It's a green truck -- mismanagement of verses from the Tanakh

[74x12]

Nonsense. You can use the same metaphor more then once if you are writing more than one text. The Bible is a collection of multiple texts with multiple authors, some of them speaking for God, others not.

It's not just a metaphor but a statement by God. God is truth and doesn't lie.

 

[Kenny]

Oh, my questions were really rhetorical.
I know that much of what applies to the physical nation of Israel, applies also to spiritual Israel. It is no accident that what the apostles referred to from the Hebrew scriptures, applied to the kingdom of kings and priest, namely Christ - primarily, and his anointed brothers.
Luke 24:27 And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.
Both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures contain one primary message.

People of the nations will not grasp this, so it is understandable that some would say that the writers of the Greek scriptures borrowed texts from the Hebrew scriptures in order to make it appear as though they are in harmony.
They made similar claims about the book of Daniel, saying that it was written after the events, in order to make it seem that they were prophecy.

Now we speak wisdom among those who are mature, but not the wisdom of this system of things nor that of the rulers of this system of things, who are to come to nothing. But we speak God’s wisdom in a sacred secret, the hidden wisdom, which God foreordained before the systems of things for our glory. It is this wisdom that none of the rulers of this system of things came to know, for if they had known it, they would not have executed the glorious Lord. But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, nor have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:6-10

These attacks always fail.

Good post.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's not just a metaphor but a statement by God. God is truth and doesn't lie.

A metaphor can be both figurative and true. Don't mistake a metaphor with being a lie.

 

[74x12]

A metaphor can be both figurative and true. Don't mistake a metaphor with being a lie.

It's certainly not a lie. I believe it 100%.

The implications are Messianic. The Messiah is the firstborn Son of God.

 

[Tumah]

After all, Matthew the writer was Jewish. He should know.

That has to be one of the most unethical remarks I've ever heard a Christian make. How does being Jewish grant one infallibility. And if it does, why did it grant Matthew infallibility and not The Pharisaic leaders? There's a double standard here - a stupid double standard, because it doesn't even make any sense - and it's sole purpose is to increase the authenticity of the Christian argument, when in actuality it adds nothing, because it's just stupid.

The reason why Matthew said it is obvious. He was trying to find arguments for his cause from the Tanach. He was a master at twisting verses out of context for use as proof texts, because frankly, he couldn't find any contextual proofs. That's why you have to keep falling back to dual-prophecy arguments, your source is the NT and you're trying to make the Tanach conform to it. That alone should tell you that the authors of the NT were manipulating the text.
And that's why Paul was the one who won at the end: while Matthew's audience were Jews who could read the Hebrew text to see Matthew's manipulations for themselves (excluding of course, the Hellenized Jews), Paul's audience was largely gentiles who could not and would more easily accept Paul's manipulations.

 

[Kenny]

That has to be one of the most unethical remarks I've ever heard a Christian make. How does being Jewish grant one infallibility. And if it does, why did it grant Matthew infallibility and not The Pharisaic leaders? There's a double standard here - a stupid double standard, because it doesn't even make any sense - and it's sole purpose is to increase the authenticity of the Christian argument, when in actuality it adds nothing, because it's just stupid.

The reason why Matthew said it is obvious. He was trying to find arguments for his cause from the Tanach. He was a master at twisting verses out of context for use as proof texts, because frankly, he couldn't find any contextual proofs. That's why you have to keep falling back to dual-prophecy arguments, your source is the NT and you're trying to make the Tanach conform to it. That alone should tell you that the authors of the NT were manipulating the text.
And that's why Paul was the one who won at the end: while Matthew's audience were Jews who could read the Hebrew text to see Matthew's manipulations for themselves (excluding of course, the Hellenized Jews), Paul's audience was largely gentiles who could not and would more easily accept Paul's manipulations.

I guess it is a matter of perspective but hardly unethical.

Matthew was correct because he quoted the Tannakh which is, IMV, truth. Obviously there are different viewpoints on the matter. But to say that Matthew didn't have a clue when he was Jewish would definitely be wrong.

As fare as the leaders, you had a variety of them. Sadducees which didn't believe in the resurrection, Pharisees which did and both of them can't be correct.

As far as Matthew's account, it was very specific as to where the leaders were wrong and not necessarily they were completely wrong in everything. Nicodemus wasn't wrong.

 

[metis]

Yesterday I attended the first of a 21 session study on Matthew, so this should be interesting. I'll let yas know if I learn anything and can remember it the next day.

 

[Kenny]

Yesterday I attended the first of a 21 session study on Matthew, so this should be interesting. I'll let yas know if I learn anything and can remember it the next day.

LOL... I will pray you do!!!! I'm interested!

 

[metis]

LOL... I will pray you do!!!! I'm interested!

Ya know, you just gave me an idea. Maybe I can start of thread on this, and then post a week-by-week synopsis of what was covered in the last session, let you and others chime in. However, if you're interested, I think I'll put it on a Christianity DIR thread. Interested?

Yesterday was more of a two hour introductory to what we'll be studying and how we'll discuss it, so let me know and maybe I can even start it tomorrow.

BTW, I already have some disagreement with the speaker (a 45 minute recording) on a couple of things that he said about Catholic theology that simply is questionably true at best as he's coming clearly from a very conservative Catholic perspective. Maybe I can start there.

Anyhow, let me know.

 

[Kenny]

Ya know, you just gave me an idea. Maybe I can start of thread on this, and then post a week-by-week synopsis of what was covered in the last session, let you and others chime in. However, if you're interested, I think I'll put it on a Christianity DIR thread. Interested?

Yesterday was more of a two hour introductory to what we'll be studying and how we'll discuss it, so let me know and maybe I can even start it tomorrow.

BTW, I already have some disagreement with the speaker (a 45 minute recording) on a couple of things that he said about Catholic theology that simply is questionably true at best as he's coming clearly from a very conservative Catholic perspective. Maybe I can start there.

Anyhow, let me know.

Let's make it happen!

 

[metis]

Let's make it happen!

I'll start it this afternoon with some ground rules that I'll suggest of others if the're interested in discussing this as well. I think you'll agree that we should keep arguing, debate, and religious bigotry out of these discussions. Are you on board with that?

 

[Kenny]

I'll start it this afternoon with some ground rules that I'll suggest of others if the're interested in discussing this as well. I think you'll agree that we should keep arguing, debate, and religious bigotry out of these discussions. Are you on board with that?

You got my "A OK" on that one. It will be refreshing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

After all, Matthew the writer was Jewish. He should know.

Two Jews, three opinions, so the saying goes. We are hardly infallible. Your statement is merely self-serving.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, IMV, it is. Many statements have dual applications. Just as when God told Moses to slay a lamb and not break a bone, there is an application for that moment even as it was a prophetic moment as the Romans came to break the bones in the knees of those crucified to hasted the death but found it not necessary to break the bones of Christ.

After all, Matthew the writer was Jewish. He should know.

“IYV” doesn’t matter. These are communal texts, and it’s the sense of the community that matters. The sense of the community is that this is not a prophecy. You don’t get to come along and unilaterally assign some other meaning to it.

 

[sojourner]

What about the text of the whole scriptures?

They’re not cohesive and cannot be treated as “one text.”

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually, IMV, it is. Many statements have dual applications. Just as when God told Moses to slay a lamb and not break a bone, there is an application for that moment even as it was a prophetic moment as the Romans came to break the bones in the knees of those crucified to hasted the death but found it not necessary to break the bones of Christ.

After all, Matthew the writer was Jewish. He should know.

You have to employ general reading comprehenion. A normal reading of these kind of passages does not identify them as prophecies.

Psychologists describe a state of mind where people ascribe association and causation that does not exist. For example, the man who is in love with a movie star, and imagines that a song on the radio is a message of love from her. This is essentially what Christians are doing with these verses from the Tanakh by making them into hidden prophecies when they are not.

 

[Kenny]

“IYV” doesn’t matter. These are communal texts, and it’s the sense of the community that matters. The sense of the community is that this is not a prophecy. You don’t get to come along and unilaterally assign some other meaning to it.

Depends on which community you are talking about. It isn't "me" unilaterally making a decision but the community of the time of Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Any mention of the Son of God is a really good immediate indication of a Messianic prophecy. Whether hidden or obvious is another story. This one is admittedly hidden but revealed in hindsight.

They call that “eisegesis.”

 

[sojourner]

Depends on which community you are talking about. It isn't "me" unilaterally making a decision but the community of the time of Jesus.

That’s not the community of the text, either.

 

[74x12]

They’re not cohesive and cannot be treated as “one text.”

They are taken from many scrolls. However, the thing that unites them is God inspiring the writers. That means that the themes and thoughts that God expresses should transcend single authors. In fact they do.