Topic: Hundreds of prophecies fulfilled? (Read 47156 times)

nojc4me · « **Reply #40 on:** August 02, 2005, 07:16:33 AM »

For those of you keeping score, that's zero for several. (Nine so far. 9X0=0)

Matt 4.12.16 is taken from Isaiah, but it had already been fulfilled centuries earlier.

Matt. 11.10 Words of the original (Mal. 3.1) intentionally mangled so as to make them say what the christians want to hear.

Matt. 12.14ff (Passage concluding with Isa. 42.1-4). Some of the particulars of the prophecy were not fulfilled, neither then, nor as of today. The servant mentioned is Israel, as seen in 41.8-10; 43.1,4,10, 21; 44.1. Besides that, the servant is described in terms that most christians, who think jesus was some kind of god, will find offensive.

nojc4me · « **Reply #41 on:** August 02, 2005, 07:17:11 AM »

For those of you keeping score, that's zero for several. (Nine so far. 9X0=0)

Matt 4.12.16 is taken from Isaiah, but it had already been fulfilled centuries earlier.

Matt. 11.10 Words of the original (Mal. 3.1) intentionally mangled so as to make them say what the christians want to hear.

Matt. 12.14ff (Passage concluding with Isa. 42.1-4). Some of the particulars of the prophecy were not fulfilled, neither then, nor as of today. The servant mentioned is Israel, as seen in 41.8-10; 43.1,4,10, 21; 44.1. Besides that, the servant is described in terms that most christians, who think jesus was some kind of god, will find offensive.

nojc4me · « **Reply #42 on:** August 02, 2005, 07:18:04 AM »

[Deleted repost of the one just above.]

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #43 on:** August 09, 2005, 08:35:44 AM »

nojc4me · « **Reply #44 on:** August 09, 2005, 06:02:49 PM »

Matt. 13.14-15: "and in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah*
which saith, By hearing ye shall hear and shall not understanding and
seeing, ye shall see and shall not perceive, for the people's heart is
waxed gross and their ears are dull of hearing and their eyes, they
have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear
with their ears and should understand with their heart and should be
converted and I should heal them." (*Isa. 6.9)

The fundamentalists believe that this prophecy is referring to Jesus,
whom they claim was sent to speak to the people. The Jews were and
still are blind to the truth and refuse to hear the gospel.

REFUTATION

The prophecy is translated correctly but used completely out of context.

The prophecy is dated internally by the fact that it is a message Isaiah
himself brought to his own generation, for he says, "Here am I, send me"
(Isa. 6.9). The person who said, "Here am I, send me" also said "Woe is
me, for I am ruined because I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in
the midst of a people of unclean lips." (Isa. 6.5). If this is speaking about
Jesus, then he must have been a man of unclean lips.

Matt. 17.10-12: "and his disciples asked him, saying, why then do
the scribes say that Elijah must come first?* And he answered and said,
Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah
already came and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever
they wished. So also the son of man is going to suffer at their hands."
(*Mal. 3.23-24) (K.J.V. Mal. 4.5-6)

Aware of this prophecy which the scribes taught, Jesus's disciples asked
him about the matter (Matt. 17.10). Jesus replied that Elijah had already
come (Matt.17.12). According to the writer of Mark, "They did to him what
was written of him" (Mark 9.13). The disciples understood that he spoke
to them of John the Baptist (Matt. 17.13).

REFUTATION

The best refutation comes from John the Baptist himself. He disagreed
with Jesus, for when they asked John if he was Elijah, he said, "No, I am
not" (John 1.21). So, according to Malachi, Elijah must come before the
messiah and since John was not Elijah, Jesus cannot have been the
messiah.

Some fundamentalists teach that John represented Elijah in respect of his
power or that he had the spirit of Elijah but that does not fulfill this
prophecy of Malachi, where, in Hebrew, no terms such as "one like unto
Elijah" or "one with Elijah's spirit" are used. The prophet says (Mal. 3.23):
"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet"; he says that the individual
who is to appear will be Elijah himself. Moreover, nowhere is it written of
Elijah that when he comes, he is to be beheaded, as was done to John the
Baptist - Mark 6.24-27. "They did to him as was written." (Matt. 17.12).

Another aspect of Malachi's prophecy that has not been fulfilled is the fact
that children are still disobedient to their parents, parents are still weeping
over their wayward children and fundamentalists still play their role in
separating families, sowing the seeds of hatred and discord in many
homes. Elijah's first task will have to be to undo what Jesus did and
econcile broken homes.

Fundamentalists thump on Hebrews 8:6 and enlighten us that the Law was
replaced (as to Paul's private dictum) by a better covenant.

However, Malachi's prophecy calls for the adherence to the Law of Moses,
together with the statutes and judgments (Mal. 3.22).

Matt 21.1-10 tells of a story of Jesus instructing his disciples to go
into a village where they would find an assssss and a colt that they should
loose them and bring both animals to him (Jesus).

Verses 4 and 5 state, "All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold thy
King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an assssss, and a colt the
foal of an asssssss".

REFUTATION

The writers of the New Testament who wanted to make Jesus fulfill
rophecy, have in this case gone to absurd extremes. Jesus rode into
Jerusalem on two animals, therefore he must be the Messiah.

The Hebrew text which is found in Zech 9.9, simply implies that this king
will ride into Jerusalem upon a donkey and that it would be a young one,
a foal, in Hebrew 'Ben Atnot' meaning son of a donkey. There is no
indication of two animals. The prophet describes the donkey: one donkey
which will be a young one, a male.

The New Testament portrays Jesus performing a rodeo act when the
disciples harness up two animals for him to ride into Jerusalem.

The Hebrew language often uses parallelism such as this. The second half
of the verse merely serves to emphasize the first half of the verse.

Jesus was never anointed king of Israel, yet the prophet states the rider
would be a king. Since the time of this prophecy thousands of Jews have
ridden into Jerusalem on donkeys, are we to proclaim them all kings?

This prophecy could not have been fulfilled by Jesus because the next
verse reads, "He shall speak to the Gentiles and his dominion shall be
from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth" (Zech 9.10).
Jesus did not wish to speak to the Gentiles, the gospel quotes him as
saying, "I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
(Matt 15.24). He likened Gentiles to dogs (Matt 15.26) though he later
repudiated his racist attitude (v 28).

Where is the dominion (Zech 9.10) of Jesus? He said, "My kingdom is not
of this world" (John 18.36). In fact Jesus was against having dominion
over men. He said, "...the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion"
(Matt 20.25) (implying he did not).
Jesus did not see himself as an earthly king.

Maybe there are those who object to our refutation when we say that only
one donkey is mentioned in the text. No doubt their objection will be that
the Hebrew employs a 'vav' before the words 'al-aier ben-atnot' meaning
'and upon a male colt of an asssssssss'. In many cases the Hebrew Bible
places a 'vav' before a word where it is not always given its literal English
translation which is normally 'and' but can also mean 'but', 'or', 'so',
'then', 'with', 'when', 'who', 'that', and much more. In this particular text
it is employed as a comma, thus making the text read 'riding upon a
donkey ('vav' for a comma) a colt the foal of an asssssssss.'

Note: Mark 11.2 and Luke 19.30 only mention one animal, a colt. Matthew
was a writer with a squint, he saw double all the time. In the account of
the demoniac in Gadara unlike the other gospel writers who only tell of
one, Matthew tells of two demoniacs. In the story of the blind man by the
wayside, as described by Mark and Luke, Matthew sees two blind men
and now again in this incident of a colt for Jesus to ride upon,
Matthew sees a colt and an asssssss.

Cook · « **Reply #45 on:** August 10, 2005, 04:44:43 PM »

Nojc,

I know this thread is about prophecies but since you stated your opinion concerning Noahcidism I must point out that you have misrepresented the facts.

Your comment:

Quote

"No other name...[by which we must be saved?]" This is one of the bones of contention I have with Christianity: it's exclusionist. It claims only those who have elevated a sinning man's name above God's will find the favor of God. They claim only these people will get into heaven, as if they knew what they were talking about, or that they knew what God can and cannot do for His Own sake.
The Noachide Covenant, OTOH, is inclusive

The Noachide Covenant is inclusive. (in that all mankind is bound by its law)
Christianity is inclusive. (in that all mankind is bound by its law)

Christianity is exclusionary in that it teaches acceptances of Jesus is the only Way to God.

The Noachides are exclusionary in that they teach that only those who obey the 7/66 noachide laws will be granted a place in the world to come.

Christianity teaches that you can not get to heaven if you serve other Gods and do not serve Jesus.

Noachides also teach that in order to be obedient to the Noachide laws you must give up any religion outside of what is permitted in the Noachide Laws. No practicing Christians will have a place in the world to come. Nor will pagans or witches or atheist.

Seems that noachides are just as exclusionary as Christians.

So clearly you do not oppose Christians because we to exclusionist seeing that you yourself are one.

.
.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #46 on:** August 12, 2005, 02:02:23 AM »

Nojc. I have had the same thoughts as Cook for some time now but never brought this to the table.

But (my question) is when this idea of the Noachides law even started?

When reading the scriptures, whether OT or NT there is no hint of such an idea. When was this idea formulated? I know this is going off topic but I want to come to the truth concerning this question. Why? Because i've read that Jews for Jesus (and who is TRUE JEW???) do accept the historical facts as written in the NT is true. Even it is they that have pointed out that the "orthodox" view does not reject the historical Jesus because they argue against this "man" as not the Messiah. Why even argue if this man Jesus did not even exist?

Oh, boy..oh boy..a dilemma? Certianly for such a person as me this would be. Which Jew do I believe?

Zagzagel · « **Reply #47 on:** August 12, 2005, 02:04:42 AM »

Nojc. I have had the same thoughts as Cook for some time now but never brought this to the table.

But (my question) is when this idea of the Noachides law even started?

When reading the scriptures, whether OT or NT there is no hint of such an idea. When was this idea formulated? I know this is going off topic but I want to come to the truth concerning this question. Why? Because i've read that Jews for Jesus (and who is TRUE JEW???) do accept the historical facts as written in the NT is true. Even it is they that have pointed out that the "orthodox" view does not reject the historical Jesus because they argue against this "man" as not the Messiah. Why even argue if this man Jesus did not even exist?

Oh, boy..oh boy..a dilemma? Certianly for such a person as me this would be. Which Jew do I believe?

Cook · « **Reply #48 on:** August 12, 2005, 09:38:47 AM »

Gee gee,

The Noachide laws are said to have been given to Noah. But also to have been binding on Adam and everyone. They are said to have been told to Moses so that he could have them reinstated to the gentiles.

It most probably came about during the writting down of the Talmud. But the orthodox will say that the Talmud also was given to Moses.

A quick look at them will show you the bias. Jewish Rabbis use every command given in the torah to apply to Jewish people as one of the 613 mitzvot. Yet they pick and choose which apply to the Gentiles.

Example. It was to Adam and Eve (Gentiles) that God said "Be fruitful and multiply". This is a command listed to Jews in the 613, but it is missing from the Noachide Laws.

There are other things in the Noachide Laws that will show you what they really think about Gentiles if you search with an open mind. Ask the right questions. They are not above deceit - you really have to ask exactly what you want to know. leave NO wiggle room!!!

cook

nojc4me · « **Reply #49 on:** August 13, 2005, 08:57:57 PM »

Cook said:

Christianity is exclusionary in that it teaches acceptances of Jesus is the only Way to God.

The Noachides are exclusionary in that they teach that only those who obey the 7/66 noachide laws will be granted a place in the world to come.

This is in error.
Serious error.
Every man has immortality as his reward awaiting him.
Only those who have no mitzvot in their favor to offset his sins will be deprived of everlasting reward. Even doing a mitzvah accidently (unintentionally) will be rewarded. Doing acts of kindness to widows and orphans, giving charity (or better, a job) to a man, and being careful to aviod harming animals will all please God. Trust me. Or DON'T trust me, and go ask a Rabbi.
The Covenant of Noah limits those who won't be earning an eternal reward to VERY few people, but christianity restricts access to to heaven to very few people, while the vast majority are all going to roast in the eternal barbeque.

Christianity teaches that you can not get to heaven if you serve other Gods and do not serve Jesus.

Noachides also teach that in order to be obedient to the Noachide laws you must give up any religion outside of what is permitted in the Noachide Laws. No practicing Christians will have a place in the world to come. Nor will pagans or witches or atheist.

Again, that's incorrect. Those unbelievers risk losing much of their reward, but many of the atheists and witches will fare better than many, many christians, because there haven't been too many roving bands of witches going around burning people at the stake, like so many generations of christians have done.

Seems that noachides are just as exclusionary as Christians.

Happily, you're right - but even MORE happily, what you're right about is that it ONLY SEEMS that way.

So clearly you do not oppose Christians because we to exclusionist seeing that you yourself are one.

Why don't you try to make up another of my motivations for doing something? It's interesting to watch.

nojc4me · « **Reply #50 on:** August 13, 2005, 09:54:02 PM »

geegee said:

But (my question) is when this idea of the Noachides law even started?

The Covenant between God and Noah dates from just after the Flood. It was a slight modification of the Covenant between God and Adam. Melchitzedek was a Noachide, and so was Job.
When the Ark of the Covenant was housed in the Mishkan, and sacrifices offered to God there, the sacrifices of Noachides were allowed to be offered there as well. As well, when King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he specifically asked God to heed the prayer of non-Jews who come to the Temple (1-Kings 8:41-43). The Temple was the universal center of spirituality, which the prophet Isaiah referred to as a "house for all nations." The Noachide community consisted of Righteous Gentiles (of course) as well as the children of Jewish men and Gentile women. These children would not be Jews until/unless they converted to Judaism.

When reading the scriptures, whether OT or NT there is no hint of such an idea.

You weren't looking, or you didn't know what to look for.

Even it is they [J4J, who are actually not Jews, but Baptists for jesus] that have pointed out that the "orthodox" view does not reject the historical Jesus because they argue against this "man" as not the Messiah. Why even argue if this man Jesus did not even exist?

The real jesus did live, and the Jews know it. It's also known that he lived a hundred years before the christians think he did.
But he lived.
And he died.
And the messianic era didn't come to pass.
So he wasn't the messiah.
End of story.
Why argue about whether he lived, or when he lived, - which is ultimately meaningless - when the evidence shows that no messianic age has come, neither in the 100's BCE, nor in the first century CE, nor even any time since!
No messianic era has come, so jesus was not the messiah.

Oh, boy..oh boy..a dilemma? Certianly for such a person as me this would be. Which Jew do I believe?

I'd suggest that if you're looking for a person who knows what God said, that you should find somebody who DOES what God said.
He recites the Shma three times a day.
He wears fringes on the corners of his garments.
He posts mezuzah on his doors.
And he rejects jesus.
Why this last?
Because the fellow who knows what God said, will know that, in order to be the messiah, a man must bring the messianic era; there is NO "second coming" spoken of in Scripture.
If he didn't do it first time around, he was a failure. Whether anybody "has faith in him" or "believes in him" or whatever other code words are used, make no difference to the facts.
The messianic era was described, and those days were to come about in the days of the messiah. They didn't come about in the days of jesus, so jesus wasn't the messiah.
Whether the Baptists who are pretending to be Jews (even though they admit they are for jesus) believe in him or not is of no importance in determining whether he was or not.
The Tanakh says we shall SEE it; the evidence will be clear.
OTOH, christians have only faith, which is acceptance (even of the patently absurd) with or without or even against the evidence!
The fact is, we have NOT seen the messianic era, so there has not been a messiah.

nojc4me · « **Reply #51 on:** August 13, 2005, 10:07:19 PM »

Making up his/her own little rules, Cook decided (s)he'd claim:

Example. It was to Adam and Eve (Gentiles) that God said "Be fruitful and multiply". This is a command listed to Jews in the 613, but it is missing from the Noachide Laws.

The reality is on the contrary:

Blessing on Noach and His Sons:

TNK Genesis 9:1 Elokim blessed Noach and his sons, and said to them,
"Be fertile and increase, and fill the earth.
2 The fear and the dread of you shall be
upon all the beasts of the earth and
upon all the birds of the sky

Cook · « **Reply #52 on:** August 14, 2005, 10:08:50 AM »

Quote

Only those who have no mitzvot in their favor to offset his sins will be deprived of everlasting reward.

How many and which mitzvot offset Idolatry and blasphemy?
If a gentile dies praising Jesus as Lord does he merit a place in the world to come?

Also what is "an everlasting reward"? How does it differ from "a place in the world to come"?

I have read the opinion of many Rabbis on this very issue - As it is VERY important to me! The answers I have received are in agreement and are as follows "ALL Righteous Gentiles will merit a place in the world to come". However a Righteous Gentile is one who follows the Noachide Laws. A Christian is not a "Righteous Gentile" I have an Orthodox Rabbi's direct answer to that very specific question!

Quote

The Covenant of Noah limits those who won't be earning an eternal reward to VERY few people,

Which few people? And again what is an eternal reward?
What matters in this area is not that you can find one modern Rabbi to agree with what you stated above. What is Jewish Law on this issue. What do the respected sages say? And how do the majority of Orthodox Rabbi's rule on it today?

The ONLY opinion I have found is that "All Righteous Gentiles merit a place in the world to come". And as I have already stated very few gentiles fit the bill with regard to the 1st and 2nd Noachide laws.

Quote

I'd suggest that if you're looking for a person who knows what God said, that you should find somebody who DOES what God said.

WHAT??? How in the heck can you find someone who does what God said if you don't know what God said?

Quote

Making up his/her own little rules, Cook decided (s)he'd claim:

Example. It was to Adam and Eve (Gentiles) that God said "Be fruitful and multiply". This is a command listed to Jews in the 613, but it is missing from the Noachide Laws.

The reality is on the contrary:

Blessing on Noach and His Sons:

TNK Genesis 9:1 Elokim blessed Noach and his sons, and said to them,
"Be fertile and increase, and fill the earth.

Nojc

According to Orthodox Rabbis there is no command to the gentile to procreate! You are again misleading. Please produce the Noachide command to procreate in the form of Orthodox Opinion of the Jewish sages. It does not exist!

Sure the command is in the bible and this is why I find it bias that the Rabbis left it out of the Noachide code. Yet they included in the Noachide code a command to establish courts which is simply implied in the bible and not outright commanded as is the command to procreate!

Here are the listed Noachide Laws:

Prohibition of Idolatry
Prohibition of Blasphemy
Prohibition of Theft
Prohibition of Murder
Prohibition of Sexual Misconduct
Prohibition of Failure to Establish Courts
Prohibition of Eating Live Meat

cook

nojc4me · « **Reply #53 on:** August 14, 2005, 10:22:31 AM »

Matt 21.12-13, "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves. And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; buy ye have made it a den of thieves."

From this slanderous accusation, the world has been taught to believe that the Jews were corrupt even in their worship, that buying and selling and corrupt business were carried out in the holy place.

REFUTATION

The writer of Matthew has joined together two half verses Isa 56.7 and Jer 7.11 to get this saying.

The only dealings that went on in the temple area were the exchange of pilgrims' money for the silver shekel of the sanctuary and the selling of doves for sacrifices. Jesus was trying to change these customs appointed by the Law and taking a whip he drove away both the people and their sacrifices (John 2.15).

Note: According to Matt, Mark and Luke this incident in which Jesus is supposed to have cleansed and purged the temple was at the close of his ministry just a few days before his death. However, according to John, this incident took place three years before his death (John 2.13-22).

Matt 21.42, "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?"

"As it is written, behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offense and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed" (Rom 9.33)

"Wherefore also it is contained in the scriptures, Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. And a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Pet 2.6-8). (Ps 118.22) (Isa 28.16)

Christians of most denominations believe that Jesus is the 'precious corner stone' which God laid in Zion. He is, in their minds the stone rejected by his people, the Jews, and he has now become the chief stone.

REFUTATION

The verses in Hebrew do not in context refer to Jesus. 'The stone which the builders rejected' refers to Israel, rejected throughout history. Israel was scornfully left to lie by the wayside but in the mind of the prophet, the day will come when Israel will become the chief corner stone of man's salvation.

Nowhere in Isa 28.16 does it suggest that one should believe 'on him' - i.e., on a person. Paul (in Rom 9.33) has misquoted and replaced the words 'he that believeth shall not make haste' by the words, 'he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed'.

One obvious reason why the 'foundation stone' or 'corner stone' in Isa 28.16 cannot be referring to Jesus is that the prophet uses the past tense 'yisad' meaning 'have established'. The stone was already established hundreds of years before the time of Jesus.

In context, the prophecy cannot refer to Jesus because the verse reads, 'Justice will be established as the line' (Isa 28.17), that is to say, 'Justice will be the norm'. Where was the justice established by Jesus? Certainly it is not to be found in his teachings, as we can see for example in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15.11ff) where the wayward son is given a welcome home party to which the servants are invited but the faithful son working in the field is not summoned to attend. Or as in the parable of the steward who instructed his master's creditors to forge their bills so as it would appear they owed less that what they were due to pay. Jesus commends such cheatings as wise (Luke 16.1-9 ).

This prophecy cannot be referring to Jesus because it is addressed to Ephraim, that is to Israel rather than to Judah. The kingdom of Israel vanished from the world scene before the time of Jesus.

________ And Now A Word From Your Host __________

Cook seems to think that Biblical prophecies are now being fulfilled, and that these apparent fulfillments point to jesus as the messiah. That's what we're trying to find out, isn't it?
There are actually three or more sets of claimed messianic prophecies:
1) The ones that the new testament cite as support for new testament beliefs. These are the ones we're dealing with in this thread - at least so far. They date from the first century or so.
2) The ones christians have "discovered" since the new testament was published, which is where the claim of "hundreds of prophecies" usually comes from. These mostly date from after the second or third century, and no earlier.
3) The ones the Jews knew about all along, and which they were using as a baseline for determining if a man were the expected messiah or not. They date from before the common era and usually no later. They were mostly ignored by christians then and now, because they make it obvious that jesus was not the messiah.

nojc4me · « **Reply #54 on:** August 14, 2005, 02:51:09 PM »

Cook said:

How many and which mitzvot offset Idolatry and blasphemy?

That would be up to God, now wouldn't it?
But, as I understand it, there are some sins for which you should be willing to lose your life to avoid committing, which means there are others which you should be able to commit to save your life if commiting the sin is the only alternative.

If a gentile dies praising Jesus as Lord does he merit a place in the world to come?

That would depend on what else he has done, wouldn't it? My question is, why risk eternal bliss simply to praise a dead sinner as if he were a god or something? It would be much better to praise God with one's last breath, than to worship a false god like jesus was.

Also what is "an everlasting reward"? How does it differ from "a place in the world to come"?

Apparently, there IS a difference, as I understand it.
The world to come is this world under the King messiah, and the Messianic Era.
The "everlasting reward" is after this corporial world passes away, and all returns to the way it was "Before" the beginning.

I have read the opinion of many Rabbis on this very issue - As it is VERY important to me! The answers I have received are in agreement and are as follows "ALL Righteous Gentiles will merit a place in the world to come". However a Righteous Gentile is one who follows the Noachide Laws. A Christian is not a "Righteous Gentile." I have an Orthodox Rabbi's direct answer to that very specific question!

And what EXACTLY was the question you asked, and EXACTLY the answer he gave?

Quote:
The Covenant of Noah limits those who won't be earning an eternal reward to VERY few people,

Which few people? And again what is an eternal reward?

I already identified those very few people, and those very very circumstances, didn't I?

What matters in this area is not that you can find one modern Rabbi to agree with what you stated above. What is Jewish Law on this issue. What do the respected sages say? And how do the majority of Orthodox Rabbi's rule on it today?

The ONLY opinion I have found is that "All Righteous Gentiles merit a place in the world to come". And as I have already stated very few gentiles fit the bill with regard to the 1st and 2nd Noachide laws.

There may be the crux of your problem with accepting the truth: definitions
What IS "Righteousness"? Is it "all or nothing" or something else?
With christianity, we already KNOW that it's all or nothing. He who accepts jesus as his lord and savior, and believes jesus died for that man's sins, and also believes that the corpse then got up and walked away from his grave - why, that man is going to get into heaven. Nobody who denies all or part of this little formula is allowed in. Again, I realize there are thousands of different schools of christians, but I'll bet most agree with my terms.
OTOH, righteousness is a journey, a PATH, not a DESTINATION.
The christians look at the destination, not the journey.

Quote:
I'd suggest that if you're looking for a person who knows what God said, that you should find somebody who DOES what God said.

WHAT??? How in the heck can you find someone who does what God said if you don't know what God said?

I suggest you ask someone who knows, believes, and does what God said.

Nojc

According to Orthodox Rabbis there is no command to the gentile to procreate! You are again misleading. Please produce the Noachide command to procreate in the form of Orthodox Opinion of the Jewish sages. It does not exist!

Do you know WHY the Rabbis say there is no "COMMAND" for Gentiles to procreate? I do. I asked a Rabbi one time, "If the Torah tells us that God told Noah to fbe fruitful and mulitply, what then is that not listed among the Noachide Commandments?"
He said, "It is, and it isn't" Then, he explained it to me. I'm satisfied.
Are you SURE it doesn't exist?
Would it please you to find out that you were COMMANDED to procreate, and that if you don't, you could be beheaded? I am well aware of it, and VERY interested in finding out what the deal is. Because that's ME, that would be ME.

Sure the command is in the bible and this is why I find it bias that the Rabbis left it out of the Noachide code. Yet they included in the Noachide code a command to establish courts which is simply implied in the bible and not outright commanded as is the command to procreate! Here are the listed Noachide Laws:

Prohibition of Idolatry
Prohibition of Blasphemy
Prohibition of Theft
Prohibition of Murder
Prohibition of Sexual Misconduct
Prohibition of Failure to Establish Courts
Prohibition of Eating Live Meat

Do you see a pattern? Because there is one.

nojc4me · « **Reply #55 on:** August 15, 2005, 03:06:49 PM »

[We now return to our regularly scheduled program.]

Matt 22.42-45, "...what think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" Many Christians believe that Psalm 110.1 begins with a conversation between God and his son Jesus. In the K.J.V both 'Lords' are written with a capital 'L'.

REFUTATION

The original Hebrew does not lend itself to this belief. It is perfectly clear from the text which lord is which, for it is written, 'saith Yaweh to Adoni', which means, 'said God to my master'. Adoni is an everyday Hebrew word which means 'mister', 'sir' or 'master'.

It should also be noted that this psalm was not written by David but about David. In Hebrew it begins 'Le David', 'to David', or 'concerning David'. Thus here we have someone writing in a flattering way about David and saying, 'God said to my master'. There is no indication here that God is speaking to another god, whether as father to son or in any other way.

'Sit at my right hand' (Ps 110.1). Christians believe that this is a prophecy concerning the ascension of Jesus, but in fact this is a continuation of the honour that the writer of the psalm describes as being given to David. To seat a person at one's right hand is a mark of respect (1 Kings 2.19).

Further evidence that this psalm does not describe Jesus is found in the fact that Jesus' enemies were never 'made into his footstool' (v. 1). On the contrary Jesus' enemies triumphed over him as seen in the gospels.

Matt. 26.31: "Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written* I will smite the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." (*Zech. 13.7)

Matthew believed that because Jesus was smitten and his followers all forsook him and fled, that a prophecy was fulfilled.

REFUTATION

Before comparing Jesus to Zechariah's shepherd, the fundamentalists would be wise to see what else is said about this shepherd:

a) He is a "foolish shepherd" (Zech. 11.15-17).

b) Zechariah indicates that after false prophets and the "foolish shepherd" are cut off, the people will turn to God (Zech. 13.9).

c) He is called the "idol shepherd" (Zech. 11.17), referring possibly to Mithra, the Persian god known as the "good shepherd" to his followers, who is depicted on statues found dating from that period as a shepherd carrying a lamb over his shoulders.

Matt. 27.9: "Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet* was fulfilled, saying 'and they took the 30 pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me.'" (*another imaginary prophecy nowhere to be found in the Book of Jeremiah)

Christianity believes that Judas, a disciple of Jesus, betrayed his lord for 30 pieces of silver. After having remorseful feelings, he offered the money back again but it was not at first accepted. Later, the money was cast into the potter's field in the Temple. Because it was blood money, it was not permitted to remain there, so a graveyard was purchased with the money.

REFUTATION

One can search Jeremiah in vain for this prophecy; it is but another figment of Matthew's imagination. There are 52 chapters in the Book of Jeremiah and these words cannot be found in any of them. The "divinely-inspired" New Testament made a mistake. A similar prophecy can however be found in Zech. 11.12.

The Smith Bible Dictionary states: "Potter's field: a piece of ground which, according to the statement of Matthew (XXVII.7), was purchased by the priests with the 30 pieces of silver rejected by Judas and converted into a burial place for Jews not belonging to the city. Matthew adduces this (ver. 9) as a fulfillment of an ancient prediction. What that prediction was and who made it is not, however, at all clear. Matthew names Jeremiah but there is no passage in the Book of Jeremiah resembling that which he gives - and that in Zech. xi.12b which is usually supposed to be alluded to has only a very imperfect likeness to it."

"And I said to them, if you think good, give me my hire and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire 30 pieces of silver - and the Lord said to me, Cast it into the treasury: the goodly price that I was priced at by them - and I took the 30 pieces of silver and cast them into the treasury in the House of the Lord." (Zech 11.12-13)

Even those who must admit that Matthew made a mistake in accrediting this "prophecy" to the wrong prophet can still be refuted. No doubt, they will correct Matthew by saying that the "prophecy" is to be found in Zechariah and will quote from the K.J.V. to prove their point - but addition must be drawn to the fact that the K.J.V. has mistranslated the Hebrew.

The K.J.V. has misunderstood the Hebrew word "yotser", meaning "potter". In fact, the text should read "otsar", meaning "treasury". Matthew has added a field, yet it is clear that Zechariah does not mention any field.

Wherever was there such a thing as a potter's field in the Temple of God? The meaning is not the "potter" but the "treasury" and this is translated as such in the R.S.V. and in the New English Bible, as well as in other more scholarly translations - but the fundamentalists who read only the K.J.V. are therefore misled and mislead others by their doctrines based on an uninspired book which they call the Holy Bible.

What is more, if the 30 pieces of silver given by the priests to Judas for the betrayal of Jesus are seen as a fulfillment of this passage of scripture, then one must insist upon consistency. The New Testament portrays the priests as being evil, whereas the ones who paid the money to Zechariah were considered to be the poor of the flock, who waited upon God and who knew it to be the Word of God (v. 11). Zechariah calls the payment an act of goodness: "The goodly price that I was priced at of them" (v. 13). Why then should we believe it to be an evil act of betrayal?

Matt 27.5: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself".

This contradicts Acts 1.18 where Judas' life ended not in suicide but accidentally, for he is described as having some kind of a nasty fall headlong which resulted in his stomach being cut open so that all his bowels fell out.

Matt 27.7 "And they (the chief priests) took counsel and bought with them (the thirty pieces of silver) the potter's field, to bury strangers in".

This is another contradiction for the writer of Acts declares that it was Judas who purchased a field with the money. See Acts 1.18.

At this point it will be well to ask what really happened to Judas?

Mark and Luke both state that Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples on the evening following the resurrection Mark 16.14, "Afterwards he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat.."

"And they arose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together" (Luke 24.33).

The above verses may cause the reader to presume that Judas had committed suicide as according to Matt 27.5 therefore there were only eleven disciples.

But John says, "But Thomas one of the twelve called Didymas was not with them when Jesus came," John 20.24ff. Thomas was not present and did not believe the others when they told him that they had seen the Lord. Not until eight days later does Thomas have the privilege of seeing Jesus.

This can only contradict the account of Judas committing suicide. He could not have done so but was one of the eleven that saw Jesus. They could not have included Thomas among the eleven because he wasn't there. Also Paul clearly states in 1 Cor 15.4,5, "That he (Jesus) was seen of Cephas and then of the twelve".

How could there be twelve if Judas was dead? It was not until after the "ascension" that another person was voted in to make up the number to twelve. Acts 1.26.

If Judas saw the resurrected jesus, why would he have committed suicide at all? Surely he would have seen that his part in getting the god/man nailed to a board was NECESSARY and INSTRUMENTAL to that god/man becoming the walking corpse that he now was seeing with his own eyes! If Judas has not pointed jesus out to Pilate's centurians, they never would have found his hiding place, never would have tried him, and never would have crucuified him by time Passover came around (there is some evidence that this didn't happen, anyway), which means the part of Judas was played by a servant of whatever god demanded the death of jesus for the remission of sins. Without Judas, there is no salvation through the death and resurrection of jesus. Why then would he have committed suicide? Why then is Judas vilified by christians?

There may be some indication here that the gospel writers or redactors made Judas the scapegoat so as to allow them to blame the Jews for the death of jesus, and use that to help deflect blame from the Romans.

Judas is seen as the money-carrier for the commune led by jesus. (They kept all their money in one bag, and shared it out equally - from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.) Judas is seen as doing the most dispicable thing imaginable for money. Judas is ALSO the Greek way to say, "Judah" or "Jew."

According to Matthew, Judah - the Jews - killed jesus, and they did it for money.

The gospel, then, is a root source for almost 2 thousand years of European anti-Semitism.

Cook · « **Reply #56 on:** August 15, 2005, 06:27:38 PM »

nojc,

Quote

Do you know WHY the Rabbis say there is no "COMMAND" for Gentiles to procreate? I do.

Yes, I do know WHY. I know the standard answer. I may not agree that it is the REAL reason why, but I am aware of it.

Quote

Would it please you to find out that you were COMMANDED to procreate, and that if you don't, you could be beheaded?

No it would not!! My sister is a cancer survivor and will never have children.

Quote

Prohibition of Idolatry
Prohibition of Blasphemy
Prohibition of Theft
Prohibition of Murder
Prohibition of Sexual Misconduct
Prohibition of Failure to Establish Courts
Prohibition of Eating Live Meat

Do you see a pattern? Because there is one.

Yes I see the pattern it is obvious. However it is also silly. And I will demonstrate how.

"Prohibition" of failure to procreate!

There it now fits the pattern nicely! Don't you agree?

cook

nojc4me · « **Reply #57 on:** August 15, 2005, 07:47:29 PM »

Cook said:

Quote:
"Do you know WHY the Rabbis say there is no "COMMAND" for Gentiles to procreate? I do."

Yes, I do know WHY. I know the standard answer. I may not agree that it is the REAL reason why, but I am aware of it.

Fine. What would that standard answer be?

Quote:
"Would it please you to find out that you were COMMANDED to procreate, and that if you don't, you could be beheaded?"

No it would not!! My sister is a cancer survivor and will never have children.

I strongly believe physical defects would negate a Commandment.
But, I have heard that in the messianic era, all sickness and infirmity will be healed.

Quote:
"Do you see a pattern? Because there is one."

Yes I see the pattern it is obvious. However it is also silly. And I will demonstrate how.

"Prohibition" of failure to procreate!

There it now fits the pattern nicely! Don't you agree?

Laws of Marriage
122 To marry a wife by means of ketubah and kiddushin Deut. 22:13
123 Not to have relations with women not thus married Deut. 23:18
124 Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations from your wife Ex. 21:10
125 To have children with one's wife Gen 1:28

For Jews, that IS what they face. Failing to fulfil a positive command is probably pretty serious. For Gentiles, not so much. Why? Because Jews were "shown to see that HaShem, He is God." Deut 4:35 (National Revelation). Gentiles don't have that. We can be fairly certain that there is a God, but the Jews KNOW there is a God.

Cook · « **Reply #58 on:** August 15, 2005, 09:35:06 PM »

Quote

However a Righteous Gentile is one who follows the Noachide Laws. A Christian is not a "Righteous Gentile." I have an Orthodox Rabbi's direct answer to that very specific question!

And what EXACTLY was the question you asked, and EXACTLY the answer he gave?

I do not have permission to give the Rabbi's name - so I will not. He is
orthodox.

Here is what I asked:

I have heard that some Rabbis do not consider Christianity idolatry
for non-Jews . Is this something that Judaism has
an opinion about or is it up to each individual Rabbi?

Rabbi's answer:

"I think there is a lot of confusion on this point. The question is more
complex than you have stated. Christianity is most certainly idolatry,
but there is a divided opinion on what is permitted to a Christian.
Christians have the idea of a three part G-d partnership.
Are Christians permitted to believe that Jesus is G-d as part of a trinity. Some authorities say,
"yes," so long as it is belief and not practice. Other authorities say,
"No."

Are Christians permitted to worship Jesus? No, they are not. That is an
outright idolatrous practice."

So, as you can see from the Rabbi's answer, a Christian is not a righteous gentile but an Idolator.

And we all know what happens to idolators :(

cook

nojc4me · « **Reply #59 on:** August 16, 2005, 08:36:18 AM »

Cook said:

"And what EXACTLY was the question you asked, and EXACTLY the answer he gave?"

I do not have permission to give the Rabbi's name - so I will not. He is
orthodox.

I understand. Well just have to deal with it, then.

Here is what I asked:

[snip some]

That conforms with what I have heard.

So, as you can see from the Rabbi's answer, a Christian is not a righteous gentile but an Idolator.
And we all know what happens to idolators.

Maybe you should decide to do what you will need to do to stop being an idolator?
But the designation of "idolator" is probably too harsh. You were not raised Jewish, were you?
The Red Chinese were raised thinking that Chairman Mao's little red book of wise sayings is a pretty niffty thing.
The Buddhists were raised to think that Buddhism is the way to go.
The Communist Russians were raised thinking that Mother Russia should lead the world to the wonders of communism.
Westerners were raised on stories of Robin Hood and King Arthur.
You are a product of the society you were raised in.
ALL of these peoples think they're right. All of them also believe that, if an honest person will just give an honest look, that honest man will agree that their belief (Chaiman Mao, communism, whatever) is the right one.
In Judaism, a person who was NOT raised Jewish is tinook sh'nishba, a babe in the woods. They have no real understanding of God; they only have what they were taught by their parents.

Author Topic: Hundreds of prophecies fulfilled? (Read 47156 times)