Why add twenty-seven?

[Sue D.]

People have Always been saved through faith -- the Old Testament people looked forward To the coming cross -- during Bible times -- when Christ was here and died and rose again -- some actually Did Not believe even what they saw happening. And many others Did believe -- and that holds true Now days. We have Scripture to read, telling about the cross as a past event -- we can choose to accept or reject.

Your phrase referring to people pleasing God by faith -- what Is happening is that a person is realizing / acknowledging their Personal need For salvation. Nothing 'we' can do will ever be good enough to earn our own way to heaven. Christ willingly took our sins upon Himself -- died and was buried and raised back up to life on the 3rd day. We believe in our heart and confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord.

Pleasing God suggests that there is something we are doing to Please God. Scripture says Not of works, lest anyone would be boasting about what they were able to do to gain their own salvation or help the cross.

Yes, God sees us through the blood of Jesus Christ -- just as though we'd never sinned.

 

[Quantrill]

Dovegiven

I will respond in one post as it is less confusing. I have said that the vast majority of Jews don't even believe their own Old Testament. And they don't. If you find some Orthodox Jews, who are akin to the Pharisees in Jesus day, I'm sure they will make a pretense about believing their TANAKH or Tora as the Word of God. And probably rabidly so.

But, just like the Pharisees they are jealous for the Law, not God. Just as Jesus said, had they believed Moses they would believe Him. They didn't believe Jesus because they didn't believe Moses. And they still don't. (John 5:45-47)

Indeed, salvation has always been by faith. The Bible is one book, not two, though made up of Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament saints were saved by faith just as the New Testament saints are saved by faith. Both the Old and New Testament saints could walk in their salvation and progress in their salvation. The New Testament saints certainly have an advantage of the indwelling Spirit of God, but the Old still had a salvation to experience and live out on earth.

Quantrill

 

[David Young]

If someone who believed the Tanakh to be a self-contained divine revelation were asked to judge the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was also a divine revelation, but to do so only on how convincing they found New Testament citations of the Tanakh that supposedly referred to him, they would have every reason to reject that claim.

 

[Sue D.]

David Young --- are you familiar with Lee Strobel -- his book The Case for Christ. I came across the movie a couple of days ago. Very compelling.

Trying to interpret what you're saying -- If a person took only what part of the Old Testament said by 'divine relation' regarding the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was Also a divine revelation -- they would have a good reason to reject That claim and , thus, Jesus Christ.

Lee Strobel was an atheist -- was married to a wonderful lady and they had 1 1/2 kids (she was pregnant with their second). Anyway -- a series of events -- his wife came to accept Jesus Christ as her personal Savior. He, on the other hand, rejected her newfound faith. He was an investigative journalist / reporter and set out prove her new found religion to be False.

What he discovered was that every aspect of His crucifixion Had happened and that He had Indeed risen from the dead. He used 'outside' sources to prove the Bible.

You, personally, come across as a person who Rejects Period. That nothing is going to convince you other-wise. Well -- a closed mind is a non-accepting mind. And That is sad.

But -- you -- like everyone else who's ever been in this world and will be in the future -- Will Acknowledge God. Now, if a person decides to wait and see and Then when they have 'adequate' proof Of God existing, they will accept His existence, well -- it will be too late. Because at That point -- life 'here' will be over. Which means that's in the 'here and now' that a person either accept or rejects. The last couple of chapters of book of Revelation tells us what both /heaven & hell / will be like -- and we're Also told how a person Can end up in either the future heaven (New Jerusalem) or the lake of fire and brimstone. Both locations will last Forever.

The entire Word of God / Bible -- all 66 of the books -- have been inspired by God through the Holy Spirit given to numerous men which is what we have now. So -- 'we' are without excuse.

 

[Bendito]

If someone who believed the Tanakh to be a self-contained divine revelation were asked to judge the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was also a divine revelation, but to do so only on how convincing they found New Testament citations of the Tanakh that supposedly referred to him, they would have every reason to reject that claim.

Now that's a claim based on ignorance. The Tenach is full of Jesus. If you had the eyes to see, and the Holy Spirit teaching you.

 

[Sue D.]

Bendito -- I think what he's saying is that IF a person's Only claim to Jesus Christ is what's found in part of the Old Testament and in the New Testament -- then they would have reason to reject His divine relation. To David Young -- it would be circular reasoning. Because of Course the Old and New Testaments are going to support the claim of Jesus of Nazareth. He wants secular evidence -- outside of the Bible evidence. Probably what he doesn't want to accept is that secular evidence Also upholds the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is why I brought up Lee Strobel to him.

 

[Bendito]

Bendito -- I think what he's saying is that IF a person's Only claim to Jesus Christ is what's found in part of the Old Testament and in the New Testament -- then they would have reason to reject His divine relation. To David Young -- it would be circular reasoning. Because of Course the Old and New Testaments are going to support the claim of Jesus of Nazareth. He wants secular evidence -- outside of the Bible evidence. Probably what he doesn't want to accept is that secular evidence Also upholds the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is why I brought up Lee Strobel to him.

I do have a bit of trouble handling circular reasoning. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Sue D.]

Bendito -- In other wards a person isn't supposed to use the Bible to Prove the Bible.

 

[Bendito]

Bendito -- In other wards a person isn't supposed to use the Bible to Prove the Bible.

The truth isn't supposed to prove the truth....

 

[Christ4Ever]

Bendito -- I think what he's saying is that IF a person's Only claim to Jesus Christ is what's found in part of the Old Testament and in the New Testament -- then they would have reason to reject His divine relation. To David Young -- it would be circular reasoning. Because of Course the Old and New Testaments are going to support the claim of Jesus of Nazareth. He wants secular evidence -- outside of the Bible evidence. Probably what he doesn't want to accept is that secular evidence Also upholds the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is why I brought up Lee Strobel to him.

Dear Sister Sue,
Reading the Book by Lee Strobel, A Case for Christ is truly a good way of pointing David Young to the secular evidence. Also, I'd point to the Testimonies of those right here on Talk Jesus. Read their bios or even in the Testimonies section and you will find those who did not believe and how they came to Christ.

For Secular sources, I was able to find the following site, that mentions some of them.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Even the Babylonian Talmud, which the church during the 1200's tried to destroy all copies of because they considered it an insult to Jesus. Instead of looking at it as a confirmation! Who better to confirm you then looking to see what your enemies think/say of you? Understanding that the World has no love for us and so why would we believe that they would have anything good to say or write about us? However, by doing so, our enemies just confirm that He existed, did miracles, meaning things they couldn't explain is how they would say it (I'm saying it nicely), and that He was seen by others after His death.

We keep praying for those who don't believe, like our David Young here. That the scales might fall away from his eyes, that he might truly see Lord and believe!

Doing awesome Sister!
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><

 

[Sue D.]

I'm wondering if David Young is still around. Hope so.

 

[David Young]

In Hosea, this line appears:
"When Israel was a child I loved him, and I called my son out of Egypt."
This is a reference to the Exodus. It is nothing more. It does not say it is anything else, let alone a description of a criterion which a forthcoming messiah needs to fulfil.
It is therefore incorrect for the author of Matthew's Gospel to say that it is a prophecy that Jesus fulfils.

Anyone wishing to assert that the New Testament has any authority on the same level as the Tanakh must first concede that it is in error at that point.
Before anyone tries it, I am perfectly familiar with the "Never mind the quality; Feel the width!" argument which this often prompts, and I am no more interested in such lines of argument than I am in occult arguments of "you need the guidance of the Holy Spirit", or "You've got to be careful which questions you ask".

If you genuinely believe the author of Matthew's Gospel is quoting the Tanakh accurately, I invite you to participate in the discussion on another thread of mine entitled "Not another second coming".

 

[Quantrill]

In Hosea, this line appears:
"When Israel was a child I loved him, and I called my son out of Egypt."
This is a reference to the Exodus. It is nothing more. It does not say it is anything else, let alone a description of a criterion which a forthcoming messiah needs to fulfil.
It is therefore incorrect for the author of Matthew's Gospel to say that it is a prophecy that Jesus fulfils.

Anyone wishing to assert that the New Testament has any authority on the same level as the Tanakh must first concede that it is in error at that point.
Before anyone tries it, I am perfectly familiar with the "Never mind the quality; Feel the width!" argument which this often prompts, and I am no more interested in such lines of argument than I am in occult arguments of "you need the guidance of the Holy Spirit", or "You've got to be careful which questions you ask".

If you genuinely believe the author of Matthew's Gospel is quoting the Tanakh accurately, I invite you to participate in the discussion on another thread of mine entitled "Not another second coming".

No, it is not incorrect for Matthew to quote Hosea and attribute the prophecy to Jesus Christ. (Matt. 2:15) It is only incorrect if you assume that the New Testament is not inspired by God. Question: do you believe the Old Testatment is the Word of God?

Quantrill

 

[David Young]

I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who treats the Tanakh as divinely inspired.

Personally, I do not believe that anything is divinely inspired as I am an atheist.

 

[Quantrill]

I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who treats the Tanakh as divinely inspired.

Personally, I do not believe that anything is divinely inspired as I am an atheist.

So, what makes you choose to treat the Old Testament as Divinely inspired and not the New? After all you don't believe in any prophecies, and the Old Testament is full of prophecy. In other words, what does it matter that you don't believe the fulfillment of prophecy as stated in (Matthew) when you don't believe the fulfillment of prophecy stated in the Old Testament. Your argument matters not.

For example. In (1 Kings 13:1-3) a great prophecy is given. It is fulfilled many years later. (2 Kings 23:14-17). The men of Bethel claimed what Josiah did was a fulfillment of the prophecy. So, was it? If it was, why? If it wasn't, what are you using to determine that the Old Testament is Divinely inspired or authoritative.

You don't believe either are inspired, and as an atheist, no doubt that is your goal to prove. But, as I said, your argument makes no sense.

Quantrill

 

[Sue D.]

I'd also like to know --why you'd believe that one part of Bible Is inspired and the rest Not? Maybe it's more -- your definition OF 'inspired'.

Upon re-reading your comment "someone who treats the Tanakh as divinely inspired" well -- again -- what is your definition Of 'inspired'.

Some one had pointed out something to me -- the meaning Of 'atheist'. Theism = believing in a god / God. and 'a' = none . An atheist is saying that they don't believe in an entity that does exist. In other words -- we have visual evidence of this world existing. No matter what part of the world a person is living in -- there is 'world' around them. It's a matter of how it came into existence. There's no one in history books who claims to be responsible for this world's existence. And we can see churches in all towns, cities. Well -- maybe that depends on what part of the world is being lived in. But there is religion in some form all over the world. And there is Greek mythology. Every culture has their version of 'where did we come from' -- their 'god/ s ess'

There's only One book that claims to have the answers. John 14:6 Jesus Christ is telling us "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father, but through/by Me."

Now there Are a few men who claim that this world came to be purely 'by chance'. Someone likened the 'by chance' to taking all the letters from a Scrabble Game -- dropping them all on the ground from up on a chair -- and having words come up as a result. We all know the 'chances' of That happening.

And with all the churches in this country of all denominations -- are we All worshipping a make-believe friend?!

And American coinage -- In God we trust is engraved on it.

The Pledge of Allegience to the Flag of the United States of America -- "one nation, Under God , ....."

For an entity that doesn't exist -- He sure is getting a lot of positive attention. Those of us who just celebrated Christmas -- "keeping Christ in Christmas". The babe in the manger.

Songs -- Amazing Grace - one of the most popular. Listen to the words.
And "What a Friend we have in Jesus".

Have you heard of Lee Strobel "The Case for Christ".

One more thought -- IF evolution were true -- there would really be no reason For this world To exist. And evolution takes the place Of God's creating this world. Genesis 1;1. And John 1;1.

 

[Dovegiven]

Bendito -- In other wards a person isn't supposed to use the Bible to Prove the Bible.

Jesus is on record as quoting OT scriptures as foundational to his gospel. Christians ought to accept that what Jesus referred to in those scriptures were in fact inspired to be recorded by men of old. If just one prophesy in the OT was not possibly fulfilled, then at least that one book would be subject to questioning. But his apostles also referred to old testament scriptures as related to their current events, like Joel in connection to the day of Pentecost in Acts, not fulfilled earlier.

Just considering the OT, how many books did it take to fully comprehend the life of David? There are many interrationships between authors of Bible books.

Aside from the value of certifying the gospel of Christ with quoting OT passages, the only current evidence of a human having connection to divinity, the only living God, is our love for one another in Christ. There are signs that are indisputable, personal conversions that boggle the mind of observers, while most are possibly of little notice. I was shocked to see a sweet woman I attended high school with in the 60's, whom I considered to possibly be an angel, to me a person I was not worthy of knowing personally, gave her life to Jesus in a church altar call at age 70. WHAT? Well, that was not much of a sign to me, but it was to her.

It's hazardous to entertain atheists who serve as internet "trolls", though that's the prime arena of Christian apologetics. It's why we need to study, not be caught off guard, ready to testify accurately, and knowing when to show them the soles of our shoes. Such folks simply have a mission to discourage Christians through crafty questions, like Satan posed to Eve. Every response needs to be a counter-measure intent on establishing truth without being bogged down in untruths. Always remember to be an ambassador for Christ.

 

[Dovegiven]

There have developed hermeneutical principles that stand the test of time. One is Sola Scripture, and the other is Regula Fedei. The former is the standard applied to judge whether a concept is "biblical" or not. Thye latter came along later that took interpretation of scriptures a little too far, saying that ONLY scripture can interpret scripture. Well, find another element besides backing up scripture with scripture.
Please refer to the entire chapter of
1 Corinthians 2:1-16 (KJV)
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

It does not matter that someone still of the world disagrees. They will give account to God in the end for their theories. Christians must remain steadfast. So it is the Christian is enabled to be a fruit inspector. When driving through southern state lines we were subject to inspection of our stuff in the 50's-60's. "Do you have any cotton substances in your car?" Most of us were wearing something cotton. They were looking for any transfer of Boll Weevil larvae, especially matured cotton balls blown to the roadsides, often taken as "soveniers", to protect the cotton crop of the next state. Inspect the fruit!

 

[Sue D.]

Dovegiven -- I've been into the field of doctrinal apologetics for a while. It's fascinating -- Why does a person believe what they Do believe. And I have no problem talking with atheists. A great time to share with them.

In fact, if David Young wants to 'start a conversation' / PMing. That would be fine, too. Or continuing conversing 'here'.

 

[David Young]

Is the phrase 'from the perspective of' really so difficult to understand?

It's hardly the Ground Nuts Order.