Political Crossfire Forums

[sLiPpY]

It's rather understandible why Christianity evolved into primarily a Gentile movement. If one tests Jesus according to scripture and the expressed requirements, one finds his credintials wanting.

Jesus simply didn't fit the job description.

Primarily, the lineage is all wrong. Consider Mary, as a virgin then the lineage from David was broken. If one decides Mary isn't a virgin, the problem becomes Jewish society never would have accepted kingship through a matrilineal line. The problem with Joseph, is that he was a descendant of Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah and said that none of his line would ever sit upon the throne of David.

The second coming is also an issue. The Hebrew scriptures state the messiah will come once only. According to the Davidic Covenant the messiah would sit as king of Israel. The fact that Jesus came and then left again without doing messiah stuff clearly disqualifies him for that role.

Sin offering? The Hebrew Bible is very clear, that the blood of the offering should be sprinkled over the altar. God was very clear that it would never be acceptable to use a human being as the sacrifice. Last time I checked, Jesus' blood never made it anywhere near an alter.

Why is it? God clearly states there are not one, but three paths to atonement and reconciliation? The sin offering being the least important of the three in God's eyes. Repentance and Charity being the preferred methods, according to the Hebrew text.

Is it any wonder, Christianity evolved into a Gentile movement?

[psholtz]

Christianity also incorporates many (rather blatant) aspects of Platonism, and Platonic philosophy is something that historically the Jews have never really expressed a very deep interest in..

[sLiPpY]

psholtz wrote: Christianity also incorporates many (rather blatant) aspects of Platonism, and Platonic philosophy is something that historically the Jews have never really expressed a very deep interest in..

I'd read something recently, that the trinity is basically a product of Greek philosophy? Possibly having it's roots, in an earlier Egyptian concept?

thnx for bringing items of interest to the table. :-D

[Saracen]

Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the Christ, son of the Virgin Mary. But of course, I have my own beliefs about this Prophet of God.

Nuff said. ;)

[John]

Quote: Primarily, the lineage is all wrong. Consider Mary, as a virgin then the lineage from David was broken. If one decides Mary isn't a virgin, the problem becomes Jewish society never would have accepted kingship through a matrilineal line. The problem with Joseph, is that he was a descendant of Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah and said that none of his line would ever sit upon the throne of David.

Mary herself was from the lineage from David through Nathan...bypassing the curse of Jeconiah. Jesus was the legal son of Joseph...therefore he was legal heir to the throne and of blood relation to David. Jesus was born through a virgin...He was God's Son...this is pretty language for saying that He was God in the Flesh. No Jew would deny that God Himself is the True King of Israel...their Holy One.

BTW...it was prophecied that the Jews would reject thier Messiah. Being rejected IS one of the credintials.

Another one of His credintials is that the nations (or Gentiles) would accept Him. The very fact that the Gentile world through has in some way accepted Jesus as Lord and accepted the scriptures of HaShem is very strong evidence that Jesus IS in fact the Messiah.


Quote: The second coming is also an issue. The Hebrew scriptures state the messiah will come once only. According to the Davidic Covenant the messiah would sit as king of Israel. The fact that Jesus came and then left again without doing messiah stuff clearly disqualifies him for that role.

Bull....that's made up and no where to be found in the scriptures.


The truth is that the first and second comming are all through the scriptures...

Here's one example.


Hosea 5
14 For I will be like a lion to Ephraim
And like a young lion to the house of Judah
I, even I, will tear to pieces and go away,
I will carry away, and there will be none to deliver.
15 I will go away and return to My place
Until they acknowledge their guilt and seek My face;
In their affliction they will earnestly seek Me.


Quote: Sin offering? The Hebrew Bible is very clear, that the blood of the offering should be sprinkled over the altar. God was very clear that it would never be acceptable to use a human being as the sacrifice. Last time I checked, Jesus' blood never made it anywhere near an alter.

Jesus was offered on the same mountain that Isaac was to be offered on the very day (actually the very HOUR) that the passover was being offered by the Highpriest. And if you knew the scriptures...you would know that the REAL alter is in Heaven. The one of the Temple was just a representation of the real thing. Jesus presented Himself as the slain Lamb on the REAL alter in Heaven.

[Duchifas]

Quote: Mary herself was from the lineage from David through Nathan...bypassing the curse of Jeconiah. Jesus was the legal son of Joseph...therefore he was legal heir to the throne and of blood relation to David.

You are applying modern Anglo-Saxon law to Biblical concepts.

"Legal son" may be a valid concept in Texas state courts under Texas adoption laws, but as far as the Bible is concerned, we are talking about male lineage from King David. And if G-d is the father, then Jesus does not fulfil the requirement. Period. No amount of tortuous reasoning can change that result.

Unless you want to tell me that G-d is the descendant of King David.

Quote: Jesus was offered on the same mountain that Isaac was to be offered on the very day

And what mountain is that? With a source, please.

[John]

Quote: "Legal son" may be a valid concept in Texas state courts under Texas adoption laws, but as far as the Bible is concerned, we are talking about male lineage from King David. And if G-d is the father, then Jesus does not fulfil the requirement. Period. No amount of tortuous reasoning can change that result.

Can you please back that up with the scriptures? Or is that something you learned from tradition?

How typical. You're saying that you would reject God Himself if His revelation didn't live up to your preconceived understanding of HIS Word.

[John]

Quote: And what mountain is that? With a source, please.


Mount Moriah, a mountain range, upon which Calvary stood..

[John]

Genesis 22

14 Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided."

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Quote: And what mountain is that? With a source, please.


Mount Moriah,

Can you back that up with a verse?

Quote: a mountain range, upon which Calvary stood..

Now, the same mountain range isn't quite the same as the same mountain, is it?

John wrote: Jesus was offered on the same mountain that Isaac was to be offered on the very day

I dunno man, I'd pay more attention to details if I were you.

[John]

Quote: Now, the same mountain range isn't quite the same as the same mountain, is it?

I believe it was the very same spot.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Quote: Now, the same mountain range isn't quite the same as the same mountain, is it?

I believe it was the very same spot.

Do you have a scriptural basis for your belief, or are you going on your "gut feeling" here?

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: Now, the same mountain range isn't quite the same as the same mountain, is it?

I believe it was the very same spot.

Do you have a scriptural basis for your belief, or are you going on your "gut feeling" here?

Here's some info..

Here..

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: Now, the same mountain range isn't quite the same as the same mountain, is it?

I believe it was the very same spot.

Do you have a scriptural basis for your belief, or are you going on your "gut feeling" here?

Here's some info..

Here..

Your link merely reiterates the belief. But I didn't see any scriptural basis for it. Do you have any?

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: Now, the same mountain range isn't quite the same as the same mountain, is it?

I believe it was the very same spot.

Do you have a scriptural basis for your belief, or are you going on your "gut feeling" here?

Here's some info..

Here..

Your link merely reiterates the belief. But I didn't see any scriptural basis for it. Do you have any?

That it was at the exact spot...I'm not sure. Just that Jesus was crucified on Mount Moriah...the city of Jerusalem is built upon it. Being the same spot of Genesis 22 would just be God's style IMPO. Just as Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan.

[psholtz]

John wrote: Quote: And what mountain is that? With a source, please.


Mount Moriah, a mountain range, upon which Calvary stood..
uuuuuhhhhh... Jesus was not crucified on Mount Moriah, was he??.. :?

[John]

psholtz wrote: John wrote: Quote: And what mountain is that? With a source, please.


Mount Moriah, a mountain range, upon which Calvary stood..
uuuuuhhhhh... Jesus was not crucified on Mount Moriah, was he??.. :?

Uh...yeah. He sure was.

[John]

There is sound archaeological evidence to suppose that the place of the crucifixion of Jesus was at the summit of Mt. Moriah, probably near the present-day Damascus Gate and the Garden Tomb which would of course be a literal fulfillment of Abraham's offering of Isaac when God said, "On the mount of the Lord it [the final offering for sin] will be provided."



http://www.templemount.org/moriah2.html

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: Now, the same mountain range isn't quite the same as the same mountain, is it?

I believe it was the very same spot.

Do you have a scriptural basis for your belief, or are you going on your "gut feeling" here?

Here's some info..

Here..

Your link merely reiterates the belief. But I didn't see any scriptural basis for it. Do you have any?

That it was at the exact spot...I'm not sure. Just that Jesus was crucified on Mount Moriah...the city of Jerusalem is built upon it. Being the same spot of Genesis 22 would just be God's style IMPO. Just as Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan.

Oh, ok, so basically it was your gut feeling, based on your personal speculation of what G-d's style is, rather than based on anything in the scripture.

Gotcha.

Psalms 92:5.....for those among us who have figured out how G-d works.

[psholtz]

sLiPpY wrote: psholtz wrote: Christianity also incorporates many (rather blatant) aspects of Platonism, and Platonic philosophy is something that historically the Jews have never really expressed a very deep interest in..

I'd read something recently, that the trinity is basically a product of Greek philosophy? Possibly having it's roots, in an earlier Egyptian concept?
Yes, in a way both these ideas are true, although the concept of a Trinity is quite old in human theology and can be traced back quite easily as far as ancient India, and perhaps even further.

In 525 BC, the Persian emperor Cambyses invaded Egypt and destroyed what was left of the crumbling pharonic empire. It was at this time that most of the Egyptian priesthood fled into Greece, and set up shop-in-exile over there. This is why Greek philosophy only begins to flourish from this date forward, and not (in a serious way) much earlier (kinda similar to the "brain drain" that Nazi Germany experienced during WWII, w/ all the Jewish scientists coming over to the US, for much the same reasons).. In fact, the "father" of Greek philosophy, Pythagoras, was studying in Egypt at the time of the Persian takeover. Legend has it that Pythagoras was deported by Cambyses to Babylon as a slave, where he eventually succeeded in purchasing this freedom, returning to Greece (and eventually Croton) and then going forward to instruct the Greeks/Italians in the mysteries of ancient Egypt.

A little while after that, Plato, carrying on the traditions of Pythagoras, also traveled to Egypt, where he too was initiated into their sacred Mysteries. Upon his initiation, Plato returned to Greece and set up his Academy.. so yes, there always has been a lot of commerce in ideas between ancient Greece and ancient Egypt..

A few hundred years after that, Jesus of Nazareth became the first and (so far as we know, only) Jew who was ever accepted into the Egyptian Mystery Temples for training and initiation. Outwardly, his mission was to be almost identical to that of his predecessors (like Pythagoras, Plato, heck .. even Moses, who too was trained in the Egyptian Mysteries, as even the Bible clearly records). He was to take the higher teachings and philosophies of the Egyptian Mystery Religion, and inculcuate them to a people who had grown dangerously decadent and degraded (much like Plato, or say Moses, had done before him). As fate would have it, though, the Nazarene would simultaneously be one of the very last initiates trained by the Egyptian priesthood, and the Egyptians were very keenly aware of this. The Egyptians knew that the doors of their temples would soon be closing forever, and for this reason Jesus of Nazareth was trained in their philosophy and religion more rigorously and more deeply than perhaps anyone before or since.

Herein is the solution to your mystery of whose "Messiah" Jesus of Nazareth really is.. You're probably somewhat familiar w/ the Jewish prophecies of a Messiah, and like your thread starter indicates, you're also somewhat aware that Jesus doesn't exactly meet all the requirements. In fact, Jesus doesn't met *any* of the requirements of being a Jewish a Messiah.. He doesn't meet hundreds of requirements, he doesn't meet dozens, not 10, not 5, not 3 and not even 1.. which is to say, there is not one single OT prophecy that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled. Not one.. Thomas Paine wrote an excellent examination of this fact here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html

On the other hand, while you may be familiar w/ the Jewish prophecies (which Jesus doesn't fit very well), you're probably significantly less familiar w/ the Egyptian prophecies of a 'world savior'.. prophecies, which, ironically, Jesus fits quite accurately.. and herein, like I said, is the solution to your mystery.. Jesus was less a "Messiah" for the Jews, and moreso a "Messiah" for the Egyptians (and more specifically, the Magi .. who at the time were operating in Egypt and other places).

After all, does the Bible not record that it was the Magi, and not the Jews, who "prophesized" the coming of the Savior, and who followed the star announcing his birth, and who were there to meet him in the manger w/ gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh?