Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,092 Year: 973/14,231 Month: 973/1,514 Week: 6/234 Day: 6/36 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Isaiah 53 speaks about ISRAEL, and not about the messiah.
GDR
Member
Posts: 5913
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 61 of 176 (716738)
01-20-2014 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dawn Bertot
01-17-2014 7:30 AM


GDR writes:
I also think that it is a mistake for Christians to look for messianic proof texts in the OT. You are right that the writers of the OT probably didn’t look at it that way and that Israel was to be the servant of God.
Dawn Bertot writes:
So why would you think this was a bad idea, if this exacally what the Lord did?
The reason is this. Unless Jesus was resurrected and is alive and well then it doesn't matter what the OT says about a coming messiah. If Jesus was resurrected then we don't need further proof. But what we do need from the OT is a careful reading of the Gospels so that we can not just understand the social message, but also so that we can make sense of the narrative of what God has done, is doing and in vague terms will do.
The real reason that many like to use quotes from the OT as messianic proof texts is more about justifying belief in an inerrant Bible than it is about understanding Jesus.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2014 7:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2014 9:46 PM GDR has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 62 of 176 (716743)
01-20-2014 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jaywill
01-02-2014 4:50 PM


delete
delete
Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

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

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 63 of 176 (716745)
01-20-2014 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
01-20-2014 7:44 PM


With respect, there are so many contradictory and illogical statements in your paragraphs I dont know where to start
The real reason that many like to use quotes from the OT as messianic proof texts is more about justifying belief in an inerrant Bible than it is about understanding Jesus.
GDR, one of the ways one establishes reliability is prophecy itself, therefore, wheather its about the Messiah or something else. Its an evidence of its inerrancy and accuracy
Unless Jesus was resurrected and is alive and well then it doesn't matter what the OT says about a coming messiah. If Jesus was resurrected then we don't need further proof.
Prophecy concerning his Messiahship combined with the Gospel stories, is how we establish his alive and well
If Jesus claimed the spoke of him and supported him, then it follows we should use them for that purpose
If however, they (old testament prophecies) are inaccurate and unreliable and Jesus claimed they were accurate concerning him, then we cannot rely even on what he said
Are you starting to see how logic works GDR. Jesus had no problems or concerns with the Old Testament prophecies, especially concerning wheather they were reliable or accurate
But what we do need from the OT is a careful reading of the Gospels so that we can not just understand the social message, but also so that we can make sense of the narrative of what God has done, is doing and in vague terms will do.
Im not sure what this means or how it applies
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 01-20-2014 7:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by GDR, posted 01-24-2014 10:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5913
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 64 of 176 (717193)
01-24-2014 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dawn Bertot
01-20-2014 9:46 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
GDR, one of the ways one establishes reliability is prophecy itself, therefore, wheather its about the Messiah or something else. Its an evidence of its inerrancy and accuracy
When you read through the Gospels it is readily apparent that the disciples did not have the understanding of Jesus' messianic mission that they did after the resurrection. In general the prophesies were about Israel itself, and where they were about a specific messiah it was believed that the messiah would lead them in defeating their enemies and rebuilding a physical temple.
It is only after the resurrection that they went back and reinterpreted the scriptures to fit with the situation. I suggest to you that that is what we should be doing. We have to start with the resurrection itself. If the resurrection is not historical then the whole thing is a waste of time and as Paul says we are to be pitied.
However, if we accept by belief, as I have, that the resurrection is an historical event then we can go back to the scriptures and learn about what God is doing with what He has created.
An inerrant Bible is contradicted by scripture itself as I have pointed out in numerous threads.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Prophecy concerning his Messiahship combined with the Gospel stories, is how we establish his alive and well.
So you are saying that the resurrection of Jesus can't stand on it's own and that it needs prophesy to validate it. This is the problem with inerrancy. You replace Jesus with the Bible.
Furthermore a messiah was never understood to be anything more than a human leader anointed by God, until again, after the resurrection. There was always the hope that Yahweh would return to His people but that was separate from the hoped for messiah. Even the term Son of God was a messianic term and it was the early Christians that applied a different understanding of that term, essentially saying that Jesus was King and Caesar wasn't.
Dawn Bertot writes:
If Jesus claimed the spoke of him and supported him, then it follows we should use them for that purpose
If however, they (old testament prophecies) are inaccurate and unreliable and Jesus claimed they were accurate concerning him, then we cannot rely even on what he said
Jesus illuminated the scriptures by showing how they applied to him. However as evidenced by the fact that the Jews and even the disciples had a very different understanding of what was being prophesied makes it clear that the scriptures weren't inerrant and that it took Jesus to correct and clarify them.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Are you starting to see how logic works GDR. Jesus had no problems or concerns with the Old Testament prophecies, especially concerning wheather they were reliable or accurate
I understand how your logic works. You start with an inerrant Bible making that the focus of your worship. As a Christian I start with Jesus as the embodied Word of God and understand the Bible in light of that.
Your idea which you deem logical requires you to believe in a God who will advocate that his followers engage in genocide and public stonings for misdemeanors such as picking up firewood on the sabbath and then somehow square that with Jesus saying that we are to love our enemies and forgive them. Some logic.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Im not sure what this means or how it applies
I'm simply saying that to understand the entirety of Scripture you have to start with the resurrected Jesus of the Gospels and not the other way around, as did Paul and the rest of the early Christians.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2014 9:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-25-2014 12:53 AM GDR has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 65 of 176 (717207)
01-25-2014 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by GDR
01-24-2014 10:52 PM


Jesus illuminated the scriptures by showing how they applied to him. However as evidenced by the fact that the Jews and even the disciples had a very different understanding of what was being prophesied makes it clear that the scriptures weren't inerrant and that it took Jesus to correct and clarify them.
Lets start here, because herein I think the problem lies. You said I start with an idea of inerrancy, which is incorrect. I start with the fact that the facts in the Bible, old or new can be corroborated by history, archeo, dates, times, peoples and places, etc
I wouldnt believe in inerrancy and infallibility, if these things could be invalidated, they cant
Some of the disciples misunderstanding of scripture or its meaning has nothing to do with thier accuracy or inerrancy
Jesus was correcting thier misunderstanding, NOT the scriptures. "The scripture cannot be broken"
I understand how your logic works. You start with an inerrant Bible making that the focus of your worship. As a Christian I start with Jesus as the embodied Word of God and understand the Bible in light of that.
Let me help you respectfully with logic or sound reasoning. To say you do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but trust Jesus, is a bit silly. Since the olny place you know anything about Jesus is from scripture. I hope that helps
Your idea which you deem logical requires you to believe in a God who will advocate that his followers engage in genocide and public stonings for misdemeanors such as picking up firewood on the sabbath and then somehow square that with Jesus saying that we are to love our enemies and forgive them. Some logic.
Dear friend you have to make a distinction between what is allowable to and by God and what he does not allow us to do
My logic requires that I accept all the scripture has to say about Gods nature, justice, mercy and judgement, specifically that he is infinite in wisdom and understanding, you and I are not
I cant just pick out of the Bible what I like and dont like then form some half baked conclusion about what should be acepted and what should be rejected. You are actually making yourself god in that instance
Some logic.
If you dont even start with the basics of sound reasoning, you can imagine or devise anything you want
Little Sammy Harris does it in his comical book called the Moral Landscape. He honestly believes that because nature gave him a conscience and he can experience feelings and pain that he has developed an actual morality
he forgets the basics, that given his philosophical naturalism in the form of Natural Selection and adaptation, all of which are greater than him and his perceptions, they care little or nothing about his percieved ability to distinguish between right and wrong
he fails to understand that all of nature and reality that created him and gave him these qualites is still greater than himself.
He fails to understand that he cannot have an actual morality, where the thing greater than himself, actually does not
he fails to understand that when the universe closes in on itself, should he happen to be around, it will not care or change its plans, even though it will bring little Sammy unbareable pain and suffering
Little Sammy builds a whole "ethic" around something he cannot demonstrate from any rational standpoint, yet he proceeds on, ignoring simple logic and reasoning principles
He does not understand that to have any real morality, he would have to demonstrate that the entirity of reality actually has any moral guidlines. it appears that Natual Selection, Adaptation, is the norm in his world view. And those bad boys care very little about your or my suffering
He does not understand that you cannot have an ACTUAL morality, when that "morality" applies only to his species. percieved morality is not actual morality, from the standpoint of logic developed from what reality will allow logically.
Perceptions are fine, but they must conform to what the limits of reality will allow.
Little sammy seems to care nothing for the basics. Heck for that matter, neither do most of the secular fundamental hunanist here
GDR, You have got to start with the very basics of what reality and reason will allow before you start forming ideas and opinions. It might sell books for him, but any serious thinker is holding thier stomach and laughing aloud
I'm simply saying that to understand the entirety of Scripture you have to start with the resurrected Jesus of the Gospels and not the other way around, as did Paul and the rest of the early Christians.
Your admiration and zeal for the Lord is nothing short of amazing, its just you thinking that needs alittle fine tuning
So you are saying that the resurrection of Jesus can't stand on it's own and that it needs prophesy to validate it. This is the problem with inerrancy. You replace Jesus with the Bible.
The resurrection cannot stand on its own GDR, you and I were not thier to witness it. Jesus said to Thomas, "You have seen me and believed, blessed are they who have not seen YET believe"
What criteria would you and I use GDR, but the same type of criteria we would use to establish the relaibilty of the Old Testament
It does not matter what I believe God did or did not do in the old testament GDR, if I cant even establish, the reliability of the book or writer
It does not matter whether Jesus actually rose from the dead, if I cannot establish the writers accuracy about that e vent. It would just be another story, correct? As they say first things first
We have to start with the resurrection itself. If the resurrection is not historical then the whole thing is a waste of time and as Paul says we are to be pitied.
What type of resoning and what type of criteria would you use to establish the resurrection as historical?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by GDR, posted 01-24-2014 10:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by GDR, posted 01-25-2014 9:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5913
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 66 of 176 (717282)
01-25-2014 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dawn Bertot
01-25-2014 12:53 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Lets start here, because herein I think the problem lies. You said I start with an idea of inerrancy, which is incorrect. I start with the fact that the facts in the Bible, old or new can be corroborated by history, archeo, dates, times, peoples and places, etc
I wouldnt believe in inerrancy and infallibility, if these things could be invalidated, they cant
Some of the disciples misunderstanding of scripture or its meaning has nothing to do with thier accuracy or inerrancy
Jesus was correcting thier misunderstanding, NOT the scriptures. "The scripture cannot be broken"
There are contradictions throughout the scriptures including inconsequential ones such as the genealogys of Jesus or the times and locations of events after the resurrection.
The major problem though is that your understanding of the Bible leads to belief in a god who is inconsistent in that he is sometimes cruel and vengeful and sometimes loving and forgiving. If you want to worship a god like that then you are obviously free to do that. I worship the God whose Word is incarnate in Jesus Christ and is always loving, merciful, and just.
There isn't any point in arguing about historical data in the OT as in my view that isn't what is important. What is important is the question of whether it was really Yahweh who wanted the people whom He called to bring His love to the world to commit genocide and public stonings, or did that come from the dark side of man who wanted to justify their evil by attributing it to Yahweh. It seems that you go with the former and I go with the latter.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Let me help you respectfully with logic or sound reasoning. To say you do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but trust Jesus, is a bit silly. Since the olny place you know anything about Jesus is from scripture. I hope that helps
I don't need an inerrant scripture to learn about Jesus. Firstly there can be errors with the fundamental aspects remaining true and secondly you seem to deny any possibility of God's Spirit informing us of His truth.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Dear friend you have to make a distinction between what is allowable to and by God and what he does not allow us to do
My logic requires that I accept all the scripture has to say about Gods nature, justice, mercy and judgement, specifically that he is infinite in wisdom and understanding, you and I are not
I cant just pick out of the Bible what I like and dont like then form some half baked conclusion about what should be acepted and what should be rejected. You are actually making yourself god in that instance
My conclusions are based on the teachings of Jesus as told by His followers. They may not have everything word for word as Jesus taught but the message isn't all that complicated in most cases, although we have to be careful not to simply read with a 21st century western mindset something intended for a 1st century Jewish audience.
IMHO you are actually guilty of idol worship. The Bible isn't part of the Trinity. The faith is CHRISTianity. Christians worship God incarnate in Jesus, not the Bible.
Dawn Bertot writes:
What type of resoning and what type of criteria would you use to establish the resurrection as historical?
Firstly it is faith. I choose to believe and I choose to make Jesus the centre of my world view.
However having said that I have read a considerable amount on the argument pro and con the resurrection and I find the argument on the pro side far more compelling than the argument against.
Here for example are some books I have read.
A Debate between N T Wright and Marcus Borg
A debate between N T Wright and Dom Crossan
The resurrection of the Son of God ny N T Wright
The latter is well over 700 pages dedicated to the study of the resurrection from a Biblical and historical standpoint.
I have also read several other books on the same subject and have spent a number of years studying the Bible since accepting the Christian faith in my thirties.
I realize that someone who doesn't agree with you can't be following simple logic or sound reasoning, but I'm doing the best I can.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-25-2014 12:53 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Eliyahu, posted 01-29-2014 12:03 AM GDR has replied
 Message 68 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-29-2014 12:09 AM GDR has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 67 of 176 (717551)
01-29-2014 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by GDR
01-25-2014 9:19 PM


The resurrection of the Son of God ny N T Wright
The latter is well over 700 pages dedicated to the study of the resurrection from a Biblical and historical standpoint.
Bs'd
We don't need 700 pages to deal with the resurrection, one is enough:
Why do you think that JC was ressurected?
Even in the New Testament there is NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS of his resurrection. No man saw him get up from the grave and walk away.
Oh, but he appeared to his disciples. Well, in that case, can you explain to me why nobody recognized him? Look in Luke 24:13-35. This speaks about the men on the road to Emmaus. JC met them, but they didn't recognize him.
The same thing happens in John 20:14; "At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. "Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, ... "
She thought JC was the gardener....
John 21:4 "Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. He called out to them, ..."
And again they didn't recognize him.
Isn't it strange that they didn't recognize the person with whom they were so close for years?
But the NT gives the answer to that strange phenomena. Look in Mark 16:12-13 "Afterward Jesus appeared IN A DIFFERENT FORM to two of them while they were walking in the country."
So it was a person "in a different form" from the previous well known JC who appeared to them, that's why they didn't recognize him.
A person in different form from the old JC, who was not recognized by the people he interacted with for years, only days before, doesn't that sounds like an impostor who is pretending to be the resurrected JC?
That also explains why some of the disciples doubted when the "resurrected JC" appeared to them: "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Matt 28:17.
Can you imagine that the authentic JC appears to you and you still doubt?
Apparently he was not so authentic.
If the disciples, who saw the "resurrected JC" with their own eyes, still doubted, why then do the Christians 2000 years later, who have nothing to go by but stories, don't doubt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by GDR, posted 01-25-2014 9:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-29-2014 12:20 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 02-09-2014 6:11 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 87 by jaywill, posted 09-16-2015 4:01 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 68 of 176 (717552)
01-29-2014 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by GDR
01-25-2014 9:19 PM


I realize that someone who doesn't agree with you can't be following simple logic or sound reasoning, but I'm doing the best I can.
Of course you are doint the best you can, that is all any of can do. And of course anybody that feels they are being disagreed with, believes the other person is not being logical, thats just debating
There are contradictions throughout the scriptures including inconsequential ones such as the genealogys of Jesus or the times and locations of events after the resurrection.
of course there are no inconsequential contradictions, if they are contradictions at all then they nullify the text and the writer. These so-called contradictions usually amount to nothing more than misunderstandings of the actual situation involved, perspective of the writer, purpose of the writer, etc
The major problem though is that your understanding of the Bible leads to belief in a god who is inconsistent in that he is sometimes cruel and vengeful and sometimes loving and forgiving. If you want to worship a god like that then you are obviously free to do that. I worship the God whose Word is incarnate in Jesus Christ and is always loving, merciful, and just.
No the major problem is that you are letting your personal feelings interfere with what YOU think God should do or not do, how he should act or not act
To demonstrate that point, the same testament that tells you of Christ, also, explains that at the end of time, a place is being prepared that will make genocide look likes childs play. And I dont mean that in a sacrcasric way
We simply cant decide for ourselves how God should or should not act. Again I say your zeal is commendable
Firstly there can be errors with the fundamental aspects remaining true and secondly you seem to deny any possibility of God's Spirit informing us of His truth.
No I am affirming that God has given us his truth, but not only about certain things, but to include his purposes and his nature and dealings with humanity across the years
I have also read several other books on the same subject and have spent a number of years studying the Bible since accepting the Christian faith in my thirties.
You sound like a good fellow and true follower of Christ, never stop my friend, never stop
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by GDR, posted 01-25-2014 9:19 PM GDR has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 69 of 176 (717553)
01-29-2014 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Eliyahu
01-29-2014 12:03 AM


If the disciples, who saw the "resurrected JC" with their own eyes, still doubted, why then do the Christians 2000 years later, who have nothing to go by but stories, don't doubt?
But my friend you are making the same fundamental error GDR is making. The evidence leads us in a certain direction. Does it prove it absolutely? No? But the general evidence is that the NT writers were reliable and correct
What evidence do you have that YOUR brain actually exists? have you ever seen it? Well NO. But most of the external evidence would say that you actually have a brain correct?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Eliyahu, posted 01-29-2014 12:03 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Eliyahu, posted 01-29-2014 7:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 70 of 176 (717564)
01-29-2014 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dawn Bertot
01-29-2014 12:20 AM


But my friend you are making the same fundamental error GDR is making. The evidence leads us in a certain direction. Does it prove it absolutely? No? But the general evidence is that the NT writers were reliable and correct
Bs'd
The NT shows us a supposed messiah who didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies.
The NT shows us a supposed messiah who didn't even fulfill his own prophecies.
The NT rips Tanach texts which have no bearing on the messiah out of context, mistranslates them, and presents them as "messianic prophecies fulfilled by JC".
The NT brings us an extra man-god who is NOWHERE to be found in the Tanach.
The general evidence is that the NT is not reliable and contradicts the Tanach.
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from Y-H-W-H your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
If you hear it said about one of the towns Y-H-W-H your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, Let us go and worship other gods (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to Y-H-W-H your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then Y-H-W-H will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors because you obey Y-H-W-H your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes."

Deut 13
.
.
.
In the service of Y-H-W-H,
Eliyahu, light unto the nations
"Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ONE!" Deut 6:4
"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5
.
.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : Just because

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-29-2014 12:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-29-2014 10:45 PM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 72 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-29-2014 10:59 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 71 of 176 (717644)
01-29-2014 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Eliyahu
01-29-2014 7:24 AM


A person in different form from the old JC, who was not recognized by the people he interacted with for years, only days before, doesn't that sounds like an impostor who is pretending to be the resurrected JC?
That also explains why some of the disciples doubted when the "resurrected JC" appeared to them: "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Matt 28:17.
Can you imagine that the authentic JC appears to you and you still doubt?
Apparently he was not so authentic.
Do you think God was trying to decieve Abraham or Joshua when he apeared to them in a form other than that which he actually is?
Do you think that these people did not believe this was actually God when he made these visits to these individuals, in another form than his actual form?
So was God not authentic in these instances?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Eliyahu, posted 01-29-2014 7:24 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Eliyahu, posted 01-30-2014 1:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 72 of 176 (717647)
01-29-2014 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Eliyahu
01-29-2014 7:24 AM


"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from Y-H-W-H your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
If you hear it said about one of the towns Y-H-W-H your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, Let us go and worship other gods (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to Y-H-W-H your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then Y-H-W-H will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors because you obey Y-H-W-H your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes."
Deut 13
To get the ball rolling, so to speak, let me ask you a quick question. If you believe these verses are true amd are actually from God, what type of evidence would you use or establish to support the idea that they are authentic?
IOWs, why do you believe the methodology for establishing the Old Testaments reliability, is any different that that of the New Testament? Arent they the same?
The general evidence is that the NT is not reliable and contradicts the Tanach.
How is the general evidence that supports the NT UNreliable and how is it any different than that which supports the Old Testament
The NT shows us a supposed messiah who didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies.
The NT shows us a supposed messiah who didn't even fulfill his own prophecies.
The NT rips Tanach texts which have no bearing on the messiah out of context, mistranslates them, and presents them as "messianic prophecies fulfilled by JC".
In a general sense how can you pretend to speak for Gods purposes over time
Since the Old and New Testaments are the only real texts that can boast a certain type of evidence over long periods of time, how can you be sure the NT, is not fulfillment of his original intentions and plans
But first it would behove you to show me why you believe anything you quoted to me is reliable to begin with
However, if you wish to agree that the NTs truth claims are established, using the same type of evidencem as the Old, then we can move on from that point
But at bare minimum, this is where rational conversation has to start
Fair enough
Dawn Bertot
.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Eliyahu, posted 01-29-2014 7:24 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 73 of 176 (717649)
01-30-2014 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dawn Bertot
01-29-2014 10:45 PM


Do you think God was trying to decieve Abraham or Joshua when he apeared to them in a form other than that which he actually is?
Do you think that these people did not believe this was actually God when he made these visits to these individuals, in another form than his actual form?
So was God not authentic in these instances?
Bs'd
Nowhere in the Tanach do you see a human being claiming he is God.
God clearly says that He is not a man:
God is not human, that he should lie, Num 23:19
He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind. 1 Samuel 15:29
For I am God, and not a man the Holy One among you. Hosea 11:9
So when a human being says he is God, you stone him:
"Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?
We are not stoning you for any good work, they replied, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
John 10

.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-29-2014 10:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 11:15 AM Eliyahu has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 74 of 176 (717791)
02-01-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Eliyahu
01-30-2014 1:40 AM


Nowhere in the Tanach do you see a human being claiming he is God.
God clearly says that He is not a man:
God is not human, that he should lie, Num 23:19
He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind. 1 Samuel 15:29
For I am God, and not a man the Holy One among you. Hosea 11:9
So when a human being says he is God, you stone him:
Sorry for the lateness of my response, got busy.
I see you have started another thread along the same lines, possibly I could transition this theme to that one in time. In the meantime ill continue here.
You seem to jump from one point to the next without answering questions or addrssing arguments
Your original point was that because Jesus appeared in different forms to people, that this made him unauthentic
I pointed out that God did the samething in OT. there was no response to this argument
I next pointed out that the NT boasts the same type of evidence for its reliability as the Old. You avoided this argument and question as well
You now seem to want to talk about, whether the OT has a man claiming to be God
The passages you quoted have nothing to do with whether God can represent himself as a man, AS HE CLEARLY DID. The passages you quoted are simply stating that God in his entire essence is not like man, not that he cannot represent himself in human form, or come in the form of human
God odesnt stop being God even if he lives as a man.
So your indirect argument that God never came as a human being is contradicted both by the examples in the Old and New testaments
If Gods intention in the passages you quoted are to assume God cannot live as a human, or represent himself as a human, as he clearly did, then you will need to look for other passages to support your assertion
It would be helpful if you would actually attend to some of the arguments I am making instead of just making comments and quoting more passages
This approach you undertake makes it appear as if you dont really understand how debate works
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Eliyahu, posted 01-30-2014 1:40 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Eliyahu, posted 02-01-2014 11:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 75 of 176 (717827)
02-01-2014 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
02-01-2014 11:15 AM


Your original point was that because Jesus appeared in different forms to people, that this made him unauthentic
I pointed out that God did the samething in OT. there was no response to this argument
Bs'd
God can appear anyway He wants. But if a human being wants to make a point, said point being that he stood up from the grave, then he cannot come back as a different person, because then it is clear to everybody that he is not the same person, and that his story about being resurrected is not true.
I next pointed out that the NT boasts the same type of evidence for its reliability as the Old. You avoided this argument and question as well
The Tanach is accepted by both Christian and Jew as being inspired by God, so I don't have to proof that the Tanach is from God. What I'm doing is proving that the NT is not from God. This by showing that JC was a false prophet, showing that the messianic prophecies are not fulfilled, and other inconsistencies in the NT.
The passages you quoted have nothing to do with whether God can represent himself as a man, AS HE CLEARLY DID.
God showed himself to some people as a man, sitting on His throne, but never as a human, born from a woman, who's diapers had to be changed, etc.
he passages you quoted are simply stating that God in his entire essence is not like man, not that he cannot represent himself in human form, or come in the form of human
God can do whatever he wants, also coming as a human, but He didn't.
So your indirect argument that God never came as a human being is contradicted both by the examples in the Old and New testaments
The Tanach says that God IS NOT a human.
The NT says he was a human. So also on that point the NT contradicts the Tanach.
Some prophets in the Tanach saw the figure of a human, but God never was a human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 11:15 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2014 1:24 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023