Progressive revelation

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No one's interested in having a thoughtful discussion on what future messengers may reveal?

If we knew that, the "messengers" wouldn't be needed, would they?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If we knew that, the "messengers" wouldn't be needed, would they?

That's pretty weak. For some reason I was under the impression that you were capable of thoughtful replies. What happened to that guy?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No one's interested in having a thoughtful discussion on what future messengers may reveal?

I don’t like to speculate on this, but if you insist, I will place my neck out to be chopped. By the time the next Messenger comes, we will hopefully have gotten over a lot of our differences. Hopefully things like racism, nationalism, ethnocentrisms, and a lot of other "isms" will be on their last leg.

Then we may have a world government that looks over the entire planet, probably with all the nations still intact. I doubt if we can get over our nationalistic feelings quite that fast. I imagine this word government will be something like the US federal government that oversees the countries like it does the states today.

The ideal situation is to get rid of all nations and see the entire planet as one country with mankind as its citizens. I suppose the next Messenger will help us get closer to this ideal situation.

Originally posted by Varqa
It is natural for you to consider Jesus to be above and beyond any other. You have been thought that. Can you imagine a priest telling you that Jesus is the same as Moses?

It is not merely a matter of what others tell me about Christ, rather, it is what the scriptures tell me about Christ that seperates him from all else. Also it is not only the New Testament that tells me that Jesus is special to all other men it is the Old Testament as well. These teachings came about long before the church ever existed.

Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

How can a child that is born be called Mighty God? who might this be?

So perhaps the words of Isaiah is not enough. How about Paul?

Colossians 1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; For by him all things were created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or pricipalities, or powers, all things were created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Ok, so perhaps you need more than this. How about John in Revelation ?

Revelation 1:5 "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood. And has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Behold, he comes with the clouds; and every eye will see him, and they also which pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth will wail because of him.."

So here we see Christ as the first begotten of the dead as well as the prince of the kings of the earth as well as the one by which our sins are washed away as well as one who is coming again after being ressurected from the dead.

Or how about this from John?

Revelation 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitts upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Here we see the Lamb or Christ being worshiped in the same breath as God. Who should be worshped in such a way other than God himself?

So perhaps John's testimony is not adequate. How about Peters testimony?

1 Peter 2:6 "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, 'Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believes on him will not be confounded.' Unto you, therefore, which believe he is precious but unto them which be disobedient, 'The stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head corner stone of the corner. And a stone of stumblingblock, and a rock of offense,' even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto also were appointed.

Peter sees Christ as the chief corner stone in Sion that has been rejected by the builders and also a rock of offense. It seems to me that he continues to be offensive to those who look at him merely as another Moses, so to speak.

So perhaps you would like to hear from another disciple, namely Thomas,

John 20:28 "And Thomas answered, and said to Jesus, My Lord and my God."

Ok, enough of what Christs followers thought of Christ, how about his adversaries?

John 10:33 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself God."

John 5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

Ok, ok enough about what Christs contemporaries thought about him. What about the words of Christ himself?

John 8:56 And Jesus said, "Your father Abrham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." Then said the Jews to him, Thou art not yet 50 years old, hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, "Verity, verily, I say to you, Before Abrham was, I AM. They then took up stones to cast at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple....."

So here we see that Chrsit existed before he was even born. Who else has claimed this? Also, Christ describes himself as I AM which is similair to how God describes himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14. God descirbed himself as "I am that I am".

And what of his seonnd coming? If he merely be a mortal man, why does he return and set up God's kingdom on earth? After all, this is one of the reasons the Jews reject him which is that he has not fulfilled all of the prophesies of the Messiah......yet.

My favorite, however, is when Christ begins to question the apostles about his identity.

Matthew 16:13 "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Phillippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say you are John the Baptist; some, Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He said to them, But whom say you that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father which is in heaven.....then he charged his disciples that none should tell any man that he was Jesus the Christ."

So I will pose to you the same question posed to Peter. Whom do you say that I am?

Originally posted by whodey
It is not merely a matter of what others tell me about Christ, rather, it is what the scriptures tell me about Christ that seperates him from all else. Also it is not only the New Testament that tells me that Jesus is special to all other men it is the Old Testament as well. These teachings came about long before the church ever existed.

Isaiah 9:6 "For ...[text shortened]... you the same question posed to Peter. Whom do you say that I am?

You are not the first person to ask me these questions and you most certainly won’t be the last. I have answered these questions so many times that I have lost count. I do not want to get into it, because these debates just go on and on with no resolution. But there are non Christians here, and I don’t want them to be misled. I will entertain one of your questions.

Jesus is not the only one who was called the Son of God by the Bible, but for some reason Jesus’ sonship has been magnified.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [David] art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. PSA 2:8

So David was the Son of God. Let’s see who else is the Son of God.

I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. JER 31:9

Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD. JER 31:20

Not only was Ephraim the Son of God, he was also the firstborn.

And then there was Melchizedek.

To whom [Melchizedek] also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually HEB 7:3

Jesus was born of Mary, but Melchizedek had no mother and no Father. He had no beginning and no end. He was made the Son of God also. According to the Bible he never died, which means he is somewhere up there as the Son of God.

Here we can argue that Melchizedek was “like unto” the Son of God, but we must realize that Jesus was also “called” the Son of God.

He [Jesus] shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. LUK 1:32

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. LUK 1:35

Jesus was not only the begotten of God, he was also the first begotten of the dead.

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. REV 1:5

Jesus is believed to be the only Son of God, but according to what we have seen so far there are many Sons of God. This is confirmed in the next passage.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. JOB 1:6

The above could have been interpreted to mean that Satan was also the Son of God. Fortunately there has been no such confusion.
The title of Son of God has been given to other things besides people.

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 4:23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. EX 4:22-23

Ultimately what we should get out of this discussion is that being the Son of God, like many other things in the Bible, is a symbol for something. It is not to be taken literally.

When Jesus said My Father and I are one. The Jews wanted to stone him, but here is what he said.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. JOHN 10:34

So Jesus says that those to whom the word of God came were called gods. Why is it a blasphemy to call the one that God sent to give us his word the Son of God. So we just have to read between the lines. Jesus was one with God in purpose. He was sent by God to accomplish God’s will. In this sense he is the same as God or the Son of God.

Originally posted by Varqa
You are not the first person to ask me these questions and you most certainly won’t be the last. I have answered these questions so many times that I have lost count. I do not want to get into it, because these debates just go on and on with no resolution. But there are non Christians here, and I don’t want them to be misled. I will entertain one of your quest ...[text shortened]... as sent by God to accomplish God’s will. In this sense he is the same as God or the Son of God.

As you say, there are so many issues embroiled in this that people either reach a quick impasse, or end up going round and round. I will add only this to the mix—

The Greek Orthodox (who are strictly Chalcedonian/Trinitarian), who never lost fluency with biblical Greek, insist that monogenes—often mistranslated as “only begotten” (which would be monogenete)—really means “unique,” as opposed to “exclusive.” Jesus is called the Christ because he embodies the logos, which was en arche with God (and is God), the logos which is thus is thus the “firstborn of all creation.” Nevertheless, all are “born of” the logos, and hence all have the power to become fully realized as “sons (and daughters) of God.”

I am not Orthodox, and have perhaps by my wording pushed that a bit further than most of them would. Anglican theologian Robert Farrar Capon (still maintaining a Trinitarian view) said that Jesus was the Christ because he was a “sacrament” of the pre-existing logos.

Originally posted by whodey
It is not merely a matter of what others tell me about Christ, rather, it is what the scriptures tell me about Christ that seperates him from all else. Also it is not only the New Testament that tells me that Jesus is special to all other men it is the Old Testament as well. These teachings came about long before the church ever existed.

Isaiah 9:6 "For ...[text shortened]... you the same question posed to Peter. Whom do you say that I am?

I covered every single one of these quotations (except the OT one) in another thread. Do you need
a reference to it? None of them allow us to draw a conclusion that any of the NT writers thought of
Jesus as Divine, but of the Divine.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I covered every single one of these quotations (except the OT one) in another thread. Do you need
a reference to it? None of them allow us to draw a conclusion that any of the NT writers thought of
Jesus as Divine, but of the Divine.

Nemesio

Sure I will have a look. However, when you consider so many prophesies in the Old Tesatment hinging on the Messiah and all of mankind being saved through his sacrifice which is also mentioned in the Old TEstament and Christ having existed before he was even born and him saying he is the beginning and the end and him being referenced as the only way to God and the fact that Christ is worshiped and used in the same breath as God and Christ coming back in his second coming to make all right with the world to save us all, what other conclusion can one make? I submit the evidence is overwhelming I must also note that Christ warned about others coming after him declaring that he is the Messiah. If the Messiah is just another "messanger" or "prophet" why would he warn against such people? After all, was he not simply one of many and more to come?

One must not only look at a verse, or a chapter or a book or the Bible, rather, one must weigh the entirety of the text together to get a better understanding of what is being communicated.

Originally posted by Varqa
I don’t like to speculate on this, but if you insist, I will place my neck out to be chopped. By the time the next Messenger comes, we will hopefully have gotten over a lot of our differences. Hopefully things like racism, nationalism, ethnocentrisms, and a lot of other "isms" will be on their last leg.

Then we may have a world government that looks ...[text shortened]... s its citizens. I suppose the next Messenger will help us get closer to this ideal situation.

Do you see having a single "country", so to speak, as being the final destination? Currently within a given country, there may exist a structural unity, but whatever spiritual unity there is is sorely lacking. Wouldn't having a single country likely get us more of the same?

Originally posted by whodey
Sure I will have a look. However, when you consider so many prophesies in the Old Tesatment hinging on the Messiah and all of mankind being saved through his sacrifice which is also mentioned in the Old TEstament and Christ having existed before he was even born and him saying he is the beginning and the end and him being referenced as the only way to God an e entirety of the text together to get a better understanding of what is being communicated.

I don’t really think there’s such an abundance of messianic prophecies. Nor is there a common thread with regard to who/what is messiah. The NT writers looked back for what they could find for proof-texts, for their new vision/understanding of who/what messiah is.

moshiach means “anointed.” The word, translated thus, occurs 82 times in the Hebrew Scriptures—44 times as a noun referring to a person (in a couple of instances, plural). Saul, for example, and David, are referred to God’s moshiach. The label is attached to anyone who is viewed as having been “anointed” to carry out God’s will. Isaiah (45:1) also called King Cyrus the messiah: “Thus says YHVH to his messiah (moshiach), to Cyrus....”

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t really think there’s such an abundance of messianic prophecies. Nor is there a common thread with regard to who/what is messiah. The NT writers looked back for what they could find for proof-texts, for their new vision/understanding of who/what messiah is.

moshiach means “anointed.” The word, translated thus, occurs 82 times in t ...[text shortened]... King Cyrus the messiah: “Thus says YHVH to his messiah (moshiach), to Cyrus....”

Well some have pointed to hundreds or references as others say there are only a few. Those that say there are only a few, however, reject Christ as the Messiah

Having said that there are references that at least to me are painfully obvious. For example, the entire chapter of Isaiah 53 comes to mind. It is almost life reading a chapter of one of the four gospels. Zechariiah 12:10 is another no brainer as he talks about Christ returning as they will look upon him whom they have pierced. I have also talked of Daniel 9:24 which is a timetable as to when the Messiah came the first time and is actually the only place in the KJV in which the actual words "Messiah" appear. Many could dismiss the prophesies as Christians rewriting history in order to fit the prophesies, however, the timetable in Daniel is of historical fact. It is a prediction dead on.

Originally posted by whodey
Well some have pointed to hundreds or references as others say there are only a few. Those that say there are only a few, however, reject Christ as the Messiah

Having said that there are references that at least to me are painfully obvious. For example, the entire chapter of Isaiah 53 comes to mind. It is almost life reading a chapter of one of the four ophesies, however, the timetable in Daniel is of historical fact. It is a prediction dead on.

Those that say there are only a few, however, reject Christ as the Messiah

Really? Then all the other testimony of the NT writers is nothing without a lot of “prophecy” to back it up? Are you sufficiently familiar with those who hold to “few,” rather than “many,” to make this assertion about them?

___________________________________

Unfortunately Isaiah 53 is written entirely in the past tense, and does not mention messiah. In addition, if this refers back to the same person of Isaiah 7:14, apparently neither Mary nor Joseph were aware of the prophecy, since they did not name him Immanuel, but Yeshu. (In fact, nobody else in the NT refers to him as Immanuel; the only place that name occurs at all is in Matthew’s quote of Isaiah 7:14.)

Interestingly, the only mention of moshiach in all of Isaiah is the aforementioned reference to Cyrus (and verse 61, where Isaiah refers to his own prophetic anointing, using the verb form).

___________________________________

Here is all of Zechariah 12; why should verse 10 be excised from the rest of that chapter? (A “no-brainer” here?!)

NRS Zechariah 12:1 An Oracle. The word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus says the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the human spirit within: 2 See, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of reeling for all the surrounding peoples; it will be against Judah also in the siege against Jerusalem. 3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it shall grievously hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth shall come together against it. 4 On that day, says the LORD, I will strike every horse with panic, and its rider with madness. But on the house of Judah I will keep a watchful eye, when I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 Then the clans of Judah shall say to themselves, "The inhabitants of Jerusalem have strength through the LORD of hosts, their God." 6 On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing pot on a pile of wood, like a flaming torch among sheaves; and they shall devour to the right and to the left all the surrounding peoples, while Jerusalem shall again be inhabited in its place, in Jerusalem. 7 And the LORD will give victory to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not be exalted over that of Judah. 8 On that day the LORD will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, at their head. 9 And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. 11 On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land shall mourn, each family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.

Here is a passage from my The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible: "The role of Messiah seems largely to have been identified by Zech. With the leadership of Zerubbabel. Here the Messiah seems to be more a sign of the coming new age than the medium through which it comes (cf. 9:9-10). The hopes reposing on Zerubbabel as the Messiah, however, were dashed through circumstances no longer known to us.”

With regard to 12:10-31:1, the Commentary remarks: “Fast on the heels of the triumph over the slaughtered aliens, wails of grief are heard over the Holy City; her fairest hero lies dead, slain by the hands of his brothers.”

____________________________________

Daniel 9:24?

Daniel 9:20 While I was speaking, and was praying and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God on behalf of the holy mountain of my God-- 21 while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen before in a vision, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He came and said to me, "Daniel, I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding. 23 At the beginning of your supplications a word went out, and I have come to declare it, for you are greatly beloved. So consider the word and understand the vision: 24 "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator."

___________________________________

The prophecy game is always easy to play backwards, given enough degrees of freedom in your interpretations.

People concluded that Jesus was messiah before the Gospel writers went looking for proof-texts. This was far more important for the Jewish followers of Jesus than for many of the gentiles.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Those that say there are only a few, however, reject Christ as the Messiah

Really? Then all the other testimony of the NT writers is nothing without a lot of “prophecy” to back it up? Are you sufficiently familiar with those who hold to “few,” rather than “many,” to make this assertion about them?

Christ was all about backing up who and what he was about via scripture. He would say that so and so wrote of me yet you still do not believe. He would also quote scripture to back up his theology on matters. As I have said before, I do not view my faith as a faith based upon only what I think and I do not think Christ wanted this as well. There are evidences for my faith and I believe this to be the purpose of prophesy. If not, why then prophesy? Also do you believe any of the prophesies that you believe to be prophesies are valid in any way?

Originally posted by vistesd
[
Unfortunately Isaiah 53 is written entirely in the past tense, and does not mention messiah. In addition, if this refers back to the same person of Isaiah 7:14, apparently neither Mary nor Joseph were aware of the prophecy, since they did not name him Immanuel, but Yeshu. (In fact, nobody else in the NT refers to him as Immanuel; the only place that name occurs at all is in Matthew’s quote of Isaiah 7:14.)

There is a passage in the New Testament that refers to him as Emmanuel in Matthew 1:23 which means "God with us" There are also passages in Revelation and elsewhere that refer to him as the Lamb of God. I think the term is rather a descriptive term rather than literal.

Also, I realize that Isaiah is written in the past tense and does not mention the Messiah by name. However, I think you will agree that prophesy in the Bible is not linear. You can especially see this in Revelation. John starts talking about future events and then past events and then about events in between in the same breath. If I were given a vision about an event, I too might refer to it is past tense, especially sense I had just seen the completion of the vision.

Originally posted by vistesd
___________________________________

Here is all of Zechariah 12; why should verse 10 be excised from the rest of that chapter? (A “no-brainer” here?!)

NRS Zechariah 12:1 An Oracle. The word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus says the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the human spirit within: 2 See, I am about to make themselves; 14 and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.

When one prophesies does one always pause and announce, "Pay attention now, this is a prophetic word" or is prophesy incorporated within the text involving current events and/or past events? If you look in Revelation, there is a similar situation involving Israel. Israel is surrounded at the battle known as Armaegeddon and it also is on the fields of Meggido. Can there not be more than one meaning for a passage of scripture? Also if the author is not talking about Christ being the one whom they will look upon as being "pierced" who then is it?