Jewish apologetic question, please help me convince a friend

[Joybearer]

Hi my dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ

I hope that you are all having a blessed Lenten season. My friend who just returned from a stint in atheism sent me the following link

simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/

In summary, it is an article that denies Christ as the Messiah with quotes from various Old Testament verses. It was posted on another site with Facebook comments from Christians saying that they are weak arguments but did not expound on why they were weak. Other comments are just people(Catholics, protestants and Jews) fighting amongst themselves that are irrelevant to the article.

Forgive me for the lack of knowledge to deal with this. I have dealt with protestants and atheists in the discussion of faith(With tremendous help from Catholic Answers) but this is the first that I have encountered a Jewish apologetic source.

I hope to help my friend come back to the Holy Mother Church in full communion. I understand it takes a leap of faith on his part but he has a lot of questions regarding the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus. He pursues the truth and will always listen to reason and logic, and does not take kindly to people telling him to “just believe”.

Therefore, if you have an idea of how to rebuke these “7 reasons” to deny Christ’s divinity and identity, please share it with me generously.

Thanks a great deal.

Pax

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi my dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ

I hope that you are all having a blessed Lenten season. My friend who just returned from a stint in atheism sent me the following link

simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/

In summary, it is an article that denies Christ as the Messiah with quotes from various Old Testament verses. It was posted on another site with Facebook comments from Christians saying that they are weak arguments but did not expound on why they were weak. Other comments are just people(Catholics, protestants and Jews) fighting amongst themselves that are irrelevant to the article.

Forgive me for the lack of knowledge to deal with this. I have dealt with protestants and atheists in the discussion of faith(With tremendous help from Catholic Answers) but this is the first that I have encountered a Jewish apologetic source.

I hope to help my friend come back to the Holy Mother Church in full communion. I understand it takes a leap of faith on his part but he has a lot of questions regarding the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus. He pursues the truth and will always listen to reason and logic, and does not take kindly to people telling him to “just believe”.

Therefore, if you have an idea of how to rebuke these “7 reasons” to deny Christ’s divinity and identity, please share it with me generously.

Thanks a great deal.

Pax

If your friend is the rational and intellectual type, I would suggest they investigate the apologetics debates of Dr. Michael Brown (Christian, but not Catholic) and Rabbi Tovia Singer, which appear on youtube, as well as in writing. Brown and Singer are both expert apologists for their respective religions and present their arguments clearly and with documentation.

I’ll leave it to the Catholics on the Forum to refute the points made on the Jewish website, some of which I find valid, others sketchy, and still others incorrect, such as the comment about the Trinity as consisting of three separate gods. One of the problems is that most Jews don’t understand the tenets of Christianity, let alone Catholicism, sufficiently, while most Christians don’t understand the tenets of Judaism. As a result, an informed dialogue or debate is challenging to say the least.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Is this quote important: “today I have begotten you?”

Was Israel and David begotten by God’s choice?

THANKS!

I am not qualified to get into this discussion.

I would like to know if and how “today I have begotten you” applies to the people from Israel and also King David?

Again–THANKS!

I will merely listen!!!

 

[Cathoholic]

DaddyGirl.

You said:

I’m surprised…I thought all Catholics would be taught why and how Jesus fulfills the Messiah requirements from early on.

Remember ALL of the original Catholics WERE Jews. We (and they 2000 years ago) see Catholicism as fulfilled Judaism.

Joybearer and DaddyGirl.

As far as contemporary rabbinic Jewish adherents rejecting Jesus’ Messiahship based on rebuilding the Temple, the Temple wasn’t even destroyed yet in Jesus’ day so already there is one obvious shortcoming in the collage of objections from the website.

If this was an obvious issue at the time, why didn’t Caiaphas just say to Jesus at His trial (or some other time):

“Jesus. Not only has the Temple not been re-built yet, but it hasn’t even been destroyed. So we are all rejecting your Messiahship based upon this issue Jesus.”

Now admittedly it became an issue when people had time to reflect back on the Old Testament (Jesus has that covered too), but it was not an issue in Jesus’ day.

And think about it. All of the first Catholics were Jewish. We even went to Temple. St. Paul studied under rabbi Gamaliel. Such points would not have slipped by him/them.

But as I said, Jesus anticipated/foreknew of these objections and pre-empted them in His Messianic fulfillment.

JOHN 2:18-20 18 The Jews then said to him, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”

What rebuilding of the Temple would you think of, hearing this above?
Fortunately the Holy Spirit through St. John tells us in the very next two verses.

JOHN 2:21-22 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

CCC 586 Far from having been hostile to the Temple, where he gave the essential part of his teaching, Jesus was willing to pay the Temple-tax, associating with him Peter, whom he had just made the foundation of his future Church.359 He even identified himself with the Temple by presenting himself as God’s definitive dwelling-place among men.360 Therefore his being put to bodily death361 presaged the destruction of the Temple, which would manifest the dawning of a new age in the history of salvation: "The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."362

CCC 994b . . . . Already now in this present life he gives a sign and pledge of this by restoring some of the dead to life,546 announcing thereby his own Resurrection, though it was to be of another order. He speaks of this unique event as the "sign of Jonah,"547 the sign of the temple: he announces that he will be put to death but rise thereafter on the third day.548

If you want, we can look at other issues brought up too that are from the website you cited from a fulfilled Jewish (Catholic) perspective.

I just ask that you ask about a specific objection (like the rebuilding he Temple issue) instead of asking me to address the whole website.

Incidentally not only is Jesus the rebuilt Temple, but He incorporates Christians into this temple. That’s WHY we are referred to as “living stones” even before the Temple building was destroyed. Christians are members of “the Body of Christ” and as such we are built into Jesus Himself.

1st PETER 2:4-9 4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” 8 and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

See also 1st Corinthians 3:16-17.

Not one of those objections cited from the referred website against our Lord Jesus are persuasive.

 

[meltzerboy]

DaddyGirl.

You said:

Remember ALL of the original Catholics WERE Jews. We (and they 2000 years ago) see Catholicism as fulfilled Judaism.

Joybearer and DaddyGirl.

As far as contemporary rabbinic Jewish adherents rejecting Jesus’ Messiahship based on rebuilding the Temple, the Temple wasn’t even destroyed yet in Jesus’ day so already there is one obvious shortcoming in the collage of objections from the website.

If this was an obvious issue at the time, why didn’t Caiaphas just say to Jesus at His trial (or some other time):

“Jesus. Not only has the Temple not been re-built yet, but it hasn’t even been destroyed. So we are all rejecting your Messiahship based upon this issue Jesus.”

Now admittedly it became an issue when people had time to reflect back on the Old Testament (Jesus has that covered too), but it was not an issue in Jesus’ day.

And think about it. All of the first Catholics were Jewish. We even went to Temple. St. Paul studied under rabbi Gamaliel. Such points would not have slipped by him/them.

But as I said, Jesus anticipated/foreknew of these objections and pre-empted them in His Messianic fulfillment.

JOHN 2:18-20 18 The Jews then said to him, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”

What rebuilding of the Temple would you think of, hearing this above?
Fortunately the Holy Spirit through St. John tells us in the very next two verses.

JOHN 2:21-22 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

CCC 586 Far from having been hostile to the Temple, where he gave the essential part of his teaching, Jesus was willing to pay the Temple-tax, associating with him Peter, whom he had just made the foundation of his future Church.359 He even identified himself with the Temple by presenting himself as God’s definitive dwelling-place among men.360 Therefore his being put to bodily death361 presaged the destruction of the Temple, which would manifest the dawning of a new age in the history of salvation: "The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."362

CCC 994b . . . . Already now in this present life he gives a sign and pledge of this by restoring some of the dead to life,546 announcing thereby his own Resurrection, though it was to be of another order. He speaks of this unique event as the "sign of Jonah,"547 the sign of the temple: he announces that he will be put to death but rise thereafter on the third day.548

If you want, we can look at other issues brought up too that are from the website you cited from a fulfilled Jewish (Catholic) perspective.

I just ask that you ask about a specific objection (like the rebuilding he Temple issue) instead of asking me to address the whole website.

Incidentally not only is Jesus the rebuilt Temple, but He incorporates Christians into this temple. That’s WHY we are referred to as “living stones” even before the Temple building was destroyed. Christians are members of “the Body of Christ” and as such we are built into Jesus Himself.

1st PETER 2:4-9 4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” 8 and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

See also 1st Corinthians 3:16-17.

Not one of those objections cited from the referred website against our Lord Jesus are persuasive.

The fact that the Temple was not destroyed yet does not in itself negate the claims contrary to Jesus’ being the Messiah. It simply means that the Messiah must come later (for the first time since no second coming is hinted at) to rebuild the Temple and that Jesus’ appearance is therefore too early for Him to be the Messiah. The metaphorical reading of Jesus Himself as the Temple of the body is a better argument but nonetheless open to debate.

 

[Joybearer]

DaddyGirl.

You said:

Remember ALL of the original Catholics WERE Jews. We (and they 2000 years ago) see Catholicism as fulfilled Judaism.

Joybearer and DaddyGirl.

As far as contemporary rabbinic Jewish adherents rejecting Jesus’ Messiahship based on rebuilding the Temple, the Temple wasn’t even destroyed yet in Jesus’ day so already there is one obvious shortcoming in the collage of objections from the website.

If this was an obvious issue at the time, why didn’t Caiaphas just say to Jesus at His trial (or some other time):

“Jesus. Not only has the Temple not been re-built yet, but it hasn’t even been destroyed. So we are all rejecting your Messiahship based upon this issue Jesus.”

Now admittedly it became an issue when people had time to reflect back on the Old Testament (Jesus has that covered too), but it was not an issue in Jesus’ day.

And think about it. All of the first Catholics were Jewish. We even went to Temple. St. Paul studied under rabbi Gamaliel. Such points would not have slipped by him/them.

But as I said, Jesus anticipated/foreknew of these objections and pre-empted them in His Messianic fulfillment.

JOHN 2:18-20 18 The Jews then said to him, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”

What rebuilding of the Temple would you think of, hearing this above?
Fortunately the Holy Spirit through St. John tells us in the very next two verses.

JOHN 2:21-22 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

CCC 586 Far from having been hostile to the Temple, where he gave the essential part of his teaching, Jesus was willing to pay the Temple-tax, associating with him Peter, whom he had just made the foundation of his future Church.359 He even identified himself with the Temple by presenting himself as God’s definitive dwelling-place among men.360 Therefore his being put to bodily death361 presaged the destruction of the Temple, which would manifest the dawning of a new age in the history of salvation: "The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."362

CCC 994b . . . . Already now in this present life he gives a sign and pledge of this by restoring some of the dead to life,546 announcing thereby his own Resurrection, though it was to be of another order. He speaks of this unique event as the "sign of Jonah,"547 the sign of the temple: he announces that he will be put to death but rise thereafter on the third day.548

If you want, we can look at other issues brought up too that are from the website you cited from a fulfilled Jewish (Catholic) perspective.

I just ask that you ask about a specific objection (like the rebuilding he Temple issue) instead of asking me to address the whole website.

Incidentally not only is Jesus the rebuilt Temple, but He incorporates Christians into this temple. That’s WHY we are referred to as “living stones” even before the Temple building was destroyed. Christians are members of “the Body of Christ” and as such we are built into Jesus Himself.

1st PETER 2:4-9 4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” 8 and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

See also 1st Corinthians 3:16-17.

Not one of those objections cited from the referred website against our Lord Jesus are persuasive.

Thanks for informative reply. I understand that it is a hassle to address the entire website and I assure you that I’m not being lazy and asking for a “clip and paste” answer to throw at my friend. Rather, I am guilty of being ill informed and many of these assertions threw me off where they may appear to you as being very weak arguments. Simply put, you have answered point A of the first assertion but I’m unable to answer B, C, D as well. And nearly all other assertions made in that website(except 5D onwards which seems to be just rants).

If it’s not too much of a trouble, can you list the relevant biblical verses in regards to the assertions and I can will go about reading them and finding complementary Catholic teachings to be summarized and explained to my friend.

Again, I am genuinely curious and forgive my ignorance. I see that all of them are reference with old testament texts. Wouldn’t answering these assertions with new testaments quotes lack the power to convince? I think it might be analogous to answering atheism with Biblical quotes.

Thanks a lot!

 

[Joybearer]

If your friend is the rational and intellectual type, I would suggest they investigate the apologetics debates of Dr. Michael Brown (Christian, but not Catholic) and Rabbi Tovia Singer, which appear on youtube, as well as in writing. Brown and Singer are both expert apologists for their respective religions and present their arguments clearly and with documentation.

I’ll leave it to the Catholics on the Forum to refute the points made on the Jewish website, some of which I find valid, others sketchy, and still others incorrect, such as the comment about the Trinity as consisting of three separate gods. One of the problems is that most Jews don’t understand the tenets of Christianity, let alone Catholicism, sufficiently, while most Christians don’t understand the tenets of Judaism. As a result, an informed dialogue or debate is challenging to say the least.

Hi Meltzerboy

May you share with me which points you find valid, sketchy and incorrect and state your reasons for them? I would very much appreciate a Jewish POV.

Thank you

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again, I am genuinely curious and forgive my ignorance. I see that all of them are reference with old testament texts. Wouldn’t answering these assertions with new testaments quotes lack the power to convince? I think it might be analogous to answering atheism with Biblical quotes.

Thanks a lot!

There are a number of prophecies in Scripture that seem to p(name removed by moderator)oint the coming of the Messiah.

After the Assyrians exiled the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC (2 Kings 17), the Baylonians completed the exile by carrying off the remaining tribes of the Southern Kingdom in 587 BC (2 Kings 24.)

Jeremiah first prophesied seventy years in exile sometime around 587.

This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.” (Jer 29:10-14)

Keep those 70 years in the back of your mind.

The Book of Daniel has a very interesting description of “the Son of Man.”

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Dan 7:13-14)

Daniel makes mention of Jeremiah’s prophecy in chapter 9.

In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom— in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. (Dan 9:1)

Later in chapter 9, the angel Gabriel further stipulates that the exile will be extended by another seventy sevens (490 years.)

“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” (Dan 9: 24-27)

If we begin at 587, subtract the first 70 years, we arrive at 517, give a few years for Daniel’s time and take away another 490 years, we arrive very near the time when Herod began building the Temple in 20 BC (the time to rebuild and restore Jerusalem.)

The seven sevens and sixty-two sevens that demarcate the time from the coming of the Anointed One and when he is put to death are unclear, but the desecration of the Temple by the Romans did put an end to sacrifice and an “abomination” was set up when an idol was set by Titus, the Roman commander, to mark the place the Temple stood.

Add to this that Daniel’s dream of the four part statue and a stone, fits very nicely to describe the four ancient kingdoms of Babylon (to whose king, Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel was speaking), the Persians, Greeks and Romans. The Romans fit the description of the people whose ruler “will come” and put to death the Anointed One (see Dan 9:24-7) and destroyed the city and sanctuary (70 AD). Furthermore, the “stone” that comes after the four beasts fits with Jesus choosing Peter (the rock) upon whom he bestows the keys to his kingdom.”

One other point to note is that the “son of man” according to Daniel was given a dominion that would not pass away and a kingdom that would last forever and yet the anointed one was “put to death” and “have nothing.”

If those two extremely paradoxical descriptions can be reconciled easily, except in the person and claims of Jesus, please let me know. Yet, how, in prophesy some 500-600 years prior could that paradox have even made sense to anyone, including Daniel?

 

[Cathoholic]

DaddyGirl. You said:

Like many others, this Caiaphas doesn’t seem to really take the possibility of Jesus being “the” Jewish Messiah very seriously.
But even tho…he does ask Jesus directly, right? And Jesus doesn’t give him a straight answer, as I recall.

Jesus probably was asked if He was the Messiah (the Christ) several times (as you would expect with an interrogation process).

Jesus does give Caiaphas a straight answer. Jesus said “I AM” in response to Caiaphas’ questioning. (Jesus IS the Great “I Am”)

MARK 14:61-63 61 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." 63 And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses?

Jesus ALSO gives Caiaphas an unmistakable answer right from the mouth of Caiaphas himself. Jesus only does so when Caiaphas invokes his authority (“I adjure you”)

MATTHEW 26:62-68 62 And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” 63 But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” 67 Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him, 68 saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”

That’s exactly WHY Caiaphas illicitly ripped his garments. Because Jesus DID give him an unmistakable answer. And in response, Caiaphas broke Levitical Law defiling the Priestly garments and office in the Temple area where the Sanhedrin held court.

This has dual meaning here. This Keriah or robe-tearing by Caiaphas is a representation or prelude to Jesus’ death (a funeral “rite” in a sense) in my opinion although the Sanhedrin I am sure never thought of it this way. Keriah is still practiced today by our spiritual ancestors in this sense.

But Caiaphas’ tantrum and robe tearing is also an ILLICIT tearing of the high Priestly robes, which deprives or in a sense begins to take away the Levitical Priesthood. This illicit action of Caiaphas also eventually brings down God’s wrath upon the people (destruction of the Temple) in addition to affecting Caiaphas’ authority.

The High Priest rending his sacred garment was considered an affront to God that would have consequences not merely for him, but penalties for all of the people. All in the “court” that night would have known such when Caiaphas rented his Priestly garment. They all knew full well of Leviticus 10 and Leviticus 21.

LEVITICUS 10:6 6 And Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons, "Do not let the hair of your heads hang loose, and do not rend your clothes, lest you die, and lest wrath come upon all the congregation; but your brethren, the whole house of Israel, may bewail the burning which the LORD has kindled.

LEVITICUS 21:10-13 10 "The priest who is chief among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured, and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose, nor rend his clothes; 11 he shall not go in to any dead body, nor defile himself, even for his father or for his mother; 12 neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD. 13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity.

The seamless linen garment was a sign of a consecrated and seamless Levitical Priesthood.

Jesus of course, had a seamless linen garment on Himself too (hint. hint.) when He offered Himself as the true Sacrifice and the true high Priest. Jesus acted as Priest AND victim on Calvary.

The Roman Soldiers didn’t tear Jesus’ seamless linen garment. Instead they cast lots for His seamless linen garment of Jesus thereby fulfilling the prefigurements of Psalm 22 concerning all of this.

JOHN 19:23-25 23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; 24 so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the scripture, “They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” 25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister , Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

So the Holy Spirit tells us Jesus’ seamless linen garment is NOT TORN and . . . . Caiaphas’ seamless linen garment IS TORN!

Jesus’ sacrifice was the holocaust that all of the Old Covenant holocausts pointed toward as the Old Covenant holocausts were mere shadows or prefigurements of what or more accurately WHO was to come as the book of Hebrews reminds us (if you want, you can begin at Hebrews 10:1).

 

[Peter_Plato]

By the way, in case you missed it, Jesus’ words in Mark quoted by Cathoholic are a direct reference to the prophecy of Daniel (Dan 17:13-14).

MARK 14:61-63 61 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses?

“In my vision at night I looked, and **there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. **He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Dan 7:13-14)

 

[Cathoholic]

Peter Plato said:

By the way, in case you missed it, Jesus’ words in Mark quoted by Cathoholic are a direct reference to the prophecy of Daniel (Dan 17:13-14).

Thank you for bringing this insight out. Nice point. Especially when coupled with what you said on post 11.

One other point to note is that the “son of man” according to Daniel was given a dominion that would not pass away and a kingdom that would last forever and yet the anointed one was “put to death” and “have nothing.”

If those two extremely paradoxical descriptions can be reconciled easily, except in the person and claims of Jesus, please let me know. Yet, how, in prophesy some 500-600 years prior could that paradox have even made sense to anyone, including Daniel?

Joybearer. The website you referred to said:

Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry.

(I think they mean a majority of “country Jewry” instead of “world Jewry” but either way, this reasoning is flawed.)

So Joseph in Egypt was not a prophet?

Recall Joseph (of the Coat of Many Colors fame) gave prophesy in Egypt long before Israelites as a whole (not just Judah) were more numerous than the Egyptians (see Exodus 1:8-10 to see the contrast).

Yet was Joseph not a “prophet”? Not only were the members of the tribe of Judah (future Jews) not “a majority” in the “world”, but also Israelites as a whole were not “a majority” even in Egypt at that time. And recall Joseph was in Egypt.

Where does the statement: “Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry.” Come from? Is it from someone who is a “prophet" with “a majority of world Jewry”?

These assertions begin with a conclusion that denies Jesus as True God and True man . . . . and then works backwards trying to jam in an interpretation that just doesn’t work.