When My Faith In Christianity Erodes

[Bro. Hex]

I for one, do, Raincloud.
And I took no offense (and take no offense) with anything you have said in this thread.

I share your dismay as to what far-right politics seems to have done with (to ?) Christianity,

"as it is understood" in 21st Century America, by a large portion of our people.

[Dan56]

Dan, do you fundamentally disagree with Kirby and the philosophy of the ULC? In that you have no respect for others expressions of faith, and other paths towards God, except outside 20th-21st Century American protestant viewpoint?

I completely agree with the ULC philosophy, which is why I feel free to express what I think here, and certainly expect others to do likewise. Doing the right thing doesn't require agreement, it simply affords respectfulness towards others who also express what they believe.

Dan, the problem with your statement is most of the things you mentioned are not biblical absolutes. They are interpretations made by the orthodox churches. That makes them orthodox absolutes, but not biblical absolutes. Many of the teachings found in traditional Christianity are not clearly described in the Bible. It is only when someone already believes the tradition views will they find them in scripture. Basically, we see what we want to see. It is called confirmation bias. It is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. I can offer another explanation for almost every one of those so-called absolutes you mentioned and do so using the Bible. †?†

While some of Jesus teachings may be debatable and open to differing opinions, some point-blank statements require no interpretation. I'll agree that a person can literally spin something to mean whatever they want it to mean, but when Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6), and anyone who doesn't believe in him shall not have everlasting life (John 3:36), and when Peter said that there is no salvation under any other name (Acts 4:14), then I think its pretty evident from a biblical standpoint that salvation only comes through Christ.

Pity no one then told the poor Jews who were expected to follow these laws for many years. Sorry Dan I think again this is just a Paulian interpretation but I do not think Jesus had the same view or even the Jews whose law it was. It also puts God in the position of making people follow laws just to trip them up. That makes no sense to me.

Laws always trip people up, but if laws were not in place, what would the relevance of Christ have been? He clearly stated that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). So Christ did support the law in question when he said; "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Matthew 5:3-4). There's no Pauline interpretation about that!

Dan, it was the Roman Church that pushed the anti-Universalist theology that eventually eclipsed the early Universalist theology of Christianity. So, in a way, you are supporting Roman Dogma by rejecting Christian Universalism. It's funny how history makes strange bedfellows.

I support your right to believe that your brand of Christianity is the true faith to the exclusion of all other paths. God bless and keep the faith!

My point was that universalism pertained to the gospel message; "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). My brand of Christianity is limited to what the bible teaches, its not embroidered with any church dogma, doctrine, or tradition.

He may not be universal in his viewpoint but I have never known Dan to ever say that someone who disagreed with him has no place on the forum.

Thanks...... If I ever insisted that those who disagree with me had no place on the forum, I'd be the only one here

With all due respect to Dan, and to Raincloud, theses verses from Deuteronomy (30th chapter, v. 11-14, for those who want to look it up) are emphatic that the performance of the mitzvot are not an unattainable standard.

I acknowledge that the standards God commanded are attainable, I just don't know anyone who's attained all those standards and avoided sin by keeping all the law (save one)

Edited September 19, 2013 by Dan56

[Raincloud]

I completely agree with the ULC philosophy, which is why I feel free to express what I think here, and certainly expect others to do likewise. Doing the right thing doesn't require agreement, it simply affords respectfulness towards others who also express what they believe.

Exactly. We are on the same page there and I'm glad

I for one, do, Raincloud.

And I took no offense (and take no offense) with anything you have said in this thread.

I share your dismay as to what far-right politics seems to have done with (to ?) Christianity,

"as it is understood" in 21st Century America, by a large portion of our people.

Like it or not, The USA is the new dominant 'Empire' and it's approach to Christianity is a natural extension of 'Cultural Imperialism', especially in the English speaking world. Of course out of that, comes groups like the ULC

[Pete]

¹¹ Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. ¹² It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” ¹³ Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” ¹⁴ No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

So Dan your saying that God gave the Jews the law and punished people for not obeying them and also gave instructions that some should be killed for not obeying it and then did not expect them to obey it. That God just gave the law to trip people up.

Plus I do not see the law as perfect and we have discussed problems with some of the things the law says many times before.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Look, guys, whether you are Jewish or Christian or Catholic....what people object to is not your religion existing or it's validity, rather being forced to follow it ourselves, and different paths being treated as heretical.

When I was criticising Christianity at the start, it was mainly it's integration into 21st century far right politics. There is nothing in the Bible that talks about 21st century politics, because it was written ages ago.

I was also writing from a place of disappointment and heartbreak that the religion is actually (to me) not about the spiritual teachings of the scriptures, but about grafting on to what whatever political sentiment is at the time, and being used a Mono-religion where no other interpretation is allowed.

Do you understand my position?

Of course. Nobody should be force fed the oficial line.

[kokigami]

how did this become about Dan?

[Pete]

how did this become about Dan?

If you read in the previous posts Dan described Raincloud as not sounding much of a Christian and then in a later post talked about his not being able to understand liberal Christianity picking and choosing which parts of the bible they accepted or not. If you read the previous posts you will see what that led into.

Further to Raincloud's position - the far right (Christian or otherwise) scares me too.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Pete

[Dan56]

So Dan your saying that God gave the Jews the law and punished people for not obeying them and also gave instructions that some should be killed for not obeying it and then did not expect them to obey it. That God just gave the law to trip people up.

I meant that the law trips us up because no one keeps all of the law, but God definitely expected us to keep His laws. There was also mercy, repentance, & forgiveness in the OT, which is why we don't actually read of any children being stoned for cursing their parents. I'm guessing that efforts were no doubt made to correct the problem prior to the judges resorting to the ultimate punishment (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Consider that King David committed 2 sins (adultery & murder), both worthy of capital punishment, but instead found correction and mercy after he repented. JMO

how did this become about Dan?

Are you kidding, the guy is a known troublemaker... Actually, Dan was acting like an idiot again and got a little too judgmental

In the first original post (OP), Raincloud stated that his belief in social liberty and small government clashed with right-winged Christian politics, but imo, social liberty and small government are conservative traits? So I incorrectly presumed that his statement that the scriptures are flawed was more likely what turned him off of Christianity. Thus my smart-alec response; "Doesn't sound like you were ever a Christian in the first place?" was out-of-line... I apologize if I offended

[Kingfisher]

I like this new Pope. He's pretty hip for a Jesuit.

"This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity." ~ Pope Francis I

[Reverend V]

Dan 56, 18 Sept 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

While some of Jesus teachings may be debatable and open to differing opinions, some point-blank statements require no interpretation. I'll agree that a person can literally spin something to mean whatever they want it to mean, but when Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6), and anyone who doesn't believe in him shall not have everlasting life (John 3:36), and when Peter said that there is no salvation under any other name (Acts 4:14), then I think its pretty evident from a biblical standpoint that salvation only comes through Christ.

I agree with you on this Dan. These verses are very clear that Jesus is the only way. What they are not clear about though is what about Jesus is the only way? What about him are we suppose to believe in? The traditional view teaches it is his atoning death we must believe in. This idea makes little sense though when we reference the Jewish scriptures. Nowhere is such an idea found. Actually such an idea is contradictory to the Tanach(Old Testamant). I will give you five reasons Jesus' death cannot be understood in the traditional sense. First, vicarious atonement does not exist in Judaism. Moses tried this after the Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32:32-35), and God said that each person is responsible for their own sin. Second, human sacrifice is an abomination to God (Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Jeremiah 19:4-6 and Psalm 106:37-38). Third, Leviticus 17:11 states that any blood sacrifice would need to be done on the altar at the temple in Jerusalem. Since Jesus' blood was never sprinkled on the altar, Jesus' death could not have been an act of universal atonement. Fourth, it is clear through Leviticus that a sin sacrifice must be performed by a temple priest. Fifth, multiple passages in the Bible (Hosea 14:3, 1 Kings 8:46-50, Proverbs 21:3 & Hosea 6:6) make it clear that prayer, repentence and good deeds are all that is required for atonement. Is there any doubt why Jews rejected orthodox Christianity? It is contrary to what they believe and what their scriptures state. All these discoveries lead me to believe it is not his death that we must believe in but his teachings. Jesus taught his disciples to pray (Luke 11: 1-13). He told them they should repent (Luke 13:3). He taught them good deeds are required (Matthew 25:31-46). All these things are in agreement with Judaism and the Tanach(Old Testament). No where though does Jesus say we must believe in the traditional view his death. †?†

Edited September 20, 2013 by ReverendV

[Dan56]

I agree with you on this Dan. These verses are very clear that Jesus is the only way. What they are not clear about though is what about Jesus is the only way? What about him are we suppose to believe in? The traditional view teaches it is his atoning death we must believe in. This idea makes little sense though when we reference the Jewish scriptures. Nowhere is such an idea found. Actually such an idea is contradictory to the Tanach(Old Testamant). I will give you five reasons Jesus' death cannot be understood in the traditional sense. First, vicarious atonement does not exist in Judaism. Moses tried this after the Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32:32-35), and God said that each person is responsible for their own sin. Second, human sacrifice is an abomination to God (Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Jeremiah 19:4-6 and Psalm 106:37-38). Third, Leviticus 17:11 states that any blood sacrifice would need to be done on the altar at the temple in Jerusalem. Since Jesus' blood was never sprinkled on the altar, Jesus' death could not have been an act of universal atonement. Fourth, it is clear through Leviticus that a sin sacrifice must be performed by a temple priest. Fifth, multiple passages in the Bible (Hosea 14:3, 1 Kings 8:46-50, Proverbs 21:3 & Hosea 6:6) make it clear that prayer, repentence and good deeds are all that is required for atonement. Is there any doubt why Jews rejected orthodox Christianity? It is contrary to what they believe and what their scriptures state. All these discoveries lead me to believe it is not his death that we must believe in but his teachings. Jesus taught his disciples to pray (Luke 11: 1-13). He told them they should repent (Luke 13:3). He taught them good deeds are required (Matthew 25:31-46). All these things are in agreement with Judaism and the Tanach(Old Testament). No where though does Jesus say we must believe in the traditional view his death. †?†

The entire Old Testament was a preparation, description, and prediction of Christ's life, teachings, and sacrifice. Jesus fulfilled the OT promises that portrayed him as the suffering servant, savior, and Lord; "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour (Isaiah 43:11). The Jewish Messiah also had to suffer and lay down His life for our sins. This is clearly shown in Isaiah 53: 5&6; "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." We are each responsible for our own sins, but we cannot justify ourselves, sanctification comes only through our faith in he that could. When John the Baptist said; "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), he wasn't referring to teaching, but a sacrificial lamb.

The Levitical priesthood and blood ordinances foreshadowed Christ, the tabernacle and alter were also prefigures of Christ. These ended when Jesus fulfilled the law, he became our High Priest, our altar, and sacrifice. So it wasn't necessary for Jesus blood to be sprinkled on an alter, he is the alter. We can't approach God without a mediator, altar, and sacrifice. There's no remission of sin without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22), so if we only had the teachings of Christ and no sacrifice, Christians would still be sacrificing animals and using a priest as our intercessor, but the new covenant ended all that. It sounds like your trying to mix or make the ritualistic statutes of the old covenant applicable with the new covenant, but one ended where the other began, so they don't mesh. Vicarious atonement is a necessity of reconciliation, sanctification could never come by animals or sinful men.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Dan56

[Pete]

The clearly shown in Isaiah 53 is not so clear (IMO). From Judaic understanding the suffering servant is the Jewish people and not Jesus. I believe many have grasped these verses in an attempt to pull Jesus into Jewish prophesy and the gospels largely written to accomadate this understanding but it is not what the original meaning of these texts had in mind. See:- http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

Edited September 20, 2013 by Pete

[Reverend V]

Good attempt Dan, but just the same old apologetics. You implied the Old Testament was merely a prequel to Christ. If that is the case then why do we find no mention of that in the Old Testament from God or the prophets? No wonder the Jewish people were caught off guard. As for the suffering servant, like Pete mentioned above, it is not referring to Jesus. If Isaiah 53 is read in its entirety it becomes very obvious that the suffering servant is not referring to the messiah but to the nation Israel. As for the Jewish messiah laying down his life for our sins, where exactly did you find that? It is not in the Old Testament. The idea of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Jewish tradition has long taught the messiah would be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). He is often referred to as "son of David". It is believed the messiah will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. Those last two things alone disqualify Jesus. First, the Davidic bloodline must go through the father. If Joseph is not the real father then Jesus does not receive the necessary bloodline to be the messiah (Mary's bloodline does not qualify). Second, Jesus was not a great military leader. He did not deliver Israel from their enemies. Instead he allowed himself to be captured and killed. That type of action would immediatly disqualify any supposed messianic candidate. There is no mention of a need for vicarious atonement in the Old Testament. That is entirely a Christian concept. As for remission of sin requiring shedding of blood, that is not true at all. There are multiple passages in the Bible that mention grain being given for sin offerings (Leviticus 5:11-13). In the end it really boils down to two things. First, the Old Testament makes it clear that repentence and prayer are enough to be forgiven of one's sins; second, nowhere in the Old Testament does it state there is anything mankind needs to be saved from. It makes sense why Jews do not believe these things, but It leads one to wonder where early Christians got these ideas considering they are not Jewish. †?†

Edited September 20, 2013 by ReverendV

[Dianna]

. . . It leads one to wonder where early Christians got these ideas considering they are not Jewish. †?†

With all due respect to the religion Christianity, in my opinion a possible reason it has managed to twist a perfectly-fine-religion-on-its-own and created a different one where salvation must only come through belief of Jesus as the son of God whose blood "sacrifice" was for the sins of the world.

My opinion is partly based on the writings of Justin Martyr, a respected Christian (who was later martyred) who is telling the Roman (pagans) that what the Christians believe is no different than what they believed.

. . . And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior— or rather have already proved Him to be so— for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Æsculapius.

(Justin Martyrs First Apology: Chapter 22 -- Analogies to the History of Christ : http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm)

As the Jewish believers were squeezed out and the "church" became increasingly Roman/non-Jewish, it seems pretty obvious (to me) that to better relate to the people of the Roman empire, they started drawing in these popular ideas that differed from any former Jewish concepts.

Again, just my opinion.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Dianna

[Dianna]

This was actually the main quote I was looking for, instead of the above. Still Justin Martyr, since I wasn't able to add this excerpt above in time:

Chapter 21. Analogies to the history of Christ

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Cæsar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods.

(Justin Martyrs First Apology: Chapter 21 -- Analogies to the History of Christ : http://www.newadvent...athers/0126.htm)

Again, to me, this seems to explain to me the beginnings of the Christian church - in order to get away from Jewish connections - were originally taken from pagan Roman beliefs, before eventually growing and developing into its own religion.

[Pete]

With all due respect to the religion Christianity, in my opinion a possible reason it has managed to twist a perfectly-fine-religion-on-its-own and created a different one where salvation must only come through belief of Jesus as the son of God whose blood "sacrifice" was for the sins of the world.

My opinion is partly based on the writings of Justin Martyr, a respected Christian (who was later martyred) who is telling the Roman (pagans) that what the Christians believe is no different than what they believed.

As the Jewish believers were squeezed out and the "church" became increasingly Roman/non-Jewish, it seems pretty obvious (to me) that to better relate to the people of the Roman empire, they started drawing in these popular ideas that differed from any former Jewish concepts.

Again, just my opinion.

It maybe your opinion but I think it bares out much of what I think too. Interestingly Justin Martyr was one of the main persons who looked for verses to justify Jesus as being prophesied in the OT (Jewish scriptures). I understand he claimed to have consulted Jewish teachers but I also understand there is little evidence he actually did and none of the verses were originally about prophesing Jesus who arrived 800yrs later than Isaiah. They were about the struggles of the time. Just like the much used Isaiah 9 was not about prophesing someone coming as much as saying as long as there was a new generation of Jews there was hope. I also think Paul's idea of dying with Jesus to be born again with him was also taken from pagan teachings, as was the communion of the body and blood. There is no way you could persuade a follower of Judaism to eat human flesh and blood either in reality or symbolic form. Duet 12:23. As I have said before that is right up their with eating pork. I just cannot see how this could of become accepted by the early followers who were Jews. I am certain in my opinion that this came from helonised sourses and adopted by the church. If you read the Didache you will also see that that there was a Jewish ceremony of taking bread and wine but it had nothing to do with symbolising the body and blood of Jesus.

Didache (50-120 AD) chapter 9

"

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

from:- http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

As one can see this was a Jewish ceremony to celebrate the teachings of Jesus and not about the body and blood of Jesus.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Pete

[Dan56]

The clearly shown in Isaiah 53 is not so clear (IMO). From Judaic understanding the suffering servant is the Jewish people and not Jesus. I believe many have grasped these verses in an attempt to pull Jesus into Jewish prophesy and the gospels largely written to accomadate this understanding but it is not what the original meaning of these texts had in mind. See:- http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

Sure, change some words in Isaiah 53 like "He" to "Israel" and the context changes. But why would a prophet of God be prophesying about how other nations viewed Israel? Did God view Israel or the Jewish people as innocent and guiltless sufferers? Israel, nor its people are ever described as sinless, Isaiah 1:4 calls it a "sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity".

I'm beginning to feel like I'm trying to convert you guys away from Judaism

Good attempt Dan, but just the same old apologetics. You implied the Old Testament was merely a prequel to Christ. If that is the case then why do we find no mention of that in the Old Testament from God or the prophets? No wonder the Jewish people were caught off guard. As for the suffering servant, like Pete mentioned above, it is not referring to Jesus. If Isaiah 53 is read in its entirety it becomes very obvious that the suffering servant is not referring to the messiah but to the nation Israel. As for the Jewish messiah laying down his life for our sins, where exactly did you find that? It is not in the Old Testament. The idea of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Jewish tradition has long taught the messiah would be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). He is often referred to as "son of David". It is believed the messiah will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. Those last two things alone disqualify Jesus. First, the Davidic bloodline must go through the father. If Joseph is not the real father then Jesus does not receive the necessary bloodline to be the messiah (Mary's bloodline does not qualify). Second, Jesus was not a great military leader. He did not deliver Israel from their enemies. Instead he allowed himself to be captured and killed. That type of action would immediatly disqualify any supposed messianic candidate. There is no mention of a need for vicarious atonement in the Old Testament. That is entirely a Christian concept. As for remission of sin requiring shedding of blood, that is not true at all. There are multiple passages in the Bible that mention grain being given for sin offerings (Leviticus 5:11-13). In the end it really boils down to two things. First, the Old Testament makes it clear that repentence and prayer are enough to be forgiven of one's sins; second, nowhere in the Old Testament does it state there is anything mankind needs to be saved from. It makes sense why Jews do not believe these things, but It leads one to wonder where early Christians got these ideas considering they are not Jewish. †?†

I've read Isaiah 53 in its entirety, and its obviously speaking about the Messiah, no interpretation is even necessary. It requires Jewish apologetics to change the meaning I'm beginning to see why you don't recognize anything in the OT as pertaining to Christ. Is it a wild coincident that Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 are written definitions of Christ? If you think so, then I'm relatively positive that no other messianic related scripture will convince you otherwise.

Yes, Joseph was Jesus stepfather, but as the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus was the full heir of David since Joseph was by law, his legal father.

Some prophesies do describe the second coming of Christ as the conqueror/leader/deliverer, this is what the Jews were looking for. The reason the Jews didn't recognize the Messiah back then was probably because they interpreted Isaiah 53 the same way you and Pete do today . The prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 provided the exact time frame for the Messiah, and that he would be killed. I guess people were so entranced in their own traditions that they missed what the prophets had written?

[Reverend V]

The idea that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel has long existed. There is no evidence the Jews ever believed it referred to the messiah. As for Israel being mentioned using "he". That type of language is common in the Old Testament. Israel is often mentioned using masculine pronouns. Jeremiah 31:10 states, "Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock." (KJV). Here the profit uses the word "him" to refer to Israel. Another good example of this is Hosea 11:1. "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Here God refers to Israel as both "him" and his "son". As for Psalm 22, it is obvious from reading the entire passage that it is referring to King David. Jesus most likely quoted it so witnesses would connect him to King David. The problem is, he cannot truly be connected without the Davidic bloodline. Adoption only accounted for property rights, it never accounted for messiac priviledge. If Joseph was not Jesus' birth father he could not be the Jewish messiah. The messiah must, and I repeat must, inherit King David's blood through his father. This is the messianic prophecy and expectation. As for the Daniel prophecy, there is no exact time mentioned. The word messiah translates to "the anointed one". Lets consider this for a minute. When the word messiah is mentioned most Christians automatically think of Jesus. They don't realize that there have been many messiahs throughout the Old Testament and Jewish history. In the biblical usage of the word "messiah" referred to any person charged with a divine office as king or priest, who was anointed with oil, a symbol of being chosen for a special purpose. King Saul (1 Samuel 10:1), King David (1 Samuel 16:13), and King Solomon (1 Kings 1:34-39) all were messiahs since scripture tells us they all went through the anointing ritual necessary to be considered such. There is no further mention of anyone going through the messianic ritual of anointing. That does not mean it did not happen though. Most likely all legitimate kings, possibly priests as well, went through this anoining ritual. This being the case the individual mentioned in Daniel could be any number of people. To claim it is referring to Jesus is simply wishful thinking. †?†

Edited September 21, 2013 by ReverendV

[Pete]

No Jewish apologists are needed to describe what has always been the interpretation of their own Jewish scripture. I refer you back to my link :- http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

The Jews have not changed how they see these quotes. The church who would not listen to the Jews and persecuted them for years changed the meaning of these quotes to suite their own end.

Now I know we are not going to agree Dan and we seldom do but I think if you want to understand a given scripture like the OT then consulting the people who wrote it would seem a rightful step. The church failed to do this because they did not want to allow the possibility that the Jews may have something to say on the matter and that Jews may then be seen as significant like they were in the beginning with the "new way group" or as we call it today Christianity. Lets not forget that Jesus and his disciples were Jews and not Christians. It was (IMO) Paul who made the change and he even reports that he had arguments with the disciples for acting like Jews. The split grew from there leaving groups like the Jewish Christians such as the Ebonites out in the cold.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Pete

[Atwater Vitki]

Diana mentioned Justin Martyr and Pete's link detailing how the Jewish scholars interpret Isaiah are both enlightening. I'm going to take the "authorities" interpretation as being valid...Isaiah is talking about Israel, not Yeshua...I don't think it is they who have changed the wording. Paul on the other hand...you betcha.....you don't set out to peter the world without changing a few things around.

I still can't get away from the view that Yeshua was merely attempting to get the Jewish priesthood to change their views about the full, inner meaning behind the Torah and Tanakh being what he was about, not creating a new religion. To see it as hope, peace and love of "God" rather than the pain and suffering portrayed verbally at the time. Creating the "new religion" was totally Paul's mission.

If modern day Christianity needs to so desperately justify itself then imho it should be done righteously, not by insisting that the authors of another nation's religion do not know how to interpret their own writings. Oh, but then again geesh how silly of me...it was the Black Robes of the Church of England that informed the Vikings in 950-1050CE they had it all wrong about their gods, sagas and codex too...."the son of the Eternal One" written about in 450 BCE wasn't referring to Odhinn at all, rather the WASP "Jesus"...will it ever end? Funny, the Nordic authors of the Mälmo Codex had no idea about this "other version/person" 450 years prior to the birth of the Christ, proclaimed by 11th century monks to be what it "really meant"...amazing how that time machine works.

Putting things in context and historical time-line it simply makes no sense at all that the "Messiah" can be referenced everywhere, across every era in history all at once and that every nation outside of a given area all refer to the same person...I don't think it was the ancient authors who "changed" anything, rather modern day hopefuls that want us to believe they can interpret better than the authors. Just doesn't fly in my book.

I don't think anyone is getting "converted" here Dan...at least not by the evidence produced so far.

Blessings of Peace,