Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not the faith, but the object of the faith that is the issue. Faith is simply the means by which one appropriates the free gift of salvation which Jesus made possible by his work on the cross.
There was no object of the faith for those prior to the birth of Jesus, Michael, yet you say they were saved by their faith. How do you reconcile that?
There was no object of the faith for those prior to the birth of Jesus, Michael, yet you say they were saved by their faith. How do you reconcile that?
I've already explained that there was. Old Testament believers believed the promise of a future deliverer. Isaiah 53 by the way perfectly points to Jesus.
This still would require and identifiable theological doctrine found in the New Testament. It is so fundamental it has to be there, without a metaphorical interpretation of a verse in the Old Testament, especially since it involves gentiles as well as Jews!
This still would require and identifiable theological doctrine found in the New Testament. It is so fundamental it has to be there, without a metaphorical interpretation of a verse in the Old Testament, especially since it involves gentiles as well as Jews!
That chapter is simply a very plain Jewish perspective about faith in God. Obviously it says nothing about the sacrifice of Jesus for the sake of atonement and justification. Indeed, I would argue that Hebrews AND Revelation had originally been almost normative Jewish documents that were adopted by the Church and interpolated, although in the case of Hebrews Chapter 11 there is nothing adapted to Christianity at all. So where next?
Good grief. Isaiah 53 which Jesus said referred to himself prophesies about the suffering servant who would bear the sin of many and intercede for the transgressors, and render himself as a guilt offering. There is your Old Testament passage which referred to the future Messiah.
Good grief. Isaiah 53 which Jesus said referred to himself prophesies about the suffering servant who would bear the sin of many and intercede for the transgressors, and render himself as a guilt offering. There is your Old Testament passage which referred to the future Messiah.
That chapter is simply a very plain Jewish perspective about faith in God. Obviously it says nothing about the sacrifice of Jesus for the sake of atonement and justification. Indeed, I would argue that Hebrews AND Revelation had originally been almost normative Jewish documents that were adopted by the Church and interpolated, although in the case of Hebrews Chapter 11 there is nothing adapted to Christianity at all. So where next?
It is just the opposite. It was intended to show Jews that Jesus was the messiah they had been looking for. Michael Way is right about you-Good grief!
Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of at that time the future Messiah. Jesus himself applied Isaiah 53 to himself in Luke 22:37 when he quoted Isaiah 53:12 and said that it must be fulfilled in him. Philip said that Isaiah 53 referred to Jesus in Acts 8:26-35.
I still request a verifiable doctrinal statement explaining why Jesus came in the first century. Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with some distant Jesus. It's an old canard. The subject matter is the son of Ahaz. The Greek translation doesn't understand Hebrew anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.