One Saviour?

[Sleeppy]

Christians don't consider prophecy to be stagnant, or confined to one instant of fulfilment. We consider God's words to be perpetual, and recurring.

 

[Ingledsva]

No; they weren't trying to misuse the verses. They were reusing/reapplying them. The authors knew what they were referring to, and so did the Jews they were teaching.

They didn't quote from their own Scriptures, without reading it. Everyone knew Isaiah had a son, named Immanuel. The meaning of the name, and the significance of the original promise from God, is being reapplied.

Which is the same as misusing - as they are trying to use the verses as a prophecy of Jesus by a virgin mother - to prove his was the Jewish Messiah, - which is not at all what they are about.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Christians don't consider prophecy to be stagnant, or confined to one instant of fulfilment. We consider God's words to be perpetual, and recurring.

So I can take anything written in Tanakh and twist it to mean my Jewish friend is the Messiah? It was really written about him - it is recurring?


Twisting is twisting. It means one thing, and they are trying to use if for another.


*

 

[Sleeppy]

Which is the same as misusing - as they are trying to use the verses as a prophecy of Jesus by a virgin mother - to prove his was the Jewish Messiah, - which is not at all what they are about.


*

So I can take anything written in Tanakh and twist it to mean my Jewish friend is the Messiah? It was really written about him - it is recurring?


Twisting is twisting. It means one thing, and they are trying to use if for another.


*

It's not misuse in any sense. These were Jews who used what was applicable in their Scripture, to prove their own fathers', and teachers' truthfulness. Scripture- especially prophecy, is given for the wisdom of the sons of men. These men were seeing things reccur in parallels to previous events; they knew history repeats itself.


There's no possible way one man can be the Messiah. Anyone who's seriously looked at CMike's list should see that. These prophecies are speaking singularly about one concerted effort; one God; one covenant; one begotten; etc. The anointing of the Messianic Age is God's Spirit being poured out on all flesh; it's reaffirming something that already existed before Jesus and the prophets. So if your Jewish friend does according to the anointing of God- he likely acknowledges and reaffirms the recurrence of God's will.

 

[Sleeppy]

Any other interpretation will continually be proven false, and reserved for future generations. We are either several thousand years too early to witness a promise given to our ancestors- or we missed it.

 

[Ingledsva]

Any other interpretation will continually be proven false, and reserved for future generations. We are either several thousand years too early to witness a promise given to our ancestors- or we missed it.

Christian claims are already proven false by the Jews.


Jesus does not fit their Messiah.


Grabbing a bunch of their verses out of context isn't going to make it so.


*

 

[Sleeppy]

Christian claims are already proven false by the Jews.


Jesus does not fit their Messiah.


Grabbing a bunch of their verses out of context isn't going to make it so.


*

But not by Christians; they raise up their own Messiah. And they accept, to varying degrees, that their kingdom is moving forward, and never in complete stagnation.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ingledsva,
You say that Christian claims are already proven false by the Jews. What nonsense.

How can Christian claims be proven false by the Jews when it was Jews who first established the belief in Jesus as Messiah? Jesus chose twelve apostles from amongst his own people. The Jewish people who knew Jesus were clearly divided over his authority and status.

Only during the ministry of Paul did the split take place between those Jews who believed in Jesus as Christ, and those who did not.

It's also worth considering this man, Paul. We are told that Saul of Tarsus was an extremely well educated Jew, who is said to have sat at the feet of the teacher Gamaliel. He was so zealous of the Law that he went about persecuting Christians; until the day he encountered the risen Christ for himself. Only then did the veil of blindness lift from his eyes!

What makes you think you know the scriptures better than him?!

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva,
You say that Christian claims are already proven false by the Jews. What nonsense.


ING - You know perfectly well that the religious Jews do not accept Jesus as he does not fit their Messiah requirements.


How can Christian claims be proven false by the Jews when it was Jews who first established the belief in Jesus as Messiah? Jesus chose twelve apostles from amongst his own people. The Jewish people who knew Jesus were clearly divided over his authority and status.


ING - LOL! Being a Jew doesn't make Jesus the Messiah. Many such rebel-rouser groups rose up in that area before, and after, The little Jesus band, - and all of them had a leader claiming to be the awaited Messiah. And most of them were killed.

Also - he can obviously be proven false by the Jews if he doesn't fulfill the Messiah requirements.


Only during the ministry of Paul did the split take place between those Jews who believed in Jesus as Christ, and those who did not.


ING - Gee, do you think it could be because he sidetracked the movement into Pagan ideas? Also - you said "and those who do not," - If Jesus didn't fit, then those non believers would be correct!


It's also worth considering this man, Paul. We are told that Saul of Tarsus was an extremely well educated Jew, who is said to have sat at the feet of the teacher Gamaliel. He was so zealous of the Law that he went about persecuting Christians; until the day he encountered the risen Christ for himself. Only then did the veil of blindness lift from his eyes!

What makes you think you know the scriptures better than him?!

LOL! You expect me to accept myth written years after Jesus' death as fact?


We have had many discussion here about Saul/Paul. He was supposed to bring down the group. And all it took, was to say he had a vision of Jesus, to accomplish his task, taking them in another direction, and adding in Pagan ideas. You can read about those in the group whom didn't agree with what he was teaching.



*

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ingledsva,

Faith is a response to love.

Saul of Tarsus did not know God's unconditional love. He knew only God's law - and it was something he knew well.

When Saul was on the desert road to Damascus, he heard the voice of Jesus saying, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'. So sharply did this voice penetrate his heart that he was forced to re-evaluate his whole outlook on life.

One of the proofs of scripture is that its truth has the penetration of a two-edged sword.

As a student, I was encouraged to read the Bible, and one evening was struck forcibly by a passage in John's gospel, spoken by Jesus, that said , 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'

It was only after pondering this saying for some while, that I became very conscious that this was not just an impersonal statement. Jesus said it because that is what HE did. He died for his friends - and anyone can be his friend if they repent.

I then asked myself that question very honestly. Was I his friend?

It's not an easy thing to be confronted by the words of Jesus himself. I certainly became aware that Jesus had died for me, and that he lives now.

Our arguments can go round and round in circles. Without some acknowledgement of faith they are vain and of no value.

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva,

Faith is a response to love.

Saul of Tarsus did not know God's unconditional love. He knew only God's law - and it was something he knew well.

When Saul was on the desert road to Damascus, he heard the voice of Jesus saying, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'. So sharply did this voice penetrate his heart that he was forced to re-evaluate his whole outlook on life.


ING - Someone writing years after Jesus' death, - CLAIMS Saul had a vision on the road. That does not make it true.


And as I said - he was sent to bring them down. - His "vision" could easily have been a grab for power to take them off course. We read in the Bible that other followers did not agree with what he was teaching.



One of the proofs of scripture is that its truth has the penetration of a two-edged sword.

As a student, I was encouraged to read the Bible, and one evening was struck forcibly by a passage in John's gospel, spoken by Jesus, that said , 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'

It was only after pondering this saying for some while, that I became very conscious that this was not just an impersonal statement. Jesus said it because that is what HE did. He died for his friends - and anyone can be his friend if they repent.

I then asked myself that question very honestly. Was I his friend?

It's not an easy thing to be confronted by the words of Jesus himself. I certainly became aware that Jesus had died for me, and that he lives now.

Our arguments can go round and round in circles. Without some acknowledgement of faith they are vain and of no value.

However, feelings are just feelings, and real proof is real proof.


We would like some real proof for such extraordinary claims.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

However, feelings are just feelings, and real proof is real proof.


We would like some real proof for such extraordinary claims.


*

So you actually believe the Scripture at all? I thought you didn't, so why parse what you don't believe with what you don't believe, it's very confusing.

And for the record, I'm also just 'presenting arguments', so responses to 'my belief etc are inaccurate, if you want to know specifics of my personal beliefs you need to ask,

 

[Ingledsva]

However, feelings are just feelings, and real proof is real proof.


We would like some real proof for such extraordinary claims.

So you actually believe the Scripture at all? I thought you didn't, so why parse what you don't believe with what you don't believe, it's very confusing.


ING - I don't know how you got that out of what I said. I have made it very clear that I don't believe in the Abrahamic religions, or their God. I am just debating what is actually in the texts.

Christians make all kinds of claims, and also claim the myth in the Bible is true. Obviously it is fine if you wish to believe such, but those like me require real proof of extraordinary events.



And for the record, I'm also just 'presenting arguments', so responses to 'my belief etc are inaccurate, if you want to know specifics of my personal beliefs you need to ask,

You have already told us you are a non-ordinary Christian.

What else would you like us to know?


*

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ingledsva,

If it's proof you are looking for, then your search for meaning and truth will forever be restricted to the temporal realm.

'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' (Hebrews 11:1)
'But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.' (Hebrews11:6)

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva,

If it's proof you are looking for, then your search for meaning and truth will forever be restricted to the temporal realm.

'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' (Hebrews 11:1)
'But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.' (Hebrews11:6)

Most religions out there have faith in their beliefs about their religious dogma.


That obviously doesn't make them correct.


I'm going to take a wild guess - and say - you probably think all other religions except your Abrahamic one - are false. Yes?


Your religion is just one more in that "false" list.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

You have already told us you are a non-ordinary Christian.

What else would you like us to know?


*

Hmm like what?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ingledsva,
I believe the Bible to be God's written word, and Jesus Christ to be the living Word. It follows that I believe God's Law (delivered by Moses) to be the basis of true religion, and Jesus Christ to be the Saviour from sin and death.

All religions provide some notion of justice, but none are able to save a person from sin and death. IMO, only Jesus Christ is able to save a person from sin and death.

 

[Ingledsva]

Most religions out there have faith in their beliefs about their religious dogma.


That obviously doesn't make them correct.


I'm going to take a wild guess - and say - you probably think all other religions except your Abrahamic one - are false. Yes?


Your religion is just one more in that "false" list.

Ingledsva,
I believe the Bible to be God's written word, and Jesus Christ to be the living Word. It follows that I believe God's Law (delivered by Moses) to be the basis of true religion, and Jesus Christ to be the Saviour from sin and death.

All religions provide some notion of justice, but none are able to save a person from sin and death. IMO, only Jesus Christ is able to save a person from sin and death.

You prove my point.


Just like you, - there are other religions out there that consider their dogma the only correct one, and you all as false religions.


For those of us that are non-religious, - both of you are in the same category, - you have proven nothing - you just expect us to believe your religious myth.



*

 

[Redemptionsong]

The starting point for belief in God is a willingness to believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
If you were presented with the only three options - 1. God created 2. Something came from nothing. 3.The Universe has always been here - which is most likely? In my view, '1. God created' is rationally and scientifically the most likely. It's an idea that derives support from the Big Bang theory i.e. the universe had a beginning and is not eternal.
As the Psalmist says, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

When it comes to other religions, I don't believe any others have the panoramic view that a truly omniscient God offers. The plan is beautiful and complete.

 

[Ingledsva]

The starting point for belief in God is a willingness to believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
If you were presented with the only three options - 1. God created 2. Something came from nothing. 3.The Universe has always been here - which is most likely? In my view, '1. God created' is rationally and scientifically the most likely. It's an idea that derives support from the Big Bang theory i.e. the universe had a beginning and is not eternal.
As the Psalmist says, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

When it comes to other religions, I don't believe any others have the panoramic view that a truly omniscient God offers. The plan is beautiful and complete.

This is ridiculous. I started out as a Christian. After College, much study of world religion, and extended study of the Bible - in which I found too much false, too much unbelievable myth, and YHVH having far too many of the worst of human attributes, it was obvious to me that YHVH is just a creation of ancient patriarchal tribesmen.

And the laws they wrote which allow them to own slaves, control women, possess multiple women, captured war sex slaves, hold sex concubines, murder people that had other religions, murder their own that decided to follow another God, etc., proved this to me.



*