Where is Jesus in the Old Testament?

Many argue that Jesus is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Of course many religious Jews believe this to be the case because they do not believe he is the prophecied messiah. But there are also others who are not religious Jews who believe the Old Testament scriptures never mention or allude to Jesus being the messiah. Is this correct? Did the New Testament writers get a little too creative when they claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecies in the scriptures? Let’s take a look.

There is no argument that the New Testament contains gospels, letters, and teachings centred around the theme that Jesus is the Messiah. And we know that the Old Testament talks about the Messiah. But is there enough evidence to link this messiah to Jesus. Is there proof that he fulfilled the prophecies of the coming messiah as written in the Old Testament?

Yes indeed. There are Old Testament scriptures and prophecies that only Jesus of Nazareth has fulfilled. While his name is not mentioned for obvious reasons, Jesus Christ is certainly the only person in history to fulfil the prophecies and scriptures that we will look at.

Isaiah 51

This verse of the suffering messiah clearly speaks of Jesus. If you asked anybody who this verse is talking about, there is no doubt that the average person on the street would say it was Jesus. Even if you asked the average Jew this question, they too would say it is Jesus (Yeshua). Below is a video that proves this statement.

Next, we take a closer look at this chapter. While it seems to clearly point to Jesus Christ, some argue that it is talking about Israel. This is the go to interpretation for those who deny Jesus. Let’s imagine this is true and draw some conclusions from this interpretation to see if it makes any kind of sense. Listed below are the points this chapter makes that do not fit at all with Israel. The list comprises of 4 sentences with the word ‘Israel’ added in to see if it makes any sense. Following on from that, are the actual words of Isaiah 51.

  1. Israel has no beauty or majesty to attract us to him;
  2. Israel took up our pain,  bore our suffering, pierced for our transgressions, and by Israel’s wounds we are healed;
  3. Israel was assigned a grave with the wicked,  and with the rich in his death, though Israel had done no violence;
  4. Israel poured out his life as an offering for sin and will justify many,  and bear their iniquities.

1. Who has believed our message
    and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
    and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
    nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
    each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
    yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
    and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
    so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
    Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
    for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
    and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
    nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
    and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
    and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
    he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
    and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
    and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
    and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
    and made intercession for the transgressors.

If you are fair and unbiased, it seems that Isaiah 51 is talking about Jesus. Further, Israel doesn’t seem to fit in this verse. While somethings could fit, points like suffering and dying for the sins of humanity doesn’t fit with Israel in the slightest.


Psalm 22

Just before Jesus died on the cross for humanities sins, he quoted Psalm 22:1. It is important to know that it was a practice to quote a scripture and the hearers recite the rest of the scripture. It was a good way to remember the scriptures. Jesus quoted the first verse in that Psalm so that the hearers might understand what was happening before their eyes. See Matthew 27:46:

About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”
(which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Now look at Psalm 22:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
    “let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
    since he delights in him.”
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
    and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me,
    a pack of villains encircles me;
    they pierce my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
    and cast lots for my garment.

If you look at the above scripture and particularly the verses that are bolded, you will see that they are a very apt description for the death of Jesus. Let’s read what John wrote regarding the time just after the death of Jesus. It spells out some of the prophecies that were fulfilled.

John 19

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.
32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.
33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.
36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”
37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

The New Testament writers certainly believed that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament scripture. If you do not believe this to be the case, then ask yourself who in history has fulfilled these. If you are rational about it, you would at least have to admit that Jesus was the lead contender. In fact the only contender to date.


Daniel 3

In the Book of Daniel, it appears that the Son of God makes an appearance with three men who have been cast alive into a furnace. A fourth person appears who King Nebuchadnezzar says “the fourth looks like a son of the gods.” In other words, if the gods had a son, then this was him. Of course, there is but one Almighty God, and yes he does have a son. It is possible that this fourth person is an angel, but throughout the Old Testament an appearance of the Angel of the LORD is frequent. Many say that this is Jesus Christ before he came in the flesh, but others say it cannot be him as the Son of God was never an angel. This view does have a lot of merit though. Let’s address it by first reading Daniel 3:15-25.

15 Now when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe and all kinds of music, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image I made, very good. But if you do not worship it, you will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace. Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?” 16 Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to him, “King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. 17 If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us[c] from Your Majesty’s hand. 18 But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” 19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual 20 and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace. 21 So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace. 22 The king’s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, 23 and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace. 24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, “Weren’t there three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?” They replied, “Certainly, Your Majesty.” 25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”

The word Angel is found throughout the Old Testament. It usually refers to heavenly creature who delivers a message from God to humans. However, it can also refer to humans as they can be messengers too. Thus, angel or messenger can be applied to many kinds of being if they are a messenger of God. So this answers the concern that Jesus is not an angel. He actually is an angel or messenger, but not the usual messenger which are usually heavenly cherubs etc.

But there is a also a specific angel called: ‘The Angel of the LORD’ who appears numerous times in the Old Testament, but never in the New Testament. One reason for this could be that this messenger is none other than Jesus Christ before coming in the flesh and who would deny that Jesus is the main Messenger of God?

If this is him, then you would expect no appearances of this messenger during the time Jesus was alive on Earth and this is the case. It is also interesting to note that persons who saw this messenger as recorded in the Old Testament often said that they have seen God even though God himself is invisible. How do we make sense of this? Well in Colossians 1:15-16 we read:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Colossians certainly fits with Jesus being the Angel of the LORD in the sense that there is no double up of them appearing at the same time and the fact that Jesus Christ is the exact image of the invisible God in bodily form whiches matches the description of seeing God. Let’s read more about the Angel of the LORD to see if this could be the identity of Jesus before he was born into this world.

To be continued.

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 561 through 580 (of 1,323 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #307618
    kerwin
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2012,23:26)

    Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2012,02:25)
    In short, with the wrong voice, Jesus is teaching us that he is to be made perfect before Abraham is to be made perfect.


    Kerwin,

    That entire post was nonsense and a diversion from the point of discussion.

    Gene, look up John 8:58 in the Greek Interlinear.  Here is what the last part says:

    AMEN AMEN I AM SAYING TO YOU, BEFORE ABRAHAM TO COME INTO BEING, I AM

    You told Kerwin, “Good point”.  Could you tell me how it is a “good point” for Kerwin to conclude that Jesus is teaching “I am to be made perfect before Abraham is to be made perfect” from the Greek words as translated above?  ???

    Come on Kerwin!  ???  How in the world do you get YOUR translation out of the Greek words of 8:58?  

    Don't you feel even the least bit ashamed of yourself when you bulldoze the scriptures this way?  You have come up with an interpretation that is IMPOSSIBLE to be reached from the Greek words we have to go on.  ???


    Mike,

    That is a better translation that most but words “into being” does not make sense as the verb is middle voice and not passive.

    I have already revealed how I reached my understanding as is my way.

    It is written that Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. That is not the end but a time will come when Abraham is made perfect through Christ; who has already been made perfect.

    I will continue to test these words; for doing so is wise.

    #307621
    kerwin
    Participant

    To all,

    Here are some Scriptures that use an aorist infinitive middle:

    Luke 1: 19

    And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

    Luke 4: 18

    The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me  to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

    Luke 4: 43

    And he said unto them, I must preach  the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

    #307678
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (kerwin @ July 30 2012,01:13)

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2012,23:30)

    Kerwin,

    Do you agree that the statement, “I think, therefore I am means, “I think, therefore I exist?  YES or NO?


    Mike,

    1) I am x where x is the inferred word depending on context.
    a} I think therefore I am [existing]
    b} I think therefore I am [thinking]

    2) The form is different than that of before Abraham x, I am.


    Where in the world are you coming up with an “inferred word”?   ???

    In the case of Descartes' statement, there is no “inferred word”.  One doesn't have to say, I am EXISTING, Kerwin, for the words “I am”, in and of themselves, MEAN “I EXIST”.

    But I will make you a deal:  If you can find ANYONE on the face of the earth who has opined that Descartes' statement means “I think, therefore I am THINKING”, we'll discuss it a little further.

    BUT IF – on the other hand, you cannot find any writing that supports your claim, you must agree with the rest of mankind that it means, “I think, therefore I EXIST”.  Is that a deal?

    Now, as far as John 8:58 goes, there also is no “inferred word”, because the word following “Abraham” is written for all to see.  That word is “ginomai” – which has as it's #1 and most used meaning:  

    1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

    I cannot find a “perfected” meaning associated with that word anywhere.  Where did you find it?

    Anyway, I'll make you a similar deal:  If you can show good reason for “ginomai” to mean something other than the most used meaning in 8:58, we can discuss it further.  But if you cannot show any good reason for it not to mean “before Abraham came into existence”, then you must accept the logical and reasonable translation that every single English Bible since the dawn of time has accepted for it. Deal?

    Kerwin, remember that, even though we all have access to Greek lexicons now, there is MUCH that goes into translating Greek to English that you and I will ever know.  It is a BOLD stand for you to claim that all the EXPERTS did it wrong, and you, with only a lexicon, can translate it “right”.

    #307679
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (kerwin @ July 30 2012,01:29)
    Mike,

    That is a better translation that most but words “into being” does not make sense as the verb is middle voice and not passive.


    Read the green words in my last post, Kerwin. It's not like I'm ADDING “into being” to the text. The word “ginomai” actually MEANS “to come into being”.

    I don't knock you for “testing the words”. But look at the context of the passage. How does, “Before Abraham is to be [perfected], I will be [perfected]” answer the Jews question in verse 57?

    I don't know all there is to know about Greek, but I do know there exist many idiomatic problems when translating one language to another. Many times the Greek perfect will work better as an English past. And that is USUALLY the case with the Greek aorist.

    From NETNotes:
    The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

    #307700
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 31 2012,17:43)

    Quote (kerwin @ July 30 2012,01:29)
    Mike,

    That is a better translation that most but words “into being” does not make sense as the verb is middle voice and not passive.


    Read the green words in my last post, Kerwin.  It's not like I'm ADDING “into being” to the text.  The word “ginomai” actually MEANS “to come into being”.

    I don't knock you for “testing the words”.  But look at the context of the passage.  How does, “Before Abraham is to be [perfected], I will be [perfected]” answer the Jews question in verse 57?

    I don't know all there is to know about Greek, but I do know there exist many idiomatic problems when translating one language to another.  Many times the Greek perfect will work better as an English past.  And that is USUALLY the case with the Greek aorist.  

    From NETNotes:
    The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.


    Mike

    good work,it should be kerwin who should have known he broad it up,but many just throw things and see what the other does,

    but I do not think he will accept this explanation for the reason that he does not want to believe in the scriptures in any way that they do not fit his personal view,but then we some times do the same thing

    :D

    #307731
    kerwin
    Participant

    Mike,

    Quote
    In the case of Descartes' statement, there is no “inferred word”.  One doesn't have to say, I am EXISTING, Kerwin, for the words “I am”, in and of themselves, MEAN “I EXIST”.

    But I will make you a deal:  If you can find ANYONE on the face of the earth who has opined that Descartes' statement means “I think, therefore I am THINKING”, we'll discuss it a little further.


    Quote
    Descartes Cogito argument ends with the declaration “I think, therefore I am thinking.” While this may be confusing, it seems that this is enough to justify the belief in one's existence. While all thinking signifies is that one is thinking, this is enough to justify ones existence as a creature who thinks, and thus, a creature that exists.

    Quote
    Read the green words in my last post, Kerwin.  It's not like I'm ADDING “into being” to the text.  The word “ginomai” actually MEANS “to come into being”.

    It has that and other meanings such as become, made, born, come about, and happen.  I chose to use “to become” as it is an equivalent English tense that is still open to interpretation, while it is in line with the other “aorist infinitive” used in Scripture.   I don’t believe I have captured the aorist sense of an action as a completed unit with a beginning and an end or the middle voice which reveals that the subject is acting in his own interest or on his own behalf, or participating in the results of the verbal action.

    Quote
    I cannot find a “perfected” meaning associated with that word anywhere.  Where did you find it?

    It is used for the fulfillment of prophecy.

    Quote
    But if you cannot show any good reason for it not to mean “before Abraham came into existence”, then you must accept the logical and reasonable translation that every single English Bible since the dawn of time has accepted for it. Deal?

    Quote
    INT: I say to ye, Before Abraham to become,

    Quote
    Literal Greek Text- “Said to them Jesus Amen amen I am saying to you Before Abraham to become I Am.”

    Quote
    Abraham to become, I  am

    As for many of the experts, perhaps they assume it is a historic future tense.  I have not found an explanation yet.

    Quote 1 source.
    Quote 2 source.
    Quote 3 source.
    Quote 4 source.

    #307740
    terraricca
    Participant

    kerwin

    Quote
    Quote
    Literal Greek Text- “Said to them Jesus Amen amen I am saying to you Before Abraham to become I Am.”

    so you would say that this was the way our Greek first believers talked ??? I am sure it would not mean in English what it would mean in Greek ,but you seamed to imply that ,

    do you speak another language beside english ??language.[/b]

    Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
    Heb 11:2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

    #307741
    terraricca
    Participant

    k

    Quote
    In the case of Descartes' statement, there is no “inferred word”.  One doesn't have to say, I am EXISTING, Kerwin, for the words “I am”, in and of themselves, MEAN “I EXIST”.

    But I will make you a deal:  If you can find ANYONE on the face of the earth who has opined that Descartes' statement means “I think, therefore I am THINKING”, we'll discuss it a little further.

    Quote

    Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
    Heb 11:2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
    Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command , so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

    Ge 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

    PS 91:11
    For He will give His angels charge concerning you,
    To guard you in all your ways.
    PS 103:20 Bless the LORD, you His angels,
    Mighty in strength, who perform His word,
    Obeying the voice of His word!
    PS 148:2 Praise Him, all His angels;

    REV 5:11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands,

    COL 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,

    Col 1:15 He(Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
    Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

    #307756
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2012,04:26)

    Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2012,02:25)
    In short, with the wrong voice, Jesus is teaching us that he is to be made perfect before Abraham is to be made perfect.


    Kerwin,

    That entire post was nonsense and a diversion from the point of discussion.

    Gene, look up John 8:58 in the Greek Interlinear.  Here is what the last part says:

    AMEN AMEN I AM SAYING TO YOU, BEFORE ABRAHAM TO COME INTO BEING, I AM

    You told Kerwin, “Good point”.  Could you tell me how it is a “good point” for Kerwin to conclude that Jesus is teaching “I am to be made perfect before Abraham is to be made perfect” from the Greek words as translated above?  ???

    Come on Kerwin!  ???  How in the world do you get YOUR translation out of the Greek words of 8:58?  

    Don't you feel even the least bit ashamed of yourself when you bulldoze the scriptures this way?  You have come up with an interpretation that is IMPOSSIBLE to be reached from the Greek words we have to go on.  ???


    Mike ……….My point is, you can not by those words determine what Jesus meant, becasue he did not say he was talking about His existence as a living Being “Specifically” as you preexistences “suppose” he was? Had Jesus said “I was alive before Abraham was, then you would be right, but unfortunately he did not say that , so you grab straws and force the text to say what in fact it does not specifically say.

    The argument here is you saying it is specifically   being stated there , when it is not, that is the argument Mike and nothing else.

    If you could produce other scriptures of Jesus saying he was alive as a Being before Abraham or any of the apostles saying it, that would add to your case , but unfortunately for you “Preexistences” you can't produce them. You seem to only produce text you have to force to say what in fact they do not  
    specifically say.  

    While i might not completely agree with Kerwin's conclusions on those scriptures He has a more valid point then you Preexistences Do that is for sure.

    When people add up all there “assumed” scripturesthen they believe they have a “doctrine” of beliefs , when in fact that have nothing but a bunch of  suppositions leading to all kinds of false conclusions. IMO

    Mike don't you think that such an important thing as Jesus' Preexistence would have been spoken of often by Jesus and the apostles over and over if it were true Brother? Why is it there is not   ONE SPECIFIC STATEMENT in all scriptures that says Jesus was a Live Being Before he was Born on this earth, why is there no previous activity of his shown in all scriptures . Why is it in every instance you Preexistences use you must force the text to say what in fact it is not saying , why is it you even have to tweak them slightly to fit you dogmas in the first place? Think about it Mike

    peace and love to you and yours Mike………………………………..gene

    #307778
    Wakeup
    Participant

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 01 2012,01:29)

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2012,04:26)

    Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2012,02:25)
    In short, with the wrong voice, Jesus is teaching us that he is to be made perfect before Abraham is to be made perfect.


    Kerwin,

    That entire post was nonsense and a diversion from the point of discussion.

    Gene, look up John 8:58 in the Greek Interlinear.  Here is what the last part says:

    AMEN AMEN I AM SAYING TO YOU, BEFORE ABRAHAM TO COME INTO BEING, I AM

    You told Kerwin, “Good point”.  Could you tell me how it is a “good point” for Kerwin to conclude that Jesus is teaching “I am to be made perfect before Abraham is to be made perfect” from the Greek words as translated above?  ???

    Come on Kerwin!  ???  How in the world do you get YOUR translation out of the Greek words of 8:58?  

    Don't you feel even the least bit ashamed of yourself when you bulldoze the scriptures this way?  You have come up with an interpretation that is IMPOSSIBLE to be reached from the Greek words we have to go on.  ???


    Mike ……….My point is, you can not by those words determine what Jesus meant, becasue he did not say he was talking about His existence as a living Being “Specifically” as you preexistences “suppose” he was? Had Jesus said “I was alive before Abraham was, then you would be right, but unfortunately he did not say that , so you grab straws and force the text to say what in fact it does not specifically say.

    The argument here is you saying it is specifically   being stated there , when it is not, that is the argument Mike and nothing else.

    If you could produce other scriptures of Jesus saying he was alive as a Being before Abraham or any of the apostles saying it, that would add to your case , but unfortunately for you “Preexistences” you can't produce them. You seem to only produce text you have to force to say what in fact they do not  
    specifically say.  

    While i might not completely agree with Kerwin's conclusions on those scriptures He has a more valid point then you Preexistences Do that is for sure.

    When people add up all there “assumed” scripturesthen they believe they have a “doctrine” of beliefs , when in fact that have nothing but a bunch of  suppositions leading to all kinds of false conclusions. IMO

    Mike don't you think that such an important thing as Jesus' Preexistence would have been spoken of often by Jesus and the apostles over and over if it were true Brother? Why is it there is not   ONE SPECIFIC STATEMENT in all scriptures that says Jesus was a Live Being Before he was Born on this earth, why is there no previous activity of his shown in all scriptures . Why is it in every instance you Preexistences use you must force the text to say what in fact it is not saying , why is it you even have to tweak them slightly to fit you dogmas in the first place? Think about it Mike

    peace and love to you and yours Mike………………………………..gene


    GeneB.

    Jesus purposely said I AM.
    THEY MUST HAVE UNDESTOOD WHAT JESUS WAS SAYING;
    THERE FORE THEY TOOK UP STONES.
    He was saying that bfore Abraham was I am already.

    If I say; before my grand father was,I am.how would you have perceived it?

    wakeup.

    #307784
    Ed J
    Participant

    Quote (Wakeup @ Aug. 01 2012,04:10)
    GeneB.

    If I say; before my grand father was,I am.how would you have perceived it?

    wakeup.


    Hi Wakeup,

    That you were a foreigner with no grip of the English language.

    God bless
    Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #307786
    kerwin
    Participant

    Quote (terraricca @ July 31 2012,14:19)
    kerwin

    Quote
    Quote
    Literal Greek Text- “Said to them Jesus Amen amen I am saying to you Before Abraham to become I Am.”

    so you would say that this was the way our Greek first believers talked ??? I am sure it would not mean in English what it would mean in Greek ,but you seamed to imply that ,

    do you speak another language beside english ??language.[/b]

    Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
    Heb 11:2 This is what the ancients were commended for.


    Pierre,

    My source claims it to be a literal translation; but context is what give it; it's true meaning.

    For example Mike makes the claim that “I am” is a historic present, while Trinitarians claim it is God's name. His claim is in line with the NWT; but that is the only one i know that has deemed the context warrants that change.

    The literal translation is seemingly speaking of a future event and not a past event. In English there is either a “was” or an “is” before the “to become” but the “was” does not work with “to become” as it infers it did not happen.

    The whole statement possible could be speaking of actions that took place in the past but were worded as if they were taking place in the present and future.

    Even if that is the case, the translators have taken the liberty of interpreting as well as translating the passage.

    #307788
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (kerwin @ July 31 2012,00:52)
    Mike,

    Quote
    In the case of Descartes' statement, there is no “inferred word”.  One doesn't have to say, I am EXISTING, Kerwin, for the words “I am”, in and of themselves, MEAN “I EXIST”.

    But I will make you a deal:  If you can find ANYONE on the face of the earth who has opined that Descartes' statement means “I think, therefore I am THINKING”, we'll discuss it a little further.


    Quote
    Descartes Cogito argument ends with the declaration “I think, therefore I am thinking.” While this may be confusing, it seems that this is enough to justify the belief in one's existence. While all thinking signifies is that one is thinking, this is enough to justify ones existence as a creature who thinks, and thus, a creature that exists.


    That was a “trick” answer, Kerwin, for the author you quoted does NOT say that the statement, “I think, therefore I am” MEANS “I think, therefore I am thinking”.

    Let's have a look at the WHOLE story from your source:
    As [Descartes] is seeking to find the source of knowledge, he asks how unquestionable knowledge is ascertained. After deliberating this, he decides that he can know nothing for sure and so introduces the 'Evil Demon' scenario. This argument says that for all he knows, everything that he has ever perceived or thought can be a fallacy introduced into his mind by an Evil Demon. This invalidates anything perceived through the senses, and any belief that he has ever had. Descartes can no longer trust anything, and is left in a seemingly hopeless situation where he cannot attain knowledge at all, by any means.

    Sounds like the movie The Matrix, where humans were kept alive in cocoons, and fed information about the so-called life they were living via a computer.  They weren't actually LIVING that life, but were having thoughts sent to their brains to convince them that they were.

    Descartes begins his second meditation enveloped in doubt. He searches for anything that he can truly know, and invents his famous Cogito, ergo sum. He asks whether never being able to know anything can mean that he does not exist. He has come to the conclusion that he has no sense, no body, and no beliefs, and it may follow that he has no self. However, this assures him, as he is able to come to this conclusion, or any conclusion, then that means that he surely exists, as he is the one who is being convinced of this. He decides that if he is able to convince himself of anything, that means that he exists. Even the Evil Demon cannot dissuade him from this. Although the Demon is able to deceive him in all ways, then there still is a Descartes which exists to be deceived. Descartes has discovered that he thinks, and therefore he is. He sees thought as the one power that assures him that he is, although what he is, is still a mystery to him. He follows this train of though to say that what he is, is a being that thinks. As long as he is thinking, then he can be sure that he exists. However, this raises the question of whether he will cease to be if he is to stop thinking, and Descartes says that this may be the case. While he is now certain that he exists, he sees his existence as only being a thing that thinks.

    Kerwin, how many times does the author use the word “exists”?  How many times does he equate “he exists” with “he is”?  And what is “he is”, if not the third person equivalent of “I am”?  

    Of course the statement, “I think, therefore I am” surely means, I think, therefore I EXIST” – and your author proves this fact many times.  

    But now for the part you quoted:

    Descartes Cogito argument ends with the declaration “I think, therefore I am thinking.” While this may be confusing, it seems that this is enough to justify the belief in one's existence.

    While all thinking signifies is that one is thinking, this is enough to justify ones existence as a creature who thinks, and thus, a creature that exists.

    So the CONCLUSION Descartes came to was that since he thinks, he is thinking, and thinking is all he needed to be able to do to know HE EXISTS.

    This is the CONCLUSION he came to, Kerwin.  The author is not saying that the statement MEANS, “I think, therefore I am thinking”.

    Now, do you have anybody of reputation who believes that the statement, “I think, therefore I am” ACTUALLY MEANS, “I think, therefore I am thinking”?

    Or are you ready to concede what you already know to be the truth of the matter – that it means, I think, therefore I EXIST?

    #307789
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2012,21:25)
    Mike

    good work………

    ……….I do not think he will accept this explanation for the reason that he does not want to believe in the scriptures in any way that they do not fit his personal view


    Thanks Pierre.

    And now I've had to do a whole lot more work just to play Kerwin's game. There is NOBODY in their right mind who thinks the phrase “I am” means “I am thinking” (INCLUDING Kerwin).

    Yet because he doesn't LIKE what John 8:58 actually teaches, he will have us all jumping through nonsense hoops until the cows come home – hoping that we will just give up and walk away from our point.

    It's ridiculous sometimes, but thanks for your support.

    #307790
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (kerwin @ July 31 2012,00:52)
    It has that and other meanings such as become, made, born, come about, and happen.  I chose to use “to become” as it is an equivalent English tense that is still open to interpretation……….


    Yeah, considering that Greek words in the aorist form are generally translated into English as past tense, I'd have to agree that your futuristic tense is “open to interpretation”.  But when you ADD the word “perfected” to your preferred tense, you're really just re-writing the scriptures in an effort to FORCE them to come out the way you WANT them to be.

    Quote (kerwin @ July 31 2012,00:52)

    Quote (mikeboll @ 64)
    I cannot find a “perfected” meaning associated with that word anywhere.  Where did you find it?

    It is used for the fulfillment of prophecy.


    Can you show us a scripture where the Greek word “ginomai” is TRANSLATED AS “perfected”?  YES or NO?

    Quote (kerwin @ July 31 2012,00:52)

    Quote (mikeboll @ 64)
    But if you cannot show any good reason for it not to mean “before Abraham came into existence”, then you must accept the logical and reasonable translation that every single English Bible since the dawn of time has accepted for it. Deal?

    INT: I say to ye, Before Abraham to become,

    Literal Greek Text- “Said to them Jesus Amen amen I am saying to you Before Abraham to become I Am.”

    Abraham to become, I  am


    You're kidding again, right?  ???

    Which one of these translations DOESN'T have a meaning of “came into existence”?  Are you really going to use the generic definition “to become” as proof of a futuristic claim about Abraham?

    Matthew 7:28
    And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching,

    The bolded words are also “ginomai” in the second aorist.  Will you re-translate this scripture to say, “And TO BECOME, when Jesus had ended these sayings……..” ?

    Here's another of the MANY:
    Mark 15:33
    Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

    This is also second aorist “ginomai”.  Shall we say, “When the sixth hour TO BECOME, there was darkness………..” ?

    Kerwin, I admire your tenacity, but one needs to know when to stop playing games, and just accept the truth of the matter.

    Are you willing to do that yet?

    #307793
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 31 2012,08:29)
    Mike ……….My point is, you can not by those words determine what Jesus meant, becasue he did not say he was talking about His existence as a living Being “Specifically” as you preexistences “suppose” he was? Had Jesus said “I was alive before Abraham was, then you would be right,


    Gene, the words “I have been” mean the same thing as “I was alive”.  “I am”, means “I exist”, which in turn means “I am alive”.

    I like your use of the word “Specifically”.  It shows that you're getting closer to the truth of the matter.  I'll take that as, “Mike, I see what you guys are saying, and it makes sense………BUT………. I will hold on to the only thing I have left – the fact that Jesus didn't SPECIFICALLY say, 'I was alive' “.  :)

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 31 2012,08:29)
    If you could produce other scriptures of Jesus saying he was alive as a Being before Abraham or any of the apostles saying it, that would add to your case , but unfortunately for you “Preexistences” you can't produce them.


    Oh, you mean like if we could produce a scripture where Jesus SPECIFICALLY says, “I came down from heaven”?  

    Or maybe one where Jesus SPECIFICALLY speaks about the glory he had alongside God before the world began?  

    If only we could find a scripture where Jesus SPECIFICALLY said, “No one has gone into heaven, except for the one who came from heaven – the Son of Man”.

    Boy, it sure is too bad for us that no scriptures like that exist, Gene.  :)

    #307806
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 01 2012,16:58)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 31 2012,14:19)
    kerwin

    Quote
    Quote
    Literal Greek Text- “Said to them Jesus Amen amen I am saying to you Before Abraham to become I Am.”

    so you would say that this was the way our Greek first believers talked ??? I am sure it would not mean in English what it would mean in Greek ,but you seamed to imply that ,

    do you speak another language beside english ??language.[/b]

    Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
    Heb 11:2 This is what the ancients were commended for.


    Pierre,

    My source claims it to be a literal translation; but context is what give it; it's true meaning.

    For example Mike makes the claim that “I am” is a historic present, while Trinitarians claim it is God's name.  His claim is in line with the NWT; but that is the only one i know that has deemed the context warrants that change.  

    The literal translation is seemingly speaking of a future event and not a past event.  In English there is either a “was” or an “is” before the “to become” but the “was” does not work with “to become” as it infers it did not happen.

    The whole statement possible could be speaking of actions that took place in the past but were worded as if they were taking place in the present and future.  

    Even if that is the case,  the translators have taken the liberty of interpreting as well as translating the passage.


    kerwin

    Quote

    Quote
    Quote
    Literal Greek Text- “Said to them Jesus Amen amen I am saying to you Before Abraham to become I Am.”

    Jn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
    Jn 8:57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
    Jn 8:58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

    is the context give credit that what is said in greek is the same of what is written in the verse 58 ???to me it does .

    understand some thing ;because you do not believe that Jesus preexisted his birth as men ,you can not see what Mike and I sees ,because you are turning all the required buttons to eliminate that understanding ,and so always looking in scriptures to justify that believe ,and so fall short of Gods truth .

    this is not an external problem but an inside of you one ,you should read scriptures with a pure heart and mind so that God can open your heart so that you can see with your eyes and understand with your mind.

    much time is wasted ,for looking for what is not there.

    #307807
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2012,17:53)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2012,21:25)
    Mike

    good work………

    ……….I do not think he will accept this explanation for the reason that he does not want to believe in the scriptures in any way that they do not fit his personal view


    Thanks Pierre.

    And now I've had to do a whole lot more work just to play Kerwin's game.  There is NOBODY in their right mind who thinks the phrase “I am” means “I am thinking” (INCLUDING Kerwin).

    Yet because he doesn't LIKE what John 8:58 actually teaches, he will have us all jumping through nonsense hoops until the cows come home – hoping that we will just give up and walk away from our point.

    It's ridiculous sometimes, but thanks for your support.


    :) :)

    #307809
    terraricca
    Participant

    kerwin

    Quote
    Quote (kerwin @ July 31 2012,00:52)
    Mike,
    Quote
    In the case of Descartes' statement, there is no “inferred word”. One doesn't have to say, I am EXISTING, Kerwin, for the words “I am”, in and of themselves, MEAN “I EXIST”.

    But I will make you a deal: If you can find ANYONE on the face of the earth who has opined that Descartes' statement means “I think, therefore I am THINKING”, we'll discuss it a little further.

    Quote
    Descartes Cogito argument ends with the declaration “I think, therefore I am thinking.” While this may be confusing, it seems that this is enough to justify the belief in one's existence. While all thinking signifies is that one is thinking, this is enough to justify ones existence as a creature who thinks, and thus, a creature that exists.

    in one of Descartes meditations ,he said that when he rejected all of what is doubts and go be on of it ,he received thoughts and understanding that they were not from him or initiated from him ,so he ask were do they come from ;?? and his only possible answer was THAT GOD IS THE GIVER OF IT ,and so prove that you do not need religion to find God ,

    but now he came to the conclusion,that if he can think about this then he his or exist = I think so I am PLEASE CONTEMPLATE THE NEXT SCRIPTURES AND UNDERSTAND

    Ecc 9:4 Anyone who is among the living has hope—even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!
    Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they will die,
    but the dead know nothing;

    #307812
    kerwin
    Participant

    Mike,

    You are correct that “perfected” is an interpretive translation; the “to become” is more literal.

    I have come across a lot of aorist that are not translated as simple past tenses. I have already quoted several aorist infinitives that are not translated past tense. Perceived context appears to be what influences the experts’ choice to translate it as such.

    I have discovered the middle voice is used with the word “ginomai” in cases when context appears to reveal that born or made seems the more likely translation.

    “ginomai” is translated to “be fulfilled” in Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:34, and Luke 21:32 of the KJV. I simply equate God’s word being fulfilled in a person as them being made perfect.

    You need to stop playing games and accept the truth that the unbelieving Jews are wrong and that before Abraham is fulfilled, Jesus is.

Viewing 20 posts - 561 through 580 (of 1,323 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account