Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Christians before Jesus came | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 128833 | ||
Greetings Country Girl! Here is a link to a web site that both explains the 'pesher' method and refutes that Matthew used it. http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue3/mtmain.htm#WHAT Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Christians before Jesus came | Bible general Archive 2 | chesed | 128854 | ||
I think the problem is here: "It is the claim that Matthew is using pesher contemporization of the OT, particularly in ‘fulfillment’ citations, that provides the most serious challenge to those holding to verbal, plenary inspiration." You don't like it because it goes against your a priori approach of Verbal, plenary inspiration. Therfore, you must explain this away so that your view of inspiration does not get damaged. The fact remains that Mathew was relying on the LXX for his prophesy, and recorded the event accordingly, which is contradictory to Mark's record. I realize this falls in the realm of acceptable Jewish literature, and I believe that Matthew was inspired of God to write his gospel. It is just different, that's all. If it sounds better, I will say midrashic. Whatever it is that Matthew does, it is a 1st century Jewish method which lifts an OT passage out of context and applies it to a contemprary situation. chesed |
||||||
3 | Christians before Jesus came | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 128891 | ||
Greetings Chesed! Of course, I could turn your argument around and say that you reject the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture because of your a priori approach to Scripture! :-) As I mentioned in my previous post to you my friend, there is a world of difference in saying that Matthew 'made up' an application and saying that a prophesy had an even greater meaning than just what it meant to the people of the time of it's utterance. If you claim that Matthew was 'wrong' or simply 'making up' an application, then I would say that you are wrong. The reason I reject the 'pesher' method arguement is not simply because I believe in inspiration. I reject it because there is no 'evidence' that the Gospel writers are using this method. Some 'claim' that they are, but this is not evidence. :-) Further, how does Mark contradict Matthew? Matthew mentions both the colt and the mother. Mark simply mentions the colt. There is no contradition here. 'Contradiction' is one of the most misused words in the English language. A contradiction is one source saying 'A' and another source saying 'NOT A'. Matthew says 'A and B', while Mark only mentions 'A'. This is not a contradiction - by definition. :-) So, since you never answered my previous question, am I too assume that you do believe that Matthew was 'wrong' in applying Zech. 9 to Jesus? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||