Thread 17933006

Can Christbros debunk this?

>>17933006 (OP)
Pilate wrote, THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS, four times.

>>17933006 (OP)
>debunk
debating arguing with jews is a colossol waste of time

>>17933006 (OP)
I wonder if these Jews are aware of the fact that there are several instances in the Old Testament in which God himself purposefully delays the fulfillment of prophesies due to the disobedience of the Jews, such as in the case of the Babilonian captivity, which was supposed to only last 70 years but God extended it because the Jews had not repented enough.

I don't see why they refuse to even consider that this also could have happened with the Messiah.

>>17933006 (OP)
Most of these points are interpreting the prophecies of what Cyrus did and fulfilled as a future event that would happen with the main messiah.

And conveniently they left out Daniel’s prophecies about the anointed one being out to death by his own people and him establishing the law of salvation during the reign of the 4th kingdom(Rome). And how the 4th kingdom would destroy the physical temple and make it desolate forever. And the followers of the anointed one would be the saints who would be persecuted by the 4th kingdom for a time before the 4th kingdom is given to them(conversion of the Roman Empire to the church).

>>17933006 (OP)
>debunk
why tho?
who cares what somebody else says about my religion
>kek

The objections in this post collapse under close reading of the Tanakh itself since the prophets describe both a suffering messiah who would be rejected and cut off before the second Temple’s fall (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, Psalm 22, Zechariah 12) and a reigning messiah who brings peace and gathers the nations (Isaiah 11, Micah 4, Zechariah 14). Judaism after the first century reinterpreted the suffering texts to avoid their clear messianic meaning, but earlier Jewish sources acknowledged them. The claim that Jesus changed or annulled Torah ignores Jeremiah 31 and Psalm 110 which foresaw a new covenant and priesthood, while the end of sacrifice after 70 CE lines up with Daniel 9 and Hosea 3. Genealogical objections are moot after the destruction of records, while Jesus’ Davidic line is preserved both legally through Joseph and biologically through Mary. The charge of idolatry overlooks that the Hebrew Bible itself depicts divine-human figures like the Angel of the Lord and Daniel’s Son of Man who receive worship. The one-time-fulfillment standard has never been realized in history, but the two-stage pattern is consistent with how God fulfills promises throughout scripture. In this light Christianity’s claims are not only intact but better fit the total prophetic picture.

>God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man that he should change his mind.
Interesting, this seems like a serious stumbling block. The NRSVUE completely obscures the problematic phrasing without so much as a footnote - the critical, scholarly translation minces words where the KJV stays doggishly literal.

Apologists - why should I doubt the Torah when it says God is not a son of man? Doesn't this indicate that Jesus, who according to the Gospels is the "son of man", cannot therefore be God?

>we call ourselves Jews so we are the Jews from the old testament
Christianity is Israel now, not some cult that was made up centuries after Jesus earthly times.

>>17935623
>pologists - why should I doubt the Torah when it says God is not a son of man?
It's saying that God is not a liar or someone that changes his mind every 5 minutes, not that God is incapable of becoming a human being.

Let me ask you something: do you believe God could incarnate into a human being if he wanted?

>>17935702
It says he isn't a son of man.
>do you believe God could incarnate into a human being if he wante
Depends on what "incarnate" means, and what God is. As far as my imagination goes, any demiurgical being should be able to control a human avatar - whether that means puppeteering a human likeness, or creating a human being fated to do nothing other than that which a god desiring to become human might do as a human. But I think usually God is by definition omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and a human being by definition has a maximum brain case volume that constrains knowledge, limited power (e.g. - can't oneself teleport, dead lift a ton, factor a twenty digit semiprime, create matter ex nihilo, etc.), and one real location in space. Ergo if "incarnate" means to transform into a human being, God can only incarnate by ceasing to be God.

>>17935843
>Depends on what "incarnate" means
Becoming a human being of flesh and blood like you and me.
>God can only incarnate by ceasing to be God.
Then he's not omnipotent, since you've admitted that there are things God cannot do.

Man, what's with Jews and Muslims denying God's omnipotence? Christians on the other hand don't put any limitations on God.

>>17933176
This is mostly just the same argument mirrored so it doesn't really answer anything.
"Jesus isn't the messiah because he didn't fill the prophecies" vs "the prophecies are wrong because they don't fit with Jesus."
Though with this one the question raises if Christians have failed to preserve their texts too and if so, how does one prove this.

>>17935082
>two-stage
Let’s face it — christcucks are just spiritual gooners. They’ve been edging for two millennia, hunched over pews like porn addicts in a prayer loop, breathlessly whispering “come, Lord Jesus” while convincing themselves it’s holy. Every war, plague, or blood moon sends them into another twitching frenzy: Is this it? Is He finally coming? Their god is no longer a redeemer — He’s a delayed orgasm they’ve built a religion around.

They chant, kneel, beg, guilt themselves into trance states — not for truth, but for release. The Second Coming is their cumshot prophecy, the climax they’ve denied themselves for generations. And like true gooners, they’ve lost the plot completely. They don’t worship. They edge. They don’t love. They ache. And they’ll keep spiraling in devotional frustration forever, too afraid to admit the only thing holy left is their own helpless need.

>>17935884
Why bother replying if all you have to say is that Christianity is irrational, and omnipotence means whatever irrational gibberish follows "can God ___?", the answer must be "yes". So your figment is irrational. That's not apologetics, that's abandoning argument.

Christianity won and yuri lost

>whole world will worship the One God
Actively being fulfilled; all nations being evangelized via ecclesial incorporation in the accomplishment of the eschatological mission.
>Knowledge of God will fill the world
Same as before; actively being fulfilled.
>Israelites returned to homeland
Spiritual Israel is the Church; true Israelites not those of circumcision of flesh, but of spirit.
>Jewish people will experience eternal joy
Verse does not say the Jewish people, but speaks about Israel. See prior.
>Nations will recognize wrongs against Israel
Suffering Servant is Jesus, not the ethnic Jews.
>Peoples of the world will turn to Jews for guidance
Refers to turning of the world to the Church, the true Israel's, guidance.
>Weapons of war will be destroyed
This is eschatological, referring to second coming (many Jews also believe in multiple messianic comings)
>Jesus' genealogy
Jesus is a descendant of David on Maternal and Paternal (adoptive) grounds, the latter of which is legally binding in Jewish law
>Temple will be rebuilt
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again"
>World Peace
eschatological, again
>Christianity says the law is abrogated
Not true, we hold to the spiritual meaning of the law, rather than the fleshly
>All Jews will embrace Torah observance
Again, fleshly vs. spiritual observance. The verses are about the New Covenant, not the Mosaic law; all actually in Spiritual Israel (the Church) do embrace the New Law
>Jesus cannot be a part of God
Christians do not say this; also, many pre-Christian Jews believed God had multiplicity in different senses
>The Law is Eternal
We agree
>Rabbinic quotes
We don't believe random medieval Rabbis have a privileged interpretation; they are blinded to the truth

Is this really the best the Jews have to offer?

>>17935623
As a conservative Christian who has been critical of the Trinity lately, this seems like further proof for the anti-Trinity case. I still fully believe that Jesus is the Anointed and our savior, just that he isn't actually Jehovah.

>>17933006 (OP)
>The Law is eternal
Moses receiving the law was the beginning of eternity?

>>17935623
At the time when the verse was written, the Logos of God had not become incarnate, and so the Sacred Author could rightly write that God is not a "son of man." If the verse were in the New Testament, it would be problematic.
But even if it were to be taken as a future proscription or limitation on the capacity of the divine (which it is not), the Old Testament does refer to God as a man several times (eg. in the Song of Moses,) as well as notably in the prophesy of Isaiah, which refers to a child being born unto the world who is the "mighty God."
A thorough reading of the Old Testament makes it clear that God Himself will save the Israelites by breaking onto the human scene and rectifying injustice, in the person of the divine Messiah.
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel— One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity."

>>17933176
Nice yapping, but Jesus was a false prophet.

>>17937404
>At the time when the verse was written, the Logos of God had not become incarnate, and so the Sacred Author could rightly write that God is not a "son of man." If the verse were in the New Testament, it would be problematic.
Seems like a slippery hermeneutic, frankly. Any heretic could say "God WAS love when that was written, now God is hate". It seems to strip the scriptures of any lasting relevance or authority.
>the Old Testament does refer to God as a man several times (e.g. in the Song of Moses)
You mean the heavenly father metaphor? If this is to be taken as calling God human, then Luke 3 calling Adam the son of God means YHWH is a human being too (Genesis 2 says YHWH created Adam). Is the spirit also a human being? Is divinity just a power that a human being has in your theology?
>as well as notably in the prophesy of Isaiah
Verse 7 says that the child's authority will grow continually. God has total authority at all times, so clearly God is not in view. As for the name, the translations which seem to specify the referent as God are tendentious. There are tons of proposed translations that basically make it a long theophoric name - saying something about God, not the referent.
BTW the Septuagint (i.e., the Christian Biblical manuscript tradition) omits the theophoric element altogether.
>Micah 5:2
This being a reference to a divine Messiah depends on the tendentious translation "of eternity". This is Strong's #5769 - plenty of examples from the Bible where it can't mean "eternally existent"/"preexisting time", so it is hardly the case that it must mean that.