Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and p

[ad_orientem]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?

I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.

From the scriptures, the ancient liturgies and Fathers.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

Try the passion according to St. John or the prayers of the Good Friday liturgy of both the ancient Roman and Byzantine rites.

[BashfulAnthony]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

It's interesting that it is the Christians here that sneer at doing research.

We cannot argue effectively without doing research:  it is the quality and validity of the research that needs to be made clear, and that is not sneering, it is plain common sense.

[jeremyp]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

It's interesting that it is the Christians here that sneer at doing research.

We cannot argue effectively without doing research:  it is the quality and validity of the research that needs to be made clear, and that is not sneering, it is plain common sense.

And on what planet is using Google to discover quality research a bad thing?

[Nearly Sane]

Also what is the alternative acceptable method?

[ad_orientem]

Isaiah, of course, did not preach or write in Greek, and therefore throughout his life the word parthenos never emerged from the lips of the prophet. All sixty-six chapters of the Book of Isaiah were spoken and then recorded in the Hebrew language. Matthew, however, claimed that Isaiah – not a translator – declared that the messiah would be born of a virgin. No such prophecy was ever uttered by the prophet.

Furthermore, this contention becomes even more preposterous when we consider that the same missionaries who attempt toexplain away Matthew’s mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma by claiming that Matthew used a Septuagint when he quoted Isaiah 7:14 also steadfastly maintain that the entire first Gospel was divinely inspired. That is to say, these same Christian missionaries insist that every word of the New Testament, Matthew included, was authored through the Holy Spirit and is therefore the living word of God. Are these evangelical apologists therefore claiming that God had to rely on a Greek translation of the Bible? Are they suggesting that God quoted from the Septuagint? Did the passing of five centuries since His last book cause God to forget how to read Hebrew that He would need to rely on a translation? Why would God need to quote from the Septuagint?

http://outreachjudaism.org/septuagint-virgin-birth/

 

We would say that the Septuagint is an inspired work, a new step in revelation from the Hebrew in preparation for the Gospel. That does not change the fact that the Jews tampered with the prophecy in response to Christianity.

[ad_orientem]

Yes, Google is useful. It just requires a little discernment.

[jeremyp]

We would say that the Septuagint is an inspired work, a new step in revelation from the Hebrew in preparation for the Gospel. That does not change the fact that the Jews tampered with the prophecy in response to Christianity.

The trouble is that it kind of feels like you are making it up as you go along now.

Anyway, if you read it in context, Isaiah 7:14 isn't a prophecy about the Messiah, it's part of a prophecy about the fate of Israel and her enemies during the time of the king Ahaz (also a messiah).

[ad_orientem]

We would say that the Septuagint is an inspired work, a new step in revelation from the Hebrew in preparation for the Gospel. That does not change the fact that the Jews tampered with the prophecy in response to Christianity.

The trouble is that it kind of feels like you are making it up as you go along now.

Anyway, if you read it in context, Isaiah 7:14 isn't a prophecy about the Messiah, it's part of a prophecy about the fate of Israel and her enemies during the time of the king Ahaz (also a messiah).

Which is a figure of something better to come, just as the old covenant itself was merely a preparation for a better covenant as the Apostle says.

[ad_orientem]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?

I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.

I think it's called replacement theology, and not all Christians approve of it.

http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html

It has some links to antisemitism I think.

Certainly I've heard negative things about it.

It's not "replacement theology". We do not say that the Church replaced Israel. We say that the Church IS the one true Israel of God, which would include the OT saints as well, to whom Christ preached the Gospel when he descended into Hades (the Harrowing of Hell).

[Nearly Sane]

And no evidence of googling, or indeed a real argument so far about why it might be wrong

[floo]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?

I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.

I think it's called replacement theology, and not all Christians approve of it.

http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html

It has some links to antisemitism I think.

Certainly I've heard negative things about it.

It's not "replacement theology". We do not say that the Church replaced Israel. We say that the Church IS the one true Israel of God, which would include the OT saints as well, to whom Christ preached the Gospel when he descended into Hades (the Harrowing of Hell).

You might say that but you have no proof it is correct.

[jeremyp]

Which is a figure of something better to come, just as the old covenant itself was merely a preparation for a better covenant as the Apostle says.

So not a prophecy of the Messiah.

[ad_orientem]

Which is a figure of something better to come, just as the old covenant itself was merely a preparation for a better covenant as the Apostle says.

So not a prophecy of the Messiah.

Indeed it is but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT. As Blessed Augustine says "the old is the new veiled; and the new is the old unveiled".

[ad_orientem]

Which is a figure of something better to come, just as the old covenant itself was merely a preparation for a better covenant as the Apostle says.

So not a prophecy of the Messiah.

Indeed it is but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.

Why?

The Jewish people have been understanding their scriptures for thousands of years?

Who is to say they are not right? ( at least for them)

Because, as I said earlier, the OT itself was only a preparation for the NT. Otherwise you rob it of its proper context, which is Christ. The Jews disagree because they have a veil upon their hearts, that is until they should acknowlege Christ.

[Sassy]

Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.

Sass, you aren't the only person to have made this claim, so this isn't a personal response as such.  There is no record of Hereward having been king - in England or anywhere else.  He is recorded as having been a leader of a freedom struggle during the time of William the Conqueror, as well as being declared an outlaw by Edward the Confessor.

My point was that the earliest mention of him was some 45 years after the Norman Conquest of England and perhaps 55 years after his being declared an outlaw.  Despite the very sketchy written information about him, few if any of us regard him as being a mythical person.  There are a few here who seem to regard Jesus - evidence for whom dates to about 10 years after his death and possible resurrection - as no more than a mythical being.  That seems to me to be double standards.

Cannot compare Christ to this person when examining anything concerning mythical figures.

[floo]

Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.

Sass, you aren't the only person to have made this claim, so this isn't a personal response as such.  There is no record of Hereward having been king - in England or anywhere else.  He is recorded as having been a leader of a freedom struggle during the time of William the Conqueror, as well as being declared an outlaw by Edward the Confessor.

My point was that the earliest mention of him was some 45 years after the Norman Conquest of England and perhaps 55 years after his being declared an outlaw.  Despite the very sketchy written information about him, few if any of us regard him as being a mythical person.  There are a few here who seem to regard Jesus - evidence for whom dates to about 10 years after his death and possible resurrection - as no more than a mythical being.  That seems to me to be double standards.

Cannot compare Christ to this person when examining anything concerning mythical figures.

Why not?

[jeremyp]

Indeed it is

Wrong. Read the whole chapter. It is blatantly not a messianic prophecy.

but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.

Which is code for "Christians make up any old shit about the OT"

[BashfulAnthony]

Indeed it is

Wrong. Read the whole chapter. It is blatantly not a messianic prophecy.

but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.

Which is code for "Christians make up any old shit about the OT"

Haven't you the simple sense to realise, even when you make an arguable point, you undermine your position by casual gutter-snipe language?

[ad_orientem]

Indeed it is

Wrong. Read the whole chapter. It is blatantly not a messianic prophecy.

but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.

Which is code for "Christians make up any old shit about the OT"

You have a very one dimensional mind, which is probably part of the reason why you do not believe. You know nothing of figures and types or fulfilment.

[Alien]

So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?

In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.

I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

Evasion noted.

You didn't actually ask a question so I wasn't evading a question.

I never said you were evading a question I suggested you were evading the point.

Which point? You told me you couldn't see the difference. Fair enough.

[jakswan]

So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?

In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.

I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

Evasion noted.

You didn't actually ask a question so I wasn't evading a question.

I never said you were evading a question I suggested you were evading the point.

Which point? You told me you couldn't see the difference. Fair enough.

So using magic to describe the alleged actions of Jesus is appropriate? If so we agree, hurrah!

[Alien]

... is the only early Christian writer we have left and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.

Paul's writing shows that he sets no store by the historical accounts that might have existed as opposed to his revelation and by extension neither  does his audience — the early church.

What about 1 Corinthians 15:1-8? He uses terms there which were used for some passing on of teachings. Also in Galatians 1 & 2, what do you think he and Peter spoke about for the fortnight they were together? The rugby?

[Alien]

...

Of course they'd say that but the Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, testify to the fact that the Jews in response to Christian use of the Septuagint not only rejected it but also changed the Hebrew text so as to make it less Christological. One example I have given is the "virgin" prophecy from Isaiah which was deliberately changed in the He rew version.

Can you point me to more details on this, please, AO?

[Alien]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

It's interesting that it is the Christians here that sneer at doing research.

Inc. me?

[Spud]

Indeed it is

Wrong. Read the whole chapter. It is blatantly not a messianic prophecy.

but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.

Which is code for "Christians make up any old shit about the OT"

The nature of the sign to Ahaz was to be miraculous. This is the implication of the word 'behold' (Isaiah 7:14) and of God's offer: '...whether as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven' means 'anything you like'. The sign He gave to Hezekiah was to make the shadow on the sundial go backwards. So the sign of Immanuel should be understood as a virgin birth.