Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

Darat said:
Wrong about what? That for all trinitarian Christian religions i.e. the vast majority of Christian religions Jesus is god?
Click to expand...
Not that - but the following:
Darat said:
See my post above - both the quicky and the longer creed make it very clear ,
it is at the very heart of nearly all Christian religions; none of them hold that Jesus was a prophet.
Click to expand...
As sphenisc quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

783 Jesus Christ is the one whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit and established as priest, prophet, and king. the whole People of God participates in these three offices of Christ and bears the responsibilities for mission and service that flow from them
 
Last edited:
I think the question may be, if Jesus as a prophet, is at the heart of all Christian religions.

It's like, " Yeah, he was a prophet, he prophesied this and that." but that was hardly his primary purpose.

Really, redeeming human kind was job no. 1.
 
Poem said:
Not that - but the following:

As sphenisc quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

783 Jesus Christ is the one whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit and established as priest, prophet, and king. the whole People of God participates in these three offices of Christ and bears the responsibilities for mission and service that flow from them
Click to expand...
The catechism supports what I claimed.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
I think the question may be, if Jesus as a prophet, is at the heart of all Christian religions.

It's like, " Yeah, he was a prophet, he prophesied this and that." but that was hardly his primary purpose.

Really, redeeming human kind was job no. 1.
Click to expand...
Nope, that's not the question. Do try and keep up.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Responded to what?

There is so much rhetoric flying around, it's hard to recognize a real question.
Click to expand...
I posted evidence that Jesus was regarded as a prophet:
Poem said:
Matthew 21:10,11
When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, “Who is this?” The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”
Click to expand...
You replied:
Skeptical Greg said:
And?
Do you really think that happened?
Click to expand...
as if citing scripture wasn't real evidence because we don't know if it actually occurred.

Then I posted that you had referenced Deuteronomy 18:15.
 
Then I posted that you had referenced Deuteronomy 18:15.
Click to expand...
Siting a scripture is not evidence of anything other than someone told a story.

I referenced Deuteronomy 18:15 in response to your claim that Peter was saying Moses was talking about Jesus.

How do we get Jesus out of "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;"?

Raising up a prophet from the midst of thee, doesn't sound like a reference to God incarnate, born of a virgin and all that.


Lets look at 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Whoa nelly! That does sound like we should have a problem with Mathew 24:34
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
Siting a scripture is not evidence of anything other than someone told a story.

I referenced Deuteronomy 18:15 in response to your claim that Peter was saying Moses was talking about Jesus.

How do we get Jesus out of "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;"?

Raising up a prophet from the midst of thee, doesn't sound like a reference to God incarnate, born of a virgin and all that.


Lets look at 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Whoa nelly! That does sound like we should have a problem with Mathew 24:34
Click to expand...
...and the penny finally drops...
 
It is my understanding that the Gospels were written with an eye on the Old Testament prophecies: they were retro-fitted on, so as to make it look like Jesus was fulfilling those prophecies.
One example is the tortuous and implausible story of the census. This was created because the prophecies said (in the Bible's usual self-contradictory manner) that the Messiah would come from Nazareth, but also from Bethlehem. The (entirely fictional) census allows Jesus to come from Nazareth, but also be born in Bethlehem, so he's from both simultaneously.
As another example, Jesus has two completely different family trees listed. This is because one prophecy says that the Messiah will be a poor man, and another says he will be descended from the House of David. How to reconcile these two? Bang! Two different family trees. Sorted.
 
According to Isaiah 7:14 Jesus was supposed to be called Immanuel. I have never seen that reconciled either.
 
steenkh said:
According to Isaiah 7:14 Jesus was supposed to be called Immanuel. I have never seen that reconciled either.
Click to expand...
"Emmanuel" was more of a title, or, if you like, a job description, than a personal name. In Hebrew, it means God with us* This represents Jesus' role among the people as God personified within society. His personal name was Yeshua (God's Salvation), which was transliterated into Latin (via Greek) as Iesus. Analogy: the President of the United States is called "Mr President" but that's not his name, even though it takes the form of one.

Helpful? Most of these questions do have answers. Most of them. Not that they are always particularly convincing, but they do exist. The Jesuits, for example, have been working on it for centuries.

* Sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
Siting a scripture is not evidence of anything other than someone told a story.

I referenced Deuteronomy 18:15 in response to your claim that Peter was saying Moses was talking about Jesus.

How do we get Jesus out of "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;"?

Raising up a prophet from the midst of thee, doesn't sound like a reference to God incarnate, born of a virgin and all that.


Lets look at 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Whoa nelly! That does sound like we should have a problem with Mathew 24:34
Click to expand...
I have been trying to get you to address your:
Skeptical Greg said:
And?
Do you really think that happened?
Click to expand...
which you don't seem to want to acknowledge....but I'll let it go now.

Interesting that you cite Deut. 18:22 which I posted a while back.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
"Emmanuel" was more of a title, or, if you like, a job description, than a personal name. In Hebrew, it means God with us* This represents Jesus' role among the people as God personified within society. His personal name was Yeshua (God's Salvation), which was transliterated into Latin (via Greek) as Iesus. Analogy: the President of the United States is called "Mr President" but that's not his name, even though it takes the form of one.
Click to expand...
Pretty much my understanding.
arthwollipot said:
Helpful? Most of these questions do have answers. Most of them. Not that they are always particularly convincing, but they do exist. The Jesuits, for example, have been working on it for centuries.

* Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
Would you like to share how you dealt with the OP (ie Mat. 24:34) when you were a Christian...if indeed you did come across it?
 
arthwollipot said:
"Emmanuel" was more of a title, or, if you like, a job description, than a personal name. In Hebrew, it means God with us* This represents Jesus' role among the people as God personified within society.
Click to expand...
This sounds to me like a post rationalisation. If Jesus has actually been called Immanuel, everybody would have thought this was a great prophecy, but because Jesus was called Jesus, some other, in my opinion far-fetched, explanation has been put forward.

On the other hand, if Immanuel is not a personal name, and is only used as a title, then I am clearly wrong here.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
It is my understanding that the Gospels were written with an eye on the Old Testament prophecies: they were retro-fitted on, so as to make it look like Jesus was fulfilling those prophecies.
One example is the tortuous and implausible story of the census. This was created because the prophecies said (in the Bible's usual self-contradictory manner) that the Messiah would come from Nazareth, but also from Bethlehem. The (entirely fictional) census allows Jesus to come from Nazareth, but also be born in Bethlehem, so he's from both simultaneously.
As another example, Jesus has two completely different family trees listed. This is because one prophecy says that the Messiah will be a poor man, and another says he will be descended from the House of David. How to reconcile these two? Bang! Two different family trees. Sorted.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Particularly Matthew. They knew very well, that they were trying to make it fit in with Old Testament writings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom