The Fact is, Jesus is the prophesied Messiah

nsawantsmedead

If you could clarify that a bit more we might get you.

All I'm getting at the moment is the NSA wants to kill you and we should fear some kind of farting satan.


[edit on 19-3-2006 by kegs]

It would do you best to crack open a dictionary once in awhile.

enmity: hostility: a state of deep-seated ill-will; hostility: the feeling of a hostile person; "he could no longer contain his hostility"

I understand what the word means.

Take a closer look at your two verses. No where in them do they trace Mary's lineage.

That's why I told you to take not of the lineage and the fact that they are different. This should explain all.

www.ldolphin.org...

That's why I told you to take not of the lineage and the fact that they are different. This should explain all.

Perhaps you didn't click the link. Perhaps you just didn't bother to read the entire post, especially the part I excerpted from the site you should have read. That site you sent me to is trying to pin Mary onto Heli, the claim is unfounded. No where in that verse does it say Mary is the daughter of Heli. Your the one who says that.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat

as was supposed : As was supposed ... why as was supposed? This is like saying Jesus was said to be Joseph's son, but wasn't of his flesh as Jesus was born through a virgin conception.

Joseph, which was the son of Heli
Heli which was the son of Matthat

Where's Mary? We still don't see Mary! Luke does nothing more then provide us a SECOND lineage for Joseph.

Luke already gave us Mary's lineage, or did you not bother to read that part of Luke's gospel?

"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (Luke 1:5)....And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."(Luke 1:36)

We're also still left with the fact that lineage isn't drawn from the mother!

"Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg wasn't discovered until 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children."

...

Thus, if the author of Luke had wished to risk personal ridicule by implying that Mary could transmit King David's seed, he almost certainly would have anticipated the incredulity of the masses and told the readers that this was happening for the first time ever. Furthermore, Luke would have alerted the reader that he wasn't going to bother putting Mary's name anywhere in her genealogy, and he also wouldn't have forced the reader to mentally reposition the parenthetical remark in "Heli begat Jesus" verse in order to see its "true" meaning.

www.geocities.com...

Sun,

There's another site you could've sent me that attempt's to explain it better. Yes, I actually looked furthur into the claim then what you tried hogwashing on me.

www.bibleanswer.com...
Luke 3:23 does not say that Heli is the father of Joseph. It says that
Jesus..."being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,......"
While it was assumed (from every outward appearance) that Jesus was the
fleshly son of Joseph, he was in fact the descendant of Heli (due to being
born of a virgin, Lk. 1:30-35). Thus, Heli is actually the father of Mary,
Jesus's mother. (Jacob was the father of Joseph, Matt. 1:16).

See the part in bold, that's where it falls apart. Jesus was not the son of Heli. Nor does son of Heli imply Jesus was a descendant of Heli. In all other instance's son of has denoted that the previous person was the son of the next person listed. Either way we slice and dice it, Mary is NOT listed in this lineage. Your placing her there so as to make it appear to yourself that Jesus is of Davids lineage.

Perhaps you didn't click the link. Perhaps you just didn't bother to read the entire post, especially the part I excerpted from the site you should have read. That site you sent me to is trying to pin Mary onto Heli, the claim is unfounded. No where in that verse does it say Mary is the daughter of Heli. Your the one who says that.

Actually, the lineage says it. You have the lineage of Joseph and Mary as shown in Matthew and Luke.

One thing for sure you can say about the Jews, they kept genealogies simply because they they knew that the Messiah would come from the House of David. That's why it was so important for them to keep these records. We clearly know that Josephs father was Jacob. We also have the lineage of Mary. So you have to choose. Are you going to believe the truth or are you going to believe the way things are worded because it was proper to mention the man in lineage.

Luke already gave us Mary's lineage, or did you not bother to read that part of Luke's gospel?

"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (Luke 1:5)....And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."(Luke 1:36)

Yes, I have read it. If you would have read a little further, you would have found that they are talking about John the Baptist and not Jesus the Christ.
See below.

Luke 1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

We're also still left with the fact that lineage isn't drawn from the mother!

Thank you, and that is exactly why Luke worded his genealogy as he did. I have already shown you in Genesis where God said that it would be the seed of a woman and also shown, that the Christ would be born of a virgin. That is exactly, what happened.

Actually, the lineage says it. You have the lineage of Joseph and Mary as shown in Matthew and Luke.

One thing for sure you can say about the Jews, they kept genealogies simply because they they knew that the Messiah would come from the House of David. That's why it was so important for them to keep these records. We clearly know that Josephs father was Jacob. We also have the lineage of Mary. So you have to choose. Are you going to believe the truth or are you going to believe the way things are worded because it was proper to mention the man in lineage.

LOL, point it out. Show where it says Mary. Mary's lineage was already mentioned previously.

You like taking verses out of context don't you? Luke 1:35-36 is where the angel is talking to Mary. He tells her about her cousin Elizabeth and how God had also given her the miracle of birth and how now Mary would bear the son of god in a similar fashion. No where is this verse discussing John.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Yes, I have read it. If you would have read a little further, you would have found that they are talking about John the Baptist and not Jesus the Christ.

This is where you don't even bother reading in chronological order lol..

"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (Luke 1:5)

...Reading furthur down from HERE, from 1:5 to this next verse it does talk about John, but not all the way to flippin 1:36

Luke 1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

Thank you, and that is exactly why Luke worded his genealogy as he did. I have already shown you in Genesis where God said that it would be the seed of a woman and also shown, that the Christ would be born of a virgin. That is exactly, what happened.

I still don't see where it says Mary in there when Luke clearly already provide's her lineage in 1:36. Nor ddid the original prophecy say anything about a virgin birth, this is a Christian invention. Nor could Luke be discussing Jesus' lineage through Mary as for one, he doesn't mention it and for two no one back then ever traced the lineage through the mother! I'll post it again for you.

"Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg wasn't discovered until 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children."

...

Thus, if the author of Luke had wished to risk personal ridicule by implying that Mary could transmit King David's seed, he almost certainly would have anticipated the incredulity of the masses and told the readers that this was happening for the first time ever. Furthermore, Luke would have alerted the reader that he wasn't going to bother putting Mary's name anywhere in her genealogy, and he also wouldn't have forced the reader to mentally reposition the parenthetical remark in "Heli begat Jesus" verse in order to see its "true" meaning.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
The facts say Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. Can you prove it is not so?
Bring your facts.

what facts?

i would like to see said facts and said logic connecting these facts to the statement that jesus was the messiah.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
The facts say Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. Can you prove it is not so?
Bring your facts.

what facts?

i would like to see said facts and said logic connecting these facts to the statement that jesus was the messiah.

www.godandscience.org...


Here is a sampling of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. You can do all kinds of searches and get more info.

Any questions, let me know.

Sun,

You should read this website. www.jewsforjudaism.org...

Also, on your link there's a bunch of errors. For one, Jesus was born of virgin conception and lineage was drawn from the father's side. Joseph was not Jesus' father, so in no way could Jesus be a descendent of David. I know this is going to get brought up, but Luke is not talking about Mary's lineage in that verse. Read Luke 1:36, that is Mary's lineage and it is not that of David.

The very first so called 'fulfilled prophecy'

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, (Galatians 4:4)"

This is an obvious given. How many son's are born from father's? This isn't so much as a prophecy, and in no way does it tie into Genesis.

The verse used to show he was from the tribe of Judah relies upon his lineage being from Joseph. This is done because in order to be from the tribe of Judah you need a biological father who was a member of the tribe. But as we know, Joseph was not Jesus' father.

The verse for the virgin conception was a mistranslation of the word alma; Alma means young woman. Look it up and ask a 'Jew'.

Compare the two site's and reread the bible. It's quiet obvious Jesus fails in many way's for being the Messiah.

Hi Prot0n,

Also, on your link there's a bunch of errors.

I just tried the link and it didn't even work.

I know this is going to get brought up, but Luke is not talking about Mary's lineage in that verse. Read Luke 1:36, that is Mary's lineage and it is not that of David.

All it says in that verse is that Elizabeth is Marys cousin???????????Nothing more???????

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, (Galatians 4:4)"

This is an obvious given. How many son's are born from father's? This isn't so much as a prophecy, and in no way does it tie into Genesis.

I agree, that is a poor choice for them to make. I will look at this tomorrow if I remember.

Compare the two site's and reread the bible. It's quiet obvious Jesus fails in many way's for being the Messiah.

I did not like the Galations 4:4 on the site I gave, it was a poor example. But as you can see, there is emnity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

I checked out your site and can put all the pieces together, except for this.

He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

I don't see where Solomon is involved? Are they taking it from He shall build a house for my name,

I'm going to look over this again tomorrow.

I do want you to note that the Torah claims that when the Messiah comes that the Jews will not see Him. I believe that is the case.

Well from the phoenix to Jesus all I am saying is there should be enough proof of reinvention. If the world was to come to an end there I imagine is one person by fate is to open up the worst negativity there is based on his own fears as he is of purity. The reason for this is simple continuation. A tragic event of such level would force people to run to God/Jesus/Allah whatever. Thus creating eternal heaven and completion of a cycle.

I view the antichirst as a Lamb so to speak. If we were to say Christ never exsisted and I knew they way to become the antochrist or a phoenix I would ruin myself for reason of giving the people of the world Heaven.

As I said my truth are lies and my lies are true.

If you were to follow my truth you would have no faith and if you were to follow my faith you are to have no truth.

The above things said are against what the bible teaches and a perfect example of how an antichrist will work or a false prophet. You will take a photo as proof before having faith in something that exsists. Woe or blessed.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
The facts say Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. Can you prove it is not so?
Bring your facts.

The Old Testament clearly (and I mean CLEARLY) states that the Messiah will be called Immanuel. Show me in the New Testament where he is called that. He isn't. End of story. He wasn't the Messiah. So there. Nyah.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

If I were to believe any religious group on this, it would be the Jews. Why?
Because THEY were the ones who first made this up and made monotheism what it is now! The other 2 big monos clearly came from Judaism.

I've always wondered this: who in the hell do Christians think they are to just steal someone else's religious claims, twist them, and say that they originators were wrong? But, that's one of the many reasons that Christians are so entertaining to me.

All it says in that verse is that Elizabeth is Marys cousin???????????Nothing more???????

Ah, but when you go back to where the Angel is talking to Elizabeth, the lineage become's more clear. The Heli verse make's utterly no sense to use when given the previous lineage given. Nor does the Christian claimed verse even mention Mary at all period. And there's still, always the remaining fact that lineage is drawn through the father and not the mother. We didn't discover women could be considered part of the lineage untill the 1800's when we discovered she carried egg's.

I agree, that is a poor choice for them to make. I will look at this tomorrow if I remember.

Why would they use such a poor example if they're so sure Jesus was the Messiah? There's alot more to the prophecy that they could've used. Like the third temple.

I did not like the Galations 4:4 on the site I gave, it was a poor example. But as you can see, there is emnity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

Well, atleast we're both agreeing that your site like's to make fine use of poor example's. I also don't see how there's emnity between the seed of woman and the seed of the serpent. Care to explain?

I don't see where Solomon is involved? Are they taking it from He shall build a house for my name,

How can you not see it? Solomon is part of the Davidic lineage, there's shouldn't be a problem at all. You even provided a link earlier showing this. There really should be no problem here.

I do want you to note that the Torah claims that when the Messiah comes that the Jews will not see Him. I believe that is the case.

chapter:verse please, I'd like to read it. And I want you to note as well, that the Messiah was to follow full Torah observance as well, something Jesus failed to do and something the Christian faith goes against. The Christian bible is remarkedly different from the Torah, and yet relies on the Messianic prophecies from the Torah for it's faith in Jesus.

ProtOn, try not to post over here for a while. You are too, too, too, too, fast. I want to go over the points in your last post to do them justice(so please don't move forward yet. I need ten of me to keep up with one of you. Thanks for bringing facts though.


This is Isaiah 53. It talks of the Messiah. The suffering savior who was a sin offering, the passover lamb. Just something for you to chew on. Please don't respond yet.

1 Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But 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. 6 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. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

ProtOn, try not to post over here for a while. You are too, too, too, too, fast. I want to go over the points in your last post to do them justice(so please don't move forward yet. I need ten of me to keep up with one of you. Thanks for bringing facts though.

I'm sorry if I'm going to fast. I noticed you used Isaiah 53. Question: Have you read Isaiah 52 yet? Isaiah 53 is following directly the theme of Isaiah 52, and when read in correct context and order, there is no discussion of a suffering servent. There are many instances in the bible where God is talking to the Jewish nation in a singular pronoun. Read this link for more information on what I'm talking about.

home.att.net...

Looking through that guy's website he make's out another really good point. Isaiah kinda warns against Christianity. Read it here, if you disagree with any of that, voice your reason's and we can take this into a whole new thread.

home.att.net...

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Prot0n]

jesus may have fulfilled prohecies, but maybe he was doing everything he could do to fulfill them...

also, fulfilling prophecies that are somewhat suspect, which sit next to prophecies that never came to fruition, doesn't prove anything.

the statement that jesus is the messiah also means that you must take the old testament and judean tradition as truth, which is an entirely different discussion.

I'm sorry if I'm going to fast. I noticed you used Isaiah 53. Question: Have you read Isaiah 52 yet? Isaiah 53 is following directly the theme of Isaiah 52, and when read in correct context and order, there is no discussion of a suffering servent. There are many instances in the bible where God is talking to the Jewish nation in a singular pronoun. Read this link for more information on what I'm talking about.

You can't help it if you are superman, I'm just wondering if you are strong enough to hold yourself back. I looked at the Isaiah 52 angle and I think it is clear in verse 14 that they are talking about a man. The man is the Messiah that is talked about in Isaiah 53.

I looked at the site.(Is this your site)(you probably have the capability to jump over and do sites to.) It was probably better than the Galatians 4:4 comment. But I really thought that they were splitting already split hair and saying, "see the difference"

Alright, you are a smart individual, so follow along. He says that "Yasdeek" means "will make just" and then throws in (by bringing the Torah). You can't just change things to fit what you think, you have to translate the whole thing. If he wants to change "will justify" to "will make just" because of the word "Yasdeek", if have not problem with that. But then you can't change, "for he shall bear their iniquities" to "by bringing the Torah" for absolutley no reason.

In verse 11, the Hebrew "yatsdeek" means "will make just" (by bringing the Torah), not "will justify (someone's sins by taking their punishment)."

Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

So, no the explanation about Isaiah 53 cuts not butter. You have to see that.

Looking through that guy's website he make's out another really good point. Isaiah kinda warns against Christianity. Read it here, if you disagree with any of that, voice your reason's and we can take this into a whole new thread.

I want to go back before charging on, superman.

How can Isaiah 52-53 be referencing jesus when it specifically states
'10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days'
He shall see his seed - thought jesus never had kids?
he shall prolong his days - being crucified at 30 odds is living to a ripe old age eh?
You'll need to do better than that!


G

The Messiah was clearly prophesied as a warrior king like David who would lead the Jews in victory over their oppressors. Jesus was hardly that. If Jesus existed at all.

Other than the stories, how's that proof of Jesus's actual existence going? Not so good, huh?