- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by PinkFloydThat would depends on your point of reference. Do you have any theological training? Seminary training? If so, where and with whom?
I would hardly hold those two establishments as pinnacles of knowledge concerning the New testament (or anything else for that matter).
And I never said the idea that Matk is the oldest Gospel was incorrect. I only pointed out that,to say that Mark is "almost universally accepted" as being so is simply wrong.
Those are rhetorical questions; they are the point of reference that we all derive our conclusions from regarding theological training.
I only use Harvard and Princeton as examples, for there are a number of similarly distinguished Protestant-based seminaries that are quite good.
Mark is, in fact, almost universally accepted as being the oldest of the four gospels, at least in theological circles. As No1 mentions, the plenerists won't see it that way and most won't understand (or will choose to ignore) the hand of the early Christian priesthood in the arrangement of the New Testament. What I am asserting is not "simply wrong."
3 edits
Robbie,
====================================
i do not profess to offer even one word in defence, trinitarians i have found are like concrete, all mixed up and hardened,
========================================
And I have found that people who argue against Isaiah 9:6 and John 14:9 believe in the Holey Bible. That is a Bible full of Holes.
(likewise, no offense)
Originally posted by jaywillThe Jews believe in what Isaiah 9:6 actually says and believe that a passage in the middle of a long story regarding a war and its ultimately successful outcome has nothing to do with a messianic prophecy. http://answering-christianity.com/hezekiah.htm
[b]===================================
the mighty god and the almighty god are the same, yer bum jaywill, yes we have been through it before, and if you want to believe it , then be my guest.
======================================
I want to believe it because that is what the Bible teaches me.
Because the revelation of the Bible shows that - [b ...[text shortened]...
Call it a Foobeterian for all I care. I want to believe what Isaiah 9:6 states.[/b]
It would certainly be a strange place to go so wildly off-topic. Christian sources seem to have also changed the established Jewish translations in order to "fit" the claim that a description of an event that was fulfilled about 700 years before Jesus somehow refers to him.
Originally posted by no1marauderi thought that it would be relatively easy to check the book of Isaiah , after finding the dead sea scrolls, i thought it contained the complete Isaiah Scroll from Qumran which provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the biblical text through a period of more than one thousand years by the hands of Jewish copyists has been extremely faithful and careful, minor discrepancies being a place name or an unidentified musical instrument, cannot quite remember. i went to see the exhibition when it came to Glasgow, it was alright, therefore simply because the Jews do not accept this or that is highly scant proof of anything, including the lineage and messianic claims of Christ, for there are almost 400? messianic prophesies most notably Isaiah 53, must we also include all of these as being interpolations as well?
The Jews believe in what Isaiah 9:6 actually says and believe that a passage in the middle of a long story regarding a war and its ultimately successful outcome has nothing to do with a messianic prophecy. http://answering-christianity.com/hezekiah.htm
It would certainly be a strange place to go so wildly off-topic. Christian sources s ...[text shortened]... description of an event that was fulfilled about 700 years before Jesus somehow refers to him.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillyes we believe in the Holy bible, even the prehuman existence of Christ, but that he was a created being cannot be refuted, i repeat cannot be refuted, therefore simply because we do not profess pre Christian pagan doctrines that were introduced in the fourth century and marked the beginning of the great apostasy foretold by Christ. i posted the very same Greek ideas introduced into Christianity from a platonic source, which you choose to ignore, as you conveniently do with many texts which oppose the doctrine, therefore i have resigned myself to this, so be it jaywill, so be it.
Robbie,
[b]====================================
i do not profess to offer even one word in defence, trinitarians i have found are like concrete, all mixed up and hardened,
========================================
And I have found that people who argue against Isaiah 9:6 and John 14:9 believe in the Holey Bible. That is a Bible full of Holes.
(likewise, no offense)[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are messianic prophesies in the OT (though surely not 400). Isaiah 9:6 isn't one of them.
i thought that it would be relatively easy to check the book of Isaiah , after finding the dead sea scrolls, i thought it contained the complete Isaiah Scroll from Qumran which provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the biblical text through a period of more than one thousand years by the hands of Jewish copyists has been extremely faith ...[text shortened]... esies most notably Isaiah 53, must we also include all of these as being interpolations as well?
I was directly addressing jaywill's assertion that because he believes in the Bible, he must necessarily believe that Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy regarding Christ. But the Jews surely believe in the OT, but don't believe any such thing so his assertion is incorrect.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderyes ok, can you like wise convince him that the trinity is a pre Christian doctrine also, if you to hold to that belief? i appeal to you as an objective observer, because man ive tried. no wait a minute, i re read your text, it simply therefore comes down to opinion, jaywill believes that it is, the jews don't, who can tell who is correct?
There are messianic prophesies in the OT (though surely not 400). Isaiah 9:6 isn't one of them.
I was directly addressing jaywill's assertion that because he believes in the Bible, he must necessarily believe that Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy regarding Christ. But the Jews surely believe in the OT, but don't believe any such thing so his assertion is incorrect.
-Removed-It's a funny thing for the Jews to have "missed". But my point was merely that jaywill's assertion is incorrect i.e. one can believe in the OT yet still believe that Isaiah 9:6 is not a prophecy of Jesus' coming.
I see no need to believe that Jesus was a charlatan, nor that if he was he was one of "extraordinary magnitude". Jesus and his followers dismally failed in converting his targeted audience (the Jews) to the idea that he was the Messiah for fairly obvious reasons (i.e. he failed to establish on Earth what was required by the Messianic prophecies). Christianity remained a deeply divided cult until Constantine put the authority of the Roman throne behind it and forced it to reconcile to specific dogmas. That had very little to do with Jesus himself.
As for he rest, I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God and certainly the one in the Bible is an especially preposterous one.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderthere are not a few irregularities here.
It's a funny thing for the Jews to have "missed". But my point was merely that jaywill's assertion is incorrect i.e. one can believe in the OT yet still believe that Isaiah 9:6 is not a prophecy of Jesus' coming.
I see no need to believe that Jesus was a charlatan, nor that if he was he was one of "extraordinary magnitude". Jesus and his f nthropomorphic God and certainly the one in the Bible is an especially preposterous one.
for example that the infant church never converted its targeted audience? Christ of course realised that not all would accept his teachings, thus he speaks of a narrow road leading to life, a broad road leading to destruction, does he not. and quite clearly this was not only his targeted audience, for he states to the Samaritan women, a non Jew it will be noted, that neither here (Samaria) nor in Jerusalem will people seek god, for god is a spirit, and those worshipping must worship, in spirit and truth, thus quite clearly he had bigger aspirations than the Jews, although these were first.
secondly that the initial church was schismatic is also not true, because in its infancy the apostles in Jerusalem acted as a governing body, thus when decisions arose, the issues were put before the governing body, scriptures were consulted and a consensus of decision made, thus for example when the issue of circumcision arose, the matter was referred by Paul to the apostles in Jerusalem, letters were carried regarding the decision and unity maintained. it was not until the death, or thereabouts of the apostles thats schism really took hold, although there were differences of opinion, but not outright cults as developed later as in the book of revelation.
also it was not that Christ did not fulfill the messianic prophesies, but more that he did not fulfil the Jewish interpretations and expectations of the Messiah, the two are quite different.
failure to attribute qualities to God displays a real lack of understanding to the nature and character of the biblical god.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou certainly show a lack of knowledge of the early Church. Your post is filled with outright mistakes and misinformation.
there are not a few irregularities here.
for example that the infant church never converted its targeted audience? Christ of course realised that not all would accept his teachings, thus he speaks of a narrow road leading to life, a broad road leading to destruction, does he not. and quite clearly this was not only his targeted audience, for h ...[text shortened]... es to God displays a real lack of understanding to the nature and character of the biblical god.
No, the infant church never converted any sizable portion of Jews. Jesus specifically stated that he came for "the lost people of Israel". Overwhelmingly, they rejected him. That is not my opinion; it is a historical fact.
It's a ridiculous ahistorical assertion that early Christianity wasn't split into many competing belief systems. I suppose I could provide links, but you wouldn't read them. So be it. Your non-belief in the Trinity was reflected in many groups all of which would up being declared heretics by the winners. Marcionism, Arianism, the theology of Valentius and many others had substantial number of adherents as compared to the ultimately winning theology. Gnostic interpretations developed very early after Christ's death. You really need to do some basic research.
Jewish interpretations and expectations of the Messiah are based on the OT. Jesus fails them. Christians fall back on the unprovable assertion that he will fulfill many of them in the Second Coming. Of course, nowhere in the OT is it suggested that the Messiah will require a Second Coming to fulfill his tasks. Given these facts, it's pretty unsurprising that the idea of Jesus has the Messiah fell flat to the vast majority of 1st Century Jews.
I have no idea what your last paragraph means. God is given many qualities in the OT, but virtually all of them are merely reflections of what humans are. For example, a "jealous" All-Powerful God seems ridiculous as does a perfectly "just" God who has children butchered and young girls kept as sex slaves by the killers of their families. If that's the "nature and character of the biblical God" he is a Monster God and unworthy of worship. But it is far more logical to assume that the semisavage authors of the OT justified their savagery by creating such a God then that such a thing actually exists.