Creation School. Do we need one?

[Truly1999]

It's 1 a.m. in the UK and I'm about to go to sleep. I will post more tomorrow.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You're wanting to get your money's worth today, aren't you? Where should I begin? Throughout the Old Testament period, people were constantly watching for the Messiah to come, and the Branch of David was attributed to several people, but it was not to be. I think the last person before Jesus, BCE, was Zerubbabel.

Actually there were plenty, both before and since Jesus of Nazareth. It's a matter of popularity than anything else --how many people can a person convince (besides, presumably, themselves) that they are the Messiah?

Whether a person believes Jesus succeeded or failed in his goal depends upon whether you believe that Jesus made an attempt at overthrowing the Roman regime which failed, or whether you believe that Jesus spoke of a supernatural overthrowing of the powers and principalities under Satan's control.

Given that the former was a dismal failure, one would have to believe the latter in order for Jesus' messianic claims to hold any weight. Hindsight is always 20/20.

A convincing argument has been made by Biblical scholars to support the first. You might be aware of it. The people who Jesus chose to be part of his Twelve Disciples was interesting, such as James and John, Boanerges, sons of thunder, who were armed. Then you had the instance where one of the disciples believed that Jesus would make his move when the Jewish authorities came to arrest him, and drew his sword to strike on of the Jewish guards. Also, when Jesus ransacked the Jewish temple, holding the traders by force, and regrouping at Bethany.

Indeed -- Jesus' words and actions seem a bit inconsistent, depending on the writer. Generally speaking, when the Gospels are read chronologically, Jesus' message moves away from the former towards the latter. This shouldn't be surprising.

Jesus showed doubt and confusion over his role on the last few days before his death.

I've often wondered who he confessed those feelings to, that they could be properly recorded -- excepting God, of course.

Then again, there are plenty of people who mistakenly believe the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts, in spite of the numerous recorded events that were not witnessed.

But I couldn't say if Jesus had doubts over whether he was to die and rise again or whether he thought he might be totally man with a purely earthly agenda of political overthrow of the Roman regime.

It's a difficult situation, since his words and deeds were recorded by people during the time of just such an overthrow attempt... and its subsequent failure. We know that certain Gospel writers had access to the writers of earlier writers, and in a couple of cases, carefully edited them to smooth over certain embarrassing episodes -- look at Mark 6:3 vs. Matthew 13:55 for an example.

Another rebel had claimed to be Messiah just years before and tried a political overthrow but the rebellion was crushed. So, Jesus would have definitely failed if he tried to lead a rebellion.

Which again, leads to the problem that the Gospel writers faced -- whatever they believed Jesus to be, his ignominious end pretty much torpedoed any traditional messianic claims. Clearly, it was time to go back to the drawing board.

It's an interesting point. And, just as it was for people at the time of Jesus' death and burial, so it is for people today. It comes down to faith.

But "faith" is not a codeword for "don't investigate." We might never know, but that's no reason not to look.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually there were plenty, both before and since Jesus of Nazareth. It's a matter of popularity than anything else --how many people can a person convince (besides, presumably, themselves) that they are the Messiah?

Unless they were born of a virgin, their chatta doan matta.

And Daniel prophesied when He would come.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Unless they were born of a virgin, their chatta doan matta.

You mean an "almah," don't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean an "almah," don't you?

Virgin.

(It's not a dirty word.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Virgin.

(It's not a dirty word.)

Parthenos.

(Certainly not a dirty word).

 

[AV1611VET]

Parthenos.

(Certainly not a dirty word).

As I said, so shall I say again -- with emphasis this time.

Unless they were born of a VIRGIN, their chatta doan matta.

Your "Almah" and "Parthenos" and other Japanese words notwithstanding.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your "Almah" and "Parthenos" and other Japanese words notwithstanding.

Not a whole lot of respect for Biblical language, eh?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a whole lot of respect for Biblical language, eh?

What Bible is that, exactly?

Does it have a name?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What Bible is that, exactly?

Does it have a name?

Ask Matthew -- it's the one he used when he wrote his Gospel.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ask Matthew -- it's the one he used when he wrote his Gospel.

For the record, you're the one who seems to be having trouble discerning which "messiah" is being discussed.

I suspect I know why now.

I, on the other hand, don't have that problem.

I don't fog my compass up with unnecessary verbage, then claim anyone who knows where they're going should be using a fogged-up compass; so they can "wonder around" like others.

 

[AV1611VET]

Valentine, just out of curiosity I looked up "virgin" in Matthew 1:23; and using Wrong's Concordance, found this:

3933. paryenov parthenos, par-then'-os
Search for 3933 in KJV
of unknown origin; a maiden; by implication, an unmarried daughter:--virgin.

So I see four choices here:

1. No one knows what parthenos means.
2. Parthenos means "a maiden" -- (right after it says 'of unknkown origin,' suddenly it means 'a maiden').
3. By implication -- whatever that means -- an unmarried daughter.
4. Virgin

Well ... since the KJB uses #4 above -- guess which one I'm going to use?

Especially since Satan's dictionary can't make up its mind.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Valentine, just out of curiosity I looked up "virgin" in Matthew 1:23; and using Wrong's Concordance, found this:

Why would you use a Concordance you don't agree with?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would you use a Concordance you don't agree with?

I promise you ... I don't.

I even took a knife and cut up my Zodhiates (sp?) "King James Bible."

When I go to the bookstore to buy a Bible, the first thing I do is look for a King James Bible.

The second thing I do is open It and read Numbers 11:4.

If it says "mixt multitude," chances are, I'll buy It.

It it says "mixed multitude," the piece of junk goes back on the self.

Let someone else buy it, then wonder why we don't have the true word of God today.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I promise you ... I don't.

Except when you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except when you do.

Link please?

You must have me mixed up with someone else.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Link please?

QV Please: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creation-school-do-we-need-one.7892937/page-7#post-68156738

 

[Goonie]

I promise you ... I don't.

I even took a knife and cut up my Zodhiates (sp?) "King James Bible."

When I go to the bookstore to buy a Bible, the first thing I do is look for a King James Bible.

The second thing I do is open It and read Numbers 11:4.

If it says "mixt multitude," chances are, I'll buy It.

It it says "mixed multitude," the piece of junk goes back on the self.

Let someone else buy it, then wonder why we don't have the true word of God today.

What do you do when the link on your post says mixed multitude?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you do when the link on your post says mixed multitude?

Let me check.[VERSE=Numbers 11:4,KJV]And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?[/VERSE]Looks good to me.

 

[Goonie]

Let me check.[VERSE=Numbers 11:4,KJV]And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?[/VERSE]Looks good to me.

Better, but your previous post is definately mixed!