Foreshadowing?

Discussions about the Bible, and any issues raised by Scripture.
User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: Foreshadowing?

#16

Post by B. W. » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:42 am

SaintConfused,

I see that you live up to your name 8)

However, the burden of proof rest with you to prove these scriptures do not foreshadow Chirst.

Image

From The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns (Chicago: Moody Pubs, 1989, 2008; p 233).

Are you up for this task? Then quote each scripture and compare - one by one...
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

SaintConfused
Recognized Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: Foreshadowing?

#17

Post by SaintConfused » Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:23 pm

B. W.,
I see that you live up to your name. 8)
Right.
the burden of proof rest with you to prove these scriptures do not foreshadow Christ.
As you wish, but notice that none of my questions ask for 'proof' of any sort.
I'm quiet curious of what criteria must be met to make these 'foreshadowings' acceptable or not from those that produced them.
Science has criteria in several fields, well even though prophecy isn't scientific, what theological criteria is to
be followed for certain verses to be validated to earn a 'foreshadowing' title for the NT 'fulfillment'?
I haven't asked a lot here, as already said though #2 can be dismissed from the OP.
This puts a delay on my questions though, but I don't mind taking care of this 'burden of proof' that's supposedly on me.
Are you up for this task? Then quote each scripture and compare - one by one.
Certainly.

Line of Abraham:
Genesis 12:2. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt
be a blessing.
Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Galatians 3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Jesus is not directly descended too either Abraham or David. According to the 'virgin birth', the Holy Ghost is the absent 'father' figure
(making Jesus a bastard with an adopted father) and Joseph did not participate in the conception of baby Jesus.

Line of Judah:
Genesis 49:10.The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Matthew 1:2.Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren.
Jesus didn't gather all the people of Israel 'until Shiloh'. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, not Judah.

Line of David:
2 Samuel 7:12-16. When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but
My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.
Matthew 1:1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Jesus is not a 'son of David'.
Jesus did not take David's throne as his descendant (thus not a king of Israel), the entire genealogy loses it's importance because of the 'virgin birth'.
He loses physical connection with David because of it, he doesn't gain the throne by something that lacks it's own genealogy (the Holy Ghost).
No where in the Bible is it found that the Holy Ghost has anyone's genealogy, this means that Jesus has no connection with everyone listed in either
Matt 1 or Luke 3 except for himself.

His birth is a product of incestuous union since he is also the Holy Ghost as well (some how, I don't know how that's supposed to work out).

Virgin Birth:
Isaiah 7:14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Matthew 1:23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Jesus stays 'Jesus' (Matt 1:25), no one constantly calls him 'Emmanuel / Immanuel' after his birth.
The prophecy was fulfilled long before Jesus anyways.
Isa 7:10-16 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
2 Kings 16:9 And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
The child was born, called by the name Immanuel by his mother and the Assyrians defeated the two kings who threatened Ahaz and his people.
The prophecy given by Isaiah was already fulfilled hundreds of years before Jesus ever arrived on earth.
The birth and naming of the child Immanuel was to be a sign for king Ahaz that
God was with his people who were about to be invaded by two rival kingdoms.

Assyria defeated the two rival kings and Ahaz and his people would be safe.
Mary never called the name of her child Immanuel as required by the prophecy, but instead called him Jesus.
Mary's child was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel. And Jesus he was actually called. Not Immanuel.
*Show where anyone in the NT called Jesus the name 'Immanuel.'*
Immanuel wasn't an expected king Messiah nor did Isaiah ever imply such a thing.
Jesus didn't exist during the time of King Ahaz.
'Young woman' is not 'virgin'.

Bethlehem:
Micah 5:2. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee
shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Matthew 2:6. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
'Bethlehem Ephratah' refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah. The prophecy does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, Jesus never did. Micah 5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

Forerunner:
Isaiah 40:3 Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall:
Malachi 3:1. Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly
come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
Matthew 3:3. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
God will send Elijah before 'the great and dreadful day of the LORD' in which the world will be consumed by fire. Yet John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) and the earth was not destroyed after John's appearance. John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

King:
Numbers 24:17 I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob,
and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.
Psalm 2:6. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Matthew 21:5. Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
(compared with the 'fulfillment' verse) Zechariah 9:9-13 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth. As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water. Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee; When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man. The person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule 'from sea to sea'. Since Jesus had neither an army or a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

Prophet:
Deuteronomy 18:15-18. The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Acts 3:22-33.For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
So the 'fulfillment' comes with a threat? right. Guess I don't have much choice in accepting it.

Priest:
Psalm 110:4. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 5:6-10. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Ps 110:4 is about David, not Jesus. David and his son Solomon were priests like Melchizedek in that they performed some but not all priestly functions (2 Sam 6:17, 1 Kings 9:25). While burnt and peace offerings existed prior to the Levitical priesthood, the full services of the Levitical priesthood did not. Instructions for sin offerings don't appear as a ritual until Exo 29. Until the tabernacle was built, there was no full service priesthood. Melchizedec (or Melchizedek) has a grand total of 1 verse written about him (Gen 14:18) that gives information regarding who he was. Melchizedek was a king and priest of God who blessed Abram (later called Abraham) after his victory while rescuing Lot. Abram then gave Melchizedek 10% of the recovered property in return. That's it. That's all there is in the 'OT' about Melchizedek. The earthly Melchizedek, as described in the Bible, lived hundreds of years prior to the law being given to Moses, and was not part of the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood that was established during the days of Moses and his brother Aaron. Melchizedek performed some priestly functions but not those of a Levitical priest. The full service Levitical priesthood, which included sin sacrifices, superseded the priesthood of prior periods by God's decree in Exo 28-29. Sin sacrifices weren't established until Moses received instructions from God to set them up. Melchizedek wasn't at all involved with the Levitical priesthood nor did the office of high priest appear until the Levites assumed the functions of that office as ordained by God. God also promised that the priesthood, through a lasting covenant, would belong exclusively to the Levites, the descendants of Aaron (Exo 29:9, Num 25:13). The Levites might have lost this exclusive office but they helped put down the rebellion of the people for worshiping the golden calf and God promised to bless them for their loyalty (Exo 32:29). The Levitical priesthood was then officially established in Exo 40. The promise of the priesthood belonging to the Levites, through a perpetual covenant, is firmly reiterated in Jer 33:18-22. There is no mention whatsoever about another priesthood ever replacing it. Jer 33:18-22 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

Bore world's sins:
Psalm 22:1. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? Matthew 27:46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Putting David's words into Jesus' mouth..yeah..really 'fulfilled' prophecy. I remain unconvinced.

Ridiculed:
Psalm 22:7, 8. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
Matthew 27:39,43. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
'He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.' is not
the same as: 'He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.'
1. 'the LORD' is changed to 'God'.
2. 'on' is changed to 'in'.
3. 'he would deliver him' is changed to 'let him deliver him',
4. 'have him' is changed to 'deliver him',
5. 'delighted in him' doesn't equate to 'I am the Son of God'.
#3 & #5 ruin the entire 'fulfillment' attempt.

Hands and feet pierced:
Psalm 22:16. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
John 20:25. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
Firstly, The verse in John is a confrontation with Thomas, it doesn't actually display Jesus having his hands and feet pierced. Secondly, The psalms are in the authorship of King David as historical and not messianic writings. Lastly, http://www.messiahtruth.com/psa22.html#_ftnref3 (I recommend a reading of 5-D).

No bones broken:
Psalm 22:17. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
John 19:33-36. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
First, the link above speaks of this one as well (Psalm 22:17).
Second, The soldiers didn't break Jesus' legs because he was already dead.
Third, Psalms isn't a book of prophecy so 22:17 just won't work anyways.

Soldiers gambled
:
Psalm 22:18. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
John 19:24. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled,
which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
David is speaking of himself (MY not HIS), it's not a 'prophecy' about anyone in the future. Jesus' clothing being sold off is no different then a modern day thrift store situation. Someone is going to buy something that was yours, the fact the 'King of the Jews' was already dead also means that there is no problem in the situation. David was still living while this occurred too him though, in comparison. Unless the psalm was written by someone else.

Christ's prayer:
Psalm 22:24. For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Hebrews 5:7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared.
The Psalm verse doesn't even hint towards a 'prayer'. So Matthew 26:39 and Hebrews 5:7 can be dismissed.

Disfigured:
Isaiah 52:14. As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.
John 19:1. Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
Isa 49:3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. The suffering servant is Israel, not Jesus.

Scourging and death:
Isaiah 53:5. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
John 19:1, 18. Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
This (Isaiah verse) is past tense and is not a formal prophecy. In Jer 30:12, Israel is depicted as being wounded. Israel was wounded through foreign conquest and exile but in this wounding, the Gentile nations would be 'healed' because when Israel was later uplifted, restored, and glorified, the nations would come to see that the God of Israel was the one true God. (Ezek 37:11-12, Isa 49:22-23, Isa 52:13-15, Isa 56:1-8, Isa 60:10, Isa 61:5-6, Jer 30:10-22)

Resurrection:
Psalm 16:10; 22:22. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
Matthew 28:6; He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
Acts 2:27-28. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
Psalms aren't about prophecies regarding the messiah, we must turn to the prophets for such expectations.
Both the 'expectation' and 'fulfillment' should be dismissed here.

Ascension:
Psalm 68:18. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
Luke 24:50-53; And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
Acts 1:9-11. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Jesus isn't God, in my opinion. I'm not calling my opinion a 'fact', but I can demonstrate why he isn't.
Paul destroys this 'fulfillment' with Ephesians 4:8 which is incompatible with Psalm 68:18.
Do with that what you will, I'll have no part in dealing with an apostate.~SC

Note: As told, I have quoted each of the verses with the exception of those with my own post content.
I hope that you find this is sufficient to meet you're expectations B. W. Thank You.
You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!~Obi-Wan Kenobi.

ugo
Familiar Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Melbourne Australia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Foreshadowing?

#18

Post by ugo » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Hi Saint confused.
Are you a Muslim by any chance.
I have come across many and you sound like one of them the way you critique the scritpures.
The geneology of Jesus you describe is wrong. You have not read the Bible enough and have not given the geneolgy enough depth of study.
I am also interested in what Bible you read, where you get your information outlined below and who do you fellowship with if you are a Christian or someone with some faith.
If you are Islamic which Cleric or Imama do you follow and where?

SaintConfused
Recognized Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: Foreshadowing?

#19

Post by SaintConfused » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:39 pm

ugo,
Are you a Muslim by any chance.
No. Although I will admit, I like the conception of calling tenets 'pillars'.
That's about the only appeal I've found in Islam, not much of anything to keep me attached.
The genealogy of Jesus you describe is wrong.
So what genealogy is correct if Matt 1 and Luke 3 aren't the right ones?
You have not read the Bible enough and have not given the genealogy enough depth of study.
You're right, I have lacked in-depth study. Some of the characters aren't familiar too me at all. I'm not going to deny that.
I am also interested in what Bible you read, where you get your information outlined below and who do you fellowship with if you are a Christian or someone with some faith.
I've used the SAB for a while now. Some of the information I've gathered from my sources has offensive content against Christianity, I've avoided adding such too my posts. I have been raised around Baptist groups, I've stopped attending several months ago with the local church though. I find myself best without faith, but that doesn't mean I have harmful intentions for the lacking of beliefs in certain doctrines.
If you are Islamic which Cleric or Imama do you follow and where?
None. I'm an independent person of studies, although I have served under some guidance previously in understanding the role of The Messiah,
what the actual prophecies are, and other things concerning that controversial subject.

Thanks for asking, I'm sure you're concerned and want to help me some how by bringing me in the right direction.
I know everyone means well here, and I'm not here to destroy the friendly atmosphere this place gives.
Even if I don't belong, it doesn't hurt to have questions answered.
Take care ugo.~SC
You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!~Obi-Wan Kenobi.

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: Foreshadowing?

#20

Post by B. W. » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:21 pm

SAB: This acronym stands for many things.

Do mean School of American Ballet?

Or the Skeptic's Annotated Bible?

Or the Science Advisory Board?
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: Foreshadowing?

#21

Post by B. W. » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:19 pm

The genealogy of Jesus in either gospel of Matthew or Luke has been debated for years. You have those that want to destroy, or at best nullify, the claims and those who view the genealogy of Jesus in one gospel account to be in Mary's line: the other adopted to the line of Joseph (due to the Patriarchal system of the ancient Middle East to place the father's name in the females genealogical line).

I am sure you are aware of this as any good skeptic would be. The point is:

Faith placed in skepticism is ill advised because one must be skeptical of the very satisfaction that one considers supreme…”

So it sounds like you are convinced that the skeptical arguments used to disprove the genealogies are accurate above of doubt. However, that cannot suffice to disprove these two genealogical accounts.

Why??? How???

I'll answer with a question…

Are you as fair in you skepticism of the opponent's arguments of the genealogical accounts of Jesus in either Matthew or Luke as you are of the Christian?

A true skeptic cannot answer this. To do so will prove bias thus disproving the skeptic's own skepticism. You cannot base your argument alone on the opponent's point of view as you are not at all skeptical of their claims with equal fairness that skepticism dictates toward all views. You appear bent on disproving Christianity at all cost while neglecting using the same vengeance toward the presupposed evidenced that you use in order to smash Christian belief.

As Christians we will admit our bias because we have encountered the risen Lord and understand that the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke express in one gospel the line of Mary and the other — the line of Joseph as the principles of logic dictate and the historical culture context indicates (despite what opponents say).

Just because we do not ogle over the opponents to please them to prove we are fair does not make us unfair. We are fair --you are entitled to your bias as much as we are of ours. You can go your way and we will let you — free of all hassles. You'll have to answer to God for how you are. Only thing we can do as Christians is to warn you that someday, you will stand before God. When you do, how do you think your arguments will fare?

Let me put it another way — I see that you use the 'relativistic argument art form.' This relativistic argumentative form never leads to any type of truth. It cannot. It is an excuse to avoid the reality of abusing God's own goodness for selfish purposes just to remain comfortable in intellectual smugness. The relativistic argument cannot feed anyone because there is no right or wrong way to grow food. If there is, then all truth is not relative - nor is skepticism,

FL and myself are former atheist. I have (and I am sure FL has too) used the genealogical argument against Christians in the past. Then one day, 'push come to shove' so to speak and the silliness of atheism became apparent. I'll pray that a 'push come to shove' will soon convince you.
-
-
-
One last thing - please do not take what I write as harsh toward you but rather as something to mull over. I have no ill will toward you at all. God's love corrects or it is not love. You said you like to debate and this we will do.

We'll go over one item at a time...
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

ugo
Familiar Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Melbourne Australia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Foreshadowing?

#22

Post by ugo » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:23 pm

Hi Saint confused.

I enjoyed your honesty and straight up front approach.
By the way we all belong here as long as we adhere to the rules setup on this blog.
As far as Bibles can I recommend you go for the King James version or even get yourself a Greek translation Bible of the new testament. You sound rather bright and I think in depth study would help you immensely at the intellectual level. Obviously you are aware that being "filled" with the Holy Spirit will open up Revelation from God concerning the scripture. But for now an intellectual pursuit is 100% fine and will, if studying with 100% heart, wash away any false teaching. I find that where there are, seemingly, contradictions or confusion in the Bible, can be gold mines of discovery and learning the truth.
When I mentioned the geneologies I meant this. That you need to read in depth and understand some of the concepts that do not seem to make sense. For example you mentioned Jesus apparant lack of geneology and His name.

Do your own study though and you will be pleasantly surprised.
He was to be called Emmanuel. Mt.1:23.
He was called Jesus. Mt.1:25. The name the child is to be given is Jesus. Emmanuel, God with us, is what he will be called. Emmanuel was not to be his name. He was also called the Bright and Morning Star and a host of other names.

Lk. 3 is Jesus' genealogy through Mary and Matt. 1 is his genealogy through Joseph, there is no contradiction between them. On the contrary, these two genealogies provide us with the full picture of Jesus' ancestry.
What about the problem with the cursed lineage? Because Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph, he is still legally in the kingly line. According to Jewish law, the first-born son, whether natural or adopted, had the right of inheritance.
But because Jesus' human blood lineage goes back to David through Nathan, he avoids the curse! Thetre are also other exapmles throughout the old Testament and some would say these are loop holes for the contradictions but these are not really required. Often we have to understand the Old tesament and things become clearer.
Another example of this is Revelation. people freak out and say how hard it is to read but the facts are that its mostly symbols and concepts from the OT. KNow the OT and all becomes clear.

Keep at it my friend.

Post Reply