Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Allysum Global
Post Volume: Total: 919,190 Year: 6,447/9,624 Month: 25/270 Week: 21/37 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
(1)
Message 7 of 427 (539959)
12-21-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by hooah212002
12-20-2009 8:34 PM


Re: Immaculate deception
*Well then, that would fit jesus to a tee, yes? Would Joseph not have adopted this bastard child of Mary's?
But then he wouldn't be god OR god's son.
The way I see it, the story goes about the 3 wisemen and whatnot, you would think ONE of them would have noted what day it was, what with this being the fucking savior of mankind and all. An entire religion, millions of people, is based off this fella, yet no one is certain of his birthday? He is the seemingly only person where his death is more celebrated than his birth. I think this comic sums it up nicely:
Lets respond to the vulgar big mouth first. And i will try to get to the rest as quickly as i can. here is something to consider from a writer with knowledge of the subject
Steven breedlove writes in his article 'The geneology of jesus christ'
Quote "As Matthew continues to follow the line from David to Christ, Matthew traces the lineage through Jesus' earthly father, Joseph. This, too, indicates that Matthew is writing to the Jewish people. During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son receives the father's lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father."
a simple solution to a seeming problem
Ill try and get to the rest later
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 8:34 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 12-21-2009 6:47 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 12 of 427 (539986)
12-21-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brian
12-21-2009 9:06 AM


Re: For those interested
Brian writes
Anyone who has been hit with the ‘Ah but Jesus was Joseph’s adopted son, so He qualifies for Davidic ancestry through adoption’ apologetic that many Christians uncritically accept, this is an interesting article:
Levin, Yigal (2006) Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2006; 28; 415-442
Here are some extracts from it.
p.422
But when pressed for either precedence or proof of such adoption, the vast majority of commentators simply refer to ‘Jewish custom’ or ‘Jewish Law’. As early as 1930, Machen stated that in the Jews’ ‘Semitic way of thinking’, they looked upon ‘adoptive fatherhood in a much more realistic way than we look upon it’ (Machen, J.G. (1930) The Virgin Birth of Christ p.129 (New York: Harper & Brothers).
p. 423
However, while adoption is known in some Ancient Near Eastern legal codes, Jewish law, both in antiquity and in the modern era, has no such legal institution.
In addition, as summarized by Tigay, ‘if adoption played any role at all in Israelite family institutions, it was an insignificant one’. Also ‘for the post-Exilic periodthere is no reliable evidence for adoption at all’ (Tigay, J.H. 1971 ‘Adoption’, EncJud, II: p. 300).
p.424
While, presumably, a man’s taking in a foundling and raising him as a son would be considered ‘a good deed’, such de facto adoption does not give the child any inherited status. For example, the ‘adopted’ son of a priest would not be considered a priest, and a boy and girl adopted by the same parents would be allowed to marry each other without fear of incest. (Gold, M. 1987 ‘Adoption: A New Problem for Jewish Law’, Judaism 36: p. 443)
p.425.
In a nutshell, there is nothing in Jewish law, in either the Hebrew Bible or in later Halakhah, which can be seen as the model by which Jesus, Son of God, could have been considered the legal, but not genetic, heir to the Davidic throne.
Therefore, if anyone tells you that Jesus was adopted and that made him a direct descendant of David then ask for their evidence that this custom actually existed.
You may also wish to mention that the Nathan Pophecy negates Jesus' bloodline if He was adopted as it says:
2 Samuel 7:12
When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.
What more evidence is required that the Messiah HAS to be a blood descendant of David. Adopting is, without doubt, a very noble act, but it does not pass on any blood. Thus Jesus was not the Messiah.
Admittedly I am no expert in these matters and we learn as we go, so I am previledged to study what others have to say in these matters and in this connection. it seems as though there is much more information involved, as I suspected, than that whic is presented on this website at times.
More explanation and deeper insight reveal that such seeming contradictions can be explained when we have alittle more information.
Admittedly brian and I will back what information seems to coroborate our positions and we may never know all the details that are involved in such matters. here is an article, that seems to be exhausitive in nature to clear up some of the questions that arise as we go through these topics.
the least of which is that jesus failed either in history or teaching to qulify as the messiah
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt11.html
'New Light on the Geneologies of Jesus'
B. FIVE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS T0 THE PROBLEM
To the problem of the historicity of the genealogies of Our Lord in Matthew and Luke, five solutions may be considered. The two classic solutions are the theory of levirate marriage and the theory of Marian genealogy.
1. LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. The Law of the Levirate states: "When brothers dwell together, and one of them dies without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry another, but his brother shall take her and raise up seed for his brother. And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel" (Deut 25:5-6).
According to an explanation going back in essence at least to Julius Africanus in the first half of the third century A.D. (who claimed to have heard it as handed down by the relatives of Jesus), Joseph's grandmother (Estha) bore Jacob to one husband (Matthan) and Eli to a second (Matthat). Joseph's mother married Eli, who died without children; then she married his uterine brother Jacob, who raised up Joseph as seed to Eli. Thus Joseph had Eli as his legal father and Jacob as his biological father. The genealogy of Matthew shows the biological ancestry of Jesus, and that of Luke the legal ancestry. 3
This solution is excluded by Raymond Brown, who says: "The theory of a levirate marriage solves so little and has so many difficulties that it should be abandoned as a solution in the problem of the two genealogies, and even in the more restricted problem of Jesus' overabundance of grandfathers." 4
The difficulties as seen by Brown are four in number:
a) Matthan and Matthat are similar names. Thus one is faced with the "dubious coincidence" that the mother of Jacob and Eli married two men who had almost the same names. But similarity of first names is not unheard of in the case of successive husbands or in the case of brothers. Hence, no historian can exclude this explanation, handed down from early times, on the mere ground that the names of the two husbands are similar.
b) "We are not certain how widely levirate marriage was practiced in Jesus' time." But it was probably practiced, as Brown himself admits. Therefore, no historian can exclude this explanation on the ground that it couldn't have happened. It would have taken only one instance to make it happen, and history abounds with unique happenings.
c) If Joseph were the issue of a levirate marriage, it would be "very strange" to have a genealogical list going back through his biological father. It would not be strange at all, it seems to me, especially if Matthew had a particular purpose for doing so, such as tracing the more direct line of royal descent, which, in fact, he does. A prominent example of a known levirate marriage in the same list of names, Obed, has his ancestry traced back through Boaz, his biological father (Ruth 4). And in the case of Matthew and Luke both ancestries are preserved. Hence, the explanatian of a levirate marriage cannot be logically excluded on this ground.
d) "Why does Matthew trace descent through David's son Solomon, while Luke traces it through David's son Nathan?" The answer to this is obvious: because two different lines of ancestry go back to David, one from Matthan through Solomon, the other from Matthat through Nathan. Hence, the levirate explanation cannot be excluded on the ground of this divergence.
The conclusion would seem to be that Brown does not present cogent grounds for abandoning the possibility of a solution through levirate marriage, since four flimsy reasons do not add up to one good reason. Difficulties and improbabilities do, indeed, lead one to be wary of accepting this solution as proven historical fact, but the historian needs real historical evidence in order to exclude it as a possible historical fact. The historian can recognize beneath the problem of the two genealogies a unique historical background created by the Law of the Levirate, whereby levirate marriage was not merely permitted, but was legally imposed with a force that is clearly expressed in Deut 25:5-10. With that background in mind, he may question, he may doubt, but he may not exclude, pending actual historical evidence to the contrary.
In a monumental piece of research, published in French in 1982, 5 Jacques Masson reviews the ancient argument of a levirate marriage of Joseph's mother. To deepen his analysis of the last few generations in the two genealogies, he first presents a study of all the preceding generations. The wealth of material that he brings to bear on the question and the painstaking care with which he has sifted and arranged the data make his book a classic work on the subject. Masson does not prove that there was in this case a levirate marriage, but he so increases the area of discussion and so challenges the reader to continue sifting the data that his work cannot be ignored in any serious treatment of the question. Not only does this book make clear the complexity of the question, it also brings the reader closer up to the history behind the Gospel text and behind the discussion of the text that has gone on now for nineteen centuries.
The possibility of a levirate marriage as presented by Julius Africanus was questioned by Jacques-Paul Migne, 6 Urban Holzmeister, 7 and others on the ground that the Law of the Levirate did not apply to uterine brothers, seeing that neither did a uterine brother carry the same male seed nor would he keep the heredity within the same family. Masson sees general validity in this objection, but he finds high probability in a levirate marriage of Joseph's mother with a relative of her deceased husband who had a common ancestor with him. Such a common ancestor, according to the two genealogies, would obviously be David, but more proximately he finds Salathiel and even more proximately Eliud/Esli.
Masson argues as follows. Jechonias, having no son, adopted Salathiel, husband of his daughter and son of Neri, who was descended from David through Nathan. Salathiel thus became the legal son and successor of Jechonias. By the Law of the Levirate, the name of Salathiel'a biological father disappears from the genealogy and the name of Jechonias appears. Salathiel becomes a common ancestor of both Jacob and Eli.
More proximately, both Jacob and Eli are descendants of Eliud/Esli. Achim of Matthew's genealogy died without children, and Naggai of Luke's genealogy begot Eliud/Esli as Achim's legal son. Matthew's Eleazar was the eldest son of Eliud/Esli. Naum was a younger son. Thus a levirate adoption by Jechonias and later levirate marriages raising up seed to Achim and to Jacob, the legal. father of Joseph, solve the contradiction of the two fathers of Joseph and the disparate lines of descent from David to Joseph. 8
Masson's careful argumentation leading up to these conclusions should not be lightly dismissed. 9 The data that he presents can indeed be interpreted in different ways, but there is a substratum of truth that should not be ignored. The question, however, broadens at this point from an elementary base into issues related to the second solution, that of a possible genealogy of Mary, which Masson takes up in lesser depth.
2. MARIAN GENEALOGY. The theory of a Marian genealogy in its simplest form is based on a reading of Matthew and Luke such that Matthew presents the ancestry of Joseph and Luke presents the ancestry of Mary. The theory is based on the fact of the Virginal Conception, which both Matthew and Luke clearly present, and on the reasoning that, because of this fact, the real biological descent of Jesus is only through his mother. If Matthew gives the legal descent of Jesus, and if Luke gives the real descent, then Luke gives the genealogy of Mary.
He goes on:
3. LEGAL ADOPTION. Urban Holzmeister transforms a Lapide's theory into a theory of adoption. The reading of Lk 3:23 as directly presenting a biological bond of Jesus with Eli, to the exclusion of Joseph, he finds to be unconvincing and in violence to the text. But, he says, if Mary was an only child, as we have every reason to believe, it would have been entirely in keeping with Old Testament law and custom for her father to adopt her husband and transfer to him all of his rights and possessions. If this happened, then the genealogy of Luke could well be materially the genealogy of Mary, but formally (and gramatically) the genealogy of Joseph, who had inherited Mary's ancestry from her father by way of adoption. Hence, all of the names in Luke's genealogy beginning with Eli are ancestors of Mary, but she is not named. He finds a precedent for this kind of adoption in 1 Chron 2:34. Sesan had no sons, so he gave his daughter (unnamed) in marriage to his Egyptian servant Jeraa, and she brought forth to him (Sesan) a son named Ethei. Thus Ethei was the son of Sesan through his unnamed daughter and his adopted (and named) Egyptian son-in-law.
The theory of "special adoption" proposed by Holzmeister and others replaces the theory of "generic adoption" held for a time by St. Augustine of Hippo which contemplated the (childhood) adoption of Joseph by Eli. St. Augustine withdrew this theory in favor of the theory of levirate marriage after he had seen and studied the solution of Julius Africanus. 27
Jacques Masson rejects Holzmeister's theory of the adoption of St. Joseph by the father of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the ground that Holzmeister resorted to this to save the historicity of the text, since he was convinced that the Law of the Levirate could not have applied to uterine brothers. Masson resolves Holzmeister's problem with the provision of Jewish law that the two successive husbands of Joseph's mother need not have been uterine brothers but rather could have been close relatives descended from a common male ancestor. Nevertheless, Masson does not really exclude the legal adoption of Joseph as a possibility. In fact, Masson readily admits the possibility in general of the adoption of a son-in-law in the Jewish law and customs of the times, and he includes an instance of it (Salathiel) in his own explanation. 28
Holzmeister's idea that Joseph was adopted by Eli, the father of Mary, is untenable in Masson's estimation, because, according to St. John Damascene, Joachim (son of Barpanther, son of Panther, son of Levi) was Mary's father. But Patrizzi, studying the same testimony of John Damascene, concluded that Joseph was Mary's uncle; 29 and Masson does not refute Patrizzi's reasoning. The data can be interpreted differently, and Eli may even be Joachim.
If Mary was an only child, Masson cannot logically exclude that her father might have arranged her marriage to her cousin Joseph and then adopted him in keeping with Jewish law and custom. But that would make the genealogy in Luke the real ancestry of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Holzmeister maintains. The two theories tend to merge in the sense that even for Masson the names in Luke's genealogy from Levi, father of Matthat, all the way back to Adam are also the ancestors of Mary. Only Eli and Matthat are exclusive ancestors of Joseph in the theory of Masson.
Here, again, the idea of levirate marriage appears in a more sublime way. Mary conceived without male seed by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Thus was raised up a descendant to Eli (Joachim), to David, and to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob according to the promises. Joseph appears as adopted son-in-law of Eli (Joachim) and as servant of the Holy Spirit, inheriting the promises in a spiritual way.
4. CONSANGUINITY. St. Jerome affirms that Mary was a close relative of Joseph, and, therefore, a member of the tribe of Judah and of the family of David. This testimony is reinforced by St. Ambrose, Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. John Damascene. The Fathers of the Church almost unanimously defend the Davidic descent of Mary. 30
Cornelius a Lapide expounds an elaboration of the Marian theory whereby both genealogies present the ancestry of Mary. Still commenting on Lk 3:23, he affirms that, while Eli (of Luke's list) was the father of Mary, Matthan (of Matthew's list) was the biological grandfather of both Joseph and Mary, because Jacob was the brother of Anne, the mother of Mary. By a Lapide's theory, Matthew gives the ancestry of Mary through her mother Anne, but Anne's brother Jacob is mentioned in the list instead of Anne, just as Joseph is mentioned instead of Mary. Thus the customary male genealogical tenor is observed and the maternal ancestry of Mary is retained. In this way, concludes a Lapide, both genealogies express the real (biological) ancestry of Jesus.
In defense of the idea that Mary and Joseph could have been cousins, a Lapide notes that according to Num 36:6-10 women who are heiresses of their parents are ordered to marry, not only within the same tribe, but also within the same kindred and closely-related family, lest the inheritance pass to outsiders. Mary seemingly was an only child.
A Lapide maintains that, by their respective genealogies, Matthew and Luke show that Jesus was son and heir of David by a double title, by descent from Solomon, who reigned after David, and by descent from Nathan, who was next to Solomon in order to the throne. He cites Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoretus, Jeremiah, Bernard, and Suarez as holding that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a descendant of David through Solomon and therefore, he says, through the genealogy of her mother, as presented by Matthew.
Patrizzi maintains that both genealogies are those of Joseph by levirate marriage; yet they both reflect the ancestry of Mary and the biological descent of Jesus from King David because of the blood-relationship between Mary and Joseph. St. John Damascene, Andrew of Crete, Hugo Grotius, and others had presented explanations to show this which Patrizzi finds to be inexact. He prefers the explanation of Possini, Zaccaria, and others according to which Joseph was actually the paternal uncle of Mary and the brother of her father Joachim. He finds this explanation to be in conformity with the data on Mary's family provided by St. Epiphanius and also with the testimony of Julius Africanus, who says that Joseph was the third son of Jacob, and with some very early Christian records. Thus Joachim, Cleophas, and Joseph were the three sons of the last Jacob in Matthew's genealogy. Marriage of an uncle with his niece would seem to have been forbidden by Jewish law, but Patrizzi maintains that some exceptions were made, especially by way of the Law of the Levirate, since Joachim and Joseph were brothers. He cites also the case of Aristobulus, King of the Jews, whose uncle Absalom became his son-in-law. 31
Fillion in the early twentieth century agreed with a Lapide that St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary, was the sister of Jacob and the aunt of St. Joseph. Masson, after further genealogical studies, concludes that Mary and Joseph were second cousins on her father Joachim's side, inasmuch as Levi in Luke's genealogy was the great-grandfather of Joseph and the great-great grandfather of Mary. But Masson also agrees with a Lapide that St. Anne was the sister of Jacob and the aunt of St. Joseph. Therefore, according to Masson, Mary and Joseph were first cousins on her mother's side. 32
John F. McCarthy
A fuller reading of the entire article shed some good light on the topic at hand. Sorry i am not meaning to argue from a site, but maybe this will get the ball rolling on a topic for which I am not an expert, but as i suspected, the information is not one sided and can explain some of the so-called glaring contradictions.
And last but not least all of this examination precludes the fact of inspiration and divine guidance in the process, something that cannot be ruled out simply because we dont like it.
More than not, more information by those versed in these matters tends to shed light so that the so-called contradictions become nothing more than alternate explanations where enough information is not present to nail something down excally at present.
A couple of other interesting points.
the distinction here between believing what is offered in the geneologies, and some of the information that is not EXCALLY known to us in detail would have been easily available to the Jew of that day. Some of the specific details of the legalities and who was descent from whom, so as to not even be a topic of discussion or heated debate as it is now.
secondly it is interestiong to note you and I are arguing minutia in realation to obvious information, that is, we are not searching for the entire geneology, but some minor details that were probably easly known and available to the Jew of that day and all its legal ramifications
As stated before they are hardly reasons for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, muchless as a failure, as will be seen when we start to dicusss the specific messianic prophicies
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 12-21-2009 9:06 AM Brian has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 34 of 427 (540288)
12-23-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brian
12-23-2009 6:58 AM


The Messiah was prophesied to be King. There is no other prophecy, certainly no prophecy saying that the Messiah would be killed and resurrected, that’s just perverse Buzz.
Are you so ignorant that you cannot see that most if not all the prophcies had nothing to do with a literal kingdom, in a WORLDLY since, hence jesus said, "my kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD, IF IT WERE MY SERVANTS WOULD FIGHT". Paul said "we preach jesus to the Jews a stumbling block and to the greeks follishness". the Jews were looking for a literal kingdom to over throw thier oppressors
When questioned as to whether he was king of the Jews, he said, "IT IS AS YOU HAVE SAID"
When charges were brought against him, one was that he claimed to be a king and they presented this as evidence as insurrection against the ruler of Rome.
Ofcourse, they did not understand his meaning or those of the prophets. Quit being simplistic brian and looking for some fact of history suggesting Christ might have had some physical kingdom
John 17, "i pray not that you take them (his people) out of the world but that you keep them from the world. In another place it is stated, "THE KINGDOM IS WITHIN YOU"
I love reading much of Buzzsaws material but he dead wrong in thinking Christ is not now a King or that he does not now have a Kingdom. read Matt 16 and Acts cahpter 2.
Col 1:13 "he has (present tense) translated us out of darkness INTO THE KINGDOM OF HIS DEAR SON.
The Messiah was prophesied to be King. There is no other prophecy, certainly no prophecy saying that the Messiah would be killed and resurrected, that’s just perverse Buzz.
Only someone not paying any attention at all reading the scriptures New or Old would make such a nonsensical statement. Are you like the Greeks of old that paul approched and considered his preaching foolisness or perversedness. What is you rational from a Biblical perspective for considering the death burial and ressurection as perverse
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 6:58 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Briterican, posted 12-23-2009 1:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 3:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 4:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 36 of 427 (540292)
12-23-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Brian
12-23-2009 10:38 AM


Psalm 22 is about King David, it is David who is beseeching God in the entire psalm.
Isaiah 52 and 53 are not messianic and are not about one man. Isaiah 52 and 53 are about the suffering servant Israel, the nation of Israel and nothing to do with a Messiah who was to suffer.
Try again.
In the same way you misunderstand the Kingship of Jesus, you misunderstand the nature of prophecy. Of course prophecies can have dual menaings, at times they may refer to the individual at that present time with a refernce to the future Messiah. You GOAL would be to prove that they DO NOT refer to Jesus or that he did not fulfill it from a Biblical or SPIRITUAL perspective.
"He was silent before his accusers", etc.
Brian are you so ignorant, having studied the scriptures thay you cannot see that the EVERY SINGLE THING IN THE SCRIPTURES IS FOR AND ABOUT GOD. Christ (God)was the suffering servant. that is the theme of the scriptures my simple friend. Even if it did have some refernce to literal Israel, ITS PRIMARY MEANING IS ABOUT GOD. Every spiritual principle in the scriptures is ABOUT GOD OR COMES BACK TO GOD.
From the very first book of the bible brian, prophecy was present and intended with spiritual meaning. "I will put eminity between thy seed and her seed, you will bruise his heel and he will crush you head"
Then we have these inquisitive fellows trying to define exacally what is menat in the word SEED, looking past and missing the whole point of the prophecy. you suggested that we take off our Jesus Glasses, i suggest you put on your God glasses. the one that is omniscient and and omnipresent and you will then see clearly.
Brian, Prophecy was never intended to be the ABSOLUTE proof that Christ was the Son of God, they do much to reinforce, his life and DEEDS. Prophecy was mostly for the Jewish believer after having first hand experienced his life and deeds, then the light bulb would come on.
He said, "If you do not believe me for the words that I speak, then believe for the WORKS THAT I DO, because they TESTIFY of me"
Prophecy was never intended to be ABSOLUTE PROOF but a tool to assist belief. prohecy was intended to be understood from a SPIRITUAL standpoint intially. if a specific prophecy HAPPENED TO, be able to be substantiated by some historical or phisical reality, WONDERFUL and i am sure God intended that way in some cases. That was not its primary PURPOSE OR fuction however.
If someone considers this a cop-out, I would point out that you are responding to a history OF and AN apologetic that has come about, as a misuse of prophecy, BUT WAS NEVER INTENDED OF PROPHECY IN THE FIRST PLACE. your responding to an invalid premise in the first place
If I am wrong then point to the passage in the NT that states this is the absolute nature and purpose of prophecy
In the same way Genesis chapters one two and three were not meant to be a theological football tossed back and forth between creationism and evolution, prophecy was not to be understood as absolute proof for his messiaship. They were meant at times as beautiful expressions of Gods love for Israel and man in general. Wake up brian
Daniel 2:44. "In the days of these kings he will establish a kingdom that will not perish from the face of the earth" The Chruch/Kingdom is not going anywhere, especially out of existence.
He is the king of SPIRITUAL ISRAEL, not a literal worldy kingdom. that part of Israel that will be saved will be saved through Christ and the Church, not some future kingdom, the Kingdom is alrady here.
if however, he wishes that i hang around here a thousand years or so, Im cool with that as well. But the scriptures clearly teach the kingdom is already here
When he stated, "destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days", the follwers misunderstood him. Quit being like them brian and open you eyes
Jesus is a failure FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE BRIAN, because you misunderstand the nature, results and purposes of prophecy. it is unfortunate that you have been mislead of the meanings and nature of prophecy
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 10:38 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 12-24-2009 4:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 48 by Brian, posted 12-24-2009 2:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 45 of 427 (540368)
12-24-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brian
12-23-2009 4:57 PM


Re: propaganda
I thought I better support my claim that the arrest and trial of Jesus appears to be historically implausible. The following is in regard to the claim that the crowd had a choice between two prisoners who had been sentenced to death, Jesus and Barabbas, and the chosen prisoner would be set free. This episode looks completely fictional and should encourage researchers to check the veracity of the related events.
Brian, Brian, brian, brian. But that is excally the point, you didnt support your point you only suggested that it may have not been a custom as suggested by the gospels. As a matter a fact you did point to a custom much like our president going out of office in a sense, that allows pardons.
it may have very well been the case that this was a sub custom not necessary or relevant to mentionas a part of larger cerimonies.
As is always the case with the scriptures, they are usually substantiated at some point, maybe someday on this very issue, with regaurd to this custom.
besides this you are making the worst assumption in indicating that the gospels are not a reliable source in relating this custom.
Quoting alot of liberal "Scholars" that are in the negative on this issue, does not demonstrate that the scriptures are unreliable
We all know the horrific atrocities that the Jewish people have suffered because they ‘killed’ God, but I do not think for one minute that the evangelists realised what far reaching consequences their propaganda would have for the Jewish people.
saying that the jewish people killed Jesus, demonstrates alot about yourself brian. its almost as if you wish to create prejudice before you even get started. Is this sentiment a part of why Jesus was failure or do you offer it to create prejudice.
There were alot of jewish people that thought his death by crucifiction was a tragedy and a crime, namely his followers and that little lady called Mary, I believe she was jewish was she not? You really shouldnt let your emotions pepper your posts
However, I believe that it is fairly easy to prove that this piece of Bible ‘history’ is nothing more than a work of fiction, and sadly, a work of fiction that has had heartbreaking results.
Prove? I doubt it as I have indicated. What will be your attitude if one day a piece of evidence surfaces to support this as it is mentioned in the scriptures, will you then convert to belief in the scriptures as the word of God or accurate overall, I doubt it
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 4:57 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by lyx2no, posted 12-24-2009 1:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 51 by Brian, posted 12-24-2009 2:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 46 of 427 (540370)
12-24-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brian
12-23-2009 3:15 PM


Re: Blind leading the blind
They expected a literal kingdom because thats what they were promised in the OT by Yahweh. This spiritual kingdom nonsense is just a sill apologetic to try and explain Jesus' failure. There is no scriptural evidence in the Tanakh that even hints at a spiritual kingdom or of the messiah's 'second coming', it is utterly alien to Jewish thought.
They also complained about not having a King, and told them they already had a king, Himself and he gave them the desires of thier heart.
Jesus also said that He was a king. But we know He wasn't.
its interesting how you use the scriptures as a weapon to support your own point then decry them as unreliable when it suits your purposes. How and where did you find out jesus said he was a King?
Do you remember him saying "my kingdom is NOT of this world, if it were my servants would fight" the word FIGHT implies the nature of a physical kingdom and how it is maintained.
Well, personally, I am not convinced at all by Jesus' arrest and trial narratives. Historically speaking they are a shambles and really could not hav happened in the way described. It is best to put the arrest and trial down to fictional propaganda.
Since inspiration was involved here one is completely justified in assuming that may things didnt always go according to the standards and practices that were established
Quit being blind and gullible and waken up to the fact that the spiritual kingdom is a fantasy. Jesus did not fulfil a single messianic prophecy
As i stated before brian you are responding to an apologetic in the nature of prophecy and the way prophecy has been used, for which it was never intended. As Peter says the prophets themselves searched diligently as to manner and time and nature of the person in the prophetic utterance. since the prophets were guided by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it would stand to reason that the other people may have missed the ultimate message in the nature of spiritual verses physical
You should like it since both of you have a very childlike and naive understanding of the Bible. It is quite cute in a way, like the Sunday School kid who never looked at the Bible for himself, just accepted whatever they were told. In another way, of course, it is very sad that grown adults can take the Bible as a serious historical document. It is also very sad that people who claim to love the Bible never actually do it any justice by never studying it to any depth at all.
here is the sad part, you are making the same mistake and missing the point for which the Messaih and the prophecies concerning him
I cant believe any person that studies the scriptures cannot see that God always desired it to be a spiritual king and kingdom. it was always about god from finish to start.
Israel you dont need a physical king, you already have a king god said, it me. brian its always been a spiritual thing, Wake up Brian
Brian, you reasons for believing jesus was a failure are misguided do to a lack of understanding of Gods purposes even in the Old testament. therefore your contentions about jesus are nonsensical and invalid
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 3:15 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Brian, posted 12-26-2009 11:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 49 of 427 (540374)
12-24-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by lyx2no
12-24-2009 1:47 PM


Re: propaganda
It isn't Brian saying the Jewish people killed God; it's the Christians saying the Jewish people killed God.
If you can't even properly interpret a coherent sentence why would you believe you can interpret the schizoid Bible?
I never said brian said it directly, but even a tyro in logic could see he was implying that Christians had some kind of agenda against the jewish people and he uses it like a weapon in his posts. Is the part where he implies it indirectly necessary, I doubt it.
You do the samething in your final words describing the bible as schizoid, not understanding its teaching or principles.
Do you have anything better?
Oh yeah your the fellow that interjects then leaves quickly, now i remember you.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by lyx2no, posted 12-24-2009 1:47 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by lyx2no, posted 12-24-2009 4:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 50 of 427 (540376)
12-24-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Brian
12-24-2009 2:05 PM


Re: The real Suffering Servant
Therefore, read in context, it is obvious that the Suffering Servant refers to the remnants of Israel, and in no way can it be referring to Jesus or any individual at all.
My Christian friends here at EvC are not really putting up much of an effort to try an convince me that I am mistaken in my claim. It has been a bit boring actually.
Did I ever disagree that it may be refering to Israel? it has a dual menaing. You simply do not understand the nature of Gods purposes, methods, of approach in scripture. Who would ever get out of Gen 3:15 that it refered to Christ, without the actual life of christ and further explanation by inspiration of the Holy Spirit to explain its meaning
Brian, Brian, Brian, I have repeadly explained that God not man is in charge of these matters, it is not necessary for man to know at that Present time all that was involved in the nature and reasons of prophecy, but when jesus came on the scene, for anyone paying any attention at all, would have seen that he was the fulfillment of these passages, EVEN IF THEY REFERED TO ISRAEL OR SOMEOTHER PERSON DIRECTLY. Prohecy was not meant to be an all in all of PROOF, but a beautiful expression of gods love for Israel and man in general
Did Abraham understand the He possibly meant Christ in his promises to Abraham? was it necessary for Abraham to understand all of this for God to be effective and NOT A FAILURE?
I explained that Genesis 3:15 would not have had to much direct meaning to anyone reading it at present, but it was spititual in nature refering to Christ as explained in the rest of inspiration throught he New testament
Isnt it interesting that many thousands of Jews were and STILL ARE BEING converted to Christ through use of these Old Testament Prophcies according to the New testament and history. I was just watching Jewish/Christian messianic program the other day, where the person of obvious jewish ethnic background was expliticating the scriptures, the prophecies in and from a jewish background and perspective. Since there are literally thousands OF JEWISH CHRISTIANS, you contention that Jesus was a failure falls to the ground, not to mention the gentile converts
Again anyone reading the scriptures, especially the passages where God encourages them (in the Old testament) to seek a spiritual king and kingdom, should quickly understand that he never intended for them to even be ruled by an earthly king. What God wanted for them and what they wanted were two different things usually.
Your extreme literalist approch is blinding you to the actual facts. But besides all of this you have failed to demonstrate that he was a failure
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Brian, posted 12-24-2009 2:05 PM Brian has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 52 of 427 (540388)
12-24-2009 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Brian
12-24-2009 2:47 PM


Re: propaganda
A long established custom that is not supported in ANY external source and is very doubtful by just using common sense.
Thats the point Brian, so much of the NTs history is fact, there is no reason to consider this as unreliable. there are many things in history we dont even bother to question as reliable, but consider them as plusible because they are attached to reliable facts.
Your elimination of inspiration and divine guidance in these matters only weakens your case.
So even more of this ‘it may have been’ or ‘we do not have evidence for yet’, or’ just because there’s no evidence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen’ excuses.
Do you realise that all these if and buts and maybes that you and other xians trot out simply strengthens my position. There’s tons of evidence, strong evidence against Jesus being the messiah, and what is the evidence for it? Wishful thinking that’s about all. Stuff like unknown adoption laws and invisible kingdoms do not support Jesus claims.
You can have Jesus as a messiah, but don’t confuse Him with the Messiah of the OT, He clearly wasn’t.
Comical, you move from the prophecies, to which I have now demonstrated are very resonable as a fulfillment by christ to some isolated incident to try and demonstrate christ was a failure.
Brian, unknown this or that in refernce to isolated laws customs habits and practices and a COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING of the INVISIBLE KINGDOM AS YOU PUT it, dont add up to the scriptures as unreliable and jesus as a failure.
You have not even began to demonstrate from any internal perspective that Christ was not a king and that he did not and still does have a kingdom. Your perspective is from a misguided apologetic
Answer this very simple question. its it possible you, like others have missed the meaning and purposes of the prophecies and that they can have a spiritual and dual meaning if Gods purposes and intentions are what matter ultimately? example, please explain what the author meant and who he was talking about in Gen 3:15
how can anyone reading the scriptures not see and get a spiritual meaning in just about anything in both the Old and New Testaments
But the thing is EMA what you have swallowed hook, line and sinker about the Bible being substantiated at some point is actually the complete opposite of the truth.
I’ll stick my neck out here and say that roughly 95% of the archeological evidence unearthed in the last 100 years actually undermines the Bible.
The enslavement in Egypt — disproven.
The Exodus — disproven.
The Desert Sojourn — disproven
Conquest of Canaan — Disproven
United kingdom of David — disproven.
The list goes on and on and on.
And you have bought hook line and sinker that these things have been demonstrated as absolutley false. you and I can trout out author after author that will provide evidence or what seems to be evidence in the opposite direction, your evidence will sway you and mine will go ok thats plausible. for example the number usage principle that was employed in the number of people that left Egypt and wandered throught the desert. Ive been there and done all of that, none of it demonstrates Jesus as a failure or the bible as unreliable
here is another comical point. with one breath you use the Old testament like a skilled weapon (ignorantly though, considering your understanding of prophecy) to try and disprove Christ. Yet you pick and choose out of it, things that are in question and use as proof the same source to explain what the author meant and you you do this with the utmost confidence that the author must be saying and talking about what you are suggesing and that your interpretation must be the authors and hardly believe that that author was the author or that the book from which it is taken is even reliable. Yet you are CONFIDENT THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION MUST BE THE CORRECT ONE Now thats some strange logic
For the love of God EMA the NT blames the Jews for killing Jesus. Stop being so ignorant.
do you actually pay attention to any arguments and statements people make or do you continue to ramble on with your own points. obviously when the NT says jews it doesnt mean ALLLLLLLL jews. Jesus was jew, his followeres were Jews, his relations were jews, the people that did not want him crucified were Jews, the people that were converted to him before he was crucified were jews and the list goes on and on.
Any tyro in logic should be able to deduce that a certain number of people of that ethnic background desired him dead, for whatever reasons. Even thought it is not stated directly we may say that a bunch of Italians, including those that particapated were also responsible for his death. the term Jews when applied to this incident does not mean all jews, simply that they as a people rejected gods plan for his people. brian you can stop being the drama queen on this point at any point
I suppose we all study the Bible in different ways. Some of us want to discover the truth about it, others are scared from the truth and study it as if it is some magical document, come into the light EMA
Ahhhh and herein lies the real problem, I knew it would manifest its ugly head at some point. Its not about History, its not about facts, it not about archeology, its not about reliability. do you remember in a previous discussion with me you stated that it doesnt matter if every single point of the bible could be verified, it wouldnt prove that it was from God. ahhhh therein lies the problem.
but its not a magical document its a spiritual document for spiritual purposes. You will never see the meaning behind it looking at it from a strickly, notice I said strickly a clinical standpoint.
as Iam teaching people sometimes I tell them there are atheists not because there are not good and valid reasons for bel;ieving in him, its simply that they cannot wrap thier mind around a being without beginning or end. this blocks thier mind from any possible solution to the delimma. atleast it did for bertrand russel.
In the same way its not really about whether things in the scriptures can be verified, its about a total lack of willingness to believe in the Spirit world or God himself, thats drives the controversy and it is the real barrier
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Brian, posted 12-24-2009 2:47 PM Brian has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 55 of 427 (540414)
12-24-2009 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
12-24-2009 4:59 AM


So what you are saying is that you can look at the Gospels, find some similarity with an OT text and then CLAIM that the older text is a prophecy - without any basis in the OT text at all. What's more you don't even acknowledge that this claim can be challenged.
Well that may work for you and others who need to shore up their belief that Jesus actually fulfilled prophecy. But from a rational perspective it simply doesn't work. It's not something that would be found by an honest and objective study of the Bible. The fact that you need to do it at all just emphasises Brian's point.
No Im NOT saying anything, the gospel writers made these claims not myself. you can see the difference between me saying something and the gospel writers saying something correct, if not Ill slow down and say it in a much simpler way if thats possible.
By me and others I expect you dont mean the gospel writers correct? besides this you can challenge anything you wish. You do realize that I and brian have been debating this issue and we have been responding to eachohters arguments correct? That would constitute him challenging my points of view.
just a quick question here did you have anything of real value to add here or were just being silly. I sure hope it was deliberate sillness. If not, uh oh.
From what rational perspective does this seem not to work. I assume your a bible scholar like Brian correct?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 12-24-2009 4:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 12-25-2009 3:39 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
(1)
Message 56 of 427 (540415)
12-24-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by lyx2no
12-24-2009 4:45 PM


Re: propaganda
Jews killing the Christ has been used as an excuse to murder them and kick them out of half the countries in Euroupe, half the colleges in America and other atrocities. Don't you, like, read much?
I only need to read the bible to know that these actions are in violation of christs teachings
where did jesus tell anyone to do this, if I am not mistaken he said, Father forgive them for they know not what they do. trying to confuse what people choose to do aside from Christs simply teachings has led to much misunderstanding about Christianity. My guess is that its the same sort of misunderstanding like that of the misguided apologetic, meanings and purposes of prophecy
You're right I wouldn't understand the teachings or principles of the Bible have attended Catholic schools for the last 10 years because they keep making up excuses for the Schizoid God too.
Then just read the bible, then see if it corresponds to what someone teaches
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by lyx2no, posted 12-24-2009 4:45 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 58 of 427 (540420)
12-24-2009 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
12-24-2009 8:58 PM


Re: The real Suffering Servant
EAM writes:
I love reading much of Buzzsaws material but he dead wrong in thinking Christ is not now a King or that he does not now have a Kingdom. read Matt 16 and Acts cahpter 2.
Brian writes:
You'll also find that Buz is mistaken 99% of the time so don't be too concerned.
buz, i wanted it to be known that while you and I may have some different points of view about gods plans for Israel and the end times, I do not NOT consider you a brother in christ. i think people that are in christ can have different views on such things
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2009 8:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2009 10:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 60 of 427 (540425)
12-25-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by lyx2no
12-24-2009 4:45 PM


Re: propaganda
I get a lot more complaints because I won't go away then I do for hit-and-run so I'll guess I'm just about right.
We wish you a merry Christmas, we wish you a merry x-mas, weeeee wish youuuu a merrrry Christmas and a happy New year
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by lyx2no, posted 12-24-2009 4:45 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 61 of 427 (540426)
12-25-2009 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Iblis
12-24-2009 11:02 PM


Re: The real Suffering Servant
It isn't even so much allegory as light euphemism. The archetypal Man and Woman have just had their first experience with the sexual act, the "forbidden fruit" which is the source of adult rights and responsibilities (the knowledge of good and evil.) The first consequence is immediate physical soreness. The "serpent" (male sexual organ), which had stood surprisingly upright, now droops down and its head is bruised from the breaking of the hymen, which also results in the female sexual organ ("heel") being wounded, ie shedding blood.
This is confirmed by the consequences which follow. The Woman will bear a child, which is a painful and unpleasant process. Bringing children into the world and the responsibility that entails affects not only the mother but also the Man, who must work hard for the rest of his life to care for his offspring.
allllrighty then, about the only thing i agree with here is that satan is a straight up, you know what. I already feel dirty responding to this one.
Ill go ahead and trust inspiration verses this insightful interpretation by a clear skeptic. Why should I accept this as the interpretation, since it is no where explicated in any other passages in scripture?
Also, when say, a person like Autunman provides another interpretation that seems to fit, whos will I choose? So you dont know that it does not refer to the Messiah and one could certainly say that it appears as such. Then we have the confirmation of inspiration through the NT writers. if you accept this as the interpretation of the writer, in the OT, and you seem to think this is the correct one, what is your system you are employing to come to this conclusion.
also, while i dont agree with this interpretation and it very may well be the correct one, if the story is only a poetic expression, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with it being a reference to the future Messiah and his actions.
It seems that only inspiration in the form of the NT would be able to assist us in knowing this, correct? for now I will stick with divine guidance, unless you can demonstrate why i should limit it to your very interesting interpretation.
This even though Matthew and Hebrews go to any lengths available to twist every Old Testament prophecy they can around to serve this purpose.
It appeared in your post that you were getting ready to demonstrate that these prophecies could not have dual meanings, but you quickly switched gears, or lost steam. Again, since the writers of the NT claim inspiration and were in a much better position , especially Paul to demonstrate the invalidity of these prohecies as refering to Christ, Ill go with thier claims of inspiration verses your loose interpretations, that for all intents and purposes proceed from a skeptical point of view as to reliability of even the passage you are interpreting.
Genesis 3:15 is not referenced as referring to the Messiah at any point in the New Testament. This even though Matthew and Hebrews go to any lengths available to twist every Old Testament prophecy they can around to serve this purpose. It simply won't work even for them,
Since most if not all of the Old Testament writers and characters considered the story in Gen as literal, your statement is not valid. The refernce to the serpent in the garden in other passages in scripture would invalidate your conclusion about it not NECESSARILY refering to Christ. If satan was real and he was in the form of a serpent, then the passage may very well and most likely does refer to Christ
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 11:02 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Iblis, posted 12-25-2009 9:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 63 of 427 (540439)
12-25-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
12-25-2009 3:39 AM


It would be more to the point to ask whether you have anything rational to contribute. Most of your posts in this thread seem to consist of an angry and arrogant attack on anyone who dares to disagree with your dogma.
Statements like this are designed to create prejudice and ignore the fact that I have responded and presented soild evidence to the contrary of brians arguments. Namley that Christ was a failure because he did not fulfill prophecies attributed to him. He simply doesnt understand Gods methods, Gods intentions and gods purposes through the prophets of Old. If you dont believe me listen to Peter
1Peter 1
"6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 8 whom having not seen[a] you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 receiving the end of your faiththe salvation of your souls.
10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us[b] they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaventhings which angels desire to look into."
Pay close attention to verse 12 that in all most no uncertain terms implies a dual nature of prophecy. As I stated to you before Paul Im not making things up and I do have some knowledge of these matters after a quite a few years of study
You can find a few cases where Matthew does something of the sort, but in general most of these "prophecies" are not explicitly identified by the Gosple writers. And none of them explicitly endorse the method. So it IS you saying it, not the Gospel writers.
(Not that an endorsement by the Gospel writers would make the practice any less dishonest)
Do you still believe that none of the NT writers endorse the method. Look at the things Peter is asserting. They wrote by the Holy Spirit a dual program, they were still in control yet guided by the Holy Spirit. it clearly had some meaning to them, yet had an expanded meaning about Christ. The writer concerning the suffering servant would have certainly saw a meaning in and for Israel, yet God as he always did HAD A LARGER EXPANDED MEANING IN THE PROPHECIES, regarless of whether the writer understood its full implications. Imagine that, God pulling off such a neat program.
but all of this is symbiotic in nature anyway. When you speak of Israel as the suffering servant, you are speaking about Christ and God. Anyone reading or studying the scriptures should be able to deduce that is all about God, regardless of who the writer is, of what he speaking or whatever century he is speaking. when you view the scriptures and specfically the prophecies from this perspective, it all makes perfect sense.
I didnt say anything Peter did
If you or brian choose not to believe this that is your choice
However I am making the rational and sensible point that your "correct" understanding of prophecy is nothing more than a rationalisation produced by strong bias.
really, well i would suggest that instead of reasserting your original contention in other words, simply demonstrate it.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 12-25-2009 3:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 12-25-2009 11:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024