Search the scriptures
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
Matthew 12:22-23 KJV
(22) Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
(23) And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
Why do they have the notion that the son of David (a term used for the promised Messiah) had power to exercise demons?
You won't find it in the Canon.
But you do in other ancient writings.
(22) Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
(23) And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
Why do they have the notion that the son of David (a term used for the promised Messiah) had power to exercise demons?
You won't find it in the Canon.
But you do in other ancient writings.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
73 books.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Since I'm still not entirely sure which angle you're coming at this from, let me make a couple of points :
1. Saying "only" the Canon declared by the RCC begs a question - why not narrow it even more (as suggested by "only") and say the Protestant Canon? Not only does it omit the Apocrypha, but all the tradition the RCC throws in there as a bonus (not to mention Papal decrees).
2. To call the Canon Roman Catholic is a little anachronistic since the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist prior to about the 5th or 6th Century. And the OT portion of it was already canonical (in a manner of speaking) before Christ ever appeared. In fact, that's exactly what Jesus was referring to. And the Law and the Prophets (and even the Psalms in Luke 24:44) were mentioned pointing to Christ and what He said He was to fulfill. And in John 5 - at the end of the chapter you quoted - He says that if they had believed Moses, they would have accepted Him.
Regarding Jannes and Jambres, they were Jewish tradition that were taught in the Babylonian Talmud. Just because something is quoted from doesn't mean scripture recognizes that work as inspired. There some very strange teachings in the Talmud, but that doesn't mean it's historical statements need be wrong....
And the Son of David is recognized as important :
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isaiah 11:1
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Jeremiah 23:5,6
But recognizing Him as the Son of David doesn't guarantee reverence or thinking Him the Messiah :
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
Matthew 22:41-46
The Pharisees recognized Him as the Son of David as well - they knew He was different - but they still weren't willing to submit to Him. Most of the Israelites didn't - but they still recognized His power and authority.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yes, and I love this one. Being the root as well as the offspring of David answers the question.
Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
You can call it whatever you want to.
I view the Canonized books as being a compilation of the manuscripts they had available to them at the time.
And I think declaring the Canon closed way back then may have been a bit premature.
Tons of manuscripts have been found since then.
And the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Paul knew those names from somewhere.
The Talmud is basically just various commentaries on scripture.
I don't think any of those guys considered it to be scripture.
Sure.
But where did they get the notion that the Messiah (a type of David) would have power over demonic possession?
The NT verse seems to indicate that they expected the promised Messiah to do just that.
What was it that made them expect that particular thing of Him as verification that He was the Messiah?
glorydaz
Well-known member
David was very experienced in the matter. Look at the battle with the evil spirit in Saul.
1 Samuel 18:
9 And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.
10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand.
We can couple that with:
1 Samuel 16:23 ESV
(23) And whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him.
But it kept coming back.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Not so with the root and offspring of David.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's recorded oral tradition. And whenever we find something outside Scripture that corroborates Scripture, that's something worth looking into!
They didn't have to. I mean, chronologically the Talmud wasn't written down until after Paul had died, so Paul knew the actual oral tradition of those two priests from hearing it ('orally') from someone, he didn't read it in the Talmud. But regardless, Paul did quote a couple pagan sources in Acts, and we don't have any reason to think he thought those were scriptures. I think when we find the Bible referencing or alluding to something that is observable outside of the Bible that it lends a fresh vividness to our reading.
Agreed.
There are lots of writings we have now that shed light on much.
And as for the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are a lot of fragments that have not yet been pieced together.
What a goldmine they are!
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Yes but so far I think the 'headline' of this stash is that what's come from them corroborates manuscripts we've had for centuries, which all on its own is a very positive thing, because it confirms that God has preserved His Scripture for us, even through all these very many years. He's been taking care of us by taking care of His Word.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yes, but God has preserved exactly what we need, and satan has been busy trying to bombard us with different translations with error here and there scattered throughout.
The Talmud is a very good forgery, and yes it is a collection of previous writings, but there is no such thing as accurate oral tradition or oral law.
How many versions of Daniel are among the Dead Sea Scrolls?
He allowed us to be deluded into thinking the prophecy of the Christ's 3 day resurrection is preserved in the current Old Testament.
The KJV is not without error.
glorydaz
Well-known member
There are lots of people who would disagree with that statement.
And, I know that's what you think, but I believe it is God's word for us today.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I have no idea what you're implying.