Danmark wrote:
squint wrote:
It might also be interesting to see that it was predicted in advance, as to what would happen:
Psalm 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;
neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Apparently this conspiracy/hoax was pinpointed hundreds of years in advance.
How many times does it have to be pointed out that "predictions" that were "fulfilled" according to New Testament writings, are the "prophetic" equivalent of shooting an arrow into the side of a barn and painting a bullseye around the arrow?
Really? The predilections of God to gather, form, destroy and scatter the nation of Israel, a nation God presumably called out and put together is another example of lucky random arrowshooting? Or their continuing persecution? All accidental you say? Random lucky shots to the side of huge barn of potential outcomes?
Christianity
says that the Hebrew Bible predicts that the Jewish Messiah would be from
Nazareth and the following verses are used to prove that “Jesus of Nazareth�
[born in Bethlehem] fulfilled this prophecy. Judges
13:5 “for the lad shall be a _Nazirite_
of God from the womb�, Amos 2:11 “I established prophets from among your sons and _Nazirites_ from among your young men. Is this not true, people of Israel?" declares the Lord.� As we discussed earlier in this book, Christians say that since Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem he was the Messiah. This prophecy however says that Jesus fulfilled the biblical verses of being a Nazarene, so which is it?
Christianity sez? Now that's entertainment! Christianity might say a lot of things, few of which things are agreed upon. In fact a premise of the scriptures is that we WILL debate with it.
Isaiah 27:8
In measure, when it shooteth forth, thou wilt debate with it
You hopefully understand that Jewish/scriptural terms are understood, in some camps, to be used for "association" purposes. Not strict literal sense terms. This appears to be an arena you are unfamiliar with.
Nazarene for example is root word associative to "the guarded one" or even "one separated." Why do you see it only as a town on a spot of earth is the real question? Must these matters only be approached by surrender to your terms and conditions? Is Damascus a town on the map or a figurative of spiritual significance meaning "silent is the sack cloth weaver?" I am of the latter opinion, besides it being a 'real dot on the map.'
There are also some camps that will find associations to the term Branch in Nazarene. It would not be critical in either cases of sight. Only interesting.
There are camps of understanding scriptures that accept that the conveyances of The Image of God, the Imageo Dei, is performed and executed with images and associations. And that strict literalism and/or other approaches such as archeology or history are nearly totally inept for the tasks.
There are a number of approaches to scripture. Strict literalism is not high on the list of legitimacy in many camps. Nor is history. Nor is archeology. These are all sub-chapters of far lesser values, if any. And entirely subjective in any cases.
Was Jesus from Bethlehem or Nazareth?
What do they call "when did you stop beating your wife" questions?
We might also examine the intricacies of "the vow of the Nazarite" from Jewish practices for more enlightenment on the terms and practices.
From the Jewish Encyclopedia for example:
NAZARITE:
"One who lives apart; one who has made a vow of abstinence"
This passage is quite an obvious
error to Jews and shows clearly how the early Christians misunderstood Jewish
scripture to try and fit Jesus into being from both. The inaccuracy however is
that the Jewish Messiah would not be a Nazarene, i.e. from Nazareth but a
_Nazirite_ which is the term for a Jew who has taken a ‘_vow of abstinence_’.
Bethlehem and Nazareth are nearly 100 miles away so the early church made up a story
of Jesus going from Nazareth to Bethlehem to try and fulfill this ‘prophecy’.[/b]
https://www.deily.org/text/300-times-0- ... scriptures
There are many other considerations to these matters. Not all of them locked in literalism NOR is your contention that
early christianity meant this matter to be engaged and understood only as a dot on the map a legitimate approach.
In the truest senses of the terms,
Paul dissected scriptural matters entirely with allegory and spiritual comparisons, none of which has much if anything to do with
strict literalism,
history or
archeology.
The latter 3 I would consider nothing more than blunt instruments in the hands of pseudo spiritual cavemen. The questions they contemplate extends to such worthlessness as "where is Jesus' body now?" type questions. Real snorefests by my sights. It's much more interesting, fascinating and intimate than just that.
And you cite the 300 O.T. prophecy hack that some camps of christian literalism hold forth when the N.T. presents that the entire O.T. contains shadows of Christ? (I read the book on the 300 prophecy claims decades ago btw)
Every Jot and Tittle of the Word was MADE FLESH. It's a more interesting concept and approach than one dimensional line items in a budget agenda.
John 1:14
And
the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us-
I'd daresay John did NOT have strict literalism in mind in the above.
Kind of gives a more unique perspective on The Word don't you think?
Nor did Paul:
2 Timothy 2:9
Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but
the word of God is not bound.
Nor is The Word type on papyrus. Common problem though.
And needless to say it is The Word that dictates how one approaches the subject in some camps. It's quite an ingenious construct. And not one meant for everyone to understand.
As to witnesses of the Resurrection Paul addresses where The Word
is now:
Romans 10:8
But what saith it?
The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and
in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Perhaps we can cut them hearts open and have a read? Maybe some fine print somewhere within to examine?
You might understand that literalism and spiritual comparative analysis are two entirely different worlds that are not meant to agree or be able to communicate.
"As to the ultimate things we can know nothing, and only when we admit this do we return to equilibrium." Carl Jung
