|
Author
|
Topic: Scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah:
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
Message 91 of 304 (661182)
05-02-2012 10:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by Jazzns
05-02-2012 5:19 PM
|
|
Re: Scripture taking scripture out of context
Jazzns writes: This point is perhaps for a different thread but Timothy and the other questionable epistles are questionable precisely because they are trying to put a spin on Paul's earlier message. The point I was trying make about this is against your claim of t aking scripture in context. These other writings exist entirely to try to CHANGE the context of original Paul. In particular, they bastardized Paul's egalitarianism into the rigid church patriarchy that we all know and "love". In other words, scripture itself does not meet your own standards for good theology. If the author is someone other than Paul, which is quite likely, they would be appealing to his teaching for the authority of what is being written. I don’t see that much difference. The egalitarianism is primarily talked about in Acts and didn’t seem to last that long anyway. As the letters to Timothy are later they are dealing with different issues that are primarily intended to keep the church on track doctrinally. If we accept that they were only attributed to Paul they would have been attempting to be consistent with what Paul taught in dealing with the issues that were being faced by the church in the latter part of the first century.
Jazzns writes: Well the reason I brought up Matthew is because it is the most egregious case of twisting scripture for its own purpose. Matthew tries desperately to wring a suffering messiah out of the OT and pretty much failed to convince its target audience. Matthew is a great example, along with the pseudonymous epistles of scripture th at itself ignores your call for proper context. There is no doubt that Matthew is writing to Jews and explaining the Gospel of Jesus within a Jewish context and in reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. I agree that Matthew is more focused on that than the other Gospels but the quotes attributed to Jesus almost invariably refer back to the Hebrew Scriptures in all of the Gospels. Certainly Matthew understood Jesus in His Jewish context so I hardly find it surprising that what he wrote would reflect that. I don’t see him as wringing a suffering messiah out of the OT. It is there in Isaiah and I see Jesus as seeing Himself in that light.
Jazzns writes: While this may be true it is beside my point. Your point was that we need to examine scripture in context. My challenge is that by taking such a liberal approach to the scripture you start pulling on a thread that starts to make the situation unravel. The scriptures are not independent. Scripture refers to scripture either direct ly or indirectly and does not follow your advice for examining context. In fact it does the exact opposite. For example, 2 Thessalonians is written in the name of Paul as a response to 1 Thessalonians in order to change the narrative about the timing of Christ's return. Actually, although many would disagree I don’t think I take a liberal approach to the Bible. I agree completely that the scriptures are not independent. I am personally convinced that God has chosen mankind to represent Him and be stewards over creation. IMHO He reveals Himself to us through revelation to human imagination. In terms of the OT we can see in my view a gradually clearing of the fogginess around what it was that God wanted of us and of the big picture of what He was doing in and for the world. Even when He returned to His people He did it through a man. C S Lewis writes this in Chap 15 of his book Miracles. quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.
As far as the OT prophesies are concerned I don’t think that we should be trying to take a verse here and a verse there and trying to make it fit. I think that we should be taking the whole narrative in context and in doing that I contend that there is the concept of a serveant King and there is the concept of God returning to His people. I think that over time our understanding of revelation changes as well. When Ezekiel wrote about the dry bones I don’t think that there is much doubt that he thought that he was writing about the rebirth or resurrection of the nation of Israel. In Daniel 12 we can see where Daniel has now interpreted resurrection as being for the people of Israel. By the time we get to Jesus and Paul it is understood that at the end of time resurrection is for all of creation. I think that just as God has created in such a way that we evolve physically I also suggest that we are created in such a way that we evolve spiritually as well. I think that belief is completely consistent with my understanding of how we should understand divine revelation in the scriptures
Jazzns writes: If one is to take 1 Thessalonians in context like you suggest then we should regard Jesus as a failure. He was supposed to come back in the days that Paul wrote it. He didn't. 2 Thessalonians is an attempt to salvage the situation by changing the context. I think that there were early followers that expected Jesus to return in their lifetimes but I think that was from a misunderstanding of the texts that they had at the time. When Jesus was talking about events in that generation He was referring to what would happen to Jerusalem and the Jewish nation at the hands of the Romans if they continued along the revolutionary path that they seemed to be on. I would even suggest that it wouldn’t have taken supernatural ability to be able to predict that. Certainly when He didn’t return in their life time they had to go back and rethink what it was that Jesus had told them. Heck we still do that today. Just look at the variety of ways that Jesus is depicted and understood. We are still working it all out through revelation, through the scriptures, through reason and for that matter through scientific discovery. I enjoy reading books by Christian scholars and it is my view that we have today better Christian scholarship than has been available since the time of Paul. My personal favourite is N T Wright currently at the University of St. Andrews Scotland. He has previously taught at Oxford, Cambridge and McGill. I think our understanding continues to progress.
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 90 by Jazzns, posted 05-02-2012 5:19 PM | | Jazzns has replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 92 of 304 (661185)
05-03-2012 1:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
04-29-2012 9:29 AM
|
|
Re: Horse meat, nothing but horse meat.
Jar writes Now let's look at it in detail. Where does that refer to Jesus? Start by showing when Jesus ruled on David's throne and over David's kingdom? I am surprised at the fact that you call yourself a Christian but know so little of the scriptures. As I have continually argued with little or no resistence, the NT clearly teaches that both Jesus and the NT, clearly teach that Jesus was God incarnate. early on God told Samuel that Israel did not need a king they already had a king, God himself. If at some point God did allow an early Israel have a earthly king, God would certainly still be God and king and any throne of course would be under his control and perview Jesus therefore as God always sat on Davids throne. As a coming Messiah and prophcied by the OT prophets, it would take inspiration by both OT prophets and NT prophets, to let us know how that was accomplished Jesus as God has always reigned over Davids kingdom and always sat on his throne as the article below helps to demonstrate. The throne of David and his kingdom was not simply a literal throne, as the article below points out. It was a representation of God as Israel was to be a light to the nations for God The theme of the Old and New testaments is uncontestable in any real sense. It is Gods redemptive plan for mankind As I pointed out to Modulous you would need to demonstrate the NT writers as unreliable, then demonstrate them as unreliable in communicating Gods truth through inspiration. Its very simple Jar, my choices are simple. I can believe persons that were eyewitness to these events, or claimed to have been eyewitness. Or at bare minimum were very closely related to these events, or I can believe you. If I choose to believe you, I have to ask myself is there any good reason to believe you other than your disapproval that you believe Jesus was not the Messiah and that these old testament prophecies are not about him IOWs There is a host of information both outside the Bible as evidence for its reliablity and of course its internal continuity and unity of thought, theme and purpose. the there is Jar with nothing but his disapproval and no evidence to the contrary. Now, which one do you think I am going to take. That is unless you can provide me evidence that I should not believe the NT writers. Can you provide me evidence to the contrary? Again Jar, Isolating one single prophecy as you have done is not how the Messiah of Jesus is established. Its is taking a look at all the specific prophecies collectively and then viewing that evidence as a whole. The evidence seems overwheling doesnt it. Acollective understanding of all the prophets had to say and then a collective understanding of what the NT writers had to say, place jesus as the Messiah, with NO REASONABLE OBJECTIONS If you want to try and demonstrate he was not the Messiah from all the collective evidence you are welcome to try. It would be courious to see what you approach my be from an overall understanding of all the evidence
Premillennialism and the Throne of David (by Bob Pulliam) After understanding how the premillennialist uses the promise to Abraham for doctrinal purpose, we must then see how he uses promises concerning king David of the Old Testament. These are used for the same end: to make fulfilled prophecies seem as if they still need to be fulfilled. If Jesus never really received what was promised, then it must still be given. The claim is that Jesus never received the throne of David as was promised (II Sam 7:12 - 16). This lesson will concentrate of that promise of Jesus sitting on David’s throne... Jesus Is a Descendant of David... I can’t see a Bible believer denying it. Matthew recorded (Mt 1) a genealogy that reaches back to David (Luke 3 also). The angel that appeared to Mary told her that her child would be given the throne of "His father David". (Lk 1:32f) Isaiah prophesied that this coming Savior would be of "the root of Jesse", which was David’s father. So let’s begin by getting some side issues out of the way. These are points that are not in question: ...that Jesus is a descendant of David ...that Jesus was promised the throne of David. ...that God fulfills His promises. These are not at issue. The question before us is: "Will Jesus return to earth, in the future, and sin on the literal throne of David in Jerusalem?" In considering this question, we must note several clear affirmations of scripture that make the premillennial claim invalid. Cannot Do So from Judah on Earth (must be from heaven)... Let’s begin with an Old Testament prophecy about the coming Messiah, Jesus: "Then speak to him, saying, ’Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying: "Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, And He shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, And shall sit and rule on His throne; So He shall be a priest on His throne, And the counsel of peace shall be between them both.’" (Zechariah 6:12 & 13) Here we learn that Jesus would be a priest AND rule on his throne. The counsel of peace would be between both offices. So if He is a priest now, he also must be a king now! We know that He is a priest now, for the book of Hebrews clearly declares this (Heb 8:1). But His priesthood demands a heavenly office (Heb 8:1-4), for priests must be from the tribe of Levi (according to the Law of Moses), but Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah (Heb 7:13f). We learn that His present priesthood places Him in heaven, in the presence of God for us. (Heb 9:23f) If you will compare Hebrews 10:12f with I Corinthians 15:25, you will see that not only is Jesus presently our High Priest, He also is our reigning king. Now another Old Testament prophecy is very important here. Read it carefully: "Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol; A vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, And cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, Hear the word of the Lord! Thus says the Lord: ‘Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.’" (Jer 22:28-30) Now we know that Coniah did have children (I Chron 3:17). Matthew 1:12 names one of these as an ancestor of Christ (Shealtiel). Coniah was written "childless" so far as the throne and rule was concerned "in Judah". Jesus, being a descendant of Coniah, cannot reign from Judah. Jerusalem is in Judah. Jesus can never reign in Jerusalem and prosper... Now that is a powerful prophecy. Is Jesus Now on the Throne of David or the Throne of God... We know that Jesus must reign until all enemies are conquered. (I Cor 15:25 & 26) There can be no doubt that Jesus is now sitting and ruling on a throne! But this leaves us with the question, "On whose throne is Jesus really sitting?" Some would have us believe that Jesus is now on the Throne of God, but at His coming will sit on the throne of David (Making a distinction between the two thrones). But note that: -(I Kgs 1:46f) Solomon had his own throne (Solomon's throne). -(I Kgs 1:48) Yet Solomon was sitting on David's throne. -(I Kgs 2:12) Solomon sat on David's throne. -(I Chr 29:23) Solomon sat on Jehovah's throne. -Solomon's throne = David's throne = Jehovah's throne. The Significance of the word "throne" - "In the Old Testament the basic meaning of kisse' is 'seat' or 'chair.'... The more frequent sense of kisse' is 'throne' or 'seat of honor,' ...The word kisse' was also used to represent 'kingship' and the succession to the throne" (Nelson, pp428f). The problem people have here is that they automatically think of a piece of furniture when they see or hear the word "throne". Does God sit on a piece of furniture?... (Ps 47:8) Are God and Jesus sitting on the same piece of furniture?... (Rev 3:21) And better yet, in this same passage we learn that when we overcome, we all will be sitting with Jesus and the Father on His throne. A piece of furniture?... "Throne" refers to the "right to rule", and Jehovah is the only one who can give it. It is always the same throne, no matter who is sitting on it. Jesus Is Now on David's Throne... What we have seen to this point should be convincing enough to force us to the conclusion that Jesus is now on the throne of David! If, however, you still have doubts, let us give consideration to the apostle Peter's words in Acts 2:29 - 36... Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: "The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’" Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:29-39) What is this "promise of the Holy Spirit" referred to here? The only logical answer must be found in the context. What promise was made in the preceding verses? "God had sworn with an oath" that "He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne". Jesus received the fulfillment of this promise. Jesus was sitting on David’s throne as promised, and was now "both Lord and Christ". Jesus sitting on the throne of David is not for future fulfillment. Jesus is on the throne of David now! Conclusion... Will Jesus return to earth, in the future, and sit on the literal throne of David in Jerusalem? Jesus cannot return to earth and reign on earth. Prophecy forbids it. But Jesus is now on David's throne in heaven, for David's throne was in actuality Jehovah's throne! Jesus is now on the throne of David, ruling in heaven. This is why Paul wrote that God "seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and..." (Eph 1:20ff). http://www.fryroad.org/...roneofDavid/tabid/212/Default.aspx The throne of David was always the throne of God, hence Jesus' throne Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by jar, posted 04-29-2012 9:29 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 96 by jar, posted 05-03-2012 8:56 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 93 of 304 (661186)
05-03-2012 2:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
04-29-2012 12:50 PM
|
|
Re: Then you're a fraud and a poser:
Jar writes to Arch Nor does it address the factual points I have raised where you simply misrepresented what the Bible actually says by taking quote mined phrases out of context. factual Points? Since you do not know "what the Bible actually says" or what the author in the OT was refering to specifically, in any passage, you would not know if someone was quote mining To know what the writer was saying in contecxt, you would need to include the writers admissions of inspiration and God given direction in his writings Since you deny outright his inspiration, it follows logically that you could not know what he meant contextually or what he really meant overall That is unless you are willing to admit, he was actually inspired by God. Were the writers in the OT, really inspired by God Jar, as they claim? If the writers of the Old test are not inspired by God, please explain to whom it refers and what it means, that "unto us a child is born", etc Your claim that someone is quote mining, without knowing the specfics yourself, is nothing less than idiotic If I choose not to believe the inspiration of the NT writers, which is built on good evidence, it is a cinch that I have no valid reason to believe someones objections, like yours, that are based on nothing but simple disapproval, with no real evidence to the contrary It takes more than disapproval to dismiss the specific details in the Jesus life that lineup with what the OT had to say in those specifics "I dont agree", wont work Factual points? 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 81 by jar, posted 04-29-2012 12:50 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by Panda, posted 05-03-2012 5:47 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied | | | Message 97 by jar, posted 05-03-2012 9:02 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Then you're a fraud and a poser:
Dawn Bertot writes: Since you do not know "what the Bible actually says"
...says the person that thinks that "On your shoulders" means "persecuted". I gather by your lack of response to my post ( Message 73) that you are unable to support your claim? I realise that you want to jump to your own conclusions about what the bible says, but if all the educated biblical scholars disagree with you, then it should suggest to you that you are wrong.
Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 95 of 304 (661194)
05-03-2012 8:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by Panda
05-03-2012 5:47 AM
|
|
Re: Then you're a fraud and a poser:
I gather by your lack of response to my post (Message 73) that you are unable to support your claim? Hardly, I will get to them (yours and Mods) as soon as time allows, sorry for the lateness of response Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by Panda, posted 05-03-2012 5:47 AM | | Panda has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Horse meat, nothing but horse meat.
Where does it say that Jesus sat on David's throne or ruled over David's Kingdom or even the people "Israel"?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2012 1:40 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Then you're a fraud and a poser:
I am capable of actually reading what was written in the stories and actually capable of quoting them in context. And unless you can show where I "deny outright his inspiration" you are simply yet again misrepresenting what I have said. There is no need to know whether or not someone is inspired by God to tell whether or not what the person wrote is quote mining. All that is needed is to honestly read what was written. And of course I know what the Bible says; I read what the Bible says.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3933 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
|
Message 98 of 304 (661212)
05-03-2012 11:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by GDR
05-02-2012 10:06 PM
|
|
Re: Scripture taking scripture out of context
I don*t see that much difference. The egalitarianism is primarily talked about in Acts and didn*t seem to last that long anyway. Acts isn't a work of Paul so I don't know what you are talking about. Paul's original works is about the here and now and addressed to all people equally. How it was modified either directly or in future works was to subjugate women and establish a hierarchy over the collective enterprise of faith that Paul established. THAT is the problem with the context of pseudo-Paul writings. Their "context" is one of fraud.
As the letters to Timothy are later they are dealing with different issues that are primarily intended to keep the church on track doctrinally. If we accept that they were only attributed to Paul they would have been attempting to be consistent with what Paul taught in dealing with the issues that were being faced by the church in the latter part of the first century. But they are most certainly NOT consistent with what Paul taught. That is what I am trying to tell you. If these books are what you claim them to be, a echo of god inside of the intent of these writers in context then you have a major problem. The intent of these writers was to explain away a failure of their theology. Jesus did not return but men still wanted power. They didn't like this notion of a community of believers that Paul instituted and instead wanted a situation where they could implement control and where certain individuals had more authority than others. They wanted resources and most egregiously of all they didn't want those pesky women to be involved in the process. I mean, this is ridiculous. For all your talk about context you are blatantly ignoring the deep context in which Paul was writing. Paul spent a good amount of his time in his original letters consoling people who were worrying about the fact that Jesus hadn't returned yet. And how did Paul choose to do so? He did by REITERATING that Jesus meant to come back soon. That is WHY Paul had to be bastardized by his successors. Jesus STILL hadn't arrived and they needed a reason. So they took up the pen in the name of Paul and created a brand new theology about the long patience of god and how we should all now listen to certain dudes for our day to day mortal activities. Like you cherry pick scripture, you are cherry picking your context. The context of Matthew includes the fact that he is lying about the foreshadowing of Jesus in the OT. The context of Daniel includes the fact that he is lying about how the history of Babylonian captivity unfolded in order to support a contemporary revolution. Yet you seem perfectly willing to dismiss the obviously ahistoric events of the OT as the "context" of the cultures in which they were written. Why can't that be true for the newer writings? If you readily accept that the facts of the story of Moses and Joshua are indeed bullshit then why do you give a pass to the equally anonymous, equally agenda driven posthumous ghost writings of Paul and the gospel writers? Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.
BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by GDR, posted 05-02-2012 10:06 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 99 of 304 (661394)
05-05-2012 1:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by jar
05-03-2012 9:02 AM
|
|
Re: Then you're a fraud and a poser:
I am capable of actually reading what was written in the stories and actually capable of quoting them in context.
And unless you can show where I "deny outright his inspiration" you are simply yet again misrepresenting what I have said.
There is no need to know whether or not someone is inspired by God to tell whether or not what the person wrote is quote mining. All that is needed is to honestly read what was written.
And of course I know what the Bible says; I read what the Bible says. Your above comments, are little more than a different way of objecting without actually addressing any of the points that were presented to you. Again the Messiahship is built on more than just one passage. it is built on numerous specific details that are then corroborated in the life of Jesus as set out by the writers of the NT It is not necessary for each OT prophecy to mention the name Jesus, for it to be a fulfillment concerning Jesus. The name, Jesus, does not need to appear to know that the expression, "he shall be called wonderful, counselor, mighty God, prince of peace", for it to refer to Jesus The life of Jesus, the claims he amde and the attestations by the eyewitnesses confirm this information Your objection, in different words does not remove the evidence as it is set out in the Old and NT. Not to mention the hundreds of detailed pieces of information mentioned in the prophecies If all that is needed is to "honestly read what is written", as you say, then why would you not afford the NT writers the same courtesy. They claim inspiration just as those in the Old IOWs, how would you know the OT writers were any more accurate concerning the things they are speaking about verses the NT writers. Why would you ascribe to the OT writers believabilty, then claim the NT writers were biased? Besides your objections, what actual evidence can you provide to let us know that the NT writers were inaccurate in thier estimations through inspiration, that Jesus was not actually the Messiah and he was not the fulfillment of said prophecies? Can you point to anyone elses life, or anyone elses life that that has been written about, that would seem to fit together perfectly with these OT prophecies? IOWS, can you provide any valid reason, other than your dissatisfaction or your baseless objection why I should not accept the NT writers conclusions? Can you provide a valid reason why I should reject Jesus as the fulfillment? Claiming the NT writers were biased, is not a valid reason, its only a complaint
There is no need to know whether or not someone is inspired by God to tell whether or not what the person wrote is quote mining. I do not agree with the above statement, but for the sake of argument, lets assume you are correct. Ok, How did you decide and what evidence can you put forward to know they are quote mining. How did you come to the evidential idea that they are not accurate in placing the prophecies in line with Jesus IOWs, I have already demonstrated from a Biblical and inspiration standpoint how jesus' is setting on Davids throne. How will you demonstrate it otherwise? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by jar, posted 05-03-2012 9:02 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 104 by jar, posted 05-05-2012 9:19 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 100 of 304 (661395)
05-05-2012 2:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by Panda
04-29-2012 10:16 AM
|
|
"On your shoulders" does not mean "persecuted".
In fact, I can't find any religious text that supports your new definition of "on his shoulders". I didnt respond to this earlier because i thought your objection was patently silly. "patently (p t nt-l, p t-) adv. In a patent manner; openly, plainly, or clearly: a patently false statement. " If the Jewish leaders and Heord in particular were considered goverment officals, in certain areas, and places by the Roman government, then that is all that is needed to demonstrate that the expression is valid and fulfilled If Pilate saw fit to send him to another ruler, that is sufficient to demonstrate the point I see no possible way for you to avoid that conclusion, other than objection to it, whether you quote another writer or not. It would simply mean that writer was not being objective, scholar or not Your objection however, does not count as evidence. BTW, when did you start agreeing with Bible scholars? Your only course would be, to not agree with the NT writers. At which point you are more than welcome to demonstrate otherwise, since, even Josephus seems to corroborate that he was put to death under the order of Pilate Uh yes I think we could conclude the government was on his shoulder Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by Panda, posted 04-29-2012 10:16 AM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by Panda, posted 05-05-2012 7:45 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Panda writes: "On your shoulders" does not mean "persecuted". Dawn Bertot writes: If the Jewish leaders and Heord in particular were considered goverment officals, in certain areas, and places by the Roman government, then that is all that is needed to demonstrate that the expression is valid and fulfilled If Pilate saw fit to send him to another ruler, that is sufficient to demonstrate the point
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I did not question your use of the word 'government'.
Dawn Bertot writes: Uh yes I think we could conclude the government was on his shoulder
Nope. "On your shoulders" does not mean "persecuted". if it helps you see that I am not questioning the presence of a government: "and the government will be on his shoulders" does not mean "the government will be persecuting him". Here's that quote again, since you ignored it last time:
quote:
The sense of this passage is, that he shall rule, or that the government shall be vested in him. Various interpretations have, however, been given of the phrase 'upon his shoulder.' Some have supposed, that it means simply he shall sustain the government, as the shoulder is that by which we uphold any thing. Pliny and Cicero thus use the phrase; see Rosenmuller. Others, that it means that he should wear the royal purple from a child. - Grotius. Lowth supposes that it refers to the ensign of government - the scepter, the sword, the keys, or the like, that were borne upon the shoulder, or suspended from it; see the note at Isaiah 22:22. It is evident, from this latter place, that some ensign of office was usually borne upon the shoulder. The sense is, that he should be a king, and under this character the Messiah is often predicted. Bible.cc
I am not surprised, but you managed to post ~200 words and not a single one addressed the point I raised. To repeat:
"and the government will be on his shoulders" does not mean "the government will be persecuting him".
Therefore the prophecy is unfulfilled. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 102 of 304 (661412)
05-05-2012 8:49 AM
|
|
|
Jesus Calms the Storm of Jonah
Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Jonah:
quote:
Jonah 1:4—6 (NRSV): But the Lord hurled a great wind upon the sea, and such a mighty storm came upon the sea that the ship threatened to break up. Then the mariners were afraid, and each cried to his god. They threw the cargo that was in the ship into the sea, to lighten it for them. Jonah, meanwhile, had gone down into the hold of the ship and had lain down, and was fast asleep. The captain came and said to him, 'What are you doing sound asleep? Get up, call on your god! Perhaps the god will spare us a thought so that we do not perish.'
quote:
Mark 4:35—41 (NRSV): On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, 'Let us go across to the other side.' And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. Other boats were with him. A great gale arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him up and said to him, 'Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?' He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, 'Peace! Be still!' Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. He said to them, 'Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?' And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, 'Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?'
Jonah was called upon to calm the waters. It was in Jesus that the fulfillment of that calling was finally realized. CJ
Love your enemies!
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 103 of 304 (661413)
05-05-2012 8:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by Panda
05-05-2012 7:45 AM
|
|
I am not surprised, but you managed to post ~200 words and not a single one addressed the point I raised. To repeat: "and the government will be on his shoulders" does not mean "the government will be persecuting him". Therefore the prophecy is unfulfilled. Yes Panda I understood what you and the writer were saying. However, it does not matter the approach or interpretation one gives the interpretation If you choose to believe the interpretation provided by the quote, then he passes that test as well "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37
11 "And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh." Instead of nitpicking each prophecy, it would be more benificial to try and show why he is not the messiah overall. Your current approach is tedious and will fail miseribly You may disagree that Israels freedom from bondage and Abrahams nearly sacrificing of his son, are not foreshadowings of a greater release from the bondage of sin. But you will be hard pressed to demonstrate it otherwise using the Old and NT You will be hard pressed to demonstrate it otherwise, to people who accept and believe the inspiration as set out in scripture. To demonstrate it otherwise, seems like an exercise in futility. Dawn Bertot 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 101 by Panda, posted 05-05-2012 7:45 AM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 107 by Panda, posted 05-05-2012 1:00 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Then you're a fraud and a poser:
Ok, How did you decide and what evidence can you put forward to know they are quote mining. How did you come to the evidential idea that they are not accurate in placing the prophecies in line with Jesus I actually read the Bible, not just what some carny huckster SAYS the Bible says. In fact, I even provided you the evidence which you refused to read it seems. There is a whole thread looking at each of the so called Old Testament prophecies of Jesus in detail, and so far not ONE has stood up to examination. The thread is called Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?.
IOWs, I have already demonstrated from a Biblical and inspiration standpoint how jesus' is setting on Davids throne. How will you demonstrate it otherwise? Not quite true dat. What you did was post a quote from one of the snake oil salesmen making that claim, but you did not provide any supporting evidence.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 105 of 304 (661417)
05-05-2012 9:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 104 by jar
05-05-2012 9:19 AM
|
|
Re: Then you're a fraud and a poser:
I actually read the Bible, not just what some carny huckster SAYS the Bible says. Great, now provide the evidence that the NT writers are less accurate in thier estimations concerning the prophecies than the writers of the OT, concerning the things of which they spake My choice is simple Jar. I can believe people that understood prophecy and were guided by inspiration, or I can believe you, which can only provide objection If you actually read the Bible as you say, what makes the NT writers any less reliable My prediction is that you wont touch this argument and that you will skip over it in your same usual fashion. Your whole argument is based upon, "I just dont like it". Youll have to do better than that lets see
What you did was post a quote from one of the snake oil salesmen making that claim, but you did not provide any supporting evidence. Your right I did nothing, the NT provided the evidence for me. Can you show why these fellows are any less reliable. Ill be happy to address an actual argument, should you present it Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 104 by jar, posted 05-05-2012 9:19 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 106 by jar, posted 05-05-2012 9:36 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2