How can anyone possibly say that Yeshua was NOT the Messiah - YHWH in the Flesh/an "arm" of YHWH - when He was foreshadowed throughout the Tanach, and has already fulfilled the first four feasts? He is the ONLY One Who ever has done, or ever will do the following, as He was:
1. Conceived by a virgin whose hymen was broken from the inside, not by seed of man. (Yeshua was born to Miriam [Mary], virgin bride of Joseph, as foretold and/or evidenced in Genesis 3:15; Genesis 49:10; Isaiah 7:13-15; Jeremiah 31:22; Luke 1:34-35; and Matthew 1:17-20.)
2. Born of an extremely rare bloodline that includes many of the fathers of Israel. (See geneology from Abraham to David in Matthew 1.)
3. Born in Bethlehem; descendant of David, traced back to Abraham. (Matthew 1; Matthew 2:6; Micah 5:2.)
4. Messiah was to a prophet like unto Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19.)
5. Messiah would enter Jerusalem in triumph, gentle, and riding on a donkey. (According to Daniel, there would be 483 years between the decree to rebuild the wall and the city of Jerusalem in troublesome times before Messiah would be cut off for the sins of the people. Exactly 483 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its walls, Yeshua of Nazareth offered himself to the nation of Israel. He rode into the city on a donkey to the rejoicing of the people, just as the prophet Zechariah had predicted: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey. See Zechariah 9:9.)
6. Messiah would be rejected by His own people. (Most Jews to this very day reject Yeshua as Messiah. They believe He was just a good rabbi and prophet, and definitely NOT the Messiah. See Daniel 9:24-26, Isaiah 53:1, 3, and Psalm 118:22.)
7. Messiah would minister mostly in Galilee. (Isaiah 9:1-2)
8. Isaiah and Malachi predict Messiah would be preceded by a forerunner. (Yeshua was very much like Moses: Both were delivered from death as infants. Both were prophets. Both performed miracles. Both were leaders. And both were intermediaries between God and man. No other prophet is as much like Moses than Yeshua. Moses led the Jews out of the bonds of slavery in Egypt into the Promised Land of Israel. Moses died shortly before the Jews entered Israel. Yeshua leads people - anyone who accepts Him as their Savior - out of the bonds of sin and into the Promised Land of Heaven. Yeshua died for our sins so that people could enter the Kingdom of Heaven. See Deuteronomy 18:15-18; see also Malachi 3:1-5; Isaiah 9:6-7).
9. The Psalmists said that Messiah would be betrayed by a friend. (He was betrayed by Judas, one of his 12 disciples. See Psalm 41:9 and Matthew 26:47-50.)
10. Zechariah said that Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. He adds that people will look on the one whom they have pierced. (Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver, then later committed suicide when he realized the enormity of what he had done. See Zechariah 11:12-13.)
11. Messiah would be tried and condemned. (Isaiah 53:8)
12. Messiah was to be silent before His accusers. (Isaiah 53:7)
13. Messiah was to be smitten and spat upon by His enemies. (Micah 5:1, Isaiah 50:6)
14. Messiah was to be mocked and taunted. (Psalm 22:7, 8)
15. Messiah was to suffer with transgressors and pray for His enemies. (Isaiah 53:12.)
16. Messiah was to be given vinegar and gall. (Psalm 69:21)
17. The Psalmists prophesied that people would divide His garments among them and cast lots for His clothing. (Psalm 22:18)
18. Messiah's bones were not to be broken. ( Numbers 9:12, Exodus 12:46. Often, the Romans broke the legs of their crucified in order to speed impending death, as the crucified could then no longer support their body weight, which would asphyxiate them. God the Father [YHVH] saw to it that Yeshua's bones were not broken.)
19. Messiah was to die as an offering for sin. (Isaiah 53:5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12)
20. The Psalms say he was to be raised from the dead/resurrected. (Psalm 16:10, Mark 16:19-20; John 20:1-10; Matthew 28:11-1; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14; and Mark 16:14-18. Yeshua actually prophesied His own persecution, death and resurrection. He told His disciples that He would go into Jerusalem where He was suffer at the hand of religious leaders before being put to death. He also said that He would rise again on the third day. See Matthew 16:21-26)
21. Messiah now at God's Right Hand. (Psalm 110:1)
22. Isaiah 49:6 says God's salvation would reach the ends of the earth. (In Isaiah 49:6, the prophet speaks of a servant of God who would be a light to Gentiles (non-Jews) so that God's salvation could reach the ends of the earth. Messiahians and Messianic Jews believe that Yeshua is the fulfillment of this promise. Yeshua and His followers who helped spread Messiahianity about 2000 years ago have certainly been an inspiration to Gentiles - there are now about 2 billion Messiahians worldwide. And Messiahians believe that salvation is available to anyone who accepts Yeshua as their savior.)
The Jewish Messiah came 2,000 years ago! No one else could, or has ever, fit these particular qualifications besides YaHashua HaMaschiyach (Y'shua the Messiah), whose very Name means "YHWH is Salvation".
:applause::glow::yay::angel::dancingp::peace::prayingf::applause::applause: PRAISE GOD FOR YOU SHALOM! YOu are truly a blessing on this forum, and you have godly spiritual insight and knowledge and wisdom, that only God gives to those who go in search of Him.
Funny thing is I posted this before I read your last post on the thread of Moshiah.I thought, how well the Holy Spirit tied the two threads in together, in fact it looks like a pretty pattern being weaved into the fabric of our lives. Of course, I read the posts leading up to it, so I was in tune with the subject being discussed, however, as many as are led by the spirit of G-d they are called the sons of G-d, well, in this case daughters of the Most High KING!
Yeshua was not the Jewish Moshiach. How can I say this you ask? Simple analysis of the relevant Jewish Scriptures as I made it my "The Moshiach" post. If you need more evidence, the following article is pasted verbatim from a Jewish site re: their questions put forth the to Pope himself (though it wound up being answered by his Assesor which I guess is an aid of some sort:)
If you're really and truly interested in making certain you're right, you need to actually read this, not skim over it reading every other 5th word like most of you obviously do when confronting by opposing claims. Once you've read this sort of thing there's just one conclusion to be drawn.
Because Christianity offers the second-most credible claim of any world religion, we opted to provide its most traditional branch -- the Catholic Church -- with an opportunity to respond to some of our critical observations. In early December, 1995, we forwarded the following three questions to Pope John Paul II:
(1) The Gospels teach that Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection. We are unclear, however, whether those appearances took place in Jerusalem or in the Galilee (or at both locales). According to our reading, the Galilean accounts seem to rule out prior Jerusalem appearances. Where did Jesus actually appear? If he appeared in Jerusalem, how should we read the Galilean accounts?
(2) We find the genealogy of Jesus provided by the Gospels confusing. Who was Jesus� paternal grandfather? (We notice that Matthew says that his grandfather was Jacob, but Luke says it was Heli). Also, we notice that Matthew declares that Jesus was separated from King David by only twenty-eight generations, but Luke�s list shows a forty-three generation separation. What does this contradiction mean?
(3) The genealogical line linking Jesus and King David seems to pass through Jesus� father. But since Jesus was the product of a virgin conception, then he does not share in his father�s Davidic ancestry. How is Jesus a descendent of David?
In a letter from the Vatican dated 19 December 1995, the Pope's Assessor, Monsignor L. Sandri, responded in the Pope's name. Monsignor Sandri declined to answer our questions, but informed us that the members of the French Dominican Fathers' Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem would probably provide satisfactory explanations.
Through facsimile communications, we forwarded our questions to the Ecole Biblique. In a facsimile transmission dated 11 January 1996, Marcel Sigrist, the institute's director, also declined to answer our questions, but suggested that answers could be found in the world of Raymond E. Brown, a well-known Catholic theologian currently on the staff of Saint Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, California.
Again through facsimile communications, we forwarded our questions to Dr. Brown. In a letter dated 22 January 1996, Dr. Brown referred us to writings of his held by the library of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem.
(The correspondences from Pope John Paul II, Marcel Sigrist, and Raymond Brown are reprinted at this appendix's conclusion.)
On 2 February 1996 we visited the Ecole Biblique and examined Dr. Brown's writings. As Dr. Brown suggested, his writings did address our questions. Here we will summarize the answers we found there.
I. Post-Resurrectional Appearances: Galilee or Jerusalem?
In an essay carrying the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is "free of doctrinal or moral error"), Brown admits that the apparent contradiction in records of the post-resurrectional appearances is real. "It is quite obvious," Brown writes, "that the Gospels do not agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection."[1] "Just as the Jerusalem tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances," explains Brown, "the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem."[2] Citing immense textual evidence, Brown then declares his disapproval of the simples solution to the contradiction: "We must reject the thesis that the Gospels can be harmonized through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears several times to the Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee."[3] Rather, concludes the Church spokesman, "Variations in place and time may stem in part from the evangelists themselves who are trying to fit the account of an appearance into a consecutive narrative."[4] Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.
II. Genealogical Contradictions
In the same essay, Brown observes that "the lists of Jesus' ancestors that they [the Gospels] give are very different, and neither one is plausible."[5] Brown takes the surprising position that "because the early Christians confessed Jesus as Messiah, for which 'Son of David' was an alternative title, they historicized their faith by creating for him Davidic genealogies and by claiming that Joseph was a Davidide."[6] In another essay, also carrying the Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Brown expands upon this proposition:
Increasingly, the purported descent from David is explained as a theologoumenon, i.e., as the historicizing of what was originally a theological statement. If I many give a simplified explanation, the process of historicizing Davidic sonship is though to have gone somewhat in the following way: the Christian community believed that Jesus had fulfilled Israel's hopes; prominent among those hopes was the expectation of a Messiah, and so the traditional title "Messiah" was given to Jesus; but in Jewish thought the Messiah was pictures as having Davidic descent; consequently Jesus was described as "son of David"; and eventually a Davidic genealogy was fashioned for him.[7]
Brown explains that Matthew probably created fictional genealogical links back to Abraham and David also "to appeal to the mixed constituency of his [Matthew's] community of Jewish and Gentile Christians."[8] As evidence that Jesus was really not a descendent of David at all, Brown points out that:
There is not the slightest indication in the accounts of the ministry of Jesus that his family was of ancestral nobility or royalty. If Jesus were a dauphin, there would have been none of the wonderment about his pretensions. He appears in the Gospels as a man of unimpressive background from an unimportant village.[9]
Brown goes even further, calling into question the reliability of large sections of the New Testament. He encourages his readers to face the possibility that portions of Matthew and Luke "may represent non-historical dramatizations:"[10]
Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical. Matthew's account contains a number of extraordinary or miraculous public events that, were they factual, should have left some traces in Jewish records or elsewhere in the New Testament (the king and all Jerusalem upset over the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem; a star which moved from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem and came to rest over a house; the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem). Luke's reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong, as is his understanding of the Jewish customs of the presentation of the child and the purification of the mother in 2:22-24. Some of these events, which are quite implausible as history, have now been understood as rewritings of Old Testament scenes or themes.[11]
Brown's most extreme statement in this regard, appearing in the same essay, suggests that the Pope himself might reject the historicity of the resurrection altogether:
It was this interaction [of the eschatological and the historical] that Pope Paul pointed to in the same address when he spoke of the resurrection as "the unique and sensational event on which the whole of human history turns." This is not the same, however, as saying that the resurrection itself was a historical event, even though editorial writers quoted the Pope's speech to that effect.[12]
It is crucial to remember (a) that these words appear in an essay carrying the Church's approbation; (b) that they were written by a scholar whose works were endorsed by the Ecole Biblique; and (c) that Ecole Biblique is the institution that we were referred to by Vatican authorities.
III. The Virginal Conception
Brown cautions that "we should not underestimate the adverse pedagogical impact on the understanding of divine sonship if the virginal conception is denied."[13] On the other hand, admits Brown, "The virginal conception under its creedal title of 'virgin birth' is not primarily a biological statement."[14] He stresses that Christian writings about virginal conception intend to reveal spiritual insights rather that physical facts. Because record of the virginal conception appears only in tow Gospels, and there only in the infancy narratives (which Brown suspects are largely fictional), the Catholic theologian tactfully concludes that "biblical evidence leaves the question of the historicity of the virginal conception unresolved."[15]
Brown mentions the possibility that "early Christians" might have imported a mythology about virginal conception from "pagan or [other] world religions,"[16] but never intended that that mythology be taken literally. "Virginal conception was a well-known religious symbol for divine origins," explains Brown, citing such stories in Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Greco-Roman and ancient Egyptian theologies.[17] He proposes that early Christians "used an imagery of virginal conception whose symbolic origins were forgotten as it was disseminated among various Christian communities and recorded by evangelists."[18]
Alternatively, Brown also considers the possibility that Christianity's founders intended to create the impression that an actual virginal conception took place. Early Christians needed just such a myth, Brown notes, since Mary was widely known to have delivered Jesus too early: "Unfortunately, the historical alternative to the virginal conception has not been a conception in wedlock; it has been illegitimacy."[19] Brown writes that:
Some sophisticated Christians could live with the alternative of illegitimacy; they would see this as the ultimate stage in Jesus' emptying himself and taking on the form of a servant, and would insist, quite rightly, that an irregular begetting involves no sin by Jesus himself. But illegitimacy would destroy the images of sanctity and purity with which Matthew and Luke surround Jesus' origins and would negate the theology that Jesus came from the pious Anawim of Israel. For many less sophisticated believers, illegitimacy would be an offense that would challenge the plausibility of the Christian mystery.[20]
In summary, Brown leans towards a less miraculous explanation of Jesus' early birth.
Should make it clear too I don't care what other people do, what they believe, or how they worship as none of that effects me or how I do those things, however, when using uniquely Jewish 'jargon' like the Tetragrammaton I'm Scripturally obligated to rebuke such sins (as using any name but God's as a name of worship) is sinful. Now that I have, can continue on as before, ignore me and the obviousness of your mistakes and worship however you like.
IS JESUS YESHUA HAMASHEACH {JESUS THE MESSIAH} AND IMMANUEL WHICH MEANS GOD WITH US??
Luke 3:23-38 and Matthew 1:1-16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Mary and Joseph who were both related to David and Abraham. Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem to a virgin as prophesied in Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14.
Luke 1:26-35: God sent an angel:angel: Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "greetings, you are highly favored. The Lord is with you."
The angel said to her, "You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of His father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; His kingdom will never end.":applause: {All of which was prophesied in the OT}
"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God."
Micah 5:2: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me One who will be Ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times."
Isaiah 9:6,7: " For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over His kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever."
Isaiah 7:14: The Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a Son and will call Him *IMMANUEL*!!" {Which means in Hebrew "GOD WITH US"!!}:applause:
Isaiah 53:5,6: "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him. and by His wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all!!":applause:
Hebrews 9:15,26b-28: Christ is the mediator of a **NEW COVENANT** so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant...But now He has APPEARED once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the SACRIFICE of Himself... so Christ was SACRIFICED ONCE to take away the sins of many people, and He will *APPEAR* a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.
Hebrews 8:8,9,13: God found fault with the people and said {In Exodus 25:40}: The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a **NEW COVENANT**{Read Deut 18:17-19!!} with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will **NOT** be like the covenant I made with their forefathers.....By calling this covenant **NEW**, He made the first one **OBSOLETE**; and what is **OBSOLETE** and aging will soon disappear.� {When all the words of the New Covenant were completed by the Book of Revelation in AD 96!!}
Deuteronomy 18:17-19: The Lord said to Moses, "I will raise up for them {Israel} a Prophet like you from among their brothers, I will put My words in His mouth, and He will tell them everything I command Him. If anyone does not listen to My words that the Prophet speaks in My Name, I Myself will call him to account!!"
Hebrew 10:8-10: Jesus said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them. Although the law required them to be made. The He {Jesus} said. "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He {Jesus} set aside the first {Covenant} to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus ONCE FOR ALL!!:applause:
John 14:23,24: Jesus says, If anyone loves Me, he will obey My teaching. My Father will love him, and We will make our home with him. He who does not love Me will not obey My teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent Me." {See Deuteronomy 18:17-19 above!!}
A cord of three strands is not easily broken...glad you are weaving with us on this thread, we are so blessed to partake of the promises and blessings that are a free gift by the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
May the Lord bless you and keep you, make his face shine on you, be gracious to you, and give you peace.
