Summations Only

Utter nonsense Phat.The Bible is filled with examples of God asking questions to find out the answer.Have you ever actually read the Bible Phat?Where do you find support that Satan made a choice to oppose God?Have you ever read the Bible Phat?

From what you have written I believe that the most persuasive evidence that you have for inerrancy is fulfilled prophesy and particularly the fulfilled prophesy found in Jesus.I'd like to try another way of looking at that with you, starting from points where we have some agreement. I think that we would both agree that God speaks to us through our hearts and minds in some form or another calling us to be loving, kind, just forgiving etc. Through that I think that we can gain insight into what He is doing and What He wants of us for this world, so that we can faithfully reflect His love into His creation. I think that we would agree that we often don't get it right and that there are many times that we are heavily influenced by our own personal agenda.I think that we would also agree that Jesus was an individual who was steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures and one who prayed incessantly to the Father for knowledge and guidance. The Gospels tell of Jesus speaking in the synagogues and being called teacher etc so I think we are safe in concluding that He was thoroughly fluent when it came to teaching on the Scriptures. We also have many accounts of His time in prayer in the Gospels so I contend that we are also on safe ground there.Where we disagree on what it means for God to have inspired the Scriptures. It is my belief that the Scriptures were inspired in the same way that Mozart was inspired musically. The Biblical writers were inspired to put pen and paper to their understanding of God and of their understanding of what God was doing in their world. However, just as people today get right off track in trying to follow and understand God today, they did then as well.In Jesus' day there were various ideas of what a messiah was to do and be but the principle idea was that he would lead them militarily against their enemies and vanquish them.I'm suggesting this. Jesus with His Scriptural knowledge and through prayer understood the Hebrew Scriptures in a way that was counter-cultural, and felt that He was called to a specific vocation which was to be the messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. I'd suggest that He saw Himself called to fulfil the prophesies such as the suffering servant is Isaiah, Son of Man in Daniel as well as the prophesies in Jeremiah. He rejected the militaristic prophesies found in the Scriptures, or at least He rejected the common perception of those prophesies.I'd suggest that the man Jesus, along with His cousin John the Baptist went about consciously fulfilling the prophesies that were consistent with the vocation that He on faith believed He was called to. The most obvious one would be riding into Jerusalem on a donkey as foretold in Jeremiah. He was making a messianic statement. Another example is the quote from the cross from Psalm 22 "My God why have you forsaken me". I'm suggesting that what was written initially did not involve supernatural insight. I'm suggesting that Jesus used these scriptures to make a messianic statement and intentionally fulfilled these Scriptures by His words and actions. Even His going to the cross was an act of faith gained through Scripture and prayer. He knew what would happen to someone going into Jerusalem and and doing what He planned to do and saying what He planned to say.As I said to jar in another thread, that if He has simply died on the cross and was buried in the tomb it would simply mean that he was another failed messiah and there would be no particular reason to give any credibility to what He had to say. However the cross was not the end of the story. God resurrected Jesus thus vindicating and validating Jesus' life and message. It is the resurrection that brings the whole Biblical account into focus and it is through the resurrection that we should base our hermeneutical understanding of what God is doing and what God wants of us and for us.I contend that by understanding the Bible as being inerrant we not only fail to understand but distort what God wants us to learn from the Scriptures.I'm saying that instead of understanding prophesy as being a supernatural foretelling of the future, it is that it is actually Jesus consciously fulfilling the appropriate prophesies in order to be faithful to the vocation He believed that He was called to.

So you are saying that Jesus was just a conman, a carny snakeoil salesman just using common beliefs to make folk think he was a Messiah?

Read what I wrote. Frankly jar you often seem more interested in being confrontational than you are in having a reasonable discussion.

I even quoted what you wrote. Why do you continue to make Jesus look like a crook and God like a fool?What would you call someone who knowing what was written in scripture tried to manufacture the conditions predicted? "Hey John, go get me an ass for tomorrows entrance scene?"Did you not say " I'd suggest that He saw Himself called to fulfil the prophesies such as the suffering servant is Isaiah, Son of Man in Daniel as well as the prophesies in Jeremiah. "?Did you not say "I'd suggest that the man Jesus, along with His cousin John the Baptist went about consciously fulfilling the prophesies that were consistent with the vocation that He on faith believed He was called to. The most obvious one would be riding into Jerusalem on a donkey as foretold in Jeremiah."?How else could that behavior be described other than as a con job and Medicine Show sales?

Unfortunately I agree with jar, an extremely rare event if not exactly a first since I also agree with him about guns. He's never right about what the scriptures actually say but I think he's right about your very strange idea about how Jesus could have decided to fulfill the scriptures himself with John's help. That does make Jesus into a con man.And it also raises a lot of questions.How could there have been such consistent prophecies down the centuries for Jesus to decide to fulfill if God hadn't inspired them?Actually I suppose you must simply deny the majority of those the Church has treated as messianic down the centuries.For instance, how did He manage to get himself born in Bethlehem or are you discounting that prophecy? And did He invent the idea of the virgin birth that Matthew and Luke emphasize? Or are you just going with the idea that Matthew and Luke were liars or idiots?And why would God support Jesus in such a manipulative effort anyway, by raising Him from the dead? Especially if, as you seem to be suggesting, the correct understanding of the messianic prophecies was the Pharisees' expectation of a military success against Rome, which would of course make Jesus' ideas wrong?He could not have been raised from the dead if He had not been sinless and if He was ONLY human, with two human parents, which you seem to be implying -- that is, that God was not His begetter -- then He would have inherited original sin and not be sinless. I'm sure there are plenty of other problems that your scenario creates too but these are what come to mind at the moment.How did the Pharisees manage to get any coherent idea at all out of the messianic prophecies if they were all merely inspired in the sense you insist on, as what, some sort of spiritual intuitions or something?There was a general expectation of the soon coming of the Messiah in Jesus' day, which is why so many false messiahs kept cropping up, but the expectation certainly suggests that the Old Testament was read as having given such a prophetic picture.What about Simeon and Anna who welcomed Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecies?And please remind me, why do you insist that there be no supernatural inspiration to the prophecies and their fulfillment? Something about contradicting your idea of the true message of Jesus? How so?======ABE: Of course you are saying the prophecies were not really prophecies but what on earth can it mean to say such ideas were "inspired" even in the sense you use the word since they do seem to be prophetic? Did Jesus invent the whole idea that they are prophetic then? And taught that to his disciples so that's why they wrote as they did? I'm sorry, I'm just having too much of a problem with this whole idea to answer it properly.I guess you must be hinging a lot on His praying about these things, which I suppose you figure got God on His side? But if prayer is possible; that is, if you believe God does hear and answer prayer, what problem can there possibly be with the idea that God inspired the prophecies in the first place? Both are supernatural.So I guess you're saying Jesus' interpretation of these things pleased the Father and that's why He favored Him and raised Him from the dead? But with your idea of the Father as a sadistic genocidal maniac why would you expect Him to favor Jesus' nonmilitaristic interpretations?And what in any of this scenario fits Jesus to be the Savior of Mankind? Or does that matter at all?GDR, this is all too confusing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A con man is a con man does what he does for personal gain. What I am suggesting is that Jesus sincerely believed that He was called by God to do what He was doing. He was called IMHO to a specific vocation which was to be Israel's messiah but also to embody Yahweh's return to His people. That is not a con.Fulfilling the prophecies was to call people's attention to His message. Why else quote Psalm 22 while on the cross? Even to death He remained faithful to His calling and God vindicated that call by resurrecting Him. However, without the resurrection then Jesus' life and message is a sham and your assessment is right to the point that it was a con even though a well intentioned one.

I'll reply to your post in general but this last statement requires a specific response. Faith it is you that pints the Father that way. It is you that insists that Yahweh was in favour of ordering genocide, public stonings etc. My view is that when we read the OT through the lens of the Gospels and through Jesus the incarnate Word and wisdom of God that we get a true picture of His nature.Just using the two examples. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. Are you suggesting that He wouldn't have been familiar with the book of Jeremiah. Of course He knew what message that was sending. Do you think that when He asked on the cross, "My God why have You Forsaken Me", that he wasn't familiar with Psalm 22?Why do you think that Jesus prayed to the Father in Gethsemane to not have to go through with what He knew would happen by doing what He was going to do when he entered Jerusalem. He went in there as an act of faith that this was what He was called to do, and that somehow God was going to vindicate Him.If Jesus supernaturally knew without question that he would be resurrected in the manner that He was then it changes the whole nature of what He did. It also makes no sense of His Gethsemane prayer. Look at all of those who have sacrificed their lives for the sake of God's message of love and who did on the faith that they were doing the right thing without any certainty of what would happen to them the other side of death.IMHO your understanding of Jesus belittles what He did on the cross.

And yet how would Jesus avoid fulfilling the scriptures? Would he purposefully never ride on a donkey?(at least not into Jerusalem with palm leaves)Would He purposefully avoid saying some of the things He said...just so nobody would confuse Him with prophecy. Would He say to everyone, "Hey I'm just a normal guy like you. My Father is your Father..."?

GDR, this is a lie whether you know it or not. You have consistently made this accusation OF THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF without my having said a word. YOU read the scripture as presenting such a view of God, this is not based on anything I have said, except that I believe the whole scripture is the word of God and do NOT have the same view of it you have.This is all YOUR view, leave me out of it.Take that back.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How is it not a con?You are saying that he and John deliberately set out to make people think he was some kind of messiah. Whether he believed he was a messiah or not is hardly relevant when what is being discussed is the behavior; trying to manufacture evidence to convince folk.A scientist that manufactures evidence to support his position is called fired regardless of whether or not the position is valid.And as I have pointed out Jesus resurrection and even Jesus death were not unique either in the Bible or throughout religious mythos. Even Jesus ascension is not a unique event in the Biblical stories.

I think you dost protest too much.Is it your view that, God did not order Saul to kill the men and women, children, infant and suckling, and all of the cattle of the Amekilites? In your view God did not express displeasure when King Agag and some of the best cattle were spared?What is your view of 1 Samuel 15?

Every time I ride a donkey I make sure to tell people that I'm not the Messiah, just in case.

When the Bible tells us that Yahweh commanded the Israelits to slaughter the Canaanites, or that they were to stone to death some guy for picking up firewood on the Sabbath is it accurate?I'm saying that Yahweh did not command that and that either they got it wrong or it suited their own purposes and probably the latter.

It isn't about manufacturing evidence. It is about making a statement. By riding into Jerusalem on a donkey Jesus was making a messianic statement. That along with Him making statements such as that He can forgive sins etc would indicate that He was delusional and the only reason to believe otherwise is that God vindicated Jesus' belief in the vocation that Jesus believed He was called to. There are resurrection mythologies of mythical gods etc but so what? Jesus was resurrected or He wasn't. The truth of the Christian faith and the validation of Christ's message is dependant of a positive answer to that question.