It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So if the Gospel of John was written after quite a few believers had died, and yet no need was seen to explain away such statements, but rather emphasize them... I guess I don't really understand what this particular literary work is exactly.
Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him.
How can you say it was the only place? He said the exact same thing,
Example, Moses putting a brass snake up on a pole so that anyone who had been bitten by a snake who just looked at it was healed and wouldn't die. Picture of Christ on the cross saving anyone who looked to Him. Another, the Passover lamb. Jesus teaches Nicodemus this.
The OT is a fascinating collection of books, it's amazing.
Jesus said nothing about people being saved simply by looking at him... This is even more far fetched then the idea of Faith alone...
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical
Well no, i take issue with the statement "the entire book points to him"
I know the story you're referring to brother...
The brazen serpent was destroyed by King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:4 because people started to worship it.
The first appearance of something in scripture tends to carry the same thought or meaning throughout. It's called the "Law of Expositional Constancy" in hermeneutics.
TextOr do you think its possible that over the past 2000 years or so, Christianity has had time to to figure out every single vague allusion that might be pointing at Jesus to reinforce their doctrine, even if said passages have absolutely nothing to do with him?
2000 years?? The apostles were teaching Christ out of the Septuagint OT from the very start of the church, that's all they had.