DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 142--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: Kerry
Date: November 30, 2014, 3:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mighty Mouse link ---
>
> Well it is used in Dan 9:25 & 26. The Hebrew word is
מָשִׁ֣יחַ
which is transliterated as mâshı̂yach, which has
the following meaning and connotations;
>
> anointed, anointed one
> 1. of the Messiah, Messianic prince
> 2. of the king of Israel
> 3. of the high priest of Israel
> 4. of Cyrus
> 5. of the patriarchs as anointed kings
>
> Let's remember Messiah is the English equivalent of
mâshı̂yach, but we also refer to Him as the
Christ which menas the same thing but from the Greek.
>
--- End Quote ---
i hope you're not misled by the capital letter M in Daniel.
How could that passage refer to Jesus? He wasn't on the earth
when the Temple was built or destroyed. The messiah in
verse 25 is Cyrus of course, the king who was predicted by
Isaiah and who was also called messiah.
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going
forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto
the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and
two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even
in troublous times.
That messiah was Cyrus, of course. Jesus didn't have anything
to do with rebuilding the Temple.
Obviously the other messiah in verse 26 was hundreds of years
later. That would have been King Agrippa who was king when
Titus destroyed the Temple.
#Post#: 144--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: Stan
Date: November 30, 2014, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I take it for what the translators were conveying AND what the
OT Greek and Hebrew conveyed.
You can read Chuck Smith's commentary on it at the following
link...all I did was show you Messiah IS used and what it
connotes.
HTML http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/csc/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=9&vs=25#25
#Post#: 145--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: Kerry
Date: November 30, 2014, 4:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mighty Mouse link ---
>
> I take it for what the translators were conveying AND what the
OT Greek and Hebrew conveyed.
>
> You can read Chuck Smith's commentary on it at the following
link...all I did was show you Messiah IS used and what it
connotes.
>
>
HTML http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/csc/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=9&vs=25#25
>
--- End Quote ---
I read it and remain unconvinced. He follows the interrupted
clock theory. That particular tradition first appeared in the
19th Century. I don't know who invented it.
I can see how he could think that Jesus appears to the first
messiah since the text is obscure in places; but when the rest
of the prophecy doesn't fit, he says the clock stopped. I
think it far more reasonable to believe Cyrus was the messiah
who rebuilt the Temple, especially since Isaiah specifically
called him that. And of course, that King Agrippa was the
other. I do not see this as a prediction of events about King
Messiah. To derive that, you have to say the seventy weeks
aren't really a period of 490 years but rather are thousands!
It doesn't fit. No one reading it before the day of Jesus
would interpret it that way; and it seems impossible to me to
think the second reference is to Jesus since he was not on the
earth when the Temple was destroyed. How does this fit?
The Jewish concept of Messiah was one of their traditions like
the resurrection. The woman at the well, although a Samaritan,
had the traditional idea of King Messiah right. Jews still
believe that. "When Messiah comes, people will know things they
didn't before."
John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh,
which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all
things.
This was the traditional concept of King Messiah; and it's not
found in the Old Testament.
#Post#: 150--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: Stan
Date: December 1, 2014, 1:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Danger Mouse link ---
>
> I read it and remain unconvinced. He follows the interrupted
clock theory. That particular tradition first appeared in the
19th Century. I don't know who invented it.
>
> I can see how he could think that Jesus appears to the first
messiah since the text is obscure in places; but when the rest
of the prophecy doesn't fit, he says the clock stopped. I
think it far more reasonable to believe Cyrus was the messiah
who rebuilt the Temple, especially since Isaiah specifically
called him that. And of course, that King Agrippa was the
other. I do not see this as a prediction of events about King
Messiah. To derive that, you have to say the seventy weeks
aren't really a period of 490 years but rather are thousands!
>
> It doesn't fit. No one reading it before the day of Jesus
would interpret it that way; and it seems impossible to me to
think the second reference is to Jesus since he was not on the
earth when the Temple was destroyed. How does this fit?
>
> The Jewish concept of Messiah was one of their traditions like
the resurrection. The woman at the well, although a Samaritan,
had the traditional idea of King Messiah right. Jews still
believe that. "When Messiah comes, people will know things they
didn't before."
>
> John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias
cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us
all things.
>
> This was the traditional concept of King Messiah; and it's not
found in the Old Testament.
>
--- End Quote ---
That much is not surprising, but regardless it was used as such
in at least 365 instances that refer to Jesus.
Messiah to be born of a virgin: Prophesied – Isaiah 7:14;
Fulfilled – Matthew 1:18-25
Messiah to be accursed and crucified: Prophesied – Deuteronomy
21:22-23, Psalms 22, Psalms 69:21; Fulfilled – Matthew 27:34-50;
John 19:28-30, Galatians 3:13
Messiah to be raised from the dead: Prophesied – Psalms 16:10;
Fulfilled – Acts 13:35-37
That the verbal traditions of the time corrupted what the
Messiah was to be does not change what the Bible said He would
be.
#Post#: 152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 1, 2014, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mighty Mouse link ---
>
> That much is not surprising, but regardless it was used as
such in at least 365 instances that refer to Jesus.
>
> Messiah to be born of a virgin: Prophesied – Isaiah 7:14;
Fulfilled – Matthew 1:18-25
>
> Messiah to be accursed and crucified: Prophesied – Deuteronomy
21:22-23, Psalms 22, Psalms 69:21; Fulfilled – Matthew 27:34-50;
John 19:28-30, Galatians 3:13
>
> Messiah to be raised from the dead: Prophesied – Psalms 16:10;
Fulfilled – Acts 13:35-37
>
--- End Quote ---
Did you understand my original statement? I thought you did;
but let me repeat it:
Where is "Messiah" mentioned in the Old Testament? The word
"messiah" is used but not in the same way. They use it to mean
earthly kings, earthly priests and so on.
Do any of those passage you cited or any of the others used the
word "messiah"? I think not. The closest you can get to it is
the passage in Daniel; and as I have shown, it is hard indeed
to think it means King Messiah.
--- Quote ---
> That the verbal traditions of the time corrupted what the
Messiah was to be does not change what the Bible said He would
be.
--- End Quote ---
I am waiting. You make this assertion that the Bible says
Messiah will be this and that. Where does it say these things
using the word "Messiah"? You and I both know it doesn't.
I also wouldn't say that the correct tradition was totally
corrupted if the woman at the well, a Samaritan, got it right.
We find too that Andrew and Peter knew about the idea since
Andrew used the word with its proper meaning when talking to
Peter.
John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto
him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the
Christ.
Even the magi knew. When they asked Herod, he didn't know but
he asked experts who did know.
Matthrew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and
scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ
should be born.
The "experts" did not read the word "messiah" in Micah. Their
tradition told them it should be interpreted that way. The
word in Micah 5:2 is "ruler" not "messiah."
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come
forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth
have been from of old, from everlasting.
Jews today may not believe Jesus was the Messiah; but they
still believe this verse is about King Messiah, saying he will
be born there; so I wouldn't too swift in saying they corrupted
that tradition totally.
#Post#: 154--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: HappyHeretic
Date: December 1, 2014, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I see traditions, or at least some traditions as a bit like
personal disciples, but on a corporate level.
For example, if you have a morning quiet time that you always do
- there are times when it is the discipline that gets you
reading the Bible rather than the love of God's word. There
maybe times as a church that it isn't the most natural thing to
praise God, but the liturgy can help putting words of truth and
praise on your lips.
Does that make sense?
Mike HM
#Post#: 155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: Amadeus
Date: December 1, 2014, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> HM: I see traditions, or at least some traditions as a bit
like personal disciples, but on a corporate level.
>
> For example, if you have a morning quiet time that you always
do - there are times when it is the discipline that gets you
reading the Bible rather than the love of God's word. There
maybe times as a church that it isn't the most natural thing to
praise God, but the liturgy can help putting words of truth and
praise on your lips.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Mike HM
--- End Quote ---
At times the last thing I want to do in the morning is spend my
special quiet time with the Lord. When I have done it anyway,
the blessings have been tremendous.
But...
"...O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be
with you? how long shall I suffer you? ..." Matt 17:17
#Post#: 157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: Stan
Date: December 1, 2014, 3:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you can't or won't see it, nothing I say will convince you.
You can read the following article by Randall Rice but given
your propensity for not coming off what you have already
learned, I don't it will change your mind. So be it.
HTML http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible%20Studies/The%20Concept%20of%20the%20Messiah%20in%20the%20Old%20Testament.pdf
#Post#: 158--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 1, 2014, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mighty Mouse link ---
>
> If you can't or won't see it, nothing I say will convince you.
> You can read the following article by Randall Rice but given
your propensity for not coming off what you have already
learned, I don't it will change your mind. So be it.
>
>
HTML http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible%20Studies/The%20Concept%20of%20the%20Messiah%20in%20the%20Old%20Testament.pdf
>
--- End Quote ---
That article says pretty much what I said.
If we continue to trace the concept of Messiah through the Old
Testament without dependence
on the term mashiach. . . .
#Post#: 159--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 1, 2014, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HereticMouse link ---
>
> I see traditions, or at least some traditions as a bit like
personal disciples, but on a corporate level.
>
> For example, if you have a morning quiet time that you always
do - there are times when it is the discipline that gets you
reading the Bible rather than the love of God's word. There
maybe times as a church that it isn't the most natural thing to
praise God, but the liturgy can help putting words of truth and
praise on your lips.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Mike HM
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes. If something works and encourages good behavior, it's
probably a good tradition. I also think some traditions help
eliminate confusion and create harmony. Some things aren't that
important by themselves; but it's nice to have everyone doing
things the same way. It's like the British driving on the left
side of the road and Americans on the right. It doesn't much
matter which way you do it; but it helps avoid accidents and
fatalities if everyone's doing it the same way.
Can you imagine a church service where each person prayed when
he felt like, sang when he felt like, and other people were
trying to teach or preach?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page