Easter and the self sacrifice.

bmzsp wrote: George, For the post that you wrote and posted on 25 April 2006 at 9:54am, I hereby award you an F Grade. It was a very weak post with ruptures and fault lines exposed.

Thanks for your opinion.

bmzsp wrote: George, From you:"I think that there are little clues in the Old Testament that God is triune in nature.  The problem back in those days was that people were worshipping many gods.  So, I think God's main aim was to emphasize that there was only one God and he was it.  Could you please write down those cute little clues from the Old Testament and from the Jewish Bible too, for us to compare?

Isaiah 48:¹⁶"Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there.  And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me."

Here we have someone identified as "Me" talking.  He is saying that "from the time that it was, I was there, which puts more dynamics behind Jesus' statement, John 8:58, Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."   Then "Me" refers to the "Lord GOD" and "His Spirit" sending "Me" somewhere.  In this verse we have three "entities," the Lord GOD, His Spirit and "Me."

The "Me" is the Messiah.  Throughout this section of the book the Spirit of God brings before us the coming and the rejection of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and in verse 16 the Messiah, speaking through the prophet says this, "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and His Sprit, hath sent me."  We know that these words refer to Jesus Christ for we read in John 18:20, "In secret have I said nothing" and this is the passage in the OT to which he referred.  Here we are listening to the voice of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God who was to be manifested in the flesh.  "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and n ow (looking on to the incarnation) the Lord God, and His Sprit (that is, the Holy Spirit), hath sent me (that is, the Son)."  So there you have the Trinity in the book of the prophet Isaiah.

Then in a later chapter of this same book we have the three persons definitely indicated.  It is the passage that Jesus Christ read in the synagogue at Nazareth and applied to Himself.

Isaiah 61:¹ "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

Here we have God's Spirit�"the Spirit of the Lord GOD"�(this is not an angel) upon "Me."  The LORD has anointed "Me" to preach and He has sent "Me."  This is the same verse that Jesus quoted below:

Luke 4:¹⁷And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

¹⁸"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind,  To set at liberty those who are oppressed;  ¹⁹To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."

²⁰Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. ²¹And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

Here Jesus identifies Himself as the "Me" in the OT Scriptures above.

Notice how the three persons come before us there.  "The Spirit (the Holy Spirit) of the Lord is upon me (that is, the Son); because the Lord (that is, God the Father) hath anointed me to preach good tidings (the gospel) unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord"  (Isaiah 61:1)

Now linking the NT passages with these you will see how completely they fulfill what has been set forth prophetically in the OT.  Matthew 3:16 reads, "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him: and lo a voice from heave, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 

The prophet Malachi predicted that God would personally appear at the second temple:

"See I will send my messenger who will prepare the way before me.  Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant whom you desire will come, say the LORD Almighty."  Malachi 3:1

According to this prediction, the Lord Himself was to come and enter His temple.  The only person who claimed to be the divine Messiah and appeared while the second temple was still standing is Jesus Christ.

George! You and your pearls.

From you :"Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.""

If you are talking of above to be applicable to Jesus, then I must say that none of the above came true. the word Messiah is not even present in Isaiah 9.6. Why should we look into the Targum of Isaiah for something that is missing in Isaiah 9.6?

From you: "Pereq Shalom: R. Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 

Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition: The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele ["Miracle"], Yo'etz ["Counselor"], Mashiah ["Messiah"], El ["God"], Gibbor ["Hero"], and Avi 'Ad Shalom ["Eternal Father of Peace"] "

No wonder, the Jews did not accept Jesus as their Messiah for they were waiting then for God Almighty to come down himself!

From you: "Whoever this Child is one thing remains certain - This Child must shine forth from Galilee according to Isaiah 9:1: "

That child was the son of a young married woman, perhaps a wife of Isaiah or a woman of Isaiah and he was named Immanuel.

'Who quoted this? "Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past He humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali but in the future He will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea along the Jordan...'"

There was no land or any goverment that was humbled by Jesus. He was not even a King and never ruled the land. There was even no peace except fighting and killing.

From you: "NOTE: In an attempt to avoid the impact of this passage�s significance to the divinity of the Messiah, certain Jewish Publications have translated it in a way as to suggest that the divine titles are not messianic in nature. Rather, they are descriptions of God: 

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of peace]. (This appears as Isaiah 9:5 in the Stone Edition Tanakh, Arts Scroll Series, published by Mesorah Publications Ltd.; Brooklyn, NY, 1998)"

The same can be said of Christian gospel writers who have reduced the impact of the message given to Jews and have used it to justify Jesus as God or son of God by using the prophecies and in reality changed the words of the Jewish Tanakh. 

I think God was specific about raising a Messiah from the Jews for them.That is why the Almighty God spoke about a child, not about himself. Mere mortals are born to and through a woman, not God.

Good Night

BMZ

Greetings George.

I was suprised when I saw the great deal of pasting sources that have been cited by someone else (meaning you have not actually read the material and we have only your missionary sources to trust that Jews agree with missionaries and the sources cannot be readily verified).

At this point, nothing in your reply actually stands on its own, as one must either trust the people who cited the work, or not. I choose "or not".

George wrote: bmzsp wrote: George, From you:"I think that there are little clues in the Old Testament that God is triune in nature.  The problem back in those days was that people were worshipping many gods.  So, I think God's main aim was to emphasize that there was only one God and he was it.  Could you please write down those cute little clues from the Old Testament and from the Jewish Bible too, for us to compare? Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."  This verse points out the inescapable fact that the Messiah is God Almighty appearing in human form. That this passage was considered Messianic is evident from the fact that verse7 says that the Child would sit on the throne of David forever, a description which only fits the Messiah.

I noticed that you did not quote a Jewish Bible. Your interest in Jewish thought seems to decline at certain "Christolgical" impasses in your bible. I had started to write a rebuttal to your assertion that Isaiah 9 is about a Messiah who is Gd Almighty in the flesh. 

1) The Herbew Grammer does not support your view.

2) If my real name, Daniel, was literally translated, it would be, "Gd is my Judge". So if you refer to me as "Gd is my judge", why not worship me? I am "Gd is my Judge". 

I have found that Christians have played extremely loose with translations. An example is the word "moshiach". In the Hebrew bible, the word is translated as "annointed one", in the Christian bible, your doctors have decided that "moshiach" should be "annointed one", except for the book of Daniel, where the place the word, "messiah", which is latin for the Hebrew, "moshiach". Why this word game? Thats a good question. And this is also related with the play on Hebrew Names to try and show that Jews really did believe that the Messiah was a Gdman that would one day come. But in reality, in it just a word play with Hebrew names.

3) My Hebrew is a bit rusty, and would take a week or more for me to finish my reply. I had this link sent to me some time ago, and felt that I would not be able to do a better job. It is a full analysis of the verse in question, and it dispells any notion of "Christological value".

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa9.html

Peace