Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 23:33:15 GMT -5
Like ships in the night... The "Jew" here means different things to different people. The Jews of the bible (was Abraham or Job a Jew?!) wrote of two Messiahs. 1 - conquering King like King David. 2 - suffering redeemer who takes away the sins of the world.
The latter was never really understood by the Jews. To this day they still draw a blank, for instance, when you ask who was David speaking of when he wrote "they pierced by hands and my feet... I see all my bones.. they give me gall to drink... my God my God why have you forsaken me?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 23:42:44 GMT -5
Was Noah a Jew? Was Abraham a Jew? Was Job a Jew?
When Job said "I know my Redeemer lives and He shall stand on the Earth in the latter days." was he yearning for the rites of a lamb slain by a priest to redeem the people, or was he thinking of someone who themselves was a redeemer?
To the "Jew" an unblemished lamb was slain for redemption. To the Christian, Jesus Himself is the redeemer, the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
These early people were a - not Jews b - looked to the coming Messiah who would redeem them.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 8, 2014 23:54:35 GMT -5
Bert, The writers of the gospels had access to the "old" testament scriptures & used them in their story. The gospels were after all stories & not meant to be an actual biography of Jesus life. The people that they were writing to knew that as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 23:55:05 GMT -5
Quote - "Really? Who came first, Jews or Christians?" I put it to you it was the Christian. Think about it. Was Abraham, and those before him, actually "Jews"? Weren't they from Sumer? (modern Iraq) When did the law of the Old Testament begin? A thousand years after Abraham? How many of the Hebrew and Sumerian saints of the Old Testament were actually living under the law of the Old Testament? Why did so many of these Hebrews/Sumerians etc write of the Messiah? Whoopie! Wallie!
Talk about a being messed up! And you had the nerve to call "Lewis Black is one messed up individual!"
once again you've confused me with someone else
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 23:56:54 GMT -5
Wally, Dimmichgood believes you and I are both messed up.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 0:18:41 GMT -5
This cartoon is devilishly Clever. But from a Christian point of view - it completely misses the point. Ideas and values are not be judged by breaches to their principals. principles Key phrase: From a Christian point of view.You're right. But whose book is the Old Testament, the Jews' or the Christians'. Do you want a rabbi explaining the New Testament to you? But I don't have a clue what you mean by: Ideas and values are not be judged by breaches to their principles.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 0:22:23 GMT -5
Like ships in the night... The "Jew" here means different things to different people. The Jews of the bible (was Abraham or Job a Jew?!) wrote of two Messiahs. 1 - conquering King like King David. 2 - suffering redeemer who takes away the sins of the world. The latter was never really understood by the Jews. To this day they still draw a blank, for instance, when you ask who was David speaking of when he wrote " they pierced by hands and my feet... I see all my bones.. they give me gall to drink... my God my God why have you forsaken me?"Bert -- the Jews knew exactly what a messiah was and they had many many of them. If you were a Jew you would know that every king in Israel was a messiah, and a lot of other people were messiah's too. But because you are a Christian you are stuck with the notion that every time the word messiah appears in the OT that it refers to Jesus. That's wrong -- Christians did not invent the Hebrew language.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 0:27:22 GMT -5
If I saw a Mormon murdering someone I wouldn't say "The Mormon faith is false because they murder people" as I know that church doesn't condone murder. That Mormon has breached the principles of his church.
But if I hear a Mormon talking about Jesus preaching to Indians in the New World, and preaching the Old Testament rites at that, I would say "The Mormon church must be judged on this as these are its principles."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 9, 2014 0:27:25 GMT -5
Whoopie! Wallie!
Talk about a being messed up! And you had the nerve to call "Lewis Black is one messed up individual!"
once again you've confused me with someone else Whoops! mea culpa! Sorry, Wally!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 0:31:50 GMT -5
Bert, The writers of the gospels had access to the "old" testament scriptures & used them in their story. The gospels were after all stories & not meant to be an actual biography of Jesus life. The people that they were writing to knew that as well. Well, it's not so certain that all the writers of the gospels had the OT. Some of the alleged NT quotations from the "scriptures" do not appear in the OT. The OT that is approved by Jews of Jesus origins was not officially adopted until after Jesus had been on earth. Scriptures really only means "writings", so anything could have been translated into English as being scripture. In French "writings" and "scriptures" are the same word.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 0:37:09 GMT -5
Quote - "Bert -- the Jews knew exactly what a messiah was and they had many many of them. If you were a Jew you would know that every king in Israel was a messiah, and a lot of other people were messiah's too. But because you are a Christian you are stuck with the notion that every time the word messiah appears in the OT that it refers to Jesus. That's wrong -- Christians did not invent the Hebrew language."
Amazing thing about the Jewish bible - it roundly condemns its own people. But it had to "appeal" to these same people to order to survive the generations it condemned. Who "owns" the Old Testament? Easiest answer begins with "those who wrote it." And as Jesus put it, "search the scripture, for they are they who testified of me."
So yes, the "Jews" had their messiahs, as they still do (remember Rabi Schneerson?) but that shouldn't distract from what the authors of the bible said the Messiah will be.
And some of these authors said they Jews will not recognize their Messiah, and will lose their nation as judgment. I wonder how anti-Jesus Jews see their lost estate, having become "wandering Jews" for two thousand years?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 0:48:52 GMT -5
If I saw a Mormon murdering someone I wouldn't say "The Mormon faith is false because they murder people" as I know that church doesn't condone murder. That Mormon has breached the principles of his church. But if I hear a Mormon talking about Jesus preaching to Indians in the New World, and preaching the Old Testament rites at that, I would say "The Mormon church must be judged on this as these are its principles." Is this an answer to my post? What is this talk of judging? Are you trying to tell Jews that they don't know the meaning of their own words? If a Frenchman tells you that "chapeau" is a word for something one puts on his head, you can't tell him it's for his feet -- it's not YOUR word. If a Jew tells you that a "messiah" is a human king that had oil poured over his head, you can't tell him he means he is a god -- it's not your word. And if you choose to use it to mean something different, it still doesn't change its meaning in all of Jewish literature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 0:54:35 GMT -5
Messiah is not the only word the Jews used (or its translated derivations) but also REDEEMER, and LAMB OF GOD, and GREAT PRINCE, and HE TO WHOM ALL THINGS BELONG etc.. And like most words, "Messiah" means different things in different contexts.
I don't really care what the "Jews" think of their own scripture because for the most part, as Jesus said, they held it in scant regard. And many of the Jews, including a "great company of the priests" came out of the Jewish nation after Jesus. And then that nation was destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 9, 2014 1:01:45 GMT -5
Bert, The writers of the gospels had access to the "old" testament scriptures & used them in their story. The gospels were after all stories & not meant to be an actual biography of Jesus life. The people that they were writing to knew that as well. Well, it's not so certain that all the writers of the gospels had the OT. S ome of the alleged NT quotations from the "scriptures" do not appear in the OT. The OT that is approved by Jews of Jesus origins was not officially adopted until after Jesus had been on earth. Scriptures really only means "writings", so anything could have been translated into English as being scripture. In French "writings" and "scriptures" are the same word. True, "Some of the alleged NT quotations from the "scriptures" do not appear in the OT."
I have found that out by trying to find them in the old testament when someone has alleged that they are in the OT & I can't find them there.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 1:10:16 GMT -5
Quote - "Bert -- the Jews knew exactly what a messiah was and they had many many of them. If you were a Jew you would know that every king in Israel was a messiah, and a lot of other people were messiah's too. But because you are a Christian you are stuck with the notion that every time the word messiah appears in the OT that it refers to Jesus. That's wrong -- Christians did not invent the Hebrew language." Amazing thing about the Jewish bible - it roundly condemns its own people.
You can't say that the Jewish Bible does anything. The Jewish Bible is a collection of writing by different Jews, some of which "wrote about" God writing off his people. Not all writers of the OT believed that. It didn't have to appeal to anyone. The people who wrote the books wrote them themselves and there weren't any conferences or elections to decide what would be included. It was "literature", not holy scripture. Then the Jews own it. Jesus didn't say that -- he spoke Aramaic. Scripture means writing. Scripture is of Latin origin, and write is of Germanic origin. English is like that. it has 2 words for many things -- one coming from Latin via French and another of Germanic origin. e.g. cow, beef; house, mansion. Anyway, what we call the OT wasn't compiled when Jesus was here. What you're actually suggesting is that Rabbi Schneerson doesn't understand Jewish thought and culture. He's a very typical Jew. They lost their nation when their economies could not compete with their stronger neighbors. That's how it has always been. [/b][/quote] You should ask them. They walk among us. I have two in my family to consult with - my brother in law is extremely devout -- he feels quite okay about himself. He's a "religious" Jew. My daughter's sister in law is an ethnic Jew, fully integrated into American society as are most the locals of Italian origin, and don't seem to think they're lost at all. She doesn't care to go to synagogue, but she's certainly not interested in being a Christian. I know what she thinks of Christian interpretation of the Jewish Bible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 1:19:07 GMT -5
Quote - 'So yes, the "Jews" had their messiahs, as they still do (remember Rabi Schneerson?) but that shouldn't distract from what the authors of the bible said the Messiah will be. What you're actually suggesting is that Rabbi Schneerson doesn't understand Jewish thought and culture. He's a very typical Jew."
What always interested me about Schneerson was that he was, to many New York Jews, their idea of the Messiah. Setting up institutions and helping Jewish culture was precisely what Jesus DIDN'T care for. Is THAT what the Jews for millennium sought? Some guy setting up Jewish schools?
And in 1941 when Schneerson started all this the Holocaust was raging. That alone should tell observant Jews something is terribly wrong with Judaism, not Nazism! What was going on in Europe was NO DIFFERENT to the Jewish/Roman wars that scattered the Jews all over the world. The warnings about the dispersal, slavery and killing of the Jews are in nearly every book of the Old Testament! So yes, Schneerson understood Jewish culture. But what did he have to say about the plight of his people without a country?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 9, 2014 1:36:33 GMT -5
Quote - 'So yes, the "Jews" had their messiahs, as they still do (remember Rabi Schneerson?) but that shouldn't distract from what the authors of the bible said the Messiah will be. What you're actually suggesting is that Rabbi Schneerson doesn't understand Jewish thought and culture. He's a very typical Jew." What always interested me about Schneerson was that he was, to many New York Jews, their idea of the Messiah.
Setting up institutions and helping Jewish culture was precisely what Jesus DIDN'T care for.
Is THAT what the Jews for millennium sought? Some guy setting up Jewish schools?
And in 1941 when Schneerson started all this the Holocaust was raging. That alone should tell observant Jews something is terribly wrong with Judaism, not Nazism!
What was going on in Europe was NO DIFFERENT to the Jewish/Roman wars that scattered the Jews all over the world. The warnings about the dispersal, slavery and killing of the Jews are in nearly every book of the Old Testament!
so yes, Schneerson understood Jewish culture. But what did he have to say about the plight of his people without a country? OMG, Bert! I am dumbfounded that anyone would say such a thing as that!
Knowing that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis.
That is beyond even trying to answer.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 2:35:18 GMT -5
Quote - "Really? Who came first, Jews or Christians?" I put it to you it was the Christian. Think about it. Was Abraham, and those before him, actually "Jews"?
No. Abraham was not a Jew. They were. Abraham is important because it was he, reportedly, who decided to worship only one god, the one all the Abrahamic religions claim to worship today. The law of the OT originated with the ten commandments. And the rest of the law was "given" after they crossed into the Promised Land. They were still not Jews. They were a variety of escapees who banded together in a theocracy that spoke an early form of Hebrew and needed a constitution, and kaboom - the Law appeared. One would expect that no Sumerians ever lived under the Law. Abraham didn't live under the Law. No one lived under the Law until it was compiled after the Hebrews came to the Promised Land. Then the Law was the law of the Israelite nation only. They did NOT write about THE Messiah ... they wrote about MANY messiahs, but only one at a time. Like the Queen of England. She is really just ONE of the numerous queens of England, not the only and forever one. Just like the messiahs/kings of Israel. Every king was anointed (had oil poured over their head = anointed) and became a messiah -- EVERY ONE OF THEM. And when they wrote about any one of these messiahs they would refer to him as the (present) messiah, or the (past) messiah. There is nothing more to the meaning of the word messiah in the Old Testament -- NADA -- no matter who thinks what. What is not written in the Bible is the tradition among Jews that a great messiah would be coming to restore Israel to its original glory and expand its borders as far as who could imagine. But that never was greatly important until during the time between the end of the writing of the books of the OT and the coming of the Roman Empire. By the time Jesus was born Palestine was ripe for revolution because the Jews wanted nothing more to do with the Romans, and there were many many messiahs wandering around posing as the expected great messiah. And it appears that many Jews of the day accepted that Jesus was this great messiah, and they believed in him. It turns out that when the Roman church gained political power, the original brand of Jewish Jesus believers were "done away with" because the Roman church did not approve of their belief system. Now here's the stumbling block -- the Roman church was Christian, and the original Jesus believers were not. This is the reason the Palestinian Jewish believers were never considered Christians -- The Roman church held to a "Christ" theology and the Jews did not, even though they believed in Jesus as the expected MESSIAH. So they had wars about this, and guess what, the Roman Empire won.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 4:00:26 GMT -5
Quote - "They did NOT write about THE Messiah ... they wrote about MANY messiahs, but only one at a time. Like the Queen of England. She is really just ONE of the numerous queens of England, not the only and forever one. Just like the messiahs/kings of Israel. Every king was anointed (had oil poured over their head = anointed) and became a messiah -- EVERY ONE OF THEM. And when they wrote about any one of these messiahs they would refer to him as the (present) messiah, or the (past) messiah. There is nothing more to the meaning of the word messiah in the Old Testament -- NADA -- no matter who thinks what. True. Messiah has many meanings. One day some scholar might declare that 21st Century Christians didn't really believe in heaven because heaven was just a word to describe nice things, ie heavenly taste, heavenly woman. And there was no hell because that was a term for bad things, ie the boss from hell, hellish temperatures etc.. The Jews used messiah in all sorts of ways - but their real Messiah was a great king from the line of David who restore Israel to its glory.
Quote - "What is not written in the Bible is the tradition among Jews that a great messiah would be coming to restore Israel to its original glory and expand its borders as far as who could imagine. But that never was greatly important until during the time between the end of the writing of the books of the OT and the coming of the Roman Empire. By the time Jesus was born Palestine was ripe for revolution because the Jews wanted nothing more to do with the Romans, and there were many many messiahs wandering around posing as the expected great messiah. And it appears that many Jews of the day accepted that Jesus was this great messiah, and they believed in him." And Jesus reject them for believing that. Read that story in John 6 - it covers what you say quite well. Jesus told them he could see through them. They weren't looking for a saviour, just another messiah.
It turns out that when the Roman church gained political power, the original brand of Jewish Jesus believers were "done away with" because the Roman church did not approve of their belief system. That's drawing a very long bow. You are not talking here about the Apostolic Church because 1 - they loved one another 2 - they weren't the murdering political types. In later centuries there were certainly brutal persecutions amongst "Christian" churches, but that's another story.
Quote - "Now here's the stumbling block -- the Roman church was Christian, and the original Jesus believers were not. This is the reason the Palestinian Jewish believers were never considered Christians -- The Roman church held to a "Christ" theology and the Jews did not, even though they believed in Jesus as the expected MESSIAH. So they had wars about this, and guess what, the Roman Empire won." That's a common theory, popularized by Robert Eisenman, amongst others. It seeks to divide the Apostolic Church. It's evidence is quite a thin gruel, and doesn't make a lot of sense.
Saying there was a guy called Jesus who deliberately picked prophecies to fulfill doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. I had one a thread here a few weeks ago - Jacob's prediction for the line of his son Judah. And here we read that the monarchy, Law and (presumably the nation) will continue until "Shiloh comes" and in him shall the Gentiles obey. Trying to manage a state of affairs to achieve THAT outcome would require MORE power than any Son of God could possibly have!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 9, 2014 8:45:30 GMT -5
lewis black is one messed up individual What makes it so funny? I thought it was spot on hilarious. Black skewers a kind of naive, blindered arrogance that is common among Christians (I was). Comic relief for any who are subjected to it routinely in every day life. The other Abrahamic religions are no less arrogant, as far as I can see, in their claim of "special status" in the universe compared to the rest of us. At least Jews do not presume to have special insight into another group's traditional writings!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 9, 2014 12:57:51 GMT -5
Quote - "Really? Who came first, Jews or Christians?" I put it to you it was the Christian. Think about it. Was Abraham, and those before him, actually "Jews"? Weren't they from Sumer? (modern Iraq) When did the law of the Old Testament begin? A thousand years after Abraham? How many of the Hebrew and Sumerian saints of the Old Testament were actually living under the law of the Old Testament? Why did so many of these Hebrews/Sumerians etc write of the Messiah?So that sounds a little like the Muslim mentality. Abraham was a Muslim and so was Jesus Christ. The Hebrew people were the first to worship the God Yahweh exclusively. Then the Christians came along and then the Muslims. But all the Jews and Christians are actually Muslims. I agree that the Hebrews got their history from the Babylonians and the Sumerians. The OT if rife with twisted and rewritten fables that were once by those two, and likely others in the area. The Hebrew people were in captivity in Babylon when they decided to write their history so it isn't much wonder the OT reads like the Babylonian or Sumerian legends.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 9, 2014 12:58:54 GMT -5
because the jews got it wrong their waiting for an elusive messiah and Christ was the one that showed up instead and contrary to your belief some say Christ is the greek for messiah... Geeze, Wally, if the Jewish people in the Old testament got it so wrong, why do Christians like yourself keep on quoting them in attempt to prove the prophecy of Jesus?
Yes and why is Leviticus still being quoted?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 16:12:50 GMT -5
Snow - the theory goes like this:
1 - Israel didn't write ANYTHING until the Babylonian captivity because they were Jews. As we know Jews were the only people in the Middle East not smart enough to write, or show interest in their history till then. 2 - Actual Babylonian writers (ie Daniel, Ezekiel who foretold events) were not from Babylonian times at all, but much later. Babylonian writers were too busy concocting Genesis, Leviticus, Judges, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc.. 3 - Any verses which don't support this thesis must be side-stepped.
I don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 18:55:28 GMT -5
Saying there was a guy called Jesus who deliberately picked prophecies to fulfill doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. I absolutely said no such thing. But since you brought it up, it was NT writers (not necessarily Jesus) who made any such claim. And if Jesus did indeed quote prophets - of course he picked one at a time to quote, and he never named any of them -- you can't quote every prophet in 4 gospels of the New Testament. Anyway, most of the prophets of the OT were never even mentioned or quoted in the OT. Furthermore, the prophets in the Old Testament were NOT NOT future tellers. They were spiritual advisers to kings very much in the capacity of our modern day secretaries of state. Most of their predictions should be regarded as presenting a scenario to the king on what would happen if he made certain choices; and because they were a theocracy, they would advise the king on the constitutionality of his actions (that means, according to the Law). Today, of course, in English, "prophesy" does mean to predict the future -- after 2000 years of Christian adjustment to the OT Hebrew dictionary. [/b] [/quote] I really don't know what this means at all.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 18:57:35 GMT -5
Snow - the theory goes like this: 1 - Israel didn't write ANYTHING until the Babylonian captivity because they were Jews. As we know Jews were the only people in the Middle East not smart enough to write, or show interest in their history till then. 2 - Actual Babylonian writers (ie Daniel, Ezekiel who foretold events) were not from Babylonian times at all, but much later. Babylonian writers were too busy concocting Genesis, Leviticus, Judges, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc.. 3 - Any verses which don't support this thesis must be side-stepped.I don't buy it. Thank goodness. It's just a thesis after all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 19:15:34 GMT -5
Quote - "the prophets in the Old Testament were NOT NOT future tellers. They were spiritual advisers to kings very much in the capacity of our modern day secretaries of state."
This one from a previous 9 reply thread:
Genesis 49:10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."
Here was Jacob in Egypt with his sons. No nation, no kingdom, no laws. And he is speaking to his son Judah. Remember Judah is the one who offered himself for his brother - a type of Christ.
These sons of Jacob would create a nation. This nation would have a monarchy (despite God not wanting a monarchy) It would be a monarchy of the house of Judah. There would be a law, but not through Judah (in fact it came through Moses, a Levite) And Judah would protect the law. But this law, this monarchy - and by implication, this nation - would end with the coming of the Messiah (sometimes called Shiloh - He to whom all things belong) This Messiah would come (as was presumed) from the house of Judah This Messiah would offer himself for his brothers. And this Messiah would have the trust of the Gentiles.
I didn't actually get an answer to that thread.
There was certainly no king, no secretary when Jacob spoke to his sons on his death bed. And David wasn't writing to another king (or even of himself) when he saw the Christ in the spirit, suffering upon the cross, his hands and his feet pierced, his bones out of joint, given gall to drink - a man rejected even of his own brothers and sisters.
And can we forget Isaiah 53. The question asked of the Ethiopian is so relevant "Whom is this man speaking of?"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 9, 2014 19:44:17 GMT -5
Snow - the theory goes like this: 1 - Israel didn't write ANYTHING until the Babylonian captivity because they were Jews. As we know Jews were the only people in the Middle East not smart enough to write, or show interest in their history till then. 2 - Actual Babylonian writers (ie Daniel, Ezekiel who foretold events) were not from Babylonian times at all, but much later. Babylonian writers were too busy concocting Genesis, Leviticus, Judges, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc.. 3 - Any verses which don't support this thesis must be side-stepped. I don't buy it. It really doesn't matter if you buy it or not. They have dated a good portion of their written history to their time in captivity in Babylon, which is why so much of their history resembles Babylonian and Sumerian legends. I recognize it doesn't fit what you think is true, but that doesn't change it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 9, 2014 19:46:37 GMT -5
Saying there was a guy called Jesus who deliberately picked prophecies to fulfill doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. I absolutely said no such thing. But since you brought it up, it was NT writers (not necessarily Jesus) who made any such claim. And if Jesus did indeed quote prophets - of course he picked one at a time to quote, and he never named any of them -- you can't quote every prophet in 4 gospels of the New Testament. Anyway, most of the prophets of the OT were never even mentioned or quoted in the OT. Furthermore, the prophets in the Old Testament were NOT NOT future tellers. They were spiritual advisers to kings very much in the capacity of our modern day secretaries of state. Most of their predictions should be regarded as presenting a scenario to the king on what would happen if he made certain choices; and because they were a theocracy, they would advise the king on the constitutionality of his actions (that means, according to the Law). Today, of course, in English, "prophesy" does mean to predict the future -- after 2000 years of Christian adjustment to the OT Hebrew dictionary. I really don't know what this means at all. No you didn't say that, that was me. I made the comment that Jesus would have known it was prophesied that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a donkey. When you know the prophecies, it makes sense to try and make as many of them true as possible if you want to be seen as the Messiah. He was trying to free the people from Roman rule and corrupt temple priests. He thought he could be the one to do that. He didn't.
|
|