The New Testament misinterpreting the Old Testament

CrabCake · Jun 23, 2015

distraff said:
I presented a pretty strong case for my interpretation in the OP. You have not really countered that.

It's not a strong case. It ignores the way in which hermeneutics was done. It relies on us being ignorant of the existence of dual fulfillment hermeneutics. Once we understand how hermeneutics was done within the messianic movement, your idea that the author misinterpreted the Old Testament falls apart. The more likely scenario becomes that the author knew about the short term fulfillment of the prophecy and was now talking about its final fulfillment.

You can still argue he is wrong. But you'll have to do so differently. Your argument revolved around the idea that the author was oblivious to the context of the verses from Jeremiah he referenced and that he thus misinterpreted it to be about Herod. That's just not a very credible point of view. Knowing the culture the author came from, the level of education he would have had, and the way hermeneutics was done, it is far more likely he not only knew the context, but had memorized the entire book of Jeremiah long before he ever sat down to write the gospel.

tosca1 · Jun 23, 2015

RAMOSS said:
Ah yes, the good old lies about what the 'ancient rabbi's' taught. This is a bunch of out of context quotes, forgeries and lies. It is based on the rather bad writings of 'Dr Mike Brown', who rather lied about a lot of things.

For example, he fails to mention the Rabbi Moses Alschech specifically said that the messiah he was comparing to was King David. THe concept in Judaism that the Messiah (anointed one) was in Jewish society the Jewish King, and the Jewish high priest. This it not the 'Messiah' who was going to restore home leadership to Israel,

The Messiah would be higher than Moses, and other patriarch. So it couldn't be David, either.

As the rabbinic writing "Yalkut" said: "Who art thou, O great mountain? (Zech. iv.7) This refers to the King Messiah.

And why does he call him`the great mountain?' because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said,

`My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly' --he will be higher than Abraham...lifted up above Moses...loftier then the ministering angels..."

(Quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, page 9.)

tosca1 · Jun 23, 2015

There are several reasons why the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 could not be referring to any Jewish king (other than Jesus), or Israel.

Here, read them. I made that thread specifically for easy referral....I'm sure this issue will crop up again and again.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/227155-suffering-servant.html

Jews have a hard time with Isaiah 53.
This chapter is a big pain for them, since it clearly describes the Messiah - and the description doesn't add up with Jewish belief.

Excon · Jun 23, 2015

tosca1 said:
Have you provided any explanation why the Messiah title doesn't fit Jesus?

:doh
Are you really trying to play dumb like you do not know the arguments that he does not fit the criteria?
They have never been refuted. That would be becasue they can't be.

The concept of the Mashiach is Jewish. They set the criteria of who fits that title and who does not, not others that usurped the concept for their own.
As it is, by the Jewish requirements he does not fit the requirements.
You nor anyone else gets to say otherwise.

Logicman said:
Sure he does. But feel free to show me otherwise.

Give me your top three reasons why Jesus does not fit your criteria as the Jewish Messiah?

:doh
No he doesn't. Never has.
You already know the of the proofs that he doesn't.
Nothing has changed. He still doesn't fit the requirements.

Somerville · Jun 23, 2015

Logicman said:
"tens of thousands of children"? You couldn't be more off in your numbers.

Bethlehem was known by the Biblical prophet Micah as one of the smallest communities in all of Judea, so just how many babies 2 years old or younger do you really think there were? Three? Five? Maybe ten?

For the record, Professor William F. Albright, the dean of American archaeology in the Holy Land, estimates that the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth to be about 300 people (Albright and Mann 1971:19). The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven (Maier 1998:178, footnote 25). This would hardly be a newsworthy event in light of what else was going on at the time (Biblearchaeology.org).

Considering all the butchery Herod was involved in, even murdering people in his own family, I don't see the Bethlehem killing as a major news story, especially since CNN and FOX and the other networks didn't even exist back then.

Finally, they don't call an argument from silence (which is what you're making), a logical fallacy, for nothing.

We are supposed to give credit when we use other's words --- The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical Fact or Legendary Fiction?

Logicman · Jun 23, 2015

Somerville said:
We are supposed to give credit when we use other's words --- The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical Fact or Legendary Fiction?

In Post #7 I did give credit to the source I used - "Biblearchaeology.org" . And here's the link for that: The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical Fact or Legendary Fiction?

So nice try.

ciarli · Jun 23, 2015

The old testament is sacred, the life in the new testament is sacred too and the new testament is 'fair words' of 'fair people' but the devil is very very potent as we come near and near the light.

tosca1 · Jun 23, 2015

Excon said:
The concept of the Mashiach is Jewish.

:doh

It was GOD's!

They set the criteria of who fits that title and who does not, not others that usurped the concept for their own.

Who gave the description for the Messiah? :doh

GOD!:

Somerville · Jun 23, 2015

Logicman said:
In Post #7 I did give credit to the source I used - "Biblearchaeology.org" . And here's the link for that: The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical Fact or Legendary Fiction?

So nice try.

Your words from post #7

For the record, Professor William F. Albright, the dean of American archaeology in the Holy Land, estimates that the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth to be about 300 people (Albright and Mann 1971:19). The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven (Maier 1998:178, footnote 25). This would hardly be a newsworthy event in light of what else was going on at the time (Biblearchaeology.org).

For some reason, I fail to see a link to the page where you copied the words, which you did not show as a quote, by the way.

Logicman · Jun 23, 2015

Somerville said:
Your words from post #7 For some reason, I fail to see a link to the page where you copied the words, which you did not show as a quote, by the way.

biblearchaeology.org was clearly sourced. If you want to start an English class go to another thread.

laska · Jun 23, 2015

distraff said:
The chapter references a removal and a return of the same people. Do you think the chapter references the removal of the Jews by the Babylonians and the return by the Persians or do you think the Chapter references the removal of the lost 10 tribes by the Assyrians and the return of the Lost 10 tribes to Israel in the latter days?

I just want to understand your opinion a bit better.

One of the promises in the covenant God made with Israel was that as long as the nation was righteous and they kept their part of the covenant no nation/enemy could ever have power over them. The fact that in 722 BC the ten tribes were conquered and scattered and then in 70 AD the other two tribes were conquered and scattered and there was no nation of Israel or true authorized prophets of God for something like 1800 years means Israel must have seriously broke their covenant with God. Prophets like Isaiah predicted this would happen but also that in the latter days God would have mercy on Israel and remember the covenant again, and gather Israel once again to the true religion of their fathers and gather them once again to the lands of their inheritance. This latter day gathering began around 1819 when a 14 year old Joseph Smith went into a wooded grove behind his house in upstate New York and prayed to know which church to join and was visited by Heavenly Father and Christ, and was told to join none of them, that all of them were false, and that They had a work for him to do.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

A week after the dedication of the first temple, on April 3 1836, the prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery was visited in the temple by Christ, and then Elijah, and Moses. The latter gave Joseph and Oliver the keys to the gathering of Israel.
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-26?lang=eng

Symbolism of Passover

On Sunday October 24, 1841 the apostle Orson Hyde dedicated the land of Israel for the return of the Jews.
Orson Hyde's prayer of dedication on the Mount of Olives

laska · Jun 23, 2015

distraff said:
The chapter references a removal and a return of the same people. Do you think the chapter references the removal of the Jews by the Babylonians and the return by the Persians or do you think the Chapter references the removal of the lost 10 tribes by the Assyrians and the return of the Lost 10 tribes to Israel in the latter days?

I just want to understand your opinion a bit better.

Ephraim is the birthright son of Israel which is tied to the rights of the priesthood. So the latter day restoration of the true religion of Israel was through a prophet raised up by God who was a latter day descendant of the Biblical Joseph. The vast majority of those who have embraced this religion are also descendants of the Biblical Joseph/Ephraim and the great missionary program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is spiritually gathering Joseph and the other tribes of Israel around the world.

The following is from 14th century Sunni scholar Ibn Kathir-Stories of the Prophets:
"The story begins with a dream and ends with its interpretation. As the sun appeared over the horizon, bathing the earth in its morning glory, Joseph , son of the Prophet Jacob , awoke from his sleep, delighted by a pleasant dream he had had. Filled with excitement, he ran to his father and related it. "0 my father! Verily, I saw (in a dream) eleven stars and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves to me." Surah 12: 4
His father's face lit up. He foresaw that Joseph would be the one through whom the prophecy of his grandfather, Prophet Abraham , would be fulfilled, in that his offspring would keep the light of Abraham's house alive and spread Allah's message to mankind."

https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipP3edJeh7tKUHJB_CP2x2hthsBk3-ShzlpG0d9R

ludin · Jun 23, 2015

CrabCake said:
It's not a strong case. It ignores the way in which hermeneutics was done. It relies on us being ignorant of the existence of dual fulfillment hermeneutics. Once we understand how hermeneutics was done within the messianic movement, your idea that the author misinterpreted the Old Testament falls apart. The more likely scenario becomes that the author knew about the short term fulfillment of the prophecy and was now talking about its final fulfillment.

You can still argue he is wrong. But you'll have to do so differently. Your argument revolved around the idea that the author was oblivious to the context of the verses from Jeremiah he referenced and that he thus misinterpreted it to be about Herod. That's just not a very credible point of view. Knowing the culture the author came from, the level of education he would have had, and the way hermeneutics was done, it is far more likely he not only knew the context, but had memorized the entire book of Jeremiah long before he ever sat down to write the gospel.

it also means that he thinks he knows more than the author of the book that wrote it which I find he would have a hard time establishing.
matthew knew exactly what he was referring to when he mentioned Jeremiah.

he was most certainly establishing Christ as the Messiah as John established Christ as God.

Somerville · Jun 23, 2015

Logicman said:
biblearchaeology.org was clearly sourced. If you want to start an English class go to another thread.

A little quote for you

9a. Fair-Use - A limitation of two (2) medium-sized paragraphs per thread is allowed for the quoting and display of any external "same-source" material. Same-source material is considered to be material borrowed from the same author, the same internet article, the same web page, the same web site, or the same publication. Please do not exceed this limitation, nor attempt to bypass this limitation via consecutive/subsequent/plagiarized thread postings. Proper format is to Copy & Paste a maximum of two medium-sized paragraphs of same-source material and offer a link to the material source page for further reading. Moderator discretion shall prevail here.

please note the emphasised words

Excon · Jun 23, 2015

tosca1 said:
:doh

It was GOD's!

Who gave the description for the Messiah?

GOD!:

:doh

:lamo:lamo:lamo

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

RAMOSS · Jun 23, 2015

CrabCake said:
Look it up.

You've stumbled onto the fact that many interpretations of scripture (including those you mentioned) are interpreted using the dual fulfillment hermeneutic. What you are seeing as a "misinterpretation" is just a method of interpreting scripture you appear to have been unfamiliar with. Look up "dual fulfillment hermeneutic" and it will all make sense.

A dual fulfillment hermeneutic sees prophecies as having both a short term and long term application with the short term being a sort of minor fulfillment and the long term fulfillment being a major or even eschatological fulfillment. This hermeneutic was widely used within the various messianic movements, of which Christianity is one. So, it's not that it is a misinterpretation but rather that those who use this method of reading prophecy don't think that you're done with the prophecy just because it was fulfilled the first time, they are still waiting for the major final fulfillment, which according to the author of the scripture in question is found in Christ Jesus.

The messianic movement itself relies heavily on this hermeneutic. The recognition that the God of Israel has not delivered his people led to the conclusion that the prophecies had not reached their final fulfillment.

Again, look it up. You've stumbled onto a well known aspect of biblical hermeneutics which you seem to mistakenly believe is evidence of misinterpretation.

I find that particular hermeneutics of examples of 'how to shoe horn a prophecy into place'.

tosca1 · Jun 24, 2015

Excon said:
:doh

:lamo

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

:lol: That kind of response is usually a "face-saving" response. Notice how there's nothing added to support that claim. :lol:

Let's see if you know what you're talking about....
Why don't you explain. That's a challenge.

Excon · Jun 24, 2015

tosca1 said:
That kind of response is usually a "face-saving" response. Notice how there's nothing added to support that claim.

Let's see if you know what you're talking about....
Why don't you explain. That's a challenge.

:doh
And again since you obviously do not pay attention.

:doh
Are you really trying to play dumb like you do not know the arguments that he does not fit the criteria?
They have never been refuted. That would be becasue they can't be.

The concept of the Mashiach is Jewish. They set the criteria of who fits that title and who does not, not others that usurped the concept for their own.
As it is, by the Jewish requirements he does not fit the requirements.
You nor anyone else gets to say otherwise.

I do not need to explain something you already know. Do you really not understand that?

Logicman · Jun 24, 2015

Excon said:
The concept of the Mashiach is Jewish. They set the criteria of who fits that title and who does not, not others that usurped the concept for their own.
As it is, by the Jewish requirements he does not fit the requirements.
You nor anyone else gets to say otherwise.[/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT][/INDENT]

I do not need to explain something you already know. Do you really not understand that?

I've previously asked you to provide me three examples of why you claim Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah. You have not done so. All you've done is make claims with no backup / evidence to support them.

You've been challenged by myself and Tosca, but nothing specific from you. Can you defend your claims or not?

Excon · Jun 24, 2015

Logicman said:
I've previously asked you to provide me three examples of why you claim Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah. You have not done so. All you've done is make claims with no backup / evidence to support them.

You've been challenged by myself and Tosca, but nothing specific from you. Can you defend your claims or not?

What did you not understand about the following?

I do not need to explain something you already know.

Logicman · Jun 24, 2015

Excon said:
What did you not understand about the following?

I do not need to explain something you already know.

I don't know your reasons why Jesus cannot be the Jewish Messiah.

Apparently neither do you.

Are you going to back up your claims or not? If you don't you have ZERO CREDIBILITY for your claims.

Somerville · Jun 24, 2015

Logicman said:
I've previously asked you to provide me three examples of why you claim Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah. You have not done so. All you've done is make claims with no backup / evidence to support them.

You've been challenged by myself and Tosca, but nothing specific from you. Can you defend your claims or not?

Hey! Can I play? Who cares, I'll answer anyway
Why Jews reject Jesus as the Mashiach:

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

Jewish belief is based on national revelation

.

Don't like that list? How about this one?

● The Messiah must be from the Tribe of Judah and a Descendant of King David AND King Solomon (the adoption excuse is not acceptable)
● Ingathering of the Jewish Exiles (not all Jews have returned to Israel. probably the least probable to happen)
● Rebuilding of the Holy Temple
● Worldwide Reign of Peace
● Observance of the Torah Embraced by All Jews (Jesus failed the requirement to become king)
● Universal Knowledge of G-d

further explanation as to why Jesus is not seen as the Mashiach - not Messiah in Jewish theology as the Hebrew words have very different understandings

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.

On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kokhba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord. Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kokhba was the mashiach. Bar Kokhba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a mashiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kokhba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the mashiach.

Excon · Jun 24, 2015

Logicman said:
I don't know your reasons why Jesus cannot be the Jewish Messiah.

Apparently neither do you.

Are you going to back up your claims or not? If you don't you have ZERO CREDIBILITY for your claims.

:lamo
Your dishonesty is astounding.
Yes you do know.

Again.

I do not need to explain something you already know.

Your failure to acknowledge what is already known just confirms your lack of credibility.

Logicman · Jun 24, 2015

Excon said:
:lamo
Your dishonesty is astounding.
Yes you do know.

Again.

I do not need to explain something you already know.

Your failure to acknowledge what is already known just confirms your lack of credibility.

Horse manure. You don't know what you're talking about.

Logicman · Jun 24, 2015

Somerville said:
Hey! Can I play? Who cares, I'll answer anyway
Why Jews reject Jesus as the Mashiach:

Don't like that list? How about this one?

further explanation as to why Jesus is not seen as the Mashiach - not Messiah in Jewish theology as the Hebrew words have very different understandings

Same, tired old arguments that have no merit. I'll pick three of them and get back to you later.

The New Testament misinterpreting the Old Testament

Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency