|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Whole Jesus Thing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I think it was Clarke, but it might have been Asimov, who said that when a white-haired old scientist tells you that something is possible, you should probably believe them, but when they say something is impossible, you probably shoult not. It's impossible to know that something will never, ever, be achieved in the future. By contrast, kniowing that something CAN be done can be certainly known.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: No, it does not, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly and at great length. Science is not driven by faith, it is driven by knowledge. I'd thank you to take this theistic arrogance and stuff it where the sun don't shine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 773 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
No, it does not, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly and at great length. Science is not driven by faith, it is driven by knowledge.I'd thank you to take this theistic arrogance and stuff it where the sun don't shine. Contracycle, can you tell me what this topic is about? Then please tell me what science has to do with this topic. Stop making DA OT posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
You tell me, Dawg - it was your claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You are reading Isaiah out of context with wishful thinking. The servant of god is the nation of Isreal. The writer of that portion of Isaiah says so himself, just previous to Isaiah 53.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Yet, according to many passages in the New testament, including references you made yourself, Jesus is the Son of man.
Double standard there?? Ignoring what you don't want to??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Angel Inactive Member |
quote: Jesus is the Son of man, (mankind), in that He was born of Mary, Jesus is the Son of God, in that He was born of God. Mary is His mother=son of man God His Father= Son of God Angel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Jesus is the Son of man, (mankind), in that He was born of Mary, Jesus is the Son of God, in that He was born of God. Mary is His mother=son of man God His Father= Son of God what you are refering to is two distinct groups. ben'adam: "son of man" or a member of mankindben'eloyhim: "son of god" or a member of the gods. (some believers read this as "angel") ben'eloyhim is a group mention a few times in the bible. it is the group that lusts after the daughters of men, and spawns the nephilim in genesis 6, causing god to have to wipe the slate clean. it's the group that gathers at the beginning of job, and included hasatan. it's very apparent that in hebrew "son of god" means a lesser diety, or foriegn god, not an actual son. god also refers to kings as begotten sons (see psalm 2). the language is that of adoption, but the word means the same thing as the one applied to christ. so it is possible for someone to a member of mankind (a son of man) and still be adopted as a son of god. ben'adam is another term used elsewhere. ezekial is called "son of man" more times than i can count. it appears from the phrase's use in that book that certainly by the time of christ, "son of man" had prophetic connotation. jesus may have been refering to himself not as a human being, but a prophet like ezekiel, isaiah, and jeremiah. this certainly fits the story. the point being... well, i guess there was not point. but there are more ways to read it than one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 773 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
The servant of god is the nation of Isreal. The writer of that portion of Isaiah says so himself, just previous to Isaiah 53. Where? I can't seem to find what you're talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Chapter 41:8 But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me, 9 Whom I grasped from the ends of the earth, and from its nobles I called you, and I said to you, "You are My servant"
Chapter 44:1 And now, hearken, Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. 2 So said the Lord your Maker, and He Who formed you from the womb shall aid you. Fear not, My servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have chosen. ... 21 Remember these, O Jacob; and Israel, for you are My servant; I formed you that you be a servant to Me, Israel, do not forget Me. Chapter 49:3 And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Over and over again I hear single lines from Isaiah (and Jeremiah, and Psalms, etc) taken completely out of context and used to make grand sweeping generalizations about Jesus, God, etc. or force-fit as prophesy.
Angel, I am sorry but the first chapter of Isaiah isn't God explaining details of his nature in a broad sense. Like, "By the way, that killing animal thing, not so much of that anymore okay?". Instead it is God expressing his anger at Israel for following the ritual of the Law while sinning. It is like if my child were exceptionally badly behaved one day and said "I'm sorry". I might reply "Sorry doesn't cut it little mister!". I am not saying "From now until you are 18 you are never to apologize again". I AM saying that sorry isn't going make it alright this time. God is telling the nation of Israel that their "sorry" (sacrifices, rituals, etc) simply aren't enough. I cannot see how an objective reading of the first chapter of Isaiah could be taken to mean anything else. In verse 15 God says "When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen" (The New Oxford Annotated Bible). This makes perfect sense in the context outlined above (God is speaking as if to a naughty child). If, as Angel claims, Isaiah is revealing the nature of God then the only logical conclusion is that God is and has been cut off from man since at least 2700 years ago. He doesn't see us, he doesn't hear us, etc. No Christian would make that claim yet to believe both interpretations simultaneously (that verse 11 means general nature of God, while verse 15 is merely referring to that time and on that occassion) is ridiculous. I believe that, like most of the OT quote mining, using Isaiah 1:11 to prove that God doesn't like or want blood sacrifice only can be reasoned if one was told explicitly "this means this, go look it up." What I am saying (a point made repeatedly on this forum by others far wiser than myself) is that the "obvious" meaning of these quotes is only obvious if you are told what they mean and told to accept no other interpretaion. I find it impossible to believe that anyone reading (for example) Isaiah chapter 7 with no bias would ever conclude it was about Jesus. It is like that with all of the so-called prophetic verses supposedly concerning Jesus from the OT. I highly doubt that the people who claim it is clear and obvious would ever have seen it unless pointed that direction. And that brings me to another point (I apologize in advance, I am on a rant). I am really sick and tired of this argument that you only think these verses are misinterpreted and out of context because God has denied you the magic ability to see the truth. (btw, Angel hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, used this argument here. I really appreciate that) I once went to a friend's house because she challenged me that five minutes in her "ghost-buster" parent's house would send me out screaming. When no ghosts appeared I was told that my disbelief and negative energy prevented the ghosts from manifesting themselves. It's the same argument. That the OT is all about Jesus is true and obvious IF you believe unquestioningly that the OT is all about Jesus. If you have the slightest doubt then you are punished by being only able to find a completely different meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Can I get a Big Amen Brother?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Itachi Uchiha Member (Idle past 5637 days) Posts: 272 From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco Joined: |
yaro writes: Heheh, salvation 2.0 ehh Yeah something like that
yaro writes: Ya, I understand the idea. It still dosn't make sense to me tho. One of the strict rules you were supposed to follow for example was sacrifice of animals etc. Why on earth would God want a dead lamb? It's just silly. In the old testament days there were different types of sacrifices in which animals or crops were used. The two that were most common was the sacrifice done for thanksgiving and the sacrifice done for forgiveness. A thanksgiving sacrifice was done taking the best part of your crops and burning them as an offering to God and a way of saying thank you for a very productive harvest season. The forgiveness sacrifice usually was done when a person sinned and an animal(particularly a lamb) was used. Why the lamb? Sheep were a very good investment in the old testament days and probably one of the most important type of herds at the time. The sheep provided very good meat and clothing was made from their coat without having to kill them(they shaved the hairs off. they grow back quickly). The more sheep you had the richer you were. And most importantly a lamb is a very meek animal and it was clean. Just the way the jews were supposed to be. So why the lamb? 1) it meant sacrificing money. Sacrificing a sheep those days is the equivalent of paying 100 dollars or more worth of parking tickets 2)It was clean animal. Since you wanted to be cleansed of your sins it was not convenient sacrificing a dirty,smelly pig.
yaro writes: It seems, for a god that loves us so much, he is going thrugh such trouble to make things complicated. If he took our punishment for us, then certainly that's all it took. We are all forgiven period. No need to "accept Jesus", his death already dealt with that. Furthermore, why bother turning into a man at all? Yes he did die for all of us but now we must accept the sacrifice. How do we do it? By changing they way we live. If you punched me and i forgave you will you punch me again? If you do you are not acepting my forgiveness. If we keeep living a sinful life knowing the sacrifice God did for us, then we are surely not honoring his sacrifice and we tell him indirectly i dont give a crap about your forgiveness or your love. He turned into a man because he wanted a front row seat of what man experiences everyday and how does it feel to be trapped in a mortal suit. It was the only way he could really understand our battles and what we go through everyday.
yaro writes: Just snap your fingers and wipe away sins. Easy no? See, I even came up with a better solution! If he did that we wouldnt have an example of sacrifice and his forgiveness will be worth nothing to mankind. You give no value to what you obtain easily. You value what gives you work. I hope that applied when I go to the bathroom. Just snap your fingers and wipe away ass. Now thats easy.
yaro writes: So, if I ran out onto the highway and got run over by a truck, did I kill myself or the truck? God killd himself, he knew full well he was coming down to die. He killd himself. If I shoot myself in the head, did I kill myself or the bullet? Get it? NO I think you dont get it. If you get in the way with ehough time for the truck driver to see you he will avoid you because he can make a desicion and the bullet cannot decide wherre it wants to go. The Romans could of have chosen not to kill Jesus but they CHOSEDto do it. Gonna get to the secoond part of your messege later. Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
No, not really.
Of course as you have understood by your lack of revelant response to my other posts my answer to the "he died for me" is I did't ask him to die for me.
If you check my postings here you'll find that I don't subscribe to such posturing. It's pretty silly IMHO. Christ died and rose again as an indication, an affirmation, that his death was full and sufficient sacrifice and oblation for the sins of the world. It was a passion, played out in the idiom of the day. It was a gift, freely given for all mankind, believer and non-believer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Was lt, like Jesus' death, a gift freely give I refuse death as a gift.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024