The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

[CrossEyed]

yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...

I would think that a god that defines himself as perfect would be able to get over an honest mistake by those that in every way humanly possible try to love him.

I would think that God would expect us to do as He said, not just accept whatever we feel like doing and thinking...

why?Being told what to do is for those simple minded folks who have to be told what to do in order to do the right thing.

Compared to an omniscient God, we're all pretty simple-minded.

 

[TwinTurbo]

The fact that someone translated young girl to virgin to start this whole shebang aint on the radar screen here?

You will find that these guys likely won't want to discuss this issue, Gatorman. Matthew mistakenly takes a piece out of Isaiah chapter 7 to back his idea that Jesus was prophesied to be born of a virgin. Why? because many of the god-men in first century literature were born of a virgin. But a cursory reading of Isaiah 7 and the surrounding chapters will reveal that the child Isaiah is referring to has nothing to do with Jesus.. the passage isn't even messianic in nature. When Isaiah is kept in context, this becomes obvious. Then again, Matthew often picks bits of OT scripture to bolster his story. His use of Hosea 11:1 is another example.

You must be pretty old or an absolute genius to know why Matthew wrote what he wrote. And it's pretty amazing that people for centuries have failed to give Isaiah 7 even a cursory reading. So you mean if we actually just sat down and read Isaiah we wouldn't have all these false ideas?

Crosseyed, Jayrok is referring to the fact that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7, (almah) does not carry the meaning of "virgin" inherently. It more broadly refers to a young woman and does not imply sexual experience. Matthew used the much more descriptive Greek word "parthenos", which does carry the meaning of virgin in the technical sense. This is the foundation of the debate. I personally don't have an issue with the translation, since the word almah could have also been used to describe a young woman who was a virgin. But I understand why many scholars do question this translation.

 

[Jayrok]

The fact that someone translated young girl to virgin to start this whole shebang aint on the radar screen here?

You will find that these guys likely won't want to discuss this issue, Gatorman. Matthew mistakenly takes a piece out of Isaiah chapter 7 to back his idea that Jesus was prophesied to be born of a virgin. Why? because many of the god-men in first century literature were born of a virgin. But a cursory reading of Isaiah 7 and the surrounding chapters will reveal that the child Isaiah is referring to has nothing to do with Jesus.. the passage isn't even messianic in nature. When Isaiah is kept in context, this becomes obvious. Then again, Matthew often picks bits of OT scripture to bolster his story. His use of Hosea 11:1 is another example.

You must be pretty old or an absolute genius to know why Matthew wrote what he wrote. And it's pretty amazing that people for centuries have failed to give Isaiah 7 even a cursory reading. So you mean if we actually just sat down and read Isaiah we wouldn't have all these false ideas?

Crosseyed, Jayrok is referring to the fact that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7, (almah) does not carry the meaning of "virgin" inherently. It more broadly refers to a young woman and does not imply sexual experience. Matthew used the much more descriptive Greek word "parthenos", which does carry the meaning of virgin in the technical sense. This is the foundation of the debate. I personally don't have an issue with the translation, since the word almah could have also been used to describe a young woman who was a virgin. But I understand why many scholars do question this translation.

no.. I don't have an issue with the word translation at all. It doesn't matter if it means a literal virgin. The passage isn't talking about God coming down to earth 600 years from King Ahaz's reign in Judah. Isaiah's prophecy of the child was fulfilled during King Ahaz's reign. This passage was part of a bigger story that was literally going on in his kingdom.

 

[CrossEyed]

The fact that someone translated young girl to virgin to start this whole shebang aint on the radar screen here?

You will find that these guys likely won't want to discuss this issue, Gatorman. Matthew mistakenly takes a piece out of Isaiah chapter 7 to back his idea that Jesus was prophesied to be born of a virgin. Why? because many of the god-men in first century literature were born of a virgin. But a cursory reading of Isaiah 7 and the surrounding chapters will reveal that the child Isaiah is referring to has nothing to do with Jesus.. the passage isn't even messianic in nature. When Isaiah is kept in context, this becomes obvious. Then again, Matthew often picks bits of OT scripture to bolster his story. His use of Hosea 11:1 is another example.

You must be pretty old or an absolute genius to know why Matthew wrote what he wrote. And it's pretty amazing that people for centuries have failed to give Isaiah 7 even a cursory reading. So you mean if we actually just sat down and read Isaiah we wouldn't have all these false ideas?

Crosseyed, Jayrok is referring to the fact that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7, (almah) does not carry the meaning of "virgin" inherently. It more broadly refers to a young woman and does not imply sexual experience. Matthew used the much more descriptive Greek word "parthenos", which does carry the meaning of virgin in the technical sense. This is the foundation of the debate. I personally don't have an issue with the translation, since the word almah could have also been used to describe a young woman who was a virgin. But I understand why many scholars do question this translation.

no.. I don't have an issue with the word translation at all. It doesn't matter if it means a literal virgin. The passage isn't talking about God coming down to earth 600 years from King Ahaz's reign in Judah. Isaiah's prophecy of the child was fulfilled during King Ahaz's reign. This passage was part of a bigger story that was literally going on in his kingdom.

There are many prophetic passages that have multiple fulfillments. And something tells me you already know this.

 

[Jayrok]

The fact that someone translated young girl to virgin to start this whole shebang aint on the radar screen here?

You will find that these guys likely won't want to discuss this issue, Gatorman. Matthew mistakenly takes a piece out of Isaiah chapter 7 to back his idea that Jesus was prophesied to be born of a virgin. Why? because many of the god-men in first century literature were born of a virgin. But a cursory reading of Isaiah 7 and the surrounding chapters will reveal that the child Isaiah is referring to has nothing to do with Jesus.. the passage isn't even messianic in nature. When Isaiah is kept in context, this becomes obvious. Then again, Matthew often picks bits of OT scripture to bolster his story. His use of Hosea 11:1 is another example.

You must be pretty old or an absolute genius to know why Matthew wrote what he wrote. And it's pretty amazing that people for centuries have failed to give Isaiah 7 even a cursory reading. So you mean if we actually just sat down and read Isaiah we wouldn't have all these false ideas?

The author of Matthew had an agenda just like anyone else. He was writting to the jewish community and was trying to show his character, Jesus, was indeed the Jewish messiah. He did this by including as many would be prophecies as possible, even when there was no such "prophecy". There are other examples in Matthew's gospel, but I'd say the virgin birth is the leading one. For instance, Matthew writes in chapter 2 about how Jesus' family flees to Egypt to wait for Herod's death. He inserts this part of his story so he can use the verse "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." This refers to Hosea 11:1:

"When Israel was a child, I loved him,

and out of Egypt I called my son"

This, of course, is talking about Israel coming out of Egypt during the Exodus. This verse is not messianic by any means. People will say that Israel, here, is Jesus in some type of Prophecy. Ok, let's explore that and read Hosea 11:2:

But the more I called Israel,

the further they went from me.

They sacrificed to the Baals

and they burned incense to images.

If Jesus is "Israel" in Hosea 11:1, then he is also being talked about in Hosea 11:2. In this verse, Jesus (Israel) moved further away from God and offered sacrifices to Baal.

Does that sound like Jesus?

Matthew is a scripture miner. The birth accounts of Matthew and Luke contradict in several ways, but one is that Matthew doesn't have the Jesus family going to Nazareth until after they return from Egypt. They lived in Bethlehem before. Luke has the family from Nazareth originally.

Matthew probably didn't have Luke's story to use and his usual source, Mark, doesn't have a birth account. He plugs Nazareth in there to insert yet another nonexistent prophecy: and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Where is the prophecy that the messiah would be a nazarene? There is none.

I'd be glad to discuss passages in the gospels if you care to, but we'd need a new thread.

If you want to debate the passage in Isaiah 7:14, that would be great too.

I'm convinced that if you read Isaiah, you wouldn't change a thing because you have your mind set and aren't interested in getting outside the box to read the bible. Nothing wrong with that. But to the one who wants to understand the context of what Isaiah is talking about, read it without the rose colored glasses and learn what is really going on there.

 

[Jayrok]

The fact that someone translated young girl to virgin to start this whole shebang aint on the radar screen here?

You will find that these guys likely won't want to discuss this issue, Gatorman. Matthew mistakenly takes a piece out of Isaiah chapter 7 to back his idea that Jesus was prophesied to be born of a virgin. Why? because many of the god-men in first century literature were born of a virgin. But a cursory reading of Isaiah 7 and the surrounding chapters will reveal that the child Isaiah is referring to has nothing to do with Jesus.. the passage isn't even messianic in nature. When Isaiah is kept in context, this becomes obvious. Then again, Matthew often picks bits of OT scripture to bolster his story. His use of Hosea 11:1 is another example.

You must be pretty old or an absolute genius to know why Matthew wrote what he wrote. And it's pretty amazing that people for centuries have failed to give Isaiah 7 even a cursory reading. So you mean if we actually just sat down and read Isaiah we wouldn't have all these false ideas?

Crosseyed, Jayrok is referring to the fact that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7, (almah) does not carry the meaning of "virgin" inherently. It more broadly refers to a young woman and does not imply sexual experience. Matthew used the much more descriptive Greek word "parthenos", which does carry the meaning of virgin in the technical sense. This is the foundation of the debate. I personally don't have an issue with the translation, since the word almah could have also been used to describe a young woman who was a virgin. But I understand why many scholars do question this translation.

no.. I don't have an issue with the word translation at all. It doesn't matter if it means a literal virgin. The passage isn't talking about God coming down to earth 600 years from King Ahaz's reign in Judah. Isaiah's prophecy of the child was fulfilled during King Ahaz's reign. This passage was part of a bigger story that was literally going on in his kingdom.

There are many prophetic passages that have multiple fulfillments. And something tells me you already know this.

It's easy to call something a prophecy and when it isn't talking about what you want just wave it off as having "multiple fulfillments".

 

[Jayrok]

The point is, Matthew listed prophecies that were not there. He did this for effect because his audience was Jewish and was expecting their Jewish messiah to come rescue them from yet another national oppression.

Edit to add - This likely will open up a can of new worms. If not, great.. but with larry and the coalition, it probably will.

If you feel the need to respond in detail to this, open a new thread and invite me. Those that aren't interested don't have to join or view. But if you wish, we can discuss.

 

[Zalf]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

 

[Sweet J]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

 

[CrossEyed]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

 

[larry_boy_44]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

 

[CrossEyed]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

No, it actually isn't.

 

[larry_boy_44]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

No, it actually isn't.

Sure looks like it around here...

 

[CrossEyed]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

No, it actually isn't.

Sure looks like it around here...

Do you even know what a denomination is?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

When I was growing up "non-denominational" resembled what is today the Unitarian church. A lot of traditions were pulled from a lot of religions and services were definitely hippie services.Now it seems that nondenominational churches are decidedly Christian in flavor, but they do not belong to a larger corporate body. I go to a Bible church, which for a long time I thought of as non-denominational. However, we are loosley affiliated with 15-20 other Bible churches in the Midwest (Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches). Our church started out as a mennonite church in someone's house back in the 1960s and became independent in the late-1970s.

I wonder if a lot of non-denominational churches are like that - starting off under an affiliation and then breaking away.

 

[larry_boy_44]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

No, it actually isn't.

Sure looks like it around here...

Do you even know what a denomination is?

uh... yeah... and the non-denominational churches really don't seem to be all that non-denominational...

 

[Zalf]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

In my case, nondenominational means nondenominational. My beliefs dont line up exactly with any one denomination or church.As far as nondenominational churches go, I find that there are many different flavors. Theres no one common thread running through all of them. So while nondenominational churches might actually equal many different denominations, they certainly dont equal one denomination.

 

[larry_boy_44]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

In my case, nondenominational means nondenominational. My beliefs dont line up exactly with any one denomination or church.As far as nondenominational churches go, I find that there are many different flavors. Theres no one common thread running through all of them. So while nondenominational churches might actually equal many different denominations, they certainly dont equal one denomination.

I'm not saying all churches that call themselves non-denominational are really in a denomination, just that a number of them seem to be...there are always going to be independant churches, its just that not all churches that call themselves non-denominational are independant...

 

[Politician Spock]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

Please stop defining things based on your own assumptions.

 

[larry_boy_44]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

Please stop defining things based on your own assumptions.

stop trying to be as much of an jerk as Cross is, Spock, it doesn't fit you...the fact of the matter is that a number of non-denominational churches (at least around here) are becoming loosely affiliated in sort of groups of non-denominational churches (kinda like?? Oh yeah, denominations)...

 

[CrossEyed]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

Please stop defining things based on your own assumptions.

stop trying to be as much of an jerk as Cross is, Spock, it doesn't fit you...the fact of the matter is that a number of non-denominational churches (at least around here) are becoming loosely affiliated in sort of groups of non-denominational churches (kinda like?? Oh yeah, denominations)...

Except that being loosely affiliated doesn't make it a denomination, it makes it an affiliation or an association. A denomination shares a governing body.

 

[Politician Spock]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

Please stop defining things based on your own assumptions.

stop trying to be as much of an jerk as Cross is, Spock, it doesn't fit you...the fact of the matter is that a number of non-denominational churches (at least around here) are becoming loosely affiliated in sort of groups of non-denominational churches (kinda like?? Oh yeah, denominations)...

I'm not trying to be a jerk Larry. If you want to continue defining things based on your own assumptions, then by all means go ahead and continue. It's your own credibility that it hurts.Just because a number of non-denominational churches are behaving like denominational churches by loosely forming affiliations does not mean that their behavior redefines the term "non-denominational". It just means they are claiming to be non-denominational while behaving like a denomination. Hypocrites do not redefine terms. Your claim that "the term 'non-denominational' is actually a denomination now" is false. But far be it from me to be a jerk and ask you to stop spreading false definitions. At least I said "please".

 

[larry_boy_44]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

Please stop defining things based on your own assumptions.

stop trying to be as much of an jerk as Cross is, Spock, it doesn't fit you...the fact of the matter is that a number of non-denominational churches (at least around here) are becoming loosely affiliated in sort of groups of non-denominational churches (kinda like?? Oh yeah, denominations)...

I'm not trying to be a jerk Larry. If you want to continue defining things based on your own assumptions, then by all means go ahead and continue. It's your own credibility that it hurts.Just because a number of non-denominational churches are behaving like denominational churches by loosely forming affiliations does not mean that their behavior redefines the term "non-denominational". It just means they are claiming to be non-denominational while behaving like a denomination. Hypocrites do not redefine terms. Your claim that "the term 'non-denominational' is actually a denomination now" is false. But far be it from me to be a jerk and ask you to stop spreading false definitions. At least I said "please".

no, its not false... You don't have to be under the Lutheran governing body to call yourself a Lutheran church, you can be independant and still be that type of church...When a group of Non-denominational churches join together as a group with a governing body over them and title thier group "Non-denominational" they are forming a denomination called "non-denominational" which is what I am referring to, and it is happening in some places...

are all non-denom. churches doing it? No, but there are a number of them that are...

 

[Politician Spock]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

Please stop defining things based on your own assumptions.

stop trying to be as much of an jerk as Cross is, Spock, it doesn't fit you...the fact of the matter is that a number of non-denominational churches (at least around here) are becoming loosely affiliated in sort of groups of non-denominational churches (kinda like?? Oh yeah, denominations)...

I'm not trying to be a jerk Larry. If you want to continue defining things based on your own assumptions, then by all means go ahead and continue. It's your own credibility that it hurts.Just because a number of non-denominational churches are behaving like denominational churches by loosely forming affiliations does not mean that their behavior redefines the term "non-denominational". It just means they are claiming to be non-denominational while behaving like a denomination. Hypocrites do not redefine terms. Your claim that "the term 'non-denominational' is actually a denomination now" is false. But far be it from me to be a jerk and ask you to stop spreading false definitions. At least I said "please".

no, its not false... You don't have to be under the Lutheran governing body to call yourself a Lutheran church, you can be independant and still be that type of church...When a group of Non-denominational churches join together as a group with a governing body over them and title thier group "Non-denominational" they are forming a denomination called "non-denominational" which is what I am referring to, and it is happening in some places...

are all non-denom. churches doing it? No, but there are a number of them that are...

If there are in fact some churches that have joined together as a group with a governing body over them and titled their group "Non-denominational", surely this group has a website. Can you give us a link to show you aren't just making this up?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

Something I've been wondering: Is the term "nondenominational" the new name for what we used to call "born again"?

Simply means that the church is not affiliated with any denomination (Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, etc.)

you forget that the term "non-denominational" is actually a denomination now, too...

Please stop defining things based on your own assumptions.

stop trying to be as much of an jerk as Cross is, Spock, it doesn't fit you...the fact of the matter is that a number of non-denominational churches (at least around here) are becoming loosely affiliated in sort of groups of non-denominational churches (kinda like?? Oh yeah, denominations)...

Except that being loosely affiliated doesn't make it a denomination, it makes it an affiliation or an association. A denomination shares a governing body.

Exactly. Our church for instance is part of an affiliated group of evangelical bible churches - but each church is organized by its members, elders and deacons are appointed by its members, membership even votes to determine tenure of our pastoral staff. We aren't bound by the dictates of a central governing body, our affiliation is designed so that the churches of the membership can work together for the purposes of local and worldwide evangelism.

 

[Jayrok]

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness.

Where in the world did that come from? As stated before, I was raised Southern Baptist and would probably be closer to nondenominational nowadays. Not even sure what the details of the beliefs of Jehovas Witness's are.

My apologies. I think I confused you with someone else on the board. I'm sorry for the remark.

 

[whoknew]

If you feel the need to respond in detail to this, open a new thread and invite me. Those that aren't interested don't have to join or view. But if you wish, we can discuss.

Is anyone going to do this? That'd be interesting.

 

[Jayrok]

If you feel the need to respond in detail to this, open a new thread and invite me.  Those that aren't interested don't have to join or view.  But if you wish, we can discuss.

Is anyone going to do this? That'd be interesting.

I'm sure it would get way out of hand, and likely hard to follow for those interested. If FBG added a religion discussion forum (I know, doubtful!), it might be fun in there. Then those that aren't interested in topics like this, don't have to even see it bumped in this forum. But in another forum or offsite area, I'd be game. There are lots of topics/questions I'd like to pose to get insight from various sects of christians. But in here might be counter-productive.

 

[bakes]

Larry: Just an aside: sentences end with a period. Like this.

Not an ellipsis... like this... which makes it look like you're in the middle of making your point and hey, an ice cream truck...

HTH. Carry on.

 

[CrossEyed]

Larry: Just an aside: sentences end with a period. Like this.

Not an ellipsis... like this... which makes it look like you're in the middle of making your point and hey, an ice cream truck...

HTH. Carry on.

Mmmm, ice cream...

 

[Spartans Rule]

Larry: Just an aside: sentences end with a period. Like this.

Not an ellipsis... like this... which makes it look like you're in the middle of making your point and hey, an ice cream truck...

HTH. Carry on.

 

[Dt's Mules]

on a semi related note...

did anyone watch "Banned from the Bible" on the history channel. Interesting look at the Council of Nicea

 

[Jayrok]

on a semi related note...

did anyone watch "Banned from the Bible" on the history channel. Interesting look at the Council of Nicea

I missed that. Is there a transcript, or video file?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Larry: Just an aside: sentences end with a period. Like this.

Not an ellipsis... like this... which makes it look like you're in the middle of making your point and hey, an ice cream truck...

HTH. Carry on.

I just thought Larry might have narcolepsy, and he just keeps falling ............................. asleep at the.................................... keyboard at the...........................end of his sentences.....................................................................................

 

[Dt's Mules]

on a semi related note...

did anyone watch "Banned from the Bible" on the history channel.  Interesting look at the Council of Nicea

I missed that. Is there a transcript, or video file?

Can buy it herebut i haven't found it anywhere for free. I periodically check tivo to see if/when it will come on again. It has already been re-aired once, but I was out of town and not able to program tivo to record.

 

[dwashington]

If you feel the need to respond in detail to this, open a new thread and invite me.  Those that aren't interested don't have to join or view.  But if you wish, we can discuss.

Is anyone going to do this? That'd be interesting.

I'm sure it would get way out of hand, and likely hard to follow for those interested. If FBG added a religion discussion forum (I know, doubtful!), it might be fun in there. Then those that aren't interested in topics like this, don't have to even see it bumped in this forum. But in another forum or offsite area, I'd be game. There are lots of topics/questions I'd like to pose to get insight from various sects of christians. But in here might be counter-productive.

I'd like to be in on that too..even though the discussion was diverted to the 'non-denominational' tanget, the real issue was being addressed with Jayrok breaking down (incorrect?) Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.I'm halfway through the Misquoting Jesus book and it's VERY interesting.

But as many salvos that are being lobbed at the authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures, there isn't as much debate about the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Old Testament, Law & Prophets).

The issue then becomes, what verses of the Old Testament Scriptures were actually prophesying about Jesus.

It's good stuff.

 

[larry_boy_44]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

 

[dwashington]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

I think the point to be made Larryboy, is that it doesn't matter for you, because you already have your conviction for the Christ. But for those who are on the outside of the faith looking in, they're gonna need more help than, "I believe..so it doesnt matter"

 

[NCCommish]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

If all those things weren't true wouldn't that throw doubt on anything he was reported to have done? And in fact wouldn't it cast doubt on the entire book?

 

[larry_boy_44]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

I think the point to be made Larryboy, is that it doesn't matter for you, because you already have your conviction for the Christ. But for those who are on the outside of the faith looking in, they're gonna need more help than, "I believe..so it doesnt matter"

I understand that, and I'm not saying this has anything to do with belief in Christ, really, I'm just saying that if all Christ did was live, preach a little, die, and rise from the dead and then send his disciples off into the world, I would still believe... that was what the discussion in my class was about...

we were talking about the Quests for the Historical Jesus (all 3 of them, we are hard-core studying the first one still, but they kind of mix together some)...

 

[NCCommish]

If you feel the need to respond in detail to this, open a new thread and invite me.  Those that aren't interested don't have to join or view.  But if you wish, we can discuss.

Is anyone going to do this? That'd be interesting.

I'm sure it would get way out of hand, and likely hard to follow for those interested. If FBG added a religion discussion forum (I know, doubtful!), it might be fun in there. Then those that aren't interested in topics like this, don't have to even see it bumped in this forum. But in another forum or offsite area, I'd be game. There are lots of topics/questions I'd like to pose to get insight from various sects of christians. But in here might be counter-productive.

I would enjoy it personally. I find the subject very interesting.

 

[Spartans Rule]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

They all go hand-in-hand though as far as credibility. It's hard to believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of an infallible and omniscient god if it's filled with a bunch of crap that didn't really happen.Jesus either did or did not rise from the dead, and in the grand scheme that is all that matters. But to believe that it happened, I would need to believe that the Bible is God's word. To believe that, I would need to believe that it's without error. Which means I'd need to believe the other stories.

 

[dwashington]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

I think the point to be made Larryboy, is that it doesn't matter for you, because you already have your conviction for the Christ. But for those who are on the outside of the faith looking in, they're gonna need more help than, "I believe..so it doesnt matter"

I understand that, and I'm not saying this has anything to do with belief in Christ, really, I'm just saying that if all Christ did was live, preach a little, die, and rise from the dead and then send his disciples off into the world, I would still believe... that was what the discussion in my class was about...

we were talking about the Quests for the Historical Jesus (all 3 of them, we are hard-core studying the first one still, but they kind of mix together some)...

That's understandable. The core of the gospel message is the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But as you can see on this board, there are a LOT of non-believers and weaker brothers that are curious and/or interested in why we (Christians) believe it.

And despite all of the life-changing, near-death, personal experiences we may have had with the Lord on our way to Damascus, we still need to be prepared to explain the reason for our faith via the Scriptures.

And when they discredit the validty of a 'God-breathed' New Testament, that's when we have to be prepared to illuminate the Christ in the Old Testament.

It's all good.

 

[larry_boy_44]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

If all those things weren't true wouldn't that throw doubt on anything he was reported to have done? And in fact wouldn't it cast doubt on the entire book?

sorta... its a sacred story, and its a story told BY PEOPLE, thus its likely some things aren't exactly exact...the question is whether you are willing to believe that Christ rose from the dead or not, if you are, great, if not, well, I'll work on ya lol

To say that the Bible is 100% exact and complete and straight from the mouth of God is borderline insane (and I used to feel that way)... Is it inspired by God? Yes, in that the people who wrote it (minus possibly the gospels) were inspired by God to write it to help people...

why do I say possibly the gospels aren't??

Well, there is the problem brought up by the Gnostic Gospels... plus there is the fact that John mixed EVERY STORY UP!! plus the "Matthew used Mark as a source (and Q), Luke probably used Mark & Q, too, plus I think he used Matthew as a source, too, since Luke himself says he was basically compiling all the Jesus stories that were out there into one book that had all the important, necessary details in it (read: there is a very good chance whoever wrote Luke got some info from the Gnostic gospels, too, but deemed a lot of it un-necessary extra info that was nice but didn't need to be repeated in his slimmer, edited down version that hits the important points of Jesus' life)...

What does that tell me? who knows... for one, the traditions about those books are garunteed to be wrong... Matthew & Mark & John the apostles likely did not write those gospels... the only one I'm not certain of is John, the other 2 definately were not written by the apostles... Luke was not written by a companion of Paul, the timing doesn't fit, the companion would have had to be like 60-70 when he wrote it, plus the fact is that if he was a companion he was already a doctor, thus likely older already when he travelled with Paul, so, what, are we talking about a 90 year old man? I honestly doubt that the same Luke that travelled with Paul wrote Luke & Acts...

what is needed, really, is an understanding of myth as "sacred story"... Jesus' story is a sacred story, thus things are said about it that might be exagerrations and things might be attributed to things that they aren't necessarily attributable to (like an earthquake or an eclipse)... things like the veil in the temple ripping could be hearsay (the apostles would have never, EVER seen the veil) or could be a "rumor" that travelled that was believed... same with the dead rising... Someone says something like that and, like telephone, it spread and the writers of one of the gospels heard about it and added it in...

does the dead not actually rising make Jesus' death not real? Nope... does it make his resurrection not real? Nope... does it really matter? I don't think so...

 

[larry_boy_44]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

They all go hand-in-hand though as far as credibility. It's hard to believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of an infallible and omniscient god if it's filled with a bunch of crap that didn't really happen.Jesus either did or did not rise from the dead, and in the grand scheme that is all that matters. But to believe that it happened, I would need to believe that the Bible is God's word. To believe that, I would need to believe that it's without error. Which means I'd need to believe the other stories.

why? You live through something 20 years ago, something life changing and miraculous... and 20 years later you sit down and tell the story, you are going to tell me there aren't going to be little embelishments in it?Even crazier, the fact of the matter is, eye-witnesses didn't write the gospels, although it is likely eye-witness accounts were used to help write them... thus we have a game of telephone going on...

and God-breathed? Like, God told them word for word what to write? I don't think so, Spartans... and I'm a hardcore fundamentalist... Did God inspire them to write what they did? Yeah... God inspires my pastor every Sunday morning, too... But God doesn't tell them word for word what to say or do...

 

[larry_boy_44]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

I think the point to be made Larryboy, is that it doesn't matter for you, because you already have your conviction for the Christ. But for those who are on the outside of the faith looking in, they're gonna need more help than, "I believe..so it doesnt matter"

I understand that, and I'm not saying this has anything to do with belief in Christ, really, I'm just saying that if all Christ did was live, preach a little, die, and rise from the dead and then send his disciples off into the world, I would still believe... that was what the discussion in my class was about...

we were talking about the Quests for the Historical Jesus (all 3 of them, we are hard-core studying the first one still, but they kind of mix together some)...

That's understandable. The core of the gospel message is the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But as you can see on this board, there are a LOT of non-believers and weaker brothers that are curious and/or interested in why we (Christians) believe it.

And despite all of the life-changing, near-death, personal experiences we may have had with the Lord on our way to Damascus, we still need to be prepared to explain the reason for our faith via the Scriptures.

And when they discredit the validty of a 'God-breathed' New Testament, that's when we have to be prepared to illuminate the Christ in the Old Testament.

It's all good.

even if we assume that the NT was "God-breathed" in the first place, we don't have the exact same writings word-for-word that were written almost 2000 years ago... there have been edits, there have been changes, etc...for example, using the Gospels again...

Facts about the Gospels that were canonized:

1. They were AT MINIMUM the 2nd re-writing of the books, likely the 3rd, possibly even the 4th or more...

2. The Gospels that were picked to be Canonized were not Canonized because they were thoguht to be from God more, they were Canonized because those who had power at that moment agreed with what was written in those accounts more than the others...

3. The "other" Gospels? They were burned (and the poeple who held them as sacred buried them (hence the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels (I forget the name of this find...))... they were buried for protection from the Catholic Church that was persecuting anyone who didn't agree with thier version of things and burning any Christian writing that didn't also agree with what they were teaching...

crazy huh?

 

[dwashington]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

I think the point to be made Larryboy, is that it doesn't matter for you, because you already have your conviction for the Christ. But for those who are on the outside of the faith looking in, they're gonna need more help than, "I believe..so it doesnt matter"

I understand that, and I'm not saying this has anything to do with belief in Christ, really, I'm just saying that if all Christ did was live, preach a little, die, and rise from the dead and then send his disciples off into the world, I would still believe... that was what the discussion in my class was about...

we were talking about the Quests for the Historical Jesus (all 3 of them, we are hard-core studying the first one still, but they kind of mix together some)...

That's understandable. The core of the gospel message is the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But as you can see on this board, there are a LOT of non-believers and weaker brothers that are curious and/or interested in why we (Christians) believe it.

And despite all of the life-changing, near-death, personal experiences we may have had with the Lord on our way to Damascus, we still need to be prepared to explain the reason for our faith via the Scriptures.

And when they discredit the validty of a 'God-breathed' New Testament, that's when we have to be prepared to illuminate the Christ in the Old Testament.

It's all good.

even if we assume that the NT was "God-breathed" in the first place, we don't have the exact same writings word-for-word that were written almost 2000 years ago... there have been edits, there have been changes, etc...for example, using the Gospels again...

Facts about the Gospels that were canonized:

1. They were AT MINIMUM the 2nd re-writing of the books, likely the 3rd, possibly even the 4th or more...

2. The Gospels that were picked to be Canonized were not Canonized because they were thoguht to be from God more, they were Canonized because those who had power at that moment agreed with what was written in those accounts more than the others...

3. The "other" Gospels? They were burned (and the poeple who held them as sacred buried them (hence the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels (I forget the name of this find...))... they were buried for protection from the Catholic Church that was persecuting anyone who didn't agree with thier version of things and burning any Christian writing that didn't also agree with what they were teaching...

crazy huh?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but yeah, that is pretty wild.But from my understanding, the Dead Sea Scrolls served as a validation of the Old Testament scriptures that were around when Jesus walked the earth, including the entire book of Isaiah intact and literally exactly like the version we have in our modern day Bibles.

So of course Ehrman shows in his book 'Misquoting Jesus' that the Gospels and Epistles that we have today are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of translations that were exposed to the editing of the early church translators and copyist, but I still prefer to base my faith in the scripture especially in the writings of my favorite prophet, Isaiah.

Behold the virgin shall conceive may NOT be a Messianic prophecy, but I know there's a LOT of prophecies about the coming of Christ in Isaiah and when it comes to the authenticty and preservation of God's Word, then I think Isaiah sums it up nicely:

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

 

[larry_boy_44]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

I think the point to be made Larryboy, is that it doesn't matter for you, because you already have your conviction for the Christ. But for those who are on the outside of the faith looking in, they're gonna need more help than, "I believe..so it doesnt matter"

I understand that, and I'm not saying this has anything to do with belief in Christ, really, I'm just saying that if all Christ did was live, preach a little, die, and rise from the dead and then send his disciples off into the world, I would still believe... that was what the discussion in my class was about...

we were talking about the Quests for the Historical Jesus (all 3 of them, we are hard-core studying the first one still, but they kind of mix together some)...

That's understandable. The core of the gospel message is the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But as you can see on this board, there are a LOT of non-believers and weaker brothers that are curious and/or interested in why we (Christians) believe it.

And despite all of the life-changing, near-death, personal experiences we may have had with the Lord on our way to Damascus, we still need to be prepared to explain the reason for our faith via the Scriptures.

And when they discredit the validty of a 'God-breathed' New Testament, that's when we have to be prepared to illuminate the Christ in the Old Testament.

It's all good.

even if we assume that the NT was "God-breathed" in the first place, we don't have the exact same writings word-for-word that were written almost 2000 years ago... there have been edits, there have been changes, etc...for example, using the Gospels again...

Facts about the Gospels that were canonized:

1. They were AT MINIMUM the 2nd re-writing of the books, likely the 3rd, possibly even the 4th or more...

2. The Gospels that were picked to be Canonized were not Canonized because they were thoguht to be from God more, they were Canonized because those who had power at that moment agreed with what was written in those accounts more than the others...

3. The "other" Gospels? They were burned (and the poeple who held them as sacred buried them (hence the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels (I forget the name of this find...))... they were buried for protection from the Catholic Church that was persecuting anyone who didn't agree with thier version of things and burning any Christian writing that didn't also agree with what they were teaching...

crazy huh?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but yeah, that is pretty wild.But from my understanding, the Dead Sea Scrolls served as a validation of the Old Testament scriptures that were around when Jesus walked the earth, including the entire book of Isaiah intact and literally exactly like the version we have in our modern day Bibles.

So of course Ehrman shows in his book 'Misquoting Jesus' that the Gospels and Epistles that we have today are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of translations that were exposed to the editing of the early church translators and copyist, but I still prefer to base my faith in the scripture especially in the writings of my favorite prophet, Isaiah.

Behold the virgin shall conceive may NOT be a Messianic prophecy, but I know there's a LOT of prophecies about the coming of Christ in Isaiah and when it comes to the authenticty and preservation of God's Word, then I think Isaiah sums it up nicely:

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

 

[Jayrok]

If you feel the need to respond in detail to this, open a new thread and invite me.  Those that aren't interested don't have to join or view.  But if you wish, we can discuss.

Is anyone going to do this? That'd be interesting.

I'm sure it would get way out of hand, and likely hard to follow for those interested. If FBG added a religion discussion forum (I know, doubtful!), it might be fun in there. Then those that aren't interested in topics like this, don't have to even see it bumped in this forum. But in another forum or offsite area, I'd be game. There are lots of topics/questions I'd like to pose to get insight from various sects of christians. But in here might be counter-productive.

I'd like to be in on that too..even though the discussion was diverted to the 'non-denominational' tanget, the real issue was being addressed with Jayrok breaking down (incorrect?) Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.I'm halfway through the Misquoting Jesus book and it's VERY interesting.

But as many salvos that are being lobbed at the authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures, there isn't as much debate about the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Old Testament, Law & Prophets).

The issue then becomes, what verses of the Old Testament Scriptures were actually prophesying about Jesus.

It's good stuff.

This issue is paramount to Christianity's case. Were the hebrew scriptures pointing to Jesus? Those that are claimed to point to Jesus aren't as numbered as you'd think. There are bits and pieces here and there that are claimed to be talking about the messiah, but sometimes you need to use literary gymnastics to pull it off. Some are more cryptic than others. Various Psalms are used with verses here and there attributed to Jesus. One of the more famous ones is psalm 22.

NT writers used the first verse of this psalm as the words Jesus uttered on the cross "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

In context, this psalm is King David feeling pressure from his enemies who have surrounded him. He wants God to come save him from his enemies. The contraversial verse is 16:

Dogs have surrounded me;

a band of evil men has encircled me,

they have pierced my hands and my feet.

The problem is, the Hebrew word here doesn't translate to "pierced". It is "Ka'ari" which means "like a lion". This word 'ari is used multiple times in the Hebrew bible and is correctly translated into english as "like a lion" in every instance... except in Psalm 22:16.

The scribe/copyist wanted "pierced" for obvious reasons. Jesus was pierced on the cross. But if you read the passage, "lions" is sort of a theme there. Look at verse 21:

Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;

save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

King David wants God to rescue him from the mouth of the lions who have encircled him... his enemies.

Also, if you read this psalm you see that it's odd that they pick a few verses to attribute to Jesus on the cross, yet ignore the rest of the poem... especially where Jesus (I mean King David) wants God to "handle" his enemies for him. There are many psalms that have this same theme. He wants God to help him and not fall prey to his enemies, he wants his enemies destroyed by God, etc..

Psalm 25 for instance:

To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul;

2 in you I trust, O my God.

Do not let me be put to shame,

nor let my enemies triumph over me.

skip to verse 7 -- Remember not the sins of my youth

and my rebellious ways; according to your love remember me,

for you are good, O LORD.

Remember not my sins? Jesus didn't have sins.

Most of the rest of the psalms continue this same course. Psalm 69 is a telling one:

verse 12: Those who sit at the gate mock me, and I am the song of the drunkards.

Sounds like this is also talking about Jesus. Then verse 21: They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.

They gave vinegar to Jesus on the cross to drink. Seems like this is Jesus talking here. But then he begins to turn on his enemies with the rest of the verses. Take these verses:

verse 27 and 28:

Charge them with crime upon crime;

do not let them share in your salvation.

28 May they be blotted out of the book of life

and not be listed with the righteous

How can this be Jesus, when this person wants God to blot them out of the book of life? Jesus died for all, even his accusers/enemies.

Anyway, this is King David and the stories told and sung about him. He is surrounded by enemies who constantly beat him up as a nation.

These stories are littered throughout the Hebrew bible. The NT writers found bits and pieces of Psalms like this, and other books, and constructed phrases and events for Jesus. They did this decades after Jesus walked on earth BTW.

The Book of Mark was a novel. The writer probably didn't even mean it to be taken as a real story. The theme in many of these psalms is King David wishing for divine help against his enemies. He uses terms like "Lions roaring and lunging at me" throughout the texts.

Somewhere I did a post on another board highlighting these various passages in psalms, but I can't seem to find it.

But there are other books too. Isaiah is another one claimed to point to Jesus, the most famous being Isaiah chapter 53. The subject of the "suffering servant" is a whole other thread altogether. But you see similar themes as you do in psalms, if you read it with surrounding chapters.

For those interested, here is an article talking about Psalm 22 from the Jewish perspective. It's a good educational reading:

Psalm 22

 

[Jayrok]

dwashington and Larry (and anyone else for that matter),

I'd like to ask you a serious question:

Given you believe the bible is God's inspired infallible word, I assume you believe the following verse is fulfilled prophecy:

Jeremiah 33:17 -- For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel

Would you say that Jesus fulfills this as from the line of David... albeit the kingdom is spiritual and not physical in Israel?

If Jesus didn't fulfill this, then it's false since there is no king in Jerusalem today.

Would you agree?