Isaiah 53 does not = Jesus

[simplynoone]

The Bible never says that a Messiah will come from Joseph - that is a “tradition”. And a prophetic one at that - Jesus was from the literal house of Joseph! And, btw, Mary is a descendant of King David - the Jews never denied this.

I am working off of the NT which claims two strange lineages both being of Joseph’s line… and the church claims that he was not the son of Joseph, but of God. That is for the Church to figure out.

False. Isaiah makes no mention of Israel in the Suffering Servant passage. And, again, the Jews never interpreted it that way until long after Christ fulfilled the prophecy. But please, keep ignoring that point.

I have given plenty of references to show otherwise that it is indeed Israel that is the suffering servant in the post that started this thread. And as far as what the Jews interpreted it as (being Israel), I am working off of only the Tanakh and the NT and not by the general Jewish knowledge. Kind of cool that you just confirmed what I see is in line with their view, no?

Because its not there? Where is it?

Jeremiah 31:27

It doesn’t say that.

It does and Jesus confirmed that he was teaching the Law and the prophets in Matthew 5:17-19. Go back and read the blessing of Judah. It is there. I cannot give all these away ya know. Oh, and check out the wolves in sheeps clothing… it is there in the blessings as well.

It says none of those things. You’re wasting my time. Show your proof!

I did and apparently you did not even bother reading. Do you not believe the words of the prophet when he said these things are declared the end FROM the beginning? I do because it really is. What you are looking for in Genesis 48 is the blessings over the sons of Joseph. Pay close attention to what exactly is written. It is there and not hidden from you that what I just said is not a lie.

That’s odd, God said Israel was stiff-necked, not the Gentiles. And He continually talked about saving a “remnant” of Israel. So why should we be surprised that only a remnant became Christian?

Again, this will have to be understood with the blessings given in Genesis 48 and 49 and the testimonies just confirm it to be so.

And what do you mean that only a remnant became Christian. Good LORD! Do you not see that Christianity and Islam are the two biggest religions right now? And what about Judaism. I will not lie… I wept when I saw that statistic. The one religion the two are piggy backing off of and denying is the one to which we should have all been called to.

Where?

I know! I am still astounded that I had never seen it before… the problem is the timing and the power of suggestions that we have been under. It is there… just where I said… in the whole of the Tanakh.

“The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” (Jeremiah 31:31)

Yes, and if you continue to read not ONE of the letter of the Law of God is being abolished; rather it is being held up within the People to whom it means a great deal. You could offer me the whole of the Eastern coast of the US and I would not deny one thing written w/in the Law of God… my faith for my children’s future rests upon them staying intact.

Don’t be surprised. Its all been foretold.

And here is the cool thing… what I was taught w/in Christianity not only scared me as a child, but made me weep. I could not understand for the life of me how I or any of those I loved would be thrown into hell for being unsure about the blood of a man we never knew being shed. Luckily for me, this is not written in the Word of God.

 

[simplynoone]

It still doesn’t say that.

References… I have given them for everything I have stated. matt 5:17-19 <— Jesus confirms it.

Strange, because that is what it says!

“The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.” (Genesis 49:10)

Christ the King!

There is not obedience toward the People of God… not fully! Psalm 78… might be an interesting read. It sure was for me. And not anywhere in there or elsewhere in the Tanakh will you see “christ” being mentioned as the one that Israel would gather to. That is the promise for the greek, I guess.

Your “faith” based on nothing. Isaiah did not limit who he was talking about in any way. Its all who hear the truth - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - and believe or don’t believe.

Show me where God declared Jesus Christ ONCE in the Tanakh. In Isaiah it specifically says that things have been declared… not the beginning from the end, but the end FROM the beginning. So, show me. Else, it is not part of the prophecy of Isaiah.

Right, that’s why Solomon didn’t know His Name! There are none so blind as those who will not see.

And of course, in all you wrote you ignored the main point that I made: God foretold that He Himself would be the Servant who says, “Here I AM!”

I am saying Here I Am… does that make me as an individual the Saviour? No! God said these things would be revealed before our eyes… the thing is, from the Hebrew standpoint, they are… How does one argue with that. I approached this with the inclination toward Christianity because it is what I knew. I was SHOCKED to find out that I found myself overwhelmingly agreeing with the Jewish view of God, the Messiah, and the Saviour (who is God alone and not a man).

The Son of God has been on this earth just as depicted in Isaiah 53… and now they are saying HERE I AM. And this is before the eyes of us all in this time as declared in Isaiah… it is said in the Tanakh. Exodus 4:22,23 Hosea 11:1. It has been there all along, but “the world knew him not.”

 

[Bookworm88]

Simplynoone,
How do you explain the fact that Christ Himself used the Old Testament Scriptures to show his own suffering?
Luke 24:25-27 says, 25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
And then also verses 44-47 which say, 44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
From Christ’s own words, we can see that He claimed to be the fulfillment of prophesies regarding a suffering Saviour. Do you disagree with Christ’s assessment of Himself?

 

[simplynoone]

Simplynoone,
How do you explain the fact that Christ Himself used the Old Testament Scriptures to show his own suffering?
Luke 24:25-27 says, 25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
And then also verses 44-47 which say, 44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
From Christ’s own words, we can see that He claimed to be the fulfillment of prophesies regarding a suffering Saviour. Do you disagree with Christ’s assessment of Himself?

I just have to be honest with you… I can not find the name Christ in the Tanakh. Could you help me out by posting the reference where Christ is mentioned?

 

[abucs]

Are you kidding me? This is a joke right? KNOWLEDGE IS NOT FOUND JUST IN THE WORDS! This is TRULY a spiritual book for a spiritual People (that is not to undermine the blood factor, but that blood is the blood that actually has LIFE in it and Jesus was not the only with that blood… and the Church has known this which is why they have spilled so much of it and parade around on a cross the image of a Jewish man as their trophy. SICK!). The Church has not given you knowledge. They have helped to keep the knowledge hidden, even from the very People of God. Here is the thing though, it has been written the end from the beginning and thus, that knowledge was bound to be exposed at some point in time. Well, this IS that time! You all are JUST NOW getting the knowledge; and the words “and the world knew him not” become a reality.

Listen really carefully to what I am saying. The fact that we even have the beginning intact and the means to understand it correctly is NOT thanks to the Church… it is thanks to the Jewish People. The fact that we are even still here to obey Proverbs 2 and receive that promise is NOT thanks to the Church, it is thanks to the Jewish People. The Church is not God’s messenger. The Church is not the Chosen. The Church is the one spouting off with lip service and from the looks of it, the Church is getting nervous and so they bring in men who claim to be former Rabbi’s to try to deceive even further and yet, they are not bringing you knowledge and understanding. They are STILL bringing you deception to try to keep you from the Truth.

Listen to the teachings of the Church and it is clear what the curse in Jeremiah 17:5 is. You can find it in Malachi 4. It is true… nothing is hidden from before your eyes, it is only a matter of whether you have the right eyes to see it or not.

I think you have been watching too much of the Da Vinci code. The church has been responsible for the development of western society through education, medicine, charity and science despite the rubbish which is portrayed in todays media. It was at the forefront of western thought for over a thousand years and developed much of the basis for our world that today has been taken over by secular governments.

The Jerusalem Temple has laid in ruins since 40 years after the death of Jesus with the Jewish people only gaining back control of their land in the last century. In that time the Jewish Christians took the knowledge of God throughout the whole world and today number a third of the people on earth. That civilisation has been responsible for the great progress of humankind that no other era can even come close to. If you focus on all of the negatives in that period you are missing the big picture. And you are missing it deliberately.

 

[Bookworm88]

I just have to be honest with you… I can not find the name Christ in the Tanakh. Could you help me out by posting the reference where Christ is mentioned?

I see you are skirting my question instead of answering it. Christ Himself said he was mentioned in the Old Testament. I will repost Luke 24:44. Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." I don’t see what difference it makes whether I can show you the exact verses that Christ used. The point is that He used them. He showed the disciples verses from the Torah and from the prophetic books and from the Psalms to show His disciples that prophesies in those books refered to HIM and were fulfilled by HIM.

So I’ll ask the question again. Do you disagree with Christ’s own assessment of Himself?

 

[simplynoone]

I think you have been watching too much of the Da Vinci code.

You mean you are making a baseless assumption. I have not seen the movie. I have not read the book. I have read the Bible.

The church has been responsible for the development of western society through education, medicine, charity and science despite the rubbish which is portrayed in todays media. It was at the forefront of western thought for over a thousand years and developed much of the basis for our world that today has been taken over by secular governments.

Are you paying attention?

The Jerusalem Temple has laid in ruins since 40 years after the death of Jesus with the Jewish people only gaining back control of their land in the last century. In that time the Jewish Christians took the knowledge of God throughout the whole world and today number a third of the people on earth.

There is no such thing as a Jewish Christian.

And the (ex) Jew who betrayed the Jewish People by putting the Word of God into the hands of the Gentiles was none other than Paul, and he failed to actually TEACH how one could obtain the knowledge of God. The knowledge of God comes from the “mouth” of God. Just because one reads the words written does not mean they have any understanding of the Word. Proverbs 2:1-7

That civilisation has been responsible for the great progress of humankind that no other era can even come close to. If you focus on all of the negatives in that period you are missing the big picture. And you are missing it deliberately.

Do you mean to say that the “Church” is responsible? Way to go! Personally, I would not like to be associated with this mess we call “civilization.” Still, here I am and one can always learn from the gross errors made; this I agree with.

 

[simplynoone]

I see you are skirting my question instead of answering it. Christ Himself said he was mentioned in the Old Testament. I will repost Luke 24:44. Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." I don’t see what difference it makes whether I can show you the exact verses that Christ used. The point is that He used them. He showed the disciples verses from the Torah and from the prophetic books and from the Psalms to show His disciples that prophesies in those books refered to HIM and were fulfilled by HIM.

So I’ll ask the question again. Do you disagree with Christ’s own assessment of Himself?

No, I am not skirting the issue. It is a double edged question you are asking me. I hear Christ and due to the culture in which I have known, I automatically associate it with the image of the Jewish man named Jesus that was killed by the Gentiles. Christ admittedly means anointed, I do know.

If you think “Jesus” by saying Christ, then show me where his name is declared in the Tanakh as a saviour, the Messiah, and especially as God (or even Son of God).

If you think the anointed when Christ is said, then that would be Israel, the People as is declared in the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[abucs]

There is no such thing as a Jewish Christian.

Well this depends very much on how you define it. For me, between the crucifixion and the temples destruction there were many types of Judaisms.

There were Jewish Sadducees, Jewish Essenes, Jewish Phairsees, even Jewish Samaritans, and then there were the Jewish Christians.

At and after the temples destruction, all forms of Judaism were persecuted and with the loss of country and temple Judaism was drastically redefined.

The Jewish Christians were so successful with their message that we no longer call them Jewish as they now account for that 1/3 of the world’s population i spoke about as opposed to the other forms of Judaisms, some of which have totally (or virtually) dissappeared. All writings contained in the new testament are Jewish writings except possibly for Luke who was a gentile, travelled and lived with Jews and probably converted to Judaism himself.

You may not want to define the Jewish Christians with Judaism. That’s fine. But i don’t agree with you.

 

[simplynoone]

Well this depends very much on how you define it. For me, between the crucifixion and the temples destruction there were many types of Judaisms.

There were Jewish Sadducees, Jewish Essenes, Jewish Phairsees, even Jewish Samaritans, and then there were the Jewish Christians.

At and after the temples destruction, all forms of Judaism were persecuted and with the loss of country and temple Judaism was drastically redefined.

The Jewish Christians were so successful with their message that we no longer call them Jewish as they now account for that 1/3 of the world’s population i spoke about as opposed to the other forms of Judaisms, some of which have totally (or virtually) dissappeared. All writings contained in the new testament are Jewish writings except possibly for Luke who was a gentile, travelled and lived with Jews and probably converted to Judaism himself.

You may not want to define the Jewish Christians with Judaism. That’s fine. But i don’t agree with you.

You can disagree with me, sure, but you are wrong. Genesis 49 is about the blessings and it was to Judah’s name that the nation of Israel would be gathered to.

CHRISTianity does not contain the name of Judah. JUDAism does. There is no such thing as a Jewish Christian just as there is no such thing as a Christian Muslim. They are 3 different religions. Only one is the original and it is the same one declared CLEARLY as being where the Chosen are to be gathered to.

 

[ruslan]

 

[Bookworm88]

No, I am not skirting the issue. It is a double edged question you are asking me. I hear Christ and due to the culture in which I have known, I automatically associate it with the image of the Jewish man named Jesus that was killed by the Gentiles. Christ admittedly means anointed, I do know.

If you think “Jesus” by saying Christ, then show me where his name is declared in the Tanakh as a saviour, the Messiah, and especially as God (or even Son of God).

If you think the anointed when Christ is said, then that would be Israel, the People as is declared in the Hebrew Scriptures.

But how does your explanation of “Christ/annointed” being “the People” fit in with John 24:44-47? The individual named Jesus was showing his disciples certain verses from Moses. the prophets and from Psalms. Jesus said, ““These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Those Old Testament verses were about Jesus, at least according to Jesus. The individual named Jesus had just been crucified and was talking to the disciples after his resurrection. He then said in verse 47, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.” Jesus has just specifically refered to Himself as The Christ because he was the one who had just suffered and rose from the dead. That seems pretty clear to me that Jesus and Christ are the same, unless Jesus was lying. Do you think Jesus was lying? Your insistence on knowing which Old Testament verses Jesus might have used is a side issue that is certainly a valid side issue, but it shouldn’t keep you from answering my question about whether you think Jesus was lying about himself being the Christ. I can accept the fact the Jesus actually did show them Old Testament verses without knowing which exact verses he used, since verse 44 tells us He used Old Testament verses.

 

[simplynoone]

But how does your explanation of “Christ/annointed” being “the People” fit in with John 24:44-47?

*Fair enough and here is my response.

1. I am not trying to fit my view into the Truth.
2. I am not trying to fit the NT in with the Tanakh.

Isaiah says that the end is declared FROM the beginning. This is Truth once I let the end (the NT) go in order to focus truthfully on the beginning. When I did this, the Truth became amazingly clear. *

The individual named Jesus was showing his disciples certain verses from Moses. the prophets and from Psalms. Jesus said, ““These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

You know what? Given the position you are coming from, I know this will sound strange, but when you get honest before God (as Adam and Eve did after letting go of their self made covering), you will find that the Tanakh speaks as a testament to you as well. Job, I can relate to that allegory and was amazed that it was almost a literal account (meaning WORD FOR WORD… almost) of what I went through when I threw myself before the mercy of God as I am and was willing to accept eternal punishment as it was taught to me rather than the covering of a man’s blood. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant as I have only given you ONE account of the amazing parallels the Tanakh has had to my own personal life.

Those Old Testament verses were about Jesus, at least according to Jesus. The individual named Jesus had just been crucified and was talking to the disciples after his resurrection. He then said in verse 47, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.”

Well, given that Christ means anointed, this IS testified to in the Tanakh in one place that I can find and it says “we” and “us” and not “me” and/or “I” or even “him.” The anointed is declared as Israel and so, this would be consistent.

Jesus has just specifically refered to Himself as The Christ because he was the one who had just suffered and rose from the dead.

Well, Jesus also said that many would come in his (Jesus’) name to deceive many calling him THE Christ. When he spoke of others doing so in their names, he spoke in third person… but when he said this about himself, he spoke in first person. He said salvation is of the Jews and thus, they are the anointed. Since Jesus was a Jew, he was PART OF this.

That seems pretty clear to me that Jesus and Christ are the same, unless Jesus was lying.

If the prophecies say that Israel is the anointed, that God declares the end FROM the beginning, that God’s counsel (declaration) WILL stand, and that He does not change and then Jesus declared only himself as the Messiah, well, in that case, you are right, he lied. Of course, I do not think he declared himself alone as the Messiah and went to great lengths to warn us that he was not doing such.

Do you think Jesus was lying?

No… perhaps the writers or your misunderstanding of the prophecies?

Your insistence on knowing which Old Testament verses Jesus might have used is a side issue that is certainly a valid side issue, but it shouldn’t keep you from answering my question about whether you think Jesus was lying about himself being the Christ.

Again, you are being fair here and my answer is that no since Jesus clearly said that many would come in HIS name and say that HE was Christ and they were deceivers.

I can accept the fact the Jesus actually did show them Old Testament verses without knowing which exact verses he used, since verse 44 tells us He used Old Testament verses.

*Jesus said his teachings would be found confirmed in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) and not the NT since they did not exist at the time. Anything not found in there is not a teaching of Jesus.

So, show me where Jesus is declared as the Messiah, the Saviour, God, and/or the Son of God… show me in the same Scriptures he said would testify of him and keep in mind that in Isaiah it is clear that God says these things are declared as is by Him in these same pages and not in the NT. *

 

[planten]

** While messenger Isaiah is being discussed, may I remind the friends that he predicted the fall of the pagans of Arabia 714 years before Jesus Christ, as follows:

A Prophecy Against Arabia **

13 An oracle concerning Arabia:
You caravans of Dedanites,
who camp in the thickets of Arabia,
14 bring water for the thirsty;
you who live in Tema,
bring food for the fugitives.

15 They flee from the sword,
from the drawn sword,
from the bent bow
and from the heat of battle.

16 This is what the Lord says to me: “Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it, all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end. 17 The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar, will be few.” The LORD, the God of Israel, has spoken.

The above verses are telling about the two fugitives who were fleeing from the drawn swords. They were Muhammad and Abubakr who went from makkah to Madinah. The prophet Isaiah is telling the Dedanites and people of Tema to come to the help of the fugitives who were running away from the drawn swords.

It is also telling that within one year, the power of the Kedar will come an end (verse 16.). The Lord God of Istael had spoken that. That is exactly what happened. After migration of the prophet Muhammad to Madinah. within one year, at the battle of Badr, the power of the pagans of Makkah ( The Kedarians) was crushed to pieces.

How true were words of the Lord God of Israel that he proclaimed through the prophet/messenger Isaiah. Praise be to the Lord God of Israel.

 

[Bookworm88]

You know what? Given the position you are coming from, I know this will sound strange, but when you get honest before God (as Adam and Eve did after letting go of their self made covering), you will find that the Tanakh speaks as a testament to you as well. Job, I can relate to that allegory and was amazed that it was almost a literal account (meaning WORD FOR WORD… almost) of what I went through when I threw myself before the mercy of God as I am and was willing to accept eternal punishment as it was taught to me rather than the covering of a man’s blood. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant as I have only given you ONE account of the amazing parallels the Tanakh has had to my own personal life.*

Are you saying that all the prophesies of the Messiah in the Old Testament are just supposed to be taken allegorically as refering to YOU or to me? Are you saying that that is the sense in which Jesus said that the prophesies were “concerning him”? That doesn’t make sense at all considering that he had just suffered and rose from the dead and then showed the disciples verses about the Christ needing to suffer and rise from the dead. Those Old Testament verses were about Jesus. When did you ever rise from the dead?

*Well, Jesus also said that many would come in his (Jesus’) name to deceive many calling him THE Christ. When he spoke of others doing so in their names, he spoke in third person… but when he said this about himself, he spoke in first person. *

Are you refering to Mark 13: 5-6 which says, And Jesus, answering them, began to say: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many. Jesus was saying that people would make claims in the future that THEY were Jesus coming back to earth as promised. Jesus said it is those decievers who would be claiming to be the Christ when they actually weren’t. Only Jesus was the Christ.
There is also Matthew 16:15-17 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
So Jesus himself claimed to be Christ here by commending and affirming Peter’s understanding. How can you say that Jesus did not claim the position of being The Christ?

 

[simplynoone]

Are you saying that all the prophesies of the Messiah in the Old Testament are just supposed to be taken allegorically as refering to YOU or to me?

Oh, no way! The prophecies of the Messiah are fulfilled in Israel, the People.

 

[simplynoone]

Praise be to the Lord God of Israel.

I fully concur with you here!!

 

[Bookworm88]

Bookworm88:

There is also Matthew 16:15-17 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

So Jesus himself claimed to be Christ here by commending and affirming Peter’s understanding. How can you say that Jesus did not claim the position of being The Christ? Yes, this is one of those times that Jesus is warning of… where others claim that he is Christ.

Peter says, “You are the Christ” and Jesus says “Blessed are you.” Jesus was affirming Peter’s statement. This doesn’t seem like an incident that Jesus was warning anyone against. He ACCEPTED Peter’s statement as being proper, not only that, but as information given to Peter from God the Father…

 

[simplynoone]

Peter says, “You are the Christ” and Jesus says “Blessed are you.” Jesus was affirming Peter’s statement. This doesn’t seem like an incident that Jesus was warning anyone against. He ACCEPTED Peter’s statement as being proper, not only that, but as information given to Peter from God the Father…

*Yes, I am aware of that passage. First, so that we do not find ourselves in complete frustration with one another, it might be beneficial for you to know that I do not put much stock into the NT writings. There is so many different ways that the words written can be taken that I have no doubts that one of the reasons that it was written was to cause confusion.

Now, I do not lie in what I said that there is good reason to conclude that in matthew 24, Jesus did mean to say that he is not Christ and whoever comes saying that he is, is trying to deceive others. I hold that view because again, when he speaks a bit later of others claiming to be Christ, he uses 3rd person.

Still, I will give that the speculation of evidences given in the NT will lean toward your view that Jesus was claiming to be Christ (and I chalk that up to being the fault of the Church)… this does not negate that he was never anointed by anyone other than his own wife and that his being THE Messiah is not what is declared in the Hebrew Scriptures. Israel is declared as the Son of God and the Messiah. This should not be difficult to grasp since God has repeatedly used Nations to punish and redeem Israel. It is the way God has worked. In the midst of that, there have been many individual messiahs… but do not forget, messiah simply means anointed.

Now, about the above passage you are speaking on… there is something interesting to note in it. It did not take a flesh and blood sacrifice for Peter to make acknowledgments of Jesus being a messiah (or a representative of the messiah, Israel, that was in the making).

Paul, on the other hand preached nothing but the flesh and blood sacrifice and said that this IS the only way to be forgiven, accepted, etc.

Now, in Galatians Paul rebukes Peter because Peter is teaching something different than Paul. Here, Jesus is patting Peter on the back. Peter is getting his teachings directly from Jesus himself and Jesus approves. Why then is it that the Church is based on the teachings of Paul and has ignored the teachings of Peter.

When Paul rebukes Peter, it is clear what it is about. Peter was teaching that if Gentiles were to become part of the covenant of Israel with God, then they needed to be circumcised and to observe and teach the Law. Gentiles were never required to join the covenant and thus, never required to do all the things that Paul said they were freed from. He set up imaginary boundaries for the Gentiles and then used the flesh and blood sacrifice of a man to atone for the imaginary crossing of lines he imposed on them and led them to believe that all they had to do is have faith in that to be THE chosen of God.

That is the lie. Peter knew this and was speaking against Paul and so who do you think Paul was talking about when he said the Jews mouths MUST be stopped? It was the actual disciples of Jesus who knew the truth and were trying to tell the Gentiles that if they wanted to join the covenant, these were the Laws laid out by God and if not, there are only 7 common sense commandments to follow in order to be considered righteous before God.

So, again I wonder, why is it the church claims Peter to be the rock when this passage and the rebuke of Paul shows that he did not believe the things that the Church believes. Why not just admit that the Church has actually made Paul the rock of its foundation since that is the truth? *