Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?

quote:

---

If the scripture is warning us to beware of prophets who prophecy out of their own imagination (and/or spirit) than it appears that the common man needs to be aware of the difference between a Divine message and a vain one.

---

And God gave directions on how to discern a true prophet from a false one. He did not include divine wisdom.

quote:

---

Deut 32:21
To me, this foretells of a time when Gentiles will understand God better than Jews do.

---

Read what is before that in the song. Pretty much a tit for tat scenerio.What they do to God he will do to them and worse if they don't obey his commands. Doesn't say the vile nation ever understands.Still nothing about needing to receive divine wisdom to understand what a prophet is saying.You are saying that it is needed, but God isn't.

quote:

---

To them, He surely MUST have had a natural Father.

---

Still doesn't say they thought he was a bastard.The Pharisees had challenged the testimony of Jesus because he was appearing as his own witness. (John 8:13)Jesus said "In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." (John 8:17)Logically the Pharisees will ask "Where is your father."This has nothing to do with them thinking he was a bastard. A brick short of a load, maybe, but not a bastard.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

sorry to butt in, but you wrote something that caught my eye : I assume you're referring to Rom 7:6 and 2Cr 3:6. If yes, then I think you're taking this totally out of context. This is not about choosing to follow your heart over a literal interpretation of the scriptures, as you make it out to be. Paul is addressing the Roman/Greek world here and emphasises that the new covenant is not built on following the (jewish) law, but is built on the grace of the spirit of God. The Jews who had become Christians thought they still had to keep the law. So, Paul explained that they had died in Christ. Once freed from the law, they could serve God motivated by love, not fear of death.Jesus himself relies on quoting scripture on a number of occasions. He also says to search the scriptures to find truth (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:16).Also:
"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9).Overall, the Bible advocates looking at the words, not your heart / tradition to find the truth. I think that's exactly what Pd and Arach are doing.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Thanks for this scripture. I couldn't think of the right words to search for it myself, but it is the scriptural answer to purpledawn about the Jews' accusations of Jesus' illegitimacy.

quote:

---

John 8:19-24= Then they asked him, "Where is your father?"
===
"You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."in other words, if you were of the right Spirit, you would know my Father and you would know that I am telling you the truth.

---

Their asking "where is your father" is an indication of the attitude many of the Jews had to Jesus.What else could be expected of naturally minded men anyway? If his mother had him before she was married and Joseph was said not to be his father what would they think?Mostly the Jewish attitude that Jesus was a bastard is established by references to the Talmud but these references are hard to pin down as apparently, oddly enough, the Church had them erased from the Talmud at one point.Of course this very accusation helps to lead us back to the truth that Jesus was literally the Son of God.

Which shows once again that the Bible is simply a document written by man to meet man's needs.Thank you Faith.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Mostly the Jewish attitude that Jesus was a bastard is established by references to the Talmud but these references are hard to pin down as apparently, oddly enough, the Church had them erased from the Talmud at one point.
========
Which shows once again that the Bible is simply a document written by man to meet man's needs.

​

Thank you Faith.

---

Erasing a blasphemy from the Talmud, crazy though it was, proves that the Bible is written by men? It does not follow.

If GOD is the kind of person who would be concerned about Jesus being called a Bastard (which was not a very great problem in those times anyway) He certainly is a small and insignificant critter. Why if it weren't for Bastards we would not have the Smithsonian.LOLFurthermore, until you can show where the Talmud was redacted to take out scripture, scripture written by those very scribes you describe as being so meticulous and careful, I think you're simply blowing smoke.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If GOD is the kind of person who would be concerned about Jesus being called a Bastard (which was not a very great problem in those times anyway) He certainly is a small and insignificant critter. Why if it weren't for Bastards we would not have the Smithsonian.
LOL

---

Who said anything about God's being concerned about anything? Ultimately he certainly will punish blasphemies, but for now calling Jesus a bastard is a great testimony to His Deity.

quote:

---

Furthermore, until you can show where the Talmud was redacted to take out scripture, scripture written by those very scribes you describe as being so meticulous and careful, I think you're simply blowing smoke.

---

The Talmud is not scripture so there's no way scripture could have been redacted from it.

quote:

---

There is simply too much going on here to take the time to examine a single passage like this, but I believe just reading through it makes it clear that at some point there's no way it can be continuing to refer to the present situation with Ahaz.

---

Except that this is a very important one on various levels.So you contend that there were two virgin births.God had two sons. One at the time of Ahaz and then Jesus.

quote:

---

"Immanuel" means God with us, certainly a Messianic title. It may also be somebody's name.

---

So there was another messiah before Jesus?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

No, the opposite, as what I say above implies: It can't be talking about a virgin birth in the present situation with Ahaz. It is clearly another context that has entered, a sign of God's favor to Israel in the distant future, and it was historically understood as a messianic prophecy.Here's the outline comment on the passage by Chuck Smith at the Blue Letter Bible site: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible This is referring ONLY to the future when it mentions the virgin birth. This birth has NO relevance to Ahaz's own time. There is no other mention of it in connection with Ahaz. It's obviously a messianic prophecy to anyone who understands scripture. Not according to me. No, this is messianic prophecy and only messianic prophecy of Jesus.

this is a TRANSLATION issue. the hebrew does not say "virgin" in the isaiah verse. this lets us know that matthew was reading the greek text. curious, huh?now, if it didn't actually say "virgin" in isaiah, how is jesus's birth by a virgin a fulfillment of that? it's just not. it's a fulfillment of matthew's INCORRECT reading of the text.very suspicious for reality to fit a mistake, don't you think? ...maybe it didn't.it's kind of silly to say "god made it all work out!" when what god would be doing is going along with a misreading of his own prophesies given to isaiah for ahaz. it sounds like someone is trying to hide the details. but it DOESN'T mention virgin birth. it mentions *A* birth, of a child named immanuel. he is the sign that god is with judah, and that within about 13 years ahaz king of judah will win his war. that's how it's connected to ahaz.to read it as a prophesy about a virgin giving birth is not a mistake of translation. but reading the prophesy in the wrong direction. the birth is not the point of the prophesy. the war is.and chuck smith is wrong.

actually, the talmud IS scripture. it's the oral law, companian to the torah. it's a set of additional tradions regarding the text of the tanakh that often dates back several thousand years.it's more or less the hebrew version of paul's epsitles. if those are scripture, so is the talmud. take your pick, i'm fine with eliminating both.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-18-2005 07:08 PM

quote:

---

and chuck smith is wrong.

---

Along with Matthew and Paul and all the Creeds of the Church through the centuries, and all the Church Fathers, and all the Puritans and all the evangelicals and Luther and Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and everybody who is anybody in Christian history. Funny so many could be wrong about the meaning of a Bible passage, and you so right.

this is why i suspect paul was not actually jewish.to my knowledge, jews follow the law out of love, respect, and duty to god. not fear.

Your views are consistently Jewish. Christians do not regard the Talmud as scripture.

quote:

---

This is not about choosing to follow your heart over a literal interpretation of the scriptures, as you make it out to be.

---

Not at all what I was saying. Following the spirit is the OPPOSITE of following your deceitful heart. In fact it is the deceitful human heart that leads people to do things like follow the letter rather than the spirit.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-18-2005 07:14 PM