If you're a person who believes in the concept of prophecy, do you think modern times are included in it, or only ancient times? ~

Not sure all of the verses you site are particularly a prophecy about the Messiah and/or your commentary is exactly correct but when taking the Bible as a whole rather than forced understandings, one might get a different picture. For example, according to Dan 9 and Is 53, the Messiah is to be rejected and cut off so the Jews could not expect the Messiah to fulfill all the Messianic prophecies during the 3.5 years after being anointed as the Messiah to his death. 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003018?q=two+distinct+appearances&p=par

Wrong Expectations. Luke’s account indicates that many Jews were anxiously expecting the Messiah to appear at the particular time Jesus was on earth. Simeon and other Jews were “waiting for Israel’s consolation” and “Jerusalem’s deliverance” when the babe Jesus was brought to the temple. (Lu 2:25, 38) During the ministry of John the Baptizer, the people “were in expectation” about the Christ, or Messiah. (Lu 3:15) Many, though, expected the Messiah to meet their preconceived notions. The prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures showed the Messiah as coming in two different roles. One was “humble, and riding upon an ass,” whereas the other was “with the clouds of the heavens” to annihilate opposers and have all rulerships serve him. (Zec 9:9; Da 7:13) The Jews failed to appreciate the fact that these prophecies related to two distinct appearances of the Messiah, these appearances occurring at widely separated times.

Jewish sources agree with Luke 2:38 that the people at that time were waiting for Jerusalem’s deliverance. The Jewish Encyclopedia observes: “They yearned for the promised deliverer of the house of David, who would free them from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, would put an end to the impious Roman rule, and would establish His own reign of peace.” (1976, Vol. VIII, p. 508) They tried to make him an earthly king. (Joh 6:15) When he would not fulfill their expectations, they rejected him.

Evidently the expectation that the Messiah would be an earthly king was shared by John the Baptizer and his disciples. John knew Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God, having seen him anointed with holy spirit and having heard God’s voice of approval. John did not lack faith. (Mt 11:11) So his question, “Are we to expect a different one?” may have meant, ‘Are we to expect yet another one who will fulfill all the hopes of the Jews?’ Christ in reply pointed to the works he was doing (which things had been foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures). He concluded: “And happy is he who has not stumbled over me.” This answer, while implying that faith and discernment would be needed, would satisfy and comfort John, assuring him that Jesus was the One who would fulfill God’s promises. (Mt 11:3; Lu 7:18-23) Also, prior to his ascension, Jesus’ disciples held the view that he would at that time deliver Israel from Gentile domination and set up the Kingdom (restore the reign of the Davidic line) on earth.—Lu 24:21; Ac 1:6.

My answer presents some of the Jewish arguments for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah foretold in their  scriptures which Christians regard as the Old Testament.

The priests naturally did not like Jesus. They were convinced that Jesus was the latest in the line of impostors, a false prophet, and a false prophet should be put to death according to Deuteronomy 18:20 “the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.” So the priests conspired to get rid of him. They needed to crucify Jesus to prove to the Jews that Jesus was cursed by God because Deuteronomy 21:23 says that a person who dies by crucifixion (hanged upon a tree) is accursed by God. As God's accursed he could not possibly be the Messiah. The argument was that if Jesus really was the Christ then God would clearly not allow him to die by crucifixion. So “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death” Matthew 26:59 And when Pilate asked “What then should I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all answered, “Crucify Him!” Matthew 27:22

Muslims of course reject the Jewish claim that God allowed Jesus to die by crucifixion to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah. Muslims accept that Jesus was the Messiah and that God saved him from the curse of death by crucifixion. They say that even the Bible contains signs that God saved Jesus from the curse of death by crucifixion.

The Jews broke the covenant. That opened the way for gentiles as spiritual Jews. The Jews forget that the Messiah would be rejected and killed and that the peaceful paradise earth with the Messiah ruling in peace would be later. (Daniel 7:13, 14 Daniel 9:24-26). Pretty sure that you reject Jewish sources as do Christians other than the inspired scriptures, yes? 

(Exodus 19:5) Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me.
(Jeremiah 31:31-34) “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” 33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” 34 “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.”
(Ezekiel 16:59) “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘I will now do with you just as you have done, for you despised the oath by breaking my covenant.

(Hosea 2:23) I will sow her like seed for myself in the earth, And I will show mercy to her who was not shown mercy; I will say to those not my people: “You are my people,” And they will say: “You are my God.”’”
(Revelation 21:3) With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them.

Regarding "The Jews broke the covenant." and "The Jews forget that the Messiah would be rejected and killed and that the peaceful paradise earth with the Messiah ruling in peace would be later." Maybe the Jews don't see them that way, but you'll have to take that up with the Jews.


As for "That opened the way for gentiles as spiritual Jews." I wonder why "spiritual Jews" and not just "spiritual people"? If two people are equally spiritual, how would you tell which one is the "spiritual Jew"?

Quote: [Regarding "The Jews broke the covenant." and "The Jews forget that the Messiah would be rejected and killed and that the peaceful paradise earth with the Messiah ruling in peace would be later." Maybe the Jews don't see them that way, but you'll have to take that up with the Jews.]

You're the one that brought up non-biblical Jewish reasoning, yes?
Quote from you: "My answer presents some of the Jewish arguments for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah..."


You accept non-biblical Jews over the Jewish writings in the Bible? 


Not sure why you keep picking as if you would accept something I said or showed to you in the Bible? You reject anything in the Bible that doesn't align with the Quran, yes?

Just because I said "My answer presents some of the Jewish arguments for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah..." doesn't mean I know ALL the Jewish arguments. That's why I said you'd have to put those interpretations of yours to the Jews and ask them why they don't agree with those interpretations.

"You reject anything in the Bible that doesn't align with the Quran, yes?" You seem to keep repeating that. It seems that if it were true it would make you feel better. So I wish for your sake that I could say yes, it is true. But the unfortunate truth is that I do not see the Bible from the point of view of the JW or the Catholics or the Methodists or any other church or interpretation or even the Quran's. I study the Bible independently and have my own understanding of it which I can explain using the Bible and common sense. I never make any reference to the Qur'an in my explanations. My explanations are from the Bible, not the Qur'an. The Qur'an plays no part whatsoever in my understanding of the Bible, though I can see that you wish it did. 

" The Qur'an plays no part whatsoever in my understanding of the Bible"
Where do you get that Jesus blood was not to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins?
Where do you get that Jesus didn't die and that it was someone made to look like Jesus?

"Where do you get that Jesus blood was not to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins?" >>> same place where the Jews got it from. I'm sure they didn't get it from the Qur'an. So you don't need the Qur'an to get to that understanding. I don't think the God of Moses was one to call for a human sacrifice so that He could forgive sins. Pagan gods apparently did.

Quote: ["Where do you get that Jesus blood was not to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins?" >>> same place where the Jews got it from]
So you admit that it's not from the Bible itself but from non-biblical apostate Jews that rejected the Messiah. (Mt 23)

Quote: "I don't think the God of Moses was one to call for a human sacrifice so that He could forgive sins."
So you don't think that Moses and Jesus had the same God.


Quote: "I do not say someone else was crucified in place of Jesus." I didn't say that, did I? What I said is: "Where do you get that Jesus didn't die and that it was someone made to look like Jesus?" I have seen you post something very similar to that as I did not know the Quran said something like that prior to conversations with you.

Quran 4:157: And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.


Edit: (John 11:49-52) But one of them, Caʹia·phas, who was high priest that year, said to them: “You do not know anything at all, 50 and you have not reasoned that it is to your benefit for one man to die in behalf of the people rather than for the whole nation to be destroyed.” 51 He did not say this, however, of his own originality, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation, 52 and not only for the nation but also to gather together into one the children of God who were scattered about. This post was edited by texasescimo at February 10, 2018 1:51 AM MST

Am I being used again to kill time, I wonder.

You challenged my statement " The Qur'an plays no part whatsoever in my understanding of the Bible" with two questions 
"Where do you get that Jesus blood was not to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins?" and
"Where do you get that Jesus didn't die and that it was someone made to look like Jesus?"

I gave a paragraph in answer to each question showing clearly that one does not need the Qur'an for those ideas.

you could have

a- challenged my answer and shown that my understanding did come from the Qur'an, or

b- acknowledged graciously that my answers are convincing and thanked me and we conclude the discussion, or

c- realised grudgingly that my answers are convincing and not responded

Anyway, I'll comment on your tangential comments, but not because I have time to kill.

1. It is not my understanding that the idea that "Jesus blood was not to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins" came "from non-biblical apostate Jews". I think it is an idea held by Jews before the arrival of Jesus and continues to be the idea of Jews who are awaiting the first coming of the Messiah.


2. "So you don't think that Moses and Jesus had the same God." >>> this has all the hallmarks of a sheer time waster. It's like asking a guy who made references to the God of Abraham "So you don't think that Abraham and Moses had the same God." However, since we're on the subject, here's my understanding. The universe has one creator and this creator is the God of ALL throughout the universe, no matter what name they gave their religions and no matter what weird and wonderful understanding they have of this God, for me it is still the same one God.

3.  "I didn't say that, did I?"  >>> more indication of time killing. Did I say that you did? And of course I know that you asked "Where do you get that Jesus didn't die and that it was someone made to look like Jesus?" implying that I got it from the Qur'an, and I wrote a whole paragraph in my response, showing that the idea goes way back to the second century. 

On the contrary, the Biblical Jews as well as Christian Jews as well as Jesus himself knew it.

(Isaiah 53:5) But he was pierced for our transgression; He was crushed for our errors. He bore the punishment for our peace, And because of his wounds we were healed.
(Daniel 9:24-27)

"On the contrary, the Biblical Jews as well as Christian Jews as well as Jesus himself knew it." >>> then take it up with them. The Bible implies they insisted on crucifixion to prove that he was not the Messiah. For them his crucifixion was firm evidence that he was not the expected Messiah but an impostor and that's why they still await the first coming. But please, don't argue with me over that. I'm not a Jew.

"Disingenuous of you to pretend that the Quran plays no part in your interpretation" >>> that is a claim of omniscience. And I think you seriously believe it too.

"the Bible shows what I believe" >>> I have no doubt it does, just like it shows the Catholics what they believe. I too am confident about what it shows me to believe. 

You are the one that brought up the Jews as a proof of your own position so you take it up with the Jews. Nice dodge on the scriptures again. You pretend that you get from the Bible that Jesus was not to die, get real.

"You are the one that brought up the Jews as a proof of your own position so you take it up with the Jews." >>> let's say I quoted what the Jews say as a proof of my own position, so how am I to take it up with the Jews? Do I go and say to them "There's a problem here. You and I agree on this issue. So how do we solve this problem?"

"Nice dodge on the scriptures again." >>> As I said if there is a dodge then it's a dodge by the Jews. You see the crucifixion of Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy and yet another confirmation that Jesus WAS the foretold Messiah. I explained to you how they see it as exactly the opposite. They see the crucifixion as judgement by God on an impostor. According to you THEY have got the scripture wrong. So obviously it's something you need to sort out with them. I have no issue with Jesus being the foretold Messiah. So you and I are on the same page on that one.

Such a hypocrite! You are the one that first brought up the Jews and their opinion(non inspired)  and you are the one that first told me to take it up with the Jews. So right back at you: [so how am I to take it up with the Jews? Do I go and say to them "There's a problem here. You and I agree on this issue. So how do we solve this problem?"]

I don't understand what point you're making in your first paragraph, apart from the name calling that it opens with. You want to discuss with me and be rude too.

"What does the archangel Michael have to do with anything we are discussing?" Didn't understand? I''l explain. It is an example of your use of the Bible as evidence for a belief that you hold but the vast majority of the Christian world doesn't. Hope that's clear.

I think an open minded Hindu, Buddhist, Jew or Christian can study the Qur'an independently and impartially and have his own understanding of it before deciding to embrace Islam or not. I don't think belonging to one religion disables one from making an independent or impartial study of another one.


This post was edited by CLURT at February 13, 2018 6:55 PM MST

Just as you have already made your mind up that the Quran is true and the Bible has been changed, you will not read the Bible with an open mind. Some with a person of another religion that has his mind made up would not likely read the Quran with an open mind. And according to you, one has to read the Quran in Arabic to understand it anyway. 

I think can. You think can't. Best leave it at that

  I can't believe you'd have the tenacity to disparage my use of the English language to express a point of view.  Fine, you want war, let's get to it:

  What you have so smugly stated about the difference between "the concept" and "some concept" has absolutely nothing to do with the question I posted.  That's not to say that it's incorrect, because you're right in that "the concept" differs from "some concept".  That difference, however, is not even close to the point of my question.  I posted not only exactly what I meant to post, but also posted it exactly the way I meant to post it.  If you want to post a similar question, a similarly-worded question, or even a completely different question, please feel free to do so; that's what this website is for.  I have no problem with you taking from my premise and forming something of your own, because that's the foundation of healthy discourse.  On the other hand, for you to intimate that I worded my question incorrectly because it doesn't fit in with how you'd like to answer or how you'd like to be able to answer, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.  If you think the question is devoid of sufficient "information" in order for you to answer it, look elsewhere for those who spoon-feed readers to get their minds rolling.  This post of mine obviously wasn't too difficult to understand for others who answered it, and beyond that, they continue in lively debate with each other in fine fashion.  Please re-evaluate your own shortcomings of an intellectual nature if you find my question lacking in direction, instead of snide remarks about how you're inadequate in your grasp of reading comprehension.  There's no obligation for you to answer any question that's above your level of understanding, but at the same time, your inability to formulate an answer shouldn't call for denigrating the person who asked it.

  Now for brass tacks.  The grammar of my question is not improper.  Prophecy is and can be construed as a concept.  A singular concept.  It can also be construed in the abstract, as some concept of prophecy.  They are two entirely different questions, yet they share validity in their own right; neither one of them is better than the other, neither one of them is worse than the other.  Had I wanted to convey "some concept" as the basis for my question, that's what I would have written.  Simple as that.  I've been around the grammar block a few times, pal, and I know quite well how to use it.

  Lastly, I think it's a shame you decided to take this pot-shot.  You and I get along well, we banter back and forth every now and then, we share a goof or a gaff, we tackle serious topics, etc.  I am not angry with you, nor do I think you're unintelligent, I don't even find you unpleasant.  I admit I'm puzzled you'd take this tack with me, but fine, you served and I vollied.  You're just as entitled as I am to post what you wish here.  If you and I can return to civility between us, I welcome it.  If you prefer clashing instead, I'll leave that at your mantle.  I enjoy this website too much to let things get to me, so I wish you the same sentiment.  Have a good day, and please continue to have a ball here on AnswerMug.

~