Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

The intelligence and accumulation of apparent erroneous positions, yet in truth correct positions, nevertheless hang on a few verses. Effectively you're saying that he can't have been the Messiah, but our very NT says otherwise so why should this bother us? Like Jesus - we go where the Spirit leads us, and our theology cannot be handpicked nor located.The problem with your stance, is that you think one prophecy in Isaiah - is what our theology is based on, but it isn't. Yet we can't deal with other prophecies by your own words. Some scriptures can ONLY have described Christ. And there has been no other to have paid for our sin.Isaiah is littered with scriptures about Christ foretold. Though ofcourse - I can't mention them. So I'll just say that it's illogical to say that our whole theology is brought down because of these things. It simply isn't IMHO. And you're simply wrong.So this just doesn't outweigh all those other things we cannot mention, yet could only have pertained to Christ to have any relevance. So - it's no big deal to me as a Christian, as even Christ pointed at vague and singular verses and said they were relevant. Am I a lesser being? Ofcourse. So I can happily say that I am happy in that thing in which I allow.I think Christ was more than man could expect, but who can list where the Spirit goes? Likewise - you won't be able to pin down our theology, nor defeat it. I suggest a better endeavour - is to understand it. You may be knowledgeable, but one basic premise of our theology you have failed to even acknowledge, is the premise of belief in the NT. How then can your accumulation of intelligent endeavours waxh hot, compared to our Spirits on fire?

The opposite.If God says to me, "I will bring you a son of your body, and he shall glorify God with a mighty hand". And then - ten years later, I received a son of adoption, who increased and glorified God, was then God a liar? I trow not, but that events never come in the shape or form we expect. Did they expect Christ to come as a king with pomp? Or did he come as a servant?Logic and reason cannot locate the Spirit.So if you see corruption of the OT - then you know that blindness has came to you, if these things are explained. As reason and logic were never the deciphering quality, needed to explain mysteries. Thus Paul who was Saul can tell you the rest.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 08:50 AM

Rubbish.We don't hold that one scripture proves Christ - but many. And many the more point to him, and have only described him. Thus your rational procedure - is one of assertion, to no end.For the many outdo the few - and the few you cling on to, are desperate reminders of your impulse of wrongful endeavours. You're straining at a nat - and swallowing a camel.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 08:54 AM

Paul, your personal analysis is bankrupt. Moreover, there was never a case - in which prophecy could be deciphered through rational endeavour.The irrational position of you and Mike Hager - is to instantly buy what Brian says - as a full refutation of Christ in the NT. This has to be looked upon, according to the biased welcoming of it's nature. One can only be too quick - to write off the many with the few, or even the one, as you have absurdly and automatically done.It's the same as if a creationist would say that stuck-in-a-rut species prove evolution wrong. WRONG. The one case won't upset the many cases. Simply observe your own reasoning. I advise caution. To write off Christ through personal feelings and a vague quote from an early book, is to remove rational thoughts with haste. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 12:21 AM

You see Brian, your problem is that many OT prophecies DO DESCRIBE Christ - and very few you pick can actually prove otherwise - or come close to being persuasive compared to the ones I can show.Just because Mary's lineage isn't mentioned, doesn't evidence anything - with the vast weight of other scriptures that describe Christ in the OT; Isaiah; He was wounded and crushed because of our sins;
by taking our punishment
he made us completely well

​

All of us were like sheep that had wandered off
We had each gone our own way
but the Lord gave him
the punishment we deservedDoes this describe Solomon? Does it not describe Christ? Tell me how it doesn't describe Christ.Extra-biblical sources;Excerpt from Peter-'We have been made suffer thus because of the wrong that we have done; but this one, having become Savior of men, what injustice had he done to you?'Excerpt from Peter-And they brought two wrongdoers and crucified the Lord in the middle of them.Excerpt from Peter- 'If at his death these very great signs happened, behold how just he was,'

Hi Bri. The problem is Brian, you haven't done that. There was no other servant who captured the aspects and requirements like Jesus did. You haven't answered how Solomon fulfilled the requirements of my quote. So please, who was the Messiah to you? Did he fit my quote?If no evidence of Mary's lineage proves something of significance to you, then I think you're being unkind to yourself, in not realizing that there are many things not mentioned in the NT texts. Essentially - you're saying that no evidence evidences something.Christ suffered like the quoted Isaiah text says. Straining at nats and swallowing camels doesn't mean that Christ can't have been the Messiah. You're going to have to show a lot more to convince me.

Okay Brian, you win - I'll concentrate on message 1. Brian, what christians say that Samuel prophecizes Christ? Did I? I might possibly acknowledge that Samuel pertains to Solomon. But does that mean my quote in Isaiah does? If you say Solomon fullfilled this - did Solomon fulfill those things in Isaiah? If not - who did? Can you quote Jesus please. Required? Please quote specifically the passage, and why it must be taken literally.I also have another question or two. Who did Jesus say his brother or sister is? What did John the Baptist say about raising children to Abraham from rocks? What does the NT say about who the children of Abraham are - by faith?IMHO, your quote from Samuel mentions one thing which for me - meaning I personally wouldn't use it as a Messianic prophecy personally (not that others can't - tis just my opinion). It says that he will do "wrong" and be corrected. Jesus didn't do wrong IMO.I personally have only ever used Isaiah for prophecies about Christ, and haven't used the Samuel one yet. That's just me though - and I hope you can answer my questions so that we can see where this goes.Enjoy your time at football and drink.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 14:46 AM

Paul, where did I lie about you? Why have you taken offense at my warning for objective endeavours?I think maybe you ought to calm down take a stress pill and think things over. Apparently you think me a liar and not a true christian (scotsman fallacy).

Joseph was still his father. He still looked after him.The problem is just not a problem. We know that a strict literalism of Samuel is required - and an emphasis on his "body".To concentrate on these few words alone don't mean much. Christ was of the line of David through Joseph, and so it makes sense to make sure we inform you that these few words are the same as Abraham's seeds, or Adam surely dying the day he ate the fruit - if taken literally, wrongful conclusions can be derived, Now prophecy is especially cryptic, look at Revelation for example. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 17:16 AM

Can you evidence your claim as to me lying please. A quote - so that all can see it. It's just that according to you, I seem to be a liar in every thread I exchange posts with you, aswell as not a true christian etc.. What is this intolerant rage you have against believers.Also, you cannot contain yourself concerning creationists - and turn every thread into how mean and nasty we all are.These harsh judgemental words paint a picture of one so consumed by hatred of mikey - that his unbarable and lusty rage cannot be contained. I think in truth that you lie when you say I lie about you because I truly don't in truth but lie you do, I don't.

Message #27 first. I'm not taking up the position of defending Samuel if I doubt it's Messianic meaning myself.

I was given the solved problem. Apparently - more experienced Biblists had the answer in another thread,(I'm only young.) and yet you make a new thread to debate this, when they offered an answer??? Please understand - that the answer satisfies me and the problem is solved for the wiz, so I'll be bowing out of this one now. Hope you understand Brian. But also - I guess this one just isn't that big a deal as I easily think this curse thing is the answer.But I have read Isaiah, and am convinced it prophecizes Christ. Only blinding my eyes could change that.God promised that David would always have a descendant on his throne (Jeremiah 23:5-6, 1 Chronicles 17:10-14). The legal right to this throne was passed through David's son, Solomon, to his descendants. Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin), a great, great grandson of Solomon and king of Judah, was so wicked that God punished him by declaring that none of his children would ever again sit on the throne (Jeremiah 22:17-30). This caused a 'problem' since Joseph, the supposed 'father' of Jesus, was a descendant of Jeconiah. If Joseph had been Jesus' biological father, Jesus would have had the legal right to the throne, but would have been unable to occupy it due to being under Jeconiah's curse. God solved this problem by using Mary: Jesus was the first-born son of Mary, a virgin (Matthew 1:23) and a descendant of David through another son, Nathan. So Jesus has the right to sit on the eternal throne of David legally, through his adoptive father, Joseph; and physically, through His natural mother, Mary. In this way, God's promise, mentioned above in Jeremiah and Chronicles, was fulfilled. - AIG.

Brian, did Jesus sit on a throne? Did he come with pomp? Did he force out the sinful?I hear what you say Brian, but do you hear me?I can't pay much attention to this philosophy of yours, as being that important. For me, the person who suffered for our sin, born of a virgin - called Emmanuelle, a light to the Gentiles - and to speak n riddles, outweighs what you're saying.Maybe you didn't read the thread in which I succesfully shown that Isaiah indeed spoke of Christ.And so to listen to you would be to deny the rest of the scripture - but since Isaiah deals with blindness, and God cannot be located - then to my theology it just isn't that important. Maybe I should have explained more but you wanted to deal with one scripture. Yet Christ didn't sit on a throne - come with pomp. What did the NT establish? Was it not concerned with adoption? That those children of faith in Christ - are children of Abraham.Now Brian, don't get frustrated, and realize my major premise;Mike believes Christ is the Messiah, the son of God.you cannot convince me otherwise with a few verses. Even if it did mean Solomon, that just means it didn't speak of the Messiah (which is just as much as a logical conclusion if not more so). I've shown that those other MAIN Messianic prophecies we talk of so much - wouldn't pertain to Solomon.And you say the Messiah can be anyone in the bloodline. Well now that's a strange theology to me. Are you saying there are many Messiahs?We say there is one - and I and others have shown that only Christ is the candidate - as there has been no one else. These are just facts.The refusal to observe the obviousness of the Isaiah quote alone, I quoted in this thread - is a denial and a blindness Isaiah spoke of.Crashfrog; PS. It may look like I'm not listening Brian. Sorry if it appears that way - there's more to it than that. You just can't see.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-10-2005 12:18 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-10-2005 12:20 AM

I suspect the AIG quote shows how God could keep his promise, yet he could still keep it symbolically if not literally. I've shown many instances of this. For example - Abraham's children, his seed, could also be looked at literally. Yet the NT says we are children to Abraham, if we have faith in Christ.If it's 1, then it's still possible it doesn't refer to the Messiah, because of all those other scriptures that pertain to Jesus, If it's 2, then I also have no problem. If it's 3, then again - quite possible, and hard to disprove.Since the conclusion is that I have no problem, whether it is 1, 2 or 3 - why take any position? Is it not more logical/objective to say that they are all possibilities - and therefore end the debate. I said I'd bow out Irish - but you guys still seek me to take a position or three. Didn't I take up those three positions in this thread anyway? I think I took all three if you read through Irish.But strictly logically, if it doesn't refer to Jesus - that doesn't mean Jesus isn't the Messiah. It could also mean that it was a person. Does it say anywhere that Samuel MUST be referring to the Messiah? Please quote where it says this. But again - the only other logical option, is that Solomon was to whom it referred, and we can rule him out as Messiah - because he wasn't a light to the Gentiles, nor suffered for our sins, nor born of a virgin, nor speaking in riddles, nor....nor....nor.....nor... Eventually - it just seems more logical to say that either God fulfilled this symbolically - or literally, in a a way we cannot know - through Christ, OR - it was Solomon, and didn't refer to the Messiah.Have you considered these logical pathways?You see Rockertankski - why have you a problem with mike? When he considers all these things?Don't you know that Brian only allows one logical conclusion - that Jesus isn't the Messiah. I fail to see how I have been unfair here.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-10-2005 13:29 AM

Behold, MY SERVANT shall deal prudently, HE shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.As many were astonied at thee; His visage was so marred more than any man, and HIS form more than the sons of men:For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant-- Brian, it takes a HUGE double standard - for you to take literally, the verses in Samuel about the body - as literal, and now tell us; I urge anyone to read THE WHOLE CHAPTER, and think if the individual being described - sounds like someone they've heard of before. As can be seen - in those few versus alone, it is extremely obvious that the servant is a person, referred to as "he". Someone who will grow etc...and I could go on throughout pointing to more such instances.So indeed - read the whole book, like I did in my previous battle with Shraff.Brian, Very knowledgeable post, and I say well done for that - that fact is not in question. But the sheer obviousness of who these passages refer to, simply cannot be removed by any sayings or even a good knowledge. I suppose politics might convince the few, but really - the obviousness of these words pertaining to Christ, just cannot be removed. You really would need Crash's hot poker.It's just far too much of a stretch of the imagination, to take all of this as meaning Israel, but insist on the verses of Samuel as literal.-It just seems your position can adapt and change to meet the conclusion that it can't be Christ, because it is your atheist position, and mindset - that it CANNOT and MUST NOT refer to him.It's far more logical to simply agree that the OT and NT correlate - but that the NT was written by a man looking at the OT. I would atleast understand that position a lot more Brian. Because I think even many unbelievers can notice how the suffering servant is describing Christ.I urge unbelievers to not ignore the voice in the back of their head that really is saying, "wow - that does sound like Christ"..It may seem the wrong and un-atheistic conclusion to make, but if you're objective, you should listen to it.(Brian - gotta go, really - don't bother with me anymore, I took part in this Isaiah debate in a very long topic I made called "dear fellow christian - judge not lest you be judged"). And that was a while back - and you won't believe hos stubborn I am about this one.