I will put MY law on their hearts

[Jonathan_Gale]

Was the Ethiopian eunuch a proselyte Jew?
In any case the conversion of Cornelius and his household is given much prominence in Acts concerning the gospel being freely given to the nations: a historical watershed
from which the conflict between Jews and non-Jews becomes problematic in the church (and for Paul's ministry as well).

Jewish proselyte? There's no evidence of that. At the time there were pilgrims from everywhere coming to Jerusalem to worship at the Jewish Holidays. There was a list of all these nationalities when the Holy Spirit descended, and that crowd was full of pilgrims. That eunuch was reading about the Messiah in Isaiah 53, evangelized by Phillip and baptized at a pool, sounds pretty much like a Christian convert to me. Of course, Cornelius was a milestone, but the eunuch just preceded him. That doesn't diminish or invalidate the siginiface of Cornelius's conversion by any means.

 

[Beetow]

• Acts 8:27 . . And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of
great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all
her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship.

It isn't unusual for Jews to hold important political positions out of country, for
example Mordecai in the book of Esther. My latest source lists 10 Jewish U.S.
Senators, and 26 Jewish US Representative.

• Acts 8:28 . . He was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Isaiah the prophet.

• Acts 8:32-33 . .The place of the scripture which he read was this:, He was led as a
sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not
his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare
his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

I've watched several converted-Jew testimonies on YouTube and many of them tell
of the 53rd of Isaiah as a banned chapter for their synagogue studies; and where not
banned, skipped.
_

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

• Acts 8:27 . . And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of
great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all
her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship.

It isn't unusual for Jews to hold important political positions out of country, for
example Mordecai in the book of Esther. My latest source lists 10 Jewish U.S.
Senators, and 26 Jewish US Representative.

• Acts 8:28 . . He was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Isaiah the prophet.

• Acts 8:32-33 . .The place of the scripture which he read was this:, He was led as a
sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not
his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare
his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

I've watched several converted-Jew testimonies on YouTube and many of them tell
of the 53rd of Isaiah as a banned chapter for their synagogue studies; and where not
banned, skipped.
_

As for Is. 53, they don't just censor it anymore since that doesn't work, people are gonna read it and meditate on it anyway, reverse psychology is gonna do its job. They now misappropriate it by applying it on themselves, that the nation of Israel is this suffering servant. This is really tragic, because historically they've always had this understanding of two comings of the messiah - yep, two comings, first time as the son of Joseph, a suffering servant; second time as the son of David, the glorious king. Among all OT biblical heroes, Joseph is THE most Christ-like figure down to a lot of little details, but unfortunately, when it came to Jesus's time in the first century till today, they've just lost it. Son of Joseph was no longer the embodiment of the old patriarch Joseph, but the literal, biological son of Joseph the carpenter from Nazerath.

 

[Beetow]

Candace's treasurer wondered whether the passage he quoted applied to its author,
but the language and grammar of verses 4-6 of the 53rd chapter incriminates
Isaiah right along with the other Jews for whom the righteous servant died.

A popular interpretation of Isa 53:11 is that 49:1-3 identifies the righteous servant
as the corporate people of Israel; viz; the Jews. However, aside from the fact that
pious Jews abhor human sacrifice, the Jews of Isaiah's day have to be ruled out of
the equation because his prophecy portrays them as rotten to the core. Not one
good thing is credited to the people of Israel in Isaiah's day anywhere in his entire
prophecy.

In point of fact, the very first chapter portrays them as rebellious children who have
even less appreciation for God's providence than burros and oxen. The 49th chapter
depicts them as needy of spiritual renewal (Isa 49:5-6) and in the 58th chapter
they are depicted as lawbreakers, hypocritical, self righteous, wicked, oppressive,
uncharitable, cruel, and unloving (Isa 58:1 7).

The 53rd chapter itself depicts them all as astray, transgressors, iniquitous, and
deserving punishment, whereas the righteous servant is depicted in favor with God
(Isa 53:2), and innocent (Isa 53:5, Isa 53:6, Isa 53:8, and Isa 53:9)

The Talmud teaches that Isaiah 53 refers to Messiah (Sanhedrin 98). The Targum
of Jonathan begins it with the words Ha yatslakh avdee Mashikha, which mean:
Behold my servant the Messiah shall prosper. Others believed Isaiah 53 spoke of
the sufferings of Messiah; e.g. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin. (a.k.a. Ibn Krispin)

Rabbi Mosheh El-Sheikh (a.k.a. Alshekh) claimed: "our Rabbis with one voice
accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet [Isaiah] is speaking of King
Messiah." (cf. Acts 8:26-36)

King Messiah goes by a variety of labels in the Old Testament. At Isa 11:1 10 he's
called "a sprig of Jesse" viz: a man of the house of David. At Jer 23:5-6, Jer 33:15
16, Zech 3:8-9, and Zech 6:12-13 he's called "the branch". In every instance
wherein Messiah's character is mentioned, he's always portrayed as a man of
impeccable integrity, and unfailing righteousness, justice, equity, and faithfulness.

NOTE: There is a day coming when every Jew residing in the State of Israel will be
100% righteous to a man (Isa 60:21). But of course not before the fulfillment of
the sifting predicted at Ezek 36:24-27 along with implementing the new covenant
described by Jer 31:31-34 and Ezek 36:24-27
_

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Candace's treasurer wondered whether the passage he quoted applied to its author,
but the language and grammar of verses 4-6 of the 53rd chapter incriminates
Isaiah right along with the other Jews for whom the righteous servant died.

A popular interpretation of Isa 53:11 is that 49:1-3 identifies the righteous servant
as the corporate people of Israel; viz; the Jews. However, aside from the fact that
pious Jews abhor human sacrifice, the Jews of Isaiah's day have to be ruled out of
the equation because his prophecy portrays them as rotten to the core. Not one
good thing is credited to the people of Israel in Isaiah's day anywhere in his entire
prophecy.

In point of fact, the very first chapter portrays them as rebellious children who have
even less appreciation for God's providence than burros and oxen. The 49th chapter
depicts them as needy of spiritual renewal (Isa 49:5-6) and in the 58th chapter
they are depicted as lawbreakers, hypocritical, self righteous, wicked, oppressive,
uncharitable, cruel, and unloving (Isa 58:1 7).

The 53rd chapter itself depicts them all as astray, transgressors, iniquitous, and
deserving punishment, whereas the righteous servant is depicted in favor with God
(Isa 53:2), and innocent (Isa 53:5, Isa 53:6, Isa 53:8, and Isa 53:9)

The Talmud teaches that Isaiah 53 refers to Messiah (Sanhedrin 98). The Targum
of Jonathan begins it with the words Ha yatslakh avdee Mashikha, which mean:
Behold my servant the Messiah shall prosper. Others believed Isaiah 53 spoke of
the sufferings of Messiah; e.g. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin. (a.k.a. Ibn Krispin)

Rabbi Mosheh El-Sheikh (a.k.a. Alshekh) claimed: "our Rabbis with one voice
accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet [Isaiah] is speaking of King
Messiah." (cf. Acts 8:26-36)

King Messiah goes by a variety of labels in the Old Testament. At Isa 11:1 10 he's
called "a sprig of Jesse" viz: a man of the house of David. At Jer 23:5-6, Jer 33:15
16, Zech 3:8-9, and Zech 6:12-13 he's called "the branch". In every instance
wherein Messiah's character is mentioned, he's always portrayed as a man of
impeccable integrity, and unfailing righteousness, justice, equity, and faithfulness.

NOTE: There is a day coming when every Jew residing in the State of Israel will be
100% righteous to a man (Isa 60:21). But of course not before the fulfillment of
the sifting predicted at Ezek 36:24-27 along with implementing the new covenant
described by Jer 31:31-34 and Ezek 36:24-27
_

You know what, back in history, a large portion of them, mostly the liberal ones, had done waiting for their messiah. They were greatly inspired by the French Revolution, for the first time in history they saw the fall of a monarchy and the rise of a people, from which they drew the conclusion, that there is no messiah figure, they are the messiah they'd been waiting for. So there they gave in to humanism, and then this school of thought evolved into communism, and it is their sacred mission to liberate all the oppressed underdogs and build the utopia of heaven on earth. This kind of slogans were literally in the communist propaganda piece, and now you can see where they came from. Essentially it's a false religion plucked from Judaism, and it's not certainly not dead and buried in the ruins of the old Soviet Union as many assumed, because in the 21st century, it has morphed from economic communism into cultural communism, and the whole western civilization is plagued by it.

 

[joestue]

See, if this interpretation applies, then it also tells you that Jesus's ministry lasts exactly three and a half years since he was cut off in the "middle of the week". The second half of the week, according to some theories and historical records, is the duration of the Pentecostal church's ministry in Jerusalem, and when Stephen was stoned to death as the first martyr, that's the end.

The circumstantial evidence is that God supernaturally showed the Jews starting in ad 30 or 31 that he had rejected them. This is important because it gives them 39 to 40 years for them to repent before the city is destroyed.

The lamps in the temple went out every night. The doors opened on their own every night. The lot always fell in the left hand, and the ribbon drenched in blood tied around the doors to the temple (forget which day of the year) never turned white.

So anyhow, people have been arguing about ad 30 or 33 for the crucifixion because both can match the evidence in the gospels but in my opinion Jesus had a 1 year ministry, John the Baptist becomes well known in ad 28/29, killed in ad 30.

The gospels mention the Passover 3 times but two of those are the same passover. His ministry begins shortly before passover and is crucified right after the second one.

A 1 year long ministry also helps you make sense of why the disciples seemed slow to understand who Jesus is.

Also there is evidence that Jesus did not foretell the destruction of the city and rather some man did.. he wandered the streets for 7 years starting in ad 62 telling people God would destroy the city, and allegedly was the first casualty killed by a stone launched by a roman catepult. (If you can believe that)

Again this is only important to say that had they turned back to God, the city would not have been destroyed, and God is usually not in the habit of declaring judgement before time is allotted for repentance.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The circumstantial evidence is that God supernaturally showed the Jews starting in ad 30 or 31 that he had rejected them. This is important because it gives them 39 to 40 years for them to repent before the city is destroyed.

The lamps in the temple went out every night. The doors opened on their own every night. The lot always fell in the left hand, and the ribbon drenched in blood tied around the doors to the temple (forget which day of the year) never turned white.

So anyhow, people have been arguing about ad 30 or 33 for the crucifixion because both can match the evidence in the gospels but in my opinion Jesus had a 1 year ministry, John the Baptist becomes well known in ad 28/29, killed in ad 30.

The gospels mention the Passover 3 times but two of those are the same passover. His ministry begins shortly before passover and is crucified right after the second one.

A 1 year long ministry also helps you make sense of why the disciples seemed slow to understand who Jesus is.

Also there is evidence that Jesus did not foretell the destruction of the city and rather some man did.. he wandered the streets for 7 years starting in ad 62 telling people God would destroy the city, and allegedly was the first casualty killed by a stone launched by a roman catepult. (If you can believe that)

Again this is only important to say that had they turned back to God, the city would not have been destroyed, and God is usually not in the habit of declaring judgement before time is allotted for repentance.

Why not just stick to the bible instead of wild speculation? It is recorded in Luke 3:1 that Jesus started His ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, which is commonly believed to be 27-30 AD. AD 30 or 33 is believed to be the year of crucifixion because in these two years Passover fell on a Friday, although I believe it should be Thursday if you count from the triumphant entry as Sunday, which was FIVE days before Passover (John 12:1, 12:12). Therefore, three and a half years make perfect sense.

 

[joestue]

The other available information states John started in ad 29.

Reconcile that before cherry picking. I told you both ad 30 and 33 work. But everything Jesus did can be done in1 year and it gives the city 40 years before destruction, as God has always done. Why cut it short to 36 years?

Btw the shepherds watching their flocks at night were watching the Passover lambs within city walls. Jesus may have been born in December..

I didn't want to hear that one either, but it works and fits the average of all the data rather than cherry picking extremes on either edge to make a specific case.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Btw the shepherds watching their flocks at night were watching the Passover lambs within city walls. Jesus may have been born in December..

I didn't want to hear that one either, but it works and fits the average of all the data rather than cherry picking extremes on either edge to make a specific case.

Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacle, which was in autumn. December was not too far off, though, because if you dial back nine and a half month, 41 weeks to be exact, then it lands on Hanukkah, that's when Jesus was CONCEIVED.

 

[joestue]

Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacle, which was in autumn. December was not too far off, though, because if you dial back nine and a half month, 41 weeks to be exact, then it lands on Hanukkah, that's when Jesus was CONCEIVED.

The problem is we know how old John was and when Elizabeth conceived because we know the exact day zechariah was in the temple and didn't believe the angel.

It works out to a late December birth. Or early January, of 4 bc.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The problem is we know how old John was and when Elizabeth conceived because we know the exact day zechariah was in the temple and didn't believe the angel.

It works out to a late December birth. Or early January, of 4 bc.

John was conceived in late Sivan, move six months forward you get Hanukkah, and nine and a half months you get Passover.