 |
 |
 |
 |
#248881 - 02/28/10 05:05 AM
Would the Messiah's Rise Be Scriptural?
|
Rakovsky
Newbie
Registered: 02/15/10
Posts: 7
Loc: PA, USA
|
On the thread called WHERE is the Messiah???,
INVICTUS posted an article called THE OLD TESTAMENT REGARDING THE MESSIAH, and this is the only forum on the internet that has it.
I would like to ask readers if they think the Messiah's rise would be scriptural, and if INVICTUS and MR. P could explain what they wrote. LAZARUS wrote that he was disappointed that MR. P asked him to close the thread, because he was preparing refutations. I would like to see what refutations Lazarus would make.
INVICTUS,
In your article The Old Testament Regarding the Messiah, you wrote that God promised one day "one prophet could be found comparable to Moses" when you discussed Deuteronomy 18:18-19: “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren." You wrote that "Ralbag (Gersonides, ancient rabbinik literature) comments on the above text: “A prophet from the midst of thee." Does this mean God will raise him from the dead, or just raise him in the sense of putting him above the people as a leader?
How can we tell that in Psalm 40 "the Messiah is... the sacrifice"? Is it because Psalm 40 says: "(2)He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings... (6)... mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required"?
It's true that David, like Jesus, was a great man, prophet, and king, but is that enough to say references about himself are references to the Messiah?
If "The prophet Isaiah suffered martyrdom during the reign of Manasseh, being sawed in half with a wooden saw," could he have described himself as a suffering servant in the book of Isaiah?
The chapter The Suffering Messiah says: "Every orthodox Hebrew knew from childhood the law that sin can be ironed out only through a redeeming bloody sacrifice." Did Jews' daily washing rituals cleanse sins too?
Why must Isaiah 53 refer to the Messiah, instead of Israel's remnant?
"Who has believed our report?" (Isaiah 53:1) means that the report is hard to believe. Would Israel's complete destruction and complete restoration be hard to believe too?
The article says that in Psalm 22 "King David could not write about himself of course, because he did not bear such sufferings." But could David have been writing poetically about his sufferings, using poetic metaphors? It's not true either that Jesus was literally "a worm," or that bulls roared at him.
It says "It is remarkable that several of the words of this psalm were repeated precisely by Christ during his crucifixion." This suggests Jesus or the gospel writers believed Psalm 22 applied to Jesus. But looking at the Old Testament independently, can we conclude the same?
What does "from the prey, my son, thou art gone up" mean in Genesis. 49:9-11? It's true that the Messiah, God's son, is like a lion in the sense of having "greatness and power." Why doesn't "Judah is a lion's whelp" simply mean the lion refers to the tribe of Judah? Doesn't God elsewhere call Israel his child? Could Judah be a sleeping lion in the sense of being in captivity, inactivity, or exile? Revelations 5:5 calls the Messiah the "Lion of Judah," but can we confirm it without looking at the New Testament?
The Patriarch asks "who shall rouse him up," not "who will raise the sleeping Lion." Could waking the Messiah mean something besides resurrecting him, like awakening him to his ministry or calling?
Why does binding a donkey onto a vine refer to the Messiah riding on a donkey? Was the Messiah tied to the donkey?
Did you mean that when Genesis 49:9-11 says the Messiah's clothes will be washed in grapes' blood, the Messiah's clothes will be washed in blood? Why should the blood be his own blood?
The chapter says: "several Old Testament Judean writers correctly understood the prophecy in" Isaiah 53, and gives quotes from the Talmud and Midrash. Are these writers from the time of the Old Testament?
In the chapter "The Resurrected Messiah," is the Messiah's resurrection in Isaiah 53 only based on 3 phrases: "When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin,... (1)He shall prolong His days, and (2) There will I divide Him a portion with the great, and (3) He shall divide the spoil with the strong." Is the logic that: sacrifice can only mean death, and prolonging a sacrificed person's days and giving them earthly rewards requires resurrection? Being "morally satisfied with the results of His ordeals" doesn't necessitate resurrection. Also, some translations say "if" you will sacrifice his soul, instead of "when" you will sacrifice his soul.
How do we know Psalms 16, 31, 41 is not David talking poetically about his deliverance from the dangers facing him at the time, or about his own hope of resurrection?
What verses in Psalms 65, 68, and 98 are "About sufferings, death and resurrection" of a person?
The article mentions predictions about the Messiah's eternal kingdom, and concludes "an eternal Kingdom presumes an eternal King". Didn't King David's dynasty, and Israel his Kingdom, last hundreds of years, although David himself died?
In the Chapter on Daniel, where did you get the translation of Daniel 9:25-26: "from the moment that the decree is given for the restoration of Jerusalem up until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will be 7weeks and 62 weeks. The people shall return and streets and walls shall be rebuilt in difficult times. At the end of the time of 62 weeks Christ shall be delivered for death, and shall no longer exist."
The King James Version says only: "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself."
Isaiah 50:5-7 says that people will smite the speaker's back, and that God will help the speaker, but doesn't mention death or resurrection.
Zechariah 12:10 doesn't say anyone will "will rise from the dead," only that "they shall look toward me because of him whom they pierced and they shall mourn over him as one mourns over an only son."
You are right that "The Lord Jesus Christ endured suffering, died on the Cross and was resurrected from the dead precisely in the days of the Hebrew Passover. This concurrence of these two utmost events — the formation of the Old Testament Israel and the founding of the New Testament Church... shows that there exists a deep internal connection between the Paschal events of the Old and New Testament, namely: the greatest event in the life of the Hebrew nation was the prototype of the New Testament events." When we say that Jesus rose "according to the scriptures," do we mean that Jesus' rise "accords" with scripture by analogy to a prototype like passover? Or does it only mean that "according to the scriptures" the Messiah would rise? If only the latter, can we still say that according to the holiday of passover, a Messiah would come and resurrect?
MR. P.,
You wrote that INVICTUS' writings "are BASED upon NT quotes which have been used to RETROACTIVELY identify OT quotes which DO NOT MENTION THE WORD "MESSIAH", but are INTERPRETED from an NT perspective."
If a person uses a New Testament perspective when he interprets scripture, does that mean his interpretation is necessarily wrong? If I generally use a modern, humanitarian perspective to interpret the US Constitution, is my interpretation necessarily wrong?
I don't think the Constitution uses the words "Separation of Church and State" or "human rights," but I think it teaches them.
When I read "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independemce, I use my humanitarian perspective to retroactively interpret that to mean blacks should have equal human rights. Unlike separation of church and state though, I don't think the writers intended equality for blacks. So is my interpretation of the Constitution right, and my interpretation of the Declaration of Independence wrong?
This is deep.
Edited by Rakovsky (02/28/10 05:07 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#248882 - 02/28/10 07:26 AM
Re: Would the Messiah's Rise Be Scriptural?
[Re: Rakovsky]
|
Mr.P.
Member
Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 2919
Loc: Atlanta
|
ROKOVSKY: I think Invictus is gone from AN for whatever reason. You've asked a lot of interesting questions about that post.
As to me, when I used to post replies on the Religious Discussions forum, others usually took offense and I was banned from AN. Therefore, ACE1 created the "disruptive troll stopper" thread where I could post.
When anyone - including myself - uses a single PREFERRED source or perspective to interpret other sources from different authors and/or times, this BIAS can and does affect the interpretation - not that the interpretation is NECESSARILY wrong, but it can be skewed or wrong. Your interpretations from a Humanitarian perspective and my interpretations of the same document from the perspective of an Extreme Darwinian would frequently disagree.
This is, indeed, deep, and I'd better scurry back to my Disruptive thread.
_________________________
Help elevate the status of Uranus from planet to god. Join "UP Uranus", see #250273, 6/27, 09:28AM
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Ryan Ruck, Lazarus Starr, Ace1
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered
and 10 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
