Why would it even be relevant to you if you say it's not even necessary?
your argument is not even found in any of the resurrection skeptics sources I've ever encountered.
That shows that I don't depend on others for all of my arguments. I can formulate my own.
It's OK to have a novel idea, but it would require substantial evidence and rational logic to make it viable. And to claim it's a "indisputable fact" is obviously hyperbolic since it's a novel idea.
So, really it is only you that believe it is evidence against the resurrection.
So you know for a fact that no one reading this agrees with me?
If there's another forum member here that agrees with you, let them summarize your argument in a single post.
And I believe that I pointed out the same about Isaiah 53.
It's not even close as a comparison. I'll post in a separate post how Isa 53 points to Jesus of Nazareth.
If the image on the Turin cloth is Jesus, which Jesus is it? Is it the Jesus who told the crowd that every jot and tittle of the law of Moses should still be followed, or is it the Jesus who violated that same law by forbidding divorce and oath taking when the law said not to forbid them?
The text mentions at least the two identified above.
There is no text that mentions two different Jesuses existing. It is only your interpretation that might result in having two Jesuses, which is further evidence your interpretation is faulty.
Difficult for a deity who doesn't author confusion?
I've never claimed God wrote the Bible, so it's a straw man statement. Further, you're the only who says hermeneutics is not required, so the confusion is more with your interpretation.
That's why we have to include the textual evidence of Jesus's contradictory teaching.
And your argument is like bringing in a spurious witness into the courtroom. It really does not hold any weight.
Yes, earlier it mentions a new covenant. But in verse Jer 31:34 where it says shall "all know me" and it also says "I will forgive their iniquity", so is it only the Jews that would have their sins forgiven?
I've already answered that question, and the question doesn't change the fact that "they shall all know me" is the definitive feature of the new covenant.
It's hard to nail down your position since I ask yes/no questions but you rarely respond with a yes or no.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 1:20 pm
Who is "all"? The entire world population?
Why are you asking that when you should know that it's not the answer?
According to the text, the new covenant is to be made with the houses of Israel and Judah. That would be Jews, so if the covenant being established means that from the least to the greatest they will all "know the Lord", from a Christian perspective it means that the Jews should all convert to belief in Jesus.
Since we're discussing Jer 31:34, you imply the "all" is only the Jews.
[Jer 31:34 KJV] 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Then you imply more than the Jews would be forgiven.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 12:34 am
So only the Jews would be forgiven of their sins?
No, you can't rebuild my argument into that strawman. The text doesn't say that only
the sins of the Jews would be forgiven. It does
say that the Jews are the ones the covenant is made with.
So "all" in Jer 31:34 cannot be both only the Jews and also more than the Jews.
I'm not just arguing that he's not the Messiah, therefore he did not rise from the dead. I'm arguing first that his teaching was contradictory and incompatible with the law of Moses, therefore he wasn't the Messiah.
Can't get another yes or no response, but I'll just go on anyways.
Using your logic, I can as well claim since Jesus rose from the dead and showed he was the Messiah, it demonstrates he did not teach erroneously.
Jeremiah didn't say that it would be Jesus who established the covenant.
Who did Jeremiah say would fulfill his prophecy?
He didn't have to specify an individual.
What he did specify is what would happen when the new covenant was established: no more teaching each other to "know the Lord" because they would all know him.
From the Christian perspective, this would be fully realized during the second coming and the institution of the new heaven and earth for all who trust in Jesus.
What do you mean by "realize"? Do you mean to actualize it and bring into reality? Or do you mean recognizing it and understanding it?
It would be both. The nations would recognize it, and their recognition of it would bring about their redemption.
How would the Gentiles nations understand that the nation of Israel suffered and bore their sins?
Then I'm asking you since you're arguing for the Jewish perspective. Here's the questions again:
And are any Jews grateful God afflicted them with the holocaust?
How specifically did the Jewish holocaust benefit the Gentiles?
Were they in some way a propitiation for the sins of the Gentiles?
I've quoted Jewish perspectives on some of this. How individual Jews would answer these questions is for them to determine and irrelevant beyond that.
No, it's not irrelevant since it is claimed the nation of Israel suffered for the Gentile nations. I would argue the holocaust is the greatest suffering the Jews have endured in modern history, so it is relevant.
You claim hermeneutics is not even necessary, so why should anyone accept your interpretations?
I'm not "interpreting". I'm quoting the text directly and letting it speak for itself.
You acknowledge it's a novel argument. How can it be so obvious if nobody else is even using this argument against the resurrection?
What do you mean by "hermeneutics"?
- the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible
- a method or principle of interpretation
Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles ... rmeneutics
Hermeneutics is the science and the art of biblical interpretation. It is a science because there are rules for interpreting Scripture, just as there are rules for driving a car. If you do not know the rules, you will not know how to drive properly. Beyond knowing the principles, however, you must also know when to apply them. Because of this, hermeneutics can also rightly be called an art. Since Scripture is not monolithic because it contains multiple genres and was written over a vast period of time, by many authors, in different languages, it requires discernment to know which rules of interpretation to apply to any given text to find its intended meaning. That, ultimately, is the goal of hermeneutics: to understand how to interpret the text to find its intended meaning.
Do you mean examining the text to determine what it actually means, or do you mean assuming that it can mean only what you want it to mean?
The former is exegesis and the latter is eisegesis. Hermeneutics of the Bible is exegesis.