Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-15-2019 3:45 PM
192 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Stile, Tangle (8 members, 184 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,540 Year: 2,577/19,786 Month: 659/1,918 Week: 247/266 Day: 19/92 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Lineage of Jesus
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 76 of 82 (53073)
08-31-2003 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dave901
07-21-2003 12:46 AM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
I do not know if this is the most apropo place to place my next post as the admins have been quite kind and provided me with a list of my thread heads to which I really need to look first for any outstanding questions and as it is true I tried to search for "free will" with the sites search engine but got an internal error and then a web page called 'pico seRch" ahhh..I do nt program and yet from what I HEARD in church today reCalling this thread would not be out of order.

The crucial point I am addressing come from the Biblical Creationism/Theology of any David to jesus Justified connection WHICH WAS FOR THE EVOLUTIONISTS THEIR but not the creationists burden tohave chain entrained free will. I NEVER understood this in the 80s when it was an issue for Will Provine and was linked then to support for Chinese Population contrOl which I was ALLso against but that is another thread, this one is on predesitination, the empty tomb and free will which is a burden for evolutionists but is absolutely not for a creationist if Mendel was mistaken aboutindepenence in reciprocal crosses and I am correct about Noah2by2=A+2Aa+a term by term in Linnean systematics. For I can see today what Provine said in the 80s that caused this Marathon Local to belive science HAD to understand free will either statitically or deterministically. I did not and neither did the jehova's witness he, provine, ReFeRred to should teleology be linked to predestination. This is what was in the sermon I heard today.

The ongoing problem is that all of these issues IN the lineage of Jesus could be aired and put in print and discussed to the point of difference such that other things (witness vs indpendent country policy in this case) need not become an issue that only involutary placement insures against (as also happend in my/this case)if public schools and private colleges acutally discussed and did not medicate religous over the top as it did not marxist under the radar. It may indeed have been Mendel's intent to include free will but I DOUBT it for THAT idea only arises if one includes humans under selective mating and this MENDEL did not have human for what was artifical with Mendel WAS the hybrid made by artifical fertilization. Saussare at least taught us not to confuse the sign with the symbol and deconstruction went to lettered lengths to keep the marks apart from a society of blinkers. I find that by the commiseration of Mendelian and Biometric differences the people doing the work in the generation between my Grandfather and myself (proVine included) took on the burden of Mendel's plus SIGN symbolizing free will. That is my story and I am sticking to the rotary charcterization I will detail for thos interested but THIS thEN gets out of the thread here about the lineage of Jesus which for me NOw becomes some talk of Biblical Creationism vs Theology and there are undoubtedly better Scientific Creationists aboard this ark than me who know more of these words than the letters I do (know). the rest I will continue under "free will" somewhere on this board.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dave901, posted 07-21-2003 12:46 AM Dave901 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dave901, posted 09-07-2003 4:57 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
Dave901
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 82 (54364)
09-07-2003 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Brad McFall
08-31-2003 12:18 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
Brad,
You have brought up some interesting topics (such as free will and predestination) but I have to admit I am having trouble following what you are getting at. You imply these topics have relevance to the lineage of David to Jesus. And even if they don’t I thought I’d put in my two cents.
I don’t believe in predestination, free will or luck. They all seem to imply that God is controlling our lives. If someone survives a terrible accident people say God was watching out for him or that it wasn’t his fate to die yet. If that is true why would God have let the accident happen in the first place?
I say God lets things in this life go as they may. When someone dies prematurely, whether from a murderer or even a falling tree, I don’t think it’s God’s work.
There are too many bad and evil things going on in this world for me to believe God has a predestination or fate planed out for us.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Brad McFall, posted 08-31-2003 12:18 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Brad McFall, posted 09-09-2003 12:59 AM Dave901 has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 78 of 82 (54503)
09-09-2003 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dave901
09-07-2003 4:57 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
The theological connections were made by the INTERIM pastor at the First Presby Ch of Ithaca and were not spitually connected by me. I did note that this IS the reason that Will Provine TOLD ME that Free Will was the last stragler of science to come to become (in his MIND) under dynamic control. I just dismissed the thought as being BOTH OUT of hand and out of thus my mind then but now hearing a Sermon that ostensibly linking Old and New Testment by nothing other than willing to listen to the sound of the preacher even the dynamic claim of Provine IS FALSE for the kinematics still are seperable even in the theology. Furthermore Provine's assertions the Morris documented are futher revealed
The Long War Against GOd - p110 "There are no gods and no designing forces. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false." because of this seperation of kinematics and some dynamics that WILL PROVIne simply made himself a false fact by trying to do the same kind of thought the Pastor, not me, made. In other words by saying both people are not saying things correctly the frequency can be increased in the tradition but I do not have the theological depth necessary to criticize the interim. It may still be found p112 that there is an "inconsistency" but NOT for the reasons that Will cites but for the reason I mentioned in the first post I made in this series as to evolutionists asserting that religion is only of survival darwininan individual value.

Further From the Creation Trilogy Greenp101- I conclude that the "conflict" does NOT go much deeper (see my posts on about.com creation and evolution. For I know with the proper training I WOULD be willing to admit this which Provine said applies to "liberal theologians, religious leaders and scientists."
and the language of Provine himself reads on that the FORCES ARE determinable thusly Purple p14 for I, BSM, still remain(p15) and I do not echo Huxley. Inherently the Cornell Adminstration acted against the law in this matter of any naturalism that applies but this fails to identify capactiy and frequency which in intensity is scientific and a RESULT of Creationism that CAN AND DOES for me contribute to at least induction of statics in science. This is for the record. Let it be known Best Brad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dave901, posted 09-07-2003 4:57 PM Dave901 has not yet responded

    
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4149 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 79 of 82 (55977)
09-17-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Kapyong
08-25-2003 1:55 AM


The Physical Christ According To Paul
Iaion,

Here is the first part of my study of the Christology of Paul. This section presents a brief overview of the time period in which Jesus lived, His heritage, His life, and His teachings. I am still working on a section covering Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension. The material to be presented in these two sections should resolve any doubt concerning Paul's teaching of a historical, physical Christ.

The Physical Christ According to Paul

I. Paul presents a specific time period for the life of Jesus Christ.

There are two claims made by Paul by which we can determine the exact time of Christ’s sojourn on this earth. First we can see that Paul appealed to eyewitnesses; and, secondly, we find that Paul appeals to Old Testament prophecy.

Let us examine first the appeal to eyewitness testimony. In Galatians 3:1, Paul wrote a reprimand to the Galatians saying, “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” In I Corinthians 15:3-7, Paul further states, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.” In both of these passages the apostle Paul makes a bold appeal to eyewitness testimony of the death and resurrection of Christ, claiming that at the time of the writing of these letters, many were still alive who could verify the physical reality of Jesus Christ.

Paul also appealed to the testimony of the Old Testament prophets concerning the coming of the Messiah. According to Romans 1:2, the coming of Jesus Christ was prophesied in the Old Testament. “Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.” Romans 5:6 tells us that “in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” This statement about Christ coming in due time is repeated in I Timothy 2:6. “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Also in Galatians 4:4, Paul states, “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son.” Three times we see Paul refer to Christ as having come at a previously determined point in time.

If we compare this claim with the statement found in Romans 1:2, we can reasonably expect to find a specific time given in the Old Testament in which the Messiah was to come. That time can be found in Daniel 9:25-26. “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:” The “weeks” mentioned here in Daniel refer to the Jewish sabbatical arrangement of years: seven weeks equals 49 years, and 62 weeks equals 434 years. Adding 49 to 434, we find that Daniel prophesied that Messiah would be “cut off” 483 years after the command was given to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. According to Nehemiah 2:1-8, the command to rebuild Jerusalem was issued “in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes” or 450 BC. Now if we count 483 years after 450 BC, we arrive at AD 33. This is the date given in the Old Testament for the Messiah being “cut off.” It is the “due time” to which Paul refers in his epistles. And it is the year in which Jesus Christ died on the cross: not for Himself, but as a ransom for all, dying for the ungodly.

II. Paul presents a specific heritage of Jesus Christ.

Paul states first of all in Galatians 3:16, that Jesus is a descendent of Abraham. “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” In Romans 9:5, he claims that Christ is a descendent of Israel. “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” Then in Romans 1:3 Jesus is claimed to be “made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” But Paul gets even more specific than just listing the ancient ancestors of Jesus. In Galatians 1:19, Paul refers to the apostle James as, “James the Lord’s brother.” Thus Paul mentions a specific ancestry and even an immediate family for Jesus Christ.

III. Paul refers to a specific life lived by Jesus Christ.

Paul makes several references to Christ being “in the flesh.” For example, in II Corinthians 5:16, Paul claims, “we have known Christ after the flesh,” and in I Timothy 3:16, he states, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

But not all of Paul’s references to the life of Christ are so generalized. In both Romans 8:29 and 15:7, Paul taught that God wants Christians to be “conformed to the image of his Son” and that Christians should “receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” Thus Paul explicitly instructs Christians to follow the example of Christ. We read also in Romans 15:3, “For even Christ pleased not himself” and in II Corinthians 10:1 of the “meekness and gentleness of Christ.” And in Philippians 2:5-8 we find the entire teaching of Paul on the believer’s responsibility to Christ’s example. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

IV. Paul makes reference to specific teachings of Jesus Christ.

In Romans 14:14, Paul states, “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself.” Here he makes a direct reference to Christ’s teaching found in Matthew 15:11. “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” This teaching is echoed in Mark 7:15. “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.” And Luke 11:39-41 further expounds on this thought. “And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.”

Paul also makes several indirect references to this teaching of Christ. In I Timothy 4:4-5 he states, “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” And in Titus 1:15, “Unto the pure, all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure.”

Another reference to the teachings of Christ can be found in Romans 15:5. “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus.” This statement is a reference to the prayer of Christ recorded in John 17, specifically verses 11 and 20-23. “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are…Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”

A third reference to Christ’s teachings can be found in I Corinthians 9:14. “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” Paul makes another reference to this doctrine in Galatians 6:6. “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.” And in I Timothy 5:18, Paul gives a direct quote of the words of Christ recorded in Luke 10:7. “The labourer is worthy of his reward (hire).” Matthew 10:10 also records this teaching. “The workman is worthy of his meat.”
But certainly the strongest evidence for Paul’s knowledge of the words of Christ is found in I Corinthians 11:23-26. “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” Here Paul distinctly claims to be quoting Christ. Luke and Matthew both record these words for us. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:26-28).” “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:19-20).”

There are also many passages found in Paul’s epistles which, while they do not contain a direct reference to Christ, yet parallel His teachings so accurately that the two can hardly be the independent thoughts of two distinct individuals. For example, compare Romans 12:1-15:7 with the Sermon on the Mount, II Corinthians 10:1 with Matthew 11:29, Philippians 2:5-8 with Luke 22:27, Galatians 4:4 with Mark 1:15, Romans 10:4 with Matthew 5:17, I Corinthians 13:2 with Matthew 17:20 and Mark 11:23, I Corinthians 10:27 with Luke 10:7-8, Romans 13:1-7 with Mark 12:13-17, Romans 13:8-10 with Matthew 22:37-40 and Mark 12:28-34, Romans 13:11 with Luke 21:28, and I Thessalonians 5:25 with Luke 12:39. Many, many more correlations could easily be added to this list.

This ends the first part of my study. I should be able to provide the conclusion shortly. Thank you for taking the time to consider my position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Kapyong, posted 08-25-2003 1:55 AM Kapyong has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by chinger, posted 09-25-2003 6:23 AM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4149 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 80 of 82 (55995)
09-17-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Kapyong
08-23-2003 11:37 PM


Archons of this Sphere
Paul also says that Iesous Christos was crucified by the Archons of this Sphere - this phrase means those beings one sphere or plane or dimension "up" from ours, the Lunar Sphere, the Etheric or Astral Plane perhaps.

You may want to do a little more research on the word "archon." Your current definition is definitely strained. According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, "archon" simply refers to "a ruler, commander, captain; a chief, king, etc." This word is a derivative of the word "archo," which Liddell and Scott define as "to be first."

We do not have to rely solely on the scholarship of academia for an understanding of this word. It has actually been transliterated into English in such forms as "archaic," "archangel," "archdioces," "archvillan," "archchampion," "archlexicographer," and so on. As you can see, the definition of the English transliteration is exactly the same as that of the original Greek word. The word "archo" and all of its derivatives simply refer to something which is first, preeminant, original, earliest, primary, etc. There is no inherently spiritual meaning that can be attached to this word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Kapyong, posted 08-23-2003 11:37 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4149 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 81 of 82 (56709)
09-20-2003 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Kapyong
08-28-2003 6:28 AM


Re: Acts late and suspect
You have probably already noticed that I refrained from including evidence from the book of Acts in my presentation. Let me assure you that I have done so only to demonstrate that my position can be stated using just the Pauline epistles. However, I would like to make a few statements regarding your view of the book of Acts.

First of all, you claimed,

Acts dates about 1/2 century or so after Paul, its not certain who wrote it (probably not a follower of Paul as they differ on key issues) - it is no proof for what Paul was referring to.

I do not agree. If you will notice the grammatical structure of Acts 16:6-10, you will find that in verses six through nine, the primary pronoun used by Luke is the third person plural. This pattern is adhered to from the beginning of the book up to verse ten of this chapter. Beginning with verse ten, however, you will notice a change in Luke's writing; for in verse ten we read not "immediately they endeavoured," but "immediately we endavoured." This change from the third person plural to the first person plural is maintained throughout the remainder of the book. Thus I contend that the book of Acts was written by a contemporary of Paul and not, as you propose, "about 1/2 century or so after" him.

You stated secondly,

Acts DIFFERS in its retelling of Paul's visionary experience - the legend has grown in the telling.

The slight differences which I am aware of and to which you may be referring do not evidence the growth that you attribute to them.

You also claimed,

Acts includes elements from pagan myth, including the line from Euripides about "kicking against the goads (pricks)", and a phrase lifted from the Egyptian Mysteries (theos ho ton legon hegemon).

Is it possible that “to kick against the pricks” was a common idiom of the time? Surely you are not so naïve as to conclude that a single idiom referring to the readily observable actions of oxen is enough to make the book of Acts suspect. As for the phase you claim is lifted from the Egyptian Mysteries, I am afraid that you have not given me enough information. I have searched for every Greek word that could possibly fit your transliteration, but I have been unable to find the phrase to which you are referring. Perhaps you could just provide me with a chapter and verse reference.

Your final claim was that...

the GREEK New Testament (an interlinear of the Nestle Aland 26) does NOT have "Jesus of Nazareth" at 22:8, but rather "Jesus the Nazarene" (Gk NAZARAOIS). So too does Acts 26:9 have "Jesus the Nazarene"… It can be seen that Jesus' hometown of Nazareth was accidentally derived from his being termed a "Nazarene" - but not from any historical information.

You seem to be confusing the term “Nazarene” with the term “Nazarite.” The first refers to one who comes from the town of Nazareth. The latter refers to one who has taken a Nazarite vow. Nowhere in Scripture are we informed of Jesus having taken a Nazarite vow. In fact, since part of that vow included vowing never to take of the fruit of the vine and never to touch a dead body, and since we know that Jesus did these things, we can safely conclude that He was not under a Nazarite vow. He was, however, from the town of Nazareth. You can compare the usage of this term in Acts with Matthew 2:23.

In conclusion, although I have not included references to Acts in my presentation, I would like to suggest the following references for further study of the evidences found within that book. Acts 13:22-41, Acts 17:3, Acts 17:31, Acts 19:4, Acts 20:35, Acts 24:5, Acts 26:9, Acts 26:15, and Acts 26:23.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Kapyong, posted 08-28-2003 6:28 AM Kapyong has not yet responded

  
chinger
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 82 (57709)
09-25-2003 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by w_fortenberry
09-17-2003 8:56 AM


Re: The Physical Christ According To Paul
I would like to see your comments on when you think jesus was born and when you think he began preaching,and the year of his death.
thanks in advance
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by w_fortenberry, posted 09-17-2003 8:56 AM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019