 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Andrew_
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 12/9/2003 11:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | So lately, I've been talking to one of my friends who is studying Greek and Hebrew and working on a masters in Biblical studies, and he's been pointing out some things. They've really made me start thinking, and quite frankly, I'm confused.
He takes the Bible from an objective standpoint, and looks at it from the angle that it was written. By taking that stance, he's come to the conclusion that Jesus was never prophecied, and that all the prophecies Christians have pinned to him were only read into the Hebrew text later on. He also stated that all the 'prophetic fulfillments' listed in the New Testament were actually taken out of context from the original scripture. Personally, this has been really damaging to my faith: I've had a hard enough time struggling with caring; now, I have a hard time believing. I mean, Jesus is central to Christianity. If he wasn't the son of God, then what are we to do?
If/when there are responses, I'll get some of the information out of him, just to see where he's coming from.
Heh...prayer might be nice.
Andrew | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 12/11/2003 12:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Andrew,
It's true, that in the OT there is no clear-cut text that says "The Messiah is coming, and His name will be Jesus, and He will come to die on a cross, etc etc."
However, we are looking through the eyes of 21st century non-Jews. To a Jew in that day however, the OT certainly DID point out to a Messiah. References in 2 Samuel, Isaiah, Daniel, etc. certainly point out to the notion of someone coming to restore Israel to her former glory and reconcile her with God. What people may say the text means may differ, but just about everyone universally believes the words that are in the OT are accurate.
Now the question comes is to whether this Jesus character was the Messiah. Obviously, if the NT text is true, then there is no doubt whatsoever that He claimed to be the Messiah that was spoken about (Calling Himself the 'Son of Man', said He did say He was the Christ [Messiah; John 10], etc.) Furthermore, He claimed to be God Himself saying that He before Abraham was "I AM [reference to Yaweh]", saying He will judge the world, claimed to being able to forgive sins, etc.
So, the key issue your friend has is not so much the reliability of the text itself, but of the meaning of the text. Modern day Jews will raise objections to the meaning of OT prophesies, certain texts, etc. But regardless, most historians (Christian and non-Christian) agree that someone named Jesus existed. The question now is, who was He? Was He just a man? Did He really do all those miracles? Did He really die on a cross? Did He really rise from the dead (if not, then we are to be pitied above all others)? If we focus on these questions, then we will see how the rest of Scripture falls into place. Jesus Himself said after He was resurrected that everything in the Law, Prophets, and the Psalms were pointing to Him.
"I say we blast the meatbag, Master" -HK-47, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/12/2003 3:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, first, it would make no difference if there were "prophecies" or not in the Old Testament about the Messiah; we still need a Savior, and Jesus was quite adament that He was, in fact, the one Moses wrote about (John 5:45) in regard to this issue. Further, what do we mean by "prophecy"? Only futuristic predictions? Not at all. Prophecy in the Old Testament context (for that matter, Scripture in general) is one of declaration more so than prediction. What this means is God wasn't near as interested in "predicting" the coming of the Messiah--as if to say, "Oooh, check this out; here's what's gonna happen"--as He was in wanting to communicate constant declaration of the coming One (Messiah) who could deal with the dilemma of mankind.
What this means is that you will have to hunt the Old Testament for "Here's what's going to happen" kind of statements regarding the direct Predictive statements of the coming of the Messiah, but you will look almost effortlessly for declaration speaking of He who alone can save. It's all throughout the Old Testament. Oh, there's solid Scripture pointing directly to the coming of the Messiah, but when examined carefully, many of these Scriptures are perplexing if we try to pin them only within a futuristic context. Isaiah 7:14 is a classic example of this. It is quoted in Mathew 1:23 from Isaiah as if one could not help but see that Isaiah was "predicting" this very thing. But when you read Isaiah's context, things get kind of murky, and one will struggle in vain to make Isaiah "predict": "Okay, here's what's going to happen: God's going to bring the Messiah to us, and he's going to do so through a virgin. Just you watch and see." This passage from Isaiah, as well as many others, simply doesn't come across in context of futuristic, predictive prophecy. But that doesn't mean, at all, that God wasn't speaking of the Messiah (in the greater picture) or that there isn't predictive elements in the passage. There's simply a bigger picture behind many of the prophecies of the Messiah's coming than futuristic prediction.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/14/2003 9:36 PM (GMT -6) | | I remember when I first came across Gordon Olson's reference to "ecbatic" prophecy (as opposed to "telic"). I too had been spoon-fed McDowell's Evidence, but when I came to believe in the Open View, the issue of many of these Messianic prophecies seemed troublesome to me. Anyway, really looking into the context of the original scriptural promises/prophesies that are quoted in the NT caused me to reassess my preconception of what a Bible prophecy HAD to be.
I found the following on a website called "The Brainy Dictionary."
Ecbatic
(a.) Denoting a mere result or consequence, as distinguished from telic, which denotes intention or purpose; thus the phrase / /, if rendered "so that it was fulfilled," is ecbatic; if rendered "in order that it might be." etc., is telic.
Is it possible that this also explains the case of Judas? Not that he had no choice, but that someone would fulfill the prophecies of betrayal? And that he of course eventually sealed his own fate?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/16/2003 3:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
I remember when I first came across Gordon Olson's reference to "ecbatic" prophecy (as opposed to "telic"). I too had been spoon-fed McDowell's Evidence, but when I came to believe in the Open View, the issue of many of these Messianic prophecies seemed troublesome to me. Anyway, really looking into the context of the original scriptural promises/prophesies that are quoted in the NT caused me to reassess my preconception of what a Bible prophecy HAD to be.
I found the following on a website called "The Brainy Dictionary."
Ecbatic
(a.) Denoting a mere result or consequence, as distinguished from telic, which denotes intention or purpose; thus the phrase / /, if rendered "so that it was fulfilled," is ecbatic; if rendered "in order that it might be." etc., is telic.
Is it possible that this also explains the case of Judas? Not that he had no choice, but that someone would fulfill the prophecies of betrayal? And that he of course eventually sealed his own fate?
This is an interesting distinction. But I'm wondering if Gordon Olson is making a distinction without and real difference. If something is "fulfilled," how can we legitimately use the word "fulfilled" unless there was design and purpose so that "fulfilled" is the proper word to use? "Telic" and "ecbatic" are grammatical terms, but I truly wonder about dictionary.com's definition of ecbatic:
ecbatic
\Ec*bat"ic\, a. [See Ecbasis.] (Gram.) Denoting a mere result or consequence, as distinguished from telic, which denotes intention or purpose; thus the phrase ? ?, if rendered ``so that it was fulfilled,'' is ecbatic; if rendered ``in order that it might be.'' etc., is telic.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/16/2003 3:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
I remember when I first came across Gordon Olson's reference to "ecbatic" prophecy (as opposed to "telic"). I too had been spoon-fed McDowell's Evidence, but when I came to believe in the Open View, the issue of many of these Messianic prophecies seemed troublesome to me. Anyway, really looking into the context of the original scriptural promises/prophesies that are quoted in the NT caused me to reassess my preconception of what a Bible prophecy HAD to be.
I found the following on a website called "The Brainy Dictionary."
Ecbatic
(a.) Denoting a mere result or consequence, as distinguished from telic, which denotes intention or purpose; thus the phrase / /, if rendered "so that it was fulfilled," is ecbatic; if rendered "in order that it might be." etc., is telic.
Is it possible that this also explains the case of Judas? Not that he had no choice, but that someone would fulfill the prophecies of betrayal? And that he of course eventually sealed his own fate?
This is an interesting distinction. But I'm wondering if Gordon Olson is making a distinction without and real difference. If something is "fulfilled," how can we legitimately use the word "fulfilled" unless there was design and purpose so that "fulfilled" is the proper word to use? "Telic" and "ecbatic" are grammatical terms, but I truly wonder about dictionary.com's definition of ecbatic:
ecbatic
\Ec*bat"ic\, a. [See Ecbasis.] (Gram.) Denoting a mere result or consequence, as distinguished from telic, which denotes intention or purpose; thus the phrase ? ?, if rendered ``so that it was fulfilled,'' is ecbatic; if rendered ``in order that it might be.'' etc., is telic.
Because, as others have demonstrated on this thread, many times things were said in the NT to fulfill prophecy even though in the original context, no specific prediction was made. Thus, the NT writers would say certain things fulfilled the Scripture even though the original scripture referred to had no predictive phrasing to it at all. Such as "out of Egypt I have called my son."
Matt 2:15 He remained there until the death of Herod. {This was} to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
Note the original context:
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 The more I called them, the more they went from me;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and offering incense to idols.
Obviously Christ never "went from" God, never sacrificed to Baals, nor offered incense to idols. Thus, the original scripture verse was not a predictive prophecy.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/16/2003 4:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Because, as others have demonstrated on this thread, many times things were said in the NT to fulfill prophecy even though in the original context, no specific prediction was made. Thus, the NT writers would say certain things fulfilled the Scripture even though the original scripture referred to had no predictive phrasing to it at all. Such as "out of Egypt I have called my son."
Matt 2:15 He remained there until the death of Herod. {This was} to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
Note the original context:
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 The more I called them, the more they went from me;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and offering incense to idols.
Obviously Christ never "went from" God, never sacrificed to Baals, nor offered incense to idols. Thus, the original scripture verse was not a predictive prophecy.
Hmmmmm! True. Hosea 11:1, grammatically speaking, does not use predictive language. In fact, the passage uses historically reflective language. Yet, the best commentaries on Hosea 11:1 and on Matthew 2:15 (where Hos 11:1 is said to be fulfilled) contend that Israel's exodus from Egypt is typologically predictive of what is fulfilled in Jesus' going down to Egypt in the birth narrative story in Matthew's Gospel. In other words, Christian scholars, such as N. T. Wright, D. A. Carson, and scores of other biblical scholars, claim that God designed Israel to function as a type, a foreshadow, of the One who was to come, namely Jesus Christ. Thus, when Jesus came, he reenacted (recapitulated) Israel's history in a compressed timeframe, but, unlike Israel who was unfaithful to God, Jesus is faithful to his Father. They argue, for example, that Jesus recapitulates Israel's role, but faithfully, by going down to Egypt and being brought out of Egypt as Israel of old had, by being baptized in the Jordan River through which Israel entered the Promised Land, by going into the wilderness to be tested 40 days corresponding to the 40 years that Israel was tested in the wilderness. By recapitulating Israel's role, but doing it faithfully, Jesus shows himself to be the True Israelite, the long awaited Messiah, the Son of God, the Redeemer promised from of old.
What are your thoughts upon this? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/16/2003 4:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Welcome back, Polycarp, er, I mean "Mr. Geriatric". 
Who's Polycarp? I know I'm old, but I didn't think I was so old that anyone would call me Polycarp, that ancient man of the church.  (the closest to a puzzled face icon that I could find)
P.S. I just registered today to ask a few questions because I a few of these discussions grabbed my interest. Sorry if I asked the wrong questions. I didn't mean to cause any harm.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/16/2003 4:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Hmmmmm! True. Hosea 11:1, grammatically speaking, does not use predictive language. In fact, the passage uses historically reflective language. Yet, the best commentaries on Hosea 11:1 and on Matthew 2:15 (where Hos 11:1 is said to be fulfilled) contend that Israel's exodus from Egypt is typologically predictive of what is fulfilled in Jesus' going down to Egypt in the birth narrative story in Matthew's Gospel. In other words, Christian scholars, such as N. T. Wright, D. A. Carson, and scores of other biblical scholars, claim that God designed Israel to function as a type, a foreshadow, of the One who was to come, namely Jesus Christ. Thus, when Jesus came, he reenacted (recapitulated) Israel's history in a compressed timeframe, but, unlike Israel who was unfaithful to God, Jesus is faithful to his Father. They argue, for example, that Jesus recapitulates Israel's role, but faithfully, by going down to Egypt and being brought out of Egypt as Israel of old had, by being baptized in the Jordan River through which Israel entered the Promised Land, by going into the wilderness to be tested 40 days corresponding to the 40 years that Israel was tested in the wilderness. By recapitulating Israel's role, but doing it faithfully, Jesus shows himself to be the True Israelite, the long awaited Messiah, the Son of God, the Redeemer promised from of old.
What are your thoughts upon this?
I have no problem with the "recapitulation of typological prophecy" idea as you have expressed it.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/16/2003 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
I have no problem with the "recapitulation of typological prophecy" idea as you have expressed it.
I'm wondering if you would expand on your answer, since the "recapitulation" view requires divine purpose and planning, even foreordination. How would you fold the "recapitulation" view into the open view? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/16/2003 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Your reasoning on this does not seem to me to follow. Hosea said, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." It is a well-recognized fact of biblical scholarship that the people Israel were often described in Scripture as God's son or children. I honestly don't see any predictive element in Hosea 11:1; do you?
The fact that Jesus recapitulated this scripture when his parents moved to Egypt for a time and then returned to Nazareth (which I do not dispute) does not require us to think that Hosea was really referring to the life of the Messiah. No foreordination, purpose, or planning was necessary at all.
Even if God did intend for Christ to fulfill this scripture, foreordination would not be required. All that would be necessary would be for God to orchestrate the events in Christ's life in such a way that his parents would feel led to move to Egypt and then move back. The NT writers used this sort of device many times to try to show that Christ fulfilled Scripture (but not necessarily "predictive prophecy" in the classical sense).
I'm back for a few moments. I'm adding to my earlier note rather than composing and posting a new note to save space. I don't know if space-saving matters to this discussion board.
It seems to me that you would surely concede to human authors of stories the very things you do not acknowledge belong to God, the author of the entire drama in which we are players.
Human authors foreordain every detail of the stories they compose. Don't they? Human authors embed "foreshadowing" (a form of typology) into their stories so that events, persons, places, etc. foreshadow later features of the story. Human authors ordain that their stories will unfold according to their sovereign plans and that their stories will reach the ends they have foreordained. Do readers quibble and quarrel with authors that they have no right to exercise such sovereignty over their characters, settings, plotted conflict, etc.? Why should we quibble and quarrel with God and refuse to acknowledge his sovereignty to ordain that all things should unfold according to his plan? After all, God alone can script a story in which his characters carry out their evil conspiracies and actions exactly as God foreordained that they should do and they bear full accountability for their actions without besmirching the author's character at all (see Gen 45:5-8; 50:20; Acts 4:27-28).
My point is that the Bible presents its unfolding drama as happening according to plan, God's plan, God's plan which he planned and purposed before he created anything. In the Bible, there is no such thing as "foreshadowing" or "typological" anticipation apart from God's authored plan, and surely God is not making up his plan as the story unfolds. The Bible presents the story as planned "before the foundation of the world." Thus, as God's drama begins to unfold, it begins with the words, "In the beginning. . . ." This line is teleological and eschatological. It anticipates, by God's design, the consummation of the story.
I popped in only for a brief time to ask a few questions and to raise a matter or two that I have not seen anyone consider in the threads I have read. I'm not seeking any argument or extended discussion. I'll return to read as time permits this old geezer. Maybe I'll even drop a note now and then.
Oh, before I go, you may want to read this book by another old geezer: According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible, by Graeme Goldsworthy (http://tinyurl.com/zn8p). It's a wonderful book.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Andrew_
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 12/16/2003 2:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, guys, for clearing stuff up. I read over the debate with Dana, and a lot of it kind of made sense.
quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
My reasons for believing in Jesus have little to do now with OT prophecies. Well, actually NOTHING to do with prophecies. It has to do with *how the Jesus story "fits"; * the reliability of the Gospels; * the difficulty of explaining the Jesus story when one supposes its NOT based on facts.
I'm not a scholar, so I don't think I understand these three premises. Could you explain them a little more, or refer me to some books that I could read?
Andrew
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/17/2003 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
I'm not seeking any argument or extended discussion.
So what is your purpose?
I thought that I stated my purpose in the following line: "I popped in only for a brief time to ask a few questions and to raise a matter or two that I have not seen anyone consider in the threads I have read." I've not seen any discussion of how to address the Bible's foreshadowing/typological predictions. I thought I would raise the matter because it is a vital issue that needs consideration, if we are to read the Bible correctly. That's all. The exchange is obviously short-lived as responses show. No ill intended. No desire to quarrel with anyone.  | | Back to Top | | |
| 47 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:25 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|