|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,430 Year: 6,687/9,624 Month: 27/238 Week: 27/22 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: Brian's reasons for seeing Jesus as a failure.1. No Davidic bloodline. No challenge to this claim Luke's geneology of Jesus traced the line through David’s son Nathan, While Mathews list traces thru the line of Solomon. Luke traces the ancestry of Mary, which proved Jesus’ natural descent from David, and Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne via Jesus adoptive father Joseph who was traced back to Solomon. Both of these lists were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time. The religious leaders were looking for ways to discredit Jesus but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. This is evidence for Luke and Mathews lists as being fair dinkum.
Brian writes: 2. Jesus was not anointed as King Of Israel. The main challenge is that Jesus was a king, but of some spiritual kingdom which was not what the Jews were expecting. A bit too convenient as this claim cannot be verified. When the kings of Isreal were anointed, they were done so by the prophet or priest at Gods direction. As you would be aware, there had been no physical king in Isreal for centuries before the first century. The last king was Zedekiah in 607bce. It was fortold by Ezekiel at 21:27: A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it [earthly Jerusalem]. As for this also, it [the scepter of kingship in David’s line] will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him. Luke reported that the angel who appeard to mary told her "This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom. When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer, he witnessed him being anointed with holy spirit, by God himself. Jesus was annointed by God becasue Gods throne (the throne of David which represented Gods rulership) is not an earthly throne but a heavenly one. Has there been a king in Isreal since 607bce?
Brian writes: 3. The Messiah would free Israel from her oppressors. Jesus did not free Israel from anyone, in fact israel more oppressed after Jesus died. This point still stands 4. The Messiah would gather the nation of Israel back to Israel. The exact opposite happened after Jesus died! My point still stands. You are looking for a physical fulfillment and it was not to be a physical fulfillment at that time. The jews wanted it to be a physical fulfillment too, but we cannot force Gods hand. His purpose was to provide 'ALL MANKIND' with the promises that he had made by means of the Messiah. This is why he told Abraham "by means of your seed, ALL the nations will bless themselves" How much good could the messiah have done if he was situated in palestine? Do you really think that he could have changed people so much that the stop fighting? Perhaps he could have spent his life permanently touring the world and performing his miracles, but it would have only lasted for as long as he was there. In order for the Messiah to benefit All mankind, he needed to be in a location where he could access everyone at the same time.
Brian writes: 5. The messiah would rebuild the Temple on Temple Mount. Jesus obviously did not achieve this as the Temple stood all through Jesus' life and was destroyed a few decades after Jesus died. My point still stands. Joh 2:19 "Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. firstly, the temple was still standing when Jesus was in Jerusalem, so he obviously wasnt talking about the physical temple. If you read his words, he actually told people that the Temple in Jerusalem was going to be destroyed...which it was in 70ce. The temple that Jesus spoke of was not herods temple. The religious leaders used this against him at his trial as Johns account shows:
John 2:20Therefore the Jews said: This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days? 21But he was talking about the temple of his body. 22When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the saying that Jesus said" Brian writes: 6. The Messiah will bring world peace! Has the world ever been in such a state of war and terror? Jesus failed here too. My point stands. Yes, the messiah would bring world peace, but only after the Kingdom of God removed present world governments and authorities. The kingdom prophecy of Daniel shows that war would ensue between Gods Kingdom and the worlds governments BEFORE peace would be achieved.
Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom...It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; So Jesus as the Messianic king of Gods Kingdom will indeed bring peace, but not until it has removed all other rulerships.
Brian writes: 7. Not single messianic prophecy can be verified in the person of Jesus. My point still stands. To the contrary, the only prophecies that have not come true yet about the messiah are the ones about what he will do after he removes present world governments. All other prophecies have certainly been fulfilled. For anyone who is interested in just how many prophecies were fullfilled by Jesus, here is a list of the prophecy and the fulfillement. Ge 49:10 Born of the tribe of JudahMt 1:2-16; Lu 3:23-33; Heb 7:14 Ps 132:11 & Isa 9:7; From the family of David the son of JesseMt 1:1, 6-16; 9:27; Ac 13:22,23; Ro 1:3; 15:8,12 11:1, 11:10 Mic 5:2 Born in BethlehemLu 2:4-11; Joh 7:42 Isa 7:14 Born of a virginMt 1:18-23; Lu 1:30-35 Jer 31:15 Babes killed after his birthMt 2:16-18 Ho 11:1 Called out of EgyptMt 2:15 Mal 3:1 & Isa 40:3 Way prepared by someone before his arrivalMt 3:1-3; 11:10-14;4:5; 17:10-13; Lu 1:17,76; 3:3-6; 7:27; Joh 1:20-23; 3:25-28; Ac 13:24; 19:4 Isa 61:1,2 Commissioned by GodLu 4:18-21 Isa 9:1,2 Ministry caused people in Naphtali and Zebulun to see great lightMt 4:13-16 Ps 78:2 would speak with IllustrationsMt 13:11-13, 31-35 Isa 53:4 Carried our sicknessesMt 8:16,17 Ps 69:9 Zealous for Jehovah’s houseMt 21:12, 13; Joh 2:13-17 Isa 42:1-4 would not wrangle in streetsMt 12:14-21 Isa 53:1 people would not believe in him.Joh 12:37,38; Ro 10:11,16 Zec 9:9 & Ps 118:26 Entry into Jerusalem on colt of an ass, hailed as kingMt 21:1-9; Mr 11:7-11; Lu 19:28-38; Joh 12:12-15 Isa 28:16 & 53:3; Ps 69:8; 118:22, 23 Rejected but becomes the cornerstoneMt 21:42, 45,46; Ac 3:14; 4:11; 1Pe 2:7 Isa 8:14, 15 Becomes stone of stumblingLu 20:17,18; Ro 9:31-33 Ps 41:9; 109:8 Betrayed by an apostleMt 26:47-50; Joh 13:18, 26-30; Ac 1:16-20 Zec 11:12 Betrayed for 30 pieces of silverMt 26:15; 27:3-10; Mr 14:10,11 Zec 13:7 Disciples scatterMt 26:31,56; Joh 16:32 Ps 2:1,2 Roman powers and leaders of Israel act together against himMt 27:1,2; Mr 15:1,15; Lu 23:10-12; Ac 4:25-28 Isa 53:8 Tried and condemnedMt 26:57-68; 27:1, 2, 11-26; Joh 18:12-14, 19-24, 28-40; 19:1-16 Ps 27:12 Use of false witnesses in his trialMt 26:59-61; Mr 14:56-59 Isa 53:7 would remain silent before accusersMt 27:12-14; Mr 14:61; 15:4,5; Lu 23:9 Ps 69:4 Hated without causeLu 23:13-25; Joh 15:24,25 Isa 50:6; Mic 5:1 Struck, spit onMt 26:67; 27:26,30; Joh 19:3 Ps 22:16, ImpaledMt 27:35; Mr 15:24,25; Lu 23:33; Joh 19:18,23; 20:25,27 Ps 22:18 Lots cast over his garmentsMt 27:35; Joh 19:23,24 Isa 53:12 Numbered with sinnersMt 26:55,56; 27:38; Lu 22:37 Ps 22:7,8 Reviled while on stakeMt 27:39-43; Mr 15:29-32 Ps 69:21 Given vinegar and gall to sooth his painMt 27:34,48; Mr 15:23,36 Ps 22:1 Forsaken by God to enemiesMt 27:46; Mr 15:34 Ps 34:20; Ex 12:46 No bones brokenJoh 19:33,36 Isa 53:5; Zec 12:10 Pierced in thighMt 27:49; Joh 19:34,37; Re 1:7 Isa 53:5, Dies sacrificial death to take sin away and open way to righteous standing with GodMt 20:28; Joh 1:29, Ro 3:24; 4:25; 1Co 15:3; Heb 9:12-15; 1Pe 2:24; 1Jo 2:2 Isa 53:9 Buried with the richMt 27:57-60; Joh 19:38-42 Jon 1:17; In grave parts of three days, then resurrectedMt 12:39,40; 16:21; 17:23;2:10; 27:64; 28:1-7; Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:3-8 Ps 16:8-11, Raised before his body sees corruptionAc 2:25-31; 13:34-37 Ps 2:7 Declared Gods son by annointing and resurrectionMt 3:16,17; Mr 1:9-11; Lu 3:21,22; Ac 13:33; Ro 1:4; Heb 1:5; 5:5 Brian, you think that Jesus was a failure, yet there is a worldwide religious movement of billions of people following him and resting their hope on him...is this really failure? Whether you believe in christianity or not, any reasonable person would conclude that he was a complete success in establishing himself as the 'light of the world' to whom people could look to for hope and comfort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: How can He claim descent from David through Joseph if Joseph had nothing to do with His conception? thru adoption being legally married to the mother makes him the legal father. In any case, Jesus, being the son of God, is the most legal person to take the throne of God because David was said to be sitting on Gods Throne.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
I'll take the view of most Chalcedonian churches:
Jesus was, under Jewish law, considered the "Son of Joseph". The reasons for this are:(a)He was a male child (fully human) (b)He was not the child of another man. So in the Jewish view of inheritance at the time Jesus would be of "the line of David". Of course he was not a blood relative of Joseph, but that was not what was required. He essentially fulfilled all the requirements, which are not of European dynastic form. Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church and other churches (such as the other Patriarchies in communion with the Pope) argue that Mary herself was a descendant of David. Two passages in Romans and 2 Timothy suggest this. Jesus is described as being "made to him (God) of the seed of David". Which implies Mary was related to David, traditionally through Nathan the son of David.However this mostly relies on tradition which is not a valid theological source for other churches so I'll leave it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
thru adoption
I think this is too modern a view. There was no such thing as adoption as we know it in Jewish societies back then. Rather he simply fulfilled certain Jewish requirements. Perhaps Foster child is closer, but I do not know. In any case Jesus is described as physically being of the seed of David, even in a non legal sense. being legally married to the mother makes him the legal father. Some take this to be a reference to Mary being a descendant of David, although you can argue that Jesus is not even really Mary's child. I think this comes from the phrase the son of God, which a lot of Christians seem to think means he was, in some way, the son of God and Mary or something.Rather Mary was simply the womb (I'm aware how misogynistic that sounds) which carried the incarnation of an aspect of God. In any case, Jesus, being the son of God, is the most legal person to take the throne of God because David was said to be sitting on Gods Throne.
Well Jesus isn't the son of God, he is God. Or rather he is the physical/temporal aspect of one personhood of God. He's not God's son or something. Unfortunately this personhood has the name "Son", another word is λγος or logos. Son is used because it provides a human view of the relationship between this logos personhood of God with the personhood known as YHWH or the Father.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 5209 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I'll take the view of most Chalcedonian churches: Jesus was, under Jewish law, considered the "Son of Joseph". The reasons for this are: (a)He was a male child (fully human) (b)He was not the child of another man. The problem is though that although these churches and many Christians flippantly claim this ‘adoption under Jewish law’ makes Him a descendant of David is completely unfounded, I have never seen a single shred of evidence to support this stance, nothing is ever given to support this claim. Yet, as has already been posted on this thread, this ‘adoption’ that would give Jesus the required status is unknown in first century Jewish law; it really does not have any support.
So in the Jewish view of inheritance at the time Jesus would be of "the line of David". Of course he was not a blood relative of Joseph, but that was not what was required. He essentially fulfilled all the requirements, which are not of European dynastic form. But it is patently obvious that the Nathan prophecy states that the messiah HAS to be a blood descendant. 2 Sam 7:12
When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. So it looks as if the blood relative IS a requirement. For me, this unsupported ‘adoption’ claim does not make any sense, in fact it reeks of desperation. It is obvious that it is a blood line that is required, the Virgin Birth negates this possibility so it is more reasonable to accept that the author of Matthew made an error in translating Isa. 7:14.
Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church and other churches (such as the other Patriarchies in communion with the Pope) argue that Mary herself was a descendant of David. This claim was not made until about 1500 years after Jesus died, so it is difficult to believe that it is an obvious reference to Mary. As we know, blood was not passed through the female line, it was the male line that inheritance passed through. There’s also two facts from the Old Testament that terminate the Mary genealogy stance. First is the prophecy that the Messiah would come through David’s son Solomon, yet the genealogy that is said to be Mary’s goes back to Nathan, who was David’s other son and never king. I think what really dismisses the Mary line claim is in Luke 2:2
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. It is obvious that the genealogies in the NT refer to Joseph, none of them are Mary’s.
Which implies Mary was related to David, traditionally through Nathan the son of David. Which does contradict 2 Sam 7:12-14
12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Therefore it is clear that it is Solomon’s bloodline that the Messiah will come from and Nathan’s is irrelevant as there was no promise made to his line. It does make me wonder that when things are as obvious as this why followers do not question their churches’ teachings. Are people so desperate to make Jesus into something He wasn’t that they will ignore the Bible in order to achieve this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Son Goku writes:
The jews viewed Jesus as being the son of the carpenter, Joseph. This would mean that they viewed Jesus as Josephs son, his legal child because they would have beleived Jesus was Josephs biological child. therefore his lineage could be traced thru Josephs blood line and no one would have thought anything strange about it.
In any case Jesus is described as physically being of the seed of David, even in a non legal sense. Son Goku writes: Well Jesus isn't the son of God, he is God. Or rather he is the physical/temporal aspect of one personhood of God. He's not God's son or something. well the bible writers call him Gods Son. And he is different to God in that God is eternal and has no beginning, yet John 1:1 says that the 'Word was in the beginning with God'. This is in no way implying that the word was eternal but that he had a beginning. This idea of the trinity is not a bible thing and not all christians teach it. Actually its what caused the early church to be split in two.
Son Goku writes: Son is used because it provides a human view of the relationship between this logos personhood of God with the personhood known as YHWH or the Father. Thats right, it accurately describes the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus...both are different individuals , but are as close as we understand a father and son to be. Its not 'unfortunate', it makes perfect sense to describe them this way because Jesus is not God, but a created being...the first created being who came into existence in 'the beginning' at the time when God began to create other beings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
well the bible writers call him Gods Son. And he is different to God in that God is eternal and has no beginning, yet John 1:1 says that the 'Word was in the beginning with God'. This is in no way implying that the word was eternal but that he had a beginning.
This is a minority view and hence I did not adopt it. I'd prefer to stick to the view of the vast majority of Christians and keep Jesus and YHWH as the same being. You can't just claim your own view as fact, otherwise I might as well claim my own view that Jesus was just some guy as fact. This idea of the trinity is not a bible thing and not all christians teach it. Actually its what caused the early church to be split in two. Thats right, it accurately describes the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus...both are different individuals , but are as close as we understand a father and son to be. Its not 'unfortunate', it makes perfect sense to describe them this way because Jesus is not God, but a created being...the first created being who came into existence in 'the beginning' at the time when God began to create other beings. Also you didn't complete your quote from John 1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Which strongly suggests that Jesus and God are the same being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Son Goku writes: I think this is too modern a view. There was no such thing as adoption as we know it in Jewish societies back then. Rather he simply fulfilled certain Jewish requirements. Perhaps Foster child is closer, but I do not know. In any case Jesus is described as physically being of the seed of David, even in a non legal sense. Hi Son Goku. The ancient Hebrew was a language of relatively few words, much being left to text for understanding. Though there was no ancient Hebrew word for adoption, textual content implied the term. For example, according to Levitical law, the nearest of kin, usually being the eldest brother was to take the widow of a deceased kin to wife and raise the children making them essentially adopted children. An example of this would be Esther who was raised by Mordecai who I believe was her uncle. The new father, patriarch and head of the family, consequently becomes the legal father of the children. A word has been added to modern Hebrew for adoption and rabis have taken the position that the term was implied in the OT law.
Son Goku writes: Some take this to be a reference to Mary being a descendant of David, although you can argue that Jesus is not even really Mary's child. I think this comes from the phrase the son of God, which a lot of Christians seem to think means he was, in some way, the son of God and Mary or something.Rather Mary was simply the womb (I'm aware how misogynistic that sounds) which carried the incarnation of an aspect of God. In the NT, Jesus referred to himself often as both son of man and son of God. He also refered to his father, Jehovah as his god on several occasions.
ABE: This is an important point since Jesus, being the perfect innocent redeemer/scraifice for the sins of fallen mankind had to be both son of God and son of man. In one place he is referred to by Paul as the 2nd Adam i.e. the first perfect man after Adam fell, tainting all mankind with the sin nature. Son Goku writes: In any case, Jesus, being the son of God, is the most legal person to take the throne of God because David was said to be sitting on Gods Throne. Good point!
Son Goku writes: Well Jesus isn't the son of God, he is God. Or rather he is the physical/temporal aspect of one personhood of God. He's not God's son or something. Unfortunately this personhood has the name "Son", another word is λγος or logos. Son is used because it provides a human view of the relationship between this logos personhood of God with the personhood known as YHWH or the Father. In John 14 where Jesus said if you saw him, you saw the father, he also said in verse 28 of that same chapter that his father was greater than he, meaning he, in all aspects imaged God and that his spirit, the Holy Spirit was the same spirit as that of the father. I Corinthians 15:28 also sheds light on this where the apostle Paul states that in the end of the age Jesus will again become subject to the father. The father is always regarded as head and in that sense, greater than the son. Having said the above, Jesus is divine and as with the father, worthy of worship. In the NT epistle greetings God is referred to as our father and Jesus as our lord/master, since he is our head and God is his head; a chain of command, if you will. I have gone into detail on this in past threads if you care to do a search. I don't mean to lead off topic here to explain it all. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add comment BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Hi Buzsaw!
We read that in the end time it will happen. We see it happening on the world scene. This is super phenomenal to have this little nation scattered globally for nearly 20 centuries to return intact as a fully operative nation winning their wars against at least 20 to one odds. Wise and astute scholars deduce from all of this that what has been prophesied such as some of what you cited will indeed likely come to pass, just as the rest has been on track as prophesied. I think you have the most viable argument against the "failure" hypothesis. I have some questions though. Do you think that when he gets back, and fulfills the "Conquering King" and "Mighty Messenger" groups of prophecies, the Jews will then recognize him as their messiah? Other people might stick on the point that claiming to be God is a no-no for Judaism no matter how many prophecies one fulfills, but I don't believe you have to deal with that particular setback. Then also -- this is the rough part -- how about the Moslems? They also say that they expect him back for the End Times, to defeat the false messiah and reunite all the Abrahamic religions.
Jesus will descend at the point of a white arcade, east of Damascus, dressed in yellow robes - his head anointed. He will then join the Mahdi in his war against the Dajjal. Jesus, considered in Islam as a Muslim, will abide by the Islamic teachings. Eventually, Jesus will slay the Dajjal, and then everyone from the people of the book (ahl al-kitāb, referring to Jews and Christians) will believe in him.
Jesus in Islam - Wikipedia Is he going to be able to do it? Or are they a lost cause?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Son Goku writes: This is a minority view and hence I did not adopt it. I'd prefer to stick to the view of the vast majority of Christians and keep Jesus and YHWH as the same being. that is your perogative...i just hope that you choose this view, not becuase its what the majority believe, but its what you've come to understand from scripture. In the end, its the bible writers who's opinion matters most. They were certainly not of the opinion that Jesus and Jehovah were were the same...nor did Jesus.
Son Goku writes: Also you didn't complete your quote from John 1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Which strongly suggests that Jesus and God are the same being. i agree that if that is actually what John 1:1 says, it might appear that way. However, this view is not in harmony with the rest of the scriptures. And if you think about it logically, if the Apostle John really said that, it is an illogical thing to say that someone (the Word) was with some other individual (God) and at the same time was that other individual (God). Here i'm going to give you the first set of lines the Greek text according to the fourth-century uncial manuscripts; and then on the second line, how the Greek text is pronounced in our language today; and on the third line a word-for-word English translation: ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ EN ARKHEI ĒN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD______________________________________________________ HΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ĒN PROS ΤΟΝ THN, KAI THS ĒN HO LOGOS. WAS WITH ΤHE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD._________________________________________________________ ΟΥΤΟΣ ΗΝ ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ HOUTOS ĒN EN ARKHEI PROS ΤΟΝ THN. THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD.______________________________________________________ I highlighted each occurance of the definite article so that you can see that in the original language John used it when he said THE word was with THE God...this is what proves that they were two distinct persons.... More evidence that The word was NOT the God but was WITH the God is seen in the 2nd line where no definite article is used when John says : KAI THS ĒN HO LOGOS. AND GOD WAS THE WORD. John does not use the definite article before the word GOD which implies he was describing the nature of the word....Jesus was divine is what he was saying. But he wasnt saying that Jesus was The God who is distinct from all other gods including The Word. Just because something is believed by the majority, does not make it right. Another line of reasoning is on what the names given to individuals mean. The name by which the The Creator God chose to be known by wasYHWH , this name means 'become' or He Causes to Become whereas Jesus name means Jehovah Is Salvation. This is significant and shows that while one is known as the creator, the other is known as one who recognizes that YHWH provides salvation. They are very different and very distinct. Edited by Peg, : No reason given. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Hey Brian,
This claim was not made until about 1500 years after Jesus died, so it is difficult to believe that it is an obvious reference to Mary. As we know, blood was not passed through the female line, it was the male line that inheritance passed through.
Completely true. As a sociological aside, isn't it bizarre that Jewishness was inherited through the mother and still is, but kingship was inherited through the father. Maybe there is something I do not understand, but it seems an odd mix to me.
Brian writes:
No disagreement. I mentioned it because the Catholic church uses tradition as a valid source of theology. If enough Catholics think something is true, then it is true, since God would not allow a falsehood into his true church. I don't get it at all, but there you go.
This claim was not made until about 1500 years after Jesus died, so it is difficult to believe that it is an obvious reference to Mary. As we know, blood was not passed through the female line, it was the male line that inheritance passed through. Brian writes:
Definitely correct, I'm not sure what the response of most churches is to this. But it is patently obvious that the Nathan prophecy states that the messiah HAS to be a blood descendant. The only thing is that Romans 1:3 says that Jesus is of the flesh of David:"who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh" So Jesus was physically of David and materially carried his blood in some manner. I must admit I don't get it, all I can give is the common reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Hey Buz*,
Debates on the nature of Christ and his exact relationship to God are not easy. It absolutely dominated the early Roman period of the religion and was only settled after several councils over the span of hundreds of years. The view you take is not the one that won out in the end. I would take your statements to mean you are not Chalcedonian and hence not truly Protestant or Catholic. The view that the Father was greater than the Son is known as heteroousia, although you may know it by the name of the historical group associated with it. Namely Arianism. Anyway heteroousia is not a view held by the majority of churches. *any Dubliner would love that sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Hey Peg,
My response is pretty much the same as my response to Buz. Your view is entirely non-trinitarian, so it's even further from the modern standard than Buz.
Peg writes:
Well you must understand that I am an atheist. I view this in a similar light to the two origin stories of Aphrodite. that is your perogative...i just hope that you choose this view, not becuase its what the majority believe, but its what you've come to understand from scripture.Was she really created from the bollocks of Ouranos or was she a daughter of Zeus? All I would say is that in standard greek mythology she was made from testicular violence on the person of Ouranos and the other view was minor. Similar in most forms of Christianity, Christ is:1. Of the same being as the father and the holy spirit (Trinitarianism) 2. Same essence (equal with) the Father (Homoousia) 3. That the divine (Logos) and human (Jesus) aspects were one individual (Hypostasis) 4. However that the human and devine aspects are distinct (Dyophysite) 5. And have separate wills (Chalcedonian)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Son Goku writes: Debates on the nature of Christ and his exact relationship to God are not easy. It absolutely dominated the early Roman period of the religion and was only settled after several councils over the span of hundreds of years. The view you take is not the one that won out in the end. I would take your statements to mean you are not Chalcedonian and hence not truly Protestant or Catholic. The view that the Father was greater than the Son is known as heteroousia, although you may know it by the name of the historical group associated with it. Namely Arianism. Anyway heteroousia is not a view held by the majority of churches. Hi Son G. What better authority than the words of Jesus himself that His father is greater than himself. In written literal NT Christology context it implies that this is the case in that the father of him is the head of him as Paul states and that they do share one spirit etc. He does not, in fact sit in 'God's place, but rather on his right hand. As Peg rightly noted, what scripture states trumps majority POV, when/if majority POV contradicts the recorded words of Jesus and his apostle Paul, etc. As for my status, I don't know how you can alledge that I am not a protestant, being that term includes literally hundreds of varied doctrinal views. Many protestant churches are non-demoninational. That said, your point is well taken that I tend to hold to unique literal doctrinal positions in some areas which go counter to the majority of protestant churches, both evangelical and mainline liberal. Nearly all who I cite the John 14 quote of Jesus which I aluded to are totallly oblivious to the fact that he said what he said regarding his status with God. He always referred to himself as either the son of God or son of man, so I refer to him as God's son as he regarded himself and Jehovah as god as he always did in reference to his father. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Debates on the nature of Christ and his exact relationship to God are not easy. It absolutely dominated the early Roman period of the religion and was only settled after several councils over the span of hundreds of years.
The view you take is not the one that won out in the end. I would take your statements to mean you are not Chalcedonian and hence not truly Protestant or Catholic. The view that the Father was greater than the Son is known as heteroousia, although you may know it by the name of the historical group associated with it. Namely Arianism. Anyway heteroousia is not a view held by the majority of churches. *any Dubliner would love that sentence
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024