Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Isaiah 53 speaks about ISRAEL, and not about the messiah.
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 31 of 176 (715255)
01-02-2014 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ramoss
01-02-2014 2:35 PM


Re: god made into the image of man
AH yes.. the good old misunderstanding of Isaiah 9:6 (or 9:5 in the Hebrew numbering).
That is the royal name of Hezekiah. There are plenty of incidence and examples in the Jewish scripture where people's names describe traits in God, and Hezekiah literally means 'God is our might'.. so.. that's just one of the list of his royal names , from a historical point of view.
No need to shove prophecy into that.
There were many passages which spoke glowing things regarding David and Solomon and Hezekiah. But these good patriarchs were pointers to the Son of God as the ultimate Yes and Amen of all the promises of God.
Do you think Solomon, son of David, fulfilled all the qualifications of the Messianic king? Solomon with his 600 wives, 300 concubines and idolatry leading Israel astray. Solomon was good. But he was not that good.
Now Hezekiah was a great king. But when God told him it was time for him to die he tearfully requested an extension. So God mercifully gave him 15 more years. Immediately after that account we see the account of Hezekiah's failure and discipline.
God knew that he could not take any more temptations.
God knows when it is time for the good king to depart this life.
Then we see what Hezekiah says about the misfortune that is going to befall his kingdom because of his folly. Hezekiah says to the effect - "Well, as long as there is peace in MY time, it is ok."
So much for the Wonderful Counselor.
Here we see the distance between the Son of God and the good Old Testament king. In the last analysis good king Hezekiah only cared for his own legacy. So if you were to ask Hezekiah about Isaiah 9:6 he'd probably confess - "I was good. But I wasn't that good."
Jesus the Son of God cared nothing for Himself. He wanted nothing for Himself. He wanted everything for the will of His Father. And the Holy Spirit in a time transcendent way is revealing the difference and distance between Hezekiah and the Son of God.
So the child born called Mighty God and the Son given called Eternal Father must point beyond to One greater than Hezekiah.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ramoss, posted 01-02-2014 2:35 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2014 7:00 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 62 by ramoss, posted 01-20-2014 9:18 PM jaywill has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 32 of 176 (715264)
01-02-2014 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jaywill
01-02-2014 11:18 AM


breath and dust
jaywill writes:
Neither do I believe God lied when the "child ... born" was the Mighty God and the "son ... given" was the Eternal Father.
to expand on ramoss's comment, the context and chiastic structure of proto-isaiah strongly indicate that this child is the future king, chezeqiyahu, "strength of/from yahweh", or hezekiah as you know him. it is hezekiah who rules when assyria is turned back at the walls of jerusalem, as prophesied two chapters earlier. in proto-isaiah, hezekiah is the messiah.
here's a Ph.D. thesis in theology on the subject matter. this is not a radical view, just unusual to christians whose only exposure to biblical studies comes from a pulpit.
note that these words have slightly different meanings and interpretations if you actually speak hebrew:
quote:
In the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 94a, Hezekiah is referred to as ―the one who
has eight names, these names coming from Isaiah 9:6-7: פֶּלֶא (Wonderful), יוֹעֵץ (Counselor), גִּבּוֹר (Mighty), אֵל (Judge), עַד (Everlasting), אֲבִי (Father), שַׂר (Prince), and שָׁלוֹם (Peace). (Chapter 2 of the above link)
which is why ramoss called it a "good old misunderstanding".
But God became a man when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14 and Isaiah 9:6).
if you believe the new testament, and ignore most of the old, where the two are fairly incompatible and become more incompatible the further man descends from adam.
Why do you believe God breathed His soul into man ?
because the concepts of breath, life, and soul are extremely closely tied together in the hebrew bible. the text says,
quote:
וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה
and yahweh god shaped the man [ha-adam], dust [afar] from the earth [ha-adamah], and breathed [yefech] into his nostrils [afayu] the breath [nishmat] of life [chayim]. and so it was that the man [ha-adam] became a living [chayah] soul [nefesh]
i've included the transliterations because the similar sounds are used to tie the verse together poeticall and conceptually. that "soul" (nefesh) sounds like "breath" (nishmat) and "dust" (afar)/nostril (afayu) but together is not an accident. this is a poetic construction by J, and the reason she chose to dust and earth instead of the sumerian clay, which marduk similarly shapes the first man from. it is "the breath of life" that makes someone a "living soul". in this, it is literally the breath of yahweh -- his soul -- that animates the dust.
in any case, i know you probably won't agree with this reading, but i hope it has at least helped you better appreciate the linguistic poetry in the text that you almost certainly have overlooked before.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jaywill, posted 01-02-2014 11:18 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jaywill, posted 01-02-2014 7:29 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 01-02-2014 7:48 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 33 of 176 (715265)
01-02-2014 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jaywill
01-02-2014 1:54 PM


psalms and such
jaywill writes:
Yes, the created man as Adam was not to be an object of worship.
No man descending from Adam was to be an object of worship.
i agree. jesus was descended from adam through his mother.
Psalm 72 is a Messianic Psalm. It speaks of Solomon but...
there's always buts, even when you acknowledge a more realistic subject.
In those blessed days, if we are blessed to be there, don't you think these passages reveal an adoration and worship towards this Man ... this Godman ?
not really, no.
This is the Psalm Jesus used to confound the Pharisees.
the pharisees of the new testament are frankly strawmen, easily knocked over the hero of the text. if this confounded anyone, it's because they were using אדֹנִי (adonay, "my lord") in place of יְהוָה (yahweh, god's name). in fact, your version is less confounding, most translations say "The LORD said to my Lord..."
it's pretty clear in hebrew:
quote:
נְאֻם יְהוָה, לַאדֹנִי
yahweh said to my lord
and lest you think that right hand business means anything messianic, look that phrase up elsewhere in the psalms. it's used all over the place, and it just means a favored position in someone's (anyone's) eyes, probably drawn from actual courtly positions. of course, yahweh having (or being a member of) a court is a hotly debated concept in the bible, as it implies polytheism. oh, and...
quote:
...until I make Your enemies Your footstool.
doesn't really sound like jesus, does it? as for the question of "who's son is he?" the text says,
quote:
לְדָוִד, מִזְמוֹר
to david, a song.
which was almost certainly added by whomever redacted all of these psalms together. think about your chapter headings in your bible translation. are those part of the text? these function the same way. there's some debate about what the phrase actually means (it says to david, not by david), but it's clear that this attribution is traditional and not canonical.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jaywill, posted 01-02-2014 1:54 PM jaywill has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 34 of 176 (715266)
01-02-2014 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jaywill
01-02-2014 4:50 PM


Re: god made into the image of man
jaywill writes:
Do you think Solomon, son of David, fulfilled all the qualifications of the Messianic king?
this questions kind of backwards, if you think about it. the messiah was defined further down the road based on restoring the unified kingdom of david and solomon. there weren't qualifications for being the messiah until after solomon was dead, because he and his father were models for that messiah. as was moses, and the patriarchs etc, but the concept didn't really come to fruition until something needed to be restored: until judah and israel needed to be "saved".
Now Hezekiah was a great king. But when God told him it was time for him to die he tearfully requested an extension. So God mercifully gave him 15 more years. Immediately after that account we see the account of Hezekiah's failure and discipline.
this is a common and powerful literary theme in ancient jewish scripture. the idea is that no character should be perfect, because no human is deserving of worship. only yahweh should be worshipped, so his earthly stand-ins, the kings, should have frailties and shortcomings. it works because it makes them human, and realistic. it's also notable that yahweh typically still calls them righteous after their frailties and shortcomings have been exposed.
in contrast, look at christ's role in the literature: as a "perfect" man who is elevated to the status of god. this is specifically what the jewish authors were trying to avoid. their kings were not gods.
and if jesus was a god, that would actually exempt him from the role of messiah. the messiah must be human for this reason. otherwise, it's just god, and we already have one those. his name is yahweh, and he is one.
quote:
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד
hear o israel: yahweh is our god, and yahweh alone.
(deuteronomy 6:4)

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jaywill, posted 01-02-2014 4:50 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 35 of 176 (715270)
01-02-2014 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by arachnophilia
01-02-2014 6:33 PM


Re: breath and dust
to expand on ramoss's comment, the context and chiastic structure of proto-isaiah strongly indicate that this child is the future king, chezeqiyahu, "strength of/from yahweh", or hezekiah as you know him. it is hezekiah who rules when assyria is turned back at the walls of jerusalem, as prophesied two chapters earlier. in proto-isaiah, hezekiah is the messiah.
The sophistication of your reply is admirable.
However, the prophecy does not say this Person's rule is limited to the walls of Jerusalem or even the land of Israel.
quote:
"To the increase of His government and to His peace there is no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom."
And the duration is unto eternity.
quote:
"In justice and righteousness from now to eternity."
The Son of God requests of His Father and is granted the nations and the ends of the earth as His inheritance in His kingdom.
quote:
"I will recount the decree of Jehovah: You are My Son; Today I have begotten You.
Ask of Me, And I will give the nations as Your inheritance and the limits of the earth as Your possession."

I submit that Isaiah 9:6 and Psalm 2 are speaking of the same Person - Jesus Christ. A Righteous King, the extent of Who's kingdom and peace will be without end and duration unto eternity - the Son of God.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2014 6:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2014 8:37 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 36 of 176 (715271)
01-02-2014 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by arachnophilia
01-02-2014 6:33 PM


Re: breath and dust
jaywill: But God became a man when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14 and Isaiah 9:6).
if you believe the new testament, and ignore most of the old, where the two are fairly incompatible and become more incompatible the further man descends from adam.
Of course our belief or disbelief do not make the reality. The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, as John writes, whether or not I believe.
quote:
"He came to His own, yet those who were His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God ..... etc." (John 1:11,12a)

Some did not received Him (who would be expected to - His own).
Some received Him.
Either way " ... the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us ... full of grce and reality. "
Far from ignoring the Tanach the Gospel of John is solidly built upon it.
quote:
"For the law was given through Moses, grace and reality came through Jesus Christ. (v.17)
The law of Moses was "given."
Grace and Reality "came".
A Person came - God as the Word become flesh embodying grace and reality.
The further man descends from Adam the more astounding is the faithfulness of God the Creator who promised to Adam that the seed of the woman would come and bruise the head of the serpent. And in so doing would be bruised upon the heel (Genesis 3:15) .
The virgin birth of the Son of God is indicated.
The judging of Satan on His cross is indicated.
Yet His dying in the process is indicated.
The amazing faithfulness of God from Genesis 3:15 is witnessed by the virgin birth of Christ as the Word become flesh.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2014 6:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2014 9:01 PM jaywill has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 176 (715276)
01-02-2014 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jaywill
01-02-2014 7:29 PM


Re: breath and dust
jaywill writes:
However, the prophecy does not say this Person's rule is limited to the walls of Jerusalem or even the land of Israel.
messianic prophecies typically speak of ruling the entire world, which is one of the reasons that modern jews reject the idea of jesus as a messiah. world peace and domination? nope, no messiah yet.
And the duration is unto eternity.
this is, in fact, the very same prophecy given to david, that his seed would sit on the throne forever.
but remember how god sometimes changes his mind? where assyria failed, babylon succeeded, and judah was carried off into exile. it's not really right to look back on this and assume that god's word then held forever so this must mean something else... not when you just got done arguing that the business about god not being a man, well, he reneged on that one.
I submit that Isaiah 9:6 and Psalm 2 are speaking of the same Person - Jesus Christ.
in fact, they are both speaking about davidic kings -- something jesus christ was not. psalm 2 is a coronation psalm. jesus was never crowned. isaiah 9 says he will sit on the throne. jesus never sat on the throne. so... no. it can't be about jesus. not if jesus didn't do any of the stuff it talks about.
Edited by arachnophilia, : edit: oh, and let me know if you ever get around to reading that doctoral dissertation on the role of hezekiah in proto-isaiah. but i won't hold my breath.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jaywill, posted 01-02-2014 7:29 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jaywill, posted 01-03-2014 9:37 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 38 of 176 (715278)
01-02-2014 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by jaywill
01-02-2014 7:48 PM


Re: breath and dust
jaywill writes:
Far from ignoring the Tanach the Gospel of John is solidly built upon it.
well, no. it uses the words "law of moses", sure. but it bears very little relation to it. and in fact, much of the concepts are utterly antithetical to the law of moses. like, uh, sacrificing your only begotten child. there's a word for that in the law, and it's "abomination".
The virgin birth of the Son of God is indicated.
note, btw, that the gospel of john does not include an infancy narrative. there is no virgin birth in john. or mark, for that matter, the oldest gospel. it first appears in matthew, but... well, matthew's an argument for another day. luke seems somewhat skeptical of matthew's claims, because he changes them around a bit.
The judging of Satan on His cross is indicated.
and yet, the satan is never actually judged until revelation.
Yet His dying in the process is indicated.
i want to tell you a story.
to the north of israel was a city called ugarit, where they worshiped the canaanite pantheon. the head of the canaanite pantheon was the highest god, el elyon. he had many sons, who formed a council, the elohim. i hope you're recognizing some of these words already. his heir, his "begotten" son, was hadad who is called "baal" in some sources, including the bible. hadad is a storm god, he comes and goes from the holy mountain riding on the clouds. in the baal cycle, hadad fights mot (hebrew for "death"). hadad loses, and dies. hadad is resurrected, conquers mot ("death"), and then goes on to rule from the holy mountain.
does this narrative sound at all familiar? admittedly, i'm stretching this a bit. but those terms are really in common with the hebrew mythology, and this myth was extremely influential to judaism, both by way of imported imagery (the storm cloud on the mountain = yahweh at horeb/sinai) and in terms of actual mythical content. earlier in the story, hadad slays the serpent yam ("sea")/lotan, just like yahweh slays leviathan (see psalm 74/job) or jesus will slay the great dragon (revelation).
i doubt that this story had any direct influence on christianity, but it certainly has a lot in common with ancient judaism. canaanite temples and altars are virtually identical to jewish tabernacle/temple. and when israel splinters off and places "golden calves" at their temples in bethel and dan, that is probably el elyon and his son hadad (represented by a bull) that they are worshiping. and remember, el elyon is another name for yahweh in the bible. so it's no surprise that the authors of golden calf narrative during the exodus chose to have israelites claim it was the same god. it might as well have been. note that the authors of the bible are highly critical of similarities between yahwism and the canaanite pantheon, so that:
The amazing faithfulness of God from Genesis 3:15 is witnessed by the virgin birth of Christ as the Word become flesh.
things like this, where the serpent is a humble garden snake, is probably a shot at hadad's struggle with lotan. if you see christ's victory over death in this, why not hadad's victory over death, or over yam/lotan? the stories are really pretty similar, except that one of them actually existed when genesis was written.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 01-02-2014 7:48 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jaywill, posted 01-03-2014 10:38 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 46 by jaywill, posted 01-06-2014 11:44 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 39 of 176 (715298)
01-03-2014 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by arachnophilia
01-02-2014 8:37 PM


Re: breath and dust
messianic prophecies typically speak of ruling the entire world, which is one of the reasons that modern jews reject the idea of jesus as a messiah. world peace and domination? nope, no messiah yet.
Jews modern or ancient have their scriptures from God. So it is nothing to boast in that doubt the Scriptures.
For example, Daniel's vision of the stone cut out without hands and smiting the great image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream is messianic.
The last part of Nebuchadnessar's vision and Daniel's interpretation:
quote:
"You were watching until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the image at its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed all at once, and they became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind caried them away so that no trace of them was found.
And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
This is the dream; and we will tell its interpretation before the king." (Daniel 2:34-36)

quote:
"And as the toes of the feet [of the great image] were partly of iron and partly of clay, so some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be fragile ... And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and its reign will not be left to another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms; and it will stand forever.
Inasmuch as you saw that out of the mountain a stone was cut without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will happen afterwards; and the dream is certain, and its interpretation trustworthy." (Daniel 2:42,4-45)

The great image represents the major world powers down through history. And the clay mixed with iron in the toes, (the latter days of world kingdoms), may represent the mixture of kingships with democracies - partly strong and partly weak.
Anyway the stone cut out without hands from the mountain is the Messiah and His kingdom which will smash ALL wordly kingdoms, governments and empires. This Messianic kingdom will fill the whole earth.
This is the Jewish Scripture. So it should be no boast of supposed humility that the Jewish people not recognize that Messiah's kingdom will crush and replace all the earthly governments and fill the whole earth with His divine kingdom.
Whether they agree or not, this is the prophecy. And why should they not believe that Yahweh has already commanded that the whole earth look unto Him for salvation.
quote:
"Turn to Me and be saved, All the ends of the earth, For I am God and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:22)
Not only Israel, but ultimately all the ends of the earth must be saved by the God of Israel.
this is, in fact, the very same prophecy given to david, that his seed would sit on the throne forever.
That is the Lord Jesus whom we all can know today in His form as life giving Spirit before His physical descent to reign.
"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
His pneumatic form as the Holy Spirit can impart spiritual life into our innermost being. This is in this church age. At the end of this church age He will come again physically. He is of the seed of David.
quote:
" ... the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, Concerning His Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Who was designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness out of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 1:1b-4)

but remember how god sometimes changes his mind? where assyria failed, babylon succeeded, and judah was carried off into exile. it's not really right to look back on this and assume that god's word then held forever so this must mean something else... not when you just got done arguing that the business about god not being a man, well, he reneged on that one.
There was no reneging. At the time of the prophecy of Numbers 23:19 the incarnation had not occured in time. So God IS NOT A MAN that He should lie.
Now I am rather surprised that you speak of reneging man in the same breath as referring to Numbers 23:19. Consider please the remainder of the passage:
quote:
"God is not a man, that He should lie, NOR the son of man that He should repent."
Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not establish it?
Now I have received a word to bless; Since He has blessed, then I cannot reverse it. "
[my emphasis]
Yes, man may cause some problem to God, through disobedience or unbelief.
Yes, some obstacle to His will may be thrown up by His creatures.
We may cause Him some problem. But He cannot fail to accomplish the word gone out of His mouth.
Are we grasping the essence of Balaam's prophecy here? Balaam wanted to please Balak and utter some displeasing curse against Isreal because they were so bad. As much as Balaam wanted to do the job, be handsomely paid by Israel's enemy, he simply could only say what God put in his mouth, which included -
quote:
"Now I have received a word to bless; Since He has blessed I cannot reverse it.
He has bit beheld iniquity in Jacob, Nor has He seen trouble in Israel; Jehovah their God is with them ..."

Now to paraphrase this a little bit, please indulge me. The essence of this is like God saying:
"I see My redeemed people. I see no fault in them. They are precious and lovable. You, my enemy, can point out this and that fault for your accusation. And you may have some ground to accuse because of My people's failure.
But this is not because of your regard for righteousness but because of your opposition to God. Captivities and dispersions, punishments, I can deal with through My great redemption."
Balak, is the enemy of Israel who hired a genuine prophet of God to prophesy evil things about God's elect. But it would not happened. God said He saw no iniquity in Jacob. They in fact look so very beautiful to Him.
It is a touching story. We might say "Are you Kidding ?? All the bad things Israel did in the book of Exodus and Numbers? Don't you see how bad they are?"
Yes, God sees their sins. But He doesn't seem them according to the Devils accusation. If the Devil comes in to accuse with curses which appear to have some legitimate ground, God says "They look beautifully redeemed and set apart to Me ... My lovely and lovable elect saints. How pleasant. I think I will bless them instead."
To come back to the Messianic kingdom, the Assyrian discipline, the Babylonian discipline, or any other conquering nation's discipline will not stop God from performing His will.
jaywill:
I submit that Isaiah 9:6 and Psalm 2 are speaking of the same Person - Jesus Christ.
in fact, they are both speaking about davidic kings -- something jesus christ was not. psalm 2 is a coronation psalm. jesus was never crowned. isaiah 9 says he will sit on the throne. jesus never sat on the throne. so... no. it can't be about jesus. not if jesus didn't do any of the stuff it talks about.
This kind of complaint I regard as similar to the Hebrews being impatient with Moses. In the first confrontation with Pharoah, Pharoah would not budge, made the oppression worst, and everyone was dejected and doubting.
Then the plagues. Then the wilderness. Then the 40 YEARS to do what should have taken only 11 days. There was opportunity to doubt Moses and some even wanted to stone him and return to Egypt.
Granted, some aspects of the Isaiah prophecy have not yet seen their complete fulfillment. But too much of it has come to pass to give us the confidence that we are on the right track.
I leave you with two passages spoken by Jesus AFTER His resurrection to His dejected followers:
[quote] "And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all Scriptures the t hings concerning Himself." (Luke 24:25-27)
[/ quote]
Then again after their joyful realization that He had been raised from the dead.
quote:
"And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled.
Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures; And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day. And that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
You are witnesses of these things." (Luke 24:44-48)

This was Christ's own view of the Hebrew Bible. And I believe what He believed. Yet there are still some details of His mission yet to see fulfillment while we believers witness to Christ through the New Testament Gospel.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2014 8:37 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2014 9:24 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 40 of 176 (715303)
01-03-2014 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by arachnophilia
01-02-2014 9:01 PM


Re: breath and dust
well, no. it uses the words "law of moses", sure. but it bears very little relation to it. and in fact, much of the concepts are utterly antithetical to the law of moses. like, uh, sacrificing your only begotten child. there's a word for that in the law, and it's "abomination".
This an argument that I may return to when I have more time and space to dedicate to it.
jaywill:
The virgin birth of the Son of God is indicated.
note, btw, that the gospel of john does not include an infancy narrative.
That is right because John's emphasis is that this Christ is God Himself from eternity.
Do you have a requirement that all four Gospels HAVE to repeat all details ? We give Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the freedom to emphasize each their own particular focus.
A exceedingly profound Person like the Son of God must be viewed from more than one angle.
there is no virgin birth in john. or mark, for that matter, the oldest gospel. it first appears in matthew, but... well, matthew's an argument for another day. luke seems somewhat skeptical of matthew's claims, because he changes them around a bit.
So you want to insist that the four gospels all repeat exactly the same details.
How about God gives us four biographies from four different angles.
Matthew - a King Savior.
Mark - a Slave Savior.
Luke - a Man Savior.
John - A Savior as God Himself.
There is some overlap and there some particularity.
Why be unbelieving because matters emphasized in Luke or not covered in John, whereas other matters take center stage?
Why be skeptical because John's particular emphasis differs somewhat from Matthew's ?
jaywill:
The judging of Satan on His cross is indicated.
and yet, the satan is never actually judged until revelation.
Not so at all. When I turned my heart over to Christ, believe me, Satan was judged subjectively in me. He suffered a strategic defeat.
It is the same with every life that receives Jesus and goes on to grow spiritually in Jesus. This is the victory that matters. We are the battlefield. And the culmination of enough saved and filled with Jesus will usher end the times of the book of Revelation.
You have not seen that the spiritual battlefield in the heart of man.
And the warfare is from the inside out also as it is from the outside objectively.
Satan is defeated. The Gospel brings us into the subjective enjoyment of that defeat. At critical mass this defeat will not only be from the inside of man out but from the heavens down.
We proclaim the Gospel of peace based on the reality that Satan HAS been crushed. If you want to eliminate Satan, then you should open wide your being and your heart and receive Jesus Christ as Lord.
This will give him a huge migraine headache. I am not joking.
Your own heart is a part of the battlefield upon which God destroys this little snake Satan.
That would be a marvelous conversion to the Christian faith -
" Lord Jesus, I turn my heart over to You for the total destruction of God's enemy Satan. Lord Jesus, if Your gaining me hastens Your return then I consecrate my being to You for the defeat of Your enemy."
Much could be said about the principles of spiritual warfare. But the judgment of Satan is complete. We humans, we saved humans participate in the execution of the already divinely passed sentencing.
i want to tell you a story.
I read your story. This goes into the whole concept of Jesus the Copy Cat Savior. He is just a rehash of old pagan mythologies.
When I barely have time to get into all the unsearchable riches of the Bible, Now I have go off and study all about all the Copy Cat theories.
Maybe I'll just refer to others who spend scholarly time to address these theories. Patrick Holding on YouTube talks a lot about these things. Glenn Miller's Christian Thinktank has a whole lot on the "Jesus Copy Cat" conspiracy theories too.
Here's pages and pages of dealing with "Jesus Copy Cat Myth" type questions:
http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl?index=122340&quer...
"The Christ Myth - Was Jesus a Pagan Copycat?" Patrick Holding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DdtkAXyJyo
"Shattering the Christ Myth" Patrick Holding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUsTIaJLR_M
" The Christ Myth Theory " Phil Fernades, Phd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LirccY4F5I4
"Jesus Before He Was Born" Christopher J.H. Wright, Phd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCFSps4gjUo
i doubt that this story had any direct influence on christianity, but it certainly has a lot in common with ancient judaism. canaanite temples and altars are virtually identical to jewish tabernacle/temple. and when israel splinters off and places "golden calves" at their temples in bethel and dan, that is probably el elyon and his son hadad (represented by a bull) that they are worshiping. and remember, el elyon is another name for yahweh in the bible. so it's no surprise that the authors of golden calf narrative during the exodus chose to have israelites claim it was the same god. it might as well have been. note that the authors of the bible are highly critical of similarities between yahwism and the canaanite pantheon, so that:
You have some advantage here because I just don't have the heart to go off and read about these things.
But there are those Christian apologists who really get into these complaints. Probably some orthodox Jewish apologists do as well.
jaywill:
The amazing faithfulness of God from Genesis 3:15 is witnessed by the virgin birth of Christ as the Word become flesh.
things like this, where the serpent is a humble garden snake, is probably a shot at hadad's struggle with lotan. if you see christ's victory over death in this, why not hadad's victory over death, or over yam/lotan? the stories are really pretty similar, except that one of them actually existed when genesis was written.
Alright, I'll say a little. It should not be too surprising that as man spread over the earth the early accounts passed down were embellished, tailored perhaps for more local needs, modified, rehashed, adopted to national concerns, etc multiplied among humans.
So when someone points out many versions of a ancient flood story, we need not jump to the conclusion that Moses copied one of them. How about the true story as recorded in the Scripture was also somewhat in the collective memory of other early peoples. And they passed on versions of what happened from many other countries and ethnicities of antiquity ?
So we have a few dozen or maybe a hundred competing stories about a big flood. I can understand that.
That does not explain all the objections you have. But often what are suggested as plagiarized themes from mythology turn out to be dissimilar. There have been attempts to throw together fragments of several mythologies to concoct an overall theory that the Gospels are a rehash of these pushed together ancient myths.
These are the kinds of things that I find I always have to go over again because I don't hold the details in my memory. And I don't think it is required of a believer in Jesus to HAVE to be a Phd. in 80 different ancient mythologies before he can love the Lord and have sweet fellowship with God.
So this morning you got me. I don't want to spend hours going over the bull and Osiris and Horus and all that stuff.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2014 9:01 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2014 9:58 PM jaywill has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 41 of 176 (715327)
01-03-2014 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jaywill
01-03-2014 9:37 AM


Re: breath and dust
jaywill writes:
Jews modern or ancient have their scriptures from God. So it is nothing to boast in that doubt the Scriptures.
indeed, so why do you doubt them when they say the messiah will sit on a physical throne, being king of a united israel, and bring world peace through earthly domination? i mean, all that stuff is messianic prophecy; it's what defines the messiah.
That is the Lord Jesus whom we all can know today in His form as life giving Spirit before His physical descent to reign.
er, no, like literally sit on the throne, forever.
There was no reneging.
so, i guess we're coming up against the reading comprehension difficulties again. the bible says one thing but you really want it to say something else. when the cursed king rules, yahweh says this:
quote:
Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
do you not see the contrast between this and what yahweh says to david?
quote:
And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
no, read this is about something completely different. you are putting the cart before the horse, as it is only a few verses later in jeremiah that defines the messiah:
quote:
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth
note: in the earth. he is an earthly king, and this is the direct answer to yahweh breaking the royal lineage at jeconiah.
Now I am rather surprised that you speak of reneging man in the same breath as referring to Numbers 23:19.
and yet, neither of us apparently believe this verse. afterall, both of our bibles say that yahweh repents, and yours also says that god became man. you get to criticize my disregard for this verse when you actually pay attention to it.
This kind of complaint I regard as similar to the Hebrews being impatient with Moses.
well, they've been waiting for the messiah a lot longer than christians.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jaywill, posted 01-03-2014 9:37 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2014 12:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 42 of 176 (715328)
01-03-2014 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jaywill
01-03-2014 10:38 AM


Re: breath and dust
jaywill writes:
This an argument that I may return to when I have more time and space to dedicate to it.
yes, it's a doozy. i take it you think child sacrifice isn't an abomination, utterly abhorrent to yahweh, in the bible?
Do you have a requirement that all four Gospels HAVE to repeat all details ? We give Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the freedom to emphasize each their own particular focus.
no, i think it's interesting that they have their own focus. but i also think it's not entirely appropriate to gloss over that focus, where it differs from the focus of others. john was trying establish jesus as divine. the synoptic gospels were trying to establish christ as a real human being (contrary to the gnostic teachings).
Why be skeptical because John's particular emphasis differs somewhat from Matthew's ?
because they're obviously writing from different theological standpoints? i'm just saying you can use an argument from matthew when you're talking about john.
So you want to insist that the four gospels all repeat exactly the same details.
How about God gives us four biographies from four different angles.
Matthew - a King Savior.
Mark - a Slave Savior.
Luke - a Man Savior.
John - A Savior as God Himself.
no, not at all.
in fact, we have basically two gospels, john and all the others. matthew, mark, and luke are essentially the same, with a few differing details. this is solid demonstration that they are working from the same source material, whether you think that source materials was Q and some shard narrative document, or matthew and luke were copy mark, or even that they all knew jesus the real person. they are obviously related documents.
that the oldest of them apparently was unfamiliar with the miracle of jesus's birth, and this bit suddenly comes from the middle source who so frequently and hilarious misreads prophecy, and then the later source backs off a bit on the claims... you don't find that at all odd?
Not so at all. When I turned my heart over to Christ, believe me, Satan was judged subjectively in me. He suffered a strategic defeat.
fantastic. how come in the bible he's not defeated until the end times? more importantly, how come in the old testament he isn't even something that should be defeated, but an agent of god. you mentioned balaam above. did you notice this in the story, right before the donkey speaks?
quote:
וַיִּֽחַר־אַף אֱלֹהִים כִּֽי־הֹולֵךְ הוּא וַיִּתְיַצֵּב מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְשָׂטָן לֹו וְהוּא רֹכֵב עַל־אֲתֹנֹו וּשְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו עִמֹּֽו
And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him
i'd bold the word in hebrew, but this board isn't very hebrew friendly. in any case, the bolded word is "satan". the angel of yahweh stood in the way to be a satan.
I read your story. This goes into the whole concept of Jesus the Copy Cat Savior.
no, read more closely. i think you tuned out the part where i said that i don't think there's any direct link. but there is a direct link between canaanite religion and ancient jewish (and especially ancient israelite) religion. in fact, most of these "copy cat jesus" arguments (i'll be honest, i'm not going to watch any these right now due to real life happening) are totally bullshit. and if you dig through my post history here, you'll find that i'm the first to argue against them.
but they're bullshit because little or no actual connection can be shown between the two mythologies, and because the details are often being obscured. for instance, in my story above, i obscured that hadad is resurrected by his wife anat (a canaanite version of the hebrew asherah, who was said to be yahweh's wife, and who had an idol in the temple in jerusalem even according to the bible). most of these arguments are discussing horus or other "solar" gods (quotes because horus is not exactly a solar god) and a tenuous connection to solstice cycles and such that people living at those latitudes simply didn't care about. their death/rebirth cycles were about rainfall and dry seasons, or the flooding of rivers (eg: the nile, as isis's tears flood it when horus dies). note that hadad is a storm god. and note also that this is a culture that people of the bible actually had extensive contact with, and even sometimes let their religion into the country as the bible recounts. note also that they call their father god the same thing: el. these are much more related than the "christ conspiracy" pagan nonsense arguments.
You have some advantage here because I just don't have the heart to go off and read about these things.
faith that is afraid of scrutiny is not faith at all.
So when someone points out many versions of a ancient flood story, we need not jump to the conclusion that Moses copied one of them
moses? no, not moses. textual criticism and analysis makes it impossible that anyone like the biblical moses -- or any single person at all -- wrote the torah. rather, there are several distinct voices found in the torah, and the one we've been talking about above, in genesis 2-4, we call "J". J has perhaps the strongest voice, and separated from the others, it's clear to see that J frequently employs known mythology for the express purpose of turning it on its head. J was so good at this that even though later works tried to revise J, much of it still remains.
How about the true story as recorded in the Scripture was also somewhat in the collective memory of other early peoples. And they passed on versions of what happened from many other countries and ethnicities of antiquity ?
and why do you think your story is the right one? because it says so?
But often what are suggested as plagiarized themes from mythology turn out to be dissimilar.
let me be clear here: these particular themes are so similar that they use the same root words between slightly different languages. the father god in canaan is el elyon. the bible calls yahweh this quite a few times. el's pantheon is the elohim. do i need to give you a link for that one?
they're speaking a semitic language that shares common cultural origins with hebrew, and they're worshiping gods that do as well.
There have been attempts to throw together fragments of several mythologies to concoct an overall theory that the Gospels are a rehash of these pushed together ancient myths.
i know, and they're mostly nonsense. if anything, this particular story, the baal cycle, influenced judaism. i'm largely skeptical it had any influence of christianity, because there's a fairly large disconnect between ancient judaism, first century judaism, radical judaism, and christianity. the myth had a long way to go before reaching christian ears. i suspect it's a coincidence, or more likely that death/rebirth was a common theme in the area. for instance, death and rebirth shows up in ezekiel, where yahweh resurrect the bones of israel (metaphorically, return from exile).
So this morning you got me. I don't want to spend hours going over the bull and Osiris and Horus and all that stuff.
hadad. baal hadad. not osiris, not horus. that particular argument is completely bullshit.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jaywill, posted 01-03-2014 10:38 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2014 11:59 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 45 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2014 3:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 43 of 176 (715357)
01-04-2014 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by arachnophilia
01-03-2014 9:58 PM


Re: breath and dust
es, it's a doozy. i take it you think child sacrifice isn't an abomination, utterly abhorrent to yahweh, in the bible?
If you're interested in truthful discussion you might not assume anything until I express my opinion about your paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2014 9:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2014 10:36 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 44 of 176 (715362)
01-04-2014 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by arachnophilia
01-03-2014 9:24 PM


Re: breath and dust
jawill: Jews modern or ancient have their scriptures from God. So it is nothing to boast in that [ they would ]doubt the Scriptures.
arach:
indeed, so why do you doubt them when they say the messiah will sit on a physical throne, being king of a united israel, and bring world peace through earthly domination? i mean, all that stuff is messianic prophecy; it's what defines the messiah.
Please quote me where I expressed some doubt in:
1.) Christ sitting upon a physical throne
2.) Christ being king over a united Israel
3.) Christ bringing in a world peace
I never said I doubted. I did allude to aspects of prophecy not yet fulfilled. And I compared this to the aspects of the Exodus and the coming into Canaan as unfolding over a period of time.
jaywill:
That is the Lord Jesus whom we all can know today in His form as life giving Spirit before His physical descent to reign.
erach:
er, no, like literally sit on the throne, forever.
Today in the church age the New Testament locates Jesus Christ in two places:
1.) at the right hand of God interceding for His people -
"Who is he who condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died and, rather, who was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us." (Romans 8:34)
2.) within the Christians as the Spirit of God/the Spirit of Christ = Christ Himself:
" ... if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you ... the [human] spirit is life because of righteousness." (See Romans 8:9,10)
This makes perfect sense because Christ seeks to train some of His believers to co-reign with Him. So it is not just the quantity of saved people He seeks through the Gospel age but the quality of the ones who go on to develop in the indwelling divine life.
Through the years as He is on a throne in heaven at the right hand of God, He also perfects an army of consecrated ones over the centuries in preparation for them to be co-kings on with Him as He is enthroned on earth in the millennium:
quote:
"He who overcomes, to him I will give to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat with My Father on His throne." (Rev. 3:21)
You are searching for problems where none exist.
I am not getting into the nature of any throne in heaven as to what materials and weight such an object is. I don't know that much nor need to know.
It is sufficient that during this period while Christ is received physically in heaven (Acts 3:21) we believers draw close to Him by coming to the throne of grace:
quote:
"Let us therefore come forward with boldness to the throne of grace that we may receive mercy and find grace for timely help." (Hebrews 4:16)
Christ is enthroned now and Christ will be enthroned on the planet soon. I don't feel the need to argue the physics of furniture. We have some more important matters to attend to like living through Christ this divine life imparted into believers, just as Peter was commanded to speak:
quote:
"Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life." (Acts 5:20)
If "this life", this divine and resurrection [ZOE] life of Christ need be tested by years and centuries of opposition and attack to demonstrate the indestructible nature of the life of Christ, that is God's plan. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the builded church though for 2,000 years the enemy of God try to prevail.
The throne ON the ground, in Israel, whose government will be over the planet will take care of itself at the proper timing.
so, i guess we're coming up against the reading comprehension difficulties again. the bible says one thing but you really want it to say something else. when the cursed king rules, yahweh says this:
quote:Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
No, you are coming upon some difficulties because of your unbelief. That's all
The prophecy you allude to from Jeremiah 22:28,30 only disqualifies Jesus Christ from being the Messiah if Joseph, a descendent of Jeconiah, was His physical father. Since He was born of the virgin Mary and is related to David through the blood line of Mary and not Joseph, Jeremiah 22:28,30 does not disqualify Jesus from being that Messianic descendent of David.
Rather we worship God that He knows exactly what He is doing and faithfully fulfilled His promise in spite of the rejection of any descendent of king Jeconiah.
David had two lines proceeding from him down to the Messiah:
1.) From Solomon from whom Jeconiah came to Joseph - Mary's husband, with his disqualification to bear a Messiah.
2.) From Nathan of whom the virgin Mary came who was not disqualified to be a mother of a Messiah.
Jesus was related to David not through Joseph the "assumed" legal father.
Jesus was related to David through the virgin Mary the physical mother.
do you not see the contrast between this and what yahweh says to david?
quote:And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
There is no problem. What is your problem ?
Jesus proceeded out of the bowels of David not through David's son Solomon but through his other son Nathan.
no, read this is about something completely different. you are putting the cart before the horse, as it is only a few verses later in jeremiah that defines the messiah:
You're dusting off and re-trying failed arguments long ago debunked.
quote:Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth
That is your unbelief that Christ will have a second coming as He in this church age imparts His life as Holy Spirit into those responding to the Good News of His resurrection and Lordship.
Maybe you should read the story of the skeptic in Second Kings chapter 7. The prophet told the skeptic that he would see the prophecy fulfilled but would not partake of it.
He was unfortunately trampled by the people who rushed forward to enjoy the fulfillment as he stood there dumbfounded in his objective unbelief.
quote:
And the captain had said, Even if Jehovah made windows in heaven, could this thing happen? and the man of God had said -
Your eyes shall indeed see it, but you shall not eat from it.
So it happened to him; for the people trampled him in the gate that he died." (2 Kings 7:19,20)

You should be concerned that your unbelief will lead you to a similar fate. Jesus Christ will indeed take up His throne upon the earth. Will you be there to enjoy it? Or will you be one of those about whom God said:
quote:
" Jehovah declares to my Lord, Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Hebrews 1:13; Psalm 110:1)
I want to prepare for that earthly throne in the millennium by coming to the throne of grace to enjoy His spiritual life imparted into me today.
note: in the earth. he is an earthly king, and this is the direct answer to yahweh breaking the royal lineage at Jeconiah.
Your problem is imaginary.
The wiser choice, I think, is to call Jesus Lord and recognize God's sovereignty. The disqualification of sons of Jeconiah do not stop Jesus of Nazareth from being the promised Davidic Messiah.
Now because I hate to lose data on a technical glitch after having typed for a long time, I stop this reply here.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2014 9:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2014 10:58 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 45 of 176 (715369)
01-04-2014 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by arachnophilia
01-03-2014 9:58 PM


Re: breath and dust
I'll take a few more pieces.
jaywill:
Do you have a requirement that all four Gospels HAVE to repeat all details ? We give Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the freedom to emphasize each their own particular focus.
arach:
no, i think it's interesting that they have their own focus. but i also think it's not entirely appropriate to gloss over that focus, where it differs from the focus of others. john was trying establish jesus as divine. the synoptic gospels were trying to establish christ as a real human being (contrary to the gnostic teachings).
I don't think your criticism works because of what I called before "overlap".
In John where Christ is God you also have Him tired and thirsty by a well in chapter 4, with the Samaritan women incident.
Therefore you can hardly accuse John of attempting to "gloss over" a Lukian focus of Jesus being a typical human man.
Neither can you accuse Matthew of "glossing over" the equally vital revelation of John that He is God. For Matthew has Jesus forgiving sins, as only God could do.
Mark portraying the Slave Savior highlights the line that Jesus came not to be served but TO serve by giving His life as a ransom for many - a Total Slave.
But Matthew's King Savior also includes the passage.
So we do not see the four Gospels fighting against each other as perhaps you would be delighted to notice. We see particular emphasis and overlap too.
And why not? We are being told of a most profound Individual - the mingling of Divinity and Humanity. Of course such a rich Person requires to be viewed from more than just one angle.
jaywill:
Why be skeptical because John's particular emphasis differs somewhat from Matthew's ?
arach:
because they're obviously writing from different theological standpoints? i'm just saying you can use an argument from matthew when you're talking about john.
It is no problem to the heart of man that is wide open to the word of God and the Person of Jesus.
There is no argument from me here. The uncreated and eternal life of God is rich and profound and God sovereignly ordained the report of Him to come to us in four Gospels. They four have their particular focus and their overlap as well.
Why not instead be very thankful to God for such a panoramic view of this Wonderful One?
jaywill:
So you want to insist that the four gospels all repeat exactly the same details.
How about God gives us four biographies from four different angles.
Matthew - a King Savior.
Mark - a Slave Savior.
Luke - a Man Savior.
John - A Savior as God Himself.
arach:
no, not at all.
in fact, we have basically two gospels, john and all the others. matthew, mark, and luke are essentially the same, with a few differing details. this is solid demonstration that they are working from the same source material, whether you think that source materials was Q and some shard narrative document, or matthew and luke were copy mark, or even that they all knew jesus the real person. they are obviously related documents.
I know about the unknown probably Fifth Gospel source. That the documents are related has been obvious for centuries. It is also evident that no cut and dry statistical comparison of passages conclusively decides exactly how these documents came down to us.
It is rather like separating salt from pepper with boxing gloves.
It is pretty mysterious.
That too, I believe, is under God's sovereignty.
What exactly the so-called Q document was, no one knows for sure.
I have no problem believing that Matthew witnessed the things spoken of in his gospel.
I have no problem believing Mark as traditionally thought of as Peter's assistant, heard what Peter preached quite accurately. And he even may have witnessed some of the things recorded in the Gospel after his name.
John, I regard as an eyewitness.
And Luke the Gentile physician and Paul's companion, I regard as a very careful journalist who researched all these things. That means that Luke did not include any and all things he heard but was careful as a historian.
that the oldest of them apparently was unfamiliar with the miracle of jesus's birth, and this bit suddenly comes from the middle source who so frequently and hilarious misreads prophecy, and then the later source backs off a bit on the claims... you don't find that at all odd?
Just because the birth narrative is omitted from Mark and John is no reason to assume that they were "unfamiliar" with it.
The hilarity you speak of I know nothing of.
I already witnessed your not so hilarious attempt to drag out the old Jeconiah argument only to have it shot down like a clay pigeon as usual.
fantastic. how come in the bible he's not defeated until the end times?
You are still being given time to turn and believe in repentance. Then when the end times comes you will not have to join Satan in his miserable destiny.
Believe me, his only power is his power to lie.
Christ has overcome the Devil. And that overcoming is transmitted to those who walk in Christ.
more importantly, how come in the old testament he isn't even something that should be defeated, but an agent of god. you mentioned balaam above. did you notice this in the story, right before the donkey speaks?
From the book of Genesis this serpent (the Devil) IS one to be defeated. The first gospel message was preached by God to Eve and Adam. And it concerned the destruction of the tempting serpent through the woman's seed:
quote:
" And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed;
He will bruise you on the head, But you will bruise him on the heel." (Genesis 3:15)

This is a prophecy of the Son of God born to the virgin as the woman's seed destroying him who had the power of death, the Devil.
quote:
"Since therefore the children have shared in blood and flesh, He [God's Son] also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might destroy him who has the might of death, that is, the devil." (Hebrews 2:14)
The night I called the Lord Jesus to turn my life over to Him, I witnessed something of the destroying of the devil subjectively in my life.
quote:
" ... For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
Everyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God." (1 John 3:8,9)

The Satanic spirit fights to keep men from believing into the Son of God. Each sinner he can keep from being saved is a preemptive attempt to save himself from eternal perdition. He knows he cannot win. He only madly seeks to postpone and take as many deceived humans down with himself.
You should not take credit for all the unbelieving ideas that flood into your intellect to rationalize the Son of God away. I think some of these thoughts are injected into your consciousness by the Satanic spirit that seeks to keep you blinded to the truth.
But the new birth, the divine implanted seed, and learning to walk and abide in that influence of that divine seed is a practical defeat to Satan in a man's life.
The sentence has been given. The execution awaits a corporate executioner of matured sons of God.
It is totally exciting for we Christians know that Christ cannot fail to spread His victory from His overcoming through an overcoming corporate Body of Christ.
quote:
"Now is come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brothers has been cast down, who accuses them day and night.
And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they loved not their soul-life even unto death." (Rev. 12:10,11)

In this church age, which probably is swiftly moving towards a close, Christ seeks to demonstrate His victory in the lives of those who walk in Christ, walk in the new birth by the divine seed of God's life in them.
The opportunity to co-partake of this victory is still open to those who will receive Christ as Lord and Savior and learn to walk in Him.
And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him
The Angel of the Lord can be AN ADVERSARY to someone without being THE Devil or Satan.
The Angel of Jehovah was an adversary to the Canaanites as Joshua fought on behalf of the army of Jehovah.
I never once considered that the angel with the drawn sword invisibly standing before Balaam the greedy prophet, was the Devil. Rather it was God showing that Balaam's way of going was a way of death.
Yes God commanded him to go. But that was by God's providence. According to Balaam's way of going it was disobedience and death.
Latter we see the greedy prophet completely apostate and advising the enemies of Israel to fight against them by tempting them with mass fornication. (See Numbers 31:16; 25:1-3; Deut. 23:4) .
The corrupted prophet's way of going was a way of sure death. That is the significance of God sending an angel to stand in the way. The ass had more sense than the deluded greedy prophet.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2014 9:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2014 11:23 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024