Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah:
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 46 of 304 (659994)
04-20-2012 6:50 AM


Topic Please
Participants,
Please reread the OP (Message 1). This topic is about Messianic prophesy found in the OT that was supposedly fulfilled by Jesus.
Thanks
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 47 of 304 (660002)
04-20-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dawn Bertot
04-20-2012 1:03 AM


To PD: This subthread is about the claim that
quote:
A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.
Is a prophecy that was fulfilled by the Massacre of the Innocents. I hold that this verse has nothing to do with the Massacre of Innocents AND that it would have been recorded by an impartial source when it happened. As far as Messianic prophecy is concerned: It's a double fail.
I was simply claiming life was of little or no value in those times. Thus far you have presented nothing to contradict that point
I’m not disputing that life was of little value. But you have not supported your argument that it was so valueless that a king could kill all the young boys and only one anonymous person with a clear agenda bothered to say anything about it, decades after the fact.
Other people, talking about the same person never bother to mention it. Not Josephus, not Mark not anybody.
It was a shadow and a type, like the passover. God is not sanctioning the massacre, he is simply using it as an example and illustration, for the birth of the first born son, that would give his lofe a ransom for all.
Right - it serves some narrative purpose. Which should raise suspicion.
It cannot be an excuse, if we do not know the facts in thier entirety.
You are excusing Josephus’ silence with the sorry excuse that goes along the lines of ‘Josephus had grown weary of recording historical information about Herod’
As I stated before, if he had mentioned it, you would claim it was spurious. If he mentioned it you would say it had nothing to do with Jesus
If he had mentioned it, I wouldn’t be holding it up as an example of a person clearly inventing narrative so as to present a persuasive case that a certain person is the Messiah.
And still no contradiction exists.
I’m not claiming a contradiction. We have one anonymous source making a historical claim that is not backed up by any other source. This source is not primary, since it appears to be written some decades after the fact. The correct response to a claim being made by such a source is extreme scepticism. It calls into question the reliability of the source.
Again, Ill ask the question. Were his statments concerning Jesus and James reliable or not?
No.
You then post a 2000 word long copy/paste. If you want to bring any arguments from that, please put it into your own words with supporting links.
Great, now we have once again, established you vehemently believe he is biased, but without any reason, from a Biblical perspective.
I am not ‘vehemently’ believing anything. I’m not sure what your problem is — he’s obviously biased in favour of Jesus as Messiah.
.How would you establiash those requirements?. If we cant use the writers of the Gospels that claim fulfillment, who do we use? Unbiased people like you and Jar?
First, I am not saying we can’t use the writers that claim fulfilment. Second, neither jar nor I are unbiased.
What I am suggesting we do is examine the Messianic prophecies in the OT and compare those prophecies with the life of Jesus in the NT to see if he fulfils prophecies as the NT authors would have us believe.
Ok, were either the OT or NT writers actually inspired by God?
I doubt they were.
What part of the Gospel of Thomas do you accept as valid, to use it against the canon, that can be traced all the way back? Do you have evidence that non-contenders were purposely destroyed?
I was using the existence of Gospel of Thomas as evidence that there were more Gospels in existence than we have in the canon. Do you doubt that the Catholic Church destroyed unorthodox documents?
What is your source for this contention
Are you really, seriously doubting that the Catholic Church destroyed documents that were contradictory to their view? If you are, it probably deserves a thread in its own right.
No what I said was that something not being mentioned, is not proof it did not happen.
Nobody is disputing that. I was just pointing out that your abortion analogy fails and I believe I explained why, well enough.
Anyway, conspicuous silence is evidence that it did not happen. And that’s what we have here.
No, Josephus did not mention all his acts.
Why would he mention some minor things, but neglect one of the most major acts of Herod’s career? You claimed that Herod might have supressed this, despite him being dead at the time of writing.
Youve not touched the Law concerning the Roman right to discard a female at will.
How is a presumably documented Roman law about girls relevant to the undocumented systematic killing of all of the young males ordered by a client king of Judea?
Im sorry, please explain to me again the meaning of biased
Look it up in the dictionary. A bias is
quote:
a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question;
Why not start with the list of alledged prophecies in the OP?
Isaiah 7:14 doesn't appear to be a Messianic prophecy.
Genesis 12:1-3 is not a Messianic prophecy and neither is Genesis 22:18 nor Genesis 49:10
That's five of them addressed. You've responded to only one. Want to discuss these others? Do you have a favourite amongst the list?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-20-2012 1:03 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2012 11:57 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2012 2:05 AM Modulous has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 48 of 304 (660083)
04-20-2012 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
04-19-2012 1:41 PM


Re: First things first.
PaulK writes:
Except that it doesn't seem to be. The element of cognitive dissonance seems to be missing. Those executed don't seem to be leaders. The promised resurrection seems to be clearly physical and not satisfied by visions. So it really seems to be less than ideal...
The same can be said of Jesus as well. If somebody had some form of spiritual vision of Jesus after the resurrection people would have said isn't that nice, but they certainly wouldn't have started a movement around it. Without the bodily resurrection Jesus simply becomes another failed messiah just as His followers assumed when He went to the cross.
PaulK writes:
Indeed he must have. The problem is that WE don't know what the apostles meant when they talked about the resurrection. So you have said absolutely nothing to refute my point.
Of course we know what the apostles thought. This is from Peter's sermon in Acts 2.
quote:
30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
PaulK writes:
It follows then that the original stories were far less impressive. In the stories Jesus comes and goes mysteriously, which is inconsistent with simple physical survival by any means, natural or supernatural - but is consistent with the stories originating as "sightings", visions, dreams or simply the feeling of Jesus' presence.
Since when do a number of people all have the same vision or dream at the same time?
PaulK writes:
Let us also note that Jesus failed to fulfil the role expected of him, and when people who are committed to a cause run into this situation there are often die-hards who look to reinterpret and invent ways to keep to their beliefs.
The disciples never did seem to get His message of love and peace until after the resurrection, but let's just say that you are right, even though I see no justification whatsoever for that view. The initial followers were all locals. Why on earth would anyone with any local knowledge of what happened sign on to the movement?
Also the Gospels just don't read in the way they would if they were making it up. They show too many examples of ineptitude by the early leaders, (the disciples), and for that matter there was no precedence for a resurrection such as they described. If they were going to make it up it seems far more plausible that they would talk about Jesus reappearing in a similar fashion to what we see in the story of the transfiguration.
PaulK writes:
I would say therefore that the evidence is more consistent with entirely natural events than with a supernatural resurrection, and given the basic unlikelihood of miracles such an explanation is always to be preferred in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary.
Who says that a miracle is unlikely. If we accept the possibility that there is an intelligent first cause responsible for our existence then there is no reason to consider a miracle as unlikely.
To admin: I'm not sure if you are referring to this discussion or not. The topic is, "Scriptural Evidence that Jesus is Messiah". It seems to me that we are right on topic.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2012 1:41 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminPD, posted 04-20-2012 7:46 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2012 6:06 AM GDR has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 49 of 304 (660084)
04-20-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
04-20-2012 7:12 PM


Topic Please
quote:
To admin: I'm not sure if you are referring to this discussion or not. The topic is, "Scriptural Evidence that Jesus is Messiah". It seems to me that we are right on topic.
I disagree and ask that you adjust accordingly. Please reread the OP.
Please take any complaints to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List').

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 04-20-2012 7:12 PM GDR has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 304 (660104)
04-21-2012 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by GDR
04-19-2012 12:01 PM


Re: First things first.
That’s my point. The Maccabean revolt was very successful. They had overthrown their occupiers and they had ruled for decades. They suffered heroic deaths and claimed that God would resurrect them.
But if I'm reading Maccabees correctly, they weren't talking about an imminent resurrection, they were talking about Judgement Day.
Actually the account of their martyrdom is so stylized that I barely believe a word of it, but that's another question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 04-19-2012 12:01 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 51 of 304 (660117)
04-21-2012 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
04-20-2012 7:12 PM


Re: First things first.
Since there is nothing on-topic, than I am afraid that your ignorant and fallacious assertions will have to go unanswered, unless you wish to start a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 04-20-2012 7:12 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 52 of 304 (660294)
04-23-2012 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
04-20-2012 8:42 AM


Is a prophecy that was fulfilled by the Massacre of the Innocents. I hold that this verse has nothing to do with the Massacre of Innocents AND that it would have been recorded by an impartial source when it happened. As far as Messianic prophecy is concerned: It's a double fail.
Sorry I havent got to your last post in a timely manner, real world affairs. Ill get it as quickly as time allows.
Nothing I enjoy better than this. See ya soon
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 04-20-2012 8:42 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 53 of 304 (660296)
04-24-2012 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
04-20-2012 8:42 AM


Isaiah 7:14 doesn't appear to be a Messianic prophecy.
Genesis 12:1-3 is not a Messianic prophecy and neither is Genesis 22:18 nor Genesis 49:10
That's five of them addressed. You've responded to only one. Want to discuss these others? Do you have a favourite amongst the list?
Lets start here. I assume we are using your criteria as to what constitues a Messiah and a prophecy. Could you tell me how you define both and what your measuring rod is for either
My interest is, are we to assume your definitions and deteminations are to be the rule, or shall we let the scriptures decide? My problem with your definitions is that we then must allow, the other 3 billion people to have a definition as well
Are you really, seriously doubting that the Catholic Church destroyed documents that were contradictory to their view? If you are, it probably deserves a thread in its own right.
Ok Im still wating for the evidence. Besides this what does the catholic church have to with the fact that I can establish reliability by the earliest church fathers. Secondly if they destroyed them why have certain odd examples of spurious books surfaced. My guess is that it would be as futile an attempt to look for lost Gospels as it would to look for evidence that one species actually became another
You do understand that the earliest fathers are not the 'Catholic Church', correct? The earliest scribes were very careful and maticulous to preserve, that which they knew was handed down from the earliest traditions. The reason the Gospel of Thomas didnt make it, is because they knew it, immediately, to be spurious.
It held no tradition and thus you will not find, countless manuscripts concerning it. Surely if there were enough people to keep the known Gospels afloat, the there would have been enough to keep the so-called spurious ones in circulation
I was using the existence of Gospel of Thomas as evidence that there were more Gospels in existence than we have in the canon. Do you doubt that the Catholic Church destroyed unorthodox documents?
You might have something here, were there not much older evidence. Since the earliest church fathers quote nearly verbatim, at times, in thier correspondances, direct quotes out of the now known Gospels, how can the Gospels be assigned a much later date, than the first or second century, when that is when these fathers existed?
I’m not claiming a contradiction. We have one anonymous source making a historical claim that is not backed up by any other source. This source is not primary, since it appears to be written some decades after the fact. The correct response to a claim being made by such a source is extreme scepticism. It calls into question the reliability of the source.
Again I would say you are way off, calling the testimony of the earliest disciples (Fathers), some contemporary with or falling directly behind the Apostles themself, anonymous.. If they were contemporary with the Apostles or immediately following them, they had to have a source much earlier than thier own writings.
Which would of course put the Gospels at a much more conservative date than you are intimating. Should we consideer the silly idea that all of these early church fathers, some of which did not know eachother were in colusion?
Without even invoking verbal tradition and inspiration, we are able to establish these facts. If we add intervention and providence, it pretty much closes the door on your objections. These facts pretty much close the door on the idea that Matthew was not an eyewitness or that he was not contemporary with those claimed events
When it comes right down to it, the early herisies had to have something to object to in the first place. IOWs they werent holding up a different Messiah than Jesus, they simply claimed this or that differently about Jesus, or this or that about some, already known and established doctrine
Notice the Gnostics approach. Well, Jesus was a good starter, but we have different levels of spiritual growth that will help you reach heaven in conjunction with Jesus, etc, etc, etc.. It ironic that even the heretical writings are a testimony to his Messiahship
Fortunately the evidence of dating and corroborating evidence is on the side of the Gospel writers as I have demonstrated
So was the Gospel of Thomas a reliable source to counter the fraud?
You are excusing Josephus’ silence with the sorry excuse that goes along the lines of ‘Josephus had grown weary of recording historical information about Herod’
I was simply pointing out (as the article I provided) that not everything done by even a ruler was recorded or noted
I’m not disputing that life was of little value. But you have not supported your argument that it was so valueless that a king could kill all the young boys and only one anonymous person with a clear agenda bothered to say anything about it, decades after the fact.
Tell me the difference between valueless or "so valueless"
Here is my point. Should the entire population, of the average English or American citzen be able to witness the everyday occurance of partial birth abortions and do this on a daily and hourly bases, do you think they would make an actual distinction between that and killing 3 month old babies? I doubt it, dont you. There would be no distinction and the outcry for it to stop would be immediate
If life then was valueless to begin with, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out, that a wicked person like Herod cared even less and the Romans even much less. There concern concerning the Jews was only to perserve order
Now we at times here about atrocities in third world countries, but do you actually believe that we have preserved and recorded every event on a daily basis?
How is a presumably documented Roman law about girls relevant to the undocumented systematic killing of all of the young males ordered by a client king of Judea?
I promise you will understand this after a while, if you will stop looking through the lense of a 21st century person. the relevence is that is was not murder in the eyes of the then existing authorities. If it was not murder or extermination or genocide to toss a girl on the heap, why do you think it was any of those concerning anyother child. Heck they sold thier children and themselves into slavery just to get by.
Surely we could rewrite the passage to make it fit Heord, "Truely many other autrocities commited Herod, which are not written in these books, but these are written that you might believe he was a rutheless person"
Isaiah 7:14 doesn't appear to be a Messianic prophecy.
Genesis 12:1-3 is not a Messianic prophecy and neither is Genesis 22:18 nor Genesis 49:10
From anyother perspective than a Biblical one, Why?
Your are making the commom mistake of assuming Prophecy, parable or Proverb is about the event spoken of, it is not.
Here is a simple illustration to start you off. Should we assume the Parable of the prodigal son was about the son? About sin?, About the elder brother? Of course not, not entirely and not fundamentally. Its about God (the Father). All prophecy is ultimately about God, what Gods is doing, Gods mercy, Gods judgements, Gods forgiveness, etc, etc, etc
Even if we take a simple example, about prophecy concerning captivity of the children of Israel, it s not about Israel or the captor nation, its about Gods judgement
The burning bush was not about Moses or the freeing of the Slaves, it was about God. "I have heard the cry of the people", "I will bring the out of bondage"
Since all prophecy is about God and Gods plans, it should be simple enough to see that Gods plans strech accross the expanse of time. If it is Gods wishes to free men from the bondage of sin, as displayed in the Old and NT. Its not to hard to see how the prophecies relate to Christ and ultimately BACK TO GOD, becuase he is God
From a Biblical perspective, Parable, proverb and prophecy is all about God. Thats why one should not spend to much time wrangling over the words, Young maiden or virgin. Ultimately its not about either the young maiden (in the OT, if there was one) or Mary, its about God. If God wishes to use that as a type or shadow, that is his choice
Hence, it does not make a diffrence whether the following statement meant Israel in the Old or not. Then and when John saw Christ coming it applied to God
"Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his path a highway in the desert for our God"
Prophecies immediate earthly application, is never its real or ultimate meaning, atleast from a Biblical perspective. Its is completely and eternally about God, no matter the method
This should get you started
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 04-20-2012 8:42 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Panda, posted 04-24-2012 5:44 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 04-24-2012 6:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 56 by Modulous, posted 04-24-2012 8:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 54 of 304 (660298)
04-24-2012 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
04-24-2012 2:05 AM


DB writes:
My guess is that it would be as futile an attempt to look for lost Gospels as it would to look for evidence that one species actually became another
Both have been found.
Is there anything you aren't wrong about?

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2012 2:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 55 of 304 (660299)
04-24-2012 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
04-24-2012 2:05 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Again I would say you are way off, calling the testimony of the earliest disciples (Fathers), some contemporary with or falling directly behind the Apostles themself, anonymous.. If they were contemporary with the Apostles or immediately following them, they had to have a source much earlier than thier own writings.
It's not really fair to describe the Church Fathers as being contemporary with, or 'just behind' the apostles - especially seeing as the Church Fathers mentioned in your previous big long quote were not amongst the earliest. The earliest you mentioned was Justin Martyr, who was born about a century after the Massacre of the Innocents was supposed to take place, and wrote the works we have decades after that. This would be like a forty-year old today discussing an event that happened during the Franco-Prussian war - except for the fact that the amount of documentary and photographic evidence that exists in today's world vastly exceeds anything that would have existed in second century Palestine. It's not a recent as you seem to be implying.
What's more, Justin was the earliest you mentioned, the other two (Origen and Irenaeus) were a century further removed from events.
However...
Modulous writes:
Why would he mention some minor things, but neglect one of the most major acts of Herod’s career?
I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe this as one of the 'most major acts' in his career. If the massacre of the innocents is a historical event, then we're not talking about exterminating all the males babies in the modern city of Bethlehem, we're talking about the male babies in the first century village of Bethlehem. We're talking about 10 babies, not hundreds. It's perfectly possible that Josephus considered the executions of his wife, his mother-in-law, his brother-in-law and several of his own children to be greater atrocities that the deaths of a few nameless babies in a small village.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2012 2:05 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 04-24-2012 8:26 AM caffeine has not replied
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2012 6:56 PM caffeine has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 56 of 304 (660301)
04-24-2012 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
04-24-2012 2:05 AM


I assume we are using your criteria as to what constitues a Messiah and a prophecy. Could you tell me how you define both and what your measuring rod is for either
A messiah is an anointed king of Israel/Judea etc.
A prophecy is a prediction, often regarding the immediate concerns of the intended audience.
Ok Im still wating for the evidence.
Catholic censorship and destruction of the unorthodox is probably another thread in its own right.
You might have something here, were there not much older evidence. Since the earliest church fathers quote nearly verbatim, at times, in thier correspondances, direct quotes out of the now known Gospels, how can the Gospels be assigned a much later date, than the first or second century, when that is when these fathers existed?
This is besides the point I was raising, that even if there were other Messiah documents - the Catholic Church had the motivation and the means to see they got 'lost'.
Again I would say you are way off, calling the testimony of the earliest disciples (Fathers), some contemporary with or falling directly behind the Apostles themself, anonymous.
If you can name a single person that recorded the Massacre of the Innocents I urge you to do so. The Gospel of Matthew as far as I am aware is the earliest recording of the incident, and it is an anonymous document. All other mentions of it, rely on Matthew as far as I know.
I was simply pointing out (as the article I provided) that not everything done by even a ruler was recorded or noted
And I've never disputed this point. What they do mention are things about the person which are noteworthy. And my claim is the Massacre of Innocents was noteworthy.
You didn't simply point out that not everything is recorded or noted. You specifically said you were 'sure' that Josephus 'grew weary of mentioning anything about Heord after a while'
Tell me the difference between valueless or "so valueless"
Why? That was not my claim. My claim, if you missed my meaning was that life may be worth less, but that it was not worth so little as to silently assent to the killing of every young male.
Here is my point. Should the entire population, of the average English or American citzen be able to witness the everyday occurance of partial birth abortions and do this on a daily and hourly bases, do you think they would make an actual distinction between that and killing 3 month old babies?
I would believe that some of them would write about their experiences. And that's really my point.
There concern concerning the Jews was only to perserve order
And unrest was never caused by a murderous spree a people's children, I'm sure.
Now we at times here about atrocities in third world countries, but do you actually believe that we have preserved and recorded every event on a daily basis?
I'm not asking for the documentation of every child that was massacred. I'm asking documentation of the massacre itself taking place. At this point, I'd even accept a single letter describing a child being killed on orders of Herod who had ordered the killing all the young males of the land.
I promise you will understand this after a while, if you will stop looking through the lense of a 21st century person. the relevence is that is was not murder in the eyes of the then existing authorities. If it was not murder or extermination or genocide to toss a girl on the heap, why do you think it was any of those concerning anyother child. Heck they sold thier children and themselves into slavery just to get by.
Because
a) IT is a government action, not a series of personal choice (therefore nobody is responsible for ordering a massacre).
b) We are talking about boys here, not girls. Boys were believed to hold much higher value than girls.
Furthermore, how do you know that girls were tossed on the heap? Because people presumably have documented this. If there was no documentation, then I would not simply believe that it happened. So which is it?
Your are making the commom mistake of assuming Prophecy, parable or Proverb is about the event spoken of, it is not.
I agree that parables and proverbs aren't. But I see no reason to think that about prophecies. I agree they can be metaphorical, but that doesn't give us the excuse to take any old bit of the OT that we can try and fit Jesus and call it a prophecy of the coming of Jesus.
This should get you started
Saying that prophecies are ultimately about God doesn't fix any of my issues at all I'm afraid.
Take Genesis 12
quote:
The LORD had said to Abram, Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.
2 I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.
That's not a prophecy. There is no prophet here. This is simply a promise from God to Abraham. It says nothing about Jesus. It says nothing about messiahs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2012 2:05 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2012 6:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 304 (660302)
04-24-2012 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by caffeine
04-24-2012 6:31 AM


It's perfectly possible that Josephus considered the executions of his wife, his mother-in-law, his brother-in-law and several of his own children to be greater atrocities that the deaths of a few nameless babies in a small village.
A good point, well made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 04-24-2012 6:31 AM caffeine has not replied

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


Message 58 of 304 (660334)
04-24-2012 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Modulous
04-24-2012 8:23 AM


And I've never disputed this point. What they do mention are things about the person which are noteworthy. And my claim is the Massacre of Innocents was noteworthy.
You didn't simply point out that not everything is recorded or noted. You specifically said you were 'sure' that Josephus 'grew weary of mentioning anything about Heord after a while'
Yes I mentioned that as a possible reason. But my main point in that connection wasa that you have two sets of rules dealing with Josephus. When both Matthew and Josephus mention Jesus, James and John the baptist, you say oh no that cant be right, its an interpolation. You work with the greatest zeal to demonstrate that point. But when only one mention Jesus, or somother point, you figure him as biased
Since it is overly obvious that you would not accept matthew, even if he (Josephus0 had mentioned it, it seemed reasonable to proceed along the lines to establish matthew as reliable overall, from other sources and the fact that he demonstrates no valid contradictions
BTW, had Josephus mentioned the killings, would you then accept matthew as a reliable source concerning Jesus? My guess is, no
I'd even accept a single letter describing a child being killed on orders of Herod who had ordered the killing all the young males of the land.
Will matthews letter serve as a single letter? Or after that would you need just a couple of more letters?
I agree that parables and proverbs aren't. But I see no reason to think that about prophecies.
Well let me give you the reason for prophecies as well. Do you think the Hand Writing on the wall was about Belshazzar , primarily? It says "you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting"
Who was doing the weighing and who decided he was found wanting, God. Dont you find it interesting that virtually, you could replace Belshazzar's name with any notorious character in history and the phrase would have stuck even to this day.
IOWs, ask any person who that statement refers to and they wont be able to tell you, but they know the expression because it applies to the judgement of God
Now that is a simple example of prophecy with no refernce to the Messiah or Jesus, but it should be simple enough to understand that all prophecy is about God or his plans
The theme of the scriptures, Old or New, is God saving humans from thier sins. This is the big plan, laid before the foundation of the earth. There were methods in the Old, by sacrifices and a main sacrfice in the New. Hardly anyone would disagree that obedience and disobedience is the theme of the Bible
This is not some simple way to work Jesus in, to fit prophecy, its simply that if you remove God from prophecy and him from its primary purpose and focus, you miss the whole point of scripture.
If God is its initiator, then this principle has to apply across the board. If he is not, who cares what the writer is talking about. we would have no way of knowig what even the Old test writer was refering to, muchless the new. At bare minimum, what difference would it make anywhere?
I simply dont see what can be offered in a rational and counterfactual way that he was not the fulfillment of those prophecies. Given the fact that God works through time, his main concern, atleast according to the Bible, is the obedience of man
Saying that prophecies are ultimately about God doesn't fix any of my issues at all I'm afraid.
Sure it does. IOWs how would you demonstrate my point to the contrary, given the argument I have made. can you demonstrate a phrophecy in the Old or New that doesnt involve God or his plans?
Take Genesis 12
quote:
The LORD had said to Abram, Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.
2 I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.
That's not a prophecy. There is no prophet here. This is simply a promise from God to Abraham. It says nothing about Jesus. It says nothing about messiahs.
If the person (God) giving the prophecy knew how that would happen, how can you say its not a prophecy? To know that its not a prophecy and to know he did not mean Christ, you would need to know what he was speaking about. Do you know what the writer meant by "blessed through you"?
Furthermore, how do you know that girls were tossed on the heap? Because people presumably have documented this. If there was no documentation, then I would not simply believe that it happened. So which is it?
Ironically this is the very quote I saw at Bath England. Anywho here is a whole article on it for you
As seen in Pesouris v. Seraeus (P.Oxy. XXXVII and XXXVIII), if it could bedemonstrated that a male slave was born free, he would be loosed from the slavesystem.
10
The same cannot be said of female foundlings, for whom no such provision isordered in the law codes, the majority of these being relegated to the slave system.
11
Itcan also be established from available records that female infants were exposed at ahigher rate than male infants. Census declarations, for instance, declare a ratio of twofemale slaves to each male slave, interpreted by Bagnall as evidence for differentialrates of infant exposure and enslavement rather than to such a birth ratio among slaves.
12
This observation is supported, as well, in informal documents from the time. P.Oxy.DCCXLIV is a letter dated to the year 1 B.C.E. from a man called Hilarion to a pregnantwoman, Alis, probably his wife, though the text addresses her as sister.
13
In the letter,Hilarion instructs Alis to keep her child if it is male, but to throw it out (2
nd
person presentactive imperative of
ejkbavllw
) if it is female.
14
One reason may be that raising afemale child in the first century was more costly to a family than raising a male child.This was due primarily to the dowry requirement which attached to a marriageablefemale.
15
There is record, as well, of the emperor Claudius exposing a female child bornto his wife Urgulanilla, believing her to be have been sired through adultery,
16
which also
10
Grenfell and Hunt, op. cit., vol. I, 80.
11
Gnomon of the Idios Logos
, 381.
12
Roger S. Bagnall,
Egypt in Late Antiquity
(Princeton, 1993), 202.
13
See Appendix C for the full text and translation of this letter.
14
Grenfell and Hunt, op. cit., vol. IV, 243-4.
15
Theodore Mommsen and Paul Krueger, eds,.
Iustiniani Digestae
edition minor (Berlin, 1882), 23.2.45.6:
Si ab hostibus patronus captus esse proponatur, vereor ne possit ista conubium habere nubendo,quemadmodum haberet, si mortuus esset. et qui Iuliani sententiam probant, dicerent non habituramconubium: putat enim Iulianus durare eius libertae matrimonium etiam in captivitate propter patronireverentiam. certe si in aliam servitutem patronus sit deductus, procul dubio dissolutum esset matrimonium
.
16
C. Suetonius Tranquillus,
Divus Augustus
(ca. 121 C.E.), XXXII.
4
Ticeseems to be a popular motive for infant exposure. It would stand to reason that a manwould not want to provide a dowry for a child he suspected was not his own.
Children From The Dung Heap | PDF | Roman Empire | Slavery
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Modulous, posted 04-24-2012 8:23 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2012 8:05 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 59 of 304 (660336)
04-24-2012 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by caffeine
04-24-2012 6:31 AM


It's not really fair to describe the Church Fathers as being contemporary with, or 'just behind' the apostles - especially seeing as the Church Fathers mentioned in your previous big long quote were not amongst the earliest. The earliest you mentioned was Justin Martyr, who was born about a century after the Massacre of the Innocents was supposed to take place, and wrote the works we have decades after that.
The ones I was refering to were Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and the such like.
Periodization. The first Ecumenical council, held in the city of Nicaea, (325) marked a momentous event for the Church. For this reason, the writers before these interrelated events are known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers ("ante" meaning before). They in turn are commonly divided into two groups. The Apostolic Fathers are those who wrote during the generation or two after the close of the New Testament era (from about 95-150AD). They are so-called because they are thought to have had living contact with the apostles and so are particularly precious witnesses to primitive apostolic Christianity. The few writings from this period that have survived are pastoral and practical rather than speculative. They include the anonymous "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," otherwise known as the Didache, which is the earliest work describing Christian sacramental life. They also include letters from St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, St. Polycarp, who reportedly sat at the feet of the apostle John, and St. Clement, the bishop of Rome, who wrote to the Church in Corinth around 95 AD. It is fascinating that Clement’s letter, probably written around the same time as John’s Gospel, was regarded as so authoritative in the early church that it was copied and passed to churches all over the known world and considered by many as part of the New Testament scriptures.
But when there was conflict about the truly Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures, all sought backing for their position in the writings of "the Fathers." By this they meant teachers of an earlier era who demonstrated how the apostolic scriptures were understood and applied by the apostles themselves and those who followed them.
Marcellino Ambrosio, Ph.D
Page not found - Crossroads Initiative
So it is not accurate for you describe my intimation and evidence as unfair, My point was that from the earliest traditions the writings as we now have them could be traced to the original source without any real modification. I was not saying that every writer mentioned the killing of the children, only that there is no valid reason for doubting Matthew, or that Matthew was actually contemporary with that event.
This would be like a forty-year old today discussing an event that happened during the Franco-Prussian war - except for the fact that the amount of documentary and photographic evidence that exists in today's world vastly exceeds anything that would have existed in second century Palestine. It's not a recent as you seem to be implying.
What's more, Justin was the earliest you mentioned, the other two (Origen and Irenaeus) were a century further removed from events.
Also, it is as recent as I am saying, if we can trust the writers and the surrounding evidence, of the earliest writers and letters, that are non-canonical
Even the writers you mention had to have a much earlier source. As it happens we can trace that source in some instances back to the earliest possible dates
In this letter alone you can nearly duplicate most of the NT books
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/...carp-lightfoot.html
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 04-24-2012 6:31 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by caffeine, posted 04-25-2012 8:29 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 60 of 304 (660388)
04-25-2012 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dawn Bertot
04-24-2012 6:50 PM


Will matthews letter serve as a single letter? Or after that would you need just a couple of more letters?
In the context of corroborating Matthew, no - it does not serve the purposes.
Now that is a simple example of prophecy with no refernce to the Messiah or Jesus, but it should be simple enough to understand that all prophecy is about God or his plans
That's fine, but it still doesn't help you as far as I can tell. Just because something is 'about God' that doesn't mean it is also about a messiah.
If the person (God) giving the prophecy knew how that would happen, how can you say its not a prophecy?
Because it is a covenant between Abraham and God, not prophecy. It is not a prophecy if I say, 'I'll give you $10'. It is not a prophecy if God says 'I will never destroy you in a flood again'.
It's a promise, a covenant. Completely different than prophecy. Even if the promise is kept.
To know that its not a prophecy and to know he did not mean Christ, you would need to know what he was speaking about.
Not all prophecies are about Christ. Not all statements about the future are prophecies. I do know what God is talking about here. He is talking about a covenant with Abraham.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2012 6:50 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-26-2012 8:13 AM Modulous 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