Is Jesus who He said He is?

[TheProcess]

Christians have dumped God's law haven't they? I know they like to say "fulfilled", but it isn't being followed by Christians is it?

No. The point is, who can? Thus the need for a Savior.

I can't see any reason why it can't be followed. Perhaps you are thinking along the lines that it can't be followed perfectly? I have seen Jews respond to this by agreeing that it can't be followed perfectly: that is why God provided ways to atone for sin. If God provided ways to atone for sin, it doesn't look as if he expected anyone to perfectly keep the law does it?

Reading the Old Testament, the impression given is that God is ultra-strict that Jews should keep to the law. And the law is perfect (Psalms 19:7). You would need a very good scriptural justification to depart from it. I am aware of the Christian use of Jeremiah 31 regarding the "new covenant". But as far as I am aware, there is nothing like sufficient justification.

Jesus -- or at least the Christian religion -- is looking as guilty as it gets on this criteria.

Be more specific.

I mean simply that Christianity doesn't follow Old Testament law. Christians don't, for example, keep to the dietary regulations.

[TheProcess]

What do you consider reputable?

Mainstream. Not Christian fundamentalists.

[TheProcess]

The main point I was making, is that your argument about the resurrection is unbiblical. We aren't supposed to follow someone merely because they can provide a "sign". Could you respond to this?

What is unbiblical about the resurrection? We've pointed out many of the prophetic predictions of Jesus.

What is unbiblical about your argument involving the resurrection? As I have explained, we aren't supposed to follow someone merely because they can provide a sign.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

that is why God provided ways to atone for sin. If God provided ways to atone for sin, it doesn't look as if he expected anyone to perfectly keep the law does it?

Exactly.

Now, what ways can you atone for sin today?

Respectfully the Jew cannot atone for sin either. Simply because without the shedding of Blood there is no forgiveness of sin;

Le

[TheProcess]

I'll try to come across with less cockiness. You already have some work to do with C.S. Lewis from the earlier comment. I can't speak on the credibility of everyone of those claims (same problem as explained earlier with the C.S. Lewis quote). Can you at least admit that my explanation is plausible?

Is your explanation plausible? I don't think it is.

Now the Matthew 24:34 scripture you reference...I thought you were going to throw something tough at me...

I have heard this passage of scripture taught countless numbers of times. The key is the CONTEXT, again context is extremely important...

Matthew 24:32-35

Here we go. There are many references in the Old Testament where Israel is referred to as a fig tree. In 1948, Israel became a nation again after nearly 1900 years, unpresedented in history. Israel has been growing and blossoming ever since. (AGAIN, FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE). The next line is one of the reasons many believe we are living in the end times, "we are right at the door" with the rebirth, growth, and blossoming of Israel.

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." "This generation" is referring to the generation of new Israelis at whatever point it's deemed the twigs get tender and it's leaves come out.

The main problem with your interpretation is that in the plain meaning of the text the fig tree is being used as an analogy for the witnessing of certain events. You make a big deal out of context, but what you are saying is not actually a straightforward "your reading that verse out of context" kind of argument. As far as I can see, what you are really doing is trying to find a secondary meaning in the text.

Was the text intended to have such meaning? You haven't given any argument that this is actually the case. If the fig tree is used as a symbol or whatever for Israel, it doesn't follow that a particular mention of a fig tree necessarily has such meaning attached to it. So all you are doing is speculating about a possible secondary meaning of the text. Why should I take this seriously?

An argument used by Christians against what you are saying is that in Luke's version it says:

And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. (Luke 21:29-30 KJV)

If the fig tree was supposed to have special significance as being about Israel, strange that Luke would also mention "all the trees". This rather suggests that the fig tree was simply being used as an analogy. (Although I came across one article trying to connect "all the trees" to former Communist states! If you want to believe that kind of thing...)

And it seems that some people have given false prophecy based on this idea:

Many say that Israel is the "fig tree." And, that, when we see Israel "bud" Jesus' coming is near. They claim that the generation that sees Israel being reborn will be the generation that sees the second coming of Jesus. Well, Israel was "reborn" in 1948. Jack Van Impe believed that a "generation" was 40 years. So, he calculated that 40 years from 1948 meant that the second coming of Jesus would be in 1988. He then subtracted 7 years for the tribulation, and predicted that a pre-trib rapture would occur in 1981. Well, as you might have guessed, he was flat wrong. Subsequently, he decided that maybe the starting point should be 1967, when Israel recaptured all of Jerusalem during the six day war. So, even after being burned once, he set the date again. This time, calculating 40 years from 1967, placing the second coming in 2007. Then subtracting 7 years for the tribulation, he now thinks the rapture will be in 2000. Well, wrong again, Jack!

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/289/

[TheProcess]

undone, I will respond more when I have time.

[undone]

Is your explanation plausible? I don't think it is.

I'm done talking to you. It is not worth the effort.

*I nominate "TheProcess" to lead the coalition to remove The Dome of the Rock from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem so that the Old Testament system of Jewish worship may resume.* All in favor say I.

Edited November 16, 2006 by undone

[Guest shiloh357]

We aren't supposed to follow someone merely because they can provide a "sign" or "wonder". God may be testing the Jewish people apparently. So was Jesus really resurrected? Whatever the case, on Biblical criteria, it doesn't necessarily make him a prophet or Messiah or whatever else.

I know the biblical criteria for what to look for in the Messiah, but do you? Please let us know what it is.

Well I could tell you about what is expected from the "Messiah" in Judaism. Other than that, you will have to explain yourself. But anyway, could you answer the point I was making? We aren't supposed to follow someone merely because they can provide a sign are we?

First of all, you need to understand something. Judaism as we know it, and the religion of the Old Testament are not the same. Judaism is the outgrowth of the destruction of the Temple. While Judaism does bear some resemblance to the OT religion, it is not the OT relgion.

Actually for years prior to the destruction of the Temple, there were several Messianic expectations, and a good number of them were politically motivated. The Rabbis debated over the form the Messiah's appearing would take. Would he appear in the office of a prophet, or would he come as a conqueror? You simply cannot say that Jesus did not fit Jewish Messianic expectations, because those expectations were different depending on who you spoke with.

Keep in mind that in 1st century the Pharisees were comprised of nine different schools and they debated over everything. While they had some core beliefs and traditions in common, they were quite fragmented. Some scholars have indicated that there may have been as 25 different religious movements in 1st century Israel. Most we have never heard of, but even those we have heard of, were quite fractured in their belief systems. You simply cannot say, "Jewis believe this or that." Not even today, can you make such a claim.

[Guest shiloh357]

Christians have dumped God's law haven't they? I know they like to say "fulfilled", but it isn't being followed by Christians is it?

I mean simply that Christianity doesn't follow Old Testament law. Christians don't, for example, keep to the dietary regulations.

No, what you mean, is that Christians don't live like Jews. Christians believe in and try to live (generally) by the moral stipulations of OT Torah. They do not follow the dietary laws because that was not given to them, but to Israel.

Something you need to understand is that not every verse in the Bible is for every person in every age. Some things were given only to Israel, so to find fault with Christians for not doing what they were not commanded to is kind of silly.

Every passage of scripture as an address. Just like on a the front of an envelope, it tells you the sender, and the intended recipient. It is the same with the Bible. There is an author and an intended recipient. While we are able to learn from those passages we are not commanded to keep them as a matter of daily observance. If a Christian wants to keep the dietary laws, he is free to do so, but that is a matter of conscience between he/she and the Lord.

Even in Bible days, not all of the 613 commandments applied directly to every Jew. Of the 613, some only applied to you if you were a priest, or if you the High Priest. Some only applied if you were a woman or if you were a man, or if you had children, or if you gave birth to a son, or if you gave birth to a daughter, or if you owned a business, or if you were married, or if you owned herds and flocks, or if you grew crops. No single person ever kept all 613 commandments.

Even today the Jewish people do not keep the whole Torah. Without a Temple, over 1/3 of the Torah goes unobserved, and of course the Jewish people on the liberal end of the spectrum observe as little as they can get away with, so honestly, this approach of yours really doesn't work.

You obviously lack a lot of knowledge as to the proper relationship of the various parts of the Bible, one to another, and the proper relationship between the Christian and the Old Testament.

[Joshua-777]

The problem is that you said there is no doubt in your mind that Jesus' words are falsely attributed to Him. That goes beyond a hunch.

I said there is no doubt Jesus' words have been altered. My hunch is that Jesus was like a Western Buddha, a teacher of compassion and love. Of earthly things.

See, it is just too convenient. If you are confronted with something Jesus says you don't like, you have a constant fall back position. You don't have to deal with what Jesus said if you simply use the excuse that Jesus didn't say it. There is nothing intellectual about that position. It is just a crutch.

I've never considered my disbelief in God and Jesus as a crutch before. I always saw things the other way around.

Reality is bigger than we can ever know. It is too big to stake on a book.

Hmmm, well I do believe in what Jesus said, I do agree that what Jesus said is often misunderstood, but the natural mind cannot understand the spiritual mind, so many will miss interprit, and not live according to what he says. Ya see we are not grounded in our own understand, what I have learned what I understand, the holy spirit comes in and changed my understanding, the scriptures are truth and acurate, and yes Jesus was God, not a buddah, that is honestly a stupid claim, no offence, One thing I've learned, Jesus protects his word, and if you feel that the bible is wrong, look it up in hebrew, the orgin of it, well ya see God protects his word.