Can you prove the Messiah strictly from the Hebrew bible/OT

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

The subject was shortened due to the constraints of the subject heading and it's character limit. The full title would have read "can you prove the Messiah has or will come strictly based on the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament? And more..."

The task is simple:

Can you show direct, clear, and irrefutable examples strictly from the Hebrew bible/OT that the Messiah has or will come and that the Messiah will do specific things? If you can do this please provide examples and let's discuss and debate them.

Please bring one point at a time so that we can examine each carefully and discuss more thoroughly. Many people like to bring 500 examples at once and distort the whole process of discussion and debate.

Shalom,

Avraham Ibn Ezra

[OnceConvinced]

Concerning his birth Prophesied Fulfilled

1. Born of the seed of woman Gen 3:15 Gal 4:4

What human isn't?

Very good point. Any person claiming to be divine or a son of God was born of a normal human being. There has yet to be a being that has been created out of thin air. Except for perhaps in mythology.

I would not expect any son of God to be born of a human, otherwise that just makes them a demigod.

2. Born of a virgin Isa 7:14 Mt 1:18-25

But how do we know that Jesus was born of a virgin?

Another good point. Just because Mary claimed to be a virgin doesn't mean she was. It could be that she was just trying to avoid a stoning, so made up a story about being visited by an angel and then being impregnated by God.

Concerning his nature Prophesied Fulfilled

1. He pre-existed creation Mic 5:2 1 Pet 1:20

What? Where is there any evidence or reason to believe that Jesus per-existed creation? How can you call that a "Prophesy fulfilled"?

Claims mean nothing. How can anyone prove Jesus was around pre-creation?

3. Called Immanuel (God with us) Isa 7:14 Mt 1:22-23

And who called Jesus Immanuel? Probably those who superstitiously believed that he was the Messiah? Once again, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Indeed. Anyone can claim fulfillment of prophecies by making up stuff about themselves or others.

2. To begin in Galilee Isa 9:1-2 Mt 4:12-17

Sorry Jesus began in Bethlehem. So not points there.

One may argue he was conceived in Galilee.

3. Ministry of Miracles Isa 35:5-6 Mt 9:35;11:4

There's no evidence that Jesus performed any miracles. So once again this could just be hearsay rumors made up in an effort to make Jesus appear to be something he wasn't.

I think the NT itself is evidence that Jesus didn't perform any real miracles. Just take a look at his disciples. One denied him, another betrayed him and another doubted him. This is damning evidence that Jesus wasn't every thing he claimed to be. I mean if you were rubbing shoulders with the son of God and seeing all these amazing miracles would you be denying him, doubting him or betraying him? Of course not, because you would know you're dealing with the son of God. You wouldn't dare.

Thomas himself is classic evidence Jesus wasn't all he was cracked up to be. He couldn't even believe it was Jesus! That shows you how much faith he had in the guy. If Jesus really was all he was cracked up to be, Thomas would have said something like "Jesus! You're back! Great, what do we do now?"

4. Teacher of parables Ps 78:1-4 Mt 13:34-35

Too common.

And also a possible self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want to claim to be the Messiah and the messiah is predicted to teach using parables, then of course you're gonna teach in parables yourself.

The day Jesus was crucified Prophesied Fulfilled

1. Betrayed by a friend Ps 41:9 Jn 13:18-27
2. Sold for 30 pieces of silver Zech 11:12 Mt 26:14-15
3. 30 pieces thrown in Temple Zech 11:13 Mt 27:3-5
4. 30 pieces buys potters field Zech 11:13 Mt 27:6-10
5. Forsaken by His disciples Zech 13:7 Mk 14:27+50

We don't know that any of those things actually happened. Every single one of those events could have been made up precisely for the purpose of trying to make out like Jesus was this promised messiah.

So none of those would qualify as "prophesy fulfilled". The people who wrote the Gospels rumors could have easily made all that stuff up. In fact, they most likely did since they kept pointing to the OT proclaiming that these particular prophesies were fulfilled. That's highly suspicious right there. They were clearly aware of what they needed Jesus to do.

There is a fascinating book called "My name is Judas".



It's a fictional work based on the bible and puts Judas in as the main character, supposedly never having hung himself... just faking his own death to avoid the ramifications of his actions. In it Judas reveals that Jesus wasn't really the son of God, just a clever manipulator and trickster and that many stories were simply exaggerations or not literal. In it Judas reveals that Jesus convinced Judas to betray him so that he could fulfill the prophecies.

Sure, it's fiction, but it beautifully sets out how one can go about attempting to fulfill prophecy and attempt to make out you are the Messiah. Is it really all that far from fiction? Perhaps it really did happen that way?

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

With respect to the Hebrew Bible I am 100% atheist. I am absolutely certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the God described in the OT cannot possibly exist as described in the Bible.

I was leaning more towards Atheist but I gave it the benefit of the doubt. As for your certainty of the lack of existence I would save that for another thread and another discussion

Concerning what convinced me, you are totally wrong that I have been convinced by claims and arguments of Agnosticism and Atheism. On the contrary, it was my own personal study of the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) that convinced me that it cannot possibly be true, as written. Even as metaphors or parables. Even taken in an extremely non-literal way, it still makes no rational sense, IMHO. The reason being that even taken non-literally the God that it describes would need to be extremely unintelligent, inconsistent, and self-contradictory.

First things first...I never said "arguments of agnosticism AND atheism" I used the word "OR" which has a much different connotation.

Second, whether you convinced yourself or not...you were not convinced of the arguments for theism so by default you were convinced of the arguments of Atheism, especially since you stated, quite plainly that you are 100% Atheist and were not persuaded by the claims in the bible after reading it. The bible argues for Theism so keep that in mind.

That's fine. But from a practical point of view why would anyone even bother with Orthodox Judaism? Especially in terms of any "Promised Messiah"?

Do the Orthodox Jews believe that they can point to any promised messiah? If so, please do so. If not, then why would they still be looking for a messiah today? Don't you think these ancient prophecies have failed for long enough?

How long do superstitious rumors need to fail before they are no longer worthy of consideration?

Are you actually expecting a messiah to show up yet? And if so, could you outline the prophesies that you believe might come true some day?

On the topic of the Biblical Messiah, it would seem to me that the Christians are the only ones who even bothered to claim that some Messiah even showed up at all. This is why any and all conversations along these lines are ultimately going to lead to the feet of Jesus (as the Christians would proclaim).

Either Jesus was this promised messiah, or these ancient fables aren't even worth considering anymore.

And, as you have already heard from me, I don't buy into the New Testament either.

So I'm convinced that the whole shebang has no more merit than Greek Mythology. It's just Hebrew Mythology. Pure and simple.

I don't see any "prophesy" in the Bible anywhere that is convincing or compelling about anything. In fact, we already know that many of it's claim never were true. So we already have strong evidence that it's nothing more than a collection of superstitious rumors and false prophesies.

I don't see what any of this has to do with the OP. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

No. As in all the references in the O.T. about Jesus. I believe them through the knowledge given to me by God via the Holy Spirit.

Ok. I never said anything about Jesus so I can see that you approach the text with a presumption. So you admit that this says nothing in the text about the messiah. So how do you know it is a about the messiah? How are you arriving at this conclusion? So far all I can see is an eisegesis of the text to force the text to be about the Messiah.

Through confidence in the Son of God, and Holy Spirit teaching.

How do you know they got it right? So far you stated that the text doesn't say a single word about the Messiah and doesn't directly reference the Messiah. So how do you know? Can you demonstrate the methodology you were using to arrive at your conclusion?

Christ Jesus and the Holy Ghost Spirit of truth.

That isn't a standard of proof. That is your ultimate conclusion and presumption toward the text. In essence you formed a type of circular reasoning by approaching the text assuming jesus is the messiah and then in the ultimate scheme of things concluded that jesus is the messiah.

Please show me by what standard of proof you are judging a scripture passage to be about the messiah. I never mentioned jesus once.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

@Avraham Ibn Ezra

I think you will quickly discover that most Christians have the same perspective as YahDough. They start with Jesus and work backwards from there.

Moreover, the vast majority of Christians aren't the slightest bit interested in supporting the OT without Jesus. Take Jesus out of the picture and the number of Christians who would convert to Judaism and sit around waiting for a new messiah that never came yet are going to be extremely rare. Christians already have grave difficulty with the Old Testament and often use Jesus as an excuse to dismiss the immoralities found in the Old Testament.

So from a very practical point of view I doubt that there exist too many people who would be interested in a Judaism that is still waiting for a messiah to come for the very first time.

I'm not sure where the Muslims stand on this issue. I never hear any Muslims speaking about any promised messiah in any case. My guess is that the Muslims don't believe in any such prophesies. They probably removed any mention of any promised messiah when they wrote the Qur'an? I really don't know what their position is on this. It might be interesting to know. Just out of curiosity.

we shall see how the thread unfolds.

[Divine Insight]

Second, whether you convinced yourself or not...you were not convinced of the arguments for theism so by default you were convinced of the arguments of Atheism, especially since you stated, quite plainly that you are 100% Atheist and were not persuaded by the claims in the bible after reading it. The bible argues for Theism so keep that in mind.

I wasn't reading arguments of Atheism at that time. On the contrary I was actually a very devout believer of Christianity and when I started studying the Bible my intent was not to doubt it but rather to understand it. As a Christian I had been taught that the Bible has answers to all questions. So I actually believed that I would indeed find answers.

Instead what I found was absolute nonsense and extreme self-contradictions. The Bible proved to me all by itself that it can't possible be the desires, will, directives or commandments of any actual God.

Therefore if the Bible is an "Argument for Theology" it fails miserably.

Also, keep in mind that if the Bible has anything at all to do with any actual God that God himself failed miserably to convince me of his reality.

So it's entirely the Bible that has failed here and my rejection of the Bible has nothing at all to do with "Atheism".

In fact, I didn't even stop believing in "God" when I discovered that the Bible can't possibly be true. So I didn't even become an "Atheist" in terms of the general concept of a possible "God".

Instead, after I realized the Bible can't possibly be true I turned to Eastern Mystical religions (not in search of "God") but simply to see if there are any religions out there that at least have the potential of being true. And I actually found that in various Eastern Mystical philosophies. Of course that doesn't mean they are true, only that they at least have a chance of being true. (something the Bible clearly does not possess).

Are you actually expecting a messiah to show up yet? And if so, could you outline the prophesies that you believe might come true some day?

I don't see what any of this has to do with the OP. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Well, your OP asks "Can you prove the Messiah strictly from the Hebrew bible/OT".

Therefore you seem to be suggesting that there actually is some "Messiah" that needs to be proved or disproved.

So perhaps you could clarify that?

What do you even mean by "The Messiah"?

Do believe that there was a Messiah prophesied in the OT?

And if so, do you believe that prophesy ever came true, or are you still waiting for it to come true?

And if you don't believe that any Messiah was ever prophesied to come perhaps you could offer your case for that.

After all, if you are asking other people to prove "The Messiah" then you should at least give your views on what you believe "The Messiah" even means?

How can you ask other people to prove a term that you haven't even defined in any detail?

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

I wasn't reading arguments of Atheism at that time.

How does this negate you accepting the arguments of Atheism? if you didn't accept the Atheist argument of a non existent deity then why are you an atheist?

Instead what I found was absolute nonsense and extreme self-contradictions. The Bible proved to me all by itself that it can't possible be the desires, will, directives or commandments of any actual God.

So the bible all by itself convinced you that the arguments of Atheism were valid. Congratulations. I don't see why it is so hard for you to accept that you accepted the arguments of Atheism as valid as opposed to Accepting the arguments for Theism as Valid. No rational person would argue against that.

Therefore if the Bible is an "Argument for Theology" it fails miserably.

the bible doesn't argue "theology" it argues for "theism." those are two different things. Don't conflate the two.

Theism - argues there is a Higher deity or G-d

Theology - discusses what one believes about that Deity or G-d.

Also, keep in mind that if the Bible has anything at all to do with any actual God that God himself failed miserably to convince me of his reality.

Ok and? Being an Atheist is a perfectly rational conclusion to get from reading the Bible.

o it's entirely the Bible that has failed here and my rejection of the Bible has nothing at all to do with "Atheism".

If that is the case then why did you describe yourself as 100% Atheist? hmm...

, I didn't even stop believing in "God" when I discovered that the Bible can't possibly be true. So I didn't even become an "Atheist" in terms of the general concept of a possible "God".

So why describe yourself as 100% Atheist? what were you in the interim? Agnostic?

Instead, after I realized the Bible can't possibly be true I turned to Eastern Mystical religions (not in search of "God") but simply to see if there are any religions out there that at least have the potential of being true. And I actually found that in various Eastern Mystical philosophies. Of course that doesn't mean they are true, only that they at least have a chance of being true. (something the Bible clearly does not possess).

that is a perfectly rational conclusion. what standards of evidence are you using to judge the biblical text?

Are you actually expecting a messiah to show up yet? And if so, could you outline the prophesies that you believe might come true some day?

Well, your OP asks "Can you prove the Messiah strictly from the Hebrew bible/OT".

Therefore you seem to be suggesting that there actually is some "Messiah" that needs to be proved or disproved.

Not based on the question. The assumption of the question is that the person taking up the task believes there is or will be a Messiah to come and to challenge them to prove their claim. what I believe is irrelevant to the conversation as my person beliefs aren't the topic.

So perhaps you could clarify that?

see above

What do you even mean by "The Messiah"?

Since this is a Christian Debate board one could easily assume I am talking about the standard evangelical Christian definition of "the messiah." the question is worded to even include other definitions of Judaism and any others.

Do believe that there was a Messiah prophesied in the OT?

And if so, do you believe that prophesy ever came true, or are you still waiting for it to come true?

And if you don't believe that any Messiah was ever prophesied to come perhaps you could offer your case for that.

My personal beliefs are not the topic.

After all, if you are asking other people to prove "The Messiah" then you should at least give your views on what you believe "The Messiah" even means?

How can you ask other people to prove a term that you haven't even defined in any detail?

No, because I am not making a positive truth claim about my personal beliefs about the Messiah. I am making no claim at all. I gave what religion I affiliate and that should be sufficient.

Shabbat Shalom,

Avraham Ibn Ezra

[YahDough]

No. As in all the references in the O.T. about Jesus. I believe them through the knowledge given to me by God via the Holy Spirit.

Ok. I never said anything about Jesus so I can see that you approach the text with a presumption.

It's not a presumption. Its an understanding.

So you admit that this says nothing in the text about the messiah.

No. I said I believe all those texts I presented refer to the Messiah Jesus..

So how do you know it is a about the messiah?

I already answered that. Are you familiar with the NT teachings about the Holy Spirit?

How are you arriving at this conclusion? So far all I can see is an eisegesis of the text to force the text to be about the Messiah.

All of my conclusions are based on the knowledge I have that Christ Jesus.is the Messiah.

Through confidence in the Son of God, and Holy Spirit teaching.

How do you know they got it right?

The Holy Ghost Spirit, who is lives in believers bears witness to the truth.

Christ Jesus and the Holy Ghost Spirit of truth.

That isn't a standard of proof. That is your ultimate conclusion and presumption toward the text. In essence you formed a type of circular reasoning by approaching the text assuming jesus is the messiah and then in the ultimate scheme of things concluded that jesus is the messiah.

That may be a convoluted and erroneous analysis of me but you have the right conclusion. Jesus is the Messiah.

Please show me by what standard of proof you are judging a scripture passage to be about the messiah. I never mentioned jesus once.

The Holy Ghost (Spirit) that comes in the name of Jesus teaches it and I learn to believe it.

[Divine Insight]

I wasn't reading arguments of Atheism at that time.

How does this negate you accepting the arguments of Atheism? if you didn't accept the Atheist argument of a non existent deity then why are you an atheist?

Who said I'm an atheist?

I'm an "atheist" with respect to the God of Hebrew mythology just as you are most likely an "atheist" with respect to the Gods of Greek mythology.

Whether or not any actual "God" might exist I have no clue. So I accept the label "agnostic" on that concept in general.

I have no reason to believe that there is any God. No "atheist arguments" required.

There simply isn't any evidence that any God exists. Period.

Instead what I found was absolute nonsense and extreme self-contradictions. The Bible proved to me all by itself that it can't possible be the desires, will, directives or commandments of any actual God.

So the bible all by itself convinced you that the arguments of Atheism were valid. Congratulations. I don't see why it is so hard for you to accept that you accepted the arguments of Atheism as valid as opposed to Accepting the arguments for Theism as Valid. No rational person would argue against that.

There are no "Valid Arguments" for theism.

If you think there are, then I disagree with you on that point.

Therefore if the Bible is an "Argument for Theology" it fails miserably.

the bible doesn't argue "theology" it argues for "theism." those are two different things. Don't conflate the two.

Theism - argues there is a Higher deity or G-d

Theology - discusses what one believes about that Deity or G-d.

The Bible doesn't "argue" for the existence of a Higher Deity. It simply demands that you either believe this or will be condemned for your disbelief. Or at least for your "disobedience" which would not doubt occur if you don't believe. After all, why should you set aside a Sabbath Holy Day for a God that you don't believe in?

And according to the Bible if you fail to observe the Sabbath you are to be stoned to death.

Also, keep in mind that if the Bible has anything at all to do with any actual God that God himself failed miserably to convince me of his reality.

Ok and? Being an Atheist is a perfectly rational conclusion to get from reading the Bible.

Being an Atheist with respect to the God described in the Bible? Yes.

The God described in the Bible is an oxymoron. That is to say that it is extremely self-contradictory in terms of how it is being described in the Biblical stories.

So atheism doesn't even need to be considered. You can reject the Bible based solely on it's own self-contradictory nature. Whether or not there might exist a "higher power" is a totally different and separate question. Perhaps Buddhism has the correct picture of "God"?

The Bible didn't convince me to become an "atheist" at all. On the contrary at the time I first recognized that the Bible couldn't possibly be true I actually still believed in a "God". So I didn't even become and atheist. I simply recognize that if there is a God, the Bible doesn't describe it, or speak for it.

o it's entirely the Bible that has failed here and my rejection of the Bible has nothing at all to do with "Atheism".

If that is the case then why did you describe yourself as 100% Atheist? hmm...

I am only 100% atheist with respect to the Biblical God.

Just as you are probably 100% atheist with respect to Zeus.

I'm still open to the possibility that the God described by Buddhism could be real.

, I didn't even stop believing in "God" when I discovered that the Bible can't possibly be true. So I didn't even become an "Atheist" in terms of the general concept of a possible "God".

So why describe yourself as 100% Atheist? what were you in the interim? Agnostic?

I am 100% atheist with respect to the Hebrew God of Abraham just as you are probably 100% atheist with respect to the Greek God of Zeus.

In terms of a possible mystical or divine essence to reality in general, I'll accept the label of Agnostic.

Although I must confess that many arguments put forth by secular materialists that suggest reasons to believe there is no God are quite convincing. But I didn't really give those arguments much consideration until long after I had already realized that the bible cannot possibly be true as written.

Instead, after I realized the Bible can't possibly be true I turned to Eastern Mystical religions (not in search of "God") but simply to see if there are any religions out there that at least have the potential of being true. And I actually found that in various Eastern Mystical philosophies. Of course that doesn't mean they are true, only that they at least have a chance of being true. (something the Bible clearly does not possess).

that is a perfectly rational conclusion. what standards of evidence are you using to judge the biblical text?

I apply quite a few standards actually.

1. Are the stories logically consistent? - my answer, no they are not.
2. Does this God behave in a way that I would expect an intelligent super being to behave? - my answer, no he does not.
3. Is there any evidence for any of the miraculous claims made in these stories? - my answer, no there is not.
(in fact, in terms of #3 there are actually many instances where there is overwhelming evidence against claims made in the Bible)
4. Are the things this God himself does and commands men to do moral? - my answer, no many are not.
5. Is this a God that I could trust? - my answer, no absolutely not.

The Bible just fails on every standard I apply to it.

In fact, at one point I sat down with a piece of paper divided into two columns. One column I marked "Things I believe a God might do or say". The other column I marked, "Things I believe men who make up religious stories would say".

I then picked up the Bible and began reading it from the very beginning of Genesis. It wasn't very far into the OT before I realized that the list entitled "Things I believe men who make up religious stories would say" and the column marked "Things I believe a God might do or say" was seriously lacking any entries.

So that was yet another test where the Bible failed miserable.

Are you actually expecting a messiah to show up yet? And if so, could you outline the prophesies that you believe might come true some day?

Well, your OP asks "Can you prove the Messiah strictly from the Hebrew bible/OT".

Therefore you seem to be suggesting that there actually is some "Messiah" that needs to be proved or disproved.

Not based on the question. The assumption of the question is that the person taking up the task believes there is or will be a Messiah to come and to challenge them to prove their claim. what I believe is irrelevant to the conversation as my person beliefs aren't the topic.

Sounds like a total cop-out to me. I don't personally have much respect for people who start a debate where they refuse to even take a position on the topic they started. Seems to me like "trolling".

So perhaps you could clarify that?

see above

Seems to me like "trolling".

What do you even mean by "The Messiah"?

Since this is a Christian Debate board one could easily assume I am talking about the standard evangelical Christian definition of "the messiah." the question is worded to even include other definitions of Judaism and any others.

But then you chastise people for even mentioning the New Testament. That's where they get their justification for claiming that Jesus is the "messiah".

Although, I will grant you that the Christian Jesus is hardly the Jewish "Messiah". The Jewish Messiah was supposed to become the King of the Jews and bring peace to all nations whilst ruling Israel. Jesus didn't do anything remotely like that.

The Christians have twisted the Jewish "Messiah" into a "Savior" where the "Savior" is supposedly saving us from condemnation by God himself, not from any hostile mortal neighbors.

So I'll be the first to agree that the Christian "Jesus" is nothing at all like the Jewish "Messiah".

Do believe that there was a Messiah prophesied in the OT?

And if so, do you believe that prophesy ever came true, or are you still waiting for it to come true?

And if you don't believe that any Messiah was ever prophesied to come perhaps you could offer your case for that.

My personal beliefs are not the topic.

You're right. Your "beliefs" don't matter. But you should still be able to take a position on your very own topic.

After all, if you are asking other people to prove "The Messiah" then you should at least give your views on what you believe "The Messiah" even means?

How can you ask other people to prove a term that you haven't even defined in any detail?

No, because I am not making a positive truth claim about my personal beliefs about the Messiah. I am making no claim at all. I gave what religion I affiliate and that should be sufficient.

Shabbat Shalom,

Avraham Ibn Ezra

Sounds like a typical theist cop-out to me. Place the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of others whilst refusing to have anything at all placed on your own shoulders.

And a Christian wouldn't even need to bother with your demand because they have no need to prove the Messiah based strictly from the Hebrew OT.

In fact, the Christians don't even think of Jesus as being the "Messiah" in any Jewish sense of the term. They think of Jesus as being the "Savior" and the "Son of God".

So clearly the Christians have a totally different idea of the "Messiah" even means.

The Christian "Messiah" is not at all the same as the Jewish "Messiah".

In fact, if I was a Christian I would turn the tables on you immediately by simply asking you to define what you even mean by the "Messiah".

That would force you to take a position at least insofar as defining the term.

And if you refused to do so, then (as a Christian) I would simply say to you, "Well, in that case then I have no clue what you even mean by the term."

In fact, YahDough is already beating you up on this very point.

YahDough defines the meaning of his "Messiah" via the New Testament.

If you are a Jew who doesn't want to hear anything about the New Testament, then you notion (or definition) of the term "Messiah" is going to be totally different.

Therefore you and YahDough aren't even talking about the same thing (semantically speaking).

You each have an entirely different definition of what you even mean by the term "Messiah".

YahDough is at least offering his definition (which for him is based entirely upon the New Testament).

But you refuse to even define the term at all.

That's hardly going to lead to a meaningful "debate".

Just saying.

[Man_With_A_Plan]

I like to look at the big picture.

1.) Judaism believes that there will be a Messiah.

2.) Judaism hasn't had anyone regarded as a "Biblical prophet" in 2,400 years.

3.) Though many have claimed to be the Messiah, the only person who can come close to fitting that bill is Jesus.

4.) It's only because Jesus--Christianity--that one of Judaism's most ardent hopes and prophecies was fulfilled: That all nations will know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

5.) Looking at the history of Israel, it's interesting how the nation was destroyed shortly after the time of Jesus and only in recent history has it come back into being. I'm not sure if this can be interpreted in any way, but it's interesting nonetheless. If I was a theistic Jew, I would wonder about it.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Who said I'm an atheist?

Ummm.....You did! Are you now backtracking?

I'm an "atheist" with respect to the God of Hebrew mythology just as you are most likely an "atheist" with respect to the Gods of Greek mythology.

So you are a fan of Conflation, Obfuscation and Religious relativism? How awesome.

Whether or not any actual "God" might exist I have no clue. So I accept the label "agnostic" on that concept in general


I have no reason to believe that there is any God. No "atheist arguments" required.

There simply isn't any evidence that any God exists. Period. .

I can tell you are a fan of the argumentum ex silentio. And that's ok! We can see it unfold as you dive deeper into inconsistency. I don't hold to 100% certainty on my beliefs. I am, however, most convinced by the arguments of theism in particular the arguments of Judaism.

There are no "Valid Arguments" for theism.

If you think there are, then I disagree with you on that point.

Ok. That's an empty claim. With all of this said and done you still aren't addressing the OP.

Therefore if the Bible is an "Argument for Theology" it fails miserably.

the bible doesn't argue "theology" it argues for "theism." those are two different things. Don't conflate the two.

Theism - argues there is a Higher deity or G-d

Theology - discusses what one believes about that Deity or G-d.

The Bible doesn't "argue" for the existence of a Higher Deity. It simply demands that you either believe this or will be condemned for your disbelief. Or at least for your "disobedience" which would not doubt occur if you don't believe. After all, why should you set aside a Sabbath Holy Day for a God that you don't believe in?

Apparently you misread what I wrote so I am going to leave it in there for you to re-read. While I'm at it I am going to post the definition of argue from dictionary .com for you see and then realize that you missed the definition of argue that iw as conveying.


verb (used without object), argued, arguing.


1. to present reasons for or against a thing:
He argued in favor of capital punishment.


2. to contend in oral disagreement; dispute:
The senator argued with the president about the new tax bill.


verb (used with object), argued, arguing.


3. to state the reasons for or against:
The lawyers argued the case.


4. to maintain in reasoning:
to argue that the news report must be wrong.


5. to persuade, drive, etc., by reasoning:
to argue someone out of a plan.


6. to show; prove; imply; indicate:
His clothes argue poverty.

And according to the Bible if you fail to observe the Sabbath you are to be stoned to death.

Ok, And?

Being an Atheist with respect to the God described in the Bible? Yes.

You are either Atheist or you aren't. There isn't an in between when using that term. Now if you described yourself as agnostic, then that is a good term to use if you are unsure of the existence of any deity.

The God described in the Bible is an oxymoron. That is to say that it is extremely self-contradictory in terms of how it is being described in the Biblical stories.

Ok, How do you know that's correct? What standards of proof and ebvidence are you using to evaluate such? IOW show me the proof that this is correct.

So atheism doesn't even need to be considered. You can reject the Bible based solely on it's own self-contradictory nature. Whether or not there might exist a "higher power" is a totally different and separate question. Perhaps Buddhism has the correct picture of "God"?

So then why throw in the term Atheism in the first place? Sounds like dishonesty to me.

The Bible didn't convince me to become an "atheist" at all. On the contrary at the time I first recognized that the Bible couldn't possibly be true I actually still believed in a "God". So I didn't even become and atheist. I simply recognize that if there is a God, the Bible doesn't describe it, or speak for it.

So why not be honest and not describe yourself as an Atheist in any way? Sounds to me like you just want to simply be dishonest and prolong a non fruitful discussion that has zero to do with the OP.

I am only 100% atheist with respect to the Biblical God.

Just as you are probably 100% atheist with respect to Zeus.

I'm still open to the possibility that the God described by Buddhism could be real.

that's called obfuscation. try again! You are either an Atheist or not. if you had said you were 100% agnostic and left it I wouldn't be questioning your honesty.

I am 100% atheist with respect to the Hebrew God of Abraham just as you are probably 100% atheist with respect to the Greek God of Zeus.

In terms of a possible mystical or divine essence to reality in general, I'll accept the label of Agnostic.

And this is where dishonesty comes into play. You cant directly or honestly answer the question.

Although I must confess that many arguments put forth by secular materialists that suggest reasons to believe there is no God are quite convincing. But I didn't really give those arguments much consideration until long after I had already realized that the bible cannot possibly be true as written.

So you were convinced by the arguments of Atheism. Thank you for contradicting yourself.

I apply quite a few standards actually.

1. Are the stories logically consistent? - my answer, no they are not.
2. Does this God behave in a way that I would expect an intelligent super being to behave? - my answer, no he does not.
3. Is there any evidence for any of the miraculous claims made in these stories? - my answer, no there is not.
(in fact, in terms of #3 there are actually many instances where there is overwhelming evidence against claims made in the Bible)
4. Are the things this God himself does and commands men to do moral? - my answer, no many are not.
5. Is this a God that I could trust? - my answer, no absolutely not.

The Bible just fails on every standard I apply to it.

Ok wonderful. now, Can you demonstrate how your methods are superior to that of those who argue for Theism and can you demonstrate why I should accept your methods as valid?

Well, your OP asks "Can you prove the Messiah strictly from the Hebrew bible/OT".

Therefore you seem to be suggesting that there actually is some "Messiah" that needs to be proved or disproved.

OK, And?

Sounds like a total cop-out to me. I don't personally have much respect for people who start a debate where they refuse to even take a position on the topic they started. Seems to me like "trolling".

So basically you are unable to take up the challenge. You have already shown yourself to be dishonest why would anyone actually believe the "trolling" accusation? Its called a question from which a debate ensues.

]


Seems to me like "trolling".

Coming from you, nobody is taking it seriously.

But then you chastise people for even mentioning the New Testament. That's where they get their justification for claiming that Jesus is the "messiah".

And then refer back to the OP. Question is can you prove it from the Hebrew Bible/OT? Mentioning the New testament doesn't prove jack! All quoting the NT proves is that anyone can approach the Hebrew Bible/OT with this presupposition that Jesus is the messiah. I didn't ask about a presupposition, I asked if you can prove it strictly in the Hebrew Bible/OT.

Do believe that there was a Messiah prophesied in the OT?

I believe the claims of Rabbinic Judaism that there is mention of Messiah in the Hebrew bible, sure!

And if so, do you believe that prophesy ever came true, or are you still waiting for it to come true?

And if you don't believe that any Messiah was ever prophesied to come perhaps you could offer your case for that.

Um no. I have nothing to prove. I fully admit that I cannot prove the Messiah strictly from the Hebrew Bible, period! I only admit that I am convinced by the claims of Rabbinic Judaism that there is a Messiah

You're right. Your "beliefs" don't matter. But you should still be able to take a position on your very own topic.

No I don't. if you cant answer the question of the OP, don't participate! its that simple.

After all, if you are asking other people to prove "The Messiah" then you should at least give your views on what you believe "The Messiah" even means?

I gave a definition. Its not my fault you weren't following along.

How can you ask other people to prove a term that you haven't even defined in any detail?

apparently you haven't read the thread. Also, when debating Christianity there is an assumed definition. which I gave in a previous post for the theisticly challenged such as yourself.

Sounds like a typical theist cop-out to me. Place the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of others whilst refusing to have anything at all placed on your own shoulders.

yes, the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim. Why should I prove a negative?

And a Christian wouldn't even need to bother with your demand because they have no need to prove the Messiah based strictly from the Hebrew OT.

need isn't a part of this. its a debate.

In fact, if I was a Christian I would turn the tables on you immediately by simply asking you to define what you even mean by the "Messiah".

Apparently you missed it when I said "Since this is a Christian Debate board one could easily assume I am talking about the standard evangelical Christian definition of "the messiah." the question is worded to even include other definitions of Judaism and any others."

That would force you to take a position at least insofar as defining the term.

I gave you my religious affiliation. Its not my fault you are ignorant of Judaism.

And if you refused to do so, then (as a Christian) I would simply say to you, "Well, in that case then I have no clue what you even mean by the term."

I would then say learn to read. I gave the definition I even bolded, Italicized, and underlined it for you. Do you want a direct quote and which post it was in?

In fact, YahDough is already beating you up on this very point.

YahDough defines the meaning of his "Messiah" via the New Testament.

If you are a Jew who doesn't want to hear anything about the New Testament, then you notion (or definition) of the term "Messiah" is going to be totally different.

Therefore you and YahDough aren't even talking about the same thing (semantically speaking).

You each have an entirely different definition of what you even mean by the term "Messiah".

YahDough is at least offering his definition (which for him is based entirely upon the New Testament).

But you refuse to even define the term at all.

That's hardly going to lead to a meaningful "debate".

Just saying.

Wow coming from someone who cant even be honest about what they believe and then contradict yourself in the same post that means nothing. I've been beating you over the head for the last few posts. Yahdough has a few problems, first he cant find a direct quotation in the OT that says the messiah, as defined by Christianity, will do anything he is claiming. Second, Yahdough hasn't demonstrated how his interpretation, read presupposition, is superior to that of others. thirdly, quoting the NT wont help because that is the presupposition that must be demonstrated to be superior over all others and then the next question is "how does yahdough know that the NT got it right?" and "what evidence is there that proves the NT got it right?"

I haven't even gotten into this discussion and you and yahdough have already lost. First its with your dishonesty Divine Insight and with yahdough its a lack of proving the claim. I just getting started with this one.