Replies

For one thing, it says things new AND old. If the new contradicts the old, which is right? Someone else on the thread had a good argument that the elders marveled at His sayings because he did not have the education that someone of status would have had (one argument against). The question is the new thing of G_d or men? This sounds like men to me. Most of the arguments in favor of this theory are from the point of view of how an ordinary man would have been treated. This is a revisionist lie, and it undermines the deity of Christ.

Isaiah 53:

And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. 3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Doesn't sound like he was human aristocrat to me. I guess if I'm too big a simp to understand it, I'm happy to remain in my ignorance.

What part of the old does an educated Jesus contradict?
Are you saying he wasn’t a genius?
And that he wasn’t a genius at 12?
And that the teachers didn’t recognise it?
And that they wouldn’t have wanted him in their schools?
And that Mary + Joseph wouldn’t have wanted that?
So why did a Sanhedrin member call him Rabbi + Doctor?
For fun? Why did every section of Jewish society call him Doctor? Just all being polite? Even his enemies??

It wasn’t the elders who marvelled, it was the crowd listening to the sermon on the mount (Matthew 7:29). They marvelled because Jesus was speaking new things (Mark 1:27) but with authority (ie the legal authority needed to teach in regulated places like the Temple.) However his teaching was ‘not as the Scribes’, who also taught with legal authority but never said anything ‘new’, because they handed on the past traditions, and that was what they valued (rather than ‘new’ things - rather like some of the posters here). Jesus was never dismissed by the authorities as uneducated or side-lined as irrelevant. They saw him as a very real threat. But they never can refute anything he taught. Why not? If he was not an ordained teacher that would have been the first thing they would have said in their defense. But they didn’t! So maybe Jesus was ordained.
One of the main points of the incarnation is that Jesus was fully man - he needed to pray, + also to study maybe? And eat? How does this undermine the deity of Christ? Or was he not ‘fully man’? What ‘old’ does Jesus being a Rabbi contradict? And who said a rabbi was an aristocrat? Or gave someone ‘majesty’? Jesus definitely had majesty, but it was concealed beneath human flesh. Rabbis were ordinary men with ordinary jobs. Like being a ‘tekton’. From which the word architect is derived. They also taught God’s word. Have you listed to the mp3 yet?
Thanks for the debate.

You were talking about Matt 13.52?
i had a look and found in Strong’s Dictionary
1) new
1a) as respects form
1a1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
1b) as respects substance
1b1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon,
unheard of
—Strong’s Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

the new things (of God) fulfill the old - its not a question of being ‘better’

regarding your Isaiah 53 passage, Jesus was despised and rejected- on the Cross- but we’re not told how he was related to in the so called ‘missing years’... its not rejecting Biblical inerrancy to try and look at the Gospel writers’ original intentions, after thousands of years of re-translation.

the question doesn’t seem to be whether Jesus was an aristocrat but whether he was taken seriously by the authorities or not. as one of their own he would have been, which is all the more reason why the Isaiah 53 passage is true.