play in the world. The Bible says you're my witnesses. The Bible says that you're supposed to be a light unto the nations. The Bible says was supposed to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. But that hasn't really happened yet because we haven't gotten our own act together. But in this special time when the Bible speaks about the Jewish people basically becoming restored spiritually. So the Bible says at that time the nations of the world are going to come to our light and they're going to ask us to teach them about God and about God's ways. So that's the fourth thing that's going to happen that the Jewish people will be sought out by the nations of the world to be spiritual teachers. The Bible says that the whole world will then come to a knowledge of God that every person on the planet is going to have a knowledge of God.
A question is how will all this happen?
18:20
And finally we're told that because every human being has a knowledge and a faith in God then all people will realize that we're all brothers and sisters.
Shouldn't have to wait for the Messianic age for this to happen.
18:33
Bible says the world will become a place of universal peace. All weapons will be destroyed and we have now this beautiful portrait in the Bible that's portrayed in many many many passages over and over and over again. This theme of a restored utopian perfected fixed world. But when you read these passages it's very interesting the vast majority of them the vast majority don't speak about any particular person. Meaning that the focus of these passages in the Bible is not on a person it's on what the world will look like in the future. It focuses on the world.
Yes, there's no necessary link between the Messiah and the future utopia.
19:48
Because this king will be the special ultimate king who is the leader of the Jewish people when the world finally reaches its ultimate utopian state. We have always referred to this particular king as the Messiah. The Bible never calls him the Messiah. But when we read the Bible it's clear that this is the Messiah.
You can't have it both ways though. You cannot argue Christians cannot have a Messiah during the final days and also argue the Jews can have a Messiah during the final days if the text doesn't have a clear link between the Messiah and the final days.
20:18
So when my students ask me so why don't you think Jesus was the Messiah it's very simple. Jesus himself at the end of his life when he's being crucified by the Romans on the cross he doesn't scream out touchdown mission accomplished. He on the cross cries out my God my God why have you forsaken me. He understands that he didn't accomplish what the Messiah was supposed to accomplish.
Talk about twisting of scripture. Jesus did finish his mission.
[Jhn 17:4 KJV] 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
[Jhn 19:30 KJV] 30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
When Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", this was not some sort of statement of defeat, but Jesus was simply referring to Psalm 22.
[Mat 27:46 KJV] 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
[Psa 22:1 KJV] 1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
Why did he point to Psalm 22? Because he was stating he was fulfilling the prophecies in Psalm 22.
[Psa 22:15-18 KJV] 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. 16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
20:45
It's the fact that no one has fulfilled what the Bible describes the Bible again describes a righteous and raw and wise descendant of King David who will be the king of the Jewish people when when the world has reached its utopian zenith. Unless that happens unless the world is transformed the way the Bible says they'll be transformed there's no Messiah. What is the Christian response so that the ancient Christian response is to paraphrase arnold schwarzenegger it'll be back. Right to say that yes Jesus will return and he'll accomplish all those things meaning that they have a doctrine called the second coming of the Messiah and we would say that necessity is the mother of invention that obviously they have to say something if Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies when he was alive so they're forced to say he'll come back at one time and he'll do those things. The problem is that you could advance this idea for any failed Messiah. You could take anyone and say yes when they come back they'll fulfill all the prophecies but the question is so why should I believe they were the Messiah when they were here originally?
The difference between Jesus and all the failed messiahs is Jesus prophesied he would rise from the dead and he actually fulfilled it. If he can do that, then it's likely his prophecy that he would come again in glory will also be fulfilled.
But why you asked me to believe the person is the Messiah prematurely they haven't done anything yet.
He did do something. He rose from the dead.
23:12
They say the Messiah is supposed to be a leader who would be rejected and killed and die as a sacrifice and all who would believe in him would have all their sins forgiven. And they claim that this idea is firmly based upon the Jewish Bible so it's interesting when Christians try to get Jewish people to believe in Jesus they never quote all of the passages I just referred to. Meaning that if I was going to give a class about the Messiah, I would quote passages like Isaiah chapter 11 and Jeremiah 23 and Jeremiah 30 and Jeremiah 33 and Ezekiel chapter 34 and Ezekiel chapter 37 which all speak about this special descendant of King David who's going to rule as the king during the utopian future.
Sure, if someone wants to discuss what would happen during the Second Coming they can.
24:04
Christians never quote those passages when they ask us to believe in Jesus because he hasn't done those so they put together a whole collection of passages that they say these are the primary messianic passages these speak about someone who's going to be killed about someone who's going to be crucified about someone who's going to be rejected and you Jews fail to see those primary messianic prophecies.
If it's in the Tanakh, what's wrong with Christians presenting those texts?
28:02
It's interesting that if you consult many Christian commentaries to the Bible I'm not saying Jewish commentaries many Christian commentaries to the Bible they say no the 53rd chapter of Isaiah is not speaking about the Messiah it's a chapter about the people of Israel.
He claims this, but he doesn't cite them. From my research, out of 39 commentaries that I have, only 2 seem to claim it is the nation of Israel that is the suffering servant.
28:46
If you go to the chapters 4 chapter 53 Isaiah specifically tells you the servant of God is Israel is the Jewish people. So it would seem to me for that and for many other reasons that the 53rd chapter of Isaiah is about the Jewish people.
Yes, it's true earlier chapters refer to Israel as a servant. However, in Isa 53, the pronoun used to refer to the suffering servant is singular.
Also, there are references before Isa 53 to a singular servant.
[Isa 40:10 KJV] 10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong [hand], and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward [is] with him, and his work before him.
[Isa 42:1-3 KJV] 1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
[Isa 50:6 KJV] 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
29:18
There should be universal agreement that it's clear and then we have to ask the other question how many times does the Bible say the Messiah is going to be rejected and despised.
It is also mentioned in Psalm 22:
Psa 22
6 But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head,
30:55
Insists that God is to be understood as having three parts in a Trinity.
Skobac misunderstands Christian doctrine. Nobody believes God has three parts, but rather as three persons in one.
"A Trinity doctrine is commonly expressed as the statement that the one God exists as or in three equally divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Trinity/
31:01
The Christian insists that God would ultimately come to the earth and take on human form. That God would walk the earth in human form. The incarnation of God that's the Christian vision. The Christian position is that God is to be understood as a Trinity and God will take on human form is that what the Bible teaches.
We have many instances where God appeared to people in the Bible that walked, sat, and seen face to face.
[Gen 3:8 KJV] 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
[Gen 18:1 KJV] 1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
[Gen 32:30 KJV] 30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
32:12
God doesn't take on human form.
The passages above hint God has taken on a human form before.
33:19
The idea of a Trinity is absolutely not found anywhere in the Jewish Bible.
The idea is found, but it's not entirely relevant to Jesus being the Messiah. The early Christians did not have an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, but they did accept him as the Messiah.
[Mar 8:29 KJV] 29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
33:43
About the topic of forgiveness for sins. One of the central disagreements between Christianity and Judaism, Judaism says that if we make a mistake if we sin if we violate God's plan, the way we get forgiven is by confessing to God we did something wrong, by praying for forgiveness, and then by changing our behavior.
Strange he would claim this. This is exactly what Christianity teaches, so obviously he has a wrong view of Christianity.
[1Jo 1:9 KJV] 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
[Act 3:19 KJV] 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
34:26
The Bible says over and over again in dozens and dozens of passages the Bible says that the response to sin is repentance.
Yes, and most of it is in the New Testament. The word "repentance" is only found once in the OT and 25 times in the NT.
34:44
Christianity says no no Christianity says that no matter what you do you will never be forgiven. The only thing they say that will grant you forgiveness is if you bring a sacrifice and take blood and spill the blood on the altar. That's the Christian assertion. That's why it says in the Christian Bible in the book of Hebrews chapter 9 verse 22 the Christian Bible says without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness.
We don't bring a sacrifice to the altar. Jesus was the one who brought the sacrifice to the altar.
Hebrews is just teaching what the Old Testament taught about the shedding of blood. It's not like it's a wholesale invention by Christians.
[Lev 4:20 KJV] 20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
[Lev 5:10 KJV] 10 And he shall offer the second [for] a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
[Lev 17:11 KJV] 11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
35:19
The Jewish Bible never taught that if you bring a sacrifice you'll be forgiven.
Very strange a Jew would claim this since it's throughout the Jewish Bible. What was the entire point of the sacrificial system then?
[Lev 4:20 KJV] 20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
[Lev 5:13, 18 KJV] 13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and [the remnant] shall be the priest's, as a meat offering. ... 18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist [it] not, and it shall be forgiven him.
[Lev 19:22 KJV] 22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
35:37
In Proverbs that the sacrifice of the wicked person is an abomination to the Lord. God hates it when people think that all they need to do is bring a sacrifice and all of the prophets would scream at the Jewish people who thought that.
It is true that a heart component is required in the sacrifices. But by his own admission here the Jews had believed a sacrifice was necessary for forgiveness since the prophets were screaming at the Jews on doing it incorrectly.
36:03
The question is what if you can't bring a sacrifice what if there's no temple so Christianity says if there's no temple you have to have the Messiah who dies for you. And Judaism says it's in the Bible itself that you don't need the temple.
That makes no sense. The temple was central to the nation of Israel. Why did they even have a temple and the Levitical system in the first place? Why did they want to rebuild the temple when the first temple was destroyed? Why do Jews now want to rebuild it after the second temple was destroyed?
36:21
The sacrifice was basically an external symbol. It was an external symbol of an internal change. You changed you became a new person.
How many Jews actually had such an internal change to become a new person? On what basis did God consider them a "new person"? What internal change occurred?
In Christianity, we are a new person not based on anything we can do, but on the sinless son of God who redeemed us. We are considered a new person in the eyes of God because all of our sins have been atoned for by Jesus's death.
44:27
What I do is I shoot my arrow into the tree and then I draw the target around the arrow. So if we want to understand how is it that the Christian missionary approaches the Jewish Bible they approach the Jewish Bible basically with their conclusion already in hand they already believe in Jesus without the Jewish Bible.
It is very interesting Rabbi Skobac has not even mentioned so far the central tenet of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus. It is this that is the arrow in the center of the target.
I agree the early Christians reinterpreted the Old Testament scriptures in light of the resurrection of Jesus. But the only reason they would do that is because the resurrection happened. If it didn't happen, Jesus was just be another false messiah lost in history.
The target was created first because Jesus made this prediction while he was still alive. And it would be like drawing a target on the moon and trying to use an arrow to hit it from earth - it would be an impossible target to hit. But, miraculously, Jesus hit the target.
And with this miraculous event that occurred, the Old Testament scriptures were seen through a different perspective than how the Jews at that time commonly interpreted it. It was obvious the Jews were looking for a warrior Messiah that would overthrow the Roman oppression. But since Jesus died on the cross, their expectations of the Messiah were not met. So, the question is who's interpretation of the scriptures is correct? The
followers of Jesus or the followers of the Jewish tradition?
It's not more likely that I'm wrong, because anyone can see the discrepancies between what Jesus says and what the law of Moses says. All it takes is looking at them together.
How can it be clearly seen it if you're the first to see it?
Since I'm not the first to see it, how is it not clearly seen?
I don't think the passage either means to take it in a hyperliteral way and say he's no longer human looking. Not everything in the Bible has to be taken in a literalistic way.
Then why can't the same be applicable to "I am the way, the truth and the life"?
No, I don't claim I know the mechanism for how the Bible was inspired either. But if you're going to claim God-breathed must imply some sort of requirement of inerrancy, then you'll need to be specific what does God-breathed means.
So it's too much to expect inerrancy of God?
If "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God" (Deuteronomy 8:3), doesn't that imply that all those words must come from God and, therefore, be inerrant?
The contradiction is in your statements about who is forgiven in Jer 31.
At one point you say non-Jews are forgiven:
Then you state only the Jews are being referred to:
Notice the discrepancy in your critique: the Jews being referred to does not mean they're the only ones forgiven. Again, the forgiveness is about all of them, not about only them.
A straight forward interpretation doesn't need to introduce a separate puppy and kitten and then fuse them together.
It may not need to, but it does.
These passages are referring to all those who trust in Jesus. Our transgressions and iniquities was placed on Jesus and their sins have been forgiven.
Jesus isn't mentioned.
That he didn't obtain the "more excellent ministry" while he was on earth, but after death.
Jesus came down to earth. And he was the atoning lamb, so he died for our sins. So, don't really see the issue here.
The issue is that he didn't establish the new covenant. And any claim that he's doing so in some type of slow-motion could be made for any false messiah.
"If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil" (John 18:23)
If apologists can make up any excuse for Jesus's failure, then he was issuing an empty, meaningless challenge.
According to the Jewish Bible, the Gentiles must have some way of knowing
And what is that some way? Most likely, some Jewish rabbi would have to teach and proclaim this to the Gentile world.
As usual, I've already answered this: Israel exalted before the nations, the Jewish Messiah arriving......
That's why I wrote, "The messianic utopia beginning and the Jewish Messiah arriving." That would fit with a redeemer coming to those who turn from iniquity in Jacob, rather than turning them.
Is there any Jewish person that has this view?
The Messiah’s role in Judaism has never been understood to take away our sins. We are taught, just the opposite, when we put aside our sins then the Messiah will come!
I'm claiming this to up the ante on the discussion of the TS for the skeptics. If skeptics can demonstrate the TS is a fake, then I'll consider it case closed for the resurrection.
Since the procedures proposed for producing the image wouldn't produce the image we see, I'd say the skeptics aren't too far off.
What Jesus was referring to was evidence of his resurrection. Standing right in front of Thomas would be such evidence.
What Jesus was referring to was believing in him without such evidence.
otseng wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 6:47 am
Of course I'm able to. But unless you change your mind and say hermeneutics is necessary, then it's pointless for me to present it.
Have you changed your mind that hermeneutics is necessary? If so, then I'll post it after my concluding post on Isa 53.
Since I'm not the first to see it, how is it not clearly seen?
I'm referring to your argument that Jesus's statements on divorce shows that he could not have resurrected.
Not everything in the Bible has to be taken in a literalistic way.
Then why can't the same be applicable to "I am the way, the truth and the life"?
Sure, I don't take that literally either. Most interpret it metaphorically.
No, I don't claim I know the mechanism for how the Bible was inspired either. But if you're going to claim God-breathed must imply some sort of requirement of inerrancy, then you'll need to be specific what does God-breathed means.
So it's too much to expect inerrancy of God?
You're shifting the goal. The question is what does God-breathed actually mean?
As to expect inerrancy from God, I've never claimed God wrote the Bible. Men wrote the Bible.
If "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God" (Deuteronomy 8:3), doesn't that imply that all those words must come from God and, therefore, be inerrant?
No, it doesn't mean the Bible needs to be inerrant.
Notice the discrepancy in your critique: the Jews being referred to does not mean they're the only ones forgiven. Again, the forgiveness is about all of them, not about only them.
You're contradicting again with what you stated earlier:
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 7:40 pmIt's saying that all Israel will know Jehovah, and that he will remember their (Israel's) sin no more. You seem to be confusing Jeremiah's reference to Israel and Isaiah's reference to the nations.
Jesus isn't mentioned.
I already had posted all the prophecies in Isa 53 that match with Jesus. I also argued Isa 53 cannot be referring to the nation of Israel as the suffering servant. So, Jesus is the most logical match.
And any claim that he's doing so in some type of slow-motion could be made for any false messiah.
Yes, anybody can claim they'll promise some utopia in the future. But this is not what Jesus cited as evidence of his authority, but his resurrection.
As usual, I've already answered this: Israel exalted before the nations, the Jewish Messiah arriving......
How will Israel be exalted before the nations? Victory in war? Voted most exalted nation by the UN? What would be the possible ways people would be able to come to the conclusion Israel is exalted?
The messianic utopia beginning and the Jewish Messiah arriving.
The fundamental question is: how would the Gentile nations understand that the nation of Israel suffered and bore their sins?
Here's my point. The only way the Gentiles (or anybody) can know something is if some knowledge has been transmitted to them (teaching, reading, listening, etc). Since this knowledge would have to come from the Jewish scriptures, it would have to be taught by the Jews. In effect, they would have to be like missionaries to the world. But, as a whole, the Jews do not have a missionary mindset to the world. Their primary audience of teaching is the Jews themselves, not to the Gentiles. As a matter of fact, they use the word "missionary" mostly as a negative term. So the whole concept of proclaiming their plan of salvation and forgiveness to the world is not in their DNA unless some miracle happens with the Jewish mindset.
That's why I wrote, "The messianic utopia beginning and the Jewish Messiah arriving." That would fit with a redeemer coming to those who turn from iniquity in Jacob, rather than turning them.
Is there any Jewish person that has this view?
The Messiah’s role in Judaism has never been understood to take away our sins. We are taught, just the opposite, when we put aside our sins then the Messiah will come!
The issue is the timing of your proposal that the messianic utopia will come first and then the Messiah will come. Please cite Jewish sources that believe this.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:32 pm
Since the procedures proposed for producing the image wouldn't produce the image we see, I'd say the skeptics aren't too far off.
Actually the opposite. I've investigated all the major naturalistic explanations and none of them are viable. Whereas the cloth collapse theory so far is the most viable. Does it explain everything? No, I don't claim it does. But does it explain it better than anything else? Yes.
What Jesus was referring to was believing in him without such evidence.
Yes, but what I was countering was your statement about not seeing the shroud. Not seeing evidence should be interpreted as a general statement, not specifically to just the shroud.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:04 pmIf the Turin cloth is something which can be seen, then Jesus is pronouncing a blessing on those who believe in him without seeing it.
It works both ways. Why would the Jews believe "the Messiah" would come if the Bible never mentions "the Messiah"?
You actually give the rabbi's answer later on:
19:48
Because this king will be the special ultimate king who is the leader of the Jewish people when the world finally reaches its ultimate utopian state. We have always referred to this particular king as the Messiah. The Bible never calls him the Messiah. But when we read the Bible it's clear that this is the Messiah.
Also, technically, Jesus never referred to himself as a messiah. He referred to himself as the son of man.
But when he's asked if he's the Christ ("Χριστός Christós, khris-tos'; from G5548; anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:—Christ.")---BLB
......he answers in the affirmative (Mark 14:61-62).
So, would Rabbi Skobac be willing to at least acknowledge Jesus was a messiah and not the Messiah? That he was anointed during his baptism by John and by the Holy Spirit descending on him by God?
The fourth gospel says that John baptized with water. That wouldn't qualify Jesus as a messiah, because he wasn't annointed with oil.
Yes, that's true. But we have to separate a messiah and the future ideal state. Those two can happen independently. As Rabbi Skobac acknowledges, there were many messiahs in the Tanakh. And obviously the ideal future state didn't happen with them.
....which is to say that they didn't establish the new covenant. Neither did Jesus.
The nation of Israel forming in 1948 would be a significant milestone for this to happen. I think it can even be argued this part of prophecy has been fulfilled.
The rabbi specified Jewish people all returning to their ancestral homeland. That clearly hasn't happened.
It's dubious the ten lost tribes even exists. Rather, they got assimilated into the Assyrian civilization. So, literally the Israelites as a people do not exist as an entity anymore. Rather, it is only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi that exists as an entity (the Jews).
Even if some of the ten lost tribes exist to this day, why have they not revealed themselves to the world and remained hidden? The only people that could be related to the ten lost tribes would be the Samaritans, which the Jews have historically considered apostate.
If bodies completely destroyed at death (think 9/11) can be resurrected on the last day, how hard would it be to strain the ten lost tribes of Israel out of surrounding people?
17:06
All Jewish people will come to a close relationship with God and God's Torah and the observance of God's Torah. The Bible says that we're going to rebuild our temple after we return from the exile. The Bible says that when this happens the Jewish people are going to be sought out by the nations of the world. The Bible told the Jewish people you have a special role to play in the world. The Bible says you're my witnesses. The Bible says that you're supposed to be a light unto the nations. The Bible says was supposed to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. But that hasn't really happened yet because we haven't gotten our own act together. But in this special time when the Bible speaksabout the Jewish people basically becoming restored spiritually. So the Bible says at that time the nations of the world are going to come to our light and they're going to ask us to teach them about God and about God's ways. So that's the fourth thing that's going to happen that the Jewish people will be sought out by the nations of the world to be spiritual teachers. The Bible says that the whole world will then come to a knowledge of God that every person on the planet is going to have a knowledge of God.
A question is how will all this happen?
Another question is what made "cloth collapse" happen.
18:20
And finally we're told that because every human being has a knowledge and a faith in God then all people will realize that we're all brothers and sisters.
Shouldn't have to wait for the Messianic age for this to happen.
Then why, if Jesus was the Messiah, should you have to wait for the new covenant to be established?
You cannot argue Christians cannot have a Messiah during the final days and also argue the Jews can have a Messiah during the final days if the text doesn't have a clear link between the Messiah and the final days.
The text describes what the world will be like when the Jewish Messiah comes [people having turned away from sin] (Isaiah 40:9).
[Jhn 17:4 KJV] 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
How could he have finished the work without establishing the new covenant?
Why did he point to Psalm 22? Because he was stating he was fulfilling the prophecies in Psalm 22.
......... For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
The difference between Jesus and all the failed messiahs is Jesus prophesied he would rise from the dead and he actually fulfilled it.
Circular argument. You're assuming that he rose from the dead. And if you're going to go back to the Turin cloth, you have to remember that
1. The method you propose for resurrection wouldn't produce the image we see and
2. Jesus's inconsistent teaching in the text disqualifies him from having been a Messiah who would be raised from the dead.
Meaning that if I was going to give a class about the Messiah, I would quote passages like Isaiah chapter 11 and Jeremiah 23 and Jeremiah 30 and Jeremiah 33 and Ezekiel chapter 34 and Ezekiel chapter 37 which all speak about this special descendant of King David who's going to rule as the king during the utopian future.
Sure, if someone wants to discuss what would happen during the Second Coming they can.
Do you believe that all of those chapters are about the second coming of Jesus?
If it's in the Tanakh, what's wrong with Christians presenting those texts?
The frequent mistranslations, for one thing.
Yes, it's true earlier chapters refer to Israel as a servant. However, in Isa 53, the pronoun used to refer to the suffering servant is singular.
A metaphorical pronoun to fit a metaphorical servant.
We have many instances where God appeared to people in the Bible that walked, sat, and seen face to face.
Aren't those "hyperliteral interpretations"?
There are many instances of Pagan deities doing the same.
The early Christians did not have an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, but they did accept him as the Messiah.
[Mar 8:29 KJV] 29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
If they accepted him as a Messiah who would go to his death, why were they shocked at Jesus's announcement that he would do so?
33:43
About the topic of forgiveness for sins. One of the central disagreements between Christianity and Judaism, Judaism says that if we make a mistake if we sin if we violate God's plan, the way we get forgiven is by confessing to God we did something wrong, by praying for forgiveness, and then by changing our behavior.
Strange he would claim this. This is exactly what Christianity teaches, so obviously he has a wrong view of Christianity.
Looks more like you have a wrong view of Christianity, which claims that you can't have your sins forgiven without believing in Jesus. The Jewish focus is on repentence; the Christian focus is on belief in a person.
The Jewish Bible never taught that if you bring a sacrifice you'll be forgiven.
Very strange a Jew would claim this since it's throughout the Jewish Bible. What was the entire point of the sacrificial system then?
The point of the sacrificial system was to atone for unintentional sins. Intentional sins [rebelliousness] required repentance.
The question is what if you can't bring a sacrifice what if there's no temple so Christianity says if there's no temple you have to have the Messiah who dies for you. And Judaism says it's in the Bible itself that you don't need the temple.
That makes no sense. The temple was central to the nation of Israel. Why did they even have a temple and the Levitical system in the first place? Why did they want to rebuild the temple when the first temple was destroyed? Why do Jews now want to rebuild it after the second temple was destroyed?
If being without a temple means that the Jews need their Messiah to be a final sacrifice, why didn't the Messiah come after the destruction of the first temple?
I agree the early Christians reinterpreted the Old Testament scriptures in light of the resurrection of Jesus. But the only reason they would do that is because the resurrection happened. If it didn't happen, Jesus was just be another false messiah lost in history.
Mormons reinterpret scripture in "light" of Joseph Smith finding plates of gold. Does that prove that it happened?
Have you changed your mind that hermeneutics is necessary? If so, then I'll post it after my concluding post on Isa 53.
Why wait? Why not enlighten me now?
I'm referring to your argument that Jesus's statements on divorce shows that he could not have resurrected.
False teacher=false messiah.
Not everything in the Bible has to be taken in a literalistic way.
Then why can't the same be applicable to "I am the way, the truth and the life"?
Sure, I don't take that literally either. Most interpret it metaphorically.
Are you sure? I don't think I've ever known a Christian who interpreted that "metaphorically".
Just to make sure that I'm clear on this, are you saying that Jesus could have been resurrected from the dead even if he isn't "the way, the truth and the life"?
You're shifting the goal. The question is what does God-breathed actually mean?
Didn't the BLB tell us?
As to expect inerrancy from God, I've never claimed God wrote the Bible. Men wrote the Bible.
Just as men wrote the texts of every other organized religion? If so, how then is the Bible any more reliable or authoritative than those?
If "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God" (Deuteronomy 8:3), doesn't that imply that all those words must come from God and, therefore, be inerrant?
No, it doesn't mean the Bible needs to be inerrant.
Then how can man know what words to live by?
Notice the discrepancy in your critique: the Jews being referred to does not mean they're the only ones forgiven. Again, the forgiveness is about all of them, not about only them.
You're contradicting again with what you stated earlier:
It's saying that all Israel will know Jehovah, and that he will remember their (Israel's) sin no more. You seem to be confusing Jeremiah's reference to Israel and Isaiah's reference to the nations.
Where do I say that only Israel will have their sins forgiven? You're insisting on seeing a contradiction where there isn't one.
Jesus isn't mentioned.
I already had posted all the prophecies in Isa 53 that match with Jesus. I also argued Isa 53 cannot be referring to the nation of Israel as the suffering servant. So, Jesus is the most logical match.
You posted prophecies of Isaiah and claimed that they match with Jesus (I even pointed out a mistranslation in their midst). You also conveniently dismiss the fact that Israel is referred to as "my servant" in the discourse of Isaiah.
Yes, anybody can claim they'll promise some utopia in the future. But this is not what Jesus cited as evidence of his authority, but his resurrection.
This goes back to the question of whether or not Jesus would be resurrected without being "the way, the truth and the life", which you yourself assert that he was only "metaphorically".
The only way the Gentiles (or anybody) can know something is if some knowledge has been transmitted to them (teaching, reading, listening, etc). Since this knowledge would have to come from the Jewish scriptures, it would have to be taught by the Jews.
Not according to the text. If ten men from the nations are going to grab onto the cloak of a Jew and say, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you" (Zechariah 8:23), they apparently get that message somewhere else.
"The Messiah’s role in Judaism has never been understood to take away our sins. We are taught, just the opposite, when we put aside our sins then the Messiah will come!"
The issue is the timing of your proposal that the messianic utopia will come first and then the Messiah will come. Please cite Jewish sources that believe this.
I just cited a Jewish source. It's not "my" proposal; it's theirs.
I've investigated all the major naturalistic explanations and none of them are viable. Whereas the cloth collapse theory so far is the most viable. Does it explain everything? No, I don't claim it does. But does it explain it better than anything else? Yes.
It isn't about explaining "better than". If it doesn't explain everything, it doesn't work.
What Jesus was referring to was believing in him without such evidence.
Yes, but what I was countering was your statement about not seeing the shroud. Not seeing evidence should be interpreted as a general statement, not specifically to just the shroud.
Not seeing evidence is a general statement, which includes the Turin cloth.
It works both ways. Why would the Jews believe "the Messiah" would come if the Bible never mentions "the Messiah"?
You actually give the rabbi's answer later on:
19:48
Because this king will be the special ultimate king who is the leader of the Jewish people when the world finally reaches its ultimate utopian state. We have always referred to this particular king as the Messiah. The Bible never calls him the Messiah. But when we read the Bible it's clear that this is the Messiah.
As Rabbi Skobac says, "The Bible never calls him the Messiah." So, if the Jews can still believe in "the Messiah", then Christians can also believe in "the Messiah".
Also, technically, Jesus never referred to himself as a messiah. He referred to himself as the son of man.
But when he's asked if he's the Christ ("Χριστός Christós, khris-tos'; from G5548; anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:—Christ.")---BLB
......he answers in the affirmative (Mark 14:61-62).
Here's Mark 14:61-62:
[Mar 14:61-62 KJV] 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Correct, Jesus accepted being called the Christ, but the point I'm making is he never explicitly stated he was the Christ. Even in this passage the only thing he explicitly stated was the "Son of man".
The fourth gospel says that John baptized with water. That wouldn't qualify Jesus as a messiah, because he wasn't annointed with oil.
What did the oil represent? There's nothing magical about oil in itself, rather it is symbolic of the Holy Spirit.
Among the more than 200 times that oil is mentioned in the Bible, the connection as a metaphor of the Holy Spirit’s presence and action is clear in the ritual of anointing prophets, priests, and kings.
During the baptism of Jesus, he had the actual anointing of the Holy Spirit.
[Jhn 1:32 KJV] 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
....which is to say that they didn't establish the new covenant. Neither did Jesus.
Yes, Jesus established the new covenant.
[Luk 22:20 NIV] 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
[Heb 8:6 NIV] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
[Heb 12:24 NIV] 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Even the Jews do not follow the Mosaic covenant, in particular the Levitical laws of the sacrificial system. So, what has to replace that? For the Orthodox Jews, they are waiting to rebuild the temple so they can reinstitute it. For the Christians, the Levitical sacrificial system has been replaced by the ultimate sacrifice by Jesus, the lamb of God.
The rabbi specified Jewish people all returning to their ancestral homeland. That clearly hasn't happened.
The fact that there is a state of Israel is a miracle. And any Jew is free to immigrate there if they wish.
Every Jew in the world has the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become an Israeli citizen. Individuals born within the country receive Israeli citizenship at birth if at least one parent is a citizen. Non-Jewish foreigners may naturalize after living in the country for at least three years while holding permanent residency and demonstrating knowledge in the Hebrew language. Naturalizing non-Jews are additionally required to renounce their previous nationalities, while Jewish immigrants are not subject to this requirement.
As for all the sons of Israel of the world actually moving to Israel, I don't think the text needs to be interpreted that way. Here's Isa 11:11:
[Isa 11:12 NIV] 12 He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.
If bodies completely destroyed at death (think 9/11) can be resurrected on the last day, how hard would it be to strain the ten lost tribes of Israel out of surrounding people?
When I refer to the "ten lost tribes of Israel", I'm assuming those ten tribes of Israel exist somewhere and are in hiding because they will somehow be gathered back to Israel. So, if they exist somewhere on this planet, where are they and who are they?
If you believe it's referring to lost tribes of Israel that have lived in the past and that they will be resurrected, what text says that would happen?
A question is how will all this happen?
Another question is what made "cloth collapse" happen.
It's a supernatural event, so we don't know how it happened. So you're also saying all of these things will happen supernaturally?
Then why, if Jesus was the Messiah, should you have to wait for the new covenant to be established?
I already presented passages that the new covenant has been established. There is no need to wait for it to happen since it has already happened.
You cannot argue Christians cannot have a Messiah during the final days and also argue the Jews can have a Messiah during the final days if the text doesn't have a clear link between the Messiah and the final days.
The text describes what the world will be like when the Jewish Messiah comes [people having turned away from sin] (Isaiah 40:9).
And John the Baptist fulfilled the Isa 40 passages with proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah.
[Isa 40:3, 6, 9 NIV] 3 A voice of one calling: "In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. ... 6 A voice says, "Cry out." And I said, "What shall I cry?" "All people are like grass, and all their faithfulness is like the flowers of the field. ... 9 You who bring good news to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good news to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!"
[Jhn 1:29-30, 34 NIV] 29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' ... 34 I have seen and I testify that this is God's Chosen One."
How could he have finished the work without establishing the new covenant?
I already presented passages from the NT he established the new covenant. This was a fulfillment of the passages from Jeremiah:
[Jer 31:31-34 NIV] 31 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Of course Jews do not interpret it this way as the Christians do. But one has to ask the Jews when will God ever forgive their wickedness and sins? Do they have to wait for the Messianic age for this to happen? It's been a long wait for the Jews and who knows how much longer they still have to wait. How many generations of Jews have lived and died waiting for this to happen and their sins have not been forgiven by God? Instead Jesus came before the second temple was destroyed, so there's always been a method provided by God for the atonement of sins - either follow the Levitical sacrificial system or accept the sacrifice of Jesus.
Why did he point to Psalm 22? Because he was stating he was fulfilling the prophecies in Psalm 22.
......... For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
The difference between Jesus and all the failed messiahs is Jesus prophesied he would rise from the dead and he actually fulfilled it.
Circular argument. You're assuming that he rose from the dead. And if you're going to go back to the Turin cloth, you have to remember that
There's no circular argument in it. I've never assumed Jesus rose from the dead, but rather I argued for it using the evidence of the TS.
1. The method you propose for resurrection wouldn't produce the image we see and
2. Jesus's inconsistent teaching in the text disqualifies him from having been a Messiah who would be raised from the dead.
I've already addressed both of these.
Meaning that if I was going to give a class about the Messiah, I would quote passages like Isaiah chapter 11 and Jeremiah 23 and Jeremiah 30 and Jeremiah 33 and Ezekiel chapter 34 and Ezekiel chapter 37 which all speak about this special descendant of King David who's going to rule as the king during the utopian future.
Sure, if someone wants to discuss what would happen during the Second Coming they can.
Do you believe that all of those chapters are about the second coming of Jesus?
I don't make a claim either way.
If it's in the Tanakh, what's wrong with Christians presenting those texts?
The frequent mistranslations, for one thing.
If there's a mistranslation, feel free to present the relevant passages to our discussion on Isaiah 53.
Yes, it's true earlier chapters refer to Israel as a servant. However, in Isa 53, the pronoun used to refer to the suffering servant is singular.
A metaphorical pronoun to fit a metaphorical servant.
And evidence this is not a straight forward interpretation of the text.
We have many instances where God appeared to people in the Bible that walked, sat, and seen face to face.
Aren't those "hyperliteral interpretations"?
Could be. But the point is the Bible has a precedent of incarnations.
There are many instances of Pagan deities doing the same.
Any of them have any empirical evidence for existing on earth?
The early Christians did not have an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, but they did accept him as the Messiah.
[Mar 8:29 KJV] 29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
If they accepted him as a Messiah who would go to his death, why were they shocked at Jesus's announcement that he would do so?
Not sure what you're asking. Their expectation of the messiah would be he would not die, but usher in deliverance from the Romans. So when Jesus died, their expectation of the messiah was crushed.
Even Peter did not want Jesus to die and Jesus rebuked him for it.
[Mat 16:21-23 NIV] 21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."
The Jewish focus is on repentence; the Christian focus is on belief in a person.
Which is a strange claim if repentance is only used once in the OT and 25 times in the NT.
Yes, for Christians, the focus is on Jesus, but we still need to repent from our sins.
[Mat 4:17 NIV] 17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near."
[Luk 13:3 NIV] 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
[Act 2:38 NIV] 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[Act 17:30 NIV] 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
The Jewish Bible never taught that if you bring a sacrifice you'll be forgiven.
Very strange a Jew would claim this since it's throughout the Jewish Bible. What was the entire point of the sacrificial system then?
The point of the sacrificial system was to atone for unintentional sins. Intentional sins [rebelliousness] required repentance.
The day of atonement covered all sins.
Leviticus ends its description of the yearly purification of the Tabernacle on Yom Kippur by explaining that the day’s ritual cleanses and atones for all sins of any kind
Jesus performed the final day of atonement that covers for all of our sins.
If being without a temple means that the Jews need their Messiah to be a final sacrifice, why didn't the Messiah come after the destruction of the first temple?
This is a complicated answer, but simply put, his time had not yet come. We can perhaps have a deep dive into this after discussing Isa 53.
Mormons reinterpret scripture in "light" of Joseph Smith finding plates of gold. Does that prove that it happened?
If they have empirical evidence to demonstrate its veracity, then they are free to present it.
