How many old Testament scriptures really apply to Jesus Life?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

I used to think that many of the passages quoted by Matthew and the other evangelists applied to Jesus.

It seems I am not alone on this issue either.

What do you think?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 04, 2004

Answers

Here is one of the earlier critics who did not believe many Old testament scriptures apply to Jesus.

This I quoted from Christianity Today.

It was Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390), though, who founded the "school" of Antioch that fully challenged Origen's method. "We demand them [the Alexandrian exegetes] to know that we prefer much more the historical comprehension of the text than the allegorical," he wrote.

Diodore believed Origen's method disparaged Scripture, and he encouraged Christians to retain its literal meaning. Doing so did not rule out theoria, or higher "contemplation" of the biblical passage. But it must be consistent with the author's intentions and the text that surrounded it.

While Origen felt spiritual truth lay beyond the words, like a code to be cracked, Diodore felt meaning lay within the words, pregnant with spiritual significance but still rooted in history.

The "less inspired" Scripture Diodore's most famous student, Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428) carried Diodore's ideas even further. He questioned the canonicity of some of the books in the Bible—especially the apocryphal books in the Septuagint—and preferred the more limited "Jewish" canon. He refused to place the "wisdom" literature on the same level of inspiration as the rest of Scripture. The Song of Songs, he said, was simply a conversation between lovers and nothing more. And he aggressively criticized Paul's epistolary writing style, thereby departing from the traditional understanding of biblical inspiration.

Like Diodore, Theodore was determined to set the biblical text in its historical context. In his commentaries on the psalms and minor prophets—the only works still extant—Theodore wrote an introduction in which he discussed the date, authorship, historical occasion, the purpose of the writer, and a summary of the plan and perspective of the book. In this, his work resembles modern scholarship to a remarkable degree.

The literalists' risky divisions But Theodore had some radical ideas. Fidelity to the text, he argued, demanded that scholars drastically reduce the number of Old Testament passages that Christians had traditionally held to be messianic prophecies of Christ. In virtually every case, the prophecies of the minor prophets and psalmists referred not to Christ, but to the events of the post-exilic period.

In fact, he limited messianic psalms to just four—Psalms 2, 8, 45, and 110. Even Psalm 22, the psalm Jesus quoted on the cross, was not prophetic of Christ. "Those commentators who claim that this psalm is related to the person of Christ ought to know that they can be accused of recklessness because the second half of the opening saying of the psalm does not allow such an interpretation. How could Christ ever speak of his sins?" By so limiting Christ's presence in the Old Testament, Theodore ran the risk of divorcing it entirely from the New—in a sense creating two Bibles.

Theodore also emphasized to perhaps an unfortunate degree the humanity of Christ in his writings. One of his students, Nestorius, held that Christ had "two natures which are adored in the one person of the only-begotten by a perfect and unconfused conjunction." But Nestorius was later condemned by the Council of Ephesus (431) for dividing Christ's person into two, and Emperor Theodosius II branded him as a heretic.

In 553, more than 100 years after Theodore's death, the Council of Constantinople condemned Theodore's views as heretical and ordered that his commentaries be burned. Only the Nestorian church remembered and preserved his writings. Ironically, orthodox Christians are once again rediscovering the scholar who most effectively challenged the school of Alexandria—and provided another way of understanding the Bible.

Steven Gertz is editorial coordinator of Christian History.

Besides these scriptures, which do you still believe apply to Jesus? Which don't?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 04, 2004.


Some I believe don't apply: Isaiah 7:14 Jesus birth from a virgin. To me the context refers to Hezekiah, not Jesus.

Also Almah is a young woman. Betulah is virgin. Isaiah uses Almah.

The Man of Yahweh.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 04, 2004.


"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."..Matt.1:22,23....I think it best to let the Holy God-breathed scriptures tell us their application to Christ. The Word itself tells us of many a fulfillment of O.T. scripture in the Saviour. Indeed Jesus Himself said the O.T. scriptures 'are they which testify of me'

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 05, 2004.

Gillian,

I probably would believe it more if the Gospels were eyewitness accounts by the disciples themselves.

They are not.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 05, 2004.


"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3...(John was certainly an eye witness)

My position on scripture is not a synoptic or eyewitness position. It is a Holy Ghost position; i.e. that ALL scripture is given by God, and the Gospels in particular are written by Him in such a way to depict the four 'faces' of Christ (as shown in Ezekiel). Matthew shows Christ as King; Mark shows Christ as Servant; Luke shows Christ as Man; John shows Christ as God. Because of this it matters not whom the Holy Spirit chose to write down His words, and explains why accounts in each gospel are written slightly differently, as to which perspective is being shown.

Having said that, needing an eyewitness to believe what is written in scripture is, in my opinion, a little redundant, for God is the witness, and we either believe Him or we don't. Jesus said Moses wrote Genesis yet we know that Moses was not an eyewitness to its accounts, yet Jesus quotes Moses as scripture and instructs us to believe what he and the prophets wrote.

But thankyou Elipidio for your comment, they are most welcome.

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 06, 2004.



Gillian,

I believe John ended here:

Jhn 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

This appendix came later in reference not only to Peter, but to contadict the followers of Cerinthus, marcion, and valentinus who were alrteady creating their own gospels.

This story of Peter and the catch of fish is found in a different form in Luke.

Luk 5:2 And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing [their] nets.

Luk 5:3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship.

Luk 5:4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.

Luk 5:5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.

Luk 5:6 And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake.

Luk 5:7 And they beckoned unto [their] partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.

Luk 5:8 When Simon Peter saw [it], he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.

Luk 5:9 For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:

Luk 5:10 And so [was] also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.

Luk 5:11 And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.

There are other cases where Luke uses a different settinfg as that found in John: The Widow's son of Nain becoms Lazarus in John. The prostitute who washes Jesus feet is now Mary the sister of Lazarus. The official who has a son in John becomes a centurion with a slave in Luke. The list is endless.

So John's conclusion may not be from John, who was a fisherman, unless he is John Mark, the one to whose house Peter goes after escapng from jail in Acts. By the way, John Mark's mother is called Mary.

Remember Jesus words to he disciple he loved that here is your mother, referring to Mary.

It is interesting that Peter goes there to look for James, Jesus brother.

The Man of Yahweh The Cristian Yahwist Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 06, 2004.


Dear Elipidio,

The different accounts in the gospels are simply that, different accounts. Lazarus and the widow of Nain's son are different accounts. For example, the two women mentioned that poured ointment on Jesus' feet were different women. The one at Simon the leper's house (which was in Bethany), is not named in Matthew and Mark but we are told in John that it was Mary the sister of Lazarus. The 'sinner' at the Pharisee's house (in Capernaum) is another woman.

As I said before, I believe the gospels depict a different 'face' of Christ which is why the accounts differ and are represented differently in some instances.

But thanks for the reply.

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 07, 2004.


Man... I dont know what yall think bout the man mnamed Jesus... but one day i meet him... He was a dirty scruffy looking guy... none the less i let him in my house and the sonovbit stole my jewlery.. my tv...and i think he ate my dog... but ne ways by the time he left he stabed me 5 times so i had to whip kick him in the face and see him run off like a pounk....WU Tang baby...WE ant nothing to mess with...

-- JOhn edward (bobmanob@yourmom.com), February 10, 2004.

Uh, that's the wrong Jesus, John. The real Jesus would have made your life purposeful and wonderful. Keep looking for the real Jesus.

................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.


I question if Hosea 11:1 applies to Jesus, where Matthew quoted it in 2:15.

-- Daniel Marsh (dmarsh190044mi@comcast.net), February 28, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ