|
Why was Jesus called the messiah? The Old Testament said nothing of Jesus, and no Old Testament prophecies referred specifically to Jesus. The Old Testament did not attribute to the messiah the power of redeeming from sin, it did not attribute to him the authority for spiritual salvation, it did not mention the messiah’s power and glory in heaven, and it did not say that the messiah was God.
 Christians have invested a lot of effort in order to apply Old Testament messianic prophecies to Jesus, but "most modern Christian Bible scholars totally reject almost all the ‘proofs’ of the early Christians." (Kaplan, 37) Let’s look at the claims and the messianic prophecies.
13.1 In the New Testament, Jesus was called "Messias," the Christ. That word is used only twice.
"He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ." Jn 1:41
"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ…Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he." Jn 4:25,26
13.2 Some claim that God’s curse on the serpent in Eden actually referred to Jesus’ mission to fight Satan, but Jesus was not mentioned, and he didn’t stop Satan. This reasoning would also have applied to any good man fighting against evil; but it might be more reasonable to interpret this to mean that men would trod on snakes, and snakes would bite men in the foot.
God: "I will put enmity between [the serpent] and [Eve], and between thy seed and her [Mary’s?] seed [Jesus?]; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." Gen 3:15
13.3 The blessing of all nations of Abraham’s seed through Jesus alone doesn’t wash. The following passage clearly referred to more than one person. "Seed" was commonly used as a plural in the Bible (e.g. "…I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven…" Gen 22:17), but "seeds" was never used. The Revised Standard Version used "descendants" here to be clear. This also conflicted with Paul’s assertion that this referred to one person, Jesus. In any case, the prophecy was unfulfilled, since Jesus wasn’t blessed in "all nations of the earth;" and Christianity hasn’t always been a blessing to conquered nations.
God: "In thy [Abraham’s] seed [Jesus?] shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." Gen 22:18
13.4 Many theologians hold that, in the following passage, Jesus was "Shiloh." Judah would not lose its scepter until his coming. Unfortunately, Judah lost its sceptre either 600 years too soon or 50 years too late. Zedekiah (the last King of Judah) and the leading Jews were captured by Nebuchadnezzar and taken to Babylon 588 years before Jesus was born. (2Kgs 25) The sceptre also departed for 70 years during the Jews’ captivity by the Assyrians. During Jesus’ lifetime, the sceptre was not wielded by Judah but by Rome. But even if it had been, it didn’t depart until the second temple was destroyed 50 years after Jesus’ death. No matter, in all subsequent passages "Shiloh" referred to a place, not a man-the seat of the national sanctuary before Jerusalem. Some Hebrew translations used "until he comes to Shiloh."
Jacob: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh [Jesus?] come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Gen 49:10
This man also washed his garments in wine. How could this be interpreted to mean Jesus? Besides, nothing in either passage referred specifically to Jesus.
Jacob: "…he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: " Gen 49:11
13.5 The following messianic prophecy could not possibly have applied to Jesus. His only sceptre was given to him as a joke. He neither smote the "corners of Moab," nor destroyed "the children of Sheth," nor had dominion, nor destroyed those remaining in the city. Anyway, why would these peoples have been singled out for conquest?
"…there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly. Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city." Num 24:17-19
13.6 Some consider the following to be a prophecy of Jesus, but these passages wouldn’t necessarily have referred to him. The Jews didn’t "hearken unto him," they had him killed.
Moses: "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;" Deut 18:15
Anyway, the passage referred to a generic prophet (Hebrew: navi), not a particular one, so it could have applied to any of the multitude of Biblical prophets.
God: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." Deut 18:18
13.7 Likewise, how can the following have applied to Jesus? What sin did the sinless Jesus commit which was worthy of a death sentence? Besides, he was crucified on a cross, not hanged from a tree. Could Jesus really be the "accursed of God?" If this did apply to Jesus, then the Jews were just following orders from God in executing him, and should be held blameless by Christians, the Nuremberg defense notwithstanding.
Moses: "And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree…His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." Deut 21:22,23
13.8 Here’s a good one, but it still can’t have applied to Jesus. His kingdom wasn’t established, and he didn’t build a temple. Besides, would God have expected Jesus to commit enough sin and iniquity to need a whipping?
God: "…I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever…and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: " 2Sam 7:12-14
13.9 The following passage can’t have applied to Jesus, either. Jesus wasn’t one of David’s sons. He was, at best, a distant relative; and he wasn’t even descended from David, if Mary was impregnated by God.
In any case, Jesus didn’t show up until a thousand years after David died.
"And it shall come to pass, when thy [David’s] days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever." 1Cr 17:11,12
13.10 Bad prophecy again. The kings of the earth didn’t set themselves against Jesus, since most of them knew nothing of him. Besides, David was the "anointed" one.
David: "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed…" Ps 2:2
God: "…and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee…And he sent, and brought [David] in…Arise, anoint him: for this is he. Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him…" 1Sam 16:3,12,13
13.11 The following prophecy didn’t refer to Jesus but to David. The passage specifically declared "this day," not next millennium. God again referred to David as his son (2Sam 7:14).
David: "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Ps 2:7
13.12 Certainly the following passages can’t have referred to Jesus,. David’s pleas to God cannot have been the words of Jesus, since God wasn’t a refuge to Jesus as he was dying. If Jesus prayed for his divinity, it was unnecessary. If he prayed for his body, he was ignored.
David: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" Ps 22:1
David: "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble." Ps 46:1
Would Jesus have cried? God said his servant "shall not cry."
David: "O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent." Ps 22:2
God: "He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street." Isa 42:2
Would Jesus have called himself a "worm?"
David: "But I am a worm…" Ps 22:6
The piercing of feet cannot have referred to the crucifixion, since the Gospels don’t say his feet were nailed to the cross; and the Romans didn’t normally nail feet during crucifixions. A better Hebrew translation would be "They cling like a lion to my hands and feet."
David: "…they pierced my hands and my feet." Ps 22:16
Why would Jesus have asked for his soul to be delivered from the sword if he was to die on a cross?
David: "Deliver my soul from the sword…" Ps 22:20
Since Jesus gave himself up voluntarily, he can’t have pleaded for help like this.
David: "Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help." Ps 22:11
13.13 The following alleged reference to Jesus and Judas is not convincing.
David: "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." Ps 41:9
The speaker confessed to having sinned against God. Jesus sinned?
David: "I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee." Ps 41:4
Besides, Jesus’ enemies certainly did triumph over him. They killed him.
David: "By this I know that thou favourest me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me." Ps 41:11
13.14 The whole of Psalms 72 was allegedly messianic, but that isn’t likely. Joseph wasn’t a king, so Jesus can’t have been this "king’s son." If Jesus, himself, was the king, here, then who was his son? Why would one ask God to give Jesus righteousness if he were already righteous?
"Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king’s son." Ps 72:1
Jesus didn’t break any oppressor, judge the poor, or save the children of the needy.
"He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor." Ps 72:4
The righteous didn’t flourish, and Jesus didn’t have world-wide dominion.
"In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and form the river unto the ends of the earth." Ps 72:7,8
13.15 This famous messianic prophecy clearly didn’t apply to Jesus as the son of a virgin. The Hebrew translation is "Behold the young woman is with child and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel." The Hebrew word used here was alma, which meant young woman or maid (Ex 2:8, Prov 30:19). It made no distinction as to the state of sexual virginity. If the Bible had specifically meant virgin or maiden it would have used the Hebrew word betulah (Lev 21:3, Deut 22:19,23,28, Ezek 44:22). If virgin were indeed meant, here, this passage could also have meant conceiving during initial coitus.
The Hebrew word harah meant has conceived not "shall conceive." This implies that the woman and the pregnancy already existed at that time of the prophecy, not at a future time.
The passage did not say that the child would be the messiah; and Immanuel was never called the messiah, Christ, Jesus, son of God, savior, or redeemer.
God: "Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, an shall call his name Immanuel." Isa 7:14
Jesus was not named Immanuel. In Matthew, this prophecy was specifically applied, but it was falsified two verses later.
"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel…" Mt 1:23
"…and he called his name Jesus." Mt 1:25
Would God have committed a sin and violated his own law by impregnating a virgin, betrothed woman?
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them [to death]…" Deut 22:23-24
Why would Jesus have needed to learn to refuse evil and choose good, if he were already divine? The Bible didn’t say Jesus ate butter and honey either.
"Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." Isa 7:15
Since this prophecy was meant for King Ahaz, himself, it must have applied to a child that would have lived during Ahaz’ lifetime. How would the birth of a child generations later have been of any use to Ahaz as a sign?
"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorest shall be forsaken of both her kings." Isa 7:16
13.16 The following prophecy referred to "Wonderful, Counsellor" or "Everlasting Father"; but the New Testament did not refer to Jesus that way. He was called the Son, not the Father (Trinity or not).
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isa 9:6
Jesus didn’t institute a government of any kind.
"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end…" Isa 9:7
13.17 The prophecy in Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 is frequently called the most powerful, but it still can’t have applied to Jesus.
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." Mt 8:17
Jesus was less exalted and extolled than condemned, reviled, and cruelly executed; and nowhere did the Bible describe Jesus’ visage as this marred.
"Behold my servant shall…be exalted and extolled, and be very high…his visage was so marred more than any man…" Isa 52:12-15
Jesus’ ministry was not to many nations. Besides, when did kings shut their mouths at him?
"So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him…" Isa 52:12-15
Jesus was to be deformed and ugly.
"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." Isa 53:2
How could Jesus have been exalted and extolled as well as rejected and despised? All of the despising, rejecting, grief-bearing, sorrow-carrying, strickening, smiting, afflicting, etc. were mentioned in the past tense, not in the future tense of a man yet to come. Would Jesus have been smitten of God?
"He is despised an rejected of men…" Isa 53:3
"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." Isa 53:4
The punishment for Jesus’ transgressions was death, not wounding and bruising.
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him: and with his stripes we are healed." Isa 53:5
Far from suffering with humility and in silence, Jesus put on a clever oral defense (Jn 18:33-37); he was struck for being insolent (Jn 18:21-23); and he cried out on the cross (Mt 27:46).
"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isa 53:7
The next part of the prophecy was contradicted by the Gospels.
"And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth." Isa 53:9
Jesus was with the wicked in death (the thieves on the cross). Mt 27:38,44; Mk 15:27
Jesus was buried with the rich (Joseph of Arimathaea’s tomb). Mk 15:43, Jn 19:38
Jesus destroyed a fig tree with a curse. Mt 21:19
Jesus scourged the temple merchants and money lenders and vandalized their property. Jn 2:15, Mk 11:15
Jesus lied many times (see Chapter 21, Character of Jesus).
Would it have pleased God to torture Jesus? The Bible didn’t say Jesus had children; and he died at age 34, hardly prolonged days.
"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he hath put him to grief…he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days…" Isa 53:10
13.18 Some people try to twist the following passage to make it apply to Jesus, but it doesn’t work. Without Biblical authority, they interpret a day to mean a year. This results in 483 years (7 days times 69 weeks) from the command to rebuild the temple to the coming of Jesus as the messiah. But the Old Testament didn’t apply "messiah" to Israel’s deliverer but to kings, priests, prophets, and others who were inducted into office by anointing; and Jesus wasn’t a "prince" (Hebrew: nagid, a temporal ruler).
"…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 [69 total]: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks [62 total], shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself…" Dan 9:25,26
The Hebrew words used here meant a week of seven, 24-hour days. Elsewhere in Daniel, "week" didn’t mean seven years, but the normal seven days.
"…I Daniel was mourning three full weeks." (not 21 years) Dan 10:2
"I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled." (not 21 years) Dan 10:3
"[in the 24th] day of the first month…" Dan 10:4
Cyrus’ decree to build Jerusalem (Isa 44:28) was in 536 BCE, 532 years before Jesus’ birth, not 483 years even under twisted logic. Jesus would have been about 50 years late. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, about 40 years after the messiah was "cut off," not 62 weeks. Jesus’ followers never destroyed Jerusalem or the sanctuary, either.
"…and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary…" Dan 9:25,26
Jerusalem was not destroyed by a flood.
"…the end thereof shall be with a flood…" Dan 9:25,26
13.19 This passage can’t have applied to Jesus, either. More than one person was to be raised. The passage said he will "raise us," not he will be raised. The Old Testament prophecy of "After two days…in the third day" conflicts with the New Testament which says "after three days."
"After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." Hos 6:2
"…After three days I will rise again." Mt 27:63
"…and after three days rise again." Mk 8:31
13.20 This one looks promising, but it failed also. Jesus was not the only baby born in Bethlehem, so this wasn’t specific enough to mean him. Jesus was never the ruler of Israel.
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall be come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Mic 5:2
Jesus didn’t save anyone from the Assyrians-an empire which disappeared 600 years earlier. Jesus was never a military leader. Rome, not Assyria, conquered Judea during Jesus’ time.
"And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders." Mic 5:6
Here as elsewhere, Ephratah Bethlehem likely referred to a man, not a town.
"…Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem." 1Cr 4:4
13.21 If this "desire of all nations" applied to Jesus, then why was this great earthquake not recorded anywhere? Jesus was never desired by all nations. Jesus was born 500 years after this prophecy, not "a little while." The RSV translated "desire" as "treasures," plural, so it can’t have been a single man.
God: "…Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory…" Hag 2:6-7
13.22 This prophecy was not even close. Jesus was never called "The Branch," and Jesus didn’t build the temple.
"…Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: " Zech 6:12
Jesus didn’t have much glory, never occupied a throne, and wasn’t a priest.
"…he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne…" Zech 6:13
13.23 Here’s an alleged prediction of Jesus arriving in Jerusalem. "Having salvation" is better translated as having been saved, and it probably should be translated as victorious (RSV). Neither applied to Jesus. This was to occur during the restoration of Israel and the establishment of peace and happiness. It didn’t happen.
"…behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation…" Zech 9:9
The passage clearly applied to Zechariah’s greeting the Jews on their return from captivity in Babylon. The entry into Jerusalem referred to these Jews, not the entry of Jesus 700 years later.
"…I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem." Zech 1:16
"Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country; And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem…" Zech 8:7,8
Jesus didn’t bring peace to the heathens, and he didn’t come to bring peace.
"…and he shall speak peace unto the heathen…" Zech 9:10
Jesus: "…I come not to send peace, but a sword." Mt 10:34
Jesus never had dominion anywhere.
"…his dominion shall be from sea even to sea…" Zech 9:10
13.24 Matthew cited another non-applicable prophecy. There was no Hebrew scripture prophecy that the messiah would be a Nazarene. Neither Nazareth nor Nazarene were mentioned in the Old Testament. The closest references were to Nazarites; but Jesus can’t have been a Nazarite, since he drank wine and raised the dead. The applicable passage from Judges obviously applied to Manoah’s (a Danite from Zorah) barren (no mention of being a virgin) wife who was to conceive a son named Samson (no mention of being fathered by God). The son was to deliver Israel from the Philistines, not the Romans.
"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Mt 2:23
"…a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bare not. And the angel of the Lord appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son. Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing: For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.…[the angel] said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death. …And the woman bare a son, and called his name Samson…" Judg 13:2-7,24
Jesus: "The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber…" Mt 11:19; Lk 7:34
Jesus: "…I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine…" Mk 14:25
13.25 Elijah, the harbinger of the messiah’s coming, did not come. Although Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah, John said he wasn’t. If John was the prophet Elijah, he was wrong; and if Jesus was the messiah, he was wrong.
"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord…" Mal 4:5
Jesus: "…[John the Baptist] is Elias [Elijah], which was…to come." Mt 11:14
Jesus: "…Elias [Elijah] is come already…" Mt 17:12
Jesus: "…Elias is indeed come…" Mk 9:13
"Are you Elijah?" John the Baptist: "I am not." Jn 1:21
Did the era of harmony between fathers and children occur? No. Why should it have? Jesus said he didn’t come to bring peace between them, but conflict.
"…And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers…" Mal 4:6
"And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias [Elijah], to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just: to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." Lk 1:17
Jesus: "…I come not to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-a man’s enemies will be…of his own household.’" Mt 10:34-36
13.26 Messiah meant "anointed," yet kings and priests were routinely anointed. Cyrus, Solomon, David and others could also been considered a messiah. Even Paul says he and his followers were to be anointed.
Solomon: "God, do not reject your anointed one." 2Cr 6:42
"…the priest that is anointed…" Lev 4:3
"This saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus…" Isa 45:1
"…David…the anointed of the God of Jacob." 2Sam 23:1
"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anoited us, is God;" 2Cor 1:21
13.27 According to prophecy, the messiah would not come from Galilee, but Jesus was commonly referred to as Jesus of Nazareth which was in Galilee. Was the Bethlehem nativity story invented to avoid this dilemma? Bethlehem was in Judea, not Galilee?
"…you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee." Jn 7:52
"Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ…comes from Bethlehem…" Jn 7:42
"Thou also was with Jesus of Galilee…" Mt 26:69
Jesus: "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Jn 1:46
"…[Peter] also was with Jesus, for he is a Galilean." Lk 22:59
"…Jesus the prophet…of Galilee." Mt 21:11
13.28 The Old Testament messiah was to be served. Why did Jesus say he was to minister, not be served?
"All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him." Ps 72:11
"He was given authority, glory and sovereign power: all people, nations, and languages, should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion…" Dan 7:14
"[the Messiah’s] kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." Dan 7:27
Jesus: "…the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Mt 20:28
13.29 The Old Testament did not recognize God’s incarnation in the flesh. Anyway, why should God have become human if he was already omniscient and omnipresent?
God: "My spirit shall nevermore abide in man…" Gen 6:3
"…the gods…do not live among men." Dan 2:11
"God is not a man…" Num 23:19
13.30 The Old Testament had no reverence for the "son of man." Why did Jesus called himself that?
"Put not your trust in…the son of man in whom there is no help." Ps 146:3
"…the son of man, which is a worm." Job 25:6
"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins…" Mt 9:6 and many others.
13.31 The Old Testament wanted a "Prince of Peace." Why would Jesus have none of it?
"…and he will be called…Prince of Peace." Isa 9:6-7
Jesus: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-a man’s enemies will be…of his own household.’" Mt 10:34-36
13.32 If one uses Old Testament terms like "Prince of Peace," why not use the terms "Counsellor" and "wicked Counsellor" also.
"…and he will be called…Counsellor…" Isa 9:6
"There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the Lord, a wicked Counsellor." Nahum 1:11
Likewise, should the messiah have been blind and deaf?
"Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the Lord?" Isa 42:19
13.33 Matthew twisted a passage from Hosea to fit his needs.
"When [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." Mt 2:14,15
He ignored a portion of Hosea which made this usage worthless. Hosea clearly referred to Israel and Ephriam, a group of people. Besides, Jesus never sacrificed to or burned incense to idols. Israel was called God’s son, not Jesus.
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them." Hos 11:1-3
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:" Ex 4:22
13.34 Matthew referred to a passage from Jeremiah to support his messianic theory.
"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem…Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." Mt 2:16-18
The passage in Jeremiah cannot have applied to Jesus. It applied to captured Israelites whose children were dead, dying, or someday to return. It was also said in the past tense, so the event had already happened. There was nothing here about being killed by Herod; and Jesus was descended from Rachel, not Leah.
"Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border." Jer 31:15-17
|
