19 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by BadwaterAnd you are entitled to the opinion that you are not wrong. Doesn't make it so, but hey, you're entitled to think that way...
That would depends on your point of reference. Do you have any theological training? Seminary training? If so, where and with whom?
Those are rhetorical questions; they are the point of reference that we all derive our conclusions from regarding theological training.
I only use Harvard and Princeton as examples, for there are a number of similarly dis iesthood in the arrangement of the New Testament. What I am asserting is not "simply wrong."
As for No1's comments, I do not read fiction.
19 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderlol, it is not i who misunderstands for i have based my assertions on the full quota of scripture, not on one mere verse, you really should view scripture not only in immediate context but in comparison to the entire canonical work, you will therefore be spared such delusions as you have asserted. that Christ was sent to the children of Israel is correct, that he also realised that not many of these would respond is also correct, that he had much higher aspirations is also correct. i would provide the scriptural references but i doubt you would accept it, for that would mean admitting you are wrong, and let us not delude ourselves, that could never be.
You certainly show a lack of knowledge of the early Church. Your post is filled with outright mistakes and misinformation.
No, the infant church never converted any sizable portion of Jews. Jesus specifically stated that he came for "the lost people of Israel". Overwhelmingly, they rejected him. That is not my opinion; it is a historic fied their savagery by creating such a God then that such a thing actually exists.
that it split is also true, that it was unified in the time of the apostles is also true, your assertions to the contrary betray a lack of knowledge of scripture and the workings of the early Christian church prior to the death of the apostles.
that the Jewish expectations are based on the Hebrew scriptures is neither here not there. i really do find it amazing that you produce this defence, not only for this point but for others as well, how are these expectations valid with regard to the Messiah. they were waiting for an earthly kingdom, Christ stated to Pilate that his was not of this world. did that mean that he was therefore not a king, that he did not have a kingdom, that he failed to fulfill messianic prophecy, hardly. nope baseless assertion.
virtually all of them are merely reflections of humans. nope, for example you cannot attribute the quality of modesty to god, to do so would be to ignore the fact that god has no limitations, this clearly is not true, for modesty requires that we are aware of our limitations, you mention these other qualities, for it fails to take into consideration qualities such as mercy and justice, loyalty and love, patience and forbearance, nope just another attempt at rationalisation which fails on the premise that everything must be viewed from a human standpoint, conclusion, lack of any kind of real understanding as to the character and nature of god.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
19 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydMy 'opinion' has backing. Shall I refer you to some theologians? Care to telephone a professor and tell him/her that s/he is wrong?
And you are entitled to the opinion that you are not wrong. Doesn't make it so, but hey, you're entitled to think that way...
As for No1's comments, I do not read fiction.
19 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydunfortunately i do read fiction, i may suggest that he apply for a job as as a writer for Mills and Boon, i am quite sure he would excel in the romantic genre given his propensity for it or perhaps its just his form of escapism, who can tell?
And you are entitled to the opinion that you are not wrong. Doesn't make it so, but hey, you're entitled to think that way...
As for No1's comments, I do not read fiction.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA bunch of rubbish. You remain stunningly ignorant of the actual history of Christianity. That again is typical of the "Christians" on this site.
lol, it is not i who misunderstands for i have based my assertions on the full quota of scripture, not on one mere verse, you really should view scripture not only in immediate context but in comparison to the entire canonical work, you will therefore be spared such delusions as you have asserted. that Christ was sent to the children of Israel is co ...[text shortened]... point, conclusion, lack of any kind of real understanding as to the character and nature of god.
19 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnother liar. It's a waste of time pointing out facts to someone as wilfully ignorant or just plain stupid as you clearly are.
unfortunately i do read fiction, i may suggest that he apply for a job as as a writer for Mills and Boon, i am quite sure he would excel in the romantic genre given his propensity for it or perhaps its just his form of escapism, who can tell?
19 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder=======================================
The Jews believe in what Isaiah 9:6 actually says and believe that a passage in the middle of a long story regarding a war and its ultimately successful outcome has nothing to do with a messianic prophecy. http://answering-christianity.com/hezekiah.htm
It would certainly be a strange place to go so wildly off-topic. Christian sources s description of an event that was fulfilled about 700 years before Jesus somehow refers to him.
The Jews believe in what Isaiah 9:6 actually says and believe that a passage in the middle of a long story regarding a war and its ultimately successful outcome has nothing to do with a messianic prophecy. http://answering-christianity.com/hezekiah.htm
===========================================
It should be no surprise that a section of a larger portion of Scripture should be prophetic in a more targeted way. That is because God told some of disbelieving Jews that that is how He would teach His word:
"Therefore Jehovah's word to them will be: Rule upon rule, rule upon rule; Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little; that they may go and stumble backward and be broken, snared, and taken." (Isaiah 28:13)
"Here a little, there a little" can mean that Isaiah 9:6 is "here a little" refering to a great prophetic truth of God.
It is amazing how God has already out thought the scoffers and anticipated their rebellious reasonings.
======================================
It would certainly be a strange place to go so wildly off-topic. Christian sources seem to have also changed the established Jewish
==================================
It is not off topic to point out that the Son given is the Everlasting Father. Because Jesus confirmed that in John 14:9) and John too - "And the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh" (See John 1:1,14)
So the incarnation is never off topic when it comes to the question of who Jesus is.
=============================
translations in order to "fit" the claim that a description of an event that was fulfilled about 700 years before Jesus somehow refers to him.
=================================
Silly skepticism. As if the God of all eternity doesn't transcend 700 years.
He's ever pointing to cardinal event of the incarnation of the Son of God. Christ's coming was no afterthought. God was leading up to it with many symbols, shadows, and types foretelling of the incarnation of God as a man.
The lamb of God was "slain from the foundation of the world". What's a measly 700 years prior going to do?
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderwhat is it with you that you cannot accept another's point of reference without resorting to claims of ignorance and fabrication. each and every point had a reference, if you do not agree with the interpretation or its understanding then that is quite one thing, but to go on the rampage with wild claims of fabrication and deceit is quite something else, and is more reflective of the type of person you are. you need to be a little more, dare i say it, tolerant.
A bunch of rubbish. You remain stunningly ignorant of the actual history of Christianity. That again is typical of the "Christians" on this site.
here is the points of reference, just for the record, so that any third party who may read this can discern for themselves whether there was any intent to deceive in the comments.
1.that Christ imitated Gods impartiality and although was primarily concerned with the lost ones of Israel he was not so exclusive as to help others, thus we have the Samaritan women at the well (john chapter 4:7), a non Jew, the army officer who sent his slave to make request for a member of his household (Luke 7:1-10), a non Jew, the Phoenician women whose daughter was ill (Matthew 15:21), another non Jew.
2. that Christ quite clearly realised that nationality, nor ethnicity was a factor in being able to achieve knowledge of salvation, we must again return to the well in Samaria, for the text reads, ' the woman said to him: 'Sir, I perceive you are a prophet. Our forefathers worshiped in this mountain, but you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where persons ought to worship. Jesus said to her: 'Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you people worship the Father. you worship what you do not know, we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.'
3. that Christ had greater ambitions than merely appealing to the Israelites is quite easy to ascertain, consider these words, 'Most truly I say to you, he that exercises faith in me, that one also will do the works that I do and he will do works greater than these, because I am going my way to the Father.', greater works in what sense? more healing, obviously not, simply a greater magnitude of work. this is self evident from the words of Matthew chapter 28, which states, 'And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: all authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.'
so you see, each statement has a basis, i could also relate the references with regard to the early Christian church, prior to the death of the apostles, but i think these references are enough for the time being, to dispel anyones idea that we are in some way deceitful, regardless of whether you accept them or otherwise, thus making your assertion of lying quite baseless.
19 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRC: that the Jewish expectations are based on the Hebrew scriptures is neither here not there. i really do find it amazing that you produce this defence, not only for this point but for others as well, how are these expectations valid with regard to the Messiah. they were waiting for an earthly kingdom, Christ stated to Pilate that his was not of this world. did that mean that he was therefore not a king, that he did not have a kingdom, that he failed to fulfill messianic prophecy, hardly. nope baseless assertion.
lol, it is not i who misunderstands for i have based my assertions on the full quota of scripture, not on one mere verse, you really should view scripture not only in immediate context but in comparison to the entire canonical work, you will therefore be spared such delusions as you have asserted. that Christ was sent to the children of Israel is co ...[text shortened]... point, conclusion, lack of any kind of real understanding as to the character and nature of god.
This is the kind of dogmatic nonsense that the posters in this thread are addicted to. Let's put it in the form of a logical argument:
P1: Jewish expectations of the Messiah were based on the OT;
P2: The OT promised the Messiah would install an earthly kingdom;
P3: Jesus did not install an earthly kingdom.
Robbie's conclusion:
Therefore, Jesus is the Messiah promised by the OT!!!!!
Of course, that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the conclusion that the premises necessarily lead to.
The Jews got it right; Jesus was not the Messiah promised in the OT. For Christians to continue to claim he was is just silly.
19 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillIt is amazing how something this flimsy can be regarded as evidence of anything. Only someone who approaches Isaiah 9:6 with preconceptions set in stone could possibly claim that it is a "prophecy" that has anything to do with Jesus.
[b]=======================================
The Jews believe in what Isaiah 9:6 actually says and believe that a passage in the middle of a long story regarding a war and its ultimately successful outcome has nothing to do with a messianic prophecy. http://answering-christianity.com/hezekiah.htm
===========================================
It shou the foundation of the world"[/b]. What's a measly 700 years prior going to do?[/b]
The plain fact is that Isaiah 9 is relating a historical event that occurred 700 years prior to Jesus' birth. I suggest you actually read the link I provided; it's obvious you didn't bother to as you addressed not a single point raised there.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauder"The Jews got it right; Jesus was not the Messiah promised in the OT. For Christians to continue to claim he was is just silly."
RC: that the [b]Jewish expectations are based on the Hebrew scriptures is neither here not there. i really do find it amazing that you produce this defence, not only for this point but for others as well, how are these expectations valid with regard to the Messiah. they were waiting for an earthly kingdom, Christ stated to Pilate that his was ...[text shortened]... not the Messiah promised in the OT. For Christians to continue to claim he was is just silly.[/b]
How obtuse can you be?
Do you really believe that Jesus was not the messiah prophesied of in the old testament just because He didn't establish the Kingdom of God on earth at that time as foretold?
It is abundantly clear that you understanding of prophesy is very narrow.