- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Gollamudi wrote:
Quote Because you think other two were developed by the post biblical Christians. No No you are still wrong. If you want to disagree you have to criticize everything but not in bits and parts.
The tenet of the Trinity is so illogical that even some of its supporters claim it cannot be rationally explained and must be accepted on faith. It is completely inconsistent with the nature of God whom cannot be tempted by evil while Jesus was.
The tenet of preexistence has the seeming of more support in scripture according to certain interpretations but either Jesus is the Son of David or he is not. If he is then he did not preexist being conceived by the line of David as then he would not be a descendant of King David as the son does not precede the father.
I do not believe the one because God is not tempted by evil and the second because God does not lie.
I have no such trouble with the virgin conception of Jesus since I trust that the writers of Luke and Matthew were speaking the truth. I have yet to see you present any real evidence that they were not. The best you can do is present evidence that Matthew did not use Hellenistic reasoning and that the virgin birth was not addressed by other of the New Testament writers. None of that is evidence it did not happen as Luke and Matthew testify.
Gollamudi wrote:
Quote I now understand Christianity is messed up with so many dogmas which cannot be reconciled with O.T.
Jesus stated that such would be the case so why does it surprise you that what he said is true.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 14 2009,20:43) Gollamudi wrote: I have yet to see you present any real evidence that they were not. The best you can do is present evidence that Matthew did not use Hellenistic reasoning and that the virgin birth was not addressed by other of the New Testament writers. None of that is evidence it did not happen as Luke and Matthew testify.
Hi brother Kerwin,
I have given you lot of evidences in “Virgin Birth” thread but you seem to keep your eyes blind to the material and arguments that I have produced.Please answer me this one question;
Who was the first virgin born child at the time of Isaiah ?
Did any Jew accept such claims?CA said to gollamudi:
Quote Your preoccupation with paganism is a stumbling block for you. Exactly!
thinker
Adam and Kerwin……………..I see the biggest problem is not so much how Jesus was conceived but the time of His existence. Because this causes separation to our (complete) likeness of HIM, If we see Jesus as a 100% never before existing Human Being , it give us far greater attachment to HIM. The false teachings of the TRINITY and PREEXISTENCE, break down our total and complete identity with Jesus, It gives Him an edge we do not have. There would be no logical reason GOD would do it that way, and at the same time try to show us and all of man kind He could take Us also and do the (same) thing with. These two things are the product of false teachings and do great harm in our identity with our (true) 100% Human Brother Jesus. Peter said it best ” he was foreordained (BUT) was manifested (came into being) in our time. Jesus has (NO) preexistent advantage over US, except GOD the FATHER decided to TAKE HIM and Perfect HIM and Raise up from the DEAD, a never before existing Human being (EXACTLY) LIKE WE ARE IN EVERY WAY. IMO
peace and love to you both………………….gene
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Did any Jew accept such claims?
I assume you meant First Century Jews, many who followed the true Hebrew faith by becoming Christians. In fact it was Matthew whom is a Jew that made the claim.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Who was the first virgin born child at the time of Isaiah ?
I have no idea though I have heard claims the child was Isaiah’s even though his wife was not a virgin.
Have you seen what the First Century Oral laws Jews stated about this issue? I ask because I have not.
I also notice you are still reasoning like a Helene.
I believe the majority of Jews used the Greek Septuagint until during the First Century and then switched later in the Second Century or so when they found the Hebrew version less consistent with Christian teachings.
You should take that into account. You should also stop and consider that Luke, A Gentile with non-Jewish reasoning, did not quote the passage from Isaiah you refer to.
You also do not seem to notice that Matthew used some strange reasoning in his writing as he also wrote:
Matthew 2:14-15(NIV) reads:
Quote So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.
I have read Hosea 11:1 and it is talking about calling the Hebrew people out of Egypt and not the Messiah, but it is still true about Jesus. So it did fulfill what God said even if not the scripture he stated it in. In the same way Jesus’ virgin birth fulfilled the spirit of the Greek Septuagint words in Isaiah though not the letter of those words. You can also argue that he fulfilled the Hebrew version as well since virgin is one possible definition of the word in question.
Quote (Gene @ Oct. 15 2009,02:53) Adam and Kerwin……………..I see the biggest problem is not so much how Jesus was conceived but the time of His existence. Because this causes separation to our (complete) likeness of HIM, If we see Jesus as a 100% never before existing Human Being , it give us far greater attachment to HIM. The false teachings of the TRINITY and PREEXISTENCE, break down our total and complete identity with Jesus, It gives Him an edge we do not have. There would be no logical reason GOD would do it that way, and at the same time try to show us and all of man kind He could take Us also and do the (same) thing with. These two things are the product of false teachings and do great harm in our identity with our (true) 100% Human Brother Jesus. Peter said it best ” he was foreordained (BUT) was manifested (came into being) in our time. Jesus has (NO) preexistent advantage over US, except GOD the FATHER decided to TAKE HIM and Perfect HIM and Raise up from the DEAD, a never before existing Human being (EXACTLY) LIKE WE ARE IN EVERY WAY. IMO peace and love to you both………………….gene
Amen to that post brother Gene. I agree with you that Jesus was in all respects like us except that he was without sin because God was in Christ and kept him clean. No special birth or pre-existence could make him sinless.Thanks and love to you
AdamQuote (kerwin @ Oct. 15 2009,08:34) gollamudi wrote: Quote Did any Jew accept such claims?
I assume you meant First Century Jews, many who followed the true Hebrew faith by becoming Christians. In fact it was Matthew whom is a Jew that made the claim.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Who was the first virgin born child at the time of Isaiah ?
I have no idea though I have heard claims the child was Isaiah’s even though his wife was not a virgin.
Have you seen what the First Century Oral laws Jews stated about this issue? I ask because I have not.
I also notice you are still reasoning like a Helene.
I believe the majority of Jews used the Greek Septuagint until during the First Century and then switched later in the Second Century or so when they found the Hebrew version less consistent with Christian teachings.
You should take that into account. You should also stop and consider that Luke, A Gentile with non-Jewish reasoning, did not quote the passage from Isaiah you refer to.
You also do not seem to notice that Matthew used some strange reasoning in his writing as he also wrote:
Matthew 2:14-15(NIV) reads:
Quote So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.
I have read Hosea 11:1 and it is talking about calling the Hebrew people out of Egypt and not the Messiah, but it is still true about Jesus. So it did fulfill what God said even if not the scripture he stated it in. In the same way Jesus’ virgin birth fulfilled the spirit of the Greek Septuagint words in Isaiah though not the letter of those words. You can also argue that he fulfilled the Hebrew version as well since virgin is one possible definition of the word in question.
Hi brother Kerwin,
I always appreciate your honest confessions. You are better than the writer of Matthew who could twist the Jewish scriptures to suite his theology. There was no honest in his reasoning and arguments as you heve quoted above. One more question to you as you always quote the writer of Matthew as Jew; Is there any evidence for such claims? Many Scholars think that he was a syrian Gentile Christian who wrote his Gospel to persuade both Jews and Gentiles to accept Jesus as Jewish Messiah and had fulfilled all the Jewish scriptures. His way of applying O.T prophecies was so much biased and erronious as for many N.T Scholars like Fr Raymond Brown, John A.T Robinson etc.gollamudi wrote:
Quote Is there any evidence for such claims?
That Matthew was a one of the 12 is well verified in the gospels. It is only rumor that he penned the book of Matthew though I know a little that supports it. I do know that Luke testifies that other bibliographies of Jesus were in existence at the time he wrote his own. I know from the book of Matthew that the writer appears to have known Joseph the so called father of Jesus. That pretty much falsifies the claim that he was a “Syrian Gentile Christian”. I also know that the book of Hebrews which is also supposed to have been addressed to the Jews of that period used the same strange reasoning that the book of Matthew uses. Matthew means “gift of the Lord”.
You should take a look at what Wikipedia states about the Jewish Oral Law. The Rabbinic tradition, i.e. sects, considers the oral law as interpretive tradition with many layers of “hidden” interpretations not revealed by Moses. It is quite possible that Matthew came from that school of thought as it sounds like his type of reasoning.
I also find it interesting that the Galileans were easy going as regards the laws. I believe that Jesus and most of the 12, Judas the traitor not included, came from Galilee of the Gentiles.
Here is the article I speak of.
Hi brother Kerwin,
I am really enjoying your replies both on this thread and Virgin Birth. It seems to me that most of the N.T writers were like the present day's Christian preachers who apply scriptures left and right as they wish as per their understanding. The result is very pathetic, we have so many denominations. The similar results occured in the case of N.T writers.Hi GM,
So the Spirit of God did not direct the pens of the writers?
Any more faith you would like to shed-perhaps in God and His Son?
Soon you will only have your instincts left to decipher truth but are they trustworthy?Hi brother Nick,
I am speaking about the negative results of human bias and errors which caused havoc on Christianity. But not about the God's insipiration which results in saving of souls. God's Spirit convicts us about sin and judgment but human biased spirit divides people. The same thing happened in Christian history. These are the bitter truths whether you accept or not.Hi GM,
You have only presented your opinions and they appear to be baseless musings.
Scripture is truth but you seem to have lost touch with it.
Doubt is a sad and lonely disease.Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 15 2009,15:46) Hi brother Kerwin,
I am really enjoying your replies both on this thread and Virgin Birth. It seems to me that most of the N.T writers were like the present day's Christian preachers who apply scriptures left and right as they wish as per their understanding. The result is very pathetic, we have so many denominations. The similar results occurred in the case of N.T writers.
The Jews also have a number of sects. I believe that men often interpret the same document in many different ways especially if that document is considered law. If you read the bibliographies of Jesus then you will realize what he was doing was interpreting the law and his interpretation varied from that of either the Sadducee of the Pharisees of his time even though it was based on the law of love your neighbor as yourself.He did not really abolish the law, except figuratively, because through living by the Holy Spirit you keep the law. If a person actually understood the promise then they would not take Paul's words literally because they would know better. That is just one way two people can interpret the same words in two different ways.
Kerwin…………I agree Jesus did not abolish the commandments of GOD , but told us to keep them just as He did, by the SPIRIT of GOD in US as it was in HIM also. Jesus plainly said if you will enter into the Kingdom Keep the commandments of GOD. The question should never be should we keep them, but How we keep them. IMO
gene
Quote (Gene @ Oct. 16 2009,07:47) Kerwin…………I agree Jesus did not abolish the commandments of GOD , but told us to keep them just as He did, by the SPIRIT of GOD in US as it was in HIM also. Jesus plainly said if you will enter into the Kingdom Keep the commandments of GOD. The question should never be should we keep them, but How we keep them. IMO gene
Thank you for clarifying what I meant since under the covenant of Mt. Sinai one was expected to keep them by human effort while under the new covenant we use faith to walk according to the ways of the spirit. Both covenants are God's grace to man for God gives his grace in many ways. The new covenant was brought into effect by the death of Jesus' The Anointed One, Son of Joseph who is also the Messiah, Son of David. When you speak of the cross of Jesus then you speak of his death and thus the new covenant.I mention this because some do not seem to realize that preaching the cross is a synonym for preaching the new covenant.
I mention Jesus status as the Anointed One in accordance to terms used by some sects of modern Jews.
The Jewish Concept of Messiah and the Jewish Response to Christian Claims
1) The word “Messiah” is an English rendering of the Hebrew word “Mashiach”, whose translation is “Anointed”. It usually refers to a person initiated into G-d’s service by being anointed with oil. (Having oil poured on his head. Cf. Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3).
2) There are many Messiahs in the Bible. Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as “an anointed one” (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: “G-d forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the L-rd’s Messiah [Saul]…” I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6.
3) The Hebrew word “HaMashiach” (lit. the Messiah) describing a future anointed person to come does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Since the Bible makes no explicit reference to the Messiah, it is unlikely that it could be considered the most important concept in the Bible. Indeed, in Jewish thought, the Messianic idea is not the most crucial. However, in Christian thought, the Messiah is paramount- a difficulty in light of its conspicuous absence from scripture.
4) Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of G-d. Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34.
5) Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5.
6) Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed one as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.
7) The Bible never speaks about believing in the Messiah. Because his reign will be an historically verifiable reality, self-evident to any person, it won’t require belief or faith.
8) Because no person has ever fulfilled the picture painted in the Bible of this future King, Jewish people still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.
9) The claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his “first” coming. The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance. The “second coming” theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure. The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as second coming (#5 above) don’t speak of someone returning, they have a “first coming” perspective.
10) According to Biblical tradition, Elijah the prophet will reappear before the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5-6). In the Greek Testament, Jesus claims that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-14, 17:10-13). However, when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he denied it (John 1:21). The Gospel of Luke 1:17 tries to get around this problem by claiming that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. However:
a] Malachi predicted that Elijah himself would return, and not just someone coming in his spirit.
b] When asked about his identity, John the Baptist didn’t claim to have come in the spirit of Elijah – he claimed no association with Elijah at all.
c] The prophesy about the return of Elijah says that he would restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. There is no evidence that John the Baptist accomplished this.
11) According to the Jewish Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of King David. (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.
There are two problems with this claim:
a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).
To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:
a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.
b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.
c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14;
I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)
d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.
Source: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/questio….-claims
Adam,
I've said this before – the Jewish ideas surrounding the Messiah are in complete opposition to what Christians are looking for in their returning saviour.
So much so that the messiah the Jews describe would be counted as an anti-Christ to a Christian believer.
Interesting…..and very disturbing.
Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Hi Mandy,
I too am disturbed by such claim and counter claims. But we have to reconcile N.T with O.T to prove Christianity to be compatible with Judaism being the religion of Jesus.Love to you
AdamQuote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 16 2009,18:41) Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
I am a bit dense….Are you trying to say that the OT author's didn't know? That they were/are blinded?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
