Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-14-2011, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

...

Why did you put a link to Amazon in my post #89, and I don't understand why you put a link to Bakers Christian Apologetics at Amazon and removed Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics at the end of my post.

This board is an Amazon associate, so that if people follow the link and buy something from Amazon, it will help support the costs of running the board. It's standard procedure. If the links are not to the correct book, please PM me and I will fix them.

Little Dot · 08-14-2011, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Perhaps I err, and you do intend to suggest that Matthew presents JC as a King. If so, can you offer a passage from Matthew, in support of this view?

Not really. This passage, Matthew 21:5 only confirms that Matthew was more conversant than some of the other gospel writers, with the traditional Hebrew literature:

Matthew 21:4 simply announces that the author of the gospels has read Zechariah, without however, citing the specific passage.

The bit about throwing branches on the ground, Matthew 21:8, as if JC were a conquering hero in a military victory parade, is nonsensical, in view of JC's having conquered no one, least of all, the Roman army.

Dorothy: Do the Christians today believe that Zechariah had been/is a "prophet"? How about the Muslims? What is it about Zechariah's writing that suggests he had functioned as a "prophet"? Is it not incongruous, that Mark, a supposed sidekick of Peter, if not an actual witness, himself, makes no reference to JC's riding a donkey, isn't his choice of animal, rather, a young horse, a colt: Greek word "pwlon"? Perhaps Mark's Greek was inadequate, and he chose the wrong word? Have you ever attempted to ride a young animal, unaccustomed to transporting heavy humans? This notion of JC riding a colt, which had never before been ridden, makes little sense to me....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 11:4

kai aphlqon kai euron pwlon dedemenon proV quran exw epi tou amfodou kai luousin auton

11:4 They went away, and found a colt tied at the door outside in the open street, and they untied him.

Dot, can one document (i.e. PROVE) an historical event, by copying, many decades AFTER the event, text written several hundred years BEFORE the event took place? avi

Quote:

Matthew 21:4 simply announces that the author of the gospels has read Zechariah, without however, citing the specific passage.

Do you really believe they were so dim-witted that they didn't know what "specific passage" they were quoting from?

Quote:

Dot, can one document (i.e. PROVE) an historical event, by copying, many decades AFTER the event, text written several hundred years BEFORE the event took place?

You asked me to show you where Matt. shows Jesus as a king and I did and now you'r back pedaling!

Little Dot · 08-14-2011, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

The Jews had a problem with whether the coming of the Messiah would be one of exaltation or lowliness. Since the Messiah is a king sent from God, his coming would be expected to be glorious, and that is what Dan. 7:13,14 pictures. The Messiah would recieve a universal, everlasting kingdom coming with the clouds of heaven.

But Zech.9:9 presents a lowly coming. To get around the difficulty of the two different pictures the rabbis tried to present Zech.9:9 as an exalted coming.

When the Persian emperor Shapur jokingly offered to lend the Jews a horse so their Messiah's mount would be supernatural and he wouldn't have to come on a donkey, Rabbi Samuel said, "Do you have a hundred colored horses? (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a). Samuel was trying to imply that the Messiah's mount wouldn't be ordinary, but, this doesn't fit with Zech.9:9 that explicitly calls the king's coming "lowly".

Then there was Rabbi Joshua that tried to make Dan.7 and Zech.9 alternative possibilities rather than both actually occuring (ibid). If Israel is worthy, the Messiah will come "with the clouds of heaven, If not, he will come "lowly" and riding upon an ass.

The New Testament pictures these two comings as real and successive: the Messiah comes first in lowliness, to suffer and die for his people's sins; later, he returns in power to rescue his people, judge his enemies and reign forever. Since Dan.7 and Zech.9 are not mere possibilities the New Testament is able to connect the lowly coming and
Messiah's sufferings (as the rabbis cannot) with the coming king because they are the same person!

Hell, have we seen Daniel abused like this so often. If you actually read the text you'll find that the one like a son of man was coming up to heaven into the presence of the ancient of days. Note that it is one like a son of man: the figure is in the human form, as the other four beings are like various animals. They represent four powerful kingdoms and the one like a son of man represents the Jews.

The term "son of man" is frequently used in Jewish literature to talk of human beings as mere mortals. In Daniel the figure is not "the son of man", but "like a son of man". It is not a (messianic) title, but a physical description. Most christians have abused and misunderstood Daniel for most of the life of the religion, unable to read such passages in their context as dealing with Jewish history and their liberation. Instead, like other parts of the bible a phrase has been ripped out of its context and perverted for purposes that have nothing to do with the text.

Quote:

the one like a son of man represents the Jews.

No, the one like the son of man represents Jesus

Quote:

In Daniel the figure is not "the son of man", but "like a son of man".

My Bible says "the" not "a"

Little Dot · 08-14-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Genesis shows Melchizedek's superior priesthood, since Levi was considered to be in the body (seminally) of Abraham when he paid tithes to Melchizedek.

The politics of the priesthood needs to be followed. We can see the development in the priesthood from sons of Levi into a select group of Levi, the sons of Aaron. In time one family gained preeminence, the sons of Zadok, this was the family that held the high priesthood until they were deposed by Antiochus IV and the remnants of the family moved to Egypt.

When the Hasmonean family took over the high priesthood they were not of the sons of Zadok and thus had no legal claim, but the chosen son was both king and high priest from the time of Aristobulus I. The name Melchizedek means "king of righteousness" with a strong connection to the name Zadok, so "Melchizedek" implied both king and high priest. The book of Jubilees, whose earliest copy is contemporary with the earliest copy of Genesis, does not feature the Melchizedek story, suggesting that it has been added into Genesis. Gen 14 is the only place where the phrase El Elyon, a popular denomination of god in the 2nd c. BCE, is found in the Hebrew bible.

What we see in the figure of Melchizedek is another change in the structure of the priesthood, one that helps bypass the legalities of needing to be a son of Zadok to be high priest, because Melchizedek, the priest-king, superseded the Zadokite line, being earlier than it. Melchizedek is probably a piece of Hasmonean propaganda.

Hasmonean propaganda?

Gosh!, I didn't know the Hasmoneans wrote Genesis!

spin · 08-14-2011, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Hell, have we seen Daniel abused like this so often. If you actually read the text you'll find that the one like a son of man was coming up to heaven into the presence of the ancient of days. Note that it is one like a son of man: the figure is in the human form, as the other four beings are like various animals. They represent four powerful kingdoms and the one like a son of man represents the Jews.

The term "son of man" is frequently used in Jewish literature to talk of human beings as mere mortals. In Daniel the figure is not "the son of man", but "like a son of man". It is not a (messianic) title, but a physical description. Most christians have abused and misunderstood Daniel for most of the life of the religion, unable to read such passages in their context as dealing with Jewish history and their liberation. Instead, like other parts of the bible a phrase has been ripped out of its context and perverted for purposes that have nothing to do with the text.

No, the one like the son of man represents Jesus

Hare Krishna, Hare Krisha, Hare Hare, Krishna Krishna.

See, I can do mantras too.

If you took the time to read the text and not just the apologetics, you'd have a better chance of understanding what it is on about. As you won't listen to me on the subject, go and buy a university level non-devotional commentary on Daniel that may help you get more of a clue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

In Daniel the figure is not "the son of man", but "like a son of man".

My Bible says "the" not "a"

Shoot the apologetic translator and get a better bible. Choose from here.

spin · 08-14-2011, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The politics of the priesthood needs to be followed. We can see the development in the priesthood from sons of Levi into a select group of Levi, the sons of Aaron. In time one family gained preeminence, the sons of Zadok, this was the family that held the high priesthood until they were deposed by Antiochus IV and the remnants of the family moved to Egypt.

When the Hasmonean family took over the high priesthood they were not of the sons of Zadok and thus had no legal claim, but the chosen son was both king and high priest from the time of Aristobulus I. The name Melchizedek means "king of righteousness" with a strong connection to the name Zadok, so "Melchizedek" implied both king and high priest. The book of Jubilees, whose earliest copy is contemporary with the earliest copy of Genesis, does not feature the Melchizedek story, suggesting that it has been added into Genesis. Gen 14 is the only place where the phrase El Elyon, a popular denomination of god in the 2nd c. BCE, is found in the Hebrew bible.

What we see in the figure of Melchizedek is another change in the structure of the priesthood, one that helps bypass the legalities of needing to be a son of Zadok to be high priest, because Melchizedek, the priest-king, superseded the Zadokite line, being earlier than it. Melchizedek is probably a piece of Hasmonean propaganda.

Hasmonean propaganda?

Gosh!, I didn't know the Hasmoneans wrote Genesis!

If you took the time to read what you're responding to you'd know that your response was inappropriate. When I said, "Gen 14 is the only place where the phrase El Elyon, a popular denomination of god in the 2nd c. BCE, is found in the Hebrew bible", you'll note that the comment was about Gen 14, not the whole of the book.

You've got this rush to judgment there, Little Dot. It would be better if you knew what you were trying to judge. Reading more carefully will help.

Doug Shaver · 08-15-2011, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

if the New Testamnt was written after 70 A.D. why didn't the writers mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Most likely for the same reason there is no mention of either the Spanish-American War or World War I in Gone With The Wind.

Little Dot · 08-15-2011, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

The reason for one line through Nathan, and, one through Solomon is this:

During King David's residence at Hebron, while he was still king of Judah, six sons were born to him. Of the three sons three appear to have died in infancy. .....

Okay. You can read and found: Dispensational Truth, Or God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages (or via: amazon.co.uk)
By Clarence Larkin
Page 83.

Has anyone ever mentioned 'attribution' to you?

Thank you so much! I copied that many years ago from something someone posted. Glad to know where it comes from, maybe I'll get the book. >

<

Little Dot · 08-15-2011, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Any objective observer would conclude these are two different and wholly contradictory genealogies.

I don't know what the rub is with you, I have always contended that the two were different!

Toto · 08-15-2011, 10:00 AM

The hot button issues of the evil in the Talmud and child sex have been split off here.

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

08-15-2011, 10:00 AM	#150
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The hot button issues of the evil in the Talmud and child sex have been split off here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.