what messianic prophecies where not fulfilled by jesus?

[smaneck]

FYI, if you're going to paraphrase

Roots of Islamic Terrorism: How Communists Helped Fundamentalists

you should at least provide the citation.

Also the phrase "there were many Communists who had conveniently grown beards" was interesting, but you did not have to lift it entirely.

Just an FYI.

But what Enkil is saying is practically the opposite of this article. This article points out the same thing I was, namely that KGB largely worked with Palestinian Christians, much less with Muslims. It also states that the Iranian Revolution took the Soviets by surprise, so it could hardly be a Russian conspiracy.
At most it indicates the Soviets were willing to lend some support to Islamist groups they thought might help them just as the US was.

 

[smaneck]

Also the phrase "there were many Communists who had conveniently grown beards" was interesting, but you did not have to lift it entirely.

Just an FYI.

Even Baha'is grew beards after the Iranian Revolution. It is what you did if you wanted to stay alive.

 

[LoAmmi]

It says, a sign will be given, and immediately speaks of Almah and the birth of a child who will be called "God with us." How does it skip that and move on to the next verse?

Let us look at this:
14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. 15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. 16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
Remember, verses did not exist in the original text. If you are separating them, you are doing that on your own. The sign is that there will be a child, he will eat cream and honey when he knows to reject bad and choose good (the land will be prosperous) and before he knows to reject bad and choose good, the kings he dreads will be gone.

The sign is the child will eat cream and honey. It is clear right there in the text. My Hebrew name means "HaShem is comfort", "HaShem is with us" being a name means nothing. Hebrew names tend to mean something about HaShem.

Then if the scripture does not refer to Hezekiah, who does it refer to and how, so we can pick him up next?

Let's say it refers to the messiah. There is still no problem. Names refer to HaShem all the time.

So then we return to the original problem. That is, Israel is allegedly a sin offering for the Kings of the Earth. But this does not square with the previous scripture in Isaiah 52, where it says the Kings would shut up their mouths, and consider the things they had never heard before, since the next chapter transitions to the Kings allegedly speaking about Israel being a reproach of men, who they reject, who is wounded by God for the mistakes of the Kings, and by doing so makes the Kings righteous... even though other scriptures also state that Messiah will make His enemies His footstool.

What scripture says the messiah will make his enemies his footstool? If you're going to bring up the Psalm, that is about David, not messiah.

It does fit with Daniel 9, where the end of sin, anointing the most Holy, and so on and so forth, was slated to be done within 70 prophetic weeks, including the "Anointed One" being cut off, concluding with the destruction of the Temple. This is no interpretation. These are the plain words of the scripture.

Every anointed one is called moshiach. You have no evidence that this is THE messiah at all, merely a messiah. You have to prove it is about the messiah.

It should bother you, because the timeframe within the Old Testament prophecies have long come and gone. But I have the testimony of the Apostles, and the visions they gave of the ending of this final dispensation. If it is not so, both of us are telling tales of idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The timeframe was for the destruction of the Temple, it had nothing to do with messiah. Period. There is no time frame given for messiah.

 

[Enkil]

But what Enkil is saying is practically the opposite of this article. This article points out the same thing I was, namely that KGB largely worked with Palestinian Christians, much less with Muslims. It also states that the Iranian Revolution took the Soviets by surprise, so it could hardly be a Russian conspiracy.
At most it indicates the Soviets were willing to lend some support to Islamist groups they thought might help them just as the US was.

You should also examine the books written by the Shah's sister. There is much documented evidence of KGB disinformation/propaganda being used to overthrow the Shah.

As for that article, I never read it before. The one sentence with the communists who grew beards, I took this from Jeff Nyquist in an old article written I do not know when.

But this is not the thread to go too far into these things.

 

[smaneck]

You should also example the books written by the Shah's sister.

You want to use the Shah's twin sister as a source? You realize she was the one behind SAVAK and all the torturing of dissidents?

 

[Enkil]

Let us look at this:
14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. 15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. 16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
Remember, verses did not exist in the original text. If you are separating them, you are doing that on your own. The sign is that there will be a child, he will eat cream and honey when he knows to reject bad and choose good (the land will be prosperous) and before he knows to reject bad and choose good, the kings he dreads will be gone.

The sign is the child will eat cream and honey. It is clear right there in the text. My Hebrew name means "HaShem is comfort", "HaShem is with us" being a name means nothing. Hebrew names tend to mean something about HaShem.

It is more logical to conclude the whole thing will be the sign, and not skipping the fact that a young maiden will bear a son, whose name will be called Immanuel. Even the Chaldee paraphrase, written before the time of Christ, supports the idea of a virgin birth.

What scripture says the messiah will make his enemies his footstool? If you're going to bring up the Psalm, that is about David, not messiah.

The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand? This is not speaking to David, or even to a son of David. Why then would he call the subject of this sentence "Lord?" to whom the LORD spoke?

Every anointed one is called moshiach. You have no evidence that this is THE messiah at all, merely a messiah. You have to prove it is about the messiah.

The evidence and the proof is in the parameters of what would be fulfilled by the 70 weeks, which I have posted and spoken of several times!

 

[Enkil]

You want to use the Shah's twin sister as a source? You realize she was the one behind SAVAK and all the torturing of dissidents?

Why not? She was there. The history of Iran has long been tortured to death by the socialists and Islamists, who today are torturing people just fine without the Shah's twin sister. Personally, I would have preferred the Shahs, who were modernizing the country, checking the power of the Imams, even allowing women to go to schools, all things which their enemies were opposed for one reason or another.

 

[LoAmmi]

It is more logical to conclude the whole thing will be the sign, and not skipping the fact that a young maiden will bear a son, whose name will be called Immanuel. Even the Chaldee paraphrase, written before the time of Christ, supports the idea of a virgin birth.

Let's say it does. It does not support Jesus as it is discussing what will happen during King Ahaz's lifetime. So, even if it is a virgin birth, Jesus cannot be it because he could not be a sign for King Ahaz.

The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand? This is not speaking to David, or even to a son of David. Why then would he call the subject of this sentence "Lord?" to whom the LORD spoke?

The Hebrew word used there is not the one used for HaShem both times. The second one is never used for HaShem. The Psalms were written to be used in the Temple. This is a prayer used for the Levites to sing that HaShem said to their king, David. You are taking the English and making your case.

The evidence and the proof is in the parameters of what would be fulfilled by the 70 weeks, which I have posted and spoken of several times!

Yes, and I don't agree with you. A timeline of Daniel's weeks:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/uploads/pdf/Dan-chart.pdf

 

[smaneck]

Why not?

1. Because people who can torture people without remorse had no conscience and therefore will not hesitate to lie if it is suits their purpose.

2. Tying opposition to the Shah to communism suits her purpose.

The history of Iran has long been tortured to death by the socialists and Islamists, who today are torturing people just fine without the Shah's twin sister. Personally, I would have preferred the Shahs, who were modernizing the country, checking the power of the Imams, even allowing women to go to schools, all things which their enemies were opposed for one reason or another.

Socialists have never been in a position to torture anyone in Iran. There were some Islamic Socialists (Mujahiddin) but they were wiped out in the early days of the revolution.

As for the Imams, in Shi'ism there were twelve Imams, the last of whom is said to have disappeared more 1100 years ago. Only Khomeini dared to call himself Imam afterwards. As for women going to school, you seem to be confusing Iran with Afghanistan. Women make up 60% of the student body at universities in Iran.

 

[Enkil]

Let's say it does. It does not support Jesus as it is discussing what will happen during King Ahaz's lifetime. So, even if it is a virgin birth, Jesus cannot be it because he could not be a sign for King Ahaz.

It is not uncommon for the prophet to speak of some present prophecy while mingling it with things that would come at the end. Notice in the same chapter, God commands the Prophet to take with him his own child. But the Immanuel could not have been his son, for he was already born and his wife was no Maiden, "Almah."

In the next chapter, Immanuel is called the owner of the lands of Israel:

Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

The Hebrew word used there is not the one used for HaShem both times. The second one is never used for HaShem. The Psalms were written to be used in the Temple. This is a prayer used for the Levites to sing that HaShem said to their king, David. You are taking the English and making your case.

I never said such a thing, and even the English makes note of the difference between LORD and Lord. But the author is David, and it is David speaking who says "the LORD spake unto my Lord."

If this is not the case, then David himself is the literal Messiah who is sitting in heaven right now waiting to come back, at the right hand of God, a place of equality with Him, who is also a High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. Is that what Judaism teaches?

Yes, and I don't agree with you. A timeline of Daniel's weeks:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/uploads/pdf/Dan-chart.pdf

Even he lists what would be fulfilled, though he claims that we are in the Messianic age and that Jews must act to usher in the Messiah.

From the link:

"1) termination of transgression 2) end
of sin 3) removal of all iniquity 4)
ushering in of everlasting righteousness
5) sealing of vision and prophet
6) anointing of the Holy of Holies. And
once these 490 years are completed,
it would indeed be up to each
subsequent generation to turn back
to God in order to bring about the
glorious arrival of the messiah. "

He states these would characterize the world within the Messianic Age, provided Jews turn back to God. But the scripture itself does not state anything regarding what the Jews must or must not do. It simply says, 70 weeks are determined to fulfill... and so on and so forth. It helps to know that the Jews themselves were expecting the Messiah to appear at that time, as the scepter had left Judah, and now must Shiloh appear.

It is always God who is depicted as the Savior and as the Redeemer of Israel. It was God who led the Hebrews out of Egypt, not Moses who was the servant of God. The idea that the Jews themselves must "usher in" their own redeemer, who is God, who is elsewhere described as "gathering" scattered Israel, does not fit with the interpretation of this more modern Rabbi.

 

[Enkil]

1. Because people who can torture people without remorse had no conscience and therefore will not hesitate to lie if it is suits their purpose.

2. Tying opposition to the Shah to communism suits her purpose.

Except that many of their crimes were exaggerated or outright fabricated. I've seen quite a few examples of some massacre, where the number of the dead seems to rise year after year depending on who you ask. The same thing happens in Israel. I've seen videos of Palestinians delivering bodies and posing them around wreckage to pretend that these were all innocent people bombed by the eeevil Jews. Then they would pick the bodies up, and deliver them to another location, for another photo op. It is a common theme I have seen repeated in each of these Islamic type revolutions or wars. If their cause was so noble, why do they lie so often? The answer: because they are puppets of religious leaders and foreign states who manipulate them for their own goals.

Socialists have never been in a position to torture anyone in Iran. There were some Islamic Socialists (Mujahiddin) but they were wiped out in the early days of the revolution.

As for the Imams, in Shi'ism there were twelve Imams, the last of whom is said to have disappeared more 1100 years ago. Only Khomeini dared to call himself Imam afterwards. As for women going to school, you seem to be confusing Iran with Afghanistan. Women make up 60% of the student body at universities in Iran.

It was the Shahs who started the modernization, especially in regards to secularizing the country. Women in schools was a Shah innovation, though the Islamic innovation was to segregate the sexes and insert Islamic indoctrination into the curriculum where it was not before. Today, they still hang people for converting to Christianity, or stone women for being raped, and talk of destroying the Jews and the Zionist Americans. Give me the Shah and his tyranny and his knife, over the tyranny and the knives of the self-proclaimed men of God. And since the Shah's sister was very much a feminist, with old feminist ideas, I think one could have expected a better country than the one we have now, if given the chance to secularize and lay the foundations for a proper Republic! Perhaps, if they did not lay down the power or rule as constitutional monarchs, they could have been overthrown by Democrats rather than Theocrats. Albeit, they'd be more Europeanized, rather than Americanized. Today they are backward, and grow more backward everyday, and they serve the long range goals of Moscow.

 

[LoAmmi]

It is not uncommon for the prophet to speak of some present prophecy while mingling it with things that would come at the end. Notice in the same chapter, God commands the Prophet to take with him his own child. But the Immanuel could not have been his son, for he was already born and his wife was no Maiden, "Almah."

In the next chapter, Immanuel is called the owner of the lands of Israel:

Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.



I never said such a thing, and even the English makes note of the difference between LORD and Lord. But the author is David, and it is David speaking who says "the LORD spake unto my Lord."

If this is not the case, then David himself is the literal Messiah who is sitting in heaven right now waiting to come back, at the right hand of God, a place of equality with Him, who is also a High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. Is that what Judaism teaches?



Even he lists what would be fulfilled, though he claims that we are in the Messianic age and that Jews must act to usher in the Messiah.

From the link:

"1) termination of transgression 2) end
of sin 3) removal of all iniquity 4)
ushering in of everlasting righteousness
5) sealing of vision and prophet
6) anointing of the Holy of Holies. And
once these 490 years are completed,
it would indeed be up to each
subsequent generation to turn back
to God in order to bring about the
glorious arrival of the messiah. "

He states these would characterize the world within the Messianic Age, provided Jews turn back to God. But the scripture itself does not state anything regarding what the Jews must or must not do. It simply says, 70 weeks are determined to fulfill... and so on and so forth. It helps to know that the Jews themselves were expecting the Messiah to appear at that time, as the scepter had left Judah, and now must Shiloh appear.

It is always God who is depicted as the Savior and as the Redeemer of Israel. It was God who led the Hebrews out of Egypt, not Moses who was the servant of God. The idea that the Jews themselves must "usher in" their own redeemer, who is God, who is elsewhere described as "gathering" scattered Israel, does not fit with the interpretation of this more modern Rabbi.

We are never going to see eye-to-eye on these issues. From my point of view, you are inserting Jesus where as from your point of view I refuse to see Jesus. I have studied these texts for years and I have never once seen Jesus in any of them whereas I am told by Raze he sees Jesus everywhere.

You said you do not want this to be a battle, so maybe we should agree to disagree on this. There is no endgame for this, as I will not change because you are merely putting forth the same arguments I have dealt with for at least 10 years now.

What you have to understand is that in Jewish thought, the people do determine if messiah comes. He will come when the people are ready. That is a long standing thing. You may disagree, but I will side with my faith and scholars over Christian faith and Christian scholars.

 

[LoAmmi]

and with that, I must go. I will be back whenever I can. I'm just not sure that going in circles, as we have been doing, is productive. You dismiss my points and I dismiss yours.

 

[Enkil]

We are never going to see eye-to-eye on these issues. From my point of view, you are inserting Jesus where as from your point of view I refuse to see Jesus. I have studied these texts for years and I have never once seen Jesus in any of them whereas I am told by Raze he sees Jesus everywhere.

You said you do not want this to be a battle, so maybe we should agree to disagree on this. There is no endgame for this, as I will not change because you are merely putting forth the same arguments I have dealt with for at least 10 years now.

What you have to understand is that in Jewish thought, the people do determine if messiah comes. He will come when the people are ready. That is a long standing thing. You may disagree, but I will side with my faith and scholars over Christian faith and Christian scholars.

We are not enemies, and even if we continued it would never be a battle, but I also feel we've reached a limit. That was why I unleashed all my final points in one big blow, rather than one by one, in one of my more recent posts.

However, I assure you, there are many things lacking in your interpretations, and that the spin on your side takes a lot more effort than it does for me to connect the scriptures with their most common sense explanation: Which is Jesus.

But do this for me. Since you say you pray to God often, pray to Him on these things and ask Him to lead you to all truth, whatever that truth may be, on these issues. Ask for a supernatural or any kind of sign to confirm to you the things you believe one way or the other. Look at Daniel, who fasted and prayed for answers from God. It is a good example. I have long encountered the power of prayer, and have seen miracles fulfilled for far lesser requests.

 

[LoAmmi]

But do this for me. Since you say you pray to God often, pray to Him on these things and ask Him to lead you to all truth, whatever that truth may be, on these issues. Ask for a supernatural or any kind of sign to confirm to you the things you believe one way or the other. Look at Daniel, who fasted and prayed for answers from God. It is a good example. I have long encountered the power of prayer, and have seen miracles fulfilled for far lesser requests.

I have and I have always been lead back to Judaism, even in my most extreme doubts. There is a truth there that is lacking in other places. What makes you think I have not?

 

[LoAmmi]

However, I assure you, there are many things lacking in your interpretations, and that the spin on your side takes a lot more effort than it does for me to connect the scriptures with their most common sense explanation: Which is Jesus.

I see it the other way. The scriptures have to be turned inside out to make them about Jesus. The clear prophecies about the messiah are sent to a second coming whereas these more obtuse verses can be applies because they lack the clarity of the big ones.

 

[smaneck]

Except that many of their crimes were exaggerated or outright fabricated.

And most of them weren't.

Women in schools was a Shah innovation,

Not hardly. The Baha'is operated girls school in Iran to which Reza Shah sent his own daughter. Then he closed them down.

 

[EmmaXO]

I see it the other way. The scriptures have to be turned inside out to make them about Jesus. The clear prophecies about the messiah are sent to a second coming whereas these more obtuse verses can be applies because they lack the clarity of the big ones.

I feel in terms of prophecies, verses with a spiritual meaning in Judaism are given a literal meaning in Christianity, where verses Judaism holds have a literal meaning are given a spiritual meaning in Christianity.

 

[Christianmilitaryofficer]

Except that many of their crimes were exaggerated or outright fabricated. I've seen quite a few examples of some massacre, where the number of the dead seems to rise year after year depending on who you ask. The same thing happens in Israel. I've seen videos of Palestinians delivering bodies and posing them around wreckage to pretend that these were all innocent people bombed by the eeevil Jews. Then they would pick the bodies up, and deliver them to another location, for another photo op. It is a common theme I have seen repeated in each of these Islamic type revolutions or wars. If their cause was so noble, why do they lie so often? The answer: because they are puppets of religious leaders and foreign states who manipulate them for their own goals.

I'd like to see these videos. I suspect you are outright fabricating this whole story, and that no such videos exist, but I will wait for your evidence.

 

[Christianmilitaryofficer]

But what Enkil is saying is practically the opposite of this article. This article points out the same thing I was, namely that KGB largely worked with Palestinian Christians, much less with Muslims. It also states that the Iranian Revolution took the Soviets by surprise, so it could hardly be a Russian conspiracy.
At most it indicates the Soviets were willing to lend some support to Islamist groups they thought might help them just as the US was.

In general I have found that sloppy scholarship is the quintessential idiosyncrasy of plagiarism. I doubt a plagiarist knows what they are quoting half the time.

In other words, self contradiction sould be expected.