Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist seminary president and evolution opponent has turned sights on "theistic evolution," the idea that evolutionary forces are somehow guided by God. Albert Mohler
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the Winter 2011 issue of the seminary magazine labeling attempts by Christians to accommodate Darwinism "a biblical and theological disaster."
Mohler said being able to find middle ground between a young-earth creationism that believes God created the world in six 24-hour days and naturalism that regards evolution the product of random chance "would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict."
The problem, however, is that it is not evolutionary theory that gives way, but rather the Bible and Christian theology.
Mohler said acceptance of evolutionary theory requires reading the first two chapters of Genesis as a literary rendering and not historical fact, but it doesn't end there. It also requires rethinking the claim that sin and death entered the human race through the Fall of Adam. That in turn, Mohler contended, raises questions about New Testament passages like First Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."
"The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote. "If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms."
Mohler said that after trying to reconcile their reading of Genesis with science, proponents of theistic evolution are now publicly rejecting biblical inerrancy, the doctrine that the Bible is totally free from error.
"We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and Gospel integrity are at stake," Mohler concluded. "Are you ready for this debate?"
In a separate article in the same issue, Gregory Wills, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, said attempts to affirm both creation and evolution in the 19th and 20th century produced Christian liberalism, which attracted large numbers of Americans, including the clerical and academic leadership of most denominations.
After establishing the concept that Genesis is true from a religious but not a historical standpoint, Wills said, liberalism went on to apply naturalistic criteria to accounts of miracles and prophecy as well. The result, he says, was a Bible "with little functional authority."
"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."
Mohler, who in the last year became involved in public debate about evolution with the BioLogos Foundation, a conservative evangelical group that promotes integrating faith and science, has long maintained the most natural reading of the Bible is that God created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago.
Writing in Time magazine in 2005, Mohler rejected the idea of human "descent."
"Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species," he wrote. "Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker."
Pretty much, major triniatrian Protestant/Baptist assemblies, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
What makes them "mainline" is that they account for practically all Christians on earth, and are Triniatrian, meaning that the Father, Son, Holy Ghost are one (divine) nature and three distinct divine realities (hypostases) of that nature.
That means the doctrine stamp is worthless as a certificate of truth, because the decision was based on the irrational decision process of democratic action
Whether a council or a self-professed prophet it all comes down to men deciding what is "true" and what isn't. It's rubbish no matter which option you accept. I have as much reason to believe in your interpretation than in some council's.
There are no animating spirits, there is only the laws of physics, which result in the machinery of the rational mind, which gives rise to consciousness.
False. Animals are conscious but we don't think hey have a rational mind.
Proof only applies in math and logic
Proof is required of anything stated as a matter of fact. Facts must be provable, or else they are not facts. When statements of faith are made as statements of facts they need veidentiary proof; otherwise they someone's blather. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true.
Here is the evidence, John 8:28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me
The only proof here is that "John" is using a source which did not consider Jesus God, for God should not have to be taught anything. And although Jesus is also believed to fully human, who doens't know the answers to many things. That's not the Jesus of the Church, or else he would be more like someone with a split personality than a God man.
Here in Gen 1;26 we see that God refers to Himself as "Us". Since there are no co-creators and Us is plural, "Us" refers to the Person that is 3 Persons in One Person that man is an image of.
It's the "royal us". Queens Elizabeth refers to herself as "We." It doesn't mean she is a "Trinity." The OT doe snot know the "Son" and the Spirit is only the power of God, not god himself.
No. They are the same person. Note that personality is not equivalent to person, or self. Personality is a poorly defined concept that refers to such features as introvert/extrovert, which have no unique meaning
God can't be the same person when there are three distinct Persons in Godhead.
They are named in the Gospels and lived with Jesus. That is sufficient and all that's necessary to know that they are not anonymous
They are mentioned in the NT text but the authors do not identify themselves by name in the text. The earliest manuscripts do not have the inscription "Kata..." (According to...). The Church added named to the NT books based on the legend (or tradition) passed on by word of mouth about the Apostles at the end of the second century.
There is more blind faith exhibited in the statement above than in anyone's faith in a resurrected Jesus.
LOL!
"There is more blind faith exhibited in the statement above than in anyone's faith in a resurrected Jesus.
The evidence obtained by scientists indicates that the laws of physics are consistent and complete and their are no animating spirits required, nor have they ever been noted. It takes no faith whatsoever to know and understand the science involved. It does however require pure faith to believe in animating spirits.
"The Church added named to the NT books based on the legend (or tradition) passed on by word of mouth about the Apostles at the end of the second century. "
...and before that time the Gospels were referred to as this book, that book, the other book and the last book?
"Triniatrian, meaning that the Father, Son, Holy Ghost are one (divine) nature and three distinct divine realities (hypostases) of that nature."
Hypostasis is a contorted attempt made in ignorance to describe the claim that there are 3 persons in one God. God of course is considered a Person.
"Whether a council or a self-professed prophet it all comes down to men deciding what is "true" and what isn't. It's rubbish no matter which option you accept. I have as much reason to believe in your interpretation than in some council's."
Democracy isn't a logical operation that can be applied to evidence. Logic can be used to determine what is true, or not, regardless of whether or not you're interested.
Re: "There are no animating spirits, there is only the laws of physics, which result in the machinery of the rational mind, which gives rise to consciousness.
"False. Animals are conscious but we don't think hey have a rational mind."
Animals have a rational mind. Their brain is what provides that rational functionality and processing that provides for consciousness. However rudimentary, or relatively advanced, an animal's brain is a rational parallel processing machine.
Re: "Proof only applies in math and logic"
"Proof is required of anything stated as a matter of fact. ...facts they need veidentiary proof..."
What I said is true. Note that no amount of evidence can result in proof.
Re: "Here is the evidence, John 8:28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
"The only proof here is that "John" is using a source which did not consider Jesus God, for God should not have to be taught anything.
I don't believe you. First, John was the beloved apostle, who lived with and knew Jesus. He wrote about Him and He quoted Him here. Also, Jesus was a man born with an empty mind and needed to be taught just like any other man. Any claim contrary to John's quote requires evidence from someone who lived with and knows Jesus better than John. That person would have to provide a quote from Jesus that indicated Jesus recided His prior statement to John. I don't believe that's you.
" And although Jesus is also believed to fully human, who doens't know the answers to many things. That's not the Jesus of the Church, or else he would be more like someone with a split personality than a God man.
I don't believe anyone in any Church has a statement from Jesus recinding His prior statement either.
Re: "Here in Gen 1;26 we see that God refers to Himself as "Us". Since there are no co-creators and Us is plural, "Us" refers to the Person that is 3 Persons in One Person that man is an image of.
" It's the "royal us". Queens Elizabeth refers to herself as "We." BS.
"The OT doe snot know the "Son""
Matt 13:34,35 "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”[Psalm 78:2]
Isaiah also talks of Him.
"God can't be the same person when there are three distinct Persons in Godhead."
The Godhead is a person, not a collective.
“The evidence obtained by scientists indicates that the laws of physics are consistent and complete”
But not along a temporal path. That is, the laws of physics didn’t exist prior to a time period defined by the Big Bang.
This fact refutes the claim that the scope of scientific materialism is universal and all-inclusive; thus it nullifies scientific materialism’s objection, based on the same claim, to matters of spiritual faith.
How are dependent and self-existent beings defined - how do they differ in cause?
For the term self-sufficient, or independent, being, does the phrase "caused by itself" apply?
Then: Why is this a leap of faith:
Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
What other relative category could exist?
"But not along a temporal path. That is, the laws of physics didn’t exist prior to a time period defined by the Big Bang."
All scientific evidence indicates that energy is conserved. IOWs energy can neither be created, nor destroyed; it's conserved. Of course that means that the laws of physics always existed.
Keep in mind that this universe is simply an energy transformation from a vacuum state with a total net energy of zero. The energy that comprises this universe is distributed between the positive energy of the various particles, space, which is the negative energy that appears as gravity(the dimensions of this world, occuring as a result of the positive energy density) and the particle interaction with the Higgs field, which gives rise to mass. The Higgs field can be thought of as the lowest energy state of the vacuum, which gives rise to the mass of some of the particles through interaction with it. Also time is an inverse energy.
" This fact refutes the claim that the scope of scientific materialism is universal and all-inclusive; thus it nullifies scientific materialism’s objection, based on the same claim, to matters of spiritual faith."
You may of course assert whatever testimonial evidence folks can conjure up, in an attempt to refute the sea of scientific evidence supporting the Law of Conservation of Energy, but it can not be found true by any rational process. That is true, because in that case, nature would be in direct contradiction to itself.
“Of course that means that the laws of physics always existed.”
This is a popular, though erroneous, view among those who prefer not to believe what the empirical evidence demonstrating the truth of the Big Bang tells us—that the universe had a beginning.
No, they weren't. They were quoted, but not named. The books were anonymous. You need to read early christian apologetics.
Hypostasis is a contorted attempt made in ignorance to describe the claim that there are 3 persons in one God. God of course is considered a Person.
Ignorance? I suppose Greek is not your strong subject. Hypostasis is a perfectly clear koine Greek word. But I guess it's all Greek to you. Talk about ignorance.
Hypostasis doesn't mean a "person" and never did except apparently in English. The idea that Father, Son and the Holy Gjhost are "Persons" comes from Latin mistraslantions of Greek, where hypostasis is called persona, which means a mask.
Over time, this error crept into the English usage, and was changed to to a "person" to avoid the error of Modalism. Thus, in the English world the idea exists that God has three "persons" or that God is a "person." That's way to anthropomorphic.
Logic can be used to determine what is true, or not, regardless of whether or not you're interested.
That seems to be a popular myth. It is true only if your premises are true. You can start with an untrue axiomatic assumption and proceed in perfectly logical manner to reach a logically valid or consistent (but not true) conclusion.
Animals have a rational mind
Another hat trick? How do you know animals have "rational mind"? How do you know it's not simple sitmulus-repsonse? Do arachnids have "rational minds" as well?
Note that no amount of evidence can result in proof
Take this: hot stove top, place hand on it, then tell me if it hurts every time. You don't have to believe me. Proof is sufficient evidence to establish something as fact. That's all. We have proof that the earth obits the sun. Maybe that's not proof to you, but it is to the rest of the world.
I don't believe you
You don;t have to. If Jesus had to be taught by the Father then he was no God, or he was a lesser God. That's not Christianity.
First, John was the beloved apostle, who lived with and knew Jesus.
I don't believe you. The author of John's Gospel never identifies himself (the author) as such.
He wrote about Him and He quoted Him here.
How do you know he didn't make it up? You do presume a lot.
Also, Jesus was a man born with an empty mind and needed to be taught just like any other man
Oh, boy! Jesus was the same "person" as the eternal Word (Logos), the divine Son. The way you speak of him is as if he had a split personality, where one "person" was not the "other."
Christians believe that Jesus the Christ is one and the same person, in two natures, one human and the other divine. Then only difference between them is that in his human nature he could feel passions and pain temptations and death, but not in his divine nature. God in him never suffered or died, only the man.
Why do you believe and trust in men? What evidence do you have that this "John" lived and knew Jesus personally? because he says so?
I don't believe that's you
It's not you either.
Matt 13:34,35 "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”[Psalm 78:2]
Matthew deceivingly misquotes by using Psalm 78:2 out of context because verse 2 and 3 in context read (from Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible):
Isaiah also talks of Him
Never mentions Jesus. Not even a hint of him.
The Godhead is a person, not a collective.
Godhead is an awkward English construct of the Greek word θεοτης (theotes) means divinity. It's a quality, not a person.
This is a popular, though erroneous, view among those who prefer not to believe what the empirical evidence demonstrating the truth of the Big Bang tells us—that the universe had a beginning.
The evidence supports the conclusion that the Big Bang event can be seen as the universe arising as a phase transition from the vacuum. That event is an energy phase transformation, not an energy creation "out of nothing" event. There is zero evdence indicating energy can be created out of nothing, or destroyed so that nothing exsits.
The issue I raised wasn’t. You seek to address my issue by asking an unrelated question (watch the birdie).
”I can't help if you maybe have persecution issues”
Don’t put it off on me that you duck issues you wish not to confront.
”If you don't wish a dialogue then stop posting.”
Translation: “if you won’t please me then stop posting.”
”But if you are going to post to me, I will ask questions.”
And if you are going to avoid the issues raised, then I will call you on it. “Dialogue” is not a one-way street.
”Part of the Biblical instruction includes talking animals…”
I referenced lessons central to Biblical Instruction. Do you assert talking donkeys and snakes to be central to Biblical Instruction?
”Most of that (the injunction to adore God, to love thy neighbor as thyself, to murmur not at the ways of Providence, to honor one’s mother and father) is part of the Golden Rule. No need for any gods in it.”
So none of that, or its like, is central to Biblical Instruction, but talking donkeys and snakes are central?
“I didn't exhaust the list, trust me”
All central to Biblical Instruction, I assume, Doubling down again.
“No that was a serious question . . . ”
Asked by every bible scoffer since 1794. Actually, if I recall, you asked me about demonic possession: “Or, perhaps, you may wish to talk biblical "medicine", and tell me if you regularly visit some medicine doctor who "heals" you by chasing "demons" out of you?”
”Priceless! Did you forget that it was that certain correspondent who threw the first punch by suggesting that my only help might be exorcism.”
Did you forget that “certain correspondent” rose in reaction to a “punch” you threw at me? Priceless!
We could verify the sequence, but someone caused the post in question to be yanked.
“So, then equal measure somehow becomes lob sided in your mind.”
You describe yourself very well (per Herr Goebbels)
“What was I thinking! LOL.”
What weak electrical charges firing in your neurons dictate you must.
Can you relate to me the significance of talking donkeys that is central to Biblical Instruction?
Whoa, slow down there Hoss. Let’s not get things all jumbled up.
Evidence demonstrates the Big Bang.
Further hypothesizing can suggest something like “phase transition,” but that’s all it is—hypothesizing in response to knowledge of the Big Bang.
(The “something out of nothing” scenario really irks some people because it establishes the limits of “scientific laws,” and looks like Intelligent Design. Like a lot of things do. But you can’t hypothesize yourself out of reality.)
"No, they weren't. They were quoted, but not named. The books were anonymous. You need to read early christian apologetics.
Rubbish! ...Bishop Theophilus of Antioch in Syria (before 181) also cites the beginning of the Fourth Gospel as the words of John (Ad Autolycum, II, xxii). Finally, according to the testimony of a Vatican manuscript (Codex Regin Sueci seu Alexandrinus, 14), Bishop Papias of Hierapolis in Phrygia, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, included in his great exegetical work an account of the composition of the Gospel by St. John during which he had been employed as scribe by the Apostle. ..."
Re: "First, John was the beloved apostle, who lived with and knew Jesus.
"I don't believe you. The author of John's Gospel never identifies himself (the author) as such.
John 21:24 refers to the disciple whom Jesus loved. That's the author. John 21:24 "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."
Re: John. "He wrote about Him and He quoted Him here.
" How do you know he didn't make it up? You do presume a lot."
The KISS principle applies. All that matters is what John wrote, in particular the quotes, because those are the words of the Person that claimed to be God. Those words take precidence over the words of anyone else.
"Godhead is an awkward English construct of the Greek word θεοτης (theotes) means divinity. It's a quality, not a person.
God is not a quality. God is a Person. John 14:7, If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Now if Jesus announces that before Abraham was, I AM", or "from now on, you do know him and have seen him.", it means God is a Person. Since man is the image of God and man is a person, it means God is a person.
..."Hypostasis is a perfectly clear koine Greek word. ...means a mask. ..."
Nevertheless, the concept is empty, like St Patrick's shamrock. God is a person, not a mask.
"How do you know animals have "rational mind"? How do you know it's not simple sitmulus-repsonse?"
Animal physiology and function. Animal brains have similar, but more rudimentary neural functional components. That includes the large scale parallel processing seen in human brains that provide for consciousness. The machinery has the rational architecture, which provides for thought, however rudimentary.
" Matthew deceivingly misquotes by using Psalm 78:2 out of context because verse 2 and 3 in context read (from Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible):
I shall open my mouth with a parable; I shall express riddles from time immemorial. 3. That we heard and we knew them, and our forefathers told us.
Here's the same from another Hebrew Bible: Psalm 78:2,3, "I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter dark sayings concerning days of old; גThat which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us,
Matthew took nothing out of context and made no misrepresentation. Parables, riddles and sayings are plural. What was heard from time immemorial and known were the parables from God, like Genesis. The riddles were known, but never understood.
Re: "Isaiah also talks of Him"
"Never mentions Jesus. Not even a hint of him."
Sure he does. God’s Day of Vengeance and Redemption, Isaiah 63:1- 1 Who is this coming from Edom,
from Bozrah, with his garments stained crimson?
Who is this, robed in splendor,
striding forward in the greatness of his strength?
“It is I, proclaiming victory,
mighty to save.”
Why are your garments red, like those of one treading the winepress?
“I have trodden the winepress alone;
from the nations no one was with me.
I trampled them in my anger
and trod them down in my wrath;
their blood spattered my garments,
and I stained all my clothing.
It was for me the day of vengeance;
the year for me to redeem had come.
I looked, but there was no one to help,
I was appalled that no one gave support;
so my own arm achieved salvation for me,
and my own wrath sustained me.
I trampled the nations in my anger;
in my wrath I made them drunk
and poured their blood on the ground.” "
The Energy Conservation Law doesn't come from the Big Bang. It preceded realization of that event.
"(The “something out of nothing” scenario really irks some people because it establishes the limits of “scientific laws,” and looks like Intelligent Design. Like a lot of things do. )"
This is simply a testimonial that contradicts all scientific evidence on the matters. In particular... Somehting from nothing contradicts the law of conservation of energy. Intelligent design says the laws of physics are incomplete and insufficient to govern the world and a 5th unknown and undetectable force must be present to cover the percieved "gaps".
http://209.157.64.201/focus/religion/2557043/posts?page=25#25
Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required. Then I said, “Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart.” Psalm 40:6-8
These verses substantiate my view....King David is saying that G-d desires not sacrifices but wants us to listen to him....David echos Samuel 15
22And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
The word in Hebrew "alai" is properly rendered "for me" not "of me". In context David is saying the Torah was written for him to learn G-ds law, to do G-ds law, which David delights in. Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the bible, reinforces this as well, David seeks to do G-ds will . The KJV renders the word properly "for me" in Psalm 57:2-3 and in many other verses. Psalm 40 is not messianic.
Hebrews 10: 1-18 is a series of verses misquoted and taken out of context whic the author then engages in eisegesis to render a christological meaning where there is none.
FOR IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND GOATS TO TAKE AWAY SINS.
That contradicts the word of G-d. G-d would never have instituted the Levitical system if that were true.
Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me; The author of Hebrews is plainly tampering with the text. He added "a body you have prepared for me" to make the verse christological. This alone invalidates the credibility of this book.
“Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them”
Yes, it correct but the author of Hebrews draws the wrong conclusion.
Psalms 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. [17] The sacrifices of G-d [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O G-d, thou wilt not despise.
By this will we HAVE BEEN SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ONCE FOR ALL
This can not be justified scripture. There is no scripture in Tanakh that states that The Messiah will be a god-man human sacrifice, once for all. And no Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus either, Is 53 is the Jewish people. On the contrary, it is consistent with G-ds plan that the Jewish people would be exiled and a third temple restored to once again offer sacrfices as sin atonement. This time the Jewish people will be successful.
“This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart, And on their mind I will write them,” He then says, “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
Once again, the writer of Hebrews is misquoting and taking out of context the Holy Scripture. Jeremiah 31 says, in context:
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
These are messianic era verses that speak of the universal knowlege of G-d. Has that happened yet? Do we no longer have to be taught about G-d? Yes and the writer of Hebrews conveniently leaves out that part.
Jer 31 is echoed by Ezekiel.
And I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances, and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God. (Ezekiel 11:19-20)
So even though the people have the law written on their hearts and a new spirit within them, they still are observing the statutes, ordinances and doing them!
Now where there is FORGIVENESS OF THESE THINGS, THERE IS NO LONGER ANY OFFERING FOR SIN."
The writer of Hebrews seems to forget that G-d forknew that there would be periods of time when the Jewish people would be without a temple or sacrifice. In the Babylonian exile, did they all go to hell without Jesus? No sacrifice? No. The ongoing Roman exile? No. Why?
Hosea 3:4-5 "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days."
So what do they do?
"Take words with you, And return to the LORD. Say to Him, "Take away all iniquity; receive us graciously, For we will render for bulls the offering of our lips." Hosea 14:2-3
There are many examples of atonement in Tanakh from prayer, repentance, charity, fasting....no blood required. Even when there was a Temple and Alter, Lev 5:10 clearly reveals a flour offering for the forgiveness of sin. No blood required.
The writer of Hebrews has changed, added and distorted G-ds word and is not of G-d.
....both His legal line through Joseph and His physical line through Mary back to David (Matt. 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-31). “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”; (Psalm 2:7) just as He says also in another passage, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalm 110:4)
Psalm 2 is about David and Pslam 110 is a song of David.
The writer of Hebrews tries to make a link between Melchizedek and Jesus. But he is woefully wrong. Melchizedek did have a genealogy and was known to the Jews as Shem. Furthermore, if Melchizedek had no parents, that would have been a greater miracle than Jesus's birth.
Melchizedek (Shem) recieved the tithe because he was the most hight priest and the forerunner of the Aaronic priesthood. Shem was the grandfather of Aaron. (all can be cited if requested). Abram had not yet recieved the final covenant and was not yet the keeper of the promises. Later when he became Abraham and passed the ten trials, then he was the keeper of the promise.
So, the writer of Hebrews wrongly interprets Melchizedek into a christophany.
...because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” (Hebrews 7:27), because Christ “....through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:12) and “now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” (Hebrews 9:26)) Why will a sacrificial system be observed in the millennial temple?
Once again the writer of Hebrews is making a mockery of Torah. Human sacrifice is forbidden, vicarious human sacrfice is forbidden (Ezek 18), no where in Torah is human blood allowed to be shed as an atonement, on the contrary G-d says it didnt enter his mind!
Jer 19 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: (Wasnt Jesus also innocent?)
Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy God: for every abomination to the Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]
What shall they not do unto G-d? Human sacrifice
Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. [Psalm 106:37-38]
And yet we are to then turn around and believe that God changed His mind, and required human sacrifice, and then it was the sacrifice of His own human son that God wanted? After telling the Jews to stay away from pagan practices, and pagan beliefs, God then changes His mind and says, "Okay, now go ahead and believe in a human sacrifice, just as these very pagans believe?"
Because these millennial sacrifices will be observed as a ritual and serve as a memorial looking back to the one-all-sufficient offering of Christ upon the cross.
This is wholly unscriptural and pure speculation. There is no scripture to support this, just commentary. The ceremonial eating of Jesus flesh and drinking his blood (both unscriptural esp. Lev 17:14) as a memorial, would end if Jesus came back need not be replaced. Jesus himself never said the levitical system would be a memorial to him. No, this is pure spin to try to justify what cant be justified. The Peshat, plain rendering of the text in Ezek 43/44 supported by many other scripture in Tanakh is that sin sacrifices are returning, the law is firmly in place and Gentiles come to Jerusalem to learn G-ds ways and the Law.
You rejected Jesus sacrifice as unbiblical because it took place "outside the camp"; however, his "outside the camp" sacrifice is entirely consistent with the Old Testament sacrifice for sin: (Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:12, 4:21, 8:17, 9:11, 16;27)
"Ex 29:14 But burn the bull's flesh and its hide and its offal outside the camp. It is a sin offering."
Was Jesus's flesh and offal burned out side the camp AFTER being slaughtered at the alter, his blood being sprinkled? No. Same with Lev 4:12,21 , Lev 8:17, lev 9, Lev 16 None of these apply to Jesus.
Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
3"Any man from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, 4and (A)has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people.
The writer of Hebrews cant just make things up, Jesus sacrifice had to be scriptural. He suffocated to death on the cross, not cut at the throat to die of sudden blood loss. He was scourged and circumsized, not un blemished. His flesh was neither eaten nor burned. Not on the alter at the exact spot of Issac (which G-d then said NO! kill an animal not a human being) Nothing of Jesus's death was a sacrifice.
You said that Jesus was a prophet who "predicted things that didn't come true", that accusation is patently false; you cannot cite one prophecy Jesus proclaimed which was false.
Matt 16: 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Now Christians say that this refers to the transfiguration. It can’t be. The transfiguration was 6 to 8 days after Jesus said this prophecy. Did Jesus mean that some would die in the next 6 to 8 days? None of the disciples died in the next week and only three of them got to see the transfiguration. Jesus did not arrive there with his kingdom. He stood there and Moses and Elijah appeared. No Kingdom.
1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. [14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will G-d bring with him. [15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
The early Christians including Paul clearly were anticipating Jesus immanent return, within their lifetimes. He did not.
Matt 17: 10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? 11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. 12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they wished. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
So Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. But John the Baptist did not restore all things. He was to turn the hearts of the father to their children and children to their fathers. (mal 4:5) That didn’t happen with John the Baptist. And when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he said no.
John 1:21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
So, Jesus falsely identifies his cousin John as Elijah.
Jesus Christ is eternal in His existence.
OT Prophecy: Micah 5:1-2 1Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.
2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
This is not about Jesus but the prophet is stating that the Davidic dynasty originated in Bethlehem. And the Christian rendering of the Hebrew word mi'y'mei olam of ancient days is in error. It should read from ancient days or days of old. All six instances where this word occurs, the KJV renders it days of old, except this one.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God
. OT Prophecy: Psalms 2:7; Proverbs 30:4 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
This is David-Solomon and/or the collective nation of Israel, not Jesus.
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt.
1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.
Jesus Christ would be anointed with the Holy Spirit of God.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 11:2, Isaiah 61:1; Psalms 45:7-8
Is 11:2And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and heroism, a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord. 3. And he shall be animated by the fear of the Lord, and neither with the sight of his eyes shall he judge, nor with the hearing of his ears shall he chastise.
None of these are Christological. The individual will be animated by fear of the Lord. Why would G-d, fear G-d?
Jesus Christ's name is the same as the Tetragrammaton (YHWH).
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 9:5-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, [b] Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.
This is not Jesus but Hezekiah. Hezekiahs name means mighty God. His Davidic line will reign on the throne forever. There is no YHvH in that verse.
Jer 23:5 Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will set up of David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign a king and prosper, and he shall perform judgment and righteousness in the land. 6. In his days, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name that he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness.
This has not happened yet, it is in the messianic era. Did Jesus reign as king? No. Did he prosper? No. Was he called the Lord is our righteousness? No. He was named the Lord rescues or saves.
Jesus Christ would be The King.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 2:6 Jesus was never King, never sat on the throne of David
Jesus Christ would be a Prophet.
OT Prophecy: Deuteronomy 18:15, Deuteronomy 18:18 Jesus was a false prophet as mentioned in part 1, plus since he failed to meet the requirements of messiah (otherwise there would be no need for a 2nd coming) so he is a false prophet in that regard as well.
Jesus Christ would be a Priest.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 110:4 Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi and could not be a priest. Also, as mentioned before Melchizedek was not an eternal being, just a man.
Jesus Christ, "the Anointed One, the ruler,"would come the first time as "the Anointed One" after "sixty-two 'sevens.'" Jesus Christ would come the second time as "the Anointed One, the ruler," after "seven 'sevens.'"
OT Prophecy: Daniel 9:24-26 Christian rendering of the word mashiach is incorrect. There is no definite article “The” there in the Hebrew. Nor are there any capital letters M in messiah. It should read “an anointed one” . Furthermore, this anointed one is cut-off. That is because he is an unrighteous person. Old bad individuals are cut-off, never good. And Jesus was also never anointed using the methods and people per the Torah.
Jesus Christ would die "sixty two 'sevens'" after the first order to rebuild Jerusalem.
OT Prophecy: Daniel 9:24-26 Not Jesus Daniel 9
Jesus Christ would be the "seed of the woman" that would crush the serpent’s head.
OT Prophecy: Genesis 3:15 Not Jesus, this is Eves decendants. God first punishes the snake and says that mankind will always have to watch out for poisonous snakes now that they are in a fallen state. The passage talks about the Snakes seed. Did Satan have a child? Or Children? No…It is a snake and the snakes offspring…the woman (eve) and her offspring.
Jesus Christ would be the "seed of Abraham."
OT Prophecy: Genesis 12:3 No, again, this descendants not one person. There are no “seeds” when talking about descendants only seed. When you go buy grass seed, do you just buy one? Jesus Christ would be the "seed of Isaac."
OT Prophecy: Genesis 17:9, Genesis 21:12 Same as before
Jesus Christ would be the "seed of Jacob."
OT Prophecy: Genesis 28:14; Numbers 24:17-19 Same as before
Jesus Christ would be of the tribe of Judah.
OT Prophecy: Genesis 49:10 . Jesus was not of the tribe of Judah…He had no biological father and cant inherit it from his mother either. Tribe is from the male line only.
Jesus Christ would come from David's family and be heir to David's throne.
OT Prophecy: 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Psalms 89:3-4, Psalms 110:1, Psalms 132:11; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-5; Jeremiah 23:5 (Not possible if virgin born, not possible if born through Joseph since his line is cursed by Jeconiah.
"Elijah" would come immediately prior to the coming of JesusChrist.
OT Prophecy: Malachi 4:5, Malachi 3:1; Isaiah 40:3-5 False prophecy. Jesus said he was John the Baptist. John the Baptist said he wasn’t Elijah. Elijah was to restore families. Jesus said he would tear them apart.
Jesus Christ would be born in Bethlehem.
OT Prophecy: Micah 5:1 This is the Davidic line that is from Bethlehem, not Jesus
Jesus Christ would be born of a virgin and called Immanuel.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14 Corruption of the Hebrew. The word Ha Alma means the young woman. Jesus was not named Immanuel. This was fulfilled 700 years before Jesus. This was a sign for Ahaz the king….the real sign is this verse.
16For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The sign of Jesus being born would be of zero value to Ahaz now dead for 700 years.
Jesus Christ would proclaim a Jubilee.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 58:6, Isaiah 61:1 Not about jesus
Kings would bow down to Jesus Christ.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 72:10-11 Solomon not Jesus, no kings bowed to Jesus
Bethlehem's children would be killed at Jesus Christ's Coming.
OT Prophecy: Genesis 35:19-20, Genesis 48:7; Jeremiah 31:15 None of those pertain to children being killed in Jesus time. That is a non-existing prophecy. Furthermore, Matt misquotes Hosea 11:1
1When Israel was a youth I loved him, And (A)out of Egypt I (B)called My son. Israel not Jesus. Matt is intentionally quoting half the verse.
Jesus Christ would live in Egypt.
OT Prophecy: Hosea 11:1 As Above
Jesus Christ would live in Galilee.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 9:1-2 not prophetic
Jesus Christ would bind up the brokenhearted, proclaim liberty to the captives and announce the acceptable year of the Lord.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 61:1-2, This is the prophet speaking and not Jesus
Jesus Christ would heal people of disease and sickness.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 53:4, Isaiah 35:5-6, Isaiah 42:18 …. Is53.:4 is the Gentiles nations acknowledging that the Jewish people born their grief. 35&42 haven’t happened yet.
Jesus Christ would teach in parables.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 6:9-10; Psalms 78:2 Parables are not unique to the messiah, not a prophecy.
Jesus Christ would be tender and compassionate.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 40:11, Isaiah 42:3 That is G-d and the nation of Israel respectively…not Jesus
Jesus Christ would be meek and humble.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 42:2 The nation of Israel.
Jesus Christ would be sinless and without guile.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 53:9 The nation of Israel, Jesus was deceitful when he told the high priest he taught nothing in secret. Many times he told the disciples things and then told them to keep it a secret. Said he only taught in the synagogues and temple. Also not true.
Jesus Christ would bear the reproaches that were due to others.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 53:12; Psalms 69:9-10 Isaiah is speaking of the nation of Israel Psalms is about David.
Jesus Christ would make a triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a donkey.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 62:11; Zechariah 9:9; Psalms 118:26 This is not an exhaustive and exclusive fulfillment. Many people have rode a donkey into Jerusalem. But only Messiah ben David, will gather the lost tribes, rebuild the temple, bring universal knowledge of G-d, world peace…etc. Only the messiah can do those.
Jesus Christ would enter the Temple with authority.
OT Prophecy: Haggai 2:7-9; Malachi 3:1 7And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts. 8The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts. 9The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts. ….
These events have yet to occur.
Jesus Christ would be hated without reason.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 49:7; Psalms 69:4 This is the Jewish people…the afflicted of G-d.
Jesus Christ would be rejected by the Jewish people.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 69:4, Psalm 69:8; Isaiah 6:10, Isaiah 29:13, Isaiah 53:3, Isaiah 63:1-6 …….Isaiah 6…is Isaiah himself, Is 29..G-d not Jesus, Is 53:3 the Jewish people.Is 63. is G-d not Jesus.
Jesus Christ would be rejected by the Jewish leadership.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 118:22 This would be a metaphor for David, certainly not Jesus Jesus Christ would be plotted against by Jewish people and the Gentiles together./i>
OT Prophecy: Psalms 2:1-2 This is speaking of David just like these verses:
Psalms 18:50 Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore.
Psalms 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
Jesus Christ would be betrayed by a friend.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 41:9, Psalms 55:12-24 There were several people who tried to overthrow David . This is not about Jesus.
Jesus Christ would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.
OT Prophecy: Zechariah 11:12-13 This is not a prophecy
Jesus Christ would have the price for His life given to buy a potters field.
OT Prophecy: Zechariah 11:13 Not a prophecy
Jesus Christ would be forsaken by His flock.
OT Prophecy: Zechariah 13:7 This is the same Shepard who is called a fool and worthless a little bit back.
Zechariah 11:15-17 – (15) And the L-rd said to me, "Take for yourself yet another thing, the instrument of a foolish shepherd. (16) For, behold! I am setting up a shepherd in the land, he will not remember [to count] those who are missing, nor will he seek the young ones, nor heal the broken one; nor will he feed the one which stands still, but he will eat the meat of the healthy ones, and break their hoofs into pieces. (17) Woe to My worthless shepherd who abandons the flock; may a sword strike his arm and his right eye; his arm shall surely wither, and his right eye will go completely blind.
Jesus Christ the shepherd would be struck.
OT Prophecy: Zechariah 13:7; Micah 5:1 Same as above
Jesus Christ would be spat on.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 50:6 Isaiah is the subject not Jesus.
Jesus Christ would be mocked.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 50:6; Psalm 22:7-8 Psalm 22 is David not Jesus.
Jesus Christ would be beaten.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 50:6 As above
Jesus Christ would be executed by Crucifixion, having His hands and feet pierced.
OT Prophecy: Zechariah 12:10; Psalms 22:16 Zech12 is a future beloved general that will be killed in a major war, perhaps gog-magog. It is a future event. Pslam 22 doesnt say pierced in the Hebrew. It says “like a lion” which gives it context with the other verses in 22. It is talking about David not Jesus.
Jesus Christ would be thirsty during His Crucifixion.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 22:15 David not Jesus
Jesus Christ would be given vinegar and gall.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 69:21
21Yea, they put gall into my food; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Did Jesus have gall in his food?, only half the verse is quoted.
Jesus Christ the Lamb, would not have a broken bone.
OT Prophecy: Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalms 34:20 Jesus could not have been the passover lamb. It had no atoning quality, the lamb was to be killed and eaten and left over portions burned. None of which applies to Jesus.
Jesus Christ would die with transgressors.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 53:9-12 Jesus had no children (the Hebrew word never is spiritual children), his day were not prolonged, he died young, he did not prosper. Is 53 is the Jewish people.
Jesus Christ's dying words were prophesied.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 22:1, Psalms 31:5 David not Jesus
Jesus Christ realized that His arrest and Crucifixion was fulfilling prophesy.
NT Fulfillment: Matthew 26:54-56 Why did none of the gospels or Pauls epistles not mention Is 53 as a proof text. Peter would have been more understanding if he would of known Jesus was Isaiah 53 but instead Peter trys to stop it from happening.
Jesus Christ's death would atone for the sins of mankind.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 53:5-7, Isaiah 53:12 Not Jesus, no human vicarious atonement is allowed by G-d
They would cast lots for Jesus Christ's garments.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 22:18 David not Jesus
Jesus Christ would be buried by a rich man.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 53:9 Not about Jesus
Jesus Christ's flesh would not see corruption
OT Prophecy: Psalm 16:10 It is about David not Jesus
Jesus Christ would rise from the dead on the third day.
OT Prophecy: Genesis 22:4; Isaiah 53:9-10; Psalms 2:7, Psalm 16:8-11; Hosea 6:2; Jonah 1:7 None apply to Jesus
Jesus Christ would ascend to the right hand of God.
OT Prophecy: Psalms 16:11, Psalm 68:18-19, Psalms 110:1…. Psalm 68 is historical not prophetic and others have been noted above.
Jesus Christ would exercise His Priestly Office in Heaven.
OT Prophecy: Zechariah 6:13 ..This event has not happened yet….it is future messianic… 13Even he shall build the temple of the LORD;
Jesus Christ would be the cornerstone of God’s Messianic Community.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 28:16, Psalms 118:22-23 …This is a past tense event…already occurred at the time Isaiah wrote it. The messianic line was established.
Jesus Christ would be sought after by Gentiles.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 11:10, Isaiah 42:1 ….This is a future event that hasn’t happened..There is no universal knowledge of G-d yet.
9. They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea bed. 10. And it shall come to pass on that day, that the root of Jesse, which stands as a banner for peoples, to him shall the nations inquire, and his peace shall be [with] honor.
Jesus Christ would be accepted by the Gentiles.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 11:10, Isaiah 42:1-4, Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 49:12….. 1. Hearken, you islands, to me, and listen closely, you nations, from afar; the Lord called me from the womb, from the innards of my mother He mentioned my name. 2. And He made my mouth like a sharp sword, He concealed me in the shadow of His hand; and He made me into a polished arrow, He hid me in His quiver. 3. And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."
The servant is Israel….not Jesus
Jesus Christ exercising the priestly office in heaven.
OT Prophecy: Zechariah 6:13 ….A future event…not in heaven.
Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone of the Church.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 28:16 ….as noted above
Gentiles would be converted to Jesus Christ.
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 11:10, 42:1 ….Again many times in Isaiah the servant is identified…. 8. But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me, 9. Whom I grasped from the ends of the earth, and from its nobles I called you, and I said to you, "You are My servant"; I chose you and I did not despise you.
Jesus Christ will be King in Zion.
OT Prophecy: Psalm 2:6 ….David and the Davidic dynasty…not Jesus
Jesus Christ will be given universal and eternal dominion (an eternal kingdom).
OT Prophecy: Psalm 2:6-9, Psalm 72:8; Daniel 7:13-14 …..A future event that hasn’t happened yet…..there is not an abundance of peace… 7In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. 8He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
So, basically only a couple of that entire list can pertain to Jesus and the ones that do are not exhaustive and exclusive. Meaning events that ONLY the messiah ben David can do.
The man from Nazareth not only has not fulfilled minor messianic passages but none of the exhaustive and exclusive passages, such as , rebuilding the temple, ingathering the exiles, restoring the lost tribes, universal knowledge of G-d, world peace etc…
Look up anonymity of Gospel authors and see how many hits you get. Using New Advent, a one-man 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (unofficial at that) is rubbish. In fact, save yourself the search and just go to Wikipedia.
The authors' names were added towards the end of the 2nd century, when they begin to appear in references. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) quoted form all four Gospels but never by name. And he is not the only one.
John 21:24 refers to the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Again, this is not universally agreed. But you can also believe in pink unicorns if you wish. The author claims he is the beloved disciples but he does not identify himself by name. The Church did that based on legend.
All that matters is what John wrote, in particular the quotes, because those are the words of the Person that claimed to be God. Those words take precidence over the words of anyone else.
Bit that's only because you are willing to believe it. I have no reason to accept it on your word alone. But I would like to know why you accept some ordinary mortal's words as sacred. It makes no sense.
God is not a quality. God is a Person
Pay attention, please: Godhead is a wacky English construct for Divinity. Theotes in Greek does not mean a person but a quality of being divine, a nature, or essence of something.
Now if Jesus announces that before Abraham was, I AM", or "from now on, you do know him and have seen him.", it means God is a Person. Since man is the image of God and man is a person, it means God is a person.
The "I am" part is a mistranslation form Hebrew. It means something slightly different (I will be who I shall be). The second part of your argument is silly, imo, because the Father cannot be seen. No pious Jew would have said that.
But John's author was writing at the end of the century when the Christians got kicked out of synagogues as apostates and had no divine authority to rely on, so a firm equation between Jesus and the OT God had to be established.
The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels (written 20 or so years Earlie) make no such claim. In fact, Acts refers to Jesus as ordinary man (as the Jewish messiah ism expected to be). You need to study the context in which the last Gospel was written.
Nevertheless, the concept is empty, like St Patrick's shamrock. God is a person, not a mask
We can only go by what the original Greek says and not what faulty English or Latin translations teach.
Matthew took nothing out of context and made no misrepresentation
Of course he did. He says the following (Mat 13:24)
But the fact is they were NOT hidden since the foundation of the world because Ps 78:3 "we have heard and known," and "our fathers have told us."
Matthew misquotes Ps 78:2, to with "pafrables" versus "a parable", "hidden" vs. "dark things" and "since the foundation of the world" versus "of old."
Then he leaves out the crucial verse Ps 78:3 out because that verse immediately tells us that these are not secrets since the foundaiton of the world, but things we have "known" because our Father "have told us".
The deceptive and manipulative character of Matthew's presentation couldn't be any clearer.
What was heard from time immemorial and known were the parables [sic] from God, like Genesis. The riddles [sic] were known, but neve understood.
Hardly. For more on the deceitful nature of some NT writings you are welcome to widen your horizons here.
Sure he does. God’s Day of Vengeance and Redemption, Isaiah 63:1- 1
Isa 63 is about God;s vengeance on the nations. There is no mention of any "Son" or what not. Taken in context, nothing in Isaiah, points to Jesus.
I would think a Bible-only TM Christian believer would consider everything in the Bible to be of equal and central importance, including the chapter with talking animals and other fantastic tales.
Fantastic stories in the OT, such as the talking serpent has a central significance in the entire Judeao-Christian belief, as regards the fate of humnaity and the need for its redemption, the Savior, etc. I don't think it gets any more central than that.
The story of Jonah living in a belly of a fish for three days is central to the teaching common to both Jews and Christians regarding repentance. In fact Jonah is so important that even Jesus mentions him.
As for the talking donkey, it teaches a very important lesson regarding the consequences of disobedience to God and man's inability to thwart God's will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.