He fulfilled the predictive prophecies of the Old Testament by being the Messiah the law pointed toward. The law is perfected and completed in him. We follow him, his commands and application of the law of the prophets. He did not come to destroy what was before him, but to build upon it. Basically he came to finish the old covenant and establish a new one.
That’s my understanding, but I am not a biblical scholar so some one else may be able to explain it betetr than me.
Sinful is only a valid observation for the person/church/religion.
If you actually ask a real Biblical scholar without an agenda He fulfilled none of the prophecies of the Old Testament.
Most importantly, a Jewish scholar, because as I have heard, Jesus as described in the gospels doesn’t qualify at all to be the Messiah according to Jewish traditions.
Even better, he fulfilled the prophecy of mistranslation. There was no prophecy of a virgin birth. He didn’t fulfill the actual Messianic prophecies, but fulfilled lots of prophecies about other things which came to pass right after the prophecy was made, or things which only count if you look at them a certain way.
His big prophecy, about coming back before all those in the audience tasted death, not so much.
But I did have a big laugh about the non-Rapture last month.
Note is was not all people,
Luke 9:27 : Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God”
but some people, like:
Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
Seems to be on an individual level:
John 21;22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
You lost me there, because that is not quite what the scriptures said:
The Mashiach
The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as “mashiach ben David” (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.
Thing is that several scholars point at that chapter as a later addition, so the more faithful ones do accept that that it was added as a clarification, but others noticed how that came because the beloved disciple did die… So, the Johannine community added chapter 21 to deal with the very embarrassing fact that the beloved disciple’s died and Jesus did not come back before that.
I’m afraid I would agree more with the skeptics, changes like that, in the scriptures, are not strange or unusual for many religions of the world when reality hits hard.
Note that not one person alive when he is said to have died is now alive.
Have you ever talked to an actual Biblical scholar?
So, Stephen having a hallucination is equivalent to Jesus returning?
I thought it clear that the passage is about Jesus returning before everyone he was speaking to died. The myth of the Wandering Jew (mentioned in Walter Miller’s “A Canticle for Leibowitz,” had someone condemned to stay alive until Jesus returned, so that the prophecy would come true.
Quite a stretch, don’t you think? I believe there are many other passages that only make sense given an expected imminent return, but I’m not a Biblical scholar, especially of the unauthorized sequel.
My take on it is this has always happened, the first biblical case is Enoch. Along the lines of Jesus is the way, Jesus is God, God does not change, hence the way does not change. And mainly has to do with what happens near the moment of death. The way I see it is Stephan didn’t die, though the Pharisees who were stoning him ‘closed there eyes and ears’ and just saw what they wanted to, him dying. So in that yes some where would not have died.
Wasn’t he shot by arrows? It’s been some time since I last read Acts, but that’s how I remember Catholic iconography of Stephan’s death. And if he didn’t die, where is he now?
ETA: nope, sorry, I checked wiki, in fact it is written in Acts that he was stoned. I must have confused him with another martyr.
ETA2: yes, I confused him with Sebastian:
Here are the verses:
Acts 7:54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.
And if he didn’t die, where is he now?
IMHO the same place where Jesus reveals Moses and Elijah (transmigration) and Abraham (not dead but alive) are. However that last statement, fell asleep, could indicate those who rest till the resurrection, but it still qualifies under:
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
As Stephan saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom before he was to die. Note that verse in Mathew doesn’t say one will not die, but will see the Kingdom of God first. It’s not the way I take fell asleep, however both ways still fulfill that prophecy of Jesus.
That number is exceedingly small if referring to v23 and virtually all early manuscripts do include v23, however there is some controversy about the entire chapter (21) and the question asked was it finalized later, which does actually hit the radar screen but not by much.
The context of the chapter is also pretty clear, Peter being informed of his own death, asked about John, as to which Jesus replies that doesn’t concern you, you must follow me.
Additionally I was using this as an example of how Jesus may decide on an individual level, not if John actually did not taste death.
Uh, adding that after the death of the beloved is not the same as Jesus saying it, it was a later addition to explain away a very apparent contradiction.
It does seem irrelevant to the point I was making, also considering that John 21:23 is considered authentic by most including Raymond E. Brown who is considered by many to be the most respected Catholic scholar on John and even if that was added it was done so to clarify what was already said by Jesus. It’s a stretch to infer the meaning was changed to account for his death as really very few scholars try to take it there.
In the end, that is putting words in Jesus’ mouth.
Here is the verse:
23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
This is not putting words in the mouth of Jesus, but is the witness of John as to what the Lord said. There is no serious support to your contention that I am aware of, no words of Jesus were altered, only clarification was provided as to what Jesus said as commentary to his words, not altering the word of Jesus but adding a comment about what Jesus said.
I’m sorry, but this all boils down to “The Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true”.