Search results

I never backtracked. I'm still of the opinion that it is imagery considering the parallel in the next verse. I was simply conceding that if your interpretation of this text was true that it would still completely debunk Jesus as the Messiah. Thousands of people rode on donkeys in second Temple...

No, the coming of the Messiah and what will happen in his days is unambiguous. What is ambiguous is if the Messiah will literally ride on a donkey. As I've already shown, there is a direct parallel between the Messiah riding on the donkey and what is said in the next verse about G-d cutting off...

The same reason Matthew in Matthew 1:23 completely takes Isaiah 7:14 out of context and mistranslates it to make it seem like it was a Messianic expectation that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. As already stated, perhaps the Messiah will ride on a donkey. It's open to interpretation. But...

That's what we're waiting for, as it written: "For the children of Israel shall be many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without a pillar, and without an ephod or teraphim; afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and...

On the actual earth, as it is written: "And his dominion shall be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth" (Zechariah 9:10). Of course I do. We are specifically told in Isaiah 11 that during his (the Messiah's) day that God will regather all of the Israelite exiles back to...

But Jesus' conveniently invisible kingdom that he is artificially ruling is not proof of anything.

You still haven't given any evidence that 2nd Temple Pharisees believed that the Messiah would come on a donkey before actually doing anything, such as being triumphant and victorious as verse 9 says. And you're ignoring the fact that what we find here in Zechariah 9:9 continues on into verse 10...

How does this apply to two comings of the Messiah? If you recognize the parallel, they're not saying that the King Messiah will die and come back to complete the mission.

Just examine the Messianic passages: Isaiah 2, 11, 59:20; Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39; Ezekiel 34:24, 38:16, 45:22; Hosea 3:4-5; Micah 4, 5; Zephaniah 3:9; Zechariah 6:12-13, 14:9; Daniel 7:13-14. Note that many of the Messianic passages aren't about the Messiah himself but what will...

No, I'm simply tired of restating the same thing over and over again. There were not two expectations. Say you're right that the donkey is literal. It still doesn't make Jesus the Messiah. We're told specifically in Zechariah 9:9: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, Shout, O daughter of...

He doesn't. The Messiah didn't say that. Jesus did. The Jews are waiting for the promised Messianic King described in passages such as Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Daniel 7:13-14, etc. No one has fulfilled these prophecies yet so the Messiah hasn't come.

I've looked up Christian explanations of this doctrine and it sounds like they don't even know what they're talking about. If you could, explain the Christian concept of Jesus' death in detail - explain what his death did and how exactly his death accomplished that action.

But the kingdom of God does not break those four kingdoms. Because if you look at the prophecies in Daniel chapter 2 as a whole you'll notice that the first three kingdoms are already broken by the time the fourth kingdom arises. Persia conquered Babylon, Greece conquered Persia, Greece was...

The main problem Jews have will believing in the Jesus of the NT is that he didn't actually accomplish anything and all things which he did supposedly accomplish conveniently have an invisible effect. But the Christian concept of Jesus being a sacrifice is so confusing and convoluted that even...

It will be established sometime in this age - that is, during this age of the European powers throughout the centuries.

How? My study of your NT has shown me the opposite. There are many times that the apostles of Jesus refer to the Father as his God (Jn 20:17, Eph 1:17, 1 Pet 1:20, Rev 3:12). And we also get statements like this from Jesus: "Believe in God, believe also in me" (Jn 14:1). This statement wouldn't...

The kings refer to the leaders of the toes of Rome throughout the centuries. That is, the Roman empire split into the many European nations and those nations have had many kings/leaders throughout the centuries. They are referred to as iron mixed with clay because they would not get along in...

The first is Babylon, the second is Persia, the third is Greece, and then Rome, and then you have the kingdoms in which the Roman empire split up into.

Daniel is prophesying about kingdoms after his time, except Babylon which was the one during his time. Daniel lived well over a century after Ahaz died. Therefore the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 can not be applied to what Daniel is speaking of in Daniel 2:44 since the sign was to be for Ahaz.

I'm quite sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that Daniel 2:44 ties in with what we find in Isaiah 7 and 8?