Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 61 of 327 (506909)
04-30-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Peg
04-30-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
Please read Message 58 before responding.
quote:
thats not necessarily true...there are many examples where an indirect decedent is called a 'seed' and where a direct decendent is NOT called a seed
An indirect descendant is still a descendant. A follower is not an indirect descendant.
Your verses are all over 700 years later and not a way to show what Isaiah meant in his time.
Paul is trying to reason that even gentiles are heirs to the promises to Abraham through "adoption". It doesn't help us understand what Isaiah meant.
The rest of the verses are still talking about biological descendants, not followers.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 9:13 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 62 of 327 (506910)
04-30-2009 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Peg
04-30-2009 9:24 AM


The question that you are not addressing is why is there no mention of Nabonidus at all in Daniel ? It is a surprising omission given that he was king and that Daniel was supposedly active for the whole of his reign.
quote:
if it hasnt happened yet, that doesnt mean that it has failed, that just means it hasnt happened yet and its is still 'for the time of the end'
The prophecy says that the "time of the end" is in the "latter days" of the Diadochi kingdom. Those kingdoms are long gone, the end didn't arrive. Therefore the prophecy failed. You can't push it off to the future without contradicting the prophecy itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 9:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Peg, posted 05-01-2009 10:47 AM PaulK has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 63 of 327 (506911)
04-30-2009 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
04-30-2009 7:44 AM


he was actually born Sept/Oct 2BCE
Reference Please.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 7:44 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Peg, posted 05-02-2009 3:17 AM bluescat48 has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 64 of 327 (506923)
04-30-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by kbertsche
04-29-2009 2:57 AM


Are you going to reply?
kbertsche,
Your request. Message 26
quote:
You haven't answered my second question. Which of your three requirements does Is 53 not meet?
My response. Message 34
quote:
We will start with 2.
2) The prophecy must be specific. No vague, Nostradamus Style prophecy. The Book of Revelation runs into exactly this problem. The prophecies are so vague that they can have easily have many different "fulfillments". For instance, who is the beast of Revelation 13 (whose number is 666)? Some Fundamentalist Christians insist that it is the pope; Catholics believe it was Caesar Nero; and yet a few conpiracy theorists argue that it is Ronald Reagan! These symbloic prophecies are meaningless because they can be interpreted to fulfill anything that happens.
Are you conceding the point?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by kbertsche, posted 04-29-2009 2:57 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 12:18 PM Theodoric has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 65 of 327 (506935)
04-30-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Theodoric
04-30-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Are you going to reply?
quote:
My response. Message 34
2) The prophecy must be specific. No vague, Nostradamus Style prophecy. The Book of Revelation runs into exactly this problem. The prophecies are so vague that they can have easily have many different "fulfillments". For instance, who is the beast of Revelation 13 (whose number is 666)? Some Fundamentalist Christians insist that it is the pope; Catholics believe it was Caesar Nero; and yet a few conpiracy theorists argue that it is Ronald Reagan! These symbloic prophecies are meaningless because they can be interpreted to fulfill anything that happens.
Are you conceding the point?
No, I am not conceding the point.
I believe you are confusing two different issues: vagueness and genre. Yes, Nostradamus-style prophecies are vague. The classic example is the Oracle at Delphi, who predicted that if a general went into battle, a great army would fall.
Biblical prophecy is often written in an apocalyptic genre, which makes copious use of symbolism and imagery. It is not a narrative, but this does not mean that it is "vague." Much of the symbolism has a well-defined, objective meaning. Many of the points are quite detailed.
I have given a number of examples where NT writers referred to Is 53 as predictive of Jesus in Message 25. Please start with these, and show how they fit your claim of "vagueness."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 04-30-2009 11:16 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 04-30-2009 12:40 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 04-30-2009 12:58 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 04-30-2009 1:51 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 66 of 327 (506941)
04-30-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
04-30-2009 7:39 AM


Re: Isaiah 53 - The Suffering Servant
quote:
Except that the the NT writers who quote Isaiah 53 appear to be using it literally.
I agree that Isaiah wrote in a poetic style, and this style of writing is creative and not necessarily literal. If Isaiah's writing is full of idioms and figures of speech of the time, that shows me that the prophecy was not meant for the distant future. Idioms and figures of speech get lost over time and over 700 years is a very long time. Not to mention that OT Hebrew is a dead language. God would know that.
The NT writers were native Hebrew speakers (actually Aramaic-- a Hebrew dialect) who were raised in a Hebrew culture. They would have recognized many of the OT idioms.
Yes, language changes over time. If we REALLY want to understand "what the Bible really means" we need to study the language and culture of the day.
quote:
Also if we accept that Isaiah uses idioms and figures of speech, then that has to be taken into account for the whole writing, not just the difficult parts.
Agreed.
quote:
Your quote from the NET Bible doesn't really make the verse we're discussing fit Jesus either. The NT writers did not intimate that Jesus ever fell from God's favor.
The NT writers say this quite clearly. This is the crux of the gospel message! Jesus "fell from God's favor" at the Cross. Our sins were placed on Him, and He was rejected by God the Father.
quote:
Also the verse in Job doesn't really show me that Isaiah was using an idiom or figure of speech in verse 10.
Granted.
quote:
Unfortunately it is hard for us to determine if our translations have already taken into account the idioms and figures of speech.
True, not without study of the original language and culture.
quote:
Are there any other resources that show this verse is a figure of speech and not to be taken at face value, meaning actual children of his loin?
Excellent question. I'll try to look into this, but it might be a couple of weeks.
quote:
ABE: Figuratively, Isaiah could be talking about the nation of Israel.
That's the standard Jewish interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 04-30-2009 7:39 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 04-30-2009 12:55 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 70 by purpledawn, posted 04-30-2009 1:29 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 67 of 327 (506942)
04-30-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by kbertsche
04-30-2009 12:18 PM


Re: Are you going to reply?
Vague :not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed:
quote:
I have given a number of examples where NT writers referred to Is 53 as predictive of Jesus in Re: Isaiah (Message 25).
So your argument is the following. NT writers said that this jesus guy was the fulfillment of a prophecy, so therefore he is the fulfillment.
How is this any different than Nostradamus. Lots of people are saying things happening now are fulfillment of his prophecies. The writings of Isaiah are vague. There is nothing in them that states who, when or where. Just vague statements that later writers used to deify a legendary and probably mythological character.
quote:
(Jewish rabbis saw this passage as speaking of Christ).
Which Rabbis? When?
Any references to Jesus in the Talmud have him existing anywhere between 300 BCE and 100 CE.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 12:18 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 68 of 327 (506946)
04-30-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by kbertsche
04-30-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Isaiah 53 - The Suffering Servant
quote:
The NT writers were native Hebrew speakers (actually Aramaic-- a Hebrew dialect)
Wrong on a couple of points. First Aramaic is not a dialect of Hebrew. It is its own distinct language. Yes it is a Semitic language like Hebrew but it is a distinct language. Saying it is a dialect would be similar to saying Spanish is a dialect of French because they are both romance languages.
Hebrew was primarily a liturgical language in the first century CE. In Jerusalem and the south Hebrew was more widely spoken, but in the north it was heavily Aramaic.
Your contention that they were native Hebrew speakers, because they spoke Aramaic, is wrong. They were native Aramaic speakers.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 12:35 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 69 of 327 (506948)
04-30-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by kbertsche
04-30-2009 12:18 PM


Re: Are you going to reply?
Much of the symbolism has a well-defined, objective meaning.
Symbolism, by definition, cannot have objective meaning. It has only what meaning human beings assign to it. Symbols are by their very nature entirely subjective - which is why alternate interpretations abound when "prophesies" make heavy use of symbolic language. What one person things the symbolism means typically changes when real-world circumstances rule out the previous interpretation, and the symbols are assigned a new meaning to keep the "prophesy" accurate.
In this way your so-called "apocalyptic genre" prophesies are similarly just as vague. Revelations may have "well-known" symbols in that many people will agree on given meanings, but those meanings have changed throughout the years. Some people think the "whore of Babylon" is the Catholic Church; others believe it is the US. How many people have been accused of being the Antichrist at this point? How many interpretations of "his number shall be 666" have we seen? Does it refer to bar codes? Ronald Reagan? Nero? Will Jesus literally come in the flesh, or does he return individually for each of us when our own personal worlds end?
If the symbolic language had an "objective meaning," there would be no such reinterpretations. The meanings of symbols change over time because they do not have objective meaning, but rather have only whatever meaning human beings choose to interpret.
Take for instance the Jehovah's Witnesses. They've predicted the end of the world, complete with dates, several times now using the symbolic language of the Bible. In each case, when they're wrong, they "re-interpret" the "prophesies" to give a new date - this time, they are convinced, they have the correct interpretation. The accuracy of the Biblical prophesies themselves are never actually called into question, regardless of how many times they are falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 12:18 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 2:55 PM Rahvin has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 70 of 327 (506949)
04-30-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by kbertsche
04-30-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Isaiah 53 - The Suffering Servant
quote:
The NT writers were native Hebrew speakers (actually Aramaic-- a Hebrew dialect) who were raised in a Hebrew culture. They would have recognized many of the OT idioms.
Not necessarily. You would need to show that the author was a Hebrew speaking Jew. The NT was supposedly written in Greek. Supposedly the NT writers had a preference for the Septuagint. At the link go further down the article for the comparison table.
The Septuagint in the New Testament
The New Testament authors show a clear preference for the Septuagint over Masoretic readings.
quote:
If we REALLY want to understand "what the Bible really means" we need to study the language and culture of the day.
So if the NT authors are quoting certain lines of Isaiah as literal, why are those lines to be taken literal and not the others? That's what needs to be shown.
quote:
The NT writers say this quite clearly. This is the crux of the gospel message! Jesus "fell from God's favor" at the Cross. Our sins were placed on Him, and He was rejected by God the Father.
You'll have to show me those. There is a difference between feeling one is out of favor and actually being out of favor.
quote:
That's the standard Jewish interpretation.
And who would know their own ancient culture better?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 12:35 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 71 of 327 (506955)
04-30-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by kbertsche
04-30-2009 12:18 PM


Isaiah 53 is vague. It does look like it had some not unimportant influence on Christian thought. The fact that the writers of the Gospels referred to the passage would indicate that certain versions of Christ's life may have been edited (not necessarily consciously, human memory is terrible, and we often 'remember' parts of a story that were not there but that we inferred must be there - even if we witnessed the events live) in an attempt to conform to some symbolism rather than because of an actual fulfilled prophecy. I'm not saying that is what happened, only that since we can't rule it out - we can't rule it in and so that leaves us no better off than before it was brought up. It's kind of an inherent problem about prophecies concerning the existence of Jesus Christ - we don't have much to verify them with other than the texts that the Church considered best fit with those exact same prophecies.
Objections aside, the sections is till terribly vague. A specific version of Isaiah 53, that geniunely referred to Jesus would talk about crucifixion rather than 'piercing' would suggest the son of a manual labourer (rather than just 'servant') who lived in Nazareth would be executed by a government appointed by an Empire on the Italian peninsula would be born of Marium and Yusuf and be called Yeshua. That his execution would coincide with the Passover and that the religion that stems from this action would spread to the Antipodes and that a small group of the followers of this new religion, named after the Greek translation of 'messiah', would one day step on the surface of the moon.
That would be pretty specific, unforseeable, and spoken before it was fulfilled. We'd also have the luxury of having verifiable evidence that least some of the events in the prophecy actually happened in the exact non-symbolic fashion as described, which would make a nice change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 12:18 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 72 of 327 (506970)
04-30-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Rahvin
04-30-2009 12:58 PM


Apocalyptic genre
quote:
Symbolism, by definition, cannot have objective meaning. It has only what meaning human beings assign to it. Symbols are by their very nature entirely subjective - which is why alternate interpretations abound when "prophesies" make heavy use of symbolic language. What one person things the symbolism means typically changes when real-world circumstances rule out the previous interpretation, and the symbols are assigned a new meaning to keep the "prophesy" accurate.
I disagree. As Grant Osborne writes in "The Hermeneutical Spiral" regarding "The interpretation of symbols" (p. 283):
Biblical symbolism is actually a special type of metaphor... The task of the interpreter is to determine which figurative sense the symbol has in the larger context. This means that the true meaning is not to be found in our present situation but rather in the use of that symbol in its ancient setting. This point can hardly be overemphasized in light of the misuse of biblical symbols in many circle today.
quote:
In this way your so-called "apocalyptic genre" prophesies are similarly just as vague. Revelations may have "well-known" symbols in that many people will agree on given meanings, but those meanings have changed throughout the years. Some people think the "whore of Babylon" is the Catholic Church; others believe it is the US. How many people have been accused of being the Antichrist at this point? How many interpretations of "his number shall be 666" have we seen? Does it refer to bar codes? Ronald Reagan? Nero? Will Jesus literally come in the flesh, or does he return individually for each of us when our own personal worlds end?
If the symbolic language had an "objective meaning," there would be no such reinterpretations. The meanings of symbols change over time because they do not have objective meaning, but rather have only whatever meaning human beings choose to interpret.
Take for instance the Jehovah's Witnesses. They've predicted the end of the world, complete with dates, several times now using the symbolic language of the Bible. In each case, when they're wrong, they "re-interpret" the "prophesies" to give a new date - this time, they are convinced, they have the correct interpretation. The accuracy of the Biblical prophesies themselves are never actually called into question, regardless of how many times they are falsified.
The fact that many people interpret the symbols incorrectly does NOT mean that they don't have an objective, clear meaning. The problem is that people try to interpret the symbols in isolation from the ancient language and culture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 04-30-2009 12:58 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 04-30-2009 4:07 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 74 by Rahvin, posted 04-30-2009 4:48 PM kbertsche has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 73 of 327 (506978)
04-30-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by kbertsche
04-30-2009 2:55 PM


Re: Apocalyptic genre
quote:
The fact that many people interpret the symbols incorrectly does NOT mean that they don't have an objective, clear meaning.
So your interpretation of symbols is the correct interpretation?
By virtue of the fact that symbols need to be interpreted shows that they do not and cannot have an "objective, clear meaning".
Interpret
:
1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
2. to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.
Hermeneutics cannot be used as an argument for the "objective and clear meaning" of symbols. Because that is what it purports to do. It is like trying to use the bible to prove the bible. I am amazed of the audacity of people that claim they know exactly what the writer meant thousands of years ago. How can you understand what the symbolic meaning is of something from a vastly different time and vastly different culture?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 2:55 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 9:54 PM Theodoric has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 74 of 327 (506980)
04-30-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by kbertsche
04-30-2009 2:55 PM


Re: Apocalyptic genre
quote:
Symbolism, by definition, cannot have objective meaning. It has only what meaning human beings assign to it. Symbols are by their very nature entirely subjective - which is why alternate interpretations abound when "prophesies" make heavy use of symbolic language. What one person things the symbolism means typically changes when real-world circumstances rule out the previous interpretation, and the symbols are assigned a new meaning to keep the "prophesy" accurate.
I disagree. As Grant Osborne writes in "The Hermeneutical Spiral" regarding "The interpretation of symbols" (p. 283):
Biblical symbolism is actually a special type of metaphor... The task of the interpreter is to determine which figurative sense the symbol has in the larger context. This means that the true meaning is not to be found in our present situation but rather in the use of that symbol in its ancient setting. This point can hardly be overemphasized in light of the misuse of biblical symbols in many circle today.
Then, quite frankly, you don't understand the meaning of the words "symbol" or "objective."
What meaning does the Christian cross have to an aboriginal Australian whoo's never seen it before? What meaning does the "whore of Babylon" have?
What meaning does any symbol have without human beings to assign that meaning? Do squirrels recognize the meaning of your symbols?
Symbols have no objective meanings - that's what makes them symbols. They are used to represent ideas - and ideas are not objective, but subjective. The same symbol can have completely different meanings, even in Biblical language, whih is the very reasnon we have so many different versions of Christianity.
quote:
In this way your so-called "apocalyptic genre" prophesies are similarly just as vague. Revelations may have "well-known" symbols in that many people will agree on given meanings, but those meanings have changed throughout the years. Some people think the "whore of Babylon" is the Catholic Church; others believe it is the US. How many people have been accused of being the Antichrist at this point? How many interpretations of "his number shall be 666" have we seen? Does it refer to bar codes? Ronald Reagan? Nero? Will Jesus literally come in the flesh, or does he return individually for each of us when our own personal worlds end?
If the symbolic language had an "objective meaning," there would be no such reinterpretations. The meanings of symbols change over time because they do not have objective meaning, but rather have only whatever meaning human beings choose to interpret.
Take for instance the Jehovah's Witnesses. They've predicted the end of the world, complete with dates, several times now using the symbolic language of the Bible. In each case, when they're wrong, they "re-interpret" the "prophesies" to give a new date - this time, they are convinced, they have the correct interpretation. The accuracy of the Biblical prophesies themselves are never actually called into question, regardless of how many times they are falsified.
The fact that many people interpret the symbols incorrectly does NOT mean that they don't have an objective, clear meaning. The problem is that people try to interpret the symbols in isolation from the ancient language and culture.
You clearly don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
The authors of the various books of the Bible clearly had a specific meaning in mind when they used symbolic language. That doesn't mean that the symbols have an objective meaning - they still have only what meaning human beings assign them. There is no universal, objective meaning to the diadems on the Beast's heads - they mean different things to different people, even amongst Biblical scholars. By definition they cannot have an objective meaning (in fact, the word "meaning" can only be ascribed to subjective ideas).
The fact that a stop sign has a specific meaning to me does not mean that the meaning is objective. It means that I have assigned a subjective meaning to the symbol based on my cultural standards. Certainly the Biblical authors did the same, but this no more gives theuir symbols objective meaning than my interpretation of a stop sign gives stop signs objective meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 2:55 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 9:36 PM Rahvin has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 75 of 327 (506990)
04-30-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Peg
04-30-2009 9:32 AM


does scripture prophecy Supreme man-god ?
But he has been placed in a position of a god to us.
Many suggest that, yet does Holy scripture and Yehoshua place Himself in a position of Almighty God to anyone ... perhaps that depends on one's definition of 'God' and their ability to comprehend hierarchy (or rather 'extinguish/redefine' hierarchy). The Supreme mangod claim appears to have garnered popular support, not to be confused with authority, through a peculiar mix of subservient Romans, in concert with a 'remnant of Israel'. Tradition tells us that Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus was converted to Christianity suddenly, and by a miracle. One evening, during the contest with Maxentius, he saw a radiant cross appearing in the heavens with the inscription, 'By this thou shalt conquer'. The tradition is first mentioned in a work by Eusebius (De Vita Constantini) written after the emperor’s death.
In the fashion of Dante's everlasting impressions of Gehenna/hell, this miracle has been defended with ingenious sophistry by Roman-Catholic historians and a host of others, but does it stand the test of critical examination - in, either or both, knowledge and in spirit? The essence of Yehoshua is no where to be found in the 'first christian' Roman Emperor's personal life, not to mention the superficial political decrees (conquer in the name of Yehoshua Mashiach or the Almighty God - who do not exert force through armaments of physical aggression to obtain converts?!?). Additionally, we know from Yehoshua Himself that a 'wicked generation' may recieve a sign. Perhaps Constantine may have seen some phenomenon in the skies and he was likely convinced by the the superior claims of Christianity as the rising religion; but his conversion was a change of policy, rather than of moral character. We can distinguish them by their fruits ...
Nevertheless, the present author would not be surprised that Yehoshua filled various roles ranging from the first authentic King to the last divine Priest, yet He appears to consistently pass on the role of God that the people of His day - as well as since - repeatedly attempt to ascribe Him. After He is murdered, and consequently resurrected, various attempts to erase and degrade the presence and power of the Almighty Father of Yehoshua Mashiach seem to flourish. Nevertheless, the 'essence' - or the passions - of the Almighty Father and Yehoshua Mashiach appear harmonious and One, flourishing as well. However, one may easily recognize Mashiach's tendency to consistently paint Himself as subordinate to The Almighty - as opposed to an equivalent or one who supplants the Father’s presence. It appears Yehoshua did not desire to be recognized as His Father, but rather that the essence of the Father's heart and mind - as Yehoshua obeyed - may become prominent and recognizable to observers.
Various disciples (Peter comes to mind), and plenty others, are depicted stuggling in the Holy scriptures with the concept that Yehoshua was presenting, along with His method of presentation (telling the truth, etc.). There is a sense that it did not seem to align well with the preconcieved theological and socio-economical framework that their culture had imposed on them and that their spritual understanding had become tethered to; Mashiach encouraged them to seek union with the Father and displayed the Way to accomplish this effectively. Yehoshua humbly guides all, those who intend to enter covenant, towards the Father. Apparently He will not force a disciple though, as the essence of aggressive force does not seem to reside in the heart and mind of Mashiach or His Lord when dealing with the loved ones.
One can find (Phil. 2:9-110) the self-proclaimed apostle Paul declaring, 'For this very reason also God exalted Him [Yehoshua] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Yehoshua every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Yehoshua Mashiach is Lord to the Glory of God the Father.' Many then suggest the words 'in the name of Yehoshua every knee should bend' are meant to imply that one should 'worship' and pray to Yehoshua, while ignoring the concept that 'Mashiach is Lord to the Glory of God the Father'. Where is glory recognized - in 'a name' ... in the original essence of the name? The present author finds it is good to present a prayer 'in the name of Yehoshua' - or rather in the essence of Yehoshua, but they are typically, nevertheless, according to common reason (and Yehoshua’ instructions), addressed to the Almighty Father and ultimately serves to promote awareness of His essence, power and presence (Luke 11:1,2).
The scriptures again record Paul, perhaps for this reason, encouraging those gathered by saying, 'In everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God. Notice, clearly, the famous apostle to the gentiles refrains from including Yehoshua or the Ruach HaKodesh as recipients of 'petitions [to] be made known to God'. Yehoshua consistently met this distinction Himself when referencing His Father as 'God' and 'my God' (John 4:24; 6:27,46; 10:36; 17:3; 20:17,31; Rev. 3:2,12; etc.).
Just as a path leads to a goal, or destination, so it seems mimicking the holy example set forth by Yehoshua is the 'Way' that leads to God the Almighty; 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' (John 14:6). That is, a spirit that adopts the essence of Yehoshua - who has adopted the essence of the Almighty God - cannot arrive at any other conclusion than 'truth' and 'life'; Oneness with God, as confirmed by Yehoshua Mashiach.
The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked,
'How long will you keep us in suspense?
If you are Mashiach, tell us plainly.'
Yehoshua replied,
'I told you and you do not believe. The deeds I do in my Father’s name testify about me.
But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep.
My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand.
The Father and I are one.'
At this point, the cultic defenders prepare to stone Him and, after a quick exchange, Yehoshua answered, 'Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?'. This aligns with a quotation from Psalms 82:6. Although the Psalms are not always considered part of Torah - or OT ‘law’, which usually referred to the five books generally attributed to Moses, it appears Yehoshua occasionally applies the term ‘law’ to the entire Septuagint. One issue in this verse concerns the meaning of Yehoshua’s quotation from the Psalm. It is important to immerse ourselves within the context of the Original Testaments; the whole line reads, ‘I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you'. The Psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title ‘gods’ because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. Yehoshua picks up on the term 'sons of the Most High' in John 10:36, where he refers to Himself as the Son of God.
What is the argument here? It is often thought to be something like this: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, yet not be considered blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Yehoshua? However, some will suggest this really doesn’t seem to fit the context, arguing if that were the case Yehoshua would not be making any claim for 'divinity' for Himself over and above any other human being - and therefore He would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Yet, it does not appear Yehoshua was establishing any claim for ‘divinity’ for Himself over and above the acceptable interpretation - the rabbis were, in part, likely pissed that their precious logic was defunct (checkmate) and their primary source of income and sustenance had the potential to suffer immensely as a result (remember - Constantine eventually took full advantage of this end, seemingly employing a bit of a 'xians vs. the jews, nazarenes, etc.' flavor to his version of Rome's infamous divide and conquer technique).
This is, evidently, a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater - a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (10:35). But granting that premise, Yehoshua would seem to deserve, much more than they, to be called God. After all, He is ‘the Word incarnate’, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to ‘save the world’ (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men ‘gods’ because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word ‘God’ of him who is the Word of God?
These words of Yehoshua, in addition to what has been attributed to Him in the first two verses of the eleventh chapter of Luke, may encourage us to see it is good to present our prayers to God with the essence of Yehoshua, yet not necessarily to Mashiach himself. Alternatively we can suggest that Yehoshua was claiming divinity, as the Pharisees did. Many do this by, instead of picking up stones, erecting and frequenting certain alters to Yehoshua. The fact that Yehoshua himself prayed to God - as His Father - on numerous occasions, may serve as evidence that He himself was tethered to a distinct spiritual authority. Yehoshua encouraged direct unity with this authority and provided the steps to undergo metanonia as well; the process may certainly involve idolizing the invisible essence depicted by Him.
Some parting words ascribed to Mashiach as recorded in scripture ...
'... For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.’'
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 9:32 AM Peg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024