Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: jonnyr1 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110966 | ||
The purpose could be that maybe we translated it wrong. That Jesus was actually the sired son of maiden Mary. If Jesus was adopted and is Joseph's son by Jewish law, then it would mean something to the Jews! | ||||||
2 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110965 | ||
Hello Pastor Glenn, Of course I'm not disputing some or all of these scriptures. But there are some problems with your response. 1) Jesus had to be in the line of David according to the flesh. You fail to show anything scriptural that supports this. 2) Jesus has to be of David's Physical seed, but how is this possible? Some scholars argue that the hebrew or greek (it escapes me) word that is used as virgin should acually mean young maiden, and the same word is translated as young maiden earlier in the scriptures. Do you have more information on this? -He was contantly called his son. But you certainly aren't saying that he actually sired Jesus, are you? Simple adoption doesn't seem to fulfill that he is of david's sead through the flesh. Jon |
||||||
3 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110962 | ||
"Don't you think the earliest Christians had the same question you do? How do you think they resolved them? And who or what, in your opinion, is the final arbiter of the "TRUTH" of any interpretation of ambiguous passages of Scripture?" -Some of them that read scripture may have had this question. Of course God is always the Final and Absolute truth. When it comes to ambiguous passages, many similiar verses need to be brought together. If we can't understand it, what good did it do for God to put it there? The Bible is supposed to be 'a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path', not a question and trivia book for stimulating confusing brain activity. If the message can't be understand, it has no purpose and no meaning to those that hear or read it. 1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. -I know of no book ever written that is more confusing than the Bible. "I know my answer to those questions, but I am from a minority camp on the foruma dni don't think you are in that particular camp, so what is your answer?" -Exactly what minority camp are you referring to good Emmaus. What is my answer? I don't have one and it is nagging me. Hence my question to you! Jon |
||||||
4 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110959 | ||
"You seem to have an extraordinary high standard for proofs. Mine may not satisfy you, but here is my reasoning from Scripture." -I have one standard for proof. TRUTH. "Many hold that the geneology of Luke is Mary's geneology. But even if that was not the case, under Jewsish law an adopted son has the same status as a natural son and so the geneology of Joseph would applied to Jesus, just as our status as adopted children of God (see Romans) grants us status in the family of God." -Yes, many hold that Luke is Mary's geneology. This is something that people make up in an attempt to fix the problem. Mary's name doesn't even appear in the entire geneology of Luke 3! It would be pretty suspicious to say that it is her geneology when her name isn't even in it! Not to mention Romans 1:3 says that "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh". Jewish law has nothing to do with 'the seed of David according to the flesh'. Also a note, no women is held of high enough importance in the Bible to have their geneology listed. Jon |
||||||
5 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110954 | ||
But if Mary is not in the line of David, then what? Can you show me proof from the Bible that Mary is in the line of David? Jon |
||||||
6 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110944 | ||
"I am just wondering: Why did you ask this question if you already knew the answer?" -What are you talking about? I don't know the answer, nor does anyone else. "You ask the question, then reject every honest attempt to answer it. What, then, is your answer? If everyone else's answer is wrong, then tell us what you believe to be the correct answer." -It doesn't matter how honest the attempt is! I reject the answers that are unscriptural and stretches. I asked the question, just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean that the answers the others gave were correct. Are scriptue and reasoning your strong points? Very much dissapointed Jon |
||||||
7 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110929 | ||
Hello Emmaus, A possiblity, but a stretch nonethless. Acts 7:56 says nothing of Stephen seeing Jesus return in the clouds, it says nothing about angels coming with (see matthew), says nothing of judging or rewarding those according to their works, etc.. Jon |
||||||
8 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110927 | ||
Even though I'm closing this topic, I have some final remaks. "Your first premise is actually incorrect. You state that 'you shall see' is addressed directly to the High Priest. Yet, the Greek verb is 2nd person plural." The context shows: Mr 14:60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? Mr 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? Mr 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. -It certainly would appear from every version I have read that he is speaking to the priest. But even if he is speaking to everyone, the problem still isn't solved. I'll not argue with your greek. Although I haven't looked at it myself. "Therefore, Jesus was not specifically saying that the High Priest would see." If Jesus was addressing the whole group, even more people would have to see him if the interpretation was taking literally. "One could argue that Jesus was addressing all those present, but a much more convincing arguement would simply be that Jesus was taking several well known quotes from the Old Testament and using them to fully reveal His true identity to the Jewish leaders." Saying 'I AM', showing miracles and quoting scripture would be adequate. Making a statement that doesn't come to pass is hardly the thing to do. The priest would have torn his clothes even if Jesus just said 'I AM' and didn't promise that he would return. To assume that we should let it slip as him revealing himself is unscriptural. still closing Jon |
||||||
9 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110926 | ||
Thanks to everyone that responded. I ask this question and others similiar because I have been studying the Bible and seem to have come across things and questions that I would like answered. closing mark 16 for now Jon |
||||||
10 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110900 | ||
Hello Hank, Thanks for your response. I believe most of your remarks are answered in a similiar way in emmaus's response message. Jon |
||||||