Interplanner
Newbie
re: resurrection in the OT
You're way off in some other ways, Dogg.
1, resurrection is understood in the OT in the earliest written doc as I understand it, which is Job. "though worms...yet in my flesh" I ask you to give reasons, not rote repetition, why a person back then could not put 2 and 2 together and realize that God could also become human (having already been Melchizedek) and resurrect?'
2, there were resurrection myths flying around the ancient near east. Osis and Osiris; and Egyptian ones. It is not outside of the scope of their Hebrew neighbor's range of thinking.
3, Ecclesiastes, as Rabbi Prager says, is one of the most important Biblical statements about the after life, that is, there has to be individual and coherent resurrected after-life for this life's nonsense to make sense. It can't be reincarnation. It can't be cessation. Prager is an orthodox rabbi who does not accept that Jesus is Messiah; it is unthinkable to him because Messiah conquers and restores (hint, hint).
4, these things and their timing must force you to reconsider what you are saying about the most quoted NT passage about resurrection which is Ps 16. It is not Osirian, Egyptian or Hindi, it is a Hebrew concept! It is not as far back as the creation, and it has to be human and it has to be God (esp. if we are talking about David, lol). I'm starting to think you are Zoroastrian, seriously. That the resurrected god came from completely outside and after the OT.
Having heard these things would you please stop repeating your all-to-obvious position, and start giving some answer as to why it would be true. Repetition of it weakens it.
--INter
You're way off in some other ways, Dogg.
1, resurrection is understood in the OT in the earliest written doc as I understand it, which is Job. "though worms...yet in my flesh" I ask you to give reasons, not rote repetition, why a person back then could not put 2 and 2 together and realize that God could also become human (having already been Melchizedek) and resurrect?'
2, there were resurrection myths flying around the ancient near east. Osis and Osiris; and Egyptian ones. It is not outside of the scope of their Hebrew neighbor's range of thinking.
3, Ecclesiastes, as Rabbi Prager says, is one of the most important Biblical statements about the after life, that is, there has to be individual and coherent resurrected after-life for this life's nonsense to make sense. It can't be reincarnation. It can't be cessation. Prager is an orthodox rabbi who does not accept that Jesus is Messiah; it is unthinkable to him because Messiah conquers and restores (hint, hint).
4, these things and their timing must force you to reconsider what you are saying about the most quoted NT passage about resurrection which is Ps 16. It is not Osirian, Egyptian or Hindi, it is a Hebrew concept! It is not as far back as the creation, and it has to be human and it has to be God (esp. if we are talking about David, lol). I'm starting to think you are Zoroastrian, seriously. That the resurrected god came from completely outside and after the OT.
Having heard these things would you please stop repeating your all-to-obvious position, and start giving some answer as to why it would be true. Repetition of it weakens it.
--INter
Upvote
0