tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5372413965294689138..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: KaputRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38561464735974744692009-07-06T10:25:47.201-04:002009-07-06T10:25:47.201-04:00Oh, and to be clear, I'm not saying the Nazare...Oh, and to be clear, I'm not saying the Nazarene prophecy was in the OT, but merely that the Pharisees would have had an understanding of who "the prophets" referred to. (Example: Simeon had been told that he would live to see the Messiah--a prophecy not recorded in the OT.) That "He shall be called a Nazarene" is not specifically stated in Scripture does not mean it wasn't something passed down in the prophetic tradition of who the Messiah would be.<br /><br />Not that everything passed down as Messianic tradition was valid. There was a reason the Pharisees expected Christ to behave in a manner that Jesus did not behave like, yet which did not conform to any OT passages either. This extra-biblical Messianic tradition contained both truth and error, and by Jesus' time, the errors far outweighed the truth. This is why generally Jesus forbade any Jew who realized He was the Messiah to tell anyone, because the Jews had a lot of false tradition to go along with Scripture. On the other hand, Jesus never forbade the Samaritans from saying who He was--and in fact, when the woman at the well said she knew the Messiah was coming, Jesus said quite plainly: "I who speak to you am He." The Samaritans, who were descendents of the captives of Assyria when the ten tribes of Israel were conquered, did not have the extra-biblical tradition passed on to them (and furthermore, they held to only the Pentatuch), and therefore did not have the false traditions coloring who the Messiah was in their view, whereas the Jews did.<br /><br />So when Matthew says that "he shall be a Nazarene" is from the prophets, and no Pharisee writing against Christianity said, "That's not in Scripture!" it's most likely because it was part of the extra-biblical prophetic tradition surrounding Christ.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8153979418153432602009-07-06T10:10:29.161-04:002009-07-06T10:10:29.161-04:00Jason said:
---
It's not as though they were d...Jason said:<br />---<br />It's not as though they were dependent on somebody like Matthew to inform them of what the Old Testament says.<br />---<br /><br />Great minds think alike, as that was my exact though on it :-D My second thought? "If Matthew's quote of 'the prophets' isn't found in the OT, and if he 'misquotes' Jeremiah...then why didn't the enemies of the early church (namely, the Pharisees, who happened to know the OT far more intimately than most Christians today, and definitely more than all these atheists) <i>not point this out</i> in any of their many arguments against Christians?" And after thinking that, I thought: "That sounds like something Jason Engwer would say."Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41683904472964017882009-07-05T22:31:32.587-04:002009-07-05T22:31:32.587-04:00Matthew,
I didn't watch the whole series. I o...Matthew,<br /><br />I didn't watch the whole series. I only watched the video featured on the page you linked. There are a lot of problems with it.<br /><br />Some of the Old Testament passages applied to Jesus in the New Testament are of a typological nature, and some aren't. See our material on prophecy <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search/label/Prophecy?max-result=1000" rel="nofollow">here</a> and on the infancy narratives, which the video you linked discusses, <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/christmas-resources.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. You could also consult G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, edd., Commentary On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007) and commentaries on the relevant books of the New Testament. <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/qt/typola.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> an online resource that links to others.<br /><br />There's nothing deceptive about typological use of the Old Testament or the adapting of Old Testament language to a New Testament context. Those were common practices, and many of the initial readers of the New Testament would have been familiar with the Old Testament texts and contexts. It's not as though they were dependent on somebody like Matthew to inform them of what the Old Testament says. The common nature of such usage of the Old Testament is reflected in the fact that we see it in so many places in the New Testament. The reason why multiple New Testament authors can engage in such practices, and do so as often as they do and without sensing any need to defend what they're doing, is because such practices were already widely known and accepted.<br /><br />We can distinguish the evidential significance of one Old Testament fulfillment from the evidential significance of another. The fact that the Bethlehem prophecy and the Nazareth prophecy both are cited in Matthew 2 or both are cited by the same author, for example, doesn't suggest that they must be of equal evidential value. Pointing to the presence of some less significant Old Testament fulfillments doesn't prove that there aren't any fulfillments that are more significant.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68078929637376608632009-07-05T19:50:17.671-04:002009-07-05T19:50:17.671-04:00OT:
Does anyone have the time and the interest to ...OT:<br />Does anyone have the time and the interest to deal with this video from YT (I should stop watching this crap, it's basically an atheists echo-chamer like Reppert once put it) that argues that the use of typology was inadequate and thus Jesus was not the messiah?<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZOPIBTCHfwAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com