The Torah tells us Jesus is not the Messiah it prophesies?

[Zach]

Found this discussion on the Calendar thing:

http://raptureintheairnow.com/?topic=curious-math-what-year-is-it-really

[Zach]

Yes, I'd agree context isn't always important, but this particular context is rather hideous!

Thanks for the link ill check it out, btw, I posted a link above to some people discussing this, (calendar) heck, for all I know you might be one of them? Lol.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Zach

[soonsister]

Hi, and happy new year to you all.

I've read through the pages that have accrued since I was last here. Please understand I didn't intend for all the contention that seems to be percolating .  I'm deeply interested in finding out the truth because I was deeply impacted by that article I shared. You can't believe the emotions that ran through me. Lasted for days.

I don't want to stir negativity in this discussion because of that article. I know how it feels and that isn't good for any of us. Please let us share in peace?

I'll read every reply and give each one the attention it deserves after my Sunday commitments and when I return today or tomorrow at the latest. Again, thank you all for caring to help this seeker.

 

Blessings,

S.

[gdemoss]

Rom 11:25¶For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

[other one]

20 hours ago, soonsister said:

I'm a member of a bible study group that I joined last month. Someone in the group received an email that concerned them and I must admit in reading it, this three year baby Christian was heart broken.
Can anyone help explain how the Torah's description of the Messiah that does not match the history of Jesus still allows for Jesus to be Messiah?

The Jews & the Messiah
http://www.northforest.org/BibleTopics/JewsMessiah.html

I hope that's allowed to post so you can understand the article that broke my heart. And caused me to seek a forum that would be able to help me. Thank you for any and all assistance and sincere replies.
 

A couple of things that jumped right out at me.

It says that the Old Testament does not say that the messiah will be of a virgin birth, yet that is exactly what Isiah 7:14 says....    and it says that the virgin birth is a pagan teaching and I'd like to know where that came from....

The whole article is full of the teachings of Babylonian Talmud writings and not what we should be delving into.

[Zach]

14 minutes ago, other one said:

A couple of things that jumped right out at me.

It says that the Old Testament does not say that the messiah will be of a virgin birth, yet that is exactly what Isiah 7:14 says....    and it says that the virgin birth is a pagan teaching and I'd like to know where that came from....

The whole article is full of the teachings of Babylonian Talmud writings and not what we should be delving into.

In short; The Hebrew word for "young woman" (Ha alma) rather than a word specfically for "virgin" (Ha betula) is used in Isaiah 7:14, the New Testament picks word up by quoting the LXX (Greek translation of Tanakh) rather than the Hebrew text. 

I think people make a bigger deal out of it than they should. After all how can this be some great "sign" when the ONLY person who REALLY knew the status of Mary was Mary herself. However it should be included with a number of other ambiguous things suggesting a virgin birth and taken as a whole.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the virgin birth is a pagan teaching, but it can't be denied a number of pagan religions include virgin birth narratives in their religion.

Btw, I wouldn't be so quick to diss the Talmud. I could give you about a dozen of Yeshua's teachings that come from the (pre-written) Talmud!

shalom

[Ezra]

3 hours ago, soonsister said:

I don't want to stir negativity in this discussion because of that article.

Unfortunately, any attack on who Christ is carries negativity. Evidently it has impacted you negatively, but this is not something new. At this late stage, Christians are to simply proclaim the Gospel, with the knowledge that many Jews are being saved.

[other one]

I simply disagree with you about the translation to the word virgin......    the LXX is simply the thought process of the meaning of the word during the time it was written.....   at least a hundred years before Christ it was considered "virgin".

[soonsister]

18 hours ago, Ezra said:

Unfortunately, any attack on who Christ is carries negativity. Evidently it has impacted you negatively, but this is not something new. At this late stage, Christians are to simply proclaim the Gospel, with the knowledge that many Jews are being saved.

 For my part, I was seeking clarification in the name of Christ.

 

18 hours ago, other one said:

I simply disagree with you about the translation to the word virgin......    the LXX is simply the thought process of the meaning of the word during the time it was written.....   at least a hundred years before Christ it was considered "virgin".

Do  you have any information or documentation that you could post that supports your last statement there? "the LXX is simply the thought process...." ?

 

18 hours ago, Zach said:

In short; The Hebrew word for "young woman" (Ha alma) rather than a word specfically for "virgin" (Ha betula) is used in Isaiah 7:14, the New Testament picks word up by quoting the LXX (Greek translation of Tanakh) rather than the Hebrew text. 

I think people make a bigger deal out of it than they should. After all how can this be some great "sign" when the ONLY person who REALLY knew the status of Mary was Mary herself. However it should be included with a number of other ambiguous things suggesting a virgin birth and taken as a whole.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the virgin birth is a pagan teaching, but it can't be denied a number of pagan religions include virgin birth narratives in their religion.

Btw, I wouldn't be so quick to diss the Talmud. I could give you about a dozen of Yeshua's teachings that come from the (pre-written) Talmud!

shalom

Makes good sense. I sought out information by Jewish sources on the Talmud and they don't seem to hold any disrespect for it. Nor what is referred to in that writing I shared , for the Babylonian Talmud. It's quite an interesting history in fact.  http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14213-talmud

19 hours ago, other one said:

A couple of things that jumped right out at me.

It says that the Old Testament does not say that the messiah will be of a virgin birth, yet that is exactly what Isiah 7:14 says....    and it says that the virgin birth is a pagan teaching and I'd like to know where that came from....

The whole article is full of the teachings of Babylonian Talmud writings and not what we should be delving into.

Why would the Talmud not be something of interest to Christians? Our entire faith is grounded in the Jewish faith itself. And the Talmud appears to speak quite a bit to what pertains to that founding.

On 12/31/2016 at 0:06 AM, Sing40King said:

Yes big deal! Jeus is the messiah. Knowing the difference is the difference between Heaven or hell.

I agree with you there.  This whole matter for me is a big deal. How could Jesus not be?

On 12/31/2016 at 0:06 AM, Zach said:

Jews count their "Jewishness" (if they are Jewish or not) through their mother. Tribal affiliation is counted through the father. 

Yes. The faith passes through the mother. However, the tribal affiliation would not pass through Joseph because Joseph did not sire Jesus.

On 12/31/2016 at 11:52 PM, Snow said:

Hi soonsister

Make haste! I am excited for you! Your spirit is hungry and there are so many exciting teachings...

Be Blessed

 

Thank you It is very exciting and it is very easy to be hungry and grow hungrier. Don't you think?

 

 

Again, thank you all for your input. It is greatly appreciated.

[other one]

3 hours ago, soonsister said:

Do  you have any information or documentation that you could post that supports your last statement there? "the LXX is simply the thought process...." ?

How about common  sense....                  If I am translating the Hebrew into the LXX I think would would translate that into a word that was commonly believed to be proper at the time.    If the thought process at the time was not virgin, why in the world would they have translated it to that at the time....