Did Jesus fulfill any prophecies of the Messiah?

[polonius]

Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will: be a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world.

Did Jesus fulfill all of these, or in fact any of these?

[Avoice]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #29]

You say they heard and saw the light. Really???

According to Acts 9:
His men DOD NOT see the light, but HEARD the voice. The men stood.

According to Acts 22:
His men SAW the light but DID NOT hear the voice.

According to Acts 26:
The men fell to the Earth

SO NOW...WHAT DID YOU SAY? THE MEN SAW ? THE MEN HEARD?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #29]

You say they heard and saw the light. Really???

According to Acts 9:
His men DOD NOT see the light, but HEARD the voice. The men stood.

According to Acts 22:
His men SAW the light but DID NOT hear the voice.

According to Acts 26:
The men fell to the Earth

SO NOW...WHAT DID YOU SAY? THE MEN SAW ? THE MEN HEARD?

"Now as he [Saul] was traveling and getting near Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him, and he fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' He asked: 'Who are you Lord?' He said: 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.' Now the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice but seeing no one." (Acts 9:3-7)

This account doesn't eliminate the possibility that the men saw a light, since it says they didn't see a person. The men also might have fallen to the ground AFTER they stood speechless. Anyway, you have pointed out a discrepancy when you noted that one account says that the men heard a voice but another account says they did not. Good observation. Yet I don't really care. The Scriptures get the main gist of what happened.....the important thing is that Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus and Jesus sent him on a mission. From henceforth Paul was a dedicated witness for Christ. Why should anything else matter?

[Avoice]

One thing we do know. Both accounts can not be true. Which means one is a lie. If one is a lie maybe both are

Paul's credibility for telling the truth fails.

I know not one person who would believe people at their work or in their personal life when their stories don't match.
If someone tells you:
It rained all week while you were gone. Then tells you it was sunny while you were gone; you'd still take this person's word as true? What?? Like what difference does it make he still gave you a weather report? You'd introduce that person to your colleagues and friends as a person they should trust? No you wouldn't because you'd look foolish and rightly so..
Truth is you don't know what really happened on the road to Damascus. You dont. No matter which story version you tell you have a 50/50 chance is a lie.
Paul lied. He lied. It's not okay

[Difflugia]

One thing we do know. Both accounts can not be true. Which means one is a lie. If one is a lie maybe both are.

Or at least not factually correct. Honest mistake and literary fiction are both possibilities that I wouldn't consider to be lies. My personal view is that Acts falls into the latter category.

Paul's credibility for telling the truth fails.

Paul doesn't actually contradict himself, at least here. The later account in Acts was written by a different author and does contradict Paul's account, though.

Paul lied. He lied. It's not okay

For what it's worth, I don't think there are any passages in the genuine Pauline epistles that would likely be a lie in the strict sense. I think Paul was extremely credulous and occasionally delusional, both of which led him to report things that weren't objectively true, but I also think that he told the truth as he knew it.

[William]

[Replying to Avoice in post #33]

Paul lied. He lied. It's not okay

Truth is you don't know what really happened on the road to Damascus.

I accept Paul did indeed have the experience he wrote about. It is no particular problem that the experience was subjective.

Those of us who have had such non-ordinary subjective experiences do not think of these as delusions - even that others may label them as such.

Denying such experiences is self-delusion.

Claiming such are self delusional is a means of reinforcing the denial in order not to have to face the experience and look it in the eye.

Paul chose not to deny it and also to share it - even that there would always be naysayers...

[Avoice]

[Replying to William in post #0]

Joseph Smith saw visions. He shared his experience with others. Do you accept Mormonism as the truth?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #0]

Joseph Smith saw visions. He shared his experience with others. Do you accept Mormonism as the truth?

Abraham and many of the old testament characters saw visions and shared their experiences with others.
Do you acceopt Judaism as the truth?

[Avoice]

[Replying to William in post #37]

You didn't answer my question. I asked if you believed in the visions of Joseph Smith and considered Mormonism as truth.

Well, do you?

[William]

[Replying to Avoice in post #38]

You didn't answer my question.

Your question didn't seem to consider what I wrote so I see no reason it was asked, let alone why I should have to answer it.
That is why I asked you the same type of question. You support Judaism. I do not support any branch of Christianity, be they the examples you mentioned, or any other.

I am interested in the question you asked in relation to the idea of following anyone, simply because they claimed to have a vision. That is why I reflected your question back at you.

Who/what do you follow, and why do you follow?