Jesus as True God and True Man

[Noose001]

They’re ‘writings’.

Of course they are prophetic ‘writings’.

 

[Kaninchen]

Of course they are prophetic ‘writings’.

The really clever thing about Jesus as Messiah is the remarkable ability to fulfil ‘prophesies’ that can be arrived at by text manipulation rather than real world events that would surround the arrival of Messiah.

Not only that but, after over two decades of discussing religion with Christians, I’d suggest that ‘proof texts’ are about the most barren form of apologetics.

 

[Noose001]

The really clever thing about Jesus as Messiah is the remarkable ability to fulfil ‘prophesies’ that can be arrived at by text manipulation rather than real world events that would surround the arrival of Messiah.

Not only that but, after over two decades of discussing religion with Christians, I’d suggest that ‘proof texts’ are about the most barren form of apologetics.

You are going back to the NT writings; they are inconsequential to the fulfillment of what was prophesied. The events happened as per the prophesied timeline and that makes the NT writing even more credible.

And the idea that NT is just a narrative is neither here nor there.

 

[Kaninchen]

And the idea that NT is just a narrative is neither here nor there.

They’re the only ‘Christian’ evidence that anything, at all, happened.

 

[Noose001]

They’re the only ‘Christian’ evidence that anything, at all, happened.

Again, the writings of the NT are inconsequential to the fulfillment of prophesy, prophesy still happens as per the prophesied timeline whether it is written or not.

Dan 9 is an example of such timeline so no one can say ‘this is only literature and this is not’

 

[Kaninchen]

Again, the writings of the NT are inconsequential to the fulfillment of prophesy, prophesy still happens as per the prophesied timeline whether it is written or not.

You’re still assuming an awful lot about the origin or your ‘prophesy’ never mind its fulfilment (I blame Josh McDowell, by the way) perhaps reading up on the origins of Daniel might be instructive?

Meanwhile, in my timezone it’s time to do some work (me being one of the fortunate people who can work from home - followed, me being of the female of the species, by some housework).

 

[Cathoholic]

FiveLinden . . .

So is Lazarus God? Are all the dead who rose from their graves after the resurrection God?

The only thing this shows me is your misunderstandings about the difference between the Resurrection and a temporal resuscitation of sorts.

I stand by my post.

Proclaiming the Resurrection of Christ Jesus, proclaims His Divine nature.

 

[Noose001]

You’re still assuming an awful lot about the origin or your ‘prophesy’ never mind its fulfilment (I blame Josh McDowell, by the way) perhaps reading up on the origins of Daniel might be instructive?

Ha ha and the evidence you’ve provided for the idea that NT is a narrative is zero. It could be but doesn’t change what has happened or what will happen as far as prophesy is concerned.
You can not possibly know more than Daniel himself who said it is a prophesy.

Let’s do a summary of what was prophesied vs what you are expecting:

1. God will give a sign when the messiah comes and that sign is that a virgin will conceive and bear a son in Bethlehem
   You are expecting a virgin to conceive and bear a son in Bethlehem
2. God will come and be pierced and killed (Zac 12:10)
   You are expecting God to come and be pierced and killed
3. The killers will divide His clothes and cast lots on it (Psalm 22)

You are expecting the Messiah to be killed, his garments to be divided and the killers cast lots on it.

Who are you kidding; if this happens now or in the future and someone writes about it, they’ll be writing NT all over again.
This will be awkwardly funny because the Jews (@kaninchen ) will still reject Him (Isa 53:3)

 

[Cathoholic]

This is irrelevant. I don’t care what Bart Ehrman thinks.

FiveLinden . . .

Then you don’t care about the thinking of one of the modern greats of New Testament scholarship . . .

Who is that?

You were talking about Bart Ehrman, then seemed to switch over to modern Great New Testament scholars.

 

[FiveLinden]

But even so, this doesn’t make Jesus God because the mystery is in how God creates

I am not arguing against your faith, or your ability to believe in mysteries. And pleased to see you are not arguing against my facts!

 

[Cathoholic]

FiveLinden to Noose001 . . .

I am not arguing against your faith, or your ability to believe in mysteries.

FiveLinden. What do you think a “mystery” is?

 

[FiveLinden]

The only thing this shows me is your misunderstandings about the difference between the Resurrection and a temporal resuscitation of sorts.

So only God could be resurrected permanently without the need to die again? How do you know Lazarus died? Could he not have been assumed into heaven with the Virgin Mary? And the hundreds of others who rose from their graves? And if they all had to die again what was the point of them doing so at the time of the resurrection?

 

[FiveLinden]

FiveLinden. What do you think a “mystery” is?

I am using the word as it is used in Catholic tradition.

 

[Cathoholic]

FiveLinden . . .

So only God could be resurrected permanently without the need to die again?

No. Only God can Resurrect someone.

But that won’t come until the end of time.

There are one possibly two exceptions to the time frame.

Jesus of course is Resurrected NOW.
God Resurrected Himself.

And if the Blessed Virgin Mary had died (I don’t know if She died or not), Jesus Resurrected Mother Mary.

You can call other resuscitations what you want, but this is not the same as a Resurrection.

This is very rudimentary theology FiveLinden.
If you have been taking your “theology” from Bart,
and Bart is allegedly such an eminent scholar,
I am surprised you are confusing these issues.

Or maybe Bart is not so scholarly?

Jesus of course, is Resurrected. And I believe this because of reliable testimony.

But people like Bart, are going to attempt to get their readers
to deny entropy, and
affirm perpetual motion with no reliable sources,
but they will want you to join them in their DENIAL of the reliable testimony of Jesus’ Resurrection.
Although they would not put it this way.

 

[Noose001]

I am not arguing against your faith, or your ability to believe in mysteries. And pleased to see you are not arguing against my facts!

What mysteries and what facts are you talking about?

Your claims that early Gospel writers did not view Jesus as divine and only John did is easily refutable. Precisely what Mark chapter 1 is about.

 

[Kaninchen]

God will give a sign when the messiah comes and that sign is that a virgin will conceive and bear a son in Bethlehem . . . will still reject Him (Isa 53:3)

You’ve chosen a particular interpretation of Isaiah (after all, having decided a man was God, you can’t have him having a human father) which you’ve chosen to be about Messiah and added to it Micah and Bethlehem. So the NT had to come up with a story that got a woman married to a man she never has sex with from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to have the baby - the thing is that there are real world consequences of Messiah turning up that won’t be reliant on constructed stories about place of birth.

That’s your problem, I’m afraid, no matter how much homeopathic proof text analysis you manage to indulge in.

Moreover, with ‘proof texts’, there’s always the question of whether the narrative relates to the ‘proof text’ by scouring the Tanakh for what might be usefully linked as ‘prophesy’ together with whether the narrative was constructed in order to fit a ‘prophesy’ (see Bethlehem).

The example I usually use is the form of the notional:

Isaiah W:X “And he shall stub his toe.”
Matthew Y:Z “And Jesus stubbed his toe.”

Did Jesus stub his toe which then led to the discovery of the ‘prophesy’ in Isaiah or was Matthew aware of a prophesy about toe-stubbing which then led to the toe-stubbing text?

 

[FiveLinden]

people like Bart, are going to attempt to get their readers
to deny entropy, and
affirm perpetual motion with no reliable sources,

There does Dr Ehrman deny entropy and affirm perpetual motion? I have never seem him write on physics.

 

[Noose001]

You’ve chosen a particular interpretation of Isaiah (after all, having decided a man was God, you can’t have him having a human father) which you’ve chosen to be about Messiah and added to it Micah and Bethlehem.

A prophesy finds its interpretation in the fulfillment and not on the prophesy itself, so saying that i have taken a particular interpretation of a prophesy is not really an argument and claiming that the NT text is a narrative also doesn’t cut it for me.

Prophesy: The messiah will be born by a virgin/ in the city of Bethlehem/ in X time.

It doesn’t really matter what the Jews or Christians think or interpret these prophesies because as soon as time X reaches, the Messiah is born by a virgin in the city of Bethlehem.

Whether someone writes about it or not, it is of no consequence. If it is to happen in the future then the prophesy on time X will be false- so the case about Jesus is a very tight case.

 

[Kaninchen]

so the case about Jesus is a very tight case.

In a smoke and mirrors sense where you determine what is prophesy, you interpret the prophesy and you decide whether it’s fulfilled or not.

Whether it cuts it for you, or not, is irrelevant.

 

[Noose001]

In a smoke and mirrors sense where you determine what is prophesy, you interpret the prophesy and you decide whether it’s fulfilled or not.

Whether it cuts it for you, or not, is irrelevant.

Correct, it is the fulfillment that is to be interpreted in light of the prophesy but saying that i have a particular interpretation of the prophesy itself is meaningless.

Unless you explain what your interpretation of these prophesies is and how you expect them to be fulfilled or when did they come to pass and how?