judge

Maybe one of the above.

In hindsight we can understand the "mystery hidden from past generations".
We can logically piece together the pieces.

Peter says
"even angels longed to look into such things".

I think Paul quotes Isaiah saying "I will do something that even if I told you it would amaze you" (my paraphrase )

The assumption here seesm to be that there was some clear reference to the saviour rising on the third day in the book of hesitations 3:7 .

I think that what may have been explained was why the saviour first had to come as a man and die and then be raised.
To explain this we need to look at not a verse here and there as fundamentalists do but the entire meaning of life itself, which probably means looking at underlying concepts etc.

Just running out the door so we may have to continue later.

Layman

That's funny. A skeptic complaining about a Christian changing the subject in a Carr thread. Very rich, Toto.

In other news, I'm not sure how else one construes taunting for not wanting to engage in a particular debate but as a challenge. Especially when insisting that failure to do so indicates to the audience ('lurkers') that I'm conceding something.

Oh well. You rarely make sense to me.

spin

Why not take your fingers out of your ears?


spin

Boomeister

3. There was a reference (explicit or oblique) to a story. Unfortunately, the book didn't get canonized.


I've heard that argument before. There were other Hebrew writings that didn't make the final cut. Supposedly, many Jews during Jesus' time were aware of these writings.

What I find strange is that Jesus explained this to the disciples and we don't get any of the references, instead we are to twist OT scriptures to figure out what Jesus might've said. And it seems many evangelicals have done just that!



Boomeister

Paul5204

You might try reading of the 'akedah, or the binding of Isaac. And then ask yourself one question: If Avraham kills Isaac, how is God to then keep the promise to Avraham about Avraham's seed being called through Isaac? If Avraham kills Isaac, the only way that God can keep that promise is to bodily resurrect Isaac. If you don't believe me, please read the NT work, Hebrews, since the author of that work rather clearly indicates that is it is indeed [in a parable] that Avraham obtained Isaac from the dead. You also might consider Avraham's response to Isaac once he's finally gotten the message: The Lord will provide Himself a Lamb for the burnt offering, my son. And you might further consider something that that other Paul wrote: ...the gospel was preached to Avraham beforehand. Or as my Lord stated the matter:....Avraham looked upon my day and jumped for joy! And, lastly, you might consider what the Eternal said to Avraham: Is anything to hard/wonderful for the Eternal? You see, God promised Avraham a son, but then the seed of doubt crept in, and rather than rely on the word of the Eternal, Avraham used "local custom" and has a child with Hagar. Then the Eternal locally manifests in the flesh [as it were] as three men and rather plainly tells Avraham, is anything too hard/wonderful for the Eternal? Since Avraham did it on his own and then had to have the Eternal locally manifest in the flesh in order to make His point, the 'akedah was Avraham's second chance at simply believing that the Eternal had the power and the will to keep His word and raise the dead.

If you haven't guessed it yet, the 'akedah is indeed the essence of Christianity.

Steven Carr

Sigh.

It was NT Wright who restricted the search to Second Temple Jewish writings, as though they were the only writings that could be examined to see what Jews believed.

But it does appear crystal clear that even if Wright had removed his arbitrary 'Second Temple' qualifier, there still would have been no texts that speak about a Messiah dying and rising on the third day.

The resurrected Jesus was blowing smoke, or Christians reported falsely what the resurrected Jesus said.