Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 76 of 427 (540644)
12-27-2009 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Brian
12-26-2009 11:20 AM


Re: Blind leading the blind
Let’s get this straight, when Yahweh told Nathan to inform David that his house would last forever and that the Messiah would come from the bloodline of Solomon, then that’s not really what Yahweh meant?
Why would God tell the Jewish nation to expect a physical kingdom and then give them many prophecies that would allow them to identify the Messiah, and then send a Messiah that is NOTHING at all like the Messiah foretold in the prophecies that Yahweh gave?
Where did God ever say it was a physical kingdom, and physical freedom that the Messiah himself would rule over. Davids kingdom was certainly physical. The kingdom that he promised before the messiah was certainly physical. yes God meant what he said, its simply that the Messiah was king in and for a kingdom that while in the world, was not a kingdom in the traditional sense.
Zechariah 9:9, says he would be king, bringing salvation, but not salvation from physical enemies in the form of the Messiah. The passages would have had an immediate and physical aspect and effect through the physical present physical king, but God was reaching deeper in the prphecies to get the people to see a deeper need of salvation, through a King that COULD AND WOULD provide more than physical freedom in the form of salvation from thier sins.
Only God as described in the form of Christ in the NT is understood UNMISTAKENLY in Isa 9:6-7, could accomplish this task
"For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will beno end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."
Isa 53; desribes the nature of and purpose of his kingdom, to SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THIER SINS
Christ confirms that his kingdom is NOT of this world, the kingdom is within you. Not a physical kingdom of boarders and civil precepts, but a spiritual kingdom.
paul states in Col 1:13, "He has translated us out of the power of darkness into thekingdom of his dear son. all writers Old and New describe the nature and purpose of the messiah.
In the same way the Jews did not understand why God did not want them to have an earthly king, they also misunderstood the nature of the SALVATION, and from what, the Messiahs kingship, would deliver them.
It was never the desire that the Children of God be in bondage in a physical sense, and he usually delivered them from that bondage depending upon thier faithfulness. yet there was something much more important at stake, in the form of a deliver, as desribed by the messiah in the form of God as man, as described in Isa 9:6-7
Davids throne will and does last forever, but not in the physical sense.
The Jews had been promised a Messiah who would free them from their enemies and set up his throne in Jerusalem, a great warrior, and when Jesus FAILED to achieve any of this you are seriously saying that the Jewish people are at fault for not understanding their own scriptures?
your reading into it, PHYSICAL. the freedom that God desired was much more than physical. God gave them both freedom from thier physical enemies and freedom from thier sins. how can a person that conquered SIN and DEATH be a failure in any sense of the word.
Have you ever considered that this whole spiritual kingdom is an excuse for someone who failed to fulfil the messianic expectation of Israel?
I have not hesitated in that direction for a single second. Gods purposes and plans are ALWAYS GREATER than our expectations. Through the inspiration provided in the NT, the prophecies come alive, with the clearest of understanding. Even a gentile reading the Old testament prophecies can deduce that something MORE than physical freedom from enemies is under consideration.
So yet another incident that has no support in the historical record, but does have a huge amount of evidence against it, yet you will accept the one that suits your faith even although it is the weakest position.
can you not see the simple point, that for you to claim that jesus was a failure because he did not fulfill a single prophecy and you use as your source some unreliable Old testament books, as you claim they are, is both contradictory and nonsensical.
if your sources are unreliable yet you use them and your dogmatic interpretations as justification for jesus being a failure, you are commiting the same falacy of which you are accusing me. Certainly your are not so simple that you cannot see this point.
If your sources are unreliable, how do you know that anything siad in your sources is worth believing in the first place, muchless whether jesus WAS, or was or was not a failure
We seem to have this constant supply of unsupported incidents that may be true if this or that was the case. Your Jesus guy seems to rely on this ambiguity quite a lot doesn’t He?
right back at you
The thing that you appear to be unaware of is that we can check the validity of the text when it makes claims that would leave a ‘fingerprint’ on the historical record. When we see that the Messiah would sit on the throne of Israel then we can look at the historical record as a way of verifying this particular criterion.
Not if you miss the nature, purpose and results of the messiahship
There are very good records for the time and area that Jesus was living in, we know for a fact that there was no king of Israel during His time, so your thinly veiled claim of antithesis on my part is irrelevant. I am not using the scripture to deny scripture. I am using historical records to show that a claim made in scripture is historically inaccurate. This doesn’t mean that the entire collection of books are inaccurate because each claim has to be scrutinized on its own merits. Now when the OT claims that the Messiah will be crowned king of Israel then there is no need to reject this as it is not implausible that there could be future kings of Israel, this is not a remarkable claim, and this claim may indeed still come true.
Which, if any king of Israel before the Messiah was described as saving his people from thier sins, A Mighty God, eternal father?
does that sound spiritual to you?
"1Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
Does this sound spiritual in nature to you Brian, or are you going to be willfully silly.
Now here it is from the NT again,
Col 1:13, "He has translated us from the power of darkness (our sins as desribed in Isa) into the KINGDOM of his dear Son"
A King and a kingdom, but dont look for it in the annuals of history. the inspired writers of the NT however, do speak of it and detail it.
since you asked here it is again from the NT
Ephesians chapter 1
"15 For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and the love which ye show toward all the saints,
16 cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him;
18 having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 and what the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might
20 which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places,
21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church,
23 which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."
does this sound familiar in text to that of Isa 53? does this sound like a kingdom of rule and spiritual in nature to you brian?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Brian, posted 12-26-2009 11:20 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Brian, posted 12-28-2009 7:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 77 of 427 (540646)
12-27-2009 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brian
12-23-2009 6:11 AM


What's up with Matthew
We also have to consider the reliability of the Gospel of Matthew given the whole range of errors that the author of Matthew makes regarding the OT prophecies, he pulls so many out of context and invents quite a few of his own that we really need to question how useful this book is for reconstructing the past.
As you know, I don't believe these are "errors" in Matthew at all. My position is that he knew exactly what he was doing. In order to understand this, it's necessary to understand not only his sources but also his setting. He has Sayings material in common with Luke, not only that which they tend to agree on almost word for word (Q) but also that which Luke uses totally differently (M); and all three synoptics have Narrative content in common which constitutes nearly the entirety of Mark (K). But he is doing his own job, in a way that sometimes differs wildly from the way the other Evangelists handle their text.
Matthew is working, probably in Antioch, against sets of rival teachers commonly grouped as "Judaizers" like the Brethren, Ebionites, and Mandeans. These are the folks who want to make the emerging Gentile Christianity into a sect of Judaism, urging them to conform to the written and oral Law and observe practices like circumcision and kosher diet and so forth. This conflict forms much of the plot of the Acts of the Apostles and orthodox position papers reflecting the allowable extremes of the argument are found throughout the New Testament, particularly in Romans, James and Hebrews.
The fact that the teachings of these proto-heretics are a distortion of real Judaism is not a problem for Matthew. He is perfectly willing to fight them with their own weapons! Seen in this light, it becomes obvious that Matthew is systematically working to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah expected by these Judaizers.
Let's examine a couple of famous tongue-in-cheek constructions from toward the beginning of the Gospel, to see how this works:
Matthew 1:22-25
The Messiah proclaimed by the Judaizers should be named "Immanuel";
Jesus is named "Jesus".
Matthew 2:23
The alleged Messiah would be a Nazarite, a member of a Jewish order ordained in the Law to maintain strict ritual cleanliness, not cut their hair, never drink wine, and refrain from approaching dead bodies;
Jesus is a Nazarene, inhabitant of an area that throughout the first century functioned as a mausoleum, unclean for any legalistic Jew and profoundly unclean for the snotty, longhaired, make-up-a-new-oral-law-every-day Judaizers.
See the idea? These sort of reconstructions aren't unfamiliar to the Hebrew scholar, they in fact bear a strong resemblance to a lot of the (mostly) minority opinions found in the Mishna and Gemara.
Here's a nice parody of this line of thought from the Babylonian Talmud which is particularly suited for this thread:
Sanhedrin 43a writes:
Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?37 Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.38 When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?39 Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki40 [the innocent] slay.41 When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots.42 Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot].43 When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born?44 Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born.45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]?46 Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me.47
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html
Note in this passage that Matthew, the only recognizable disciple, is also the one whose alternative interpretations are closest in meaning. This reflects the fact that while he departs from the literal interpretation, he does so much less than his rivals on either side, as seen also in the texts from Qumran in one direction and those of Nag Hammadi in the other.
Hebrews and the other position statements also tend to operate in this same current of thought, although in a much more relaxed and positive way. Any attempt to understand prophecy in the New Testament without a proper grasp of this situation can only lead over the same cliff the Judaizers fell off of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 6:11 AM Brian has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 78 of 427 (540650)
12-27-2009 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dawn Bertot
12-26-2009 10:58 AM


quote:
This becoming a bit tedious
I am sorry if your powers of invention are becoming exhausted. But really, if youmust make up excuses you could at least try to make up credible excuses which don't rely on assuming the truth of your religion.
quote:
instead of wasting my time responding to your entire post, to which i have already several times now,
Since the major point of my last post was exposing the fallacy in your previous post it is rather obvious that you have NOT answered anything like all of it.
quote:
will simplfy it to bring it back into perspective and hopefully be able to engage in a discussion with someone that actually understands Bible doctrine. As I said before I dont want to be rude but it appears you understand very little about bible doctrine and you fail to realze this is a Bible Study thread
If you are utterly opposed to takin an objective reading of the Bible, instead insisting that it must be read assuming Christian doctrine you may simply say so. However you should recognise that there is a difference between knowing Christian doctrine and not believing it. Nor does Bible study require assent to Christian doctrine.
quote:
two basic premises have been offered in my and brians discussion, one by him, that Jesus is a failure because he did not fulfill prophecy. he and yourself have offered no objective evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
This is quite simply false. We know, for instance that Jesus did not take the throne of Israel and that Israel did not even survive as a political entity past the Bar Kochba revolt. This is objective. The issues over the genealogies are also objective.
quote:
stated that he does not understand the nature and purpose of prophecy, if he did he would understand that christ (if he was alive, existed and actually participated in the action he is said to have) did actually fulfill these prophcies.
Which is based on doctrine neither I, nor Brian believe. Look at teh title of the thread. This thread is about Brian giving reasons to support his opinion, not about providing absolute proof.
quote:
Now, Paulk, pay close attention Son. Brian said in no uncertain terms, that "Jesus saaaaaaaaid he was a king and yet we know that he had no kingdom." Do you understand he is quoting jesus out of the Gospels assuming his existence and that jesus made this statement. based upon this fact, we can assume that for the sake of argument that he would allow the other things Jesus said and attributed to him.
You should be very careful making that assumption - even if you have not left out any important context (and it would hardly surprise me if you had). Even assuming that Brian considers that saying authentic there is no guarantee that he considers all sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels as authentic. And, of course, what Jesus said is very unlikely to be of relevance to the debate.
quote:
yes brian is appealing to the text, and so am I, but he is appealing to a text he does not even believe as reliable, even in the Old Testament in context of both the old and the New to try and deduce whether maybe according to the text, Christ met the requirements of the prophecies.
OK, if you want to argue that that saying is not authentic you might be able to come up with a case. But somehow I don't think that you want to do that. And it wouldn't be a very strong case anyway, because what Jesus said is not very relevant.
quote:
I then stated that the prophecies are dual in nature because it is and has always been about, through and for God, Christ, Israel, etc, etc, etc. I offered Peter as an example of how this worked. While Peters explanation is valid and applicable for any thinking person that understands these matters, you complained it was not a Gospel writer. I will now offer prophecies that are dual in natur to demonstrate this point.
Now you are telling untruths again. You specifically insisted that the gospel writers supported your "dual" reading. When I disagreed you THEN offered only 1 Peter - and misrepresented my position, too. Clearly you were wrong when you claimed support from the gospels, clearly you have told falsehoods to try to conceal your error. Is this a Christian way of behaving ?
So let me make it absolutely clear the ONLY reason for pointing out that 1 Peter is not a gospel was that you claimed support from the gospel authoers and were not honest enough to admit your error - even stooping to misrepresentation in an attempt to conceal it. To attempt to paint this as an irrelevant objection to your use of 1 Peter - as you have just done - is a further instance of dishonesty.
As to your point all that need be said is that if it had "always" worked this way you should find plenty of OT examples. Instead you look only at the NT. Moreover when we look at the actual examples it seems that "dual interpretation" is a rather generous look at the matter. Ripping small pieces of text out of their context hardly semms like a valid method of interpretation at all.
quote:
In Matthew chapter 2, the writer, states "this was done to fulfill the prophecy, out of Egypt have I called my Son". Now, any thinking person can see that this has application to both Israel which is also Gods chosen son and to Christ. the writer of the time and its hearers would have understood it to mean Israel, then, inspiration of the holy Spirit reveals that its truest meaning is about Christ. Christ thus fulfills the prophecy and Brian is incorrect, atleast from a biblical perspective.
And any person who has followed this discussion would see that I had already said that there were examples in Matthew. However, aside from the point that the event Matthew refers to is likely a legend with no basis in fact, simple endorsement by NT writers is only sufficient to those who start by assuming Christian doctrine.
quote:
If the lost of Israel aare being converted to Christ, literally thousands upon thousands through the centuries his plan has succeded and he can hardly be considered a failure, except by those that are ignorant of Gods methods and purposes.
Let me put is simply. Despite your condescending attitude, the turth of Christian doctrine is simply a belief you hold. Others disagree. If your claim that Jesus was not a failure relies on assuming Christian doctrine that you implicitly concede that non-Christians can legitimately consider Jesus to be a failure - and here, I refer you back to the title of thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-26-2009 10:58 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2009 12:47 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 80 by Iblis, posted 12-27-2009 3:41 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 79 of 427 (540675)
12-27-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by PaulK
12-27-2009 5:43 AM


I am sorry if your powers of invention are becoming exhausted. But really, if youmust make up excuses you could at least try to make up credible excuses which don't rely on assuming the truth of your religion.
No No, you misunderstand, there is simply nothing more here that you have offered that I have not already addressed. its tedious because your approach is a waste of time.
let me demonstrate.
EAM writes:
In Matthew chapter 2, the writer, states "this was done to fulfill the prophecy, out of Egypt have I called my Son". Now, any thinking person can see that this has application to both Israel which is also Gods chosen son and to Christ. the writer of the time and its hearers would have understood it to mean Israel, then, inspiration of the holy Spirit reveals that its truest meaning is about Christ. Christ thus fulfills the prophecy and Brian is incorrect, atleast from a biblical perspective.
PaulK writes:
And any person who has followed this discussion would see that I had already said that there were examples in Matthew. However, aside from the point that the event Matthew refers to is likely a legend with no basis in fact, simple endorsement by NT writers is only sufficient to those who start by assuming Christian doctrine.
Well Paul, if there are examples in Matthew (as you agree)that demonstrate the point that I am making, (dual nature of prophecy) what else do I need to do, to demonstrate MY POINT. first you complain about Peter, which demonstrates my point, then I cite passages out of the gospels, you argee with, then complain I have not demonstrated my point.
I noticed you did not demonstrate why my point and illustration from matthew were not valid, you only complained about it being christian doctrine. you do realize that one is only a complaint and I am still waiting for a response as to why Matt 2 and 3 do not constitute a dual usage of Prophecy, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Christian doctrine.
This is what i meant when I said this is tedious and I will expand it to the point now that your post in this connection are a waste of my time. I give you example after example and all you do is attack the concepts of Christianity and its doctrine.
here is a simple question. If Jesus existed actually went down into Egypt and God called them out of Egypt. Could the passage in that is quoted by Matthew apply both to Israel coming out of Egypt and Christ if God is involved in the process?
does it appear a dual usage is under contemplation here?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 12-27-2009 5:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 12-28-2009 4:25 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 80 of 427 (540685)
12-27-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by PaulK
12-27-2009 5:43 AM


What's up with Peter
You specifically insisted that the gospel writers supported your "dual" reading. When I disagreed you THEN offered only 1 Peter - and misrepresented my position, too.
I predicted this whole performance already in Message 40. Talk about prophecy!
Peter specifically says, contrary to the position being argued by his alleged followers, that no prophecy has any sort of hidden later double meaning unknown to the prophet. To understand what he means by this, let's look at his context
Second Peter 1:16-20 writes:
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Notice that the main example of prophecy that Peter is talking about in this passage isn't some pun from Isaiah, it's a vision he personally had himself. His argument is that, just like the OT prophets, he is in charge of his own material! Other people are twisting things around and making bizarre claims, that he is the Rockof Ages for example. Look how he deals with these mockers here
First Peter 2:6-8 writes:
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
and here
Second Peter 2:17-22 writes:
These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
and especially here.
Second Peter 3:14-16 writes:
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
The reason that Peter is using Old Testament prophecy in his epistles is because that is what his opponents are doing, and they are twisting them around to mean whatever they want them to mean. If this is to be allowed, well then, he can do a better job of it, being much more learned, and a prophet in his own right besides! But the people he is against, the ones perverting the word, are the same people Paul is talking about when he complains about the "endless genealogies" that Matthew is parodying in his own sally against these same sleazy Torah-thumpers.
Words have meaning. They aren't interchangeable. They mean what they say they mean, not some other thing someone afterward built a complicated, unstable Jenga blind-faith religion on.
Matthew 7:26-27 writes:
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Edited by Iblis, : The ambition of Caesar and of Napoleon pales before that which could not rest until it had seized the minds of men and controlled even their unborn thoughts
Edited by Iblis, :

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 12-27-2009 5:43 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 81 of 427 (540718)
12-28-2009 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dawn Bertot
12-27-2009 12:47 PM


quote:
No No, you misunderstand, there is simply nothing more here that you have offered that I have not already addressed. its tedious because your approach is a waste of time.
If honestly and objectively reading the Bible is a waste of time, then there seems to be something wrong with the Bible. And taking a condescending attitude to anyone who attempts to do so is not much of an answer.
quote:
Well Paul, if there are examples in Matthew (as you agree)that demonstrate the point that I am making, (dual nature of prophecy) what else do I need to do, to demonstrate MY POINT. first you complain about Peter, which demonstrates my point, then I cite passages out of the gospels, you argee with, then complain I have not demonstrated my point.
Of course you fail to mention that you have reversed the chronological order of the two quotes and you have left out the context. But if you wish to say that your methodology of reading the Bible is correct then you will have to do rather better. If the author of Matthew took a fragment of OT text out of context and nmisrepresented it as a prediction of a fictional event it hardly demonstrates that such readings are valid.
quote:
I noticed you did not demonstrate why my point and illustration from matthew were not valid, you only complained about it being christian doctrine. you do realize that one is only a complaint and I am still waiting for a response as to why Matt 2 and 3 do not constitute a dual usage of Prophecy, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Christian doctrine.
Given that the whole nature of the method (ripping small pieces of text out of context and reinterpreting them to fit - at best a past event) is obviously questionable I really think that you need a stronger case for validity than "the anonymous guy who wrote Matthew did it". And I *did* point out that the alleged fulfillment was likely a complete fiction, which woulod seem to deal with the validity quite nicely.
Any "prediction" that relies on hindsight is dubious. Any "prediction" that relies on cherry-picking parts of the real prediction is dubious. Any reading of a text that relies on deliberately ignoring the context is dubious. And that assessment is generous. It is you who needs to make a case why such readings are "valid" when you would rightly object to them if they were used to support any point you disagreed with.
quote:
This is what i meant when I said this is tedious and I will expand it to the point now that your post in this connection are a waste of my time. I give you example after example and all you do is attack the concepts of Christianity and its doctrine.
By which you mean that since you cannot adequately answer my points you wish to bully me into shutting up. Failing that you will turn tail and run, all the while asserting your "victory".
Yes, I refuted your points. Yes I caught you in an obvious (and repeated) piece of dishonesty. If these things indicate that I am a "waste of your time" then you don't want honest discussion.
quote:
here is a simple question. If Jesus existed actually went down into Egypt and God called them out of Egypt. Could the passage in that is quoted by Matthew apply both to Israel coming out of Egypt and Christ if God is inolved in the process?
does it appear a dual usage is under contemplation here?
We cannot usefully identify whether a dual use is contemplated by the original author by referring to a hindsight interpretation. Even if the hindsight interpretation happens to fit the text (and refer to something that really happened - which is very unlikely in this case). We must go to the text being quoted (and your failure to do so is a major weakness in your case - a failure to even examine the most important evidence).
Matthew 2:15, the text you have referred to cites Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a youth I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.
This is clearly speaking of a past event, in the early days of Isreal as a "nation". There is no indication that it intends to also refer to a future event.
Verses 2 and 3 go on:
The more they called them,
The more they went from them;
They kept sacrificing to the Baals
And burning incense to idols.
Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk,
I took them in My arms;
But they did not know that I healed them.
Again it appears to be past events, that are referred to. And the NT Jesus seems to be more concerned with conflicts between Jewish sects than with Jews following pagan religions.
If we look further into the context it is clear that Hosea 11 is about the Assyrian conquest of Israel - and that is the only element phrased as a prediction.
So, I see no sign in Hosea 11 (or the preceding chapter) that "Matthew's" use is intended at all. Add to that the fact that the supposed fulfilment is in all probability a complete fiction and we have to ask what rational ground there is to possibly consider it valid.
Indeed, readings of this kind seem so obvious an afterthought that they were more likely concocted (in my view sincerely, but mistakenly) to give Jesus a connection to the OT which was largely lacking.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2009 12:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by purpledawn, posted 12-28-2009 6:34 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 84 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2009 10:36 AM PaulK has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 82 of 427 (540726)
12-28-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
12-28-2009 4:25 AM


Bible Satire
quote:
If the author of Matthew took a fragment of OT text out of context and misrepresented it as a prediction of a fictional event it hardly demonstrates that such readings are valid.
I still think that Matthew was written as a satire. The dual prophecy is a perfect example. The author was making fun of all the would be messiahs coming out of the woodwork trying to use prophecy to support their claim. Unfortunately, the Greeks took it seriously.
Satire in the Bible
The Gospels contain much satire. Religious hypocrites such as the Pharisees, are portrayed with satrical scorn. The speeches of Jesus are frequently satirical (Matthew 23, for example), as are the parables.
The ‘great masterpiece’ of biblical satire is the book of Jonah.
Genealogy
Mark carries no genealogy. Luke does not mention the women, which is normal. The women mentioned in the Matthew genealogy are rather questionable. An unusual group to bring forward and Luke didn't.
We also find that the genealogy doesn't stack up to what is written in Kings and Chronicles. Four generations seem to be omitted.
Luke did not support Matthew's genealogy. The point being that the investigator came up with different information and Matthew was trying to keep the numbers even.
Phony Fulfilments
This brings up the ever popular virgin birth which was already fulfilled by Isaiah's son, which the Jews would know.
Mark didn't have the birth story and Luke downplayed the impression that there was no sex between Joseph and Mary. Luke also doesn't bring up the name Immanuel. So the investigator again doesn't strongly support Matthew.
The prophecies brought out by Matthew don't hold water and aren't supported by the other two synoptics. (Out of Egypt 2:15, Nazarene 2:23, and Donkey Riding King 21:4-5.)
Dual prophecy was born from satire.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 12-28-2009 4:25 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Iblis, posted 12-28-2009 4:25 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 83 of 427 (540728)
12-28-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dawn Bertot
12-27-2009 2:56 AM


Re: Blind leading the blind
Where did God ever say it was a physical kingdom, and physical freedom that the Messiah himself would rule over.
Judaism does not have a spiritual kingdom. Judaism does not teach this, so how can they expect a spiritual kingdom when this concept is not a part of their faith?
Davids kingdom was certainly physical. The kingdom that he promised before the messiah was certainly physical. yes God meant what he said, its simply that the Messiah was king in and for a kingdom that while in the world, was not a kingdom in the traditional sense.
But, yet again, there is NOTHING in the OT to hint at this. They were promised a physical kingdom and they are still waiting on it.
Zechariah 9:9, says he would be king, bringing salvation, but not salvation from physical enemies in the form of the Messiah.
Why not? All I have here is you word for it and it is contrary to what Judaism teaches. Why should I believe you instead of centuries of Jewish thought?
The passages would have had an immediate and physical aspect and effect through the physical present physical king, but God was reaching deeper in the prphecies to get the people to see a deeper need of salvation, through a King that COULD AND WOULD provide more than physical freedom in the form of salvation from thier sins.
You seem to be doing very well in reading the mind of God EMA. Again though this claim is not even hinted at in the OT, again all we have is your word that this is what God meant because God cannot tell the Jewish nation exactly what He meant for some reason! Why on Earth would God play these silly games?
Only God as described in the form of Christ in the NT is understood UNMISTAKENLY in Isa 9:6-7, could accomplish this task
Isa 9:6 is about Hezekiah.
Christ confirms that his kingdom is NOT of this world, the kingdom is within you. Not a physical kingdom of boarders and civil precepts, but a spiritual kingdom.
That’s fine. But nothing to do with the OT.
In the same way the Jews did not understand why God did not want them to have an earthly king, they also misunderstood the nature of the SALVATION, and from what, the Messiahs kingship, would deliver them.
You really are a piece of work. You dismiss almost 3000 years of a nations faith as if it is nothing. You really think that the millions of followers of Judaism are all morons? Not a single one of them actually realised what God was trying to say to them because what God said to them he didn’t really mean! And what are you replacing this ancient faith with? Someone who achieved nothing at all that resembles the OT prophecies. What is your justification for that other than circular reasoning?
You seem unaware that people can lie and invent stories, but the stories that the NT invented would have had an impact on history and this is where we can confirm that Jesus failed. It even solidifies my stance when all we get are apologetics about concepts that are not even Jewish. We get excuses like ‘such and such a verse doesn’t really mean what it says’ and the reinterpretation of that verse is ludicrous.
Don’t you realize that if Jesus was the Messiah then the authors of the NT would not have had to misrepresent the OT on so many occasions? Why do you think the author of Matthew has over 50 prophecies taken out of context from the OT? The NT authors are simply making it up EMA, Jesus failed and they are protecting their own interests. Look at the stories the NT authors tell about Jesus, the miracles, the arrest, the trial, the crucifixion, the resurrection, all unadulterated garbage. Now compare it to the Jewish Messiah, how can there be such a difference? Is God some kind of retard that He cannot tell His people what to expect, how does God get it so wrong? What is the excuse for that? He did tell them but they misunderstood because God told them something that was 100% the opposite of what they were to expect? Jesus H EMA, how obvious does it have to be?
Davids throne will and does last forever,
It may well do, but Jesus cannot be the one on it. As you and every other xian has failed to do is to establish that bloodline, that fatal flaw. How can you ignore that, are you really so desperate to make this con man into something He wasn’t?
but not in the physical sense.
Ah, a little bit convenient that isn’t it considering Jesus failed first time around.
your reading into it, PHYSICAL. the freedom that God desired was much more than physical. God gave them both freedom from thier physical enemies and freedom from thier sins. how can a person that conquered SIN and DEATH be a failure in any sense of the word.
You are reading spiritual because that’s what you NEED to save your failed messiah. You have this crazy notion that Jews were somehow worried about an afterlife, I have no idea where you get this from.
I have not hesitated in that direction for a single second.
Here we find the problem. You really are not interested in the truth, this is why you cannot see the obvious. You have already made up your mind that Jesus is the promised Messiah and nothing will ever change that view. I can sympathise. Until you take a step back and try to read the Bible for what it is you will never learn anything about it, it is always going to be this magical document to you. Before I decided examine my faith I found it difficult to take the Bible as anything other than the Truth. But it was only when I truly wanted to discover if my faith had a solid foundation that I found out what a con Christianity actually is. I could not believe I had been so blind. What a relief though when one takes off the blinkers of faith and sees the NT in context. ALL it is really is a collection of propaganda, literature to start off an institution of self preservation. There came a time for me when enough was enough. The excuses were worn very thin. Almost on every occasion that I researched a topic there was no support for the biblical claim, or there was a huge amount of evidence against that claim. Then when I kept hearing stuff like ‘well Jesus didn’t do that yet, but He will in the future’, or ‘you cannot understand this or that without the guidance of the holy spirit’, there then comes a point when it is blatantly obvious that Christianity is a piss take. Who can be happy following something that makes no sense at all, is rife with internal contradictions, full of logical errors, strewn with historical inaccuracies, and comes with a book full of myths, legends, and folk tales that contradict science, I certainly don’t want to live a life like that. It is a life of ignorance and fear.
So, it does not surprise me that you have done no objective research into the Bible, you will learn nothing except regurgitated dogma until you do.
Gods purposes and plans are ALWAYS GREATER than our expectations. Through the inspiration provided in the NT, the prophecies come alive, with the clearest of understanding.
But they don’t. What comes alive is man’s ingenuity, man’s ability to distort the past and make it fit their purposes. If you ever read the NT properly, then investigate Matthew, the out-of-context and fictional prophecies in that book really are clear to understand.
Even a gentile reading the Old testament prophecies can deduce that something MORE than physical freedom from enemies is under consideration.
Well I haven’t met any Jew that thinks Judaism teaches a spiritual kingdom for the messiah.
can you not see the simple point, that for you to claim that jesus was a failure because he did not fulfill a single prophecy and you use as your source some unreliable Old testament books, as you claim they are, is both contradictory and nonsensical.
I have no idea what you are on about here. My source, the OT, is different from your source, the NT. There is nothing contradictory at all. If the OT says that the Messiah will be a king of Israel and the NT says Jesus wasn’t, then where am I contradicting myself? I am using two different collections of texts. Now the concept we are speaking of here, a king of Israel descended for David may indeed come true, who knows. But each individual text needs to be scrutinised individually for reliability and this is where some texts can be rejected. The examples I gave, enslavement, exodus, sojourn, and conquest have all been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be inaccurate, they simply never happened. Now this is not to say that something else in another book HAS to be wrong as well, that’s just silly. Just as these events, alleged historical events, can be investigated for their veracity so too can the claim that the Messiah will sit on the throne of David, it is easy to find out. Did Jesus sit on the throne of David, obviously He did not, so we can accept that it needs to be someone else, there’s no contradiction, there’s only a failure on Jesus part to sit on the throne of David. Someone else may well do it, I personally doubt it but it is not outside the realms of possibility. One thing is certain though, Jesus did not sit on it so we can comfortably reject Him as the Messiah promised in the OT.
if your sources are unreliable yet you use them and your dogmatic interpretations as justification for jesus being a failure, you are commiting the same falacy of which you are accusing me. Certainly your are not so simple that you cannot see this point.
I did not say ALL of the sources are unreliable, we need to examine each claim individually for its merits.
If your sources are unreliable, how do you know that anything siad in your sources is worth believing in the first place, muchless whether jesus WAS, or was or was not a failure
Well if you want to take that route we are as well throwing the Bible in the bin. I can say exactly the same with you and the NT.
But the thing with historical research is that all of it is simply degrees of plausibility. 3 million people in the Exodus group, historically impossible and has been shown to be untrue. A king descended from David is completely plausible there is nothing fantastic about it. Do you see the difference? We cannot reject an entire collection of texts just because much of it has been shown to be untrue, that’s just silly. It’s like saying that just because Joshua and his armies did not conquer Jericho then there was no such city as Jericho! History is about degrees of truth, and your sources need to be examined individually.
Not if you miss the nature, purpose and results of the messiahship
So we dismiss my argument that we can discover through history whether Jesus was a king or not? He wasn’t king of this realm then He must be king of another? Can you see how childish this is? Xianity really can be torn apart with the most superficial of enquiries.
Which, if any king of Israel before the Messiah was described as saving his people from thier sins, A Mighty God, eternal father? does that sound spiritual to you?
But sin in the OT is not the same as sin in the NT. There are a variety of definitions for sin. People can save themselves from sin in the OT.
Now here it is from the NT again,
does this sound familiar in text to that of Isa 53?
No it doesn’t. I’ve already explained this reference, it is referring to the nation of Israel and your repetition of spiritual kingdom does not affect what that reference is saying. Keep repeating your claim though, you might talk yourself into it.
A King and a kingdom, but dont look for it in the annuals of history. the inspired writers of the NT however, do speak of it and detail it.
Of course it won’t be found in history because Jesus failed to establish the Jewish messianic kingdom, and since He failed we do need some excuse for Him don’t we? Tell you what, let’s invent a spiritual kingdom then that way no one can prove us wrong (again).
does this sound like a kingdom of rule and spiritual in nature to you brian?
It sounds like something Hans Christian Anderson would have written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2009 2:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2009 11:54 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 90 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 7:03 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 91 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2009 9:02 AM Brian has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 84 of 427 (540740)
12-28-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
12-28-2009 4:25 AM


If honestly and objectively reading the Bible is a waste of time, then there seems to be something wrong with the Bible. And taking a condescending attitude to anyone who attempts to do so is not much of an answer.
Again you misunderstand. Im not against Bible study, Im against and opposed to someone avoiding obvious points, when presented In this context the matter of dual usage. I demonstrated its usage and you simply avoid the point by using different words to make your original contention
Secondly im opposed to someone using one set of scriptures (old Testament), explaining them in Bible study context, to refute the NT, then when presented with the information from those scriptures, (NT)insisting that the NT passages cannot be viewed as reliable, therefore my interpretation must be false, ignoring the fact that they have just given a very careful explanation and interpretation of a set of scriptures, to explain away the NT ones, believing at the very same moment the ones they are quoting and explicating are false and unreliable as well.
when discussing the Bible, IN CONTEXT, prophecy and the such like to not take God and providence into the picture is simply ludicrous
Any "prediction" that relies on hindsight is dubious. Any "prediction" that relies on cherry-picking parts of the real prediction is dubious. Any reading of a text that relies on deliberately ignoring the context is dubious. And that assessment is generous. It is you who needs to make a case why such readings are "valid" when you would rightly object to them if they were used to support any point you disagreed with.
Any prediction that relies on inspiration and divine guidance is believable and acceptable. the context from which the prediction is made and the one that it is fulfilled is repleat with God and and divine guidance. you do understand this simple point correct? Yes, understanding out of this context, anyone can come up with any interpretation and answer they choose.
Our context is Bible study, witht he view that the Jewish pepole were gods people and under his direct guidance, atleast that is what the context of the passages your are QUOTING and explicating, imply correct?
So the point at present is not reliablity of the text, but whether the OLD TESTAMENT supports the NT in the area of prophecy.
A simple point you seem to be missing and to why I consider your contribution here a waste of time at present.
First you complained that the gospel writers did not use prophecy in a dual usage, now you manuver to avoid the point that they obviously do use it this manner. Or avoid answering it in the affirmative
Of course you fail to mention that you have reversed the chronological order of the two quotes and you have left out the context. But if you wish to say that your methodology of reading the Bible is correct then you will have to do rather better. If the author of Matthew took a fragment of OT text out of context and nmisrepresented it as a prediction of a fictional event it hardly demonstrates that such readings are valid.
your kidding correct? what other usage or context could the writer be referncing but that of Israel in Egypt or Christ in Egypt. What would be the context of Matthew.
I say this again as nice as I can, please try sound as if you have some knowledge of the scriptures. thanks for your quotes and attempts to remove Christ as the fulfillment of those passages. The question here is not CAN I CONVINCE PAULK OF THOSE FULLFILLMENTS, BUT DOES CHRIST AS REFERNCED BY THE NT WRITES FULLFILL THOSE OT PASSAGES OR SEEM TO FULLFILL THEM. Since brian claimed he did not FULLFILL a single one, a biblical contextual explanation is required to see if that is the case. The simple answer is a resounding YES.
You fellas say you want to do bible study, but you want to do it on your terms without God, the spiritual, the miraclous, divine gudance, inspiration, etc, etc, etc, etc., things that are as much a part of the context and make so sense from a Biblical perspective otherwise
Paulk, thanks for your contribution in this context and I am not trying to bully you into anything, but your points are tedious and they miss the point.
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 81 by PaulK, posted 12-28-2009 4:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 12-28-2009 11:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 85 of 427 (540743)
12-28-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2009 10:36 AM


quote:
Again you misunderstand. Im not against Bible study, Im against and opposed to someone avoiding obvious points, when presented In this context the matter of dual usage. I demonstrated its usage and you simply avoid the point by using different words to make your original contention
It is clear that you fail to understand. Your arguments are based on assuming the authority of Christian doctrine. An honest and objective reading - by definition - cannot assume Christian doctrine.
Thus your arguments oppose an honest and objective reading of the Bible.
quote:
Secondly im opposed to someone using one set of scriptures (old Testament), explaining them in Bible study context, to refute the NT, then when presented with the information from those scriptures, (NT)insisting that the NT passages cannot be viewed as reliable, therefore my interpretation must be false
To simplify the above, you insist that anyone who uses the OT to argue against NT documents must accept the NT as authoritative. That is hardly an objective requirement.
quote:
Any prediction that relies on inspiration and divine guidance is believable and acceptable. the context from which the prediction is made and the one that it is fulfilled is repleat with God and ind divine guidance. you do understand this simple point correct.
It is far from clear what you are saying. The more so since the majority of genuine predictions we are dealing with tend to support Brian's point. But anyway, are you asserting that only predictions that are clearly "believable and acceptable" "rely on inspiration and divine guidance" ? If not, how do we objectively identify those that do "rely on inspiration and divine guidance" ?
quote:
So the point at present is not reliablity of the text, but whether the OLD TESTAMENT supports the NT in the area of prophecy.
A simple point you seem to be missing and to why I consider your contribution here a waste of time at present
Of course what you say is utterly false. You are the one who has chosen to focus on NT writings instead of producing support from the OT.
quote:
first you complained that the gospel writers did not use prophecy in a dual usage, now you manuver to avoid the point that they obviously do use it this manner. Or avoid answering it in the affirmative
This is another of your misrepresentations. I made no such complaint (the actual text you refer to explicitly states that the Gospel of Matthew has some of these highly questionable usages of OT scripture).
Moreover the objections you refer to simply emphasise something I have said all along - that such a use of ANY text is highly dubious and that it requires justification. Simply saying that NT writers did it or said it was OK are not sufficient to an objective reader.
quote:
your kidding correct? what other usage or context could the writer be referancing but that of Israel in Egypt or Christ in Egypt. What would be the context of Matthew.
It seems that you are so interested in the question of support from the OT that you have not even bothered to read my points.
In context Hosea 11:1 refers to the Exodus and nothing else. As I stated it clearly refers to an event that was in the past, even in the time of Hosea. There is simply nothing in Hosea 10 or 11 to suggest that it refers to a time centuries in Hosea's future.
quote:
I say this again as nice as I can, please try sound as if you have some knowledge of the scriptures. thanks for your quotes and attempts to remove Christ as the fulfillment of those passages. The question here is not CAN I CONVINCE PAULK OF THOSE FULLFILLMENTS, BUT DOES CHRIST AS REFERNCED BY THE NT WRITES FULLFILL THOSE OT PASSAGES OR SEEM TO FULLFILL THEM. Since brian claiomed he did not FULLFILL a single one. The simple answer is a resounding YES.
Taking Hosea 11:1 as an example, to convince me that Jesus fulfilled it you would have to show evidence that:
1)That the text in question was intended as a prediction of the future.
(My reading of Hosea 10-11 indicates that Hosea 11:1 was NOT)
2) That your reading makes sense in the context
(It appears not, the point in context is God's past care for the people of Israel, and the text goes on to deal with the "present" behaviour of Israel, and to a lesser extent Judah, which as I pointed out does not fit with the concerns found in the NT).
3) That the alleged fulfillment actually happened.
(There are strong reasons to think that it did not)
You haven't attempted to deal even one of these in any of your replies to me. And that is why you've been wasting your time - you have been evading the real issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2009 10:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2009 2:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 86 of 427 (540744)
12-28-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Brian
12-28-2009 7:07 AM


Re: Blind leading the blind
Judaism does not have a spiritual kingdom. Judaism does not teach this, so how can they expect a spiritual kingdom when this concept is not a part of their faith?
Will get to this this evening or tommorrow, thanks
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Brian, posted 12-28-2009 7:07 AM Brian has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 87 of 427 (540754)
12-28-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by PaulK
12-28-2009 11:31 AM


Taking Hosea 11:1 as an example, to convince me that Jesus fulfilled it you would have to show evidence that:
1)That the text in question was intended as a prediction of the future.
(My reading of Hosea 10-11 indicates that Hosea 11:1 was NOT)
2) That your reading makes sense in the context
(It appears not, the point in context is God's past care for the people of Israel, and the text goes on to deal with the "present" behaviour of Israel, and to a lesser extent Judah, which as I pointed out does not fit with the concerns found in the NT).
3) That the alleged fulfillment actually happened.
(There are strong reasons to think that it did not)
You haven't attempted to deal even one of these in any of your replies to me. And that is why you've been wasting your time - you have been evading the real issues.
Thank you Paul, very analytical.
However, Paul, Anyone reading along here would know that your last statement is completely false. Secondly Paul, when i say knowledge of the scriptures I mean all of the scriptures, the part also, that involves God in its context. when all of it, not simply that which you choose, is taken into consideration, Jesus can esasily be seen to have fulfilled these prophcies. Bible is bible study when, all of its components are taken ito consideration.
Thanks for your very analylitical considerations
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 12-28-2009 11:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 12-28-2009 6:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 88 of 427 (540757)
12-28-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by purpledawn
12-28-2009 6:34 AM


Re: Bible Satire
Dual prophecy was born from satire.
Always a fun read!
Here's an early Jewish document which is indisputably a satire on the Messianic cults, and which strongly resembles Matthew in its use of prophecy.
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/toled.htm
For example
The Toledoth writes:
When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: "It is spoken of me, 'I will ascend into heaven.'" He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone.
The elders asked Iskarioto to do likewise. He did, and flew toward heaven. Iskarioto attempted to force Yeshu down to earth but neither one of the two could prevail against the other for both had the use of the Ineffable Name. However, Iskarioto defiled Yeshu, so that they both lost their power and fell down to the earth, and in their condition of defilement the letters of the Ineffable Name escaped from them. Because of this deed of Judah they weep on the eve of the birth of Yeshu.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by purpledawn, posted 12-28-2009 6:34 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 89 of 427 (540760)
12-28-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2009 2:38 PM


quote:
However, Paul, Anyone reading along here would know that your last statement is completely false.
How exactly could they know that when it is a clear fact that you have not made any valid arguments on any of the points in our discussion ?
quote:
Secondly Paul, when i say knowledge of the scriptures I mean all of the scriptures, the part also, that involves God in its context. when all of it, not simply that which you choose, is taken into consideration, Jesus can esasily be seen to have fulfilled these prophcies. Bible is bible study when, all of its components are taken ito consideration.
This is simply not true. Knowledge is not the same as belief. For instance the knowledge that the NT authors rip bits of OT scripture out of context to create so-called "dual prophecies" (which appear to be nothing of the sort) can easily be seen as support for Brian's position - bereft of genuine prophetic fulfilment the early Christians created their own false fulfilments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2009 2:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 90 of 427 (540763)
12-28-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Brian
12-28-2009 7:07 AM


Re: Blind leading the blind
Brian writes:
But, yet again, there is NOTHING in the OT to hint at this. They were promised a physical kingdom and they are still waiting on it.
They were promised a kingdom by God.
Psalm 89:35Once I have sworn in my holiness,
To David I will not tell lies. 36His seed itself will prove to be even to time indefinite, And his throne as the sun in front of me
1Chronicles 17:14And I will cause him to stand in MY house and in my kingship to time indefinite, and his throne will itself become one lasting to time indefinite.
Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of HEAVEN will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite
The kingdom was always going to be a heavenly kingdom. The 'throne of David' was only temporary on earth, it represented Gods rulership, but it was never going to replace it. It was put in place until the Messiah arrived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Brian, posted 12-28-2009 7:07 AM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024