Is there any "non-dual" prophecy of Messiah?

After Xmas my heart was broken again by a good business like sermon in which the speaker said that Jesus was the sufficient revelation of God. He quoted Isaiah 9:6, which the NT doesn't. It quotes the vague 2nd verse.

What wasn't 'fulfilled' in actual Jewish history by these verses? Or any others?

I have to turn myself inside out to make the risen Christ most pragmatic in continuing to identify Himself to others, on the road to Emmaus: He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Despite it not being possible to do that now. I'm left with Him being justified because He was that which had been incarnate.

Comments

  • Martin, I'm afraid I don't know what you're asking.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Are there any Messianic prophecies that are only fulfilled in Jesus? Are there any that weren't fulfilled at the time of the prophecy?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Hmmmm.

    Thought not.

    There's nothing is there? Nothing that either wasn't fulfilled at the time (i.e. after the event, where prophecy is really coded history or obvious geopolitical intel), or wasn't fulfilled at all (i.e. was a stab in the dark, as in the failed prophecy at the end of the book Daniel).
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Patience. I suspect that not everybody felt the need to drop everything they were doing to respond to your question.
  • I think Melchisedek comes close though not in the way you might want. I find the references quite compelling, but no time to explain now.
  • Martin, there are plenty, but I've made it a rule not to engage with you after you've burned me so much. Go get a standard list and look for yourself. Start with the resurrection.
  • Martin, there are plenty, but I've made it a rule not to engage with you after you've burned me so much..
    Yeah, that’s how I interpreted the crickets in response to the OP—too many folks who given past experience see no point in answering.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Those that can, will. And @Lamb Chopped, start where with the Resurrection? Where is it prophesied? Jonah? Hosea 6:1-2 ? Ps. 16:10? Only in Christian hindsight. And Jesus' foresight.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I think Melchisedek comes close though not in the way you might want. I find the references quite compelling, but no time to explain now.

    He's always intrigued me too. A pre-incarnation incarnation.
  • Aside from that, there's some pretty heavy foreshadowing going on there in Genesis, that is picked up not only ex-post in Hebrews but also beforehand, in the Psalms.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ps. 110:4
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    I'm looking forward to Jesus explaining Himself. Nothing else will do it!
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Martin, there are plenty, but I've made it a rule not to engage with you after you've burned me so much..
    Yeah, that’s how I interpreted the crickets in response to the OP—too many folks who given past experience see no point in answering.

    Ding ding ding ding ding.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 9
    :smile: well that's something.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I think Melchisedek comes close though not in the way you might want. I find the references quite compelling, but no time to explain now.

    He's always intrigued me too. A pre-incarnation incarnation.

    I find the Melchizedek passages very difficult. The author of Hebrews develops at considerable length the idea of Jesus as “a priest in the order of Melchizedek”, beginning at 6:13 and continuing all through chapters 7 and 8. But what, exactly, does “in the order of” mean? The phrase is lifted directly from Psalm 110:6, but the meaning is no clearer to me there than in Hebrews.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Those that can, will. And @Lamb Chopped, start where with the Resurrection? Where is it prophesied? Jonah? Hosea 6:1-2 ? Ps. 16:10? Only in Christian hindsight. And Jesus' foresight.

    And this is why I don't engage with you. Go look in the mirror and fight with what you see there.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I think Melchisedek comes close though not in the way you might want. I find the references quite compelling, but no time to explain now.

    He's always intrigued me too. A pre-incarnation incarnation.

    I find the Melchizedek passages very difficult. The author of Hebrews develops at considerable length the idea of Jesus as “a priest in the order of Melchizedek”, beginning at 6:13 and continuing all through chapters 7 and 8. But what, exactly, does “in the order of” mean? The phrase is lifted directly from Psalm 110:6, but the meaning is no clearer to me there than in Hebrews.

    The author of Hebrews (my current guess: Priscilla...) is contrasting the priesthood of Jesus with that of the Levites. Levitical priests had to be of the tribe of Levi, died, and were therefore in a long line of succession.

    Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, was not in a long line of succession, and lives on. So he is not in the same priestly "order" as the Levites. Melchizedek has no reported ascendants or descendants either, and wasn't a Levite either, so fulfils some of the same criteria of this imaginary other "order".

    Plus (although the author to the Hebrews doesn't explicitly refer to this) his name and provenance make him "king of righteousness" and "king of peace" (Salem). And (mind-bogglingly, and even more mind-bogglingly not referred to by the author to the Hebrews) he comes bearing bread and wine. One could say Jesus deliberately copied this, but then again he only used standard elements of the traditional Passover meal, which could hardly be Melchizedek-inspired.

    And, as you say, in the Psalms, Melchizedek is referred to in a decidedly Messianic reference. The Psalms are usually thought to have been written before the Gospels.

    I don't think Melchizedek is alluded to in Scripture in any other way or in reference to anybody else other than the Messiah.

    @Martin54, sinc I posted I notice you've stopped gloomily saying that the fact nobody's answered you proves you're right that there is no such prophecy, and started making witty comments instead. What do you have to say to the above?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Those that can, will. And @Lamb Chopped, start where with the Resurrection? Where is it prophesied? Jonah? Hosea 6:1-2 ? Ps. 16:10? Only in Christian hindsight. And Jesus' foresight.

    And this is why I don't engage with you. Go look in the mirror and fight with what you see there.

    @Lamb Chopped, happy to do that alongside you. Because it's not about me.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I think Melchisedek comes close though not in the way you might want. I find the references quite compelling, but no time to explain now.

    He's always intrigued me too. A pre-incarnation incarnation.

    I find the Melchizedek passages very difficult. The author of Hebrews develops at considerable length the idea of Jesus as “a priest in the order of Melchizedek”, beginning at 6:13 and continuing all through chapters 7 and 8. But what, exactly, does “in the order of” mean? The phrase is lifted directly from Psalm 110:6, but the meaning is no clearer to me there than in Hebrews.

    The author of Hebrews (my current guess: Priscilla...) is contrasting the priesthood of Jesus with that of the Levites. Levitical priests had to be of the tribe of Levi, died, and were therefore in a long line of succession.

    Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, was not in a long line of succession, and lives on. So he is not in the same priestly "order" as the Levites. Melchizedek has no reported ascendants or descendants either, and wasn't a Levite either, so fulfils some of the same criteria of this imaginary other "order".

    Plus (although the author to the Hebrews doesn't explicitly refer to this) his name and provenance make him "king of righteousness" and "king of peace" (Salem). And (mind-bogglingly, and even more mind-bogglingly not referred to by the author to the Hebrews) he comes bearing bread and wine. One could say Jesus deliberately copied this, but then again he only used standard elements of the traditional Passover meal, which could hardly be Melchizedek-inspired.

    And, as you say, in the Psalms, Melchizedek is referred to in a decidedly Messianic reference. The Psalms are usually thought to have been written before the Gospels.

    I don't think Melchizedek is alluded to in Scripture in any other way or in reference to anybody else other than the Messiah.

    @Martin54, sinc I posted I notice you've stopped gloomily saying that the fact nobody's answered you proves you're right that there is no such prophecy, and started making witty comments instead. What do you have to say to the above?

    Bladdy excellent. And I knew Kerygmania gets orders of magnitude less traffic than Purgatory.

    It all comes down to having to work with even the risen Jesus' and His 3rd hand chroniclers' unmodern epistomology.

    How do we make it work?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    How do we make it work?

    Do you have any objections to how I "made it work" above?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    How do we make it work?

    Do you have any objections to how I "made it work" above?

    Not at all. I just need it to work more! And it can't.

    Christian Messianism, starting with Jesus Himself, uses nothing that Second Temple Jewish Messianism (STJM) doesn't, except the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah and therefore includes all martyrdom allusions whereas STJM doesn't?

    Melchizedek presumably features in STJM. From Psalms 110:6

    We make it work with typological hindsight because Jesus did? But if we try and do it from modern scratch, we can't. I concluded a couple of years ago now, I doubtless misrecall, that Jesus was right because He was the Messiah, He was right 'in the Spirit', but not in His pre-modern epistemology, which He nonetheless continued to use as the risen Christ on the road to Emmaus, because it worked in the minds of His listeners.

    I 'just' want more! Which isn't available.

    And I want an acknowledgement of the issue. Which must be.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    I 'just' want more! Which isn't available.

    Indeed. You can't simultaneously argue that the text necessarily functions within its own epistemological limitations AND demand that it satisfies all contemporary epistemological expectations.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    It would be nice if any of it did. And is it just me? Does it fulfill any of your contemporary epistemological expectations?

    Or are the efforts one has to go to to make it work, as outlined, the only way?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Or are the efforts one has to go to to make it work

    "Make it work" sounds like the sort of thing @MPaul might say.

    The Bible isn't an enormous jigsaw puzzle that requires us to piece it together. It seems to me you're still trying to do that, somewhere, even if not dispensationally.

    All of which said, I find Melchizedek compelling. What is he doing in Genesis if it's not to foretell a Priest and King of righteousness and peace, characterised by bread and wine? What other literary or narrative function does he serve? Furthermore, the Psalms take up this precise function. No other function is applied. And Hebrews continues the same line. I find that extraordinary.

    Your original challenge was whether there was any non-dual prophecy of Messiah. I have yet to see how Melchizedek is in any way dual. What more could one wish for?
  • Prophecies, foretelling and other such things are always dubious. With Christianity they are always about trying to make the case that Christianity is right and has way cooler miracles than other religions. None of which is really important unless the message of living as though you actually cared about other people means you want to make others believe what you do.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 10
    @Eutychus yeah but the Jews, including Jesus, knew that. But OK, OK; it's NOT ambiguous, it's not dual, agreed. But it's not directly prophetic is it? Apart from Ps. 110:4 (not 6, which is nonetheless of the Killer Messiah... and that's not Jesus, unless... it eschatologically is) of the Melchizedek - bread and wine - order Messiah.

    It's just occurred to me that therefore the fulfillment of any even non-dual, unquestionable, prophecy, no matter how spine tinglingly specifically fulfilled, is... no proof.

    Faith is always involved.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I think Melchisedek comes close though not in the way you might want. I find the references quite compelling, but no time to explain now.

    He's always intrigued me too. A pre-incarnation incarnation.

    I find the Melchizedek passages very difficult. The author of Hebrews develops at considerable length the idea of Jesus as “a priest in the order of Melchizedek”, beginning at 6:13 and continuing all through chapters 7 and 8. But what, exactly, does “in the order of” mean? The phrase is lifted directly from Psalm 110:6, but the meaning is no clearer to me there than in Hebrews.

    Aye @Ray Sunshine when did the oral accounts begin of this very mysterious person the mythical Abraham paid obeisance to?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    @Eutychus yeah but the Jews, including Jesus, knew that.

    The writer of Genesis didn't know that. You're not telling me the Jews added bread and wine to the Passover meal simply to do something in line with Melchizedek, surely?

    And yes, your search for "proof" is misguided. And seems very dispensational to me.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Mnah. The Jews, including Jesus, subsequent to those Second Temple ones that wrote down the surviving earliest Genesis, knew that Melchizedek came with bread and wine. In the stories' chronology, that was added to the Passover ritual 400 odd years post-Abraham (again according to the Second Temple Jews, Post Exile, C6th BCE Jews).

    I don't see the magic.

    And there can be no proof of prophecy under any circumstances I can think of. Any. Unless the prophecy is sealed in every way when given (the prophet dies saying nothing) and nobody can deliberately fulfill it.

    I'm not dispensationalist. Just trying to reconcile faith with logic.

    I'm not searching for proof. I'm proving that not only is there none according to modern epistemology, there cannot be.

    That's worth having. So if I've been misguided and dispensational, am I still?
  • In what way would the story of Melchisedek provide a rationale for adding bread and wine, specifically, to the Passover?
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I'm not searching for proof. I'm proving that not only is there none according to modern epistemology, there cannot be.

    That's worth having. So if I've been misguided and dispensational, am I still?

    It depends what your aim is.

    If your aim is simply to acknowledge that faith cannot rely solely on forensic proof, I think the point is already pretty moot (and the fact that you don't seem to think that suggests dispensational-type logic at work, to me at least).

    If your aim is to say nyah nyah nyah, it's ALL fairy stories, then yes I think you're misguided.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Faith cannot rely on any forensic proof at all.

    It's nothing like a fairy story.

    Do you use Jesus' epistemology?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I think Melchisedek comes close though not in the way you might want. I find the references quite compelling, but no time to explain now.

    He's always intrigued me too. A pre-incarnation incarnation.

    I find the Melchizedek passages very difficult. The author of Hebrews develops at considerable length the idea of Jesus as “a priest in the order of Melchizedek”, beginning at 6:13 and continuing all through chapters 7 and 8. But what, exactly, does “in the order of” mean? The phrase is lifted directly from Psalm 110:6, but the meaning is no clearer to me there than in Hebrews.

    Aye @Ray Sunshine when did the oral accounts begin of this very mysterious person the mythical Abraham paid obeisance to?

    These three chapters in Hebrews make the point, repeatedly, that Melchizedek could not, for obvious reasons, be in compliance with the genealogical qualification for the priesthood — descent from Levi and Aaron — introduced many generations later. Melchizedek was a contemporary of Abraham and therefore lived too early to be a descendant of any of the twelve tribes, which began with the twelve sons of Abraham’s grandson Jacob. Some people say this is the point that the author of Hebrews is making with his expression, “the order of Melchizedek.” Jesus is descended from Judah, not from Levi, and therefore lacks the genealogical qualification for the Temple priesthood. Many Jews would have said that means Jesus can’t be a priest in any sense of the word, but the author of Hebrews has a reply to that objection: If Melchizedek could be a priest without being descended from Levi and Aaron, then so can Jesus. Melchizedek sets the precedent, and Jesus is following in his footsteps.
  • Perhaps not, but that doesn't prevent us from aspiring to have the mind of Christ...
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Perhaps not, but that doesn't prevent us from aspiring to have the mind of Christ...

    Indeed. Nor relieve us of the responsibility.
  • Doesn't the Messianic hope mainly develop during the inter Testamental period (of which I know little)? Jews in the OT period weren't looking for a Messiah, as far as I know, so I don't think there are many OT passages that would answer this question.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Perhaps not, but that doesn't prevent us from aspiring to have the mind of Christ...

    I take it that's in reply to muhself re Jesus' epistemology. And no it certainly doesn't, in so far as those of us with disordered passions and lives can.

    @Ray Sunshine thanks, you complement @Eutychus.

    And aye @Robert Armin, it would appear Messianism was read back in to the pre-Exilic prophets by the Jews, Christians followed suit.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    And aye @Robert Armin, it would appear Messianism was read back in to the pre-Exilic prophets by the Jews, Christians followed suit.
    That makes it sound like the Christians copying Jewish Messianism. Was not the Christian sect just following the belief of Judaism in Jesus seen to be fulfilling the Hope/Promise of the Torah and the Prophets. ISTM that Christians see the fulfilment in Jesus while (parts of) Judaism are still waiting for the fulfilment.

    As a rabbi once said. When the Messiah comes we will find out if it is his first or second coming.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Aye Ell Kay Kay. & that quote's nice.
  • Em fif fer, misrepresenting others' names is unhelpful as has already been pointed out.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Sorry! Not the intention at all.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    In what way would the story of Melchisedek provide a rationale for adding bread and wine, specifically, to the Passover?
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I'm not searching for proof. I'm proving that not only is there none according to modern epistemology, there cannot be.

    That's worth having. So if I've been misguided and dispensational, am I still?

    It depends what your aim is.

    If your aim is simply to acknowledge that faith cannot rely solely on forensic proof, I think the point is already pretty moot (and the fact that you don't seem to think that suggests dispensational-type logic at work, to me at least).

    If your aim is to say nyah nyah nyah, it's ALL fairy stories, then yes I think you're misguided.

    Again. You think I'm dispensationalist because you think I think faith cannot rely solely on forensic proof?

    Again, there is no forensic proof. There is no direct evidence. What has that got to do with dispensationalism? God has NEVER operated in a dispensational way except in Christ, except by incarnation.

    There is nothing in the evolving story of our stories that shows divine intervention prior to the One and only possible intervention. There is only human yearning with the divine - if it exists - yearning back. Zenning us on.

    If I was at Dawkins' point I wouldn't have taken communion this morning.

    My postmodern wife and I still yearn in a new fellowship of 4 months entirely of ancient and modern people, trying to make the Bible all 'spiritual', all 'spiritually' true, many of whom are trying to be really inclusive and liberal.

    It isn't true. But Jesus was the divine in ignorance.
  • MagianMagian Shipmate Posts: 23
    Eutychus wrote: »

    The author of Hebrews (my current guess: Priscilla...) is contrasting the priesthood of Jesus with that of the Levites. Levitical priests had to be of the tribe of Levi, died, and were therefore in a long line of succession.

    Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, was not in a long line of succession, and lives on. So he is not in the same priestly "order" as the Levites. Melchizedek has no reported ascendants or descendants either, and wasn't a Levite either, so fulfils some of the same criteria of this imaginary other "order".

    My guess would be Silas. But Jesus was of the tribe of Judah only legalistically, if Joseph wasn't his natural father. Jews even accused him of being a Samartian, which He did not deny, esp. as He was using the Samaritan calendar when observing Passover, and He was alluding to Himself in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Although Mary was a Levite, if not a daughter of Aaron like her cousin Elisabeth, she was only His surrogate mother, because Jesus claimed that John was the greatest born of woman, given that He was born of the Holy Ghost - so corroborating your comment about Melchizedek.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    (He's back. Ignore him, he'll go away.)

    I'm having another hysterical loop of cognitive dissonance.

    Was Jesus God?

    I've spent months, years deconstructing and getting to the point, shared in every way with a superb spiritual adviser, the best, more than I could have possibly hoped for at the time, in March, where he responded with Jesus being the ultimate manifestation of God. But obviously not very God as God is God.

    But it's obvious that Jesus believed He was. I've led myself down the garden path from that. Just as other liberals here can't see Him knowingly fulfilling PSA. I always have. I failed to see the glaringly obvious.

    So, was solely incarnate Jesus very God? The Word, Logos, God in Person made flesh?

    Despite the utter impossibility of God the Son collapsing from beyond infinity to being solely coterminous with an ovum (or was it the conceiving agent the Spirit used?), extracting Himself from the Holy and Indivisible Perichoretic Trinity. Once. Between eternities. Once after the eternity of inhabited worlds. Did He seal Himself off from the rest of creation in a meiotic human cell? Stupid rhetorical yet nagging questions.

    How could Jesus be very God and how could God be Jesus? How could the eternal creator-sustainer of eternal creation simultaneously be a dot of a dot of a dot... of a dot of a dot of infinite from eternity?

    The light pressure of that question is preventing the gravitational collapse of faith still, amazingly.

    Is concurrency possible? Jesus was very God. And God was not ontically changed by that. The greatest superposition of states I can imagine. God died and did not die. As @Eutychus coined I recall. Schroedinger's God.

    On this day.

    Was Jesus Schroedinger's God?

    Deserving of its own thread?
Sign In or Register to comment.