Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy

quote:

---

Please quote the additions to clarify what you mean.

---

None of this is in the text of Mark 1 concerning the baptism of Jesus. Your explanation is not an interpretation of the text.The fallen Adamic nature is gleaned from Paul's letters, not what was written in the Gospels.You're giving an explanation of the plain text based on later doctrine and tradition inspired by Paul's ministry.

---

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

quote:

---

This matter of denying the self was certainly NOT a latter post Jesus concept.

​

How many times did He say it? If you would follow Him you had to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Him.

---

Denying the self is not the later concept I was talking about. The idea that the act of baptism has anything to do with denying the self at the time Jesus was baptized is a later development.Yes, those following Christ ideally are to say no to self indulgence, but it has nothing to do with the baptism we speak of.Yes Jesus denied himself, but again it has nothing to do with his baptism. The text does not support that idea.

---

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

Apparently you are not one of the "lost" Jesus was referring to in Luke 19:10-11 where Jesus declared this:"Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

Some solid evidence from some other source than the Bible.

You only answered half the question. You said that the prophecy is that Yahweh's name is rich to all those that call. I called, and I experienced no richness. There are two possibilities.1) The prophecy is false.
2) The prophecy cannot be falsified.I know, by virtue of us continuing to have this debate, that you are rejecting position 1. What I am trying to do is to convince you that this only leaves position 2. That it doesn't matter what happens when I call out to Jesus or Yahweh or Krsna or whoever, you will not consider it a failure of the prophecy.You will explain away the 'miss', you will attempt to focus on the 'hit'. I said this quite early on, and you have not failed to continue to do this.Will you accept, that a prophecy that could be seen as a fulfilled prophecy no matter what happens in the future, is a useless prophecy for the purposes of this thread? If nobody felt the richness upon calling on Yahweh, it would be just as much of a success as if nobody felt the richness and it would just as much of a success if there was a mixture of people's feelings. We could explain that those that don't experience richness don't meet some criteria (not trying hard enough, aren't attempting it in the right temporal context, aren't sincere, are too sceptical, they secretly want it to fail, you don't know what feeling rich means - maybe you feel it but don't realize it etc etc), and those that do feel it: success! Ahhh, classic prophecy get out. Is this how Christians become immortal? They keep calling out and not feeling the richness but since the prophecy says they will they have to stay alive to avoid a theological paradox? So, it cannot be falsified, right? If a person calls upon Yahweh and they say they received no feelings of richness...it's because they didn't do it right and so the prophecy survives. And if they call upon Yahweh and they say they got the feeling then the prophecy is fulfilled. This is not a difficult logical concept - excuse me for yammering on at it but you seem to be desperately avoiding it. I keep pointing out that there are two prongs, and you only deal with one prong. Heads I win, tails you lose is not a fair game jaywill (that is to say, I believe you are having a problem arguing in 'good faith').You said you experienced that Yahweh's name is rich to all who call him, I pointed out that couldn't be true since you cannot experience other people's experiences. It also didn't ring true since I called, and it was not rich. Now you are saying that you have to call in a certain prescribed fashion. If I said I did call in that fashion, then what? Will you say that I can't have done, otherwise I would have felt the richness?Has faith so blinded you that you are incapable of understanding this straightforward point?As Perdition asked, is there any scenario that would convince you that the prophecy has failed?

This does not constitute adding to the TEXT. No words were ADDED to any passage in Mark 1:4-13. Not one word was added by me. At best you could say that the interpretation I give of why Jesus desired to be baptized was wrong.Now I used the parallel discription in Matthew 3:13-17 perhaps without a clear enough indication that I was doing so.Your resistence to me interpreting what happened at Jesus' baptism with the help of other Scriptures is just your familiar tactic of "Divide and Conquer" - trying to isolate Scriptures from one another to kill the plenary revelation of the Bible as a whole.The problem at hand is whether or not Jesus being baptized meant that He was a sinner. No it does not. In case you didn't notice, the Son of the Father was the delight of the Father. The Father had previously found His delight in Him. And I submit that the Father did so because among all human beings on the earth He lived a life of thirty years to this point SINLESS. That is the basic teaching of the Four Gospels.So we really do not have to consult with Pauline epistles to learn this much.In the very next section of Mark 1 we see Jesus put to the test. He undergoes extreme temptation from Satan and He passes with flying colors. He indeed demonstrates that He is the Beloved Son in whom the Father has found His perfect delight. No other human living before, during, or after was the cause of such a direct utterance from heaven as Mark 1:11.You should have gotten a hint of Jesus' perfection from Mark 1:7. You should know then that Jesus is far far above John the Baptist in righteousness. Otherwise John would not have so highly recommended Him.So even restricting my comments to the Gospel of Mark you are proved wrong on this matter of Jesus having sinned. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn: You vastly underestimate how Paul derived his teaching from the SCriptures of the Old Testament themselves. He did not invent such an idea. He saw it in the Old Testament and ulluminated more light upon it.The Old Testament writers spoke of man's dammaged nature quite long before Paul wrote His epistles. For example: Though God made man upright somehow man has gone off and sought out many devices and schemes which are not upright. As a typical man David expresses his frustration that his nature from birth was defective before God. These passages and others from the Old Testament testify that the man created "very good" (Gen. 1:34) has become damaged and fallen.Paul shed more light on it in the New Testament. He did not invent the teaching.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This does not constitute adding to the TEXT. No words were ADDED to any passage in Mark 1:4-13. Not one word was added by me. At best you could say that the interpretation I give of why Jesus desired to be baptized was wrong.

---

Your interpretation is not based on the plain text. Your interpretation is based on your belief and doctrine which adds to the story.The story of Jesus' baptism says nothing of a fallen adamic nature which needed to be denied, terminated, or buried because it is self bound and so independent. By giving that explanation you are adding to the story information that is not in the story.Literally no you didn't add words to the scripture. You added a meaning that can't be construed from the plain text of the story or Jewish practices of the time. Figuratively , in my eyes, you've added to the text.Why the need for Jesus to have never sinned?It is unnecessary even for what is claimed in the prophecy.Once a person has repented of a sin and refrains from doing it again, the person is considered righteous.The need for Jesus to be perfect or sinless is a later development. Jesus didn't present himself as having never sinned or perfection. He did present himself as an example that people could follow. He lead by example. Perfection is improbable since there is no consistent criteria in Christianity.He repented, was baptized, and then was tested. He didn't give into temptation once he had repented. That is the example that people needed to see and that people today should learn. If Jesus had never sinned, then he already wasn't a person who was easily tempted. That's not an example for people.IOW, I would not be a good example for an alcoholic who has to fight the temptation to drink alcohol. I don't have the urge to drink alcohol, so there is no temptation for me to fight. They can't learn from me how to fight that temptation because I've never faced that temptation or any kind of addiction temptation.Perfection is not something God requires. Check out the Are We Prisoners of Sin thread. I don't want to rehash the sin discussion here. ABE: That goes for your Message 217 also. It was discussed in the sin thread and not appropriate for this thread.The suffering servant is not described as perfect or having never sinned. So perfection is not a requirement to fulfill the prophecy.Edited by purpledawn, : Added statement

---

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

Thankyou for this clarification. You did not call on the name of Jesus then? If you mentioned it before I didn't see it.This is what happens when you use inflamatory language. There is the danger that your readers will afterwards only skim over your posts quickly to avoid further insults. It is really counter productive.The Romans passage which I said was a prophecy concerned the name of Jesus.Maybe that was the problem then. Either you were not recognizing the Yahweh's name today is Jesus for Jesus is God incarnate.Or perhaps you sought to approach God without recognizition that your sins needed to be first forgiven, via Jesus.There is a distinction in the Bible between faith and presumption. Perhaps you PRESUMED something rather wrong and mistook that for faith.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jesus prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple must have come as a shock to many and as blasphemy to many more, but did it happen according to Jesus words?

quote:

---

Matt 24:1 Departing now, Jesus was on his way from the temple, but his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2In response he said to them: "Do YOU not behold all these things? Truly I say to YOU, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down."

​

Matt 24:15-16 "Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains."

​

Luke 19:41And when he got nearby, he viewed the city and wept over it, 42saying: "If you, even you, had discerned in this day the things having to do with peacebut now they have been hid from your eyes.

​

Luke 19:43Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, 44and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected."

​

Luke 21:20 "Furthermore, when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near"

---

In the year 66CE the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, stood in a "holy place" namely, Jerusalem when the Roman general, Cestius Gallus, came down from Syria and surrounded Jerusalem with "encamped armies." while the Jews celebrated the Festival of Booths. He brought his armies up to the celebrating city. The Jews inside put up their defenses and inflicted some damage on the Romans but he got his troops into the city and made an attack on the temple wall, and on the sixth day they undermined the wall, the Jews most holy place. This was the time that the christian readers of the prophecy were to use discernment and begin fleeing to the mountainsFor some reason Gallus withdrew from the city and retreated without inflicting further damage. This gave people time to get out of Jerusalem.
From this they were to "know that the desolating of her [Jerusalem] has drawn near." It was only a short time later at the Passover of the year 70CE that General Titus came with four legions and bottled up the Jews inside the city.
To starve out the rebellious Jews, he did what Jesus had foretold, built a fortified stockade,a fortification with pointed stakes, about five miles long all around the city, to prevent any Jews from escaping. Josephus, in his writings, vividly describes the horrors of the Roman siege and the death toll of over 1 million jews, not to mention the destruction of the temple and the city itself.The evidence of the time of the writing of Luke is 56-58ce. I know some claim that it was written after 70Ce but that claim is unfounded and has no evidence.
Luke wrote his gospel, then later wrote another account about the early church, The book of Acts. Acts was written when Luke was with Paul who was under house arrest in Rome. Paul was awaiting to appeal his sentence before Caesar. He had already been heard by Felix, who historically ruled to approx 58CE and then he was succeeded by Porcius Festus. some scholars put him as ruler as early as 54CE, and others as late as 61CE. Historians tend to favor a time between 58 and 61CE. It was in the beginning of Festus's rule that Paul was sent to Rome.
So Luke wrote the book of Acts around this time and no later because the book finishes with Paul still awaiting his appeal. This means that Lukes first book, the Gospel, was written before Festus began to rule. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

No evidence that Luke wrote Luke or Acts. And again you are proving nothing by using the Bible to prove itself.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

Skeptics and unbelievers at this forum will argue infinitum the truths of Bible Scripture - whether or not Scripture has been fulfilled in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus gave this promise to those who believe in Him and enter into the eternal life that He gives:John 7:37-39 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, `From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.' (Isa 44:3) But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.The words/books of the Bible are God's love letters given to the spiritual descendants of Abraham, to those from every tribe and nation (Gen 22:18) who are willing to enter into the Lord's salvation given to lost sinners. It cannot be understood or received by any other people.It's as simple and as difficult as that!

At the baptism a voice came from heaven - "You are My Son, the Beloved; in You I have found My delight." (Mark 1:11)This persuades me that the uniqueness of the Son was that He was free from having transgressed God ever.In the same Gospel, same chapter Jesus pronounces forgiveness on a sinner and is criticized for it. They thought that ONLY a perfect God has the right to forgive sins. See Mark 1. Jesus responds: Only the sinless God has authority to forgive sins. Jesus responded by demonstrating His authority to heal as well as to forgive sins. The impact of the situation is that He is indeed the Son of God - the Son of Man, the delight of the Father and without sin - who has authority to forgive it.You are desperate in your revisionism. WHERE ? OF WHAT ? Quote Mark. I'm adding to the text? Why don't you count this as adding to the text then?Please point out in the text where Jesus repented.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Why then was the Suffering Servant called "the righteous One"? (Isa. 53:11)Why does it say "Nor was there any deceit in His mouth" (v.9)It further says that "He was crushed because of our iniquities" (v.5)Where's the hint in Isaiah 53 that He was crushed because of His OWN iniquities?You're twisting the Bible.Furthermore Isaiah says that He made Himself an offering for sin. The sin offering had to be without blemish. The spiritual meaning should be clear that the sin offering was itself to be without sin.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

At the baptism a voice came from heaven - "You are My Son, the Beloved; in You I have found My delight." (Mark 1:11)

---

The text only shows that God was pleased with what his son just did. It doesn't imply that Jesus never sinned. God is usually pleased when people repent. How much more pleased would he be with his own son?

quote:

---

In the same Gospel, same chapter Jesus pronounces forgiveness on a sinner and is criticized for it. They thought that ONLY a perfect God has the right to forgive sins. See Mark 1.

​

"But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, Why is this man speaking this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins except One, God? (Mark 1:6,7)...

​

Only the sinless God has authority to forgive sins. Jesus responded by demonstrating His authority to heal as well as to forgive sins. The impact of the situation is that He is indeed the Son of God - the Son of Man, the delight of the Father and without sin - who has authority to forgive it.

---

Actually it's Mark 2:7. Nothing about perfection is mentioned in the text. In the Jewish religion, God is the one who forgives sins. He's the boss. Now the son of the Boss can forgive sins. It doesn't imply Jesus never sinned.

quote:

---

You are desperate in your revisionism.

​

PurpleDawn writes:

​

He repented,

​

WHERE ? OF WHAT ? Quote Mark.

​

PurpleDawn writes:

​

was baptized, and then was tested. He didn't give into temptation once he had repented.

​

I'm adding to the text? Why don't you count this as adding to the text then?

​

Please point out in the text where Jesus repented.

---

Read the text. Do you think John just dunked people for no good reason? He was baptizing them in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins. So to be baptized by John, Jesus would have needed to confess his sins. His father was happy with what he did and then he was sent to the desert to endure temptation. The other Gospels lead us to believe he passed the test.What better example is there for mankind?The suffering servant wasn't required to have never sinned and neither was Jesus. The text in Isaiah did not require "perfection" as classified by you to mean never having sinned.

---

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