Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dbarmstrong · 12-10-2005, 12:31 PM

First century Christians included Jews, namely Paul who was highly educated in the tradtions customs and literature of the old testament. Thus Jesus must have been an extremely verifiable messiah, in fact he even quotes prophecy about himself.

Boro Nut · 12-10-2005, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Since Christian thought seems to place great emphasis upon the OT's Messianic prophesy, could someone point out in the OT where it says that the Messiah would be:

1. Resurrected from the dead.

2. Ascend into heven.

3. Be the son of god.

I believe these are fundamental beliefs of most Christian sects, so I wonder where the prophesies include these elements.

Thanks much for doing the research for me.

Stop picking nits John. The guy arrived in town on a donkey for Christ's sake (pun intended). No mean feat in a donkey based society. Even for the foal of an ass. Two even.

Boro Nut

Boro Nut · 12-10-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbarmstrong

Thus Jesus must have been an extremely verifiable messiah, in fact he even quotes prophecy about himself.

That's right. It's especially convincing given that the scriptures quoted were often so sacred they ascended into heaven with him.

Boro Nut

CJD · 12-10-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbarmstrong

It was the Pharissees who believed in the resurrection that is why you see more interaction between Jesus and thsi group rather than the Saduccees

Gee, thanks.

The Whiffle Man · 12-10-2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

My point is that prophecies don't require "direct" fulfillments in the sense you may think. Conditions, either explicit or implicit, were contained in every utterance. The connection between the person Jesus and the TNK, I think, is to be understood in the way I describe in my previous post (about fulfilling the grand story of God's redemptive plan to turn the world right side up again).

Yes. I would present it the way I have tried to do in this thread, BUT I would not assume the upper hand. I know I'm the one that seems to be stretching things …

Best,

CJD

Thanks. But a) Why don't they require direct fulfillments? Can you base this argument on scripture? Or some scholars seem decide that they could interpret scripture more fluidly?

b) How would you prove Jesus to be the Messiah? Quite frankly, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that one has to more than "stretch" things to get Jesus as the Messiah in the Old Testament - you have to create a whole new approach. I mean no disrespect and would like to hear how you approach these things.

Kevin

CJD · 12-10-2005, 06:21 PM

A) I do think significant portions of the TNK assume this principle. For this reason, despite the widespread misunderstanding of prophetic literature, I do not think the motivation is simply to interpret scripture more fluidly. The argument can be long and drawn out, but there are two important texts that clearly point in this direction: the entire book of Jonah assumes this principle, and Jer. 18:1–11:

Quote:

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: "Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words." So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.

Then the word of the LORD came to me: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: 'Thus says the LORD, behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.'

B) I don't think there really is any "proving" that Jesus is God's Messiah, at least not by treating the literature of the TNK as a bunch of single, specific prognostications (which they aren't) that point to some unknown and distant future. If the original context of these writings demand they be read in a certain way (as opposed to, say, Josh McDowell's way), then it's not quite a whole new approach, is it? Looking at how the NT writers employed the literature of the TNK, I think, also proves my point: they did not use it ignorant of its original meaning …

John A. Broussard · 12-10-2005, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

First-century Jews also expected the messiah's coming to be followed by a coronation

I think you would have been more convincing if you had simply left it that points 1-3 about the Messiah are not mentioned in the OT.

Stretching "coronation" to mean "ascension," is a bit much.

CJD · 12-11-2005, 04:35 AM

There are no "prophecies" (as single, specific prognostications) about a coronation, but when a rightful king comes, people would expect him to be coronoted as such. Early Christians understood Jesus' whole life (and death and resurrection) — culminating in the ascension — to be the work of one who was eventually granted lordship over his domain ("All authority has been give to me," etc.).

Incidentally, it is no stretch to say that the early Christians considered Jesus' ascension "to the Father's right hand" as nothing less than a coronation. This is Christianity 101.

CJD

John A. Broussard · 12-11-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

There are no "prophecies" (as single, specific prognostications) about a coronation, but when a rightful king comes, people would expect him to be coronoted as such. Early Christians understood Jesus' whole life (and death and resurrection) — culminating in the ascension — to be the work of one who was eventually granted lordship over his domain ("All authority has been give to me," etc.).

Incidentally, it is no stretch to say that the early Christians considered Jesus' ascension "to the Father's right hand" as nothing less than a coronation. This is Christianity 101.

CJD

Christian 101 must be a really tough course. Even what little you mentioned here leaves me completely puzzled.

Wasn't Christ already a god when he descended to earth in the first place? Did he get some sort of promotion from prince to king when he got back to heaven?

I have a lot more questions, but I'll start with that.

Thanks much for replying to my post.

CJD · 12-12-2005, 06:56 AM

Jesus was "born of a woman"; he didn't "descend" from heaven. His resurrection vindicated his work and words; his ascension was part of that vindication. He was not crowned king, i.e., lord over all, until this vindication.

These are the basics, I assure you.

CJD

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-10-2005, 12:31 PM	#21
dbarmstrong Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 9	First century Christians included Jews, namely Paul who was highly educated in the tradtions customs and literature of the old testament. Thus Jesus must have been an extremely verifiable messiah, in fact he even quotes prophecy about himself.

12-11-2005, 04:35 AM	#28
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	There are no "prophecies" (as single, specific prognostications) about a coronation, but when a rightful king comes, people would expect him to be coronoted as such. Early Christians understood Jesus' whole life (and death and resurrection) — culminating in the ascension — to be the work of one who was eventually granted lordship over his domain ("All authority has been give to me," etc.). Incidentally, it is no stretch to say that the early Christians considered Jesus' ascension "to the Father's right hand" as nothing less than a coronation. This is Christianity 101. CJD

12-12-2005, 06:56 AM	#30
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	Jesus was "born of a woman"; he didn't "descend" from heaven. His resurrection vindicated his work and words; his ascension was part of that vindication. He was not crowned king, i.e., lord over all, until this vindication. These are the basics, I assure you. CJD

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.