Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-15-2012, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 1,239,781 times
Reputation: 117

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.

Acts 2:23-37 This One, given up in the specific counsel and
foreknowledge of God, you, gibbeting by the hand of the lawless,
assassinate, (24) Whom God raises, loosing the pangs of death,
forasmuch as it was not possible for Him to be held by it." (25) For David
is saying to Him, I saw the Lord before me continually, Seeing that He is at
my right hand, that I may not be shaken." (26) Therefore gladdened was
my heart, And exultant my tongue. Now, still my flesh also shall be tenting
in expectation, (27) For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen,
Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay."
(28) Thou makest known to me the paths of life. Thou wilt be filling me
with gladness with Thy face.' (29) Men! Brethren! Allow me to say to you
with boldness concerning the patriarch David, that he deceases also and
was entombed, and his tomb is among us until this day." (30) Being, then,
inherently, a prophet, and having perceived that God swears to him with
an oath, out of the fruit of his loin to seat One on his throne, (31)
perceiving this before, he speaks concerning the resurrection of the Christ,
that He was neither forsaken in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted
with decay." (32) This Jesus God raises, of Whom we all are witnesses."
(33) Being, then, to the right hand of God exalted, besides obtaining the
promise of the holy spirit from the Father, He pours out this which you are
observing and hearing." (34) For David did not ascend into the heavens,
yet he is saying, 'Said the Lord to my Lord, "Sit at My right" (35) Till I
should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet."'" (36) Let
all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God makes Him Lord as
well as Christ - this Jesus Whom you crucify!" (37) Now, hearing this,
their heart was pricked with compunction. Besides, they said to Peter and
the rest of the apostles, "What should we be doing, men, brethren?

It proves Daniel was wrong when he wrote that Psalm 110 wasn't about Christ.
Again, you're relying on a Common Era reinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible. You seem to be insisting that whatever the New Testament says is true. Is that accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Look at the logic of the passage above. This is an historical account concerning Peter speaking to the Jews about what David wrote but how it
could not be about David not being acquainted with decay since his (David's) tomb was with them and David was decayed in that tomb, but Jesus was not.
The Jews got it. You don't. Only God opens the eye to see.
You really think the New Testament authors had a corner on biblical interpretation? You're far more naive than I thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2012, 08:53 AM
 
Location: New York City
5,553 posts, read 7,985,628 times
Reputation: 1362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Did the prophet Daniel place Jesus into the NT or OT scriptures when he wrote that from the going forth of the word to rebuild the temple till Messiah would be an exact amount of time, which amount He fulfilled?

Insane, Are the NT writers supposed to write bout Mr. Ed the talking horse? Why wouldn't they write to prove Jesus fulfilled the OT passages? They should. To think they were wrong in doing that is strange.
And in doing so does NOT mean they were accurate in doing so. Again, it was THEIR agenda to PROVE their Jesus as the true candidate for the office of the messiah. As a result, OT passages were gleaned, misinterpreted, taken out of context to prove this. One off the cuff example is the writer of Matthew claiming Herod's massacre of the Judean children below the age of 2 fulfilling some passage in Jeremiah. When the passage is consulted in Jeremiah, we find that Jeremiah was referring to no such thing, but rather, the weeping of the matriarch of the Israelite nation over the loss of her children into Babylonian exile.

It is fine if they wanted to carve up the OT to suit their purposes, but their horrible "open to interpretation" explanations were abusive to the original intentions of the OT authors which brings us to part of the crux of this whole thread. It is all about retrojection where newer interpretations are forced back into older scriptures. As has been pointed out, religious thought is NEVER static and thus evolves. You are working with religious thought as they were 2,000 years ago and forward as opposed to religious thought prior to that. When you DO consider the times prior to that, you then FORCE the newer back into the older and completely blur and confuse the matter beyond the original intent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 09:04 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,489,467 times
Reputation: 1775
This thread is endlessly fascinating for me.

Reading versus that I knew my whole life from a fundamentalist perspective, and seeing them now in a completely new light from a historical perspective.

The sociology of the historical bible is much more interesting than theology of the fundamentalist bible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 09:18 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,917,344 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane View Post
And in doing so does NOT mean they were accurate in doing so. Again, it was THEIR agenda to PROVE their Jesus as the true candidate for the office of the messiah.
Well, duh! What else should they do? Jesus came at the appointed time according to Daniel. Are they supposed to say, "Well, umm, we know He was the Messiah but we better make like He wasn't or we'll be persecuted."?


Quote:
As a result, OT passages were gleaned, misinterpreted, taken out of context to prove this.
So you say. Obviously the Jews, tens of thousands, who knew their bibles believed they weren't taking those verses wrong.

Quote:
One off the cuff example is the writer of Matthew claiming Herod's massacre of the Judean children below the age of 2 fulfilling some passage in Jeremiah. When the passage is consulted in Jeremiah, we find that Jeremiah was referring to no such thing, but rather, the weeping of the matriarch of the Israelite nation over the loss of her children into Babylonian exile.
The passage is from Jeremiah 31:15. Rachel was long dead when that was written. She did not literally weap for her children in the OT nor the NT. So it is just as applicable to use it in both places but even more so the NT.

Besides that, read all of Jeremiah 31. It sounds pretty positive to me except where Rachel weaps for her children.

Quote:
It is fine if they wanted to carve up the OT to suit their purposes, but their horrible "open to interpretation" explanations were abusive to the original intentions of the OT authors which brings us to part of the crux of this whole thread. It is all about retrojection where newer interpretations are forced back into older scriptures. As has been pointed out, religious thought is NEVER static and thus evolves. You are working with religious thought as they were 2,000 years ago and forward as opposed to religious thought prior to that. When you DO consider the times prior to that, you then FORCE the newer back into the older and completely blur and confuse the matter beyond the original intent.
bla bla bla. Matthew's account would not quote verses relating to Jesus if they weren't. Why would they risk losing their believability among their countrymen by misquoting scripture? They wouldn't and didn't.

And yet our board member Daniel was wrong to state Psalm 110 was not about Christ. It was.

Last edited by Eusebius; 05-15-2012 at 09:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 09:22 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,917,344 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan View Post
Again, you're relying on a Common Era reinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible. You seem to be insisting that whatever the New Testament says is true. Is that accurate?



You really think the New Testament authors had a corner on biblical interpretation? You're far more naive than I thought.
Daniel, do you believe Christ Jesus died for your sins? A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.

Just the fact that Psalm 110 was about David's Lord who was Jesus Christ and you can't pull yourself to say it was speaks volumes of your blindness.

David was not David's Lord. Yahweh said to David's Lord, Sit at my right until. . . . That is fulfilled by Christ by the resurrection and ascension.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 1,239,781 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Daniel, do you believe Christ Jesus died for your sins? A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
Let's keep this on what the Bible says and not testimonies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Just the fact that Psalm 110 was about David's Lord who was Jesus Christ and you can't pull yourself to say it was speaks volumes of your blindness.

David was not David's Lord.
Again your dogmatism or outright ignorance seems to prevent you from understanding that I'm not saying this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Yahweh said to David's Lord, Sit at my right until. . . . That is fulfilled by Christ by the resurrection and ascension.
This is simple dogmatism. Tell me, to whom is Ps 45:6 addressed:

Quote:
Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of your kingdom is a right sceptre.
And who is the indirect object of Deut 32:43:

Quote:
Let all the sons of God worship him . . . let all the angels of God strive for him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 11:06 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,917,344 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan View Post
Let's keep this on what the Bible says and not testimonies.
I believe Christ died for my sins and am proud of Him.

I think it is germain to the topic.

Do you believe Christ died for your sins?
Just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. No testimony need be given.

It is about Christ:
Psa 45:6 Your throne, O Elohim, is for the eon and further; A scepter of equity is the scepter of Your kingdom."

Heb 1:8 Yet to the Son . . . ."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 1,239,781 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
I believe Christ died for my sins and am proud of Him.

I think it is germain to the topic.
Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Do you believe Christ died for your sins?
Just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. No testimony need be given.

It is about Christ:
Psa 45:6 Your throne, O Elohim, is for the eon and further; A scepter of equity is the scepter of Your kingdom."
Nope. Read the first verse of the chapter: "I speak of things concerning the king." The entire psalm is praise of the Israelite king. Kings were frequently conceived of as deities in the ancient Near East, including Israel. In this verse, the king is being addressed with the vocative "O god." It was not until the Greco-Roman period that it was read messianically. Additionally, there is no reason to avoid translating elohim as "god." It is not a tricky word. It is a quite simple equivalence. "Eon" is also not a good translation of עולם, nor does מישר mean "equity." Honestly, this translation you keep quoting is quite deficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Heb 1:8 Yet to the Son . . . ."
But Deut 32:43 does not refer to "the Son," it refers to Yhwh. The entire hymn is about Israel being Yhwh's people. The author of Hebrews misreads the text, as he does with Psalm 45.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 11:31 AM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
InsaneInDaMembrane wrote regarding Deut.32:8-9:

How are these verses CORRECTLY interpreted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The same way this one is:

Psa 110:1 A Davidic Psalm
The averring of Yahweh to my Lord:
Sit at My right Until I should set Your enemies as a stool for Your feet.

In the above verse there are three:
Yahweh
The Lord, Jesus
David
Eusebius are you saying that there are three persons in Deut.32:8-9?

1)Elyon, 2) sons of God (as humans), and 3) YHWH.

Are you syaing that the interpretation of Ps.110 is the proof of how we should interpret Deut.32:8-9?

If so this is an atrocious way of exegeting even if Ps.110 is about the Messiah. WOW!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 11:44 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,917,344 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
InsaneInDaMembrane wrote regarding Deut.32:8-9:

How are these verses CORRECTLY interpreted?



Eusebius are you saying that there are three persons in Deut.32:8-9?

1)Elyon, 2) sons of God (as humans), and 3) YHWH.

Are you syaing that the interpretation of Ps.110 is the proof of how we should interpret Deut.32:8-9?

If so this is an atrocious way of exegeting even if Ps.110 is about the Messiah. WOW!
Is that what I said? Wow!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top