6) Prophetic issues vindicated
The general concensus of Judaism has always been that the messiah would either come to or rebuld the temple if need be.
Thank you for proving my point, which was to show that the particular Rabbi raising the particular objection that the Messiah must necessarily
rebuild the temple (implicitly referring to a physical
one), was indeed being quite presumptuous, for there were many Jews, amongst them names which carry authority in traditional Orthodox Judaism, who did not believe that this was a necessary condition, (and many generally avoided arriving at anything conclusive at all, as will be spoken of shortly), and certainly the divine scriptures hold no such position at all, but on the contrary teach that the Messiah will indeed come during the second temple period, and necessarily visit the second temple.
So while you might like to show that Judaism has no single viewpoint it is easy enough demonstrated that neither does Christianity.
Actually, this was never my point, so you just attacked yet another straw man.
My point was quite simple and clear - There does and did exist amongst traditional Orthodox Jews, an interpretation of the Messiah’s function, which did not include his building of a third physical temple and which presumed his visitation of the second, and that this interpretation is indeed consistent with the ultimate authority - the divine scriptures. The fact he therefore placed this objection in a work so-generally titled “Why Jews don’t believe in Jesus” was either deceptive or not carefully thought out.
Furthermore, my statement was significant and relevant, since it was not some minority heretical sect, or some random individual, which I referred to in order to support my contention, but rather reputable authorities that would indisputably be characterized as “Orthodox”. The apparent reason for the discrepancies between leading authorities regarding this issue will be discussed later on, and the question will then be asked: “Why would an Orthodox Rabbi set an absolute condition for the Christian, regarding the function of the messiah with regards to the building of a third temple, as if it were dogmatic, when a) the divine scriptures do not teach this, and b) your own authorities conflict regarding how to interpret the temple passages of Ezekiel, and admit obvious problems regarding it.”
Even in the days of the supposed Jesus those in leadership saw a stark difference between the temple that existed and the temple that was described by Ezekiel. And by such it was believed that because many prophets told that the temple would be destroyed that it was not the "everlasting" temple but merely the second one with another to come.
I have never related Ezekiel’s temple to the physical second temple, so what is your point? What has this got to do with the relevant point - the fact that the Messiah would necessarily visit the second physical temple and not necessarily re-build a physical third? Please learn to concentrate.
So nice of you to think they are referencing the "second" temple concidering that Ezekiel's descriptoin of the temple does not fit with the second temple.
And its so nice of you to continuously point out the irrelevant and to attack straw men. The fact Ezekiel may be speaking of a third physical temple (we will assume this for arguments sake), is not mutually exclusive to the fact that the relevant scriptures speaking about the rebuilding of a temple, do so in a context which specifically refers to the second temple (which is NOT Ezekiel’s temple - even though Ezekiel's temple was expected
to be the second temple) and not a third. You argue as if its corollary to the fact they are referencing the second temple, that they are referring to Ezekiel’s temple. My position regarding Ezekiel’s temple, is the same as Rashi’s namely that it is metaphorical. I will further discuss in what sense it is metaphorical according to the Christian context, later on.
I find it strange that you would make such a claim because if these scriptures were referencing the second temple why does Ezekiel's temple not describe the second temple but differ from it?
Because Ezekiel’s temple has nothing to do with the second physical temple! Maybe if you spent more time carefully reading my arguments, and less time insulting our apostles, you wouldn’t be so confused as to make faulty assumptions. The scriptures in question make reference to the rebuilding of the second temple. The second temple that was built has no connection with Ezekiel or his temple. Clear?
The first obvious flaw in the above objection presented, that needs to be addressed, is the fact that scholars and historians have proven that there was Messianic expectation amongst many of the religious traditional Jews of Christ’s day i.e. That the Messiah would come in their lifetime - during the second temple period. Obviously then, they were not expecting the building of a third temple, since the second temple was already standing! What we do find however, is the fact that rather than expecting the Messiah to rebuild any temple, they were expecting His visitation to His temple!
If we read Haggai 2:6-9, we discover that there is something about the second temple being greater in glory than the first. Considering that the first temple was ascribed with 5 unique features lacking in the second temple; we are left wandering what it is about the second temple that makes it greater in glory. Certainly the rabbinic traditions were struggling to find an adequate answer to this puzzle, and the standard answers were certainly not plausible. Amidst all their attempts to explain this issue on their own, lies the very answer in Malachi 3:1-5 (a passage recognized to be messianic by famous medieval commentators David Kimchi and Metsudat David). Here we find that the Messiah would visit the second temple! The scriptures speak plainly.
that is really reaching there, especially if you take into account that Ezekiel's description of a temple is yet to be generated.
Again, let’s repeat a point that I can’t even believe I am having to repeat up to three times now. Ezekiel’s temple has nothing to do with the second temple; the passages in question have nothing to do with Ezekiel’s temple, and so whether Ezekiel’s description of a temple has been generated or not at this point, is irrelevant to the fact the Messiah would visit the second temple. Deal with the context of Haggai 2:6-9 and Malachi 3:1-5 which are clearly in reference to the second temple, and which clearly prove that the Messiah would visit the second temple. I would appreciate you staying focused.I said:
Looking at Ezekiel 37:26-28 specifically however, it clearly says absolutely nothing about the Messiah building any sort of temple: You said:
"I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever."
Looking at the wider context, namely considering chapters 44 - 46, the Messiah is only said to worship there. In fact the very temple in question, is not said to be built by anyone at all, but rather it is revealed to Ezekiel in a vision, already built and established. This is certainly the view of certain leading Rabbinic authorities, regarding the third temple. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki), Tasafot (Sukkah 41a), and traditional Jewish sources such as Midrash Tanchuma, Pekedei, maintain that the third temple is “the sanctuary of God, established by your hands.” - One that is already built and waiting in the heavens to be revealed. Such a view is right on line with the temple witnessed by the apostle John, as depicted in the book of Revelations (especially Chapter 21).
the third temple is to be built as described in detail by Ezekiel. Had you not glossed over Ezekiel's detailed description of how the next temple is to be built perhaps you would notice this,
The point of contention here, is whether this is to be read literally or metaphorically. I guess I’m as stupid as authoritative Jewish exegetes Rashi and the other authoirtative source which I quotedo, you knowGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âªthe one’s I used to support my case that Ezekiel’s temple is not a literal to-be-built temple. Or maybe these Jewish exegetes “glossed over” the passages in question as well - maybe they were even under-cover Christians with a hidden agenda. Since you would rather arbitrarily and without reason, discredit even Jewish authorities on this one, please allow me to shed some more light on this issue:1) First we will address the fact that Jewish authorities have had much trouble dealing with the Ezekiel passages relating to the nature of the temple:
In his compendium of the most significant rabbinic commentaries of Ezekiel, Rabbi Dr Fisch in commenting on the temple passages (chapter 40-48) states:
“These closing chapters present almost insuperable difficulties. They contain discrepancies, contradictions with Pentateuchal laws, and terms which do not occur elsewhereGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂªThe Rabbis of the Talmud (Men. 45a) remarked that only the prophet Elijah, who will herald the ultimate redemption, will elucidate these chaptersGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª”
Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, who writes from a striuctly Orthodox perspective says the following:
“We will not presume to give a detailed commentary on these passages. We will merely attempt to set down some thoughts they engender, and even that only with the greatest circumspection. Especially when the prophet deals with jewish Law, we have followed the interpretations of our Sages and Commentators and, in particular, those given by Rashi, even where those clearly pose problems. In many instances we will have to do without explanation. Our reticence is justified by the comment of the Rambam: “The future structure ot be built, even though it is written of in Ezekiel, is not interpreted or explained”GÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂªHence, the writings of Ezekiel pertaining to the future sanctuary are beyond our clearGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âªunderstanding.” (The book of Yechezel: Translation and commentary, page 354).
Hence, your confident conclusion on the nature of Ezekiel’s temple, and this Rabbi’s dogmatic perspective pertaining to the relationship between the Messiah and a third temple, would be considered nothing less than presumptuous
even by reputable and renowned Jewish scholars and commentators, thus proving, that to draw something conclusive and to try and prove a doctrinal point from these very texts, in order to invalidate Jesus The Christ is nothing but a desperate and futile agenda. 2) I will now argue from the New Testament perspective, how the Holy Spirit in inspiring the Apostles of God, clarified for the world, the nature of this symbolic temple, and how it relates to the second temple period and Jesus The Messiah’s person and mission.
Before we get straight into it, I would like to briefly mention three themes concerning Ezekiel’s temple which the Tanakh and Jewish scholars had recognized, and which should be kept in mind: 1) the theme of God dwelling amongst His people in their midst through the temple. 2) The theme of atonement. 3) The theme of God’s release from captivity.
On a literal level, it seems like the vision fell short of being fulfilled in the expected period and time. The second temple, as you noted, was far different from the temple described in which God promised He would dwell, and only some exiled managed to return - and such a return was hardly glorious.
Since you are a deist, and do not necessarily hold to the absolute truth of the Bible (?), I guess you can call it a false prophecy. As mentioned above, the general view of Orthodox Judaism as represented by the above authoritative figures is simply that it is absolutely incomprehensible - despite the strained position of certain Rabbinic traditions which try to resolve the issue, by saying that though the vision of Ezekiel was assigned to a specific period, it has been postponed.
According to Orthodox Christianity, we neither have to resort to declaring it a false prophecy, nor do we need to wait for Elijah to come and explain it to us. We understand its symbolic significance, as emphasized in light of the New Testament scriptures. Ezekiel’s vision was God’s message to the people saying, generally and in a nutshell saying: “I will dwell amongst you, and forgive you for your sins, I will set you free from captivity.” - and this was fulfilled through and by Messiah Jesus.
Ezekiel’s temple is not only the body of Christ through which God tabernacled in our midst (John 1:14). But it is also the spiritual temple established by God in the believers - a temple that is continually being built day by day (Ephesians 2:21-22, and Revelations 21) Such that not only was He uniquely present through the person of Christ (John 14:7-12) But He also dwells in us (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16 - 7:1) A temple where we offer spiritual sacrifices to God (Romans. 12:1, 1 Peter 2:4-5, Heb. 13:15-16).
He hasn't done what is to be done but "will do it."
He has claimed, performed and validated, what needed to be done upon his first coming according to the prophecies. The accomplishment of these things, gives credence to and validates the belief he indeed will complete the rest of his mission as laid down in the scriptures. Furthermore, he has done what needed to be done according to those prophecies which laid out a specific timeframe; He visited the second temple according to the Malachi and Haggai prophecies (as construed together), he fulfilled Ezekiel’s vision, and Daniel’s prophetic time-frame.
Christianity maintains that he will return and the NT record is that "time is short" and Paul even told that marriage would be unnecessary because time was so short. The problem is that 2,000 years later and we are all still realizing that time isn't as short as the claim has always been, but this does not stop Christian "end-timers" from existing in each and every single generation.
Give us some references so we can consider the context of the verses in question.
The ignorance it takes to believe that the scriptures found in Daniel 9 (along with the exceptionally poorly drawn out "prophetic year" idea) are so laughable as to be nothing more than an attempt by the author to carve the circle around the mangod he already accepts.
That’s nothing but a cop out. Obviously you are incapable of dealing with the text of Daniel 9. We understand. Who said fighting the truth would be a walk in the park? Using nothing but meaningless rhetoric to argue that Christians approach Daniel 9 with a presupposition that is eisegetically read into the text, only goes to further reduce your credibility. Either give us an objective exegesis of the relevant scriptures, or shut up. I will give you a chance to redeem yourself on this one.
the manipulation of Isaiah maiden who was a sign unto the King in that day (making no sense for it to happen 700 years later when the King is dead) becoming a virgin birth
Firstly, if you’re going to use strong words like “manipulation”, some substantial evidence would be nice. I highly doubt you have proven yourself credible to anyone in this forum, such that we would take your claims at face value. Understanding a certain word in a context which confines it to a specific definition, of which it is capable of generating, notwithstanding that it can possibly take upon itself other more wider and general connotations (assuming so for arguments sake), is not something I would deem “manipulative” unless I was really desperate and determined to push forward an agenda with a closed mind and heart, against St Matthew, an inspired Jewish apostle with hundreds of vantage points over you, I or anyone today, including his understanding of the languages at the time, his cultural continuity with the Old testament; and his proximity to various 'sources' of that understanding.
Secondly, we would appreciate it if YOU quit the manipulation, and not read things into the text. Nowhere does it say or imply, that this would be a “sign unto the King in that day”, such that it would necessarily be manifest to him, for him to witness. Since I don’t want to set up any straw men, maybe you can give us your favorite anti-missionary suggestion from messiahtruth.com concerning whom the almah and son of Isaiah 7:14 refers to. Or, if you don’t feel the need to assert any sort of a positive interpretation, but would rather continue attempting to negate the Christian interpretation in futility, that is fine.
Furthermore, a plausible reason for the argument that the text is referring to a virgin birth is the fact that the Hebrew word employed for ‘sign’ - Oth, is used consistently throughout the book of Isaiah in order to denote something miraculous and out of the ordinary. I wouldn’t exactly consider a young non-virgin woman giving birth to be an oth in the sense that the author generally and consistently employs the term. This almah conceiving a child is to be a miraculous event (i.e. like a VIRGIN birth) of great significance to the house of David (because the house of David will be established through the virgin birth of the Messiah).
to the translation of "like a lion" into "they pierced my hands and feet" in Psalm 22.
I would argue the fact, that if any textual corruption had taken place with regards to this verse, all the evidence suggests that you have it the wrong way around buddy.
Under the praxis of objective textual criticism, which I briefly mentioned above, we have much reason to support the “pierced” translation, as the one which is most reliable and authentic. I will bring to your attention the fact that the Septuagint, Syriac, and other translations understood the verse referring to being “pierced” suggesting, as I argued above, that they had a different form of the Hebrew text in front of them. Even some Hebrew manuscripts (from the Masoretic family), have used the term “pierced”. We find that in context, the term “pierced”actually makes much more sense, and doesn’t have inherent linguistical and grammatical difficulties that “like a lion” leaves.
Strongest evidence against you however, lies in the Dead sea scrolls. Let me quote for you from three of the most reputable world scholars in the field of Biblical Hebrew and dead sea scroll research. In their book titled “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Know Bible Translated for the First Time into English”, Abegg, Ulrich and Flint say on page 519:
"Psalm 22 is a favourite amongst Christians since it is often linkedGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âªwith the suffering and death of Christ. AGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âªcontroversial reading is found in v. 16,GÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âªthe Masoretic Text reads 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' GÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª.the Septuagint reads 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the verse in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal HeverGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª.,which reads 'They have pierced my hands and my feet'""
certainly demonstrates the various archers drawing their circles around their preset notions, nothing more.
Ignorance is bliss isn’t it. I hope when you address me next round, you can cut down on the cheap talk, and address the arguments with some objectivity and reason.
Jesus once made the claim that he would be in the ground for 3 days.
No matter which version of the gospel story you use he was not in the ground this long.
No matter how you wish to ignorantly interpret this fallaciously at face value from your distorted 21st century western lenses, Christ’s statement will always remain logically consistent in the socio-cultural and socio-linguistical context of 1st century Jewish Palestine, and as such will be interpreted accordingly.
Jesus once said that he would return before "this generation" passed away. It has already done so.
Oh really? So you presuppose your own fallacious interpretation, one not supported by proper exegesis or church tradition, but rather face value skepticism, and then you draw your conclusion. Nice. I’m not even going to bother explaining this one, you’re starting to waste my time.
There is nothing in the Tanakh that requires the Messiah to be born "normally" of human parents.
Quite the contrary, the messiah (to be a messiah) you must be a blood born descendant of King David through Solomon's line. [Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24]
That’s amazing, I didn’t know that. Now that you’ve informed me of this critical point, please allow me to point out why your observation NECESSITATES a VIRGIN birth. According to the scriptures, Solomon’s line eventually suffered from the curse of Jeconiah, such that any physical descendents thenceforth were ineligible to claim David’s throne (Jeremiah 22:24-30). Therefore, not only does the Tanakh not necessitate a “normal” birth, but it PROMOTES THE NECESSITY of the VIRGIN birth of the Messiah, such that he can still somehow be connected to the line of David through Solomon - a NON-PHYSICAL connection, such that he can avoid the curse of Jeconiah and still be considered the legitimate Messiah.
It means maiden not virgin.
Prove it. I cant be bothered getting into a 10 page analysis on almah right now. You present an argument that I can deal with, or don't bother offering a mere counter-assertion.
And second, the context of this "prophecy" was demonstrated to a King as a sign. That Jesus was born hundreds of years later means little to a King long dead.
Actually, it did mean something considering the concerns of this King for the house of David - the hoouse of david which God eventuallybrought judgement upon because of King Ahaz's unbelief. The sign was to be given thus for the house of David, concerning the birth of a royal child - such that though the line of David had failed God's conditions, God would still nonetheless fulfill his unconditional promise. Hence it is quite plausible to see this passage in a Messianic framework.
Another thing, there is a problem inwhich the child describe is said to not know between good and evil at a point. So much for Jesus being without sin if this actually does apply to him.
That’s a classic non sequitur. His lack of awareness of what is good and what is evil during his childhood does not mean that it necessarily follows that he actually did that which is evil. Therefore, there is no contradiction between ascribing Isaiah 7:14 and its context to Jesus, with the fact that the scriptures attest to His perfect goodness. Logic does not seem to be your forte.
Isaiah 53 is probably the easiest missionary claim to defeat by simply reading and applying what is written about this "suffering servant."
Believe me, I suffer watching you make such a fool out of yourself. Let’s see how well the rabbi’s at jewsforjudaism.com and messiahtruth.com have prepared you for this one.
On a side note; its interesting the way you criticize the stereotypical southern Usa KJV holding sola scripturist evangelical fundamentalist, because your approach to Isaiah 53 and many other verses which you have brought up, is much like their general approach to the Bible. You interpret Isaiah 53 like a legalist, appealing to a woodenly literal interpretation of the text without any regard for context, or even simple common sense which should simply tell you on certain occasions that it would be absolutely absurd to take a verse to the level of literalism, that you obviously feel you need to take it in order to discredit the most perfectly fitting subject that anyone has been able to offer for this passage. You shouldn’t have to try so hard to refute the truth Joseph, and you and I both know it took you some trying and straining to try and interpret these verses out of how common sense and proper exegesis would tell you to interpret this passage, had you no polemical/skeptical agenda to skewer your objectivity.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." Jesus spoke in the NT record.
Would you like to qualify that?
You mean Jesus resisted, spoke out against, complained against his being oppressed, afflicted and brought to the slaughter (i.e. he contradicted the reasonably perceived implication of the verse, and the sound minded interpretation of it as such); or you mean like he spoke in his lifetime i.e. he had to have been born a mute in order to fulfill this prophecy? Or is there some other ridiculously desperate literal extent to which you wish to take the verse; like for example, what if he yawned, coughed, sneezed or breathed through his mouth during his lifetime (or even the trials if you intend to restrict it to this period alone), would that disqualify him also? Oh, by the way, I know people who sneeze without even opening their mouth, it’s absolutely fascinating. I speak the truth!
Since most anti-missionaries apply the subject of Isaiah 53 to Israel, would you like tell us how your skeptically motivated and blindly literal interpretation of this applies to that particular subject, or do you have another mind?
By the way, I thought of another objection for you, which is suited to the level of your intellectual reasoning. Isaiah says that the suffering servant will grow up like a root out of dry ground, but Jesus was a human being not a plant, and he was born out of the womb of the Virgin Mary, not dry ground. How genius is that?
Listen, every Christian on this forum knows that the obvious implication of the verse in question, is that the suffering servant would not speak out against, complain against, or resist his being oppressed, afflicted and brought to the slaughter. This is further supported by Isaiah 50:5-7 which reads:
"The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. (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. (7) "For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed."
Trust me, no one here is going to buy into your woodenly literal interpretation of it - so if you are happy and content with your desperate interpretation, then so be it. I will further argue how Jesus does fit in according to the sound interpretation of this verse.
1) Jesus willingly and voluntarily submitted to death (see John 10:11,15,17; 15:13)
2) When the soldiers came to take Jesus from the garden of Gethsemane, he did not resist (Matthew 26:50-54)
3) Jesus was whipped and scourged. His beard was pulled. He was mocked, spat at, a crown of thorns placed upon his head, nails driven through his hands and feet. Did he complain and cruse his persecutors, and executioners? Luke 23:34 doesn’t seem to suggest so.
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth." Jesus became violent in a temple. Justified violence is still violence.
The Hebrew word chamac hardly describes things like the cleansing of the Temple incident, which is nothing more than a forceful act of prophetic demonstration. Elsewhere the word is used to describe the "violence" done by men in Genesis 6 that prompted the Flood, and it generally has implications of injustice - so you
don’t decide how to qualify the word sir, we take into account how it is used in context. If we look at Strong’s definition for the Hebrew word chamac - we find the following terms: violence, wrong, cruelty, injustice
- these latter three words clearly put the term “violence” in context.
Jesus was not abritraily, wrongly, cruelly, unrighteously or injustly being violent - he was a legitimate authority using legitimate force for not only a lawful and legitimate purpose (enforcing Rabbinic policy), but also a prophetic one.
and cursed a fig tree that didn't produce fruit while it was out of season.
Cursing a fig tree is deceit? I never realized that the act of cursing and the act of deceit were synonymous. One of us needs to get a new dictionary, and it’s certainly not me. But waitGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª”the Tanakh was not written in English” you say. Thanks for reminding me. Unfortunately for you, the Hebrew word Mirmah means nothing but deceit - treachery etc. it is no synonym to cursing.
Since the issue concerns not whether Christ actually “cursed” in the sense that he had a foul mouth, or whether he cursed in another sense (which is what proper interpretation promotes); we will therefore put this issue aside.
Isaiah 53:9 concerns DECEIT my friend, DECEIT. Find me DECEIT in the words of The Christ. Come on pal, are you telling me that the fallacious fig tree objection was all that the rabbi’s at messiahtruth.com had to offer you? Let me help you out on this one, because it seems that you’re struggling. Go have a read of the book of John chapter 7 verses 8-10, and then come and say to me: “Aha! There you go, Jesus lied! There’s your deceit! Take THAT!”, so we can educate you concerning concepts of honor in that historical period, as well as rhetorical criticism.
And the most damaging:
*Prepares new change of underwear, then slowly but hesitantly scrolls down the page to daringly confront the next challenge, trying to maintain control of the mouse cursor as my right hand shakes profusely, eyes wide open, and left hand over a wide open mouth*
"Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,..."
It is not the Christian claim that a soul is the restitutional act or offering but a body upon a cross that bleeds.
You’ve got to be kidding meGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª LOL What an unbelievable strawmanGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âªbut then again, what’s new?
So Jospeh, you are telling me, that the Christian makes a distinction between the body and soul of the human aspect of Christ, claiming that one to the exclusion of the other constitutes to the atoning sacrifice? REALLY? That’s absolutely amazing man, we really have a lot to learn from you hereGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª
Listen to me, the death of Christ is the sacrifice. PERIOD. “By his death, he trampled upon death” we say in the Orthodox liturgy. Not “by his bleeding body (to the exclusion of his soul) he trampled upon death.”
Now what is death?...
Oh, what was that you said?...
The termination of life, and point of departure of the soul from the body, as a result of the failed function of vital physical organs of that very human body, you say?
Well done, sir! A+ for you, glad you finally worked out that according to the Christian understanding, Christ did indeed “offer his soul” when he submitted his physical person to those who would execute him to the point where the soul departs from the body i.e. death.
Now we can move on.
"...he shall see [his] seed," Jesus had no blood offspring and the term used here is only used for blood offspring not for followers.
Oh boy, you know, St Paul and I, we really need to sit down with you one day and learn Tanakh from youGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª.No. YOU will sit down, and YOU will learn:
1) Do not knock down a straw man SIR. We don’t interpret this with regards to the followers of Jesus. Here is how we understand the verse; placing the appropriate subject in parenthesis besides the relevant pronoun:
"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him (Christ); he (the LORD) hath put him (Christ) to grief: when thou (the LORD) shalt make his (the Christ’s) soul an offering for sin, he (the LORD) shall see his (the LORD's) seed, he (the LORD) shall prolong his (the Messiah's) days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his (the Christ’s) hand."
2) The term is not “only used for blood offspring”. The word is used repeatedly in a metaphorical sense.
"...he shall prolong [his] days," Jesus died a relatively young man for his day and does not fullfill this part of the text either.
You do understand that preceding the qualification that his days will be prolonged, is the qualification that he will in fact die first - hence being perfectly compatible with the Biblical and historical account of Christ which dictates that he was in fact raised from dead, and now lives and reigns for eternity?
Of Christian claims this is perhaps the easiest to denote as fallacious and just goes to demonstrate the selective nature found within their cognitive dissonance.
Understand that this "atoning sacrifice" is a soul then?
Understood sir; In the same sense that we understand that “by his wounds we are healed”, and that he was “pierced for our transgressions”. Or does Jesus fail here also, because we don’t claim that atonement and salvation were made effective through his mere wounds, or pierced side and hands? Give us a break.
Realize that no matter how you wish to manipulate this discussion further, it has already not applied to your christian dogmas?
Realise that no matter how you wish to manipulate the text of the Tanakh further, a proper hermeneutic approach and reasonable usage of common sense, will not support your skeptical agenda?
Realise that the ridiculously literal extent which you find necessary to interpret many of these passages, in order to support your desperate and futile agenda against Christianity, really leaves no reasonable alternative interpretation that will appropriately conform with your wooden literalism, such that you render the verses meaningless and inapplicable to any subject, including Israel the most popularly purported alternative by so-called anti-missionaries, including your good friends at messiahtruth.com?