Richie, on 19 November 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:
The problem is, Fortigurn, that your points lose credibility because you're quoting commentaries - they have less power.
I am not quoting commentaries to explain what the passage means. I am quoting them for historical background. Why does this mean that my point that Jesus explained how the Pentateuch teaches resurrection, loses power?
You could have easily said "Jesus quoted from the law to prove the resurrection in Luke 20" and that would have been excellent.
You mean you wouldn't have turned off.
And your comments about poor Bible study are irrelevant.
Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 01:00 PM, said:
Peter by the holy spirit says explicitly and unambiguously that David's prophecy, in which he described God's holy one not seeing corruption, was speaking of Christ's flesh in relation to his resurrection. I really don't need to add anything to that to prove the point.
Peter by the Holy Spirit says that Christ's body was not left to corrupt because it was raised. He says nothing about manna being a symbol of resurrection.
The Israelites' shoes did not get old or worn out, during the forty years. But the word used of that ('balah') is not concerned with the rotting of a corpse; Sarah uses it of herself because of her age, at 89, though she was definitely alive and went on to bear Isaac (Gen 18:12). It is an entirely different word from the word for corruption in the grave ('shachath') that David by the spirit uses in Psalm 16:10, speaking of what would not happen to Christ.
You are confusing several issues. No one was saying it was used of the rotting of a corpse. I was addressing your claim that the Scriptures only say that the shoes of the Israelites did not get old, as opposed to 'did not wear out', or 'did not corrupt'. Your claim was not true. The fact that it's an entirely different word to the word used by David in Psalm 16:10 is irrelevant. No one was claiming it is the same word. I was addressing your claim with regard to the word's meaning. It used of Sarah
being old, but it is used of the shoes of the Israelites wearing out, corrupting, disintegrating, whatever you want to call it. Not 'getting old'.
As a further strengthening of my case, consider Job 17:14. Job here uses the same word 'shachath' ("corruption"), in speaking of his own impending entry to the grave. He says that he will call worms (Hebrew 'rimmah') his mother and sister - they were certainly going to get very close to him! In this he shows that they are agents of corruption. This aligns with the detail in Exo 16:24 - only after the sixth night was the manna found to have no worm ('rimmah') in it.
Yes, after the sixth night the manna was found to be still uncorrupted. It was not found to have been resurrected. How does this prove your point?
nsr, on 19 November 2010 - 01:04 PM, said:
Agreed. It's incomparably better when brethren give their own views in their own words while quoting the relevant Scriptures. That's what discussion requires. Quoting reams of scholarly literature doesn't constitute discussion but rather lecturing.
I gave my own view in my own words. But even better than that, I first gave Christ's view in his own words. I was the only person who actually went to Scripture to appeal to Christ's own answer to the original question.
Edited by Fortigurn, 19 November 2010 - 01:15 PM.