***No one who knew the Scriptures recognized Christ from the Scriptures!***
FK: to bolster your argument... I would turn your attention to Luke 2:25-40.
Surely Simeon and Anna knew the scriptures, and were waiting for their fulfillment. They recognized Christ AS AN INFANT!!!!!!!!!!! They knew who he was and what he was BEFORE he did anything. Look at what Simeon said in verse 29: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised...” How could they know what was promised UNLESS they knew scripture?
Irish: FK, to bolster your argument... I would turn your attention to Luke 2:25-40. .......... Look at what Simeon said in verse 29: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised...” How could they know what was promised UNLESS they knew scripture?
Absolutely right, there is no way around it. Excellent find and thanks for pointing that out! :)
Yeah, like verse 23 (which you skip) which says
"It is written in the Law of the Lord, 'Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called HOLY to the Lord"
"Nice" teaching. LOL! Do you believe firstborn males are holy to God but firstborn females are not???? How Christ-like is that?
Irishtenor: Surely Simeon and Anna knew the scriptures, and were waiting for their fulfillment. They recognized Christ AS AN INFANT!!!!!!!!!!! They knew who he was and what he was BEFORE he did anything.
Did you look at the references where Luke got this story from? From other Gospels! A little from here and a little from there! Nice story. But not an eyewitness. It certainly serves well to bolster the agenda, however.
And since we are on Luke, when was Jesus born? According to Matthew (2:1) and Luke (1:5), it was 4 B.C. because that was the year of Herod the Great's death.
But then Luke only a chapter later changes the story (2:1), and says He was born when Quirinius was the governed of the region, and he didn't become the governor of the region until 6 A.D. Some Protestants argue that (o tempora o moris!) that this is a translational error and that the copiers of the Bible were not inspired and therefore not free form error!
Thanks for (finally) admitting that we read error-filled copies of the originals.
Trouble is, such errors change the meaning. The argument says that protos can be "before" rather than "first." there is some truth in that, but there is a difference between ordinal numbers (grammatically) and temporal adjectives.
All translations indicate that it was a temporal number, first (as in the first time), not as in before. Wether that is what the original Acts say or not is a different story.
That's how the the Church read it and how it is translated in all the major Bibles. Ooops. Houston, we have a problem, bleep.
Another question is why did Mary have to be purified (Luke 2:22) since she was not defiled? Another question is how could Simeon be a just man when Paul says otherwise? (cf. Ecc 7:20) The rest of the Bible shows them to be in conflict (Gen 6:9, Ps 37:12, Prov 4:18, 9:9, 10:6, 10:20, 11:9, 12:13, 21, 17:15, 26, 20:7, 21: 15, 24:16, 29:10, Ecc 7:16 [and 7:0 says the opposite], 8:14, Isa 26:7, Lam 4:13, Eze 18:5-6, 9, Hos 14:9, Amos 5:12, Hab 2:4, Matt 1:19, 5:45, 13:49, Mark 6:20, Luk 1:17, 2:25, 14:14, 15:7, 23:50, Act 10:22, and 2 Pet 2:7).
In Luk 2:33 some "scribes" have changed the older versions that say "this child's father and mother" to "and Joseph and this child's mother..." so as to avoid any reference to Joseph as the Child's father, as some authors must have believed.
Thus, KJV says "And Jose and his mother marvelled.." but the Greek text says pathr (pater, father). Nothing like a little "touch up" choreography for effect! :)
I am sorry, but the credibility of any of this is really thin. But I guess it served the purpose.
How could they know what was promised UNLESS they knew scripture?
Indeed, how would one know if one didn't read critically what the various authors wrote and only accepted the "authorized" version of the truth?