Cyrus Christ

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
All I would say is that this is a classic case of Christians hedging their bets: Jesus wasn't a physical king when he came the first time, but he'll handle that part NEXT time around. Pretty cute trick.
 

Goose

New member
Cyrus Christ fulfilled only some prophecies. Christians believe their Christ fulfilled only some prophecies. Why is such a big deal made one over the other(or the many other anointed ones) when none of them were the Messiah that reigns forever?
 

On Fire

New member
Originally posted by granite1010

Cherrypicking verses, ripping them out of context, and creating a hodgepodge of "prophecies" relating to Jesus might comfort the flock, but that's about it.

Cherrypicking?!?! You got a list of phrophcies? Also, see below.

Interestingly, Jews yesterday and today do not see messianic overtones in many of these passages. The only people who make the connection are Christians.

:duh: That's what separates the wheat from the chaff.

Not like we'd expect the actual people who wrote the books to know a thing or two...

Not sure what you mean.



It is very common for Jewish objectors to point that “Jesus has not fulfilled all the prophecies,” and to scorn the suggestion that some prophecies are for a later time and are to be fulfilled at the “second coming.” The fact is, however, that prophecies about Messiah are of two seemingly mutually-exclusive types, as though they were talking about two different Messiahs. Jewish scholarship refers to Messiah ben-David and Messiah ben-Yosef. One is the positive, victorious Messiah who ushers in a kingdom of peace, the other is a suffering servant (as in Isaiah 53). The popular tendency is to think only of ben-David and ignore ben-Yosef, but the Messianic/Christian view accounts for both in one person. Interestingly, these two prophetic strains are named for David and Joseph, both of which suffered first and emerged victorious in the end. Joseph is introduced to us with dreams of grandeur, but he was lost to Israel – actually considered dead – before his dreams came true. Eventually however, he had a “second coming” when he came back into the lives of his brothers who once rejected him. Then they bowed down to him and he became the savior of his people by providing for them in a time of famine. David also, though anointed as King in his youth as far as God was concerned, was rejected by the current King and lived as a fugitive for many years before he finally became the quintessential King of Israel. Both of these historic figures, which Jewish tradition has recognized as being prototypes of Messiah, arrive amid promises, are pushed down, and finally emerge in glory. Shouldn’t the ultimate Messiah follow the same pattern?

“if the messiah was not going to fulfill all of the messianic prophecies the first time how come nobody clearly states that?”

If I were to look down the road and try to tell you what was coming, I might say that ahead of us lay a tree, a house, a lake and a mountain. Does that imply that we would reach them all at the same time as we travel down the road? After all, I mentioned them all in the same sentence! Would I need to explain to you that there is space between these things? Prophecy can be considered a look down the road of time. Many things may be mentioned together, although the actual fulfillments may be separated by great spans of time. We may come to the “tree” very soon, but the mountain much later. The prophecies concerning Messiah are such that it would not make sense for all of them to come to pass at once. We have seen the first signs matched exactly, so it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the rest will come in their own time.

http://www.amfi.org/mailbag/Jer31_31_2.htm
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
"Cherrypicking?!?!"

Uhhh...yeah. You people pick a verse here or a poetic verse there, then stamp "Messianic Prophecy" on top of it. I'm sorry, plucking a verse out of context isn't solid exegesis.
 

On Fire

New member
Originally posted by granite1010

"Cherrypicking?!?!"

Uhhh...yeah. You people pick a verse here or a poetic verse there, then stamp "Messianic Prophecy" on top of it. I'm sorry, plucking a verse out of context isn't solid exegesis.

I could show you 10,000 verses and you would still have a problem with it. My bad for taking you off ignore.
 

Redfin

New member
Cyrus the Appointed

Cyrus the Appointed

Originally posted by Goose

Cyrus King of Persia is referred to in Isaiah 45:1 as a Christ: "Thus sayeth the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus". The Hebrew word for Christ, "anointed", is meshiakh(Messiah). The verse is better translated as "Thus sayeth the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus"

I'd like to hear what people think about that part of the verse. What does an "anointed" one(Meshiakh) do? What is their job? Why/how was Cyrus a Meshiakh? How many types of Meshakhim(Messiahs) do you think there are/can be? etc.

I'd particularly like to hear from Christians, but everyone feel free to reply. A short reply is preferred.

Substitute the word "appointed" for "anointed," and the intended meaning comes through pretty well.

Going beyond that is often just stretching the significance of "messiah" to accomodate all of the latter day accretions it has acquired.

The particular implications of any particular usage of the term are determined by the context.
 

Goose

New member
Re: Cyrus the Appointed

Re: Cyrus the Appointed

Originally posted by Redfin

Going beyond that is often just stretching the significance of "messiah" to accomodate all of the latter day accretions it has acquired.
Good point.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by On Fire

I could show you 10,000 verses and you would still have a problem with it. My bad for taking you off ignore.

:yawn:

Whatever flips your switch.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Originally posted by Goose

Maybe the Christ of the Christian Bible is a type, or shadow? Things obviously have yet to be fully filled, reigning physical King, etc.

Care to go into detail Goose. Jesus is a type? Jesus is God whether you are to admit it or not. Did Cyrus or the other so called Messiahs die and rise again on a third day? I'll answer that for you. No!

Bottom line is this Goose. Anybody can be called a messiah in some form or fashion, but there is only one. God himself. In the form of a man He became. Whether the Jews like it or not is not my problem. Why the Jews can't understand thier own book is not my problem either.

You know, I for one am glad God isn't locked in the Jews' little box.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
The possibility that the Jews understand their own scripture better than Christians do is, of course, never an option.:rolleyes:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by drbrumley

God the Father wrote both. Or should I say inspired both.

Well, says you. (Actually I thought the writers were under the Holy Spirit's inspiration.)

Patronizing Jews is an old Christian habit, though.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Originally posted by granite1010

Well, says you. (Actually I thought the writers were under the Holy Spirit's inspiration.)

Patronizing Jews is an old Christian habit, though.

Does the Holy Spirit act on its' own?

Patrronizing he says. :doh: :nono:
 

Goose

New member
Brumley,

Can you even read the Hebrew Bible? ...let alone know it better then Jews... That's a very bold and silly notion based on assertions wouldn't someone say?
 

Goose

New member
Originally posted by drbrumley
You know, I for one am glad God isn't locked in the Jews' little box.
What box would that be? The Almighty is free to do what he wants. I'm particularly interested however, in why an "anointed of the LORD" be just a view. Obviously, the Almighty viewed Cyrus as a Messiah. That settles it. So, I'm just trying to get an idea of what people think.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
copout excuse.

Tell us Goose, what differences are there that can't be disputed when reading the Hebrew compared to what was translated to the English language. I'm not talking about grammer points. I mean contextual statements. I need a new topic to study. Thanks.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Originally posted by Goose

What box would that be? The Almighty is free to do what he wants. I'm particularly interested however, in why an "anointed of the LORD" be just a view. Obviously, the Almighty viewed Cyrus as a Messiah. That settles it. So, I'm just trying to get an idea of what people think.

The Almighty is FREE to do WHATEVER he wants, yet the Jews say God didn't and CAN't come as a man. It was blasemphy to them that Jesus violated the Sabbath. It was blasmephy that Jesus forgave sins, And only God can do that. Right? They knew who Jesus was. Everything pointed at him. You know this. Thats why your a messianic Jew. Unless you have had another change of heart. Obviously, the Almighty viewed Cyrus as a Messiah settles what? That God chooses some for bigger events than others? What's your point?
 

Goose

New member
LOL. Seriously now...You can't even read Hebrew, yet you claim to understand the TN"K(Jewish Bible/Christian "OT") better then "those Jews"? I want to point out how silly that is. I'm not going to continue in your silly patronizing and your obfuscations. I think the audience has enough brain power to make it quite clear in why it's important to read the Hebrew Bible.

I'm looking to focus on Cyrus as a Messiah and thoughful comments. Not to be badgered and patronized by a person who considers himself more knowledgable in the Hebrew Bible,when he himself can't even read it. It's nonsense. I'm looking for comments about Cyrus Christ.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Oh reading Hebrew is a Badge of Honor huh? Funny those who read (past tense) it didn't follow it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 

Goose

New member
Brumley,

Jews didn't say the Almighty is not a man. The Almighty did.

P.S. - I'm not a Messianic Jew, nor have I ever been or claimed to be.
 
Top