22 Aug 11
4 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritDon't you think it is perculiar ? If you think it is false myth from start to finish, then WHY argue that the divinity of Christ should be understood in THIS way (baptism) and not in THAT way (pre-existence)?
i discuss many fictional things that i've read. i recently had a compelling discussion with my friend concerning the dune n n agreement and i doubt any of them believed in a preexisting christ.
christ is talking about someone else here, another comforter, not himself.
He is talking about the Triune God. He is talking about the "Another Comforter" Who is the first "Comforter" Who will come in another form.
If there is "Another Comforter" that suggests that He is in addition to a previous "Comforter" otherwise He would not be "Another".
The second Comforter is actually the previous Comforter come again in another form. And that is why Jesus said -
" But you know Him [Another Comforter] because He abides with you and shall be in you." (John 14:17)
Who abode with them ? Jesus in the flesh.
Who will abide in them ? Jesus as the Another Comforter, the Holy Spirit.
Sure. Proved by the following words -
"He abides with you and shall be in you. *I* will not leave you orphans; *I* am coming to you." (v.18)
Of course He promises again that He will come to the believers and make an abode with them with His Father, in verse 23:
"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
The coming of "Another Comforter" as the Spirit of reality is the coming of the Father and the Son to make an abode with the lovers of Jesus.
23 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit==============================Don't you think it is perculiar ? If you think it is false myth from start to finish, then WHY argue that the divinity of Christ should be understood in THIS way (baptism) and not in THAT way (pre-existence)?
i discuss many fictional things that i've read. i recently had a compelling discussion with my friend concerning the dune n n agreement and i doubt any of them believed in a preexisting christ.
umm, no. keep it in context please. earlier (41, 44, 45, 49) isaiah identified god's servant as israel.
===================================
Not that simple. In the book of Isaiah God's Servant is shared between
Isaiah the prophet,
Cyrus king of Persia
Israel
Suffering Servant
ALL, I repeat ALL - ultimately point to Christ.
All are ultimately symbolic or types of Christ
23 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritjaywill:
It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young as in Isaiah 31:5 and Deuteronomy 32:11-12. Therefore, for Jesus to say "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," was for Jesus to indicate that He was the prexisting God Himself. He was there as G .
still not relevant to my argument.
this is consistent with christ's claim that he had the authority and power of god by the presence of god's spirit within him.
Why was He called the Son of God from conception in the womb of Mary rather than from baptism solely ?
If you counter that that shows the development of legend, I would say that that is your imagination and conspiracy theory.
Long before His baptism - " ... the holy thing which is born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)
Why was the "thing" holy ?
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; THEREFORE ... also the holy thing which is bon will be called the Son of God."
Doesn't say "the man which will be baptized will be called the Son of God".
23 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritjaywill:
It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young as in Isaiah 31:5 and Deuteronomy 32:11-12. Therefore, for Jesus to say "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," was for Jesus to indicate that He was the prexisting God Himself. He was there as G .
still not relevant to my argument.
virgin birth, preexisting deity...growing legend.
When the magi came from the east, they inquired about a born King of Israel.
The biblical scholars of that day went immediately to the prophecy of Micah 5:2
The prophecy spoke of a divine king from Bethlehem "He who is Ruler in Israel and His goings forth are from ancient times, from the days of eternity."
This was the Old Testament prophet Micah's utterance and not a fabriation inserted by the Christian church afterwards.
This prophecy formed the bases of the scribes informing Herod the king that any divine born king would likely be found in the city of Bethlehem.
Retrofitting a theory of legendary development of a pre-existing God-man by the Christians is conspiracy theory.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritjaywill:
It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young as in Isaiah 31:5 and Deuteronomy 32:11-12. Therefore, for Jesus to say "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," was for Jesus to indicate that He was the prexisting God Himself. He was there as G ...[text shortened]... .
still not relevant to my argument.
i'm making the observation that you can follow the increasing legend of christ with each retelling of the tale.
In this alledged legend building how did Isaiah know 700 some years beforehand to write about a "child ... born" called "Mighty God" and a "son ... given" called "eternal Father"?
He could not have leaped into a time machine to see what the Christian church was doing 7 centries latter, and then go back to his own day and write Isaiah 9:6.
I believe he spoke from God's foreknowledge rather than Christian conspiracy.
"For a child is born to us, A son is given to us; And the government is upon His shoulder; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
To the increase of His government and to His peace there is no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom to establish it ... from now to eternity."
Don't say it is talking about Hezekiah. Because I think if you were to ask Hezekiah about it, he'd say - " I'm good. But I ain't that good!"
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillIt is also Isaiah that gives the following prophecy:i'm making the observation that you can follow the increasing legend of christ with each retelling of the tale.
In this alledged legend building how did Isaiah know 700 some years beforehand to write about a [b]"child ... born" called "Mighty God" and a "son ... given" called "eternal Father"?
He could n ...[text shortened]... were to ask Hezekiah about it, he'd say - " I'm good. But I ain't that good!"[/b]
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be
with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
(Isaiah 7:14 NASB)
Matthew refers to this sign when he writes in Matthew 1:20-23
But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to
him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary
as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His
people from their sins.” Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet: “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD
AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,”
which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”
Some object that He was not named "Immanuel" but "Jesus" (YAHSHUA).
But we Christians do call Him "God with us" for we believe as the Son of God
He is God made flesh and living among us. He was also given the same
name "Yah" that God gave Moses to call Him. His name means "Yah saves"
or "God saves".
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywilli don't buy it. another comforter is comforter that is not christ. he's probably referring to the spirit of god which we learn also grants the disciples powers similar to christs.christ is talking about someone else here, another comforter, not himself.
He is talking about the Triune God. He is talking about the "Another Comforter" Who is the first "Comforter" Who will come in [b]another form.
If there is "Another Comforter" that suggests that He is in addition to a previous "Comforter" ...[text shortened]... he coming of the Father and the Son to make an abode with the lovers of Jesus.[/b]
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillbeing symbolic of christ is not the same as being a prophecy of christ. one can find symbols anywhere, if one looks hard enough. outside of your symbolic associations which have no intrinsic value, there is nothing here. none of these can be said to refer to christ.
[b]==============================
umm, no. keep it in context please. earlier (41, 44, 45, 49) isaiah identified god's servant as israel.
===================================
Not that simple. In the book of Isaiah God's Servant is shared between
Isaiah the prophet,
Cyrus king of Persia
Israel
Suffering Servant
ALL, I repeat ALL - ultimately point to Christ.
All are ultimately symbolic or types of Christ[/b]
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
being symbolic of christ is not the same as being a prophecy of christ. one can find symbols anywhere, if one looks hard enough. outside of your symbolic associations which have no intrinsic value, there is nothing here. none of these can be said to refer to christ.
being symbolic of christ is not the same as being a prophecy of christ. one can find symbols anywhere, if one looks hard enough. outside of your symbolic associations which have no intrinsic value, there is nothing here. none of these can be said to refer to christ.
That flies in the face of the teaching of the NT. And it is less of a leap of faith then your wild conspiracy theory.
23 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpirit"Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17)
i don't buy it. another comforter is comforter that is not christ. he's probably referring to the spirit of god which we learn also grants the disciples powers similar to christs.
"For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ..." (same book 4:5)
23 Aug 11
Why was He called the Son of God from conception in the womb of Mary rather than from baptism solely ?
why does it matter? other people and even a nation of people have been called son of god. jesus isn't even god's only begotten son. he shares this title with david.
If you counter that that shows the development of legend, I would say that that is your imagination and conspiracy theory.
you could say whatever you like, the description of a legend fits the legend of christ.
Long before His baptism - " ... the holy thing which is born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)
Why was the "thing" holy ?
a virgin birth is a later addition to the growing legend of christ.
23 Aug 11
micah can't be talking about christ. after the coming of this person, "(3)Then at last his fellow countrymen will return from exile to their own land. "
then "(4)And he will stand to lead his flock with the LORD's strength, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. Then his people will live there undisturbed, for he will be highly honored around the world. "
didn't happen. the magi were not wise or their alleged arrival and reference to micah were a complete fabrication in the growing legend of christ.
Retrofitting a theory of legendary development of a pre-existing God-man by the Christians is conspiracy theory.
the only conspiracy theory i see is one of the early christians increasing the legend of christ with each retelling of the tale.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillthe teaching of the NT claims many false references to the messiah, but none of the true references. while jesus fit some of the prerequisites of the messiah (some of which, like the lineage to king david, are probably legendary fabrications), he didn't fulfill a single OT messianic prophecy his entire ministry.being symbolic of christ is not the same as being a prophecy of christ. one can find symbols anywhere, if one looks hard enough. outside of your symbolic associations which have no intrinsic value, there is nothing here. none of these can be said to refer to christ.
That flies in the face of the teaching of the NT. And it is less of a leap of faith then your wild conspiracy theory.
the messiah of the OT is supposed to fulfill the following criteria:
-he must destroy the assyrians [oops, too late, i hope he won't go after those poor nation-less people who harm no one!]
-he must gather the jewish people from exile and return them to judea.
-he must gather the israeli people from exile and return them to israel.
-consequently, both kingdoms of israel and judea must be reinstated and united.
-he will build the final temple and it will stand forever.
-he will bring world peace
-he will bring a one world religion
jesus completely and utterly failed to fulfill any one of these very important messianic prophecies. ergo, he could not have been the messiah.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI agree this other comforter that is sent from the Father is the Holy Spirit,
i don't buy it. another comforter is comforter that is not christ. he's probably referring to the spirit of god which we learn also grants the disciples powers similar to christs.
the third person of the Trinity. It was this comforter that appeared as
follows:
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.
And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind;
and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared
to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each
one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak
with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under
heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were
bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own
language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all
these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in
our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites,
and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and
visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear
them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” And they all
continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What
does this mean?” But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of
sweet wine.”
(Acts 2:1-13 NASB)
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritHave you ever heard of the prophecy of the "Seventy Sevens" that
the teaching of the NT claims many false references to the messiah, but none of the true references. while jesus fit some of the prerequisites of the messiah (some of which, like the lineage to king david, are probably legendary fabrications), he didn't fulfill a single OT messianic prophecy his entire ministry.
the messiah of the OT is supposed to ...[text shortened]... y one of these very important messianic prophecies. ergo, he could not have been the messiah.
Daniel receives from the Angel Gabriel that predicts the time when
the Messiah was to come and be cut off (killed)? (Daniel 9:24-27)
If you haven't and would like me to explain it let me know.