An apology and a clarification

[Poison Tree]

Actually he rode a donkey (messianic requirement) and was born in Bethlehem (messianic requirement)

You must not have read Matthew closely enough

[Bibliofagus]

Jebus?
Nope:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+54

It's all "For you will spread out to the right and to the left;
    your descendants will dispossess nations
    and settle in their desolate cities."

And the usual powermongering stuff.

[Mr.Obvious]

Yes in that statement, I am saying that I am open to any translation because I could be wrong , I am open to anyones view on religion, I believe Jesus' death changed everything because it allowed the holy spirit to be with every single person. If you  reject the concept of the divine trinity then, the crucification means nothing to you. Jesus is a man, I never used the phrase "God-Man"

The Torah (first five books of OT) were written by Moses

I believe that the OT could be literal but then again it might not be, I am open to both schools of thought

Isaiah 54, I'm pretty sure, is the Prophecy of Immanuel, for those of you who are more familiar with this kind of thing

Okay, let me just make clear why I was asking. In a different topic, I think, you said you believe in evolution theory and you seemed to be open to fact that the first eve and the first adam actually lived tens of thousands of years apart.
Here's the thing. That goes against a literal interpretation of the OT.
No matter the translation nor the interpretation: it ain't literally true that Adam and Eve lived in a magical garden and were tricked by a talking snake (which lost it's legs) into eating the forbidden fruit.
And if that's not true, that takes away the entire credit behind the original sin. Meaning that the basic reason why God had to let a virgin give birth to himself and then stage a whole lot of commotion just right and fullfill the prophecies from the OT(!) and make sure he was sacrificed to himself, is without any valid reason. It was already without morality or sense, but now there is not even a reason to do this anymore.
The entire premise of Christianity is that you are born in sin, the original sin due to eating the forbidden fruit by an ancestor (which is abhorrent that you can be punished for something like that) and that by believing in Jesus and accepting him as your personal saviour you can be saved. But without original sin, which I don't think exists by the way, that entire concept is flawed from the get-go.

On a side-note, it's clear that if the OT is true, Jesus did not, as you say, help everyone and got everyone on equal ground and got rid of the ancient anger and wrath of his father (and thus himself). Because in Genesis Eve and her entire sex get punished by painful labor. God, according to the Thora, chose to make child-labor painfull to punish Eve. Well, guess what, I've been told it still hurts like hell. If we're cleansed from our ancient problems and made perfect and equal, why does it still hurt for women to give birth? Why keep that punishment in place?

[aitm]

Actually he rode a donkey (messianic requirement) and was born in Bethlehem (messianic requirement)

I don't have the text in front of me, but Im sure Isaiah 54 talks about Jesus

I am saying that I am open to any translation because I could be wrong

so what you really mean is...."maybe he rode a donkey, maybe not, maybe he was born in Bethlehem, maybe not.....its all up to however someone can interpret it, I mean lets face it , maybe he is not really the son of god...could be a kook, but I am open to all interpretations".....right? ..oy vey.....
oh hell lets face it, if the messianic requirement was in the OT then THAT could be interpretation as well? Hell, the whole damn thing is nothing but mish mash

[Contemporary Protestant]

The Triumphal Entry
…6The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, 7and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats. 8Most of the crowd spread their coats in the road, and others were cutting branches from the trees and spreading them in the road.…


it was a donkey and a horse

[Poison Tree]

The Triumphal Entry
…6The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, 7and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats. 8Most of the crowd spread their coats in the road, and others were cutting branches from the trees and spreading them in the road.…


it was a donkey and a horse

Sometimes Matthew 21:2 is translated a donkey and a colt, sometimes a donkey and her colt, so it could be 1 donkey and 1 horse or 2 donkeys (so saying two horses was shoddiness on my part). But my point remains that, even accepting Matthew's inability to understand Hebrew parallelism, it is still not a messianic requirement any more than the virgin birth (evidence Matthew didn't read Hebrew at all) or being call a Nazarene (closest I've ever seen anyone come to making that about Jesus is to claim--without evidence or apparent meaning--that Jesus was a second Samson)

[Solitary]

There were three Isaiah's, one a woman. Which one are we talking about? Solitary

[Contemporary Protestant]

Talking about the Prophet, has his own book

[Solitary]

Talking about the Prophet, has his own book

They were all prophets and wrote their own book, and you still didn't answer another question I asked of you. I can assure you that there were three different Isaiah's according to religious scholars. This is why the Catholic Church did not want people to read Scripture because they wouldn't understand it and have all different kinds of interpretations. The Scriptures are all written ambiguously so they are mysterious and can be taken any way to justify what people already believe by being taught by religious authority and their parents.   Even atheists can quote Scripture to support their beliefs: "Seek the truth and you shall receive" Solitary   

[Contemporary Protestant]

sorry had to edit this comment

Chapters 1-39: First Isaiah/Isaiah of Jerusalem, 8th century BC.
Chapters 40-55: Second Isaiah/Isaiah of Babylon, 6th century BC.
Chapters 56-66: Third Isaiah/Isaiah of the restored Jerusalem, 6th century BC.

[SilentFutility]

I believe it to be true, and when something doesn't make sense, i look at myself and say "what am I doing wrong" or "how can I look at this differently", A lot of OT rules were for health reasons and to protect the Ancient Israelites .

To put it simply

"The Bible is the undisputed word of God however, the reader and the translator are often wrong"

btw I try to learn as much ancient Greek, hebrew, et cetera to further my understanding

Well it isn't undisputed...for a start you're on a forum full of people who dispute that.

"I think ___" is not the same as "everybody thinks __".

[Contemporary Protestant]

for me, it is the undisputed word of god, sorry I didn't clarify


*edit

When I say undisputed, I mean I don't argue with it

[Solitary]

Why are you sorry

sorry had to edit this comment

Chapters 1-39: First Isaiah/Isaiah of Jerusalem, 8th century BC.
Chapters 40-55: Second Isaiah/Isaiah of Babylon, 6th century BC.
Chapters 56-66: Third Isaiah/Isaiah of the restored Jerusalem, 6th century BC.

? Because you agree with me there were three?  You don't have another name: Eve? Do you?

[Contemporary Protestant]

Yes there are three, no one ever told me this, thank you for telling me

What about eve? I thought we were talking about Messianic prophecy

[Poison Tree]

When I say undisputed, I mean I don't argue with it

You don't argue with it, you just ignore what it actually says and substitute your own meaning