rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must have a good reason for questioning my statement because you keep alluding to it. Isn't this a great chance for a Christian apologist--you--to show just why he thinks Jesus is mentioned or alluded to in Isaiah 6, or anywhere else in the OT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnV: OK, here's your statement:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any reader with average intelligence and reading ability can easily see Jesus is neither mentioned or alluded to in this chapter. The same goes for all of the OT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnV: I took this to mean at least average intelligence and reading ability. If this assumption is correct, then I already refuted your statement:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I'm of above average intelligence and reading ability, and I think that the OT sometimes alludes to Jesus, so rodahi's blanket statement is false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnV: If you meant average only, then I know people with average intelligence and reading ability who think the OT alludes to Jesus, so you're wrong again. At this point, if you wish to continue, the burden of proof is on you. Your challenge to me - "to show just why he thinks Jesus is mentioned or alluded to in Isaiah 6, or anywhere else in the OT?" - is an attempt by you to duck the burden of proof and shift it back on me, and I'm not biting. You're the one using slippery techniques here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is your chance to demonstrate the incorrectness of my assertion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnV: As I've shown, I already have.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present a good, well-supported argument, e.g., Jesus IS mentioned or alluded to in Isaiah 6 and other parts of the OT, and you will get the attention (and possibly the respect) of many SecWeb readers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnV: If Bible scholars who agree with me are dismissed because they are Christians and therefore biased, why should I expect different treatment?

Is this supposed to be a good argument, backed up by solid evidence? It isn't, but it is about what I expected from you.

Surely, if there is some good reason for thinking Jesus is mentioned or alluded to anywhere in the OT, you would have presented SOMETHING. You did not.

By the way, YOU bear the burden of proving Jesus is alluded to or mentioned in the OT, not I. You are the believer, therefore you bear the burden of explaining WHY you believe.

NOW, one more time. Present evidence to back up your belief that Jesus is mentioned or alluded to in the OT. If you do not, I have no choice but to think you cannot.

rodahi

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: rodahi ]

JohnV

Is this supposed to be a good argument, backed up by solid evidence? It isn't, but it is about what I expected from you.
I freely admit that I cannot, according to the standards I've encountered on this board. Any argument I make can be countered with "That's just wishful thinking because you're a believer. Non-believing scholars disagree, they're not biased [Ha!], so they're right." I guess the Bereans were just a bunch of wishful thinkers too, although no one's addressed that.

I'm leaving now for more open-minded pastures. I have the same name there - maybe I'll bump into some of you again. So long!

hezekiah jones

They are fairly high standards aren't they? Skeptical, scientific, historical, textual. I agree with you. Tough to pull one over on this gang. Especially when you don't even provide an argument. That makes it especially tough.

Have you no confidence even in your own arguments? Is that why you won't proffer one?

Ah, the Bereans. They were "of more noble character" simply because they were willing to consider the "prophecies." Sounds a bit fallacious to me. Yet the Bereans conspicuously disappear after your citation. Whatever happened to the Bereans? Last I checked they were placing internet personal ads soliciting polygamous relationships. Do you consider polygamy an indicator of "noble character" as well?

How time flies! Has it been a week already? Next!

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, YOU bear the burden of proving Jesus is alluded to or mentioned in the OT, not I. You are the believer, therefore you bear the burden of explaining WHY you believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnV: Is this supposed to be a good argument, backed up by solid evidence? It isn't, but it is about what I expected from you.

No. Just a statement of fact.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW, one more time. Present evidence to back up your belief that Jesus is mentioned or alluded to in the OT. If you do not, I have no choice but to think you cannot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnV: I freely admit that I cannot, according to the standards I've encountered on this board. Any argument I make can be countered with "That's just wishful thinking because you're a believer. Non-believing scholars disagree, they're not biased [Ha!], so they're right." I guess the Bereans were just a bunch of wishful thinkers too, although no one's addressed that.
I'm leaving now for more open-minded pastures. I have the same name there - maybe I'll bump into some of you again. So long!

Apparently, JohnV has nothing substantive to offer in the way of argument or evidence. No surprise here.

rodahi

James Still

I realize that this thread has wound down but I have to say that this assertion fails to address the point. I had written that "No one is arguing that Jewish-Christians did not pore over Scripture looking for references to Jesus. The gospels are full of such references. What we're saying is that these attempts are (how did [JohnV] put it?) 'mere assumptions' that fail to convince the unbiased observer that the Scripture foretold or made reference to Jesus." To reply that the evangelists "must have found some OT passages" is nothing short of a tautological red herring. Again, no one is suggesting that the first generation Jewish-Christians did not search Scripture for messianic references that might apply to Jesus. What I am suggesting is that these attempts are arbitrary, forced, collapse under critical scrutiny, and ultimately fail to demonstrate that Jesus was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures. JohnV continues to insist that *something* is there but has yet to provide a single credible example that we could examine. I'm left to conclude that his assertion was little more than an article of faith rather than something we might take seriously. (I apologize if that seems too strong but this is the BC&A forum and not Sunday morning school...)