Ask a Jew Part Too; Commentary

Isn't the job of Religion, to better ensure Potential holiness through Morality?

 

I need to ask you this first. What do you make out of this passage.

"10 And the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11 He replied, “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things; 12 but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist."

Isn't an easy read of the Bible pretty clear that Jesus was pointing out John the Baptist ? Do you think this is a wrong understanding ? (in red)

 

OK,...

You are right.

Your link makes it clear that the Koran supports the virgin birth as one the first miracles in the New Testament story.
I must apologize for having taken commentary with these others to who I referred to seriously in regard to Mary.

I stand totally corrected on this point, about Islam.

 

Yes, it is wrong as an understanding from this perspective:

Matt. 17:2 And was transfigured, (in the original Greek: metamorphized, as he emptied himself of the Holy Ghost of Elijah in the ritual of Kenosis, or emptying, the relinquishment of all divine attributes and return to a human being again: [Matt 28:19]), right before them, (the soul of Elijah, now departing from him: [Ps 22:1/Matt 27:46]): and his face did shine as the sun, (as had the face of Moses in the presence of God, on the mountain), and his raiment was white as the light [Rev 1:13-15].



Later, at the bottom of the mount, Jesus tells his apostles that The Elijah had, indeed, come, been mistreated, but now was gone.
He does NOT explain this.
He allows the apostles to assume he was speaking of John, because he told Peter and John not to disclose what they had witnessed.
Apparently, he intended that the transfiguration back to a mere son-of-man be secret.

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

 

Yes, you are dead right and recognize the State-of-Mind which supports the theory I post over and over here, about stern, strong, industrious hardworking patriarchs building up empire and wealth, but through the sexual license they grant to their children, a Matriarchy become installed which raises up girlie-men, homosexuals, draft dodgers, criminal fatherless children who tear that empire down, requiring a Strong Father Figure dictator like Napoleon or Hitler, to rise up within or see an invasion by a neighboring patriarchy.

These Jews in 1933 are the same ones in NYC today.
And they are merely behaving as are all the other men who are cowed by a Politically Correctness which will use the whole Woman's Movement to attack them if they speak out politically against Gayness, Abortion, adolescent sluts, etc.

 

This way, as written in the Gospel of Luke :

"13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. 14 You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit. 16 He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

 

That's a lot of assumption to make out of the transfiguration, IMO. How about that he simply transformed into Spirit from the flesh ? It doesn't say he emptied himself of divine Spirits.

First, I really don't think Jesus wanted to be deceptive to his own disciples and that's what it sounds like when you say "He allows the apostles to assume he was speaking of John."

Second, I believe that he told Peter, James, and John not to disclose what they had witnessed because Jesus knew that their minds were STILL haunted by the conception of a messiah of power and might. If they were to tell about them seeing what they saw on the mountain,(how the glory of God appeared, and how Elijah and Moses appeared) how this would chime with the popular expectations ! It could be made to seem a prelude to the burst of God's avenging power on the nations of the world!!!The disciples still needed to learn what true messiahship meant and he could only do that at the cross, of which AFTER they would tell the world.

..

 

Well, yeah, that has been the perspective and explanation of this event of metamorphosis, which is the actually meaning of the Greek word the KJ version Bible calls some kind of an undefined "transfiguration."

But a metamorphous is actually an event like when a worm turns into a butterfly.
I don't think Christians really have any rational explanation for the event.

And, I base my premise largely upon the duality throughout the NT, where after Jesus was baptized, he is called the son-of-God, but before (and after) the "metamorpohosis," he is called the son-of-man.


//////////
Consider this also:



Psalm 22 Eli, (Elijah),... Eli, (Elijah),...why hast thou forsaken me?
why art thou so far from helping me, (having returned to Moses), and from the words of my roaring?
But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

[Matt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"
that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elijah.]

 

The issue here concerns Grammar and just how this prepositional phrase modifies what is said, i.e.; who is "he" and who is "him?"

He, (Christ, The Elijah), with the spirit and power of Elijah, will go before Him, (John)to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord, (i.e.; the Second Coming).”




////

Understand what prepositional phrases do in a sentence.
A prepositional phrase will function as an adjective or adverb.
As an adjective, the prepositional phrase will answer the question Which one?

A prepositional phrase begins with a preposition, ("with"), and ends with a noun or a pronoun, ("Elijah"), called the object of the preposition.
To chose to use this prepositional phrase to modify he makes more sense than to use it to modify Him, a reference to John.

 

No, you have it backwards.The whole thing is about John's Birth. Your added words cause an unnecessary complication.

"He" is John ... will go before "Him" is the Lord. Of course John came before Jesus, he was the herald of the Christ.

Read -

In that verse, it shows how John was to be the herald of the Christ = "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Then after that, Luke goes into the birth Of Christ. There can be no confusion in this.

 

Of course, on this verse will turn what the Jews who will come to insist that Elijah was the Christ and the Christians who, as we can expect, will deny it.

Let's ask Moishe whether Elijah was/is expected to come back and how this idea that a messiah would then also appear.


2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?


According to Judaism, what did John mean here?

 

I think I've pointed this out before but, there is no "according to Judaism" in terms of what any of the new testament is supposed to mean.
According to Judaism, the various "John's" were some guys who were mentioned in; or wrote; the new testaments.

I don't know when Elijah is supposed appear. There are things written on it but, it is not my area of interest.
The Moshiach will come when the Jews are ready for him in G-d's eyes. Or, by the Jewish calendar year 6,000, which is in about 275 years. Or, right now.

 

I would think that a mortal body is to the immortal (glorified) body - would be a good comparison as a worm is to the butterfly.

When David banner turned into the incredible hulk, he went through a metamorphosis but he didn't split into the the three faces of Eve, he became a super human being.

You said -

All that you are saying here is that he was called the son of man, basically.

"before (and after) the "metamorpohosis," he is called the son-of-man" - Where is the significance ?

 

Oh, right...
I understood that.

My question was about what you think in regard to the specific prophecy of a return of Elijah, how Jews would know he had returned, i.e.; by what signs, and where the OT specifically supports a messiah or two, in the overt way it supports the Elijah appearing again.

It is my understanding that the messiah is more inferred and can be deduced from things we read in scripture.
There is and has been the teaching of two messiahs, too.

But the "one coming" is not vague, and is specifically a reference to Elijah.

What say you.

 

Before Jesus is baptized by John, he is the son-of-man who comes eating and drinking.
After he is baptized by John he is called the son-of-God.

Until the metamorphosis, he is called the son-of-God.
After the metamorphosis, and throughout the crucifixion, he is again the son-of-a-mere-man.

 

Why should the Jews have accepted such wimpy escapism? Would the Messiah of the concentration camps have told them to love their enemy, turn the other cheek, and look forward to the gas chamber as the gateway to heaven if they were all nicey-nice to everybody while in the camps?

 

That part in red isn't true. The synoptic Gospels have him being called 'son of man' after baptism and before transfiguration.

Mark 2:10-11,Matthew 9:6,Luke 5:24

 

Doesn't count!

What is in red is EXACTLY true, "until the metamorphosis he is CALLED the son-of-God, by others.

In the ONE example (repeated in three different gospels) you quibble with here, in that Jesus calls himself son-of-man, which makes sense since it was considered blaspheme to have said son-of-God.



Luke 5:23-24
For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, he, (Jesus) said unto the sick of the palsy, I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.


Mark 2:9-10
For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, he, (Jesus), saith to the sick of the palsy,

Matt 9:5-6
For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he, (Jesus), to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

 

And after by others ? You think they demoted him or something ?

Sure it counts and I'm not quibbling, he always called himself the son of man,before and after the transfiguration. He also called God his Father throughout the whole NT. He had power before and after the transfiguration and the disciples NEVER said differently after the transfiguration.

At both his baptism and the transfiguration , God called him his beloved son. I simply don't see any significance in your interpretation.

 

You see no difference then?

The son-of-man is for you, equivalent to the son-of-God?

During the transfiguration, Matt 17:3 says Elijah is speaking, and Matt 17:5 says God cries out, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."

In Matt 17:6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only, (who had apparently not ben the one speaking to them).


God was telling the witnesses to this metamorphosis that it was Elijah who is his son.
It was Elijah who had left Jesus to face the cross as a mere son-of-man.

It was Elijah who can not die, because he is part of the Trinity.

 

Remember that Jesus was condemned to crucifixion, solely on the charge that some people had heard him (or said they had heard him), say "I am the son-of-God."


Luke 2270 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God?
And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

 

Now, dear Prospect, let me ask you to defend your assertion that John was the Elijah.

Did he ever prophesy anything?
Did he perform even one miracle?
Did he not send men to inquiry whether Jesus was "the one coming," which clearly referred to Mal 4:6



5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

I asked Moieshe to explain where in scripture the Jews read of "some one coming," except it be Elijah.

 

I see no difference between the Jesus that transfigured from the Jesus that snapped out of it,Meaning, he was the same son of man/son of God as he was before and after the transfiguration.

It says Moses and Elijah were talking with Jesus.

God was talking about Jesus when he said "this is my son, just as he did at his baptism.

 

Who did God say that to = "this is my son?"