|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,202 Year: 6,459/9,624 Month: 37/270 Week: 33/37 Day: 7/5 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jews Rejected God's Offer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1566 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm curious. In Hewbrew their names were spelled the same? If so do you know why they are not translated the same in English language Bibles then? if i recall correctly, both are indeed the same of very similar. they are most certtainly both variants on the same root name, the name of god. the reason they are different in english when they would be said the same in hebrew is because the new testament is not in hebrew; it's in greek. and for some reason or another the greek rendering of yehoshua is iesous, or jesus in english. pronounced correctly in greek, it's "yeh-sue-wah" which is roughly equivalent to the hebrew pronounciation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3680 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Interesting question. Anything I have read presents the Holy Ghost/Spirit roughly as a helper or a gift from God to be received after belief in Jesus. Jesus warns against speaking against the Holy Spirit in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but I haven't read anything that requires belief in the Holy Spirit for eternal life.
Acts 13 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Even the scripture you shared speaks of the belief in Jesus and not the Holy Spirit. A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 835 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, for Jesus to be the seed of david, he would have to be from the direct unbroken MALE line, decended from Solomon. Since Jesus was
not Joesphes son, that disqalifies him there. (see e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16; Is 11:1; Jer 23:5, 30:9, 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24)) Next, assuming he WAS Josephs son, he would STILL not qualify, since the two conflicting genologies were not of the proper Davidic line. Second of all, the line 'He will be called Emanual' is a quote taken out of context, and is not anything to do with the Messiah. And, for that matter, Jesus was not called 'Emanual' in his lifetime.. strike two. As for sitting on the throne of a unified Israel and Juddah, he hasn't. The Jewish messiah will be known by what he has DONE, notby promises of what he will do. Next, as far as can be determined, Jesus was not married, and did not have children (see Ezek 46:16-17). Thus he is disqualified that way too. Also, the disporia has not ended. All the jews have not returned toIsrael (see (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5).)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 835 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
But the point is that is not what the Jewish people are looking for. That is what the CHristans are TELLING the Jewish people they are looking for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 835 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
What Romans says is irrelavent to the Jews. As for as the Jewish people are concerned, the book of Romans is a book written by a man, who wants to drive them away from the true way of worshipping god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 835 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You do realise that there are certain things that Greenleaf was assuming that was proven NOT to be true. For one, the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, so it is all hersay to begin with.
Second of all, the gospels make extrodinary claims. Such claims would not meet the standard for evidence in more modern courtrooms.. particuarly since it is hearsay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 835 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, it looks like Paul made the claim that he spoke for God.
Which, of course, differnet than actually speaking for God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dpardo Inactive Member |
Purpledawn writes: Jesus warns against speaking against the Holy Spirit in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but I haven't read anything that requires belief in the Holy Spirit for eternal life. I believe I understand what you are seeking. You would like scriptures where God The Father speaks to your questions. But, indulge me for a moment here, if Jesus is resurrected, as he is presented in the New Testament, then we have every reason to believe that everything he preached and taught is true. For if he had been a false prophet, God would not have resurrected him. Jesus taught about God's plan of salvation and the New Covenant. His teaching is consistent with the God of the Old Testament. As the prophet Jeremiah said:
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jeremiah 31:31-35
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. 35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dpardo Inactive Member |
Ramoss writes: Next, as far as can be determined, Jesus was not married, and did not have children (see Ezek 46:16-17). Thus he is disqualified that way too. Ezekiel 46:16-17 does not reference the Messiah. The term "prince" refers to the leaders of Israel. Ezekiel 45:8-9 says:
8 In the land shall be his possession in Israel: and my princes shall no more oppress my people; and the rest of the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes. 9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD. You also said:
Ramoss writes: Well, for Jesus to be the seed of david, he would have to be from the direct unbroken MALE line, decended from Solomon. Since Jesus wasnot Joesphes son, that disqalifies him there. You state that he was not Joseph's biological son but neglect to mention his miraculous virgin birth? Lastly, You said:
And, for that matter, Jesus was not called 'Emanual' in his lifetime.. strike two. Where does it say that he had to be called Emmanuel in his lifetime? We call him that NOW.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4900 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Very interesting. Thanks,
lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18582 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
How so? John was with Jesus as was Luke.How is that heresay?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1566 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
no reading comprehension, have we?
go re-read the very first few verses of luke. luke SAYS he wasn't there, and that there are many gospels floating around at the time, and that he seeks to find the truth of the matter even though he was not a party to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1566 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Where does it say that he had to be called Emmanuel in his lifetime? We call him that NOW. pre-pre-hoc-propter-hoc. that's a new one. first there was a prophesy written about a child named immanuel. then matthew, knowing this prophesy tries to fit jesus into it (even though it had nothing to do jesus). and now, we call jesus that because of the verse in matthew. in reality, jesus and immanuel had nothing to do with each other, and if both lived, they lived several hundred years apart.
You state that he was not Joseph's biological son but neglect to mention his miraculous virgin birth? also a nod to immanuel verse, baseless otherwise. but that of course might make him a seed of david... you can't have it both ways, either he's heir to david's throne or the actual son of god. of course, as a davidian king, he would have been the adopted son of god anyways...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, it's likely that the author of the Gospel of Luke was a native of Antioch and most likely never meet Jesus or even anyone who had known Jesus.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1566 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Well, it looks like Paul made the claim that he spoke for God. Which, of course, differnet than actually speaking for God. this is a good rule of thumb. question things. as i've said numerous times on this board: alright, i speak for god too. what makes paul different than me, other than that people like his dear abby advice column more than my posts?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024