Was Jesus Perfect

[Nakosis]

Casting devils into pigs...

a) he listened and obeyed legion of devils, followed their bidding

b) tortured and killed innocent animals

c) destroyed property and livelihood of farmer

People in the town were angry at Jesus for good reason.

Now it is your turn, examples, or rationalization of Jesus acts.

Perfect in the sense of being free of sin?

Sin is being disobedient to God. If God told Jesus to do these things then they were not a sin.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why? Nothing you have shown shows that they are anything more than folk tales designed to glorify the ancient Hebrews. If you think there is more, I'm sure you would show me.


I can understand prophecy. Why can't you give me an example? The was a rhetorical question. You pretend there is prophecy all over the OT but you know it cannot stand up to scrutiny. I demonstrated that early on.


So, Christians are in for a big surprise when they die and find out that God doesn't give a rat's *** about them. Fun!

The Bible gives us substantial information on a prophet called Isaiah, 'the salvation of God'. He was the son of Amoz, was married, and had two sons. He was a prophet and adviser to four kings of Judah (Isaiah 1:1) Uzziah, the first of these kings, reigned from 810-759 BCE, and it was during his reign that Isaiah began his career. Isaiah lived until the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (who died 698 BCE). The conclusion reached is that Isaiah must have held a prophetic office alongside four kings of Judah (Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah) for at least 64 years.

It's impossible to brush aside the kings of Judah as figments of imagination. Archaeological evidence (such as Hezekiah's tunnel in Jerusalem) gives good support to their existence. This does not, of course, prevent the sceptic from casting doubt upon scripture, and from doubting the existence of Isaiah. But, in 2015, two seals were uncovered in Jerusalem, just yards apart, one being the seal of Hezekiah, the other the seal of man called 'Isaiah'. This man must have been influential to have had a seal, and to have had his seal so close to Hezekiah's suggests a connection between the two. It is, therefore, no longer possible to say that there is no archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, the greatest evidence remains the documentary evidence from the book of Isaiah, an ancient copy of which was found at Qumran, part of the Dead Sea Scroll collection. This book has traditionally been attributed to a single author, Isaiah (even when the Septuagint version was made in 250 BCE). It was only towards the end of the nineteenth century that textual critics (such as the German, Koppe) began to question tradition. Why did they question the tradition? 1. Because they couldn't believe that Isaiah would know the name of Cyrus before his birth, or that Isaiah knew that Cyrus would set the Jews free from captivity in Babylon. 2. That the writing style in chapters 40-66 of Isaiah appears different. Yet, when one looks at the quoted portions of Isaiah in the New Testament, many appear from the disputed section (44-60) and are always ascribed to Isaiah [Matthew 3:3; Luke 3:4-6; 4:16-20; John 12:38; Acts 8:28].

There is, therefore, no good reason to believe that modern textual critics have got it right. Their rejection of tradition demonstrates a bias against prophecy, despite everything that is actually stated in the books of the prophets [See Isaiah 1 and Jeremiah chapter 1, for example].

So, look at Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus (who became king of Persia in 559 BCE), and you'll see that if Isaiah were the prophet foretelling the future, there is no way he could have known what would unfold. Only with revelation from God could such knowledge be unveiled [See Isaiah 41:2-6; 44:28; 45:1-13; 46:11].

'The remarkable thing about this great Medo-Persian monarch is that he is mentioned by name in prophecy long before his birth as the deliverer of the Jews from their seventy years' captivity, and also as the the hand of God in the overthrow of Babylon' [Illustrated Bible Dictionary -Easton]

 

[idea]

Perfect in the sense of being free of sin?

Sin is being disobedient to God. If God told Jesus to do these things then they were not a sin.

Sin is causing pain and harm. Anything that causes harm is not a "God".

 

[ecco]

I can understand prophecy. Why can't you give me an example? The was a rhetorical question. You pretend there is prophecy all over the OT but you know it cannot stand up to scrutiny. I demonstrated that early on.

There is, therefore, no good reason to believe that modern textual critics have got it right. Their rejection of tradition demonstrates a bias against prophecy, despite everything that is actually stated in the books of the prophets [See Isaiah 1 and Jeremiah chapter 1, for example].

What is your educational background in the fields of History, Biblical History, Textual Relevancy? You don't have any, do you? Yet you try somehow think you know enough to criticise. Are their any degreed people who agree with you who have written criticisms that support your beliefs?

So, look at Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus (who became king of Persia in 559 BCE), and you'll see that if Isaiah were the prophet foretelling the future, there is no way he could have known what would unfold. Only with revelation from God could such knowledge be unveiled [See Isaiah 41:2-6; 44:28; 45:1-13; 46:11].

Once again you cannot show a clear, concise, unambiguous prophecy. All you can do is make vague references to them. My request is very simple, yet you have failed repeatedly to produce a prophecy.

Instead of telling me to read a bunch of verses, you read them, you extract the salient parts, you show the clear, concise, unambiguous prophecy. You haven't been able to do that. Because there is none. Perhaps that is one reason why those modern textual critics reject prophecy.

 

[ecco]

Anything that causes harm is not a "God".

Sooo, since the Great Flood harmed many people it proves that its cause was not "a god". Perhaps scripture is wrong, perhaps Satan caused the Great Flood.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What is your educational background in the fields of History, Biblical History, Textual Relevancy? You don't have any, do you? Yet you try somehow think you know enough to criticise. Are their any degreed people who agree with you who have written criticisms that support your beliefs?



Once again you cannot show a clear, concise, unambiguous prophecy. All you can do is make vague references to them. My request is very simple, yet you have failed repeatedly to produce a prophecy.

Instead of telling me to read a bunch of verses, you read them, you extract the salient parts, you show the clear, concise, unambiguous prophecy. You haven't been able to do that. Because there is none. Perhaps that is one reason why those modern textual critics reject prophecy.

Anyone reading my posts will know that l have provided you with multiple prophecies, which you are choosing to ignore, or dismiss without good reason.

In case you failed to understand my last 'clear, concise, and unambiguous' post about Isaiah and Cyrus, let me state the case once more.

Isaiah lived and prophesied over a century before the birth of Cyrus, a Medo-Persian king. Not only does Isaiah name the man before his birth, he also tells us that Cyrus will defeat the Babylonians and allow the exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem.

Isaiah 44:28. 'That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.'

Was this prophecy not fulfilled to the letter?

How can you hope to understand these things if you don't study them?

 

[idea]

Sooo, since the Great Flood harmed many people it proves that its cause was not "a god". Perhaps scripture is wrong, perhaps Satan caused the Great Flood.

There was no flood... but if there was and it was caused by someone, that person would be an evil murderer. Those who would worship a murderer and think killing innocent children and people is ok I also view as misguided and as followers of evil.

 

[ecco]

Anyone reading my posts will know that l have provided you with multiple prophecies, which you are choosing to ignore, or dismiss without good reason.

I am one reading your posts and I know you have not presented even a single clear unambiguous prophecy.

In case you failed to understand my last 'clear, concise, and unambiguous' post about Isaiah and Cyrus, let me state the case once more.

Isaiah lived and prophesied over a century before the birth of Cyrus, a Medo-Persian king. Not only does Isaiah name the man before his birth, he also tells us that Cyrus will defeat the Babylonians and allow the exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem.

Isaiah 44:28. 'That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.'

Was this prophecy not fulfilled to the letter?

Uh, no. Not even close.

26That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof:​

Were the cities of Judah raised up?

27That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:
​

What is the deep? What effects can be seen on the deep? Did the deep go dry before he dried up some rivers?

28That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Someone is saying something to someone about Jerusalem being rebuilt (built?). When was it prophecized to happen? It doesn't say.

Why do you talk about Cyrus?

Nehemiah, also spelled Nehemias, (flourished 5th century bc), Jewish leader who supervised the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the mid-5th century bc after his release from captivity by the Persian king Artaxerxes I.
​

There is nothing in the prophecy about "Cyrus will defeat the Babylonians". I don't know where you got that from, but it wasn't Isiah.

Your "prophecy" fails on so many levels it's laughable.

How can you hope to understand these things if you don't study them?

Yeah. I understand them for what they are.

You, on the other hand, need to make up stuff to try desperately to find anything resembling prophecy in your good book.