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.
Certainly. The sermon on the Mount has been argued to be Jesus receiving a new Covenant (with revised commandments, including apparently the clause that the Sabbath didn't matter anymore), and some have seen the flight to Egypt as a re-enactment of a New (Christian) Exodus.
But this really isn't relevant to an argument as to whether Neanderthals were also made in God's image.
Certainly. The sermon on the Mount has been argued to be Jesus receiving a new Covenant (with revised commandments, including apparently the clause that the Sabbath didn't matter anymore), and some have seen the flight to Egypt as a re-enactment of a New (Christian) Exodus.
But this really isn't relevant to an argument as to whether Neanderthals were also made in God's image.
Yea, but I’m asking BF, he already said that he was compared to David, a son of David, but, was he compared to Moses, the prophet?....
Trans, I appreciate the reinforcement, and am all about science... but I'm going to respectfully suggest that we leave science out of this one. Why? Because the powerful tools of science should not be needed to validate the simple observation(s) that I made, to which BF was responding.
I would argue that: "the Bible was written by humans, and continues to be interpreted by humans, and we have no reason to attribute the contents of the Bible (or any holy text, while we're at it) to anything other than human sources" ... should be accepted as one of those plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face, not-even-worth-arguing-about facts. And no more arguable than the earth is spheroid, or water is wet. Granted, science is useful in validating even simple, obvious facts but, at some level, it should hardly be necessary.
The response to the observation that humans wrote the Bible should be "Well, duh!?" Conversely, the response to the notion that an unseen, unproven, unknowable, not-sure-what-it-is-or-if-it-even-exists entity somehow wrote, dictated, whispered, or otherwise "inspired" the Bible should be.... or or at least
I would like to see us all recognize that notion for what it was... a transparent, primitive grab for street cred. As I said upstream, labeling something as "The Word of God" obviously carries more clout than "The Word of Fred."
A valid reminder. But the fact is that the Believers may claim the Bible is the work of men but Inspired by the Word of God. And that is not just touted as a Faith -claim, but is claimed to be validated by being Right, factually.
This of course relied on the sciences to be validated, which is why reference to science, for and against, can't be avoided, and in fact is permitted. It is (or so I understand) debating the validity of the science that is considered not proper to the Forum, but should e taken to the science forum.
Yea, but I’m asking BF, he already said that he was compared to David, a son of David, but, was he compared to Moses, the prophet?....
Well, yes, some have done so. I can't be sure whether that is Christian Dogma (though I suspect it is by way of a revision of Moses' Laws) and BF must give you his own views.
Didn't I just answer that? In the standpoint of the New Covenant being superior to the Old Covenant, yes.
As far as the MAN Jesus being compared to the MAN Moses, I'm inclined to say "yes", but I honestly can't think of a reference.
I'm sure there isn't and in fact the transfiguration account where Moses and Elijah appear would seem to show that he wasn't in fact Moses. But that idea that he was a new equivalent of Moses, with a New law certainly is heavily hinted at in the NT, particularly the iconography of a revision of the Law given on a mount.
Of course there is the equivalent of John the Baptists being Elijah. Of course, he doesn't have to be though he could be (being dead, his spirit could go back to heaven, and reappear at the Transfiguration), but the point is that he serves the purpose of Elijah, announcing the coming of the messiah, or that's the idea propounded in the NT.
Matthew 17. 10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? 11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. 12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
He’s compared to David but not Moses and he’s not a prophet...
He's God, so he's the one that Moses spoke for.
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.
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.
or 
or at least 
