Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,449 Year: 6,706/9,624 Month: 46/238 Week: 46/22 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah:
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3710 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 16 of 304 (659329)
04-15-2012 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
04-15-2012 12:18 AM


quote:
Jesus obviously saw that all that He was about came from the Hebrew Scriptures, so obviously Jesus believed that through Him God the Father had fulfilled the Scriptures. Jesus continuously refers back to those Scriptures in His teaching and it seems to me fairly obvious that a great deal of His self understanding came through those Scriptures as well as through prayer and the Holy Spirit.
Yes the authors of the NT refer back the Hebrew Scriptures, but did the Hebrew Scriptures truly support what the authors claimed?
Luke 24:26 is not supported by the Hebrew Scriptures. Which scriptures support that the Messiah had to suffer what Jesus supposedly suffered?
quote:
In Matthew 11 John the Baptist asks are you (Jesus) the Expected One or shall we look for someone else. John is referring to Malachi 3.
But the rest of Malachi 3 doesn't fit John or Jesus. A prophecy 300 years early is no good to the audience.
quote:
Jesus refers John back to Isaiah 35:5-6 and possibly Isaiah 42:7 when He says in Matthew 11
Yes the author of Matthew pulled lines from several areas. Isaiah 35:5-6, Isaiah 26:19, and Isaiah 61:1.
quote:
He consistently referred to Himself as the Son of Man which obviously goes back to Daniel 7.
The author was trying to make people associate Jesus with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Book of Daniel was a vision and the meaning was explained. I don't see that Jesus fit that bill either. Besides, Daniel's vision was to be kept secret until the end.
It takes a lot of squinting for Jesus to fit with the prophecies of the OT.
quote:
Certainly the early apostles preached Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who was the one prophesied to be the Anointed One of God, as foretold in Isaiah 61:1 which again refers back to Jesus’ response to John the Baptist.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the authors of the NT were trying to present Jesus as the Messiah. The point is did the OT support what they were claiming?
PaRDeS is an acronym for four types of Jewish interpretation. The writers of the NT seemed to use these methods.
D’rash is a teaching method where writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning. But it is not to be used to strip the meaning from the original text.
A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat."
Jesus believing he was the Messiah or calling himself son of man, doesn't mean that the Hebrew Scriptures supported that claim. As a whole Jesus doesn't fit the prophecies.
Since Jesus left no writings of his own, it is difficult to know what Jesus might have actually said and what was put into his mouth by authors.
We need to test the NT writings against claims pulled from the OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 04-15-2012 12:18 AM GDR has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 17 of 304 (659337)
04-15-2012 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
04-14-2012 12:51 PM


Yes, we're talking about scripture... a series of writings by various authors.
Great, would everything else they had to say surrounding thier alledged prophecies, also have significance? Who they said they were, who they claimed was behind thier writing. You know ole chap, first things first, so to speak
I'm happy to consider all of scripture, even non-canonical scripture in this discussion. You presume too much of your opponents.
Great. Now perhaps you could provide an an example in history or non-canonical writings where someone made an attempt, to set side by side, thier life, in comparison with what the Old Testament prophets had to say and in such detail as the NT writers, concerning Jesus Christ
The thread here seems to be to compare what the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah with the life of Jesus portrayed in the New Testament to see if there is a match and perhaps additionally, what these matches might mean.
I agree, but did you notice the veracity and quickness, to dismiss anything outright here by the opposition and all of that without any evidence to the contrary. Its almost as if they have a hidden hatred, even before they get started. Wouldnt you agree?
I don't care who actually wrote any given prophecy all that much.
That is an odd statement, since you have atleast indirectly implied that the NT writers were less than honest in thier attempts to accurately represent Jesus. heck, others here have said they were liars
It would be closed minded of us if we refused to consider the possibility that false things were said about Jesus to make it appear as if he had fulfilled some prophecy or another.
What would be your criteria for knowing something said, was false, considering we are involving all the Old testament writer had to say
I don't claim to state that I know the OT writer is correct. Why would I do that?
if you dont know that the Old Testament writer is honest and accurate about even the things he is presenting, how would you know he is not talking about Jesus Christ.. IOWs, you fellows always represent the NT writers as frauds and liars, without providing any evidence as to why that is the case.
If it puts you at ease, I treat them with the same confidence.
Which means what?
Bertot writes
Mod could you provide us with a list of writers/historians besides those in the Gospels, that gave such detail, description and application to the old test prophecies like those mentioned in the NT concerning Christ?
Mod writes
For what purpose would I do this?
Surely if the Messiah and the messiahsip was an important and expected thing by the Jewish people, then some other "unethical" writers, like those in the NT, would have put forward thier version of the messiah and his life that so closely corresponded to the prophecies.
It's not unusual at all, that a character that was written after some prophecies is described as having fulfilled those prophecies. Especially when the authors are clearly trying to persuade us that a certain person fulfilled certain prophecies.
Mohammad would have been a perfect example of how this could have been accomplished, yet thier seems to be no effort in that connection. My guess is that during that time people were closer to all the facts and any false messiah, especially one trying to compare himself to the Old Testament, would have been exposed as a fraud.
Lets do it this way. Since it is clear you cant or wont provide another messiah for us, perhaps you could provide the then outcry, in writing, at that time, that would expose Jesus or the writers as fraudulent
The question at primarily hand is: Does Jesus actually fit the prophecies for what the Messiah would be like? I'm adding my own interpretation by discussing what this fulfillment, should it exist, really means.
For instance, I find it is very unusual that nobody thought that it was noteworthy that Herod ordered mass infanticide at the time that it happened. If this was prophecied, which I don't think it was, there is significant reason to suppose it was invented so as to be a fulfillment rather than being an actual fulfillment by any real individual.
Notorious acts by rulers in those days was a routine (daily) thing. it should be no surprise to anyone that not all things, especially, unpoular and violent things, went unrecorded, especially if they requested that it not be mentioned, by historians.
Would this really help you though in your search for truth. here is what I mean. When every ancient culture has a tradition and story concerning the flood, you still say it didnt happen. So how would some independent source help YOU believe Jesus was the Messiah, prophecied?
It would just be something else, for you to dismiss, like, Josephus, Tactius, or Pliny the Younger, concerning Jesus Christ
Besides all of this Herods act is recorded in a reliable source and you still reject it.
I don't understand what you are waiting for and why you think its relevant.
Dont you think it would go a long way in demonstrating that anyone could have made such an attempt, should they had been willing to put forward THIER messiah as messiah. Your first inclination is is to represent the Nt writers as frauds. Why?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2012 12:51 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 04-15-2012 10:23 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2012 10:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2012 11:11 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 18 of 304 (659340)
04-15-2012 9:42 AM


What on earth???
Buz, what on earth did you find in my post to jeer? The entire post reads
I think you've missed the point of this thread. The OP gives a list of prophesies along with verses which he claims demonstrates them as fulfilled. The discussion centres on whether these NT verses do, in fact, demonstrate fulfillment of said phrophesies.
It's got nothing to do with divine inspiration of OT v NT. It just asks are the claims made in the OP valid. Does the OT prophesy truly refer to the supposed fulfillment passage or event?
What do you think makes this post jeerworthy? Does it contain erroneous information? Does it contain illogical conclusions? Does it misrepresent the OP? It doesn't even include my position on any of these prophesies and their fulfillment so you can't be disagreeing with those. So what is it?

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 19 of 304 (659343)
04-15-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dawn Bertot
04-15-2012 9:16 AM


Is there any reason that anyone should respond to your post with anything other than laughter and pity?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-15-2012 9:16 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AdminModulous, posted 04-15-2012 11:13 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 304 (659345)
04-15-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dawn Bertot
04-15-2012 9:16 AM


My guess is that during that time people were closer to all the facts and any false messiah, especially one trying to compare himself to the Old Testament, would have been exposed as a fraud.
Lets do it this way. Since it is clear you cant or wont provide another messiah for us, perhaps you could provide the then outcry, in writing, at that time, that would expose Jesus or the writers as fraudulent
Er, according the the Gospels, the Jewish people most learned in the scriptures wanted Jesus crucified for claiming to be the Messiah. If he had been an obvious fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies, then they would have recognized him as being the Messiah.
You want an "outcry"? Here's your outcry:
Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?
Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.
And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.
Got that? If the gospels are true, then the people who were, as you say, "closer to all the facts", did indeed take Jesus to be a "false messiah" and a "fraud".
If, on the other hand, the gospels are false ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-15-2012 9:16 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2012 12:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 21 of 304 (659346)
04-15-2012 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dawn Bertot
04-15-2012 9:16 AM


Great, would everything else they had to say surrounding thier alledged prophecies, also have significance?
Oh yes, context is important.
Who they said they were, who they claimed was behind thier writing. You know ole chap, first things first, so to speak
No, I don't see the relevance of knowing the prophecy author's name to deciding whether a prophecy was fulfilled.
I agree, but did you notice the veracity and quickness, to dismiss anything outright here by the opposition and all of that without any evidence to the contrary.
I don't think 'veracity' means what you think it means. I'm not dismissing anything 'outright', for what its worth.
That is an odd statement, since you have atleast indirectly implied that the NT writers were less than honest in thier attempts to accurately represent Jesus. heck, others here have said they were liars
Why is it odd to suggest that I don't care about the identity of the people that made the OT prophecies when it comes to deciding if the New Testament writers were honestly showing that Jesus fulfilled them?
What would be your criteria for knowing something said, was false, considering we are involving all the Old testament writer had to say
I've already given one example: When the New Testament writer makes a claim that something happened that other people would have noticed and recorded independently...but did not.
if you dont know that the Old Testament writer is honest and accurate about even the things he is presenting, how would you know he is not talking about Jesus Christ
If someone lies about Tony Blair I can still reasonably conclude that they are not talking about George Bush.
If it puts you at ease, I treat them with the same confidence.
Which means what?
That I think the OT and NT are both wrong.
Surely if the Messiah and the messiahsip was an important and expected thing by the Jewish people, then some other "unethical" writers, like those in the NT, would have put forward thier version of the messiah and his life that so closely corresponded to the prophecies.
I don't see that this necessarily follows. And even if it did, it isn't exactly expected that such documents would have survived the two thousand years that followed. Especially when we consider the Catholic Church's actions regarding 'heretical' texts and ideas.
Mohammad would have been a perfect example of how this could have been accomplished, yet thier seems to be no effort in that connection. My guess is that during that time people were closer to all the facts and any false messiah, especially one trying to compare himself to the Old Testament, would have been exposed as a fraud.
Mohammed did not claim to be the Messiah. He claimed that Jesus was the Messiah. As the Koran says:
quote:
When the angels said: O {Mary}, surely {God} gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, {Jesus} son of {Mary} worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to {God}).
Lets do it this way. Since it is clear you cant or wont provide another messiah for us, perhaps you could provide the then outcry, in writing, at that time, that would expose Jesus or the writers as fraudulent
Why would there be an outcry about a character whose life was being written decades after his death? Of course there the naysayers such as most of the Jews, who denied that he was the Messiah. But who was alive while the NT was being composed and also as a witness to the events in question, to be able to say 'That didn't happen?' and create any outcry?
Notorious acts by rulers in those days was a routine (daily) thing.
Please provide the evidence that killing newborns was a daily act by ancient rulers. I am highly confident you are wrong.
it should be no surprise to anyone that not all things, especially, unpoular and violent things, went unrecorded, especially if they requested that it not be mentioned, by historians.
I'm sure a pissant like Herod did not have the power to make foreign historians neglect to record his tyrannical slaughter.
Would this really help you though in your search for truth. here is what I mean. When every ancient culture has a tradition and story concerning the flood, you still say it didnt happen.
Not every culture. And their floods were not all global. I don't deny that ancient cultures may have suffered from floods. I do deny that any such flood killed almost all life on earth. Even moreso than the Herod story, that would have left independent evidence lying around.
Besides all of this Herods act is recorded in a reliable source and you still reject it.
It only appears in one source. A biased source. An anonymous source. How are we concluding it is reliable?
Dont you think it would go a long way in demonstrating that anyone could have made such an attempt, should they had been willing to put forward THIER messiah as messiah.
That would be interesting, of course. Again, I don't think such reports would have survived the Catholic Church though. There were other Messiah contenders, of course, but if anyone bothered to write stories about them, few of them survived.
Your first inclination is is to represent the Nt writers as frauds. Why?
It's not my first inclination. My first inclination is however, skepticism. The Massacre of the Innocents is just one reason to suppose that false things were being written to shoehorn the Jesus character into a Messiah role.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-15-2012 9:16 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2012 1:47 AM Modulous has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 22 of 304 (659347)
04-15-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jon
04-15-2012 10:23 AM


Hi Jon,
I'm participating here, so I'm not going to take moderator action. I probably wouldn't have anyway. But this post doesn't really advance a position or the debate. It just contains snark. If you are going to be snarky, at least address an argument in the process or something. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 04-15-2012 10:23 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 23 of 304 (659384)
04-15-2012 6:02 PM


First things first.
It seems to me that when we cherry pick verses from the OT that foretell Jesus we are in some way missing the point, or maybe putting the cart before the horse.
For the Christian faith to have any validity there is really only one question — is Jesus dead or alive. Was Jesus killed and then resurrected into a new bodily form? If this isn’t true then Jesus is at best a prophet along the lines of Mahatma Gandhi. He is just another failed messiah. It is only after determining what we believe is the answer to that question is it at all worthwhile to look at the OT in regards to Jesus.
I suggest that there are many things to consider in finding the answer to that question. My first point would be that there were many would be messiahs during the second temple era and even beyond. When Jesus was about ten there was a rebellion lead by a messianic figure, (Judas of Galilee), that was brutally ended by the Romans. (Josephus gives a full account of this.) Messianic Claimants The linked article gives an account of other messianic claims by the descendents of Judas. There was Menahem who led the Jewish revolt in 66 AD. There was a major messianic claimant in 135 AD named Simon bar Kokhba who led a major revolt and had the support of leading Jewish Rabbi of the time named Rabbi Akiva . He even had coins minted in his name starting with year one. (They went to year three.) Some even considered the Maccabes to be messianic figures although they couldn’t claim to be descendants of David. There was considerable disagreement on just what the messiah was supposed to be and do.
The point is that the movements of these individuals all died with them. They were put to death by the Romans and they were just added to the list of failed messiahs. If we look at the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus we see the same pattern playing out. Jesus is taken by the Romans, put on trial, sentenced and what do we see happening to His followers? They have just gone back to their fishing. Jesus is another failed messiah who actually appeared to have accomplished much less than the others in that He held no power, took no militaristic position against the Romans and went quietly to His death. (Compare that to the heroic deaths of the Maccabean martyrs that can be found by reading about them in Josephus.)
However, something happened that changed all that. The Gospel writers claim that as a result of the physical resurrection of Jesus they gain an understanding of what Jesus was about in His life time. The movement, as relatively short lived as it had been, took on a whole new life.
As I’ve said before, I really think that there shouldn’t be much doubt about whether or not the Gospel writers meant for their accounts of the resurrection to be believed as factual. I can see there being an argument to be made that in the writing of the Gospels some things were written in such a way that there would be a connection to the Hebrew Scriptures that might have stretched the truth. However, even if some of the things they said may have been adjusted to conform to their Scriptures they all agree on the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I can see no motivation to be bothered recording any of it if they didn’t believe that the resurrection was an actual historic event.
Obviously Paul, who was a contemporary of the disciples, and who also would have had contact with anyone who could have disputed the case, believed that Jesus was bodily resurrected, and this was after being violently opposed to the movement.
The other thing that the accounts have in common is that they do not make the early leaders of the movement out to be strong heroic figures. In the Gospels they tell stories of how they kept getting it wrong and even denying their connection to Jesus. The Gospels just seem to be telling a very human story of people with all the weaknesses that we all have.
We all can look at these stories and decide what we believe about them. They could have been lying but I see no motivation for that. It would have made more sense to do that after the death of other martyrs and in those cases it didn’t happen. It is possible that they were misinformed or wrong in some other way. I realize that the Gospel accounts were put in the form that we know now decades later, but they were obviously drawn from earlier written accounts and likely from oral history as well. The early writings would have easily been discredited by anyone who could have produced the body of Jesus. If any one of the disciples, or anyone else for that matter that was recorded as meeting with the resurrected Jesus, had just come out and said that what was written hadn’t actually happened it would have all come to a stop.
Back to the prophesies. If we come to the conclusion that the crux of Christianity, namely that the resurrection actually happened and that Jesus is alive in a resurrected body that is no longer perceivable by us, then we can start looking at the prophesies, in a new light.
Firstly, my concern about going down the road of trying to prove an inerrant Bible by using the prophesies in the OT, it appears to me that we are making the Christian faith dependent on an inerrant Bible. Christianity is about worshipping a risen Christ, it is not about worshipping the Bible. If there are errors in the Biblical prophesies so what? That does not mean that Jesus wasn’t resurrected to new life, and that His message, the message that we Christians are supposed to espouse and enact in our lives, isn’t based on truth
I think that one case in point is the reference to Psalm 22. Jesus is to have reported to have said on the cross, My God, My God why have You forsaken Me?. That is a direct quote from the Psalm. In the first place I think we can safely assume that Jesus would be very familiar with that quote. It makes far more sense to me to understand Jesus as saying that in order to draw people’s attention to what He believed was happening. In other words, if it hadn’t been in the Psalm in the first place Jesus wouldn’t have uttered those words.The fact that He did say them though, does tell us that Jesus believed that what was happening to Him could be understood by referring to that psalm.
I’m suggesting that if we believe that Jesus is not dead but alive, that he has been resurrected into a new life and that He is the forerunner of the resurrection of all creation, then instead of worrying about whether or not the OT prophesies are accurate we should be understanding Jesus, and the Scriptures by how He viewed what God the Father was doing through Him. It is only at that point that we should look at the words of Jesus and then go back to the OT, including the prophesies, so that we can more fully understand what it was He was telling His first century Jewish audience and then how that applies to us today. Jesus explained His mission and what God was doing through Him by referring back to the Hebrew Scriptures and I suggest that we should understand the message of the OT through the lens of the message of the NT.
I know that the next thing to respond to is if the OT can’t be read as always being factual then why should we view the NT that way. There are minor inconsistencies in the NT as well but they are written differently than the OT stories. They aren’t written to glorify any of the main characters in the stories other than for Jesus. IMHO there is no political bias and nothing to be gained. It certainly can’t be proven but I don’t think that it is unreasonable to accept the fact that the Gospel writers intended what they wrote to be historically accurate, that they believed what they wrote and that mainly they got it right. There may be those on this forum with a dissenting POV.
The question remains - did they get it right or not. When we come to a conclusion on that then we can start considering the prophesies, without having to try and make the case for a God dictated inerrant Bible.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by DWIII, posted 04-15-2012 9:36 PM GDR has replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2012 2:08 AM GDR has replied

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 24 of 304 (659434)
04-15-2012 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
04-15-2012 6:02 PM


Re: First things first.
GDR writes:
Firstly, my concern about going down the road of trying to prove an inerrant Bible by using the prophesies in the OT, it appears to me that we are making the Christian faith dependent on an inerrant Bible. Christianity is about worshipping a risen Christ, it is not about worshipping the Bible. If there are errors in the Biblical prophesies so what? That does not mean that Jesus wasn’t resurrected to new life, and that His message, the message that we Christians are supposed to espouse and enact in our lives, isn’t based on truth
A fair point; Augustine of Hippo said as much. After all, Paul didn't write (in 1 Corinthians 15) "If the Bible is not inerrant, our faith is in vain".
The nearly-hysterical emphasis on inerrancy (wrt Christianity) is a much more recent development.

DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 04-15-2012 6:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 04-15-2012 11:59 PM DWIII has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 25 of 304 (659446)
04-15-2012 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by DWIII
04-15-2012 9:36 PM


Re: First things first.
DWIII writes:
A fair point; Augustine of Hippo said as much. After all, Paul didn't write (in 1 Corinthians 15) "If the Bible is not inerrant, our faith is in vain".
The nearly-hysterical emphasis on inerrancy (wrt Christianity) is a much more recent development.
Thus encouraged I’ll go further. If we accept as truth what I wrote in my last post as to the evidence for the bodily resurrection then we can go from there. I started in this vain in Message 15 of this thread. Considering that the writers of the gospels, (including the authors who wrote the original texts on which the Gospels were based be it Q or whatever), believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, then we should be able to fairly safely assume that they wanted to make what they recorded as accurate as possible. Through this I believe that it is possible to understand what it was that Jesus believed about Himself and about His mission.
With a well annotated Bible it is easy to see that Jesus based these beliefs, or at least His way of trying to explain it to others, on the Hebrew Scriptures.
In several places He straightforwardly claims the mantle of the Jewish Messiah. From Matthew 16.
quote:
15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
Of course the resurrection does not in itself make Jesus in any way divine. Presumably, God being God, He could resurrect anyone He wanted whenever He wanted. The same holds true for the miracles. In order to understand the Jesus’ belief of the incarnation I think we have to look elsewhere.
The Jews in one sense always an example of the incarnation of God. Their view was that the Temple was the House of the Lord. The Temple was where they could go to bring sacrifices and to obtain forgiveness. Jesus said that He desired mercy not sacrifice and that He could forgive sin, something that only God could do.
As I said in that other post Jesus often referred to Himself as the Son of Man. Here is the OT quote that He would be referring to.
quote:
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
This is a heavenly vision that Jesus seems to believe applied to Him. (This is also one of the scriptures from which Jesus could draw on to justify His message that He had come to establish God’s Kingdom on Earth.)
In Luke 19 Jesus tells the Pharisees that Jerusalem will be destroyed because they did not recognize the time of their visitation of God. This of course meant that the revolutions were allowed to proceed and the Romans did what the Romans always did and Jerusalem was destroyed. It didn’t even take any supernatural knowledge to come to the conclusion that Jesus did.
I’ve tried to establish that Jesus believed that He was not only the Messiah but in some way He was also the embodiment of God the Father. There were those who understood and accepted His Messianic claims although it seems that even amongst His disciples there were still those that wanted Him to lead a rebellion against the Romans. From the Gospel accounts there doesn’t seem to be any of them who actually understood, let alone accepted His claim that He was embodying Yahweh’s return to Zion. As I said they pretty much deserted Him and the movement with His arrest and crucifixion.
Now we come to the resurrection and as I have said, we have to assume that God could resurrect anyone at any time He might choose but it seems that He chose to resurrect this one man in all of human history. He chose to resurrect the one who made these outlandish claims. If all this is correct then it means that Jesus was fully vindicated and that He truly was the Messiah and truly was the embodiment of God the Father, or at least it is a reasonable assumption to make.
From that point we can look at the prophesies while realizing that even if they are false it does not detract from who Jesus was/is or what His message was/is. The same holds true for all of the OT. If we understand from the OT, as many did, that it was prophesied that the Messiah would lead the Jews to military victory then we can understand that prophesy to be false. If we read that God sanctioned genocide or stoning we can understand through the teaching of God as incarnate in Jesus that this teaching was false. When we read about the commandment to love our neighbours we can accept that this was a true prophecy or revelation from God.
I contend this is a Biblically sound and reasonably sound way to understand the Christian faith. Obviously there are those Christians who will think I'm right out to lunch, (let alone the atheists), but I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong, as in spite of what the my dog thinks, I am not the source of all wisdom. I will say though that through all of the reading I do on the subject my views do continue to be modified. We aren't given certainty, at least not in this life.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DWIII, posted 04-15-2012 9:36 PM DWIII has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by DWIII, posted 04-16-2012 9:20 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 26 of 304 (659455)
04-16-2012 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
04-15-2012 6:02 PM


Re: First things first.
Of course the problem is that even you assume that the Bible is more accurate than is warranted by even a simple internal analysis.
In Message 15 you use words supposedly said by Jesus in his post-resurrection appearance on the road to Emmaus.
But in this post you state that after the Crucifixion the Disciples:
...have just gone back to their fishing
and in doing so you implicitly deny the whole Road to Emmaus story, which is founded on the assumption that the Disciples stayed in Jerusalem until the Ascension.
If the story of the road to Emmaus is a fiction, how can we trust it to accurately convey Jesus' words ?
In fact if the post-Resurrection accounts differ so markedly, how can we trust any of them ?
It seems obvious to me that we have two traditions of post-resurrection accounts - the first based in Galilee, the other in Jerusalem, and that these two stories were in competition, each denying the other. But how could that happen if the actual events were so impressive ? If Luke is right, then how could the author of Matthew not know about Pentecost ? If Matthew is right, why would the author of Luke be so insistent in setting the events in and around Jerusalem ?
Surely, the correct answer is that neither is right. The original events must have been far less impressive to be so heavily buried by the time of the Gospel writers.
And this throws doubt on the whole idea of a bodily resurrection. If the original events were so unimpressive that they were effectively lost by the time of the Gospel writers, how can we suppose that the original "appearances" were not mundane events ? Dreams, the feeling of Jesus' presence, maybe "sightings", like the sightings of Elvis Presley after his death ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 04-15-2012 6:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 04-16-2012 3:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 27 of 304 (659461)
04-16-2012 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
04-16-2012 2:08 AM


Re: First things first.
PaulK writes:
and in doing so you implicitly deny the whole Road to Emmaus story, which is founded on the assumption that the Disciples stayed in Jerusalem until the Ascension.
If the story of the road to Emmaus is a fiction, how can we trust it to accurately convey Jesus' words ?
In fact if the post-Resurrection accounts differ so markedly, how can we trust any of them ?
I'll go back to the car accident analogy. The testimony of different witnesses to an accident will often testify quite honestly about what they saw but their accounts will differ on details. They will however agree on the salient points. I agree that the details differ. It is an open question as to where the disciples were over the 40 day period but it seems pretty clear that they didn't remain in Jerusalem the whole time. Even in Acts Luke has them returning to Jerusalem from Olivet, which has to lead you to understand that Luke is agreeing that they didn't stay in Jerusalem even though he had written in his gospel that they had been told to do so.
The road to Emmaus story goes into the kind of detail that we might expect of a story that is accurate. It tells where they were going, it expresses their emotions, and it names Cleopas. The story also includes the very strange bit about them not recognizing them until Jesus breaks bread with them. I don't pretend to know what that's about but it isn't something that they would make up IMHO. Why would you make up a story that you want people to believe and then put that in there if there was no truth to it? In a sense they are saying, that I know this sounds really weird but this is what happened.
PaulK writes:
It seems obvious to me that we have two traditions of post-resurrection accounts - the first based in Galilee, the other in Jerusalem, and that these two stories were in competition, each denying the other. But how could that happen if the actual events were so impressive ? If Luke is right, then how could the author of Matthew not know about Pentecost ? If Matthew is right, why would the author of Luke be so insistent in setting the events in and around Jerusalem ?
We are talking about a 40 day period so it is absolutely conceivable that the events happened in different locations at different times. The Gospels agree that the initial events happened in Jerusalem but after that the consensus is that they left the city to return after the ascension. As I said also even Luke had the disciples returning from Olivet in Acts.
PaulK writes:
Surely, the correct answer is that neither is right. The original events must have been far less impressive to be so heavily buried by the time of the Gospel writers.
And this throws doubt on the whole idea of a bodily resurrection. If the original events were so unimpressive that they were effectively lost by the time of the Gospel writers, how can we suppose that the original "appearances" were not mundane events ? Dreams, the feeling of Jesus' presence, maybe "sightings", like the sightings of Elvis Presley after his death ?
Sure this is the theory as proposed by people like Crossan but frankly it makes no sense to me unless you start out with the idea that we know that it is impossible and so we have to find another explanation no matter how implausible. Why would the disciples devote their lives to a lie? Why would Paul, a well educated highly place Pharisee be so easily duped for something that required a life of virtually constant sacrifice? If Jesus’ body was still around surely someone amongst the Romans or Herodians would have produced it if they could have.
If we accept the concept of an intelligent first cause then we have to believe that there is something that we would call a miracle required to bring our world, or at least its inhabitants into existence in the first place. If that is the case then I see no reason to totally reject the idea of the miracle of the resurrection.
I think that I may have dragged this thread off topic, but it does seem to me that this issue has to be resolved in our own minds before we can form any conclusion concerning OT prophesies.
AbE I just wanted to add that the message that the Jesus story could be understood through reference to the scriptures as told in the account told on the road to Emmaus is consistent with the teachings of Jesus throughout the Gospels. As I said previously Jesus was forever referencing the Scriptures to give meaning and context to what He was saying and doing. The point that I was making regarding the Emmaus story is a point in isolation.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2012 2:08 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2012 2:26 PM GDR has replied

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 28 of 304 (659489)
04-16-2012 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
04-15-2012 11:59 PM


Re: First things first.
GDR writes:
DWIII writes:
A fair point; Augustine of Hippo said as much. After all, Paul didn't write (in 1 Corinthians 15) "If the Bible is not inerrant, our faith is in vain".
The nearly-hysterical emphasis on inerrancy (wrt Christianity) is a much more recent development.
Thus encouraged I’ll go further.
Well, as long as you don't let it go to your head... :-)
If we accept as truth what I wrote in my last post as to the evidence for the bodily resurrection then we can go from there. I started in this vain in Message 15 of this thread. Considering that the writers of the gospels, (including the authors who wrote the original texts on which the Gospels were based be it Q or whatever), believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, then we should be able to fairly safely assume that they wanted to make what they recorded as accurate as possible.
Unfortunately, whatever alleged motivation existed for accuracy was more than likely compromised by agenda-pushing. Even John admits near the end of his Gospel that "these things were written so that you may believe": a tacit admission of propaganda.
Through this I believe that it is possible to understand what it was that Jesus believed about Himself and about His mission.
With a well annotated Bible it is easy to see that Jesus based these beliefs, or at least His way of trying to explain it to others, on the Hebrew Scriptures.
In several places He straightforwardly claims the mantle of the Jewish Messiah.
In your previous post, you referenced several other contemporaneous contenders for Messiahship. Did they not themselves make such claims, and/or had such claims made on their behalf? I can easily imagine a slightly different world than ours, where one of those movements started by an alternative Messiah succeeded instead of Jesus, and we would today be arguing whether or not Simon of Peraea, after he was decapitated by the Romans, grew a new head in fulfillment of the Scriptures.
Now we come to the resurrection and as I have said, we have to assume that God could resurrect anyone at any time He might choose but it seems that He chose to resurrect this one man in all of human history. He chose to resurrect the one who made these outlandish claims. If all this is correct then it means that Jesus was fully vindicated and that He truly was the Messiah and truly was the embodiment of God the Father, or at least it is a reasonable assumption to make.
For that matter, God could just as easily have miraculously resurrected any one of those Messianic claimants, whilst leaving all the others (including Jesus) dead and buried. Would this make such a big difference to any of us some 2,000 years later?

DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 04-15-2012 11:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 04-16-2012 2:36 PM DWIII has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 29 of 304 (659534)
04-16-2012 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by GDR
04-16-2012 3:47 AM


Re: First things first.
quote:
I'll go back to the car accident analogy. The testimony of different witnesses to an accident will often testify quite honestly about what they saw but their accounts will differ on details. They will however agree on the salient points. I agree that the details differ.
We know about the shared sources and/or copying between the synoptic Gospels so we aren;t dealing with differing eyewitness accounts, and we should expect fewer and smaller differences. In fact we seem to have a whole different set of accidents !
quote:
I agree that the details differ. It is an open question as to where the disciples were over the 40 day period but it seems pretty clear that they didn't remain in Jerusalem the whole time. Even in Acts Luke has them returning to Jerusalem from Olivet, which has to lead you to understand that Luke is agreeing that they didn't stay in Jerusalem even though he had written in his gospel that they had been told to do so.
And according to Acts 1 it seems that they had been talking to Jesus there, so it doesn't seem to be against the command they were given. Especially as Olivet is only just outside old Jerusalem (and IN modern Jerusalem). That's very different from a the journey out to Galilee, which is not even hinted at in either Luke or Acts.
quote:
The road to Emmaus story goes into the kind of detail that we might expect of a story that is accurate.
Which does not change the possibility that the story as we have it is exaggerated or even complete fiction.
I would say that the fact that Matthew shows no sign that it happened at all and implies that it did not is far more significant.
quote:
We are talking about a 40 day period so it is absolutely conceivable that the events happened in different locations at different times. The Gospels agree that the initial events happened in Jerusalem but after that the consensus is that they left the city to return after the ascension. As I said also even Luke had the disciples returning from Olivet in Acts.
Luke has them take a short trip outside the city walls, and with orders to remain in Jerusalem which would rule out much longer trips like a journey to Galilee.
Which really makes my point - the difference between you and the inerrantists is one of degree, rather than kind.
quote:
Sure this is the theory as proposed by people like Crossan but frankly it makes no sense to me unless you start out with the idea that we know that it is impossible and so we have to find another explanation no matter how implausible
It seems to me that my explanation involves no great implausibilities. You're going to have to do better than mere assertion - even Buz can manage that much.
quote:
Why would the disciples devote their lives to a lie?
That isn't part of my explanation, so that isn't a problem.
quote:
Why would Paul, a well educated highly place Pharisee be so easily duped for something that required a life of virtually constant sacrifice?
Apparently he had a vision, which was enough to convince him. He doesn't seem to know about the Gospel stories of the post-resurrection appearances, just that there were appearances which he considers on a par with his vision.
quote:
If Jesus’ body was still around surely someone amongst the Romans or Herodians would have produced it if they could have.
If they were worried about it, and if they could find it, and if it would still be recognisable and if the disciples were preaching about a missing body (and we don't even know THAT much - Paul doesn't mention it).... That's a lot of 'if's'.
quote:
I just wanted to add that the message that the Jesus story could be understood through reference to the scriptures as told in the account told on the road to Emmaus is consistent with the teachings of Jesus throughout the Gospels.
If you have examples from less doubtful passages, then maybe you should have chosen that rather than an event only mentioned in Luke, and which Matthew implicitly denies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 04-16-2012 3:47 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 04-16-2012 8:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 30 of 304 (659539)
04-16-2012 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by DWIII
04-16-2012 9:20 AM


Re: First things first.
DWIII writes:
Well, as long as you don't let it go to your head...
Too late...
DWIII writes:
Unfortunately, whatever alleged motivation existed for accuracy was more than likely compromised by agenda-pushing. Even John admits near the end of his Gospel that "these things were written so that you may believe": a tacit admission of propaganda.
I don’t see that last statement as implying that it was propaganda as such but I acknowledge that they were explaining Jesus as the fulfillment of their Scriptures so that might have pushed the envelope occasionally. Frankly though, as I said earlier the Gospels are written in a very human fashion and in a way that doesn’t talk about the disciples in a particularly positive manner. They do seem to be attempting to be as accurate as possible.
DWIII writes:
In your previous post, you referenced several other contemporaneous contenders for Messiahship. Did they not themselves make such claims, and/or had such claims made on their behalf? I can easily imagine a slightly different world than ours, where one of those movements started by an alternative Messiah succeeded instead of Jesus, and we would today be arguing whether or not Simon of Peraea, after he was decapitated by the Romans, grew a new head in fulfillment of the Scriptures.
That was an interesting link. It does however reinforce my point. When Simon of Peraea was killed his movement ended as did all other messianic movements. We don’t hear about his followers going around claiming that he had grown a new head. We don’t hear anymore about him at all.
Aside from that obvious difference there is one other major difference. All of the other messianic movements saw the enemy as being human, and in this case the Romans. These would be messiahs all mounted military campaigns against the enemy. Jesus brought a different message which involved a different understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. His message was that the enemy wasn’t human, (flesh and blood), but that the enemy was evil itself. Evil is not defeated by spears and swords, (or bombs for that matter), evil is defeated by love. You can win battles with human weapons but if you want to win the war you ultimately have to win the hearts of the enemy.
DWIII writes:
For that matter, God could just as easily have miraculously resurrected any one of those Messianic claimants, whilst leaving all the others (including Jesus) dead and buried. Would this make such a big difference to any of us some 2,000 years later?
Well ya... it would make a huge difference. Lets’ look at a quote from the wiki article you linked on Simon of Peraea.
quote:
This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things, and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head, while a certain number of the people stood by him, and by them he was declared to be a king, and he thought himself more worthy of that dignity than any one else."
"He burnt down the royal palace at Jericho, and plundered what was left in it. He also set fire to many other of the king's houses in several places of the country, utterly destroyed them, and permitted those that were with him to take what was left in them for a prey.
If God had resurrected Simon of Peraea or any of the other messianic claimants then we would understand that God was a god that countenanced war, plunder, and all sorts of other things that Jesus spoke out against. Instead we find that God, as embodied by Jesus is opposed to those things. We would see God as a King that relished power for its own sake as opposed to a servant King. The Christian God, as seen through Jesus, is a God that tells us that what He desires is mercy not sacrifice, love not hatred, forgiveness not revenge etc. To worship God as we see Him embodied by Jesus we are to emulate His character which simply put means that we are called to have hearts that find their joy in the love of God and neighbour. (I’m glad that God doesn’t hand it report cards for how I and His other followers are doing but that is another topic. )

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by DWIII, posted 04-16-2012 9:20 AM DWIII has seen this message but 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