Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Jesus didn't come to prove your (our) concept of who God should or shouldn't be. Jesus came to reveal who God actually is - even if it wrecks your (our) assumptions.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Paddington
- Start date
dgreen
Footballguy
So why the expectation to recognize him? And, I'd even say why the seemingly harsh criticism of those who don't recognize him if he admittedly didn't match the expectations?
If I was going to meet someone for the first time and I told them I'd be wearing jeans, a red t-shirt, and a baseball cap, but then arrived in shorts, a blue polo, and no hat then I wouldn't necessarily expect them to believe I was who I said I was. I'd understand their lack of belief.
Of course, with this analogy, there was a description of what I'd look like and then an arrival with a completely different look. And that's kind of where my tension is. Do the Hebrew Scriptures describe God's rescue in ways that didn't match the reality of Jesus?
Jesus is Jewish. His movement was Jewish. I see the NT story as a continuation of the Jewish story. Yet, if it was all so Jewish and flowed out of their Scriptures, then why was it missed by Jews? Now, large chunks of Judaism of Jesus' day did, in fact, recognize him as Messiah. The early church was largely Jewish. So maybe it isn't correct to say it was "missed by Jews". That might be more of a reality as time passes and Gentiles become dominant in the church. My understanding of Jewish messianic hope is that it was complicated and diverse. Early on, it was mostly the leadership who rejected Jesus' claims. So maybe it was just unexpected in the view of those in power who wanted to hold onto to their own authority? Over time, all of that changes and Judaism as a whole doesn't follow Jesus. It becomes almost exclusively a Gentile movement completely divorced from Judaism. Again, if Jesus and the NT authors expected Jews of their day to recognize him based on their story leading up to that point, what went wrong?
IDK. The Jewishness of Jesus and the NT is something I've tried to learn more about. And I keep reading things like "Jesus didn't match expectations" and "They should have recognized Jesus". I think I'm probably just misinterpreting some of the implications of one or both of these assumptions. I increasingly find it frustrating when complex ideas are simplified and stripped of all nuance because I think it leads to misinterpretation and ultimately misapplication.
TL;DR - Something just hasn't quite clicked for me on this topic.
You guys are more knowledgeable than me on this but I always thought the "Jesus wasn't who they were expecting" thing was more how they were expecting a triumphant powerful messiah king to smash his way in for deliverance. Not a carpenter from Nazereth that seemed relatively meek.
Some of this of course is man made expectations. There are plenty of things foretelling the way it happened. But those maybe were overlooked. I'm sure we do lots of that today focusing on the things we want to.
Or maybe the biggest one as someone who predicts things for a living: Hindsight is 20/20. 
dgreen
Footballguy
Yeah, I think this gets into some of the assumptions I'm making that others might not be making...and could be bad assumptions on my part.
I don't think most of the things we usually say are "foretelling" were really "foretelling". Like I said, I don't think Isaiah was foretelling Jesus' birth to a virgin and I don't think Matthew was claiming that Isaiah was foretelling that.
And I think I also have the assumption that a first century Jew was well equipped to understand the Hebrew Scriptures. That's where I wonder about things like "Some of this of course was man made expectations." To me, that's like saying, "First century Jews didn't know how to read their Bible." I find that to be difficult to accept. Plus, many did recognize him!
I actually have a (text)book that should help with this, but it's been a difficult read so I haven't made much progress.
Yes. It's a super interesting topic.
I think for me, I take it more as a big picture type thing looking forward in "be alert".
I wonder sometimes how Jesus would be seen if he'd been born 20 years ago instead of some 2000 years ago. That kind of thing.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Not sure I am following you here. What part of Jesus' prophecy was not met in your mind? What wasn't fulfilled? In other words, what teachings were of the nature you outline above in your analogy that weren't met in Jesus' coming?
dgreen
Footballguy
Yep. I'm amazed at how many Christians seem to think the second coming will be so obvious. It seems common to basically say, "Those stupid Jews didn't recognize Jesus when they should have. We Christians will definitely correctly identify him when he comes again, though." But what if we miss it because it doesn't match our expectations? What if he's hanging out at a Pride parade or sharing a meal with members of Hamas or raining down Woes upon our favorite church leaders?
My biggest hang up here might be that I don't like the idea that "Jews misread their own Scriptures". It feels icky to me and can lead to antisemitic attitudes and persecution of Jews. But maybe it is that easy. And maybe my "out" (to keep it from being icky for me) is to put that almost entirely on a corrupt Jewish leadership of that day and not apply it to all of Judaism or even of Jewish leadership in other times of history.
dgreen
Footballguy
Good question. If we go with the common assumption that Second Temple Judaism was looking for a mighty king to overthrow their oppressors, I don't think that's a crazy expectation. I think it's easy to not see Jesus as fulfilling the promise of the ideal Davidic king. The promise of the everlasting reign of Davidic kings appears broken at the Babylonian exile and isn't restored. Jesus never actually takes the land back for Israel and sits on the throne in Judah.
Now, to be clear, I think Jesus did meet and fulfill the prophecies and promises. I think the NT authors are clear about that. They say Jesus was that promised king in the line of David and the NT has him exalted to God's right hand and seated on a throne in Heaven...not in Jerusalem. He didn't meet and fulfill some prophecies and promises in the way that was expected. And, maybe what I'm saying is that I think it was perfectly reasonable for Jews to expect something different and have difficulty recognizing Jesus...yet, they were expected to recognize him.
So, this is my re-interpretation of how I tend to hear this topic discussed:
God: "Hey, Israel. I'm going to save you. I'm promise you a descendant of David will deliver you and will rule forever."
Israel: "Ok, cool, God. What I'm hearing you say is that we'll be a mighty nation as you've promised all the way back to Abraham and if we're ever under brutal foreign rule, you'll send an earthly king as rescuer to overthrow that evil foreign ruler. This is something that will happen in the context of our concept of earthly kingdoms and rule. This will look like how you saved us from Egypt, led us in battles in the wilderness, helped us conquer Canaan, and anointed human kings like David. After you bring us back from exile and rebuild the temple, we'll get moving on it being our land again and a human king on the throne."
God:
NT authors: "Jesus was that guy. He didn't look like what you expected but that's because your expectations were wrong. You really would recognize him if you actually knew your Bibles."
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Isn't this exactly what I said and then Joe seemed to reiterate? It's not that the prophecy was/wasn't fulfilled. It's that they made a bunch of assumptions on how it would happen, what it would look like all on their own and as a result many struggled to believe/recognize what was going on because it didn't fit what they had built in their minds.
dgreen
Footballguy
I guess where I'm at right now is that I think their expectations were reasonable, but the typical interpretations of Jesus and the NT seems to be that their expectations weren't reasonable.
For example, what do you do with Isaiah's Suffering Servant passages? My understanding is that we have very little evidence that it was seen as Messianic prior to Jesus and the NT. In other words, suffering was not part of their messianic expectations. Did everyone misinterpret Isaiah until Jesus and the NT authors arrived? Or was it reasonable for them to be surprised by Jesus making suffering part of his mission and fulfillment?
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Sure, they were perfectly reasonable, but they were still created by them, not God. Pick at the bold for a minute. What do you mean? What are you talking about?
As for Isaiah passage, any time I have ever been presented it or even did a brief study on it, it is always framed as that being a prophecy of Jesus' mission here on earth. But let's put to the side whether it was specific to Jesus or not for a second. I find your very last question puzzling. If they/we understand the concept of sin and everything that comes with it, suffering is a constant in day to day life. From an academic perspective, I can't think of a logical reason why they'd assume why suffering wouldn't be part of the equation. So, personally, I don't think it's reasonable to assume suffering wasn't going to be part of the equation.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
BTW, I love the philosophical discussions like this. My favorite things to discuss because it brings all of us as believers together to share tidbits and perspectives that may help others in their understanding 
dgreen
Footballguy
What I mean by the bold is what I see as a typical Christian view that Jews missed Jesus when they really have no reason to have missed him because the OT so clearly predicts so much of his life, death, and resurrection. I generally hear that the Jewish expectations were unreasonable based on our reading of the NT. If, for example, Isaiah 53 so clearly predicts the suffering of Jesus, then it would seem unreasonable to have another expectation. However, if it isn't clear and their expectations were reasonable, then I struggle with the expectation that Jesus should have been recognized.
Or, as Paul says, "For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...". Yet, I'd challenge any Christian to show me where in the OT we clearly see these things. I'm not questioning Paul as much as I'm questioning what I see as the typical Christian interpretation of what something like this might mean. I found one author (wish I had the book handy right now, but I don't) who basically said that "according to the Scriptures" could be an idiom for something like "in alignment with God's will" but not necessarily that we should be able to find textual evidence in their Scriptures that make these claims of Paul to be clear. That, to me, was a very helpful way to think about it. I think there's a reading of Paul here that can lead to people assuming it is unreasonable to NOT see "that Christ died for our sins...and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day" clearly predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures.
I think there's a Christian hermeneutic out there that has sent many Christians on a mission to "find Jesus in every verse of the Old Testament" because, as we know, it's all about him (or points to him). And I see many Christians struggling to read their Bible because this is their goal. That's a slight tangent here, but I see it as related to expectations based on God's revelation through Scripture.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
But if that was the case roughly 2000 years ago, what makes us so sure that it is not the case today?
I believe that is ultimately a third of the question. The other third is why does God allow his people to go off on such a tangent? And the final third would be those concerning the historically nasty fight with horrific consequence some to this day for ownership of the Jewish scriptures.
For that first question I can only say, that ...
...I don't think it is far-fetched to say that "Twenty-first century Christians don't know how to read their Bible." Maybe not excellent to each other, but probably overwhelmingly true. Which I think answers the second question.
The third though is tougher. And sorry, but it is almost all politics! We know that early church leaders, even Paul found that interpreting the Jewish scriptures too literally, at least the laws was heretical. Rejecting them entirely was heretical. So, there was kind of a threading of the needle to an unhappy medium position. A position that the Jewish Scriptures were all just a prologue to the real message found in the
When the shock of Jesus' crucifixion wore off, followers of Jesus tried to make sense of it all. The belief in the resurrection kept them going and an early step was to search through the scriptures to find reference to some righteous figure that suffered. And of course, you can find anything you want in scripture if you look for it the "right way". So, they found it! Changing the meaning of passage after passage not to be about something in the distant past, but to be about pointing to Jesus. Jesus had to be the suffering messiah because, "see it was right here all along."
And of course, most non followers who knew and understood scripture as it was always understood, or even as it was understood during those apocalyptic times thought it was nonsense. It would be like if I said Art Schlichter was the Colts greatest draft pick ever. Fans in Indianapolis might embrace the claims in that it should have been seen as prophetically point to the Mayflower vans, but how about those in Baltimore? Complete nonsense! Blasphemous! This is how I see this happening. Those that knew and understood the scripture thought this "new math" was crazy talk, but those that didn't were taught how to understand and cannot imagine any other way. The prophecy arguments thus were great selling points to spread Christianity to those that didn't actually have any clue about Jewish scriptures. Which ultimately is young us.
And as the Christianity began to be less welcomed in Jewish culture, the nastiness shows up. You can see it evolving before your eyes in the gospels. John 8:39-47. And it just never stops. But Christians were also seen as a crazy cult by the Pagans. The Jews and their one God nonsense, well that was ancient. Christians and their crucified wannabe messiah are new and novel cult. The Jewish scriptures, now "all along" really Christian scriptures were used by early Christians to promote legitimacy. We're an ancient religion with ancient text. Just because those Jews claimed it earlier, doesn't make it theirs. For Christ's sake they didn't even come close to understanding it!
As you might guess this prophecy fulfillment is not high on my list of beliefs. Do I reject it, not quite. But I don't think that much of it. Kind of like Jesus casting out demons and performing miracles. Periphery things that are to grab attention, signs for some to believe, but ultimately unimportant to the message itself.
Thanks. Can you elaborate on what you mean with Jews misreading their scripture leading to antisemitic attitudes and persecution?
And for clarity, I'd define it like this:
Psychopav
Help us, Joebi-Wan Brynobi, you're our only ho
I had some thoughts after reading @dgreen's posts. Not saying this allays any concerns or is in any way authoritative, just sharing some thoughts that his posts provoked in me:
- Saying that the messiah was expected but not recognized, I think misses the fact that many Jews did recognize him (and they became his followers). Some of them even became NT authors who recognized Jesus in the prophecies, and He Himself even explained some of them (and certainly more that were not recorded for us - see the incident described in Luke 24 on the road to Emmaus after the resurrection). The ones who didn't recognize him are the ones who rejected him. That doesn't mean the Jews writ large misinterpreted their own scriptures, it means some of them interpreted them correctly and some did not. IIRC, there were at least 2 or maybe even 3 different messianic figures written about as being prophesied and the Church teaches that Jesus fulfilled them all (although to dgreen's point in unexpected ways).
- Regarding the Jews not understanding what was to come in the messiah, in some ways this parallels the fall itself. Adam and Eve lived in a paradise that God created for them, and although they lacked nothing, they trusted their own understanding rather than trusting in the Lord's will for them, and as a result they fell. The Jews in this way can be seen as a representation of mankind itself. They were the chosen people, with special graces and relationship to God, and yet they failed to see that through, paving the way for the gentiles to access the graces which God has to offer all of us. Scraps from the table, as it were.
- In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that to be saved we must be born of heaven, and not rely on our own intellect. That gospel, in particular, goes to great pains to make it clear that the Pharisees, at least, were turning a blind eye to this spiritual practice in favor of ritual and law. They were great students, but they lacked understanding. So the Lord Himself makes it clear that yes, the Jews did not understand their own scriptures, focusing on the practice and study of the the law instead of the relationship with God that it was intended to nurture.
- The main thing that's different for now today than for the Jews in Jesus' time is that we have a new covenant. Jesus did not leave us orphaned, He gives us the Holy Spirit to guide us: not just through the scriptures, but also through sacred tradition and the Church. I don't think the situation is the same for us as it was for the Jews because (unless you really buy into the Left Behindesque and some other apocalyptic mythos of the last 150 years), while we know that the second coming will take place, we know very little about the details. Certainly we don't claim the type of specificity that the Jewish leaders of the time purported in their understanding of the messiah, who was to bring earthly deliverance through might and overthrowing their oppressors. Our messiah is so much greater, the bondage from which He frees us is so much greater. One thing we can know for certain about it is that that whatever we anticipate about the second coming will be overshadowed by the thing itself, as God always far exceeds our expectations.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I don't think this was ever true, unless "many" simply means a little more than a few thousand or so. Certainly not any significant percentage.
dgreen
Footballguy
I guess I'd say the argument goes something like:
- The Jews should have known Jesus was the Messiah because their own Scriptures and story told them so.
- However, they misunderstood their own God (misinterpreted their own Scriptures), messed up their mission, lost their place as God's people, and ultimately killed their own Messiah, who was God incarnate.
- Because of this, God has rejected Israel and replaced them with The Church.
- Jews/Israelites are welcome in this new family of God, but they must give up their Judaism and take on this different thing called Christianity because God is done with Judaism.
- If they don't, they are an enemy of the Church, and therefore an enemy of God, and must be treated as an enemy.
Ever since the Holocaust, people have been asking the question, "How could something like that happen?" Theology and Biblical Scholarship has focused heavily on the links between Judaism and Christianity rather than drawing a dividing line and pitting the two against each other because of those atrocities. But, much of the "The Jews killed Jesus" rhetoric lives on and is fueled by the impression that they have no idea how to read Exodus or Song of Songs or Isaiah.
And that's where my bias comes in. I want to be so careful to not be harsh about Jews and make them the enemy that I might overlook that maybe they did actually misinterpret the Scriptures (or, at least a portion of Jews at the time of Jesus did). But I actually think there are just better explanations that I'm still learning about and have a really hard time putting into words.
Psychopav
Help us, Joebi-Wan Brynobi, you're our only ho
Some examples...
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures:
Isaiah 53:5-6
But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. / We all like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.
that He was buried:
Isaiah 53:9
And he made his grave with the wicked
He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures:
Hosea 6:2
After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His presence.
Mathew 12:40 (Jesus states)
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Ps 16:10 (referred to in Acts 13:35 as well as 2:27)
For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor will You let Your Holy One see decay.
dgreen
Footballguy
And, just to add to my confession of my bias here, I tend to cringe whenever I hear people talk about Israel failing in their mission in the OT. It is so clearly a theme of the OT, but I cringe because of how that's used to support Replacement Theology and persecute Jews. I need to figure out how to be comfortable with what the story is clearly saying yet not feed into poor applications based on that story.
dgreen
Footballguy
I know Acts isn't high on your list for historical accuracy, but don't you think Acts paints a picture of a strong Jewish following early on? Yes, it also has some Jewish antagonists, but the early church was booming in the Jewish synagogue.
Thanks. That gets beyond my knowledge. But I never have thought of it this way at all.
I guess I look at it much more simply. I see it more as people, all people, when presented with Jesus either follow him or they don't. In my way of thinking, being Jewish doesn't matter. Following Jesus is what matters.
Again, you guys are well beyond me but I go to a large mainstream Presbyterian church in the south and I've never ever heard anyone in real life talk about Jews being the enemy of God. Nothing near that. If anything, most Christians I know have a very positive opinion of Jewish people as they feel something of a connection.
On that note, I've never fully understood animosity toward Jews for Jesus death. As awful and terrible as it was, if we believe Jesus was the sacrifice needed for our salvation, it seems odd to hold a negative to people's ancestors 2000 years ago who did this.
dgreen
Footballguy
In what sense do you think these Scriptures support the claim? By that, I mean, do you see these verses as possible foretelling predictions/proclamations of what will happen with Jesus?
I'm personally not convinced that the "he" in Isaiah 53 should be basically read as "Jesus" (or "He" as in most translations). The way I think about it is that Isaiah 53 isn't Jesus, but Jesus was Isaiah 53. In other words, Isaiah wasn't predicting Jesus, rather Jesus molded his life around Isaiah 53 as a way to fulfill (live out) Israel's calling. It might seem like semantics, but to me it is important to remove much of this from the prediction-verification mindset, so I'm interested in hearing how you are approaching these references. And, ultimately, do you think that's what Paul meant in I Corinthians 15?
Your Hosea citation reminded me of this from Pete Enns in Inspiration and Incarnation:
BTW, I don't think you're "absurd"
...that's Enns' language. He's a bit forward at times. I think this is just a tricky topic that is really hard to find the right language to discuss. I'd love the opportunity to sit down with someone like Enns and just ask "What do you mean when you say..." over and over and over until I get the right language that clicks in my mind.
dgreen
Footballguy
Well, to be honest, I can't say that I've encountered a ton of talk about Jews being the enemy of God either. It's more of a problem in history than in my daily life. And, like I said, from what I understand scholarship has had such a heavy focus in this area since WWII that I'm not surprised we don't encounter it much, if at all, in our churches. A lot has changed. Messianic Judaism has been growing, probably largely because of these areas of study.
And, shoutout to @Psychopav and the Catholics here because what I've heard is that much of this started when a Jew approached some Catholic scholars because he was interested in learning how Christianity impacted Judaism. Through that exchange, the Catholic scholars were noticing how much Catholicism was impacted by Judaism and things have exploded since then.
This "very positive opinion of Jewish people as they feel something of a connection" is something that I think was absent in the Gentile Christian church for about 1800 years.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
If we assume Paul had his revelation within three or so years after the crucifixion in order to make the timeline in Galatians work (so that 17 years doesn't push us too late), then Christians were being persecuted in synagogues (whatever "being persecuted" actually meant) immediately. Their crucified messiah blasphemy was rejected immediately. With in Paul's remaining 30 years it seems any welcome in any synagogue no longer existed. The Christians quickly went from a fringe group within Judaism to a separatist group to nothing much to do with Judaism at all in a really short time. Sure, there were Jewish Christian communities, especially in Alexandria where so much seems to have been written. But as a share of the overall Jewish community Christians were hardly a blip, and were probably out numbered by gentile before Paul's death if the Roman church he wanted to visit was really the largest.
There was likely only a few hundred to a few thousand Christians of any persuasion during the roughly 35 years of Acts. Even if there were tens of thousands, even a few hundred thousand that is nothing compared to the 8 million estimates for first century Jews. With most of these Jews living somewhere other than Judah or even Gailee. But since the common estimate is that at the time of Constatine is 3 million and it took 300 years of growth to get there. And I have read that the theory is that the growth rate, while inconsistent was on average 40% a decade.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
I feel like I'm talking passed you maybe, so I apologize. First do YOU believe that Isaiah wasn't clear when it came to his suffering? I think it's pretty clear. He would be a man rejected by his people. He would be a man betrayed by a close friend. He'd stand in silence in front of his accusers. His hands and feet would be pierced.
If the assertion is the OT is not clear on something, I'd like whoever is making that assertion to present their case. Then it can be talked about. Between Isaiah and Psalms and the lineage passages, I think it's rather clear.
The argument I hear often, and the one I THOUGHT you were making before, is that people had come up with preconceived sets of events around HOW things would happen and since they didn't happen that way, he must not have been who he said he was. I find that argument completely lacking. That's why I posted my first comment above saying what I said.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Yes and we see it all the time. Especially on the topic of hell. The Bible says hell is anywhere that God is not. All the hellfire and brimstone and descriptions of what hell is, is man's attempt to describe what THEY THINK things look like when God isn't present. So yeah, its absolutely the case today. Personally, I prefer to take the "wait and find out" approach.
I'm of the belief that God does everything he does with an eye on creating curiosity in us to seek him. I believe that's why the three elements of worship are the way they are. The Bible is there to give us A LOT of insight. The Holy Spirit is there for us to reach out to with our "God, where are you? Am I doing this right?" kinds of questions/conversations. Communion with others is there because we are incredibly social creatures and have a lot to offer each other on this journey while on earth.
You folks are making me worried I hadn't been paying attention. I messaged a local pastor friend and asked him about this.
He replied that hating Jews for killing Jesus rarely if ever had come up in day to day life for his 49 years of studying God's word. Thankful for that.
And of course, I'm talking about my real life. That's completely separate from the horrors of the Holocaust and other persecution.
He replied that hating Jews for killing Jesus rarely if ever had come up in day to day life for his 49 years of studying God's word. Thankful for that.
And of course, I'm talking about my real life. That's completely separate from the horrors of the Holocaust and other persecution.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
I haven't heard much about it either, though I haven't been around as long as some of you. I'm willing to bet, it comes up with those looking for reasons to justify their already existing hate, but that's stereotyping by me.
I think it's best to actually be seeing or hearing something before we start stereotyping it's somehow justifying hate.
Obviously, we have seen and are unfortunately seeing the hostile situations many Jewish people are seeing with the current war. But I don't think that's particularly about Jesus. Although I'm far from knowledgeable there.
dgreen
Footballguy
Yes, good point about most Jews living elsewhere. I guess I was mostly focused on the movement within Jerusalem and other nearby areas who would have heard the message first.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
While it doesn't end with the Holocaust, I think there are a pretty clear changes in attitudes of the masses pre and post. And the ugliness starts really early. Like in the gospels. As in "Sons of the devil". Or the Epistle of Barnabas which was popular the first few centuries spelling it all out-
The central message of the Epistle of Barnabas is that the writings comprising the Hebrew Bible—what would become the Old Testament of the Christian Bible—were, from even their times of authorship, written for use by Christians rather than the Israelites and, by extension, the Jews. According to the epistle, the Jews had misinterpreted their own law (i.e., halakha) by applying it literally; the true meaning was to be found in its symbolic prophecies foreshadowing the coming of Jesus of Nazareth, who Christians believe to be the messiah. Furthermore, the author posits that the Jews broke their covenant from the very beginning and were misled by an evil angel. After explaining its Christian interpretations of the Jewish scriptures, the epistle concludes by discussing the "Two Ways", also seen in the Didache: a "Way of Light" and a "Way of Darkness".
dgreen
Footballguy
Who is the he/his here? I assume you mean Jesus? As in, Isaiah was talking directly about Jesus/Messiah? You are saying the meaning of Isaiah 53 is about Jesus/Messiah and only about Jesus/Messiah? Just want to make sure we are on the same page there before I respond.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
@dgreen is not stereotyping. You guys are not seriously suggesting that the fight over the Old Testament scripture breeding two millennium worth of antisemitism is a matter for debate? And/or that its share of the blame for antisemitism would be trivial?
I wasn't replying to @dgreen's post and I don't think he's stereotyping anything.
Zow
Footballguy
As a non-believer I think the discussion is great as well fwiw.BTW, I love the philosophical discussions like this. My favorite things to discuss because it brings all of us as believers together to share tidbits and perspectives that may help others in their understanding
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
From memory. Wasn't Jerusalem more or less like a modern beach town when it came to population? A rather small population that swelled up for festivals like Passover? Or wars?
I think I have heard ranges from 20K to 80K, with festivals in the few hundred thousand and estimates in the 500K range during the Jewish War with exaggerated war dead in the millions. So even when I said take it on the road to big city, it was an exaggeration. But then again, these are all estimates. We cannot really know as if there was a census taken or anything.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Then I am missing your point.
dgreen
Footballguy
Not sure, but that would make sense. Descendants of the Northern Tribes were definitely scattered and from what I understand most of the exiles from the South didn't return either. I was pretty surprised when I heard that Hillel was from Babylon. I just assumed the key figures would have all been back in Judea. And Philo was Alexandrian, right? And the Babylonian Talmud holds a higher status than the Jerusalem Talmud, IIRC. We see Paul visiting synagogues in far off towns. No idea if it is correct, but I heard one estimate that 20% of Galatia was Jewish. No idea how anyone would even start to estimate something like that.
Psychopav
Help us, Joebi-Wan Brynobi, you're our only ho
This is very insightful and I encourage you to keep posting your thoughts on this. It's got the makings of an interesting theological vision (a way to approach the faith and help put into practice in your life).
You replied to my post saying @dgreen was not stereotyping.
I never said he was stereotyping.,
Talking about modern day hatred of Jews for killing Jesus, the poster said, (bolded mine)
I replied:
I think it's best to actually be seeing or hearing something before we start stereotyping it's somehow justifying hate.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Use the pronoun of your choice, but you can substitute it for "the Prophet" if that's easier. My belief is that it was a forecast of what was to come in Jesus Christ.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Me? No. Not at all. I am speculating as to the motive they'd have. I've already been told twice (I saw it the first time and didn't do it again) in this thread to stop for some reason so I am dropping it.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Its mostly my pops (foster dad who adopted me). We sit around and talk about this stuff a lot. Even more now that I've been afforded the opportunity to move closer to him and am now in my first house. Only problem is, its in Florida
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The point I am missing is the relevance of "modern day"? You first introduced your own experience here (I think).
I guess that the discussion that followed was just a tangent from here and not at all related to "throughout history, has led to the persecution of Jews". But to my reading, my interpretation it didn't look like a tangent.
So, forgive me if I misread. But ultimately while great that modern attitudes are different, I don't think that information helps inform the struggles with what to do with the historical issues and the questions asked about how to reconcile the messiah claims about Jesus and what a messiah was expected to be without being anti-Jewish.
Or maybe that is what you are saying? You can believe that the Jews reject Jesus without being anti-Jewish the same you can think that an atheist reject Jesus without being anti atheist. If, so, it took a lot of thinking out loud to get there. And hopefully not "putting words in your mouth". Sorry! Either way! But was that the point?
Psychopav
Help us, Joebi-Wan Brynobi, you're our only ho
If only we had a way to communicate over long distances. Curse this vast continent, keeping us apart!!Its mostly my pops (foster dad who adopted me). We sit around and talk about this stuff a lot. Even more now that I've been afforded the opportunity to move closer to him and am now in my first house. Only problem is, its in Florida
Yes.
I don't think it took a lot to get there. That's why I said a while back:
And for everything I wrote I was clear it was my personal modern day experience.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Except it was too fast and furious for a guy that out of habit reads and the maybe remembers to go back and like. I don't think I got back to liking anything. And now I need to run.As a non-believer I think the discussion is great as well fwiw.BTW, I love the philosophical discussions like this. My favorite things to discuss because it brings all of us as believers together to share tidbits and perspectives that may help others in their understanding
Paddington
Footballguy
I will offer my point of view on this. When the Apostles were preaching "Repent! Repent! For the Kingdome of Heaven is at hand!" The early translators of the NT actually translated that phrase to be "Repent! Repent! For the Kingdom of heaven is in your midst!" Later, the King James Translators erroneously translated it to "...is at hand." This minor error confused a lot of doctrine.
The meaning behind the phrase is that The King is in your midst and therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven truly was at hand at that time. Had Israel repented and accepted their Messiah Jesus, then the seven year tribulation period would have started and then Christ would have indeed set up his kingdom on Earth at that time. Christ's instructions were for the kingdom age that was at hand. They were instructions for how his subjects were to conduct themselves. But because of Israel's rejection, He was crucified and went back to Heaven putting Israel aside for a Time.
He did this to take a people out of the Gentiles for Himself. This is the Church. The church is made primarily of gentiles with a few Jews who converted during that time. They are all considered the body of Christ.
They have a different calling and purpose from Israel. Israel's calling is an Earthly calling. Christ will one day set up His kingdom in Jerusalem and rule the Earth from there.
The Church actually has a Heavenly calling with heavenly blessings. The Bible is more vague on the calling of the church than it is israel. This is probably due to the fact that it is very hard to describe the spiritual realm in that we can understand.
