• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

By Faith. Why?

Audie

Veteran Member
You say that love is known intiuitively. Is that the whole story?

I once visited Auschwitz and was surprised to see how close the commandant's residence was to Crematorium no.1. This got me thinking. There were men and women 'working' at Auschwitz, and other death camps, who saw murder on a daily basis. Some of these people would then return to their own families to kiss and greet their spouses, and to hug their children. They loved their own, but they hated the prisoners. What kind of love is that?

Then l got to thinking how Jesus would have behaved had he been an inmate. Would he have struggled to survive at a cost to his fellow prisoners? Or would he have held the hand of the child entering the gas chamber?

Jesus said, 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

Did Jesus show 'greater love' when he was crucified? In my view, he even died for those who were not his friends at the time! How great a love is that?

Your first line is a falsehood.
Poor start.
Then into Godwin territory. Sheesh.

A lot of people die for others.
People choose to assert why Jesus died,
a concept I think makes ne sense and I don't
believe.
You choose what you choose.

If you like to discuss "greater love" there are
many who have endured far longer and worse
torture rather than betray their companions.

And countless with the quiet love and
courage to sacrifice their lives in long years
of brutal and thankless toil for the sake of
others.
That takes way more courage than one heroic
sacrifice.
I know you Christians think you own morality
and truth and love and the real history of the
world and the only mentality to develop science
and how much else, but you dont.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Are you saying that those who died before the coming of Christ will not be lifted up to meet Christ 'in the air' at the rapture? [1 Thessalonians 4:15-17] Or, are you saying that when Christ returns with his saints that there will be a dividing of the saints into those who live on earth for a thousand years and those who reign in heaven?
I find the dead sleep in the grave until Resurrection Day. Resurrection Day starts after Day One of Jesus' coming thousand-year reign over Earth. Resurrection Day is a thousand-year day.
They will have the opportunity to live forever on Earth as originally offered to Adam before his downfall.

On the other hand, the 'saints/ holy ones' (Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18) have that first or earlier resurrection resurrected to Heaven as I find at Revelation 20:6, so they are resurrected to Heaven before Armageddon.
Like Jesus (John 14:19) they remain in Heaven forever.
Besides angelic armies (those 'called,chosen, faithful') will conquer with Jesus - Revelation 17:14 B; 19:14-15
After Armageddon I find it is the 'sheep' who will live forever on Earth. - Matthew 25:37

Remember Christ was lifted up in the air after he was resurrected - see Acts of the Apostles 10:40-42; Acts 1:9
So, No rapture but resurrection because 'flesh.....' ( physical) can Not inherit the kingdom - 1 Corinthians 15:50
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The posts I responded to you are very specific as to what you have failed to respond. You claimed the Bible was 'evidence,' the prophecies were 'evidence' concerning the fulfillment of prophecies by Jesus Christ, and none of this is true. As per the subject all this and more I responded to concerning your claims is based on 'belief' based on faith.
Let's start with this.

'Evidence' is not proof, but information that can be used to support an argument. I am saying that there are prophecies in the Tanakh that can be used to uphold the argument that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Are you denying this?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Your first line is a falsehood.
Poor start.
Then into Godwin territory. Sheesh.

A lot of people die for others.
People choose to assert why Jesus died,
a concept I think makes ne sense and I don't
believe.
You choose what you choose.

If you like to discuss "greater love" there are
many who have endured far longer and worse
torture rather than betray their companions.

And countless with the quiet love and
courage to sacrifice their lives in long years
of brutal and thankless toil for the sake of
others.
That takes way more courage than one heroic
sacrifice.
I know you Christians think you own morality
and truth and love and the real history of the
world and the only mentality to develop science
and how much else, but you dont.
If you know of a greater love than that shown by Jesus then l'd like you to be explicit and name the individual who demonstrated that love.

So who is it?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I guess I kind of thought that Abraham was sort of an odd example for early NT writers to relate to. He seems like had no intermediary at all right? It was just him and god, 1:1. No Jesus in-between, no deacons, no law of Moses, nothing. Just Abraham and God
Nor should 'born again' believers have an intermediary, because access to the throne is direct. Prayers to the Father, in the name of Jesus, are direct to God.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If you know of a greater love than that shown by Jesus then l'd like you to be explicit and name the individual who demonstrated that love.

So who is it?

You think nobody has suffered more for the
sake of others? Must not of read or thought
for two seconds. Asking for "a name" may well
look to you like a clever trick. But it isnt.

For that matter, if you have children or
grandchildren and you could save them
( say, from eternal torture, or from being
mashed by a bus) by giving yourself up
for torture, what's your decision?

There are those I love enough to do isn't.

But what would a awful asian atheist know
about what christian would do?
You tell me.

ETA You failed to admit to the falsehood I
mentioned. It's more honest to just acknowledge it
than evade with silence. Honesty is said to be a
Christian value.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Let's start with this.

'Evidence' is not proof, but information that can be used to support an argument. I am saying that there are prophecies in the Tanakh that can be used to uphold the argument that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Are you denying this?

I never said that 'evidence was the same as 'proof.' but there are standards as to what is acceptable to be considered evidence. Evidence must be able to be independently objectively verified. Inly 'some events, people and places may be independently verified, The 'outside evidence such as archaeological evidence is considered verifiable evidence, The Bible may be considered anecdotal evidence relying on the personal view of the authors, and not factual evidence unless verified by ;outside source.'

What is the difference between research based evidence and anecdotal evidence? – MassInitiative.

What is the difference between research based evidence and anecdotal evidence?
ADMIN MAY 3, 2020 ADVICE
Table of Contents [hide]

What is the difference between research based evidence and anecdotal evidence?
Anecdotal evidence is evidence collected in an informal manner and relying heavily on personal experience1. Scientific evidence is based on findings from systematic observations, measurement and experimentation and any person can independently verify or confirm it using the scientific method.

What is the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence?
Anecdotal evidence is using your personal experiences and stories to illustrate your point. Empirical evidence is measured, unbiased, and replicable.

What is anecdotal research?

A semiformal or formal research project that relies on anecdotal evidence. In some fields of science, e.g., sociology and anthropology, anecdotal study is formalized with rules and protocols that are often rigorous to determine the way the evidence is collected, analyzed, and interpreted.

What is the difference between anecdotal and factual evidence?

Anecdotal evidence is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.

What are some examples of anecdotal evidence?
The following are examples of anecdotal evidence:

  • Wow! I took this supplement and lost a lot of weight! This pill must work!
  • I know someone who smoked for decades, and it never produced any significant illness. Those claims about smoking are exaggerated!
  • This anti-aging cream took years off. It must be the best!
What is an example of analogical evidence?
These are some examples of analogical evidence you might use in your work: A peer-reviewed study that is similar in many ways to the topic in your essay. An expert opinion about something very similar to your topic. A court case or historical event that is similar to your thesis.

Why do people rely on anecdotal evidence?

Anecdotal evidence provides us with additional information beyond that of a typical data point. There could be counter-intuitive patterns present in those stories, or variables you hadn’t thought to take into account.

Can anecdotal data be trusted?

Anecdotal evidence is based on individual accounts, rather than on reliable research or statistics, and so may not be valid.

Why is anecdotal a fallacy?
A person falls prey to the anecdotal fallacy when they choose to believe the “evidence” of an anecdote or a few anecdotes over a larger pool of scientifically valid evidence. The anecdotal fallacy occurs because our brains are fundamentally lazy. Given a choice, the brain prefers to do less work rather than more.

Why is anecdote not considered strong evidence?
Why is an anecdote not considered strong evidence? An anecdote is not falsifiable.

What is an anecdote and give examples?

An anecdote is a short story, usually serving to make the listeners laugh or ponder over a topic. For example, if a group of coworkers are discussing pets, and one coworker tells a story about how her cat comes downstairs at only a certain time of the night, then that one coworker has just told an anecdote.

What is considered anecdotal evidence?

Anecdotal evidence is usually based on individual experiences or observations, as distinct from probabilistic evidence that gives estimates of how likely something is to occur based on experience with large numbers of people.

What’s the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence?
Anecdotal evidence is simply an analysis of events that occur in a natural context or setting. Most scientific studies start with a null hypothesis to be disproved, and a design of study to test the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis.

What’s the difference between anecdote and qualitative research?
If qualitative research was merely anecdotal, scepticism of qualitative research is justified. However, qualitative research is not anecdote. The definitions of qualitative research and anecdotal evidence highlight this difference.

When to use anecdotal evidence to verify credibility?

When one person’s experience is used as proof that the same would happen or apply to a larger group of people, the ‘evidence,’ as such, should be examined using the scientific method to verify credibility. Anecdotal evidence can be very effective in indicating a need for further study about a phenomenon and in our personal decision-making.

How is anecdotal evidence used in the advertising world?

Anecdotal evidence is very popular in the advertising world. Every time you see a claim about a product’s effectiveness based on a person’s personal experience, the company is using anecdotal evidence to encourage sales.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Let's start with this.

'Evidence' is not proof, but information that can be used to support an argument. I am saying that there are prophecies in the Tanakh that can be used to uphold the argument that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Are you denying this?

To add: The proper way to use 'evidence' in this discussion is to ask what ;evidence outside the Bible supports the Bible, and not that the Bible itself is evidence, Factual evidence would archaeology research that confirms ;some' people, events and places' in the Bible as factual. Anecdotal evidence would personal interpretation or support for the Bible, which is not convincing to those who do not believe the Bible as a whole is factual
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I find the dead sleep in the grave until Resurrection Day. Resurrection Day starts after Day One of Jesus' coming thousand-year reign over Earth. Resurrection Day is a thousand-year day.
They will have the opportunity to live forever on Earth as originally offered to Adam before his downfall.

On the other hand, the 'saints/ holy ones' (Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18) have that first or earlier resurrection resurrected to Heaven as I find at Revelation 20:6, so they are resurrected to Heaven before Armageddon.
Like Jesus (John 14:19) they remain in Heaven forever.
Besides angelic armies (those 'called,chosen, faithful') will conquer with Jesus - Revelation 17:14 B; 19:14-15
After Armageddon I find it is the 'sheep' who will live forever on Earth. - Matthew 25:37

Remember Christ was lifted up in the air after he was resurrected - see Acts of the Apostles 10:40-42; Acts 1:9
So, No rapture but resurrection because 'flesh.....' ( physical) can Not inherit the kingdom - 1 Corinthians 15:50
What do you mean by 'no rapture'?

1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.
'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What do you mean by 'no rapture'?

1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.
'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'.

Actually not all Christians believe in a literal rapture as many do not believe in a literal Adam and eve Creation story or the world flood of Noah. Here is where the literal interpretation of ancient scripture becomes problematic and in wide disagreement over time, The old 'The Bible says so therefore it is True' is not practical based on our contemporary knowledge reveals contradictory cracks and chasms in scripture pf ancient beliefs.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I never said that 'evidence was the same as 'proof.' but there are standards as to what is acceptable to be considered evidence. Evidence must be able to be independently objectively verified. Inly 'some events, people and places may be independently verified, The 'outside evidence such as archaeological evidence is considered verifiable evidence, The Bible may be considered anecdotal evidence relying on the personal view of the authors, and not factual evidence unless verified by ;outside source.'

What is the difference between research based evidence and anecdotal evidence? – MassInitiative.

What is the difference between research based evidence and anecdotal evidence?
ADMIN MAY 3, 2020 ADVICE
Table of Contents [hide]

What is the difference between research based evidence and anecdotal evidence?
Anecdotal evidence is evidence collected in an informal manner and relying heavily on personal experience1. Scientific evidence is based on findings from systematic observations, measurement and experimentation and any person can independently verify or confirm it using the scientific method.

What is the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence?
Anecdotal evidence is using your personal experiences and stories to illustrate your point. Empirical evidence is measured, unbiased, and replicable.

What is anecdotal research?

A semiformal or formal research project that relies on anecdotal evidence. In some fields of science, e.g., sociology and anthropology, anecdotal study is formalized with rules and protocols that are often rigorous to determine the way the evidence is collected, analyzed, and interpreted.

What is the difference between anecdotal and factual evidence?

Anecdotal evidence is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.

What are some examples of anecdotal evidence?
The following are examples of anecdotal evidence:

  • Wow! I took this supplement and lost a lot of weight! This pill must work!
  • I know someone who smoked for decades, and it never produced any significant illness. Those claims about smoking are exaggerated!
  • This anti-aging cream took years off. It must be the best!
What is an example of analogical evidence?
These are some examples of analogical evidence you might use in your work: A peer-reviewed study that is similar in many ways to the topic in your essay. An expert opinion about something very similar to your topic. A court case or historical event that is similar to your thesis.

Why do people rely on anecdotal evidence?

Anecdotal evidence provides us with additional information beyond that of a typical data point. There could be counter-intuitive patterns present in those stories, or variables you hadn’t thought to take into account.

Can anecdotal data be trusted?

Anecdotal evidence is based on individual accounts, rather than on reliable research or statistics, and so may not be valid.

Why is anecdotal a fallacy?
A person falls prey to the anecdotal fallacy when they choose to believe the “evidence” of an anecdote or a few anecdotes over a larger pool of scientifically valid evidence. The anecdotal fallacy occurs because our brains are fundamentally lazy. Given a choice, the brain prefers to do less work rather than more.

Why is anecdote not considered strong evidence?
Why is an anecdote not considered strong evidence? An anecdote is not falsifiable.

What is an anecdote and give examples?

An anecdote is a short story, usually serving to make the listeners laugh or ponder over a topic. For example, if a group of coworkers are discussing pets, and one coworker tells a story about how her cat comes downstairs at only a certain time of the night, then that one coworker has just told an anecdote.

What is considered anecdotal evidence?

Anecdotal evidence is usually based on individual experiences or observations, as distinct from probabilistic evidence that gives estimates of how likely something is to occur based on experience with large numbers of people.

What’s the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence?
Anecdotal evidence is simply an analysis of events that occur in a natural context or setting. Most scientific studies start with a null hypothesis to be disproved, and a design of study to test the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis.

What’s the difference between anecdote and qualitative research?
If qualitative research was merely anecdotal, scepticism of qualitative research is justified. However, qualitative research is not anecdote. The definitions of qualitative research and anecdotal evidence highlight this difference.

When to use anecdotal evidence to verify credibility?

When one person’s experience is used as proof that the same would happen or apply to a larger group of people, the ‘evidence,’ as such, should be examined using the scientific method to verify credibility. Anecdotal evidence can be very effective in indicating a need for further study about a phenomenon and in our personal decision-making.

How is anecdotal evidence used in the advertising world?

Anecdotal evidence is very popular in the advertising world. Every time you see a claim about a product’s effectiveness based on a person’s personal experience, the company is using anecdotal evidence to encourage sales.
What you've pasted here has very little relevance to the Bible and its study. A comparison between anecdotal evidence and scientific method gets us nowhere. The Bible is regarded as a revelation from God for good reasons, and biblical exegesis is a discipline that covers a number of distinct 'criticisms':
1. Textual Criticism: The quest for the original wording.
2. Historical Criticism: The setting in time and space.
3. Grammatical Criticism: The language of the text.
4. Literary Criticism: The composition and rhetorical style of the text.
5. Form Criticism: The genre and life setting of the text.
6. Tradition Criticism: The stages behind the text.
7. Redaction Criticism: The final viewpoint and theology.
8. Structuralist Criticism: The universals in the text.
9.Canonical Criticism: The sacred text of Synagogue and Church.

There are also exegetical procedures that attempt to integrate these criticisms.

So, scholars place the Bible under the strictest scrutiny in order to elucidate meaning and provide an accurate interpretation. Is this the nearest we get to scientific study of text? Probably.

So when we bring evidence to the table regarding the interpretation of the Bible, the internal integrity of the text is of primary importance. The external issues, particularly regarding authorship and dating, are themselves influenced by the text and by tradition.

So we come full circle, and ask, What evidence exists that demonstrates that the Bible is of divine origin?

First and foremost, the answer must be 'prophecy'. This means every word that is forth-told, and foretold, by inspiration of God.

Is it possible that the Bible could be wholly the work of man, and in no way inspired by God?

How is it, then, that all the particulars, or notable events in Jesus' life, are to be found scattered amongst the words of the prophets?

Here is a quote from Canon Dyson Hague:
'Centuries before Christ was born His birth and career, His sufferings and glory, were all described in outline and detail in the Old Testament. Christ is the only Person ever born into this world whose ancestry, birth-time, forerunner, birth-place, birth-manner, infancy, manhood, teaching, character, career, preaching, reception, rejection, death, burial, resurrection and ascension were all prewritten in the most marvelous manner centuries before He was born.'

Do l have to quote each of the OT passages so that you can read them for yourself?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
You think nobody has suffered more for the
sake of others? Must not of read or thought
for two seconds. Asking for "a name" may well
look to you like a clever trick. But it isnt.

For that matter, if you have children or
grandchildren and you could save them
( say, from eternal torture, or from being
mashed by a bus) by giving yourself up
for torture, what's your decision?

There are those I love enough to do isn't.

But what would a awful asian atheist know
about what christian would do?
You tell me.

ETA You failed to admit to the falsehood I
mentioned. It's more honest to just acknowledge it
than evade with silence. Honesty is said to be a
Christian value.
Asking for a name is no trick. You have made a claim and now l want you to substantiate that claim.

So, who has lived a more loving life than Jesus?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Asking for a name is no trick. You have made a claim and now l want you to substantiate that claim.

So, who has lived a more loving life than Jesus?
Not so much a trick as dishonest, as I made
no claim of greater love. I said suffered more and longer for others. Deny that all you like
deny that anyone has suffered more and.
longer for others. It's absurd, but, par for course. Also dishonest as you know full well
that what I said is true.

Dishonest of you also, the falsehood I asked you about- also a false claim of what ive said-
made more dishonest still your refusal to
acknowledge it, yet again.
Par for the course but know that the tricks
work only on you.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What you've pasted here has very little relevance to the Bible and its study. A comparison between anecdotal evidence and scientific method gets us nowhere. The Bible is regarded as a revelation from God for good reasons, and biblical exegesis is a discipline that covers a number of distinct 'criticisms':
1. Textual Criticism: The quest for the original wording.
2. Historical Criticism: The setting in time and space.
3. Grammatical Criticism: The language of the text.
4. Literary Criticism: The composition and rhetorical style of the text.
5. Form Criticism: The genre and life setting of the text.
6. Tradition Criticism: The stages behind the text.
7. Redaction Criticism: The final viewpoint and theology.
8. Structuralist Criticism: The universals in the text.
9.Canonical Criticism: The sacred text of Synagogue and Church.

There are also exegetical procedures that attempt to integrate these criticisms.

So, scholars place the Bible under the strictest scrutiny in order to elucidate meaning and provide an accurate interpretation. Is this the nearest we get to scientific study of text? Probably.

So when we bring evidence to the table regarding the interpretation of the Bible, the internal integrity of the text is of primary importance. The external issues, particularly regarding authorship and dating, are themselves influenced by the text and by tradition.

So we come full circle, and ask, What evidence exists that demonstrates that the Bible is of divine origin?

First and foremost, the answer must be 'prophecy'. This means every word that is forth-told, and foretold, by inspiration of God.

Is it possible that the Bible could be wholly the work of man, and in no way inspired by God?

How is it, then, that all the particulars, or notable events in Jesus' life, are to be found scattered amongst the words of the prophets?

Simply the claim that the Bible is of Divine origin is a subjective religious claim based on belief and faith. It is the same subjective claim made all ancient religions, like Islam and Hinduism.

The bold above remains a religious claim and not remotely a scientific one, because of the limits of the requirement of objective evidence, which in terms of the Bible only applies to the physical archaeological evidence that confirms 'some places, events and people in the Bible. Though scientific research has determined beyond any reasonable doubt that Genesis and Exodus cannot be interpreted as literal and true in any context.

Like the scripture of other religions it is possible that they are of wholly human origin.

Problem remains which you are not addressing, which all of the above lacks any foundation of 'objective verifiable evidence. The result of the above is that there are many churches who do not agree on the conclusions, because the evidence is subjective and anecdotal and subject to interpretation, therefore the lack of agreement among Christians is based on the interpretation and NOT objective evidence that may be verified independently.

Here is a quote from Canon Dyson Hague:

'Centuries before Christ was born His birth and career, His sufferings and glory, were all described in outline and detail in the Old Testament. Christ is the only Person ever born into this world whose ancestry, birth-time, forerunner, birth-place, birth-manner, infancy, manhood, teaching, character, career, preaching, reception, rejection, death, burial, resurrection and ascension were all prewritten in the most marvelous manner centuries before He was born.'

Do l have to quote each of the OT passages so that you can read them for yourself?

I have read and studied the Bible from cover to cover many times, no problem. I have studied the origins and nature of the scripture from many different perspectives including Jewish and Islamic perspectives.

The problem with the bold above is that all but a 'few' Jews in history do not accept the claim in the bold, therefore do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah because it is a subjective interpretation of the scripture from a Western Christian perspective. .
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
But for Abraham, it was just direct to God. No law, no savior. It just seemed really simple
Yes, it's a bit of a puzzle.

Abraham was not unlike the other faithful figures who lived 'by faith' [Hebrews 11] They all heard the voice of God, and acted on His Word. Yet, the scriptures say that it was to Abram (before circumcision) that faith was counted as righteousness.

In Romans, Paul says, 'Now it was not written for his [Abraham's] sake alone, that it [righteousness] was imputed to him;
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification'.

Since sin was not imputed before the coming of the law [Romans 5:13], Abraham's sin was not imputed. We, living after the coming of the law, do have our sins counted, and must therefore seek the salvation of God in Christ.

That's my understanding of the difference between the faith of Abraham, and the faith of those who require Christ for salvation. The promise to Abraham, through circumcision, was in his seed.
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Not so much a trick as dishonest, as I made
no claim of greater love. I said suffered more and longer for others. Deny that all you like
deny that anyone has suffered more and.
longer for others. It's absurd, but, par for course. Also dishonest as you know full well
that what I said is true.

Dishonest of you also, the falsehood I asked you about- also a false claim of what ive said-
made more dishonest still your refusal to
acknowledge it, yet again.
Par for the course but know that the tricks
work only on you.
Let's try again, then.

How do you define 'love'?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The problem with the bold above is that all but a 'few' Jews in history do not accept the claim in the bold, therefore do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah because it is a subjective interpretation of the scripture from a Western Christian perspective.
Ok. So let's ask why it is that these passages of scripture, which do exist, are not accepted as pointing to Jesus.

The answer lies in the intentionally ambiguous wording of scripture. For all scripture is equivocal, allowing for a temporal and spiritual significance. The Torah Jew has chosen to read the text as only significant in its temporal setting. It was the spirituality of Christ that opened up the scriptures to his disciples:
Luke 24:27. 'And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself'.

Jesus saw himself, the Christ, in the scriptures. He showed the disciples where these passages could be found. They had probably never before had the 'eyes to see' the spiritual significance of these passages.

As an example, consider Psalm 110:1. To whom does this Psalm, written by David, refer? It causes quite a bit of discussion amongst the rabbis. Some think it's David, some Abraham, and some the Messiah. It's important to know because the figure could be the glorified Christ. And how did the Christ come to be glorified if he's just a flesh and blood man (as Torah Jews believe)? Doesn't a man have to die before he can be resurrected?

Your denial of Christ as the figure of OT prophecy makes Jesus a liar, and, this in turn makes a mockery of his life and testimony.

To me, not being able to see the eternal message of scripture amounts to spiritual blindness. But maybe people can't be blamed for spiritual blindness if their hearts haven't been touched by the love of God?
 
Top