Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

Obviously you misunderstood the nature of my apology. I was saying just the opposite of what you are charging me with. I am saying that I DO NOT believe that what one believes about END TIMES, is a matter of fellowship. i consider you a brother regardless of what you believe about this subject and certainly do believe Brian is wrong about how much you may be wrong about here or there If it matters to you I am a member of the Chruch of Christ and as rule we do not accept the doctrine of premillinillism. yet while most of my brothers make this a matter of fellowship I DO NOT.while you and i may disagree on some of the points of these doctrines, I hardly see why Jesus saving all people from there sins constitues him as a FAILURE. he said, "If I am lifted up I WILL DRAW ALL MEN UNTO MYSELF." That doesnt sound like a failure to me. Actually I was saying just the opposite of what you are charging. there is no small group to Christs Kingdom, its all those that Believe in him.Sorry if I did not make myself clear enought he first time, I was actually supporting youI was in no way supporting Brians contentions that christ was a failureEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Son, dont you even understand the point I am making here? Brian is using sources he claims that are unreliable, ie the Old testament, assigning and ascribing exact interpretations to them, insisting that that must be thier only interpretation, uses and illustrations. now he is not just suggesting his interpretations are the correct ones, he is insisting that without question his conclusions are ezact.all of this from a source to which he probably denies the same authorship for his authors that you are ascribing to Petet or the writer of peter.
Yet he is certain his sources and conclusions are reliable and mine, as you do should be rejected. This is simply nonsense and a double standard As I told Brian. I can trot out as many scholars in the conservative scene to suggest that this is not the case. its not the point. if it were the point, then any if not all of brians conclusions would fall under the situation. if brian uses the scriptures as his source to suggest an idea, interpretation and conclusion, there is no reason to believe Peter is not the author of the Book ascribed to him. Ill be happy to discuss this with you at somother point. It is however NOT the point now. youve got to be kidding right? Both of use are presuppsing several things in our arguments If you dont believe Jesus was the Messiah, as brian does, then you will assume he was a failure. brian is quoting passages from the Old Testament for which he believes the history to be faulty in the first place. he is looking at what the author said and at the same time doesnt even believe the history around it.We are using the scriptures in the BIBLE STUDY thread to determine whether or not the writers were in harmony with eachother and ofcourse i am assuming AT PRESENT, things like authorshipIf peter is not the author, and the writers of the Old Testament cannot be trusted then there is no need to assume Brians conclusions are correct either about thier intention. If however inspiration is involved one is justified in believing the writers of the Old Testament were speaking about Christ through inspiration of the holy Spirit. this is a bible study thread.You can see the relevence of the point that if Brian is using the scriptures in the Old Testament as a source for denying the Messiaship, yet doesnt believe thier accuracy or reliablity, then whether Peter is the author is equally irrelevant at this point, correct?there are basically two ways to approach this topic. You can suggest that neither the prophets or Peter are reliable and say, therefore jesus was a failure. secondly, however, once you make the claim that Jesus did not fulfill any of these prophecies, your are now assuming atleast the possibility that he was real and the prophets possibly spoke about him. iassumed this was the path we were on, given the fact that many people have offered thier explanations as to the interpretations of certain passages and proheciesassuming jesus was a failure, assumes atleast the possibilty of his existence. if you dont even believe he existed, whether he was a failure is pretty silly. Assuming his existence as brian has by suggesting he was a failure, implies that he might have fulfilled prophecy, depending on what can be determined by scripture, Old and New.again I am not suggesting that brians conclusions and interpretations are wrong, I am only suggesting that the same source from which he quotes and looks for answers includes, implies and directly implies inspiration and guidance from God, especially in the Old testament.that being the case it easy to see how an eternal God would and could have a dual meaning for a plan that was formed before the foundation of the world. In other words there is no reason to believe any of the Old testament writers though otherwise.there is therfore no reason to believe Christ was a failure atleast from a prophecy standpoint.
Dont mean to be rude but you are taking it in a direction that is not now relevant. I consider I have now responded to most if not all of your objections, so I will try and stay with the Biblical topic at presentEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This becoming a bit tediousinstead of wasting my time responding to your entire post, to which i have already several times now, i will simplfy it to bring it back into perspective and hopefully be able to engage in a discussion with someone that actually understands Bible doctrine. As I said before I dont want to be rude but it appears you understand very little about bible doctrine and you fail to realze this is a Bible Study threadtwo basic premises have been offered in my and brians discussion, one by him, that Jesus is a failure because he did not fulfill prophecy. he and yourself have offered no objective evidence to demonstrate otherwise.I stated that he does not understand the nature and purpose of prophecy, if he did he would understand that christ (if he was alive, existed and actually participated in the action he is said to have) did actually fulfill these prophcies.Now, Paulk, pay close attention Son. Brian said in no uncertain terms, that "Jesus saaaaaaaaid he was a king and yet we know that he had no kingdom." Do you understand he is quoting jesus out of the Gospels assuming his existence and that jesus made this statement. based upon this fact, we can assume that for the sake of argument that he would allow the other things Jesus said and attributed to him.Are you still with me Paul?yes brian is appealing to the text, and so am I, but he is appealing to a text he does not even believe as reliable, even in the Old Testament in context of both the old and the New to try and deduce whether maybe according to the text, Christ met the requirements of the prophecies.I then stated that the prophecies are dual in nature because it is and has always been about, through and for God, Christ, Israel, etc, etc, etc. I offered Peter as an example of how this worked. While Peters explanation is valid and applicable for any thinking person that understands these matters, you complained it was not a Gospel writer. I will now offer prophecies that are dual in natur to demonstrate this point.In Matthew chapter 2, the writer, states "this was done to fulfill the prophecy, out of Egypt have I called my Son". Now, any thinking person can see that this has application to both Israel which is also Gods chosen son and to Christ. the writer of the time and its hearers would have understood it to mean Israel, then, inspiration of the holy Spirit reveals that its truest meaning is about Christ. Christ thus fulfills the prophecy and Brian is incorrect, atleast from a biblical perspective.Peter and others confirm this dual usage of prophecy by God. As I said, I dont mena to be rude but maybe alittle more study in this connection is required at present to speak seriously from atleast a Biblical perspective.Some of the prophcies were literal in nature in a dual sense, some were figurative as In Matt 3 "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his path straight"This passage could have meant God at any time during Israels history or specifically concering God in the person of Christ specifically, again a dual usage. Only inspiration could have made this known in the form of prophecy Unfortunately you know nothing of the sort, and are demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge concerning Gods methods and purposes, specifically in the nature of prophecy.If the lost of Israel aare being converted to Christ, literally thousands upon thousands through the centuries his plan has succeded and he can hardly be considered a failure, except by those that are ignorant of Gods methods and purposes.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

EAM writes:Iblis writes:Luckly its not my pseudo-theology, its inspiration through an Apostle of Christ. Ill go ahead and choose them over you and your teachers. as i indicated erlier, even if the interpretation you offer is correct, only inspiration could make it known that such prophcies or stories could have application to the Messiah. You have not demonstrated that it does and cannot have a dual usage and in the cases of Matt 2 and 3, muchless in Gen 3:15.true, anyone could make something out of anything, but only inspiration can explain its meanings and purposes. Ill take the Apostles of Christ, you take whom ever you choose "Note Well" Whoooo I am really afraidThis is funny, is this an idle threat? what exacally is the IT, I am calling down on myself. come on now you made the threat, uless I am misunderstanding you, what specifically will happen to me?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Where did God ever say it was a physical kingdom, and physical freedom that the Messiah himself would rule over. Davids kingdom was certainly physical. The kingdom that he promised before the messiah was certainly physical. yes God meant what he said, its simply that the Messiah was king in and for a kingdom that while in the world, was not a kingdom in the traditional sense.Zechariah 9:9, says he would be king, bringing salvation, but not salvation from physical enemies in the form of the Messiah. The passages would have had an immediate and physical aspect and effect through the physical present physical king, but God was reaching deeper in the prphecies to get the people to see a deeper need of salvation, through a King that COULD AND WOULD provide more than physical freedom in the form of salvation from thier sins.Only God as described in the form of Christ in the NT is understood UNMISTAKENLY in Isa 9:6-7, could accomplish this task"For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will beno end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."Isa 53; desribes the nature of and purpose of his kingdom, to SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THIER SINSChrist confirms that his kingdom is NOT of this world, the kingdom is within you. Not a physical kingdom of boarders and civil precepts, but a spiritual kingdom.paul states in Col 1:13, "He has translated us out of the power of darkness into thekingdom of his dear son. all writers Old and New describe the nature and purpose of the messiah.In the same way the Jews did not understand why God did not want them to have an earthly king, they also misunderstood the nature of the SALVATION, and from what, the Messiahs kingship, would deliver them.It was never the desire that the Children of God be in bondage in a physical sense, and he usually delivered them from that bondage depending upon thier faithfulness. yet there was something much more important at stake, in the form of a deliver, as desribed by the messiah in the form of God as man, as described in Isa 9:6-7Davids throne will and does last forever, but not in the physical sense. your reading into it, PHYSICAL. the freedom that God desired was much more than physical. God gave them both freedom from thier physical enemies and freedom from thier sins. how can a person that conquered SIN and DEATH be a failure in any sense of the word. I have not hesitated in that direction for a single second. Gods purposes and plans are ALWAYS GREATER than our expectations. Through the inspiration provided in the NT, the prophecies come alive, with the clearest of understanding. Even a gentile reading the Old testament prophecies can deduce that something MORE than physical freedom from enemies is under consideration. can you not see the simple point, that for you to claim that jesus was a failure because he did not fulfill a single prophecy and you use as your source some unreliable Old testament books, as you claim they are, is both contradictory and nonsensical.if your sources are unreliable yet you use them and your dogmatic interpretations as justification for jesus being a failure, you are commiting the same falacy of which you are accusing me. Certainly your are not so simple that you cannot see this point.If your sources are unreliable, how do you know that anything siad in your sources is worth believing in the first place, muchless whether jesus WAS, or was or was not a failure right back at you Not if you miss the nature, purpose and results of the messiahship Which, if any king of Israel before the Messiah was described as saving his people from thier sins, A Mighty God, eternal father?
does that sound spiritual to you?"1Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.7 He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."Does this sound spiritual in nature to you Brian, or are you going to be willfully silly.Now here it is from the NT again,Col 1:13, "He has translated us from the power of darkness (our sins as desribed in Isa) into the KINGDOM of his dear Son"A King and a kingdom, but dont look for it in the annuals of history. the inspired writers of the NT however, do speak of it and detail it.since you asked here it is again from the NTEphesians chapter 1
"15 For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and the love which ye show toward all the saints,16 cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him;18 having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,19 and what the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might20 which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places,21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:22 and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church,23 which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."does this sound familiar in text to that of Isa 53? does this sound like a kingdom of rule and spiritual in nature to you brian?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

No No, you misunderstand, there is simply nothing more here that you have offered that I have not already addressed. its tedious because your approach is a waste of time.let me demonstrate.EAM writes:PaulK writes:Well Paul, if there are examples in Matthew (as you agree)that demonstrate the point that I am making, (dual nature of prophecy) what else do I need to do, to demonstrate MY POINT. first you complain about Peter, which demonstrates my point, then I cite passages out of the gospels, you argee with, then complain I have not demonstrated my point.I noticed you did not demonstrate why my point and illustration from matthew were not valid, you only complained about it being christian doctrine. you do realize that one is only a complaint and I am still waiting for a response as to why Matt 2 and 3 do not constitute a dual usage of Prophecy, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Christian doctrine.This is what i meant when I said this is tedious and I will expand it to the point now that your post in this connection are a waste of my time. I give you example after example and all you do is attack the concepts of Christianity and its doctrine.here is a simple question. If Jesus existed actually went down into Egypt and God called them out of Egypt. Could the passage in that is quoted by Matthew apply both to Israel coming out of Egypt and Christ if God is involved in the process?does it appear a dual usage is under contemplation here?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Again you misunderstand. Im not against Bible study, Im against and opposed to someone avoiding obvious points, when presented In this context the matter of dual usage. I demonstrated its usage and you simply avoid the point by using different words to make your original contentionSecondly im opposed to someone using one set of scriptures (old Testament), explaining them in Bible study context, to refute the NT, then when presented with the information from those scriptures, (NT)insisting that the NT passages cannot be viewed as reliable, therefore my interpretation must be false, ignoring the fact that they have just given a very careful explanation and interpretation of a set of scriptures, to explain away the NT ones, believing at the very same moment the ones they are quoting and explicating are false and unreliable as well.when discussing the Bible, IN CONTEXT, prophecy and the such like to not take God and providence into the picture is simply ludicrous Any prediction that relies on inspiration and divine guidance is believable and acceptable. the context from which the prediction is made and the one that it is fulfilled is repleat with God and and divine guidance. you do understand this simple point correct? Yes, understanding out of this context, anyone can come up with any interpretation and answer they choose.Our context is Bible study, witht he view that the Jewish pepole were gods people and under his direct guidance, atleast that is what the context of the passages your are QUOTING and explicating, imply correct?So the point at present is not reliablity of the text, but whether the OLD TESTAMENT supports the NT in the area of prophecy.A simple point you seem to be missing and to why I consider your contribution here a waste of time at present.First you complained that the gospel writers did not use prophecy in a dual usage, now you manuver to avoid the point that they obviously do use it this manner. Or avoid answering it in the affirmative your kidding correct? what other usage or context could the writer be referncing but that of Israel in Egypt or Christ in Egypt. What would be the context of Matthew.I say this again as nice as I can, please try sound as if you have some knowledge of the scriptures. thanks for your quotes and attempts to remove Christ as the fulfillment of those passages. The question here is not CAN I CONVINCE PAULK OF THOSE FULLFILLMENTS, BUT DOES CHRIST AS REFERNCED BY THE NT WRITES FULLFILL THOSE OT PASSAGES OR SEEM TO FULLFILL THEM. Since brian claimed he did not FULLFILL a single one, a biblical contextual explanation is required to see if that is the case. The simple answer is a resounding YES.You fellas say you want to do bible study, but you want to do it on your terms without God, the spiritual, the miraclous, divine gudance, inspiration, etc, etc, etc, etc., things that are as much a part of the context and make so sense from a Biblical perspective otherwisePaulk, thanks for your contribution in this context and I am not trying to bully you into anything, but your points are tedious and they miss the point.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Will get to this this evening or tommorrow, thanksEAM

Thank you Paul, very analytical.However, Paul, Anyone reading along here would know that your last statement is completely false. Secondly Paul, when i say knowledge of the scriptures I mean all of the scriptures, the part also, that involves God in its context. when all of it, not simply that which you choose, is taken into consideration, Jesus can esasily be seen to have fulfilled these prophcies. Bible is bible study when, all of its components are taken ito consideration.Thanks for your very analylitical considerationsEAM

Brian why do you think they misunderstood the nature and purpose of the Messiah. They already had a kingdom and a king, the deliver was of a different nature.Besides all of this I cannot for the life of me understand how a person like yourself that studies Biblical matters can make a comment such as this above. Brian God is spiritual, they believed in God, he was their king, it was therefore a spiritual kingdom. It was always intended by God to be a spirit ruled kingdom. How could a group of people that dealt with a spiritual being as their king not have a spiritual kingdomThe Messiah was the manner and method of forgiveness of sins in the form of God as a king. He was always their king I just demonstrated it. Besides this from a physical standpoint what would you call the collective people, their borders and territories, regardless of its sizeEMA writes: Zechariah 9:9, says he would be king, bringing salvation, but not salvation from physical enemies in the form of the Messiah. Brian think about it, they already had a king, it was God himself, he discouraged them from having an earthly king and he himself was always the deliverer anyway. You see now your starting to get it. A spiritual God, a Spiritual king. In either instance the Old testament or New, God was essentially the king. Can you remember a time when he did not deliver them. He was the king and they were the kingdom But he did Brian. Do you not remember him discouraging them from an earthly king. Besides all of this what were they lacking in God anyway. He discouraged it because they wanted to be like the other nations. He was gently trying to say no fellas that’s not my plan
Do you mean Isa 53 is not descriptive enough on what his intentions were in the Messiah? Nearly all prophecies attributed to the messiah would be understood as a humble servant Your kidding right? Even the simplest reading would understand it to be about God, even if you didn’t believe it to be about Christ . it certainly can be a reference to Christ, whether you believe it personally or not. Remember the question is not whether I can convince brian of this or that but whether it could be understood as a fulfillment in the Nt writings.Isa 9:6 is a cross reference to Jeremiah 23:5-6, this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Clearly a reference to God and future reference to Christ. I really wish you and PaulK would leave your emotions and verbage at the stoop, it does nothing for the discussion and is simply a vulgar way of attempting prejudice against a person or their position.
Think about it Brian. What kind of message do you think he was sending to them in encouraging them to avoid an earthly king. What kind of message do you think he was trying to convey when he said, you don’t need a king, I am your king. Maybe just maybe a spiritual one, I am the God of your fathersNow watch this, if it is your belief that they never received the physical kingdom as you say, then maybe this is not what he had in mind in the first place. Did you ever think of that?Now I know the idea of premillinilism suggests that at some point in the future there will be a restoration of Israel in a kingdom form, and my (our) belief is that that restoration is simply through the person and mission of Christ. The lost of Israel or the remnant will be saved through Christ and in Christ in the church which is the kingdom.But heres the point, Israel ALWAYS HAD A KING and a kingdom, most of the time it was even in some physical form. They always had a deliverer, until such time as they indicated they did not want to abide by Gods laws. Can you remember a time when they weren’t delivered in the Old Testament except when Gods judgement was on them? My justification is that he never intended them to have an earthly king in the first place and the king he desired for them , they rejected in the form of God in the Old Testament and in the form of God in Christ in the NT Im not making anything up out of the OT. God never intended for them to have a physical king and he demonstrates clearly a reference to himself as king in those passages as quoted above and as any thinking person can see a reference to Christ as a spiritual king. Those references could only have reference to God Jesus only failed in your mind, because what you have in mind is not what God ever intended. Its only opposite in your mind because you cannot see that God all along was their King and that king needed to manifest himself in physical form to save them from their sins As I stated earlier, I claim to be no expert in this area, but I would point out one simple fact. If so little is known about David, or if he even actually existed, as you indicate at times, how is it that you can be certain of the bloodline you advocate as accurate? Since a physical kingdom was never a consideration in the form of the Messiah, he could hardly be considered a failure for saving his people from their sins and the entire world The mere fact that they believed in God, the spirit world, angels, demons, would refute this very silly notion. I am certain that there were groups that believed less or more as the certain in the NT did not believe in the resurrection and others did. Some believed in angels others did not.Your whitewashing of entire peoples beliefs is simply nonsensical and silly And here we find a problem that is deeper than any objectivity or rational treatment if items. This is what I meant earlier, such aggressive behavior and willingness to find truth in the Old when it suits your purposes, then in almost the same breath decry it (the New)as a magical document with nearly no merit. Such extremes.
Please brian, such arrogance do you think you are the only person that ever did any objective and detailed studies of these matters? Are you comparing yourself for example to men like F. F. Bruce and thousands of other very skilled Biblical scholars, that came away believing in the very thing you oppose.Give it a rest, it has no place in the discussion and your prejudices are obvious. Give it a rest Then you need to get out more. Simply turn on your television and listen to any messianic Jew, that is now a convert of Christ. I can recommend some booksEAM writes: can you not see the simple point, that for you to claim that jesus was a failure because he did not fulfill a single prophecy and you use as your source some unreliable Old testament books, as you claim they are, is both contradictory and nonsensical. He did say he was a king and a king of the Jews Your looking for the wrong type of kingdom. Here is a simple question.Why do you think the Israelites rejected God as a king and requested a physical one?He never intended them to have a physical king, even though they eventually obtained one. This was one by God to demonstrate exacally why they didn’t need one. Except for a few most of them were wicked beyond belief. The need for God to be king was obvious But that’s the point Brian many of your contentions of unreliability have been demonstrated to not be implausible, when other information is offered. But the fact that God never intended the Israelites to have physical king and that the Messiah need not be a physical king, is simply to easy to demonstrate You speak as if you have considered all the interpretations from the Old testament and have considered your conclusions as absolute as in the case of Isa 9:6-7 and Jer 23:5-7, which are a clear reference to God himself and very little doubt to Christ in the form of God. or atleast it can be easily seen that christ could be that fulfillmentWhich, if any king of Israel before the Messiah was described as saving his people from thier sins, A Mighty God, eternal father? does that sound spiritual to you? Please provide a rfernce for this idea, if you will please Only the worst form of interpretation would declare that Isa 53 has refernce to Israel only, even the simplest reader can see it is a reference to God himself and it is a clear discription of Christ as God in the NT. Both here and jeremiah the reference is clearly, to through and about God Until you can demonstrate either in the Old or the New that God intended them to have a king in a physical form from the beginning and that this was not his wishes and until you can demonstrate that god was not thier king and deliverer and until you can demonstrate that any king could deliever them from thier sins other than God and until you can show in any passage where God alludes to a man as those things described in Isa 53 and Jeremiah 23, you have failed in your task to demonstrate that christ is not the fulfillment of such passages, or atleast that he could not be described as such.When you understand this simple point then you will understand the nature of Christ as the Messiah and the fulfillment to those prophecies. That simple point is that HE NEVER INTENDED THEM TO HAVE AN EARTHLY KING, from the beginning.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

so I ask: Interesting point you and your author make here. however, i would suggest that you take the issues at hand, or take a quick read of the Old and New testaments, then ask yourself whether God intended this or that thing.I dont need any direct operation of the Holy Spirit, directly on myself, even thought that would be wonderful, because his intentions are already there in black and white, if you will.Besides this what is this issue you fellas seem to have, ascribing tendencies to other individuals and ignoring them in yourselves. brian has been very dogmatic concerining his positions and interpretations, yet you ignore this tendancy in this connection, and point it out in myself, like I am the only person with a strong opinion. Perhaps theres a book that can explain your behavior I have a belief in an actual God that interacts in his creation. I also believe the Apostles and NT writers to be inspired by that same God. they give us the mind of God.I Cor chapter 2. heres the whole plan and mind of God in a few cerses according to an Apostle that claims inspiration"1And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a](A) did not come proclaiming to you(B) the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except(C) Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And(D) I was with you(E) in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of(F) the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but(G) in the power of God.
Wisdom from the Spirit
6Yet among(H) the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not(I) a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age,(J) who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God,(K) which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8None of(L) the rulers of this age understood this, for(M) if they had, they would not have crucified(N) the Lord of glory. 9But, as it is written,(O) "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has(P) prepared(Q) for those who love him"
10these things(R) God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even(S) the depths of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts(T) except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now(U) we have received not(V) the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this(W) in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit,(X) interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.[c]14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are(Y) folly to him, and(Z) he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The(AA) spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16(AB) "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But(AC) we have the mind of Christ."I would have no idea probably what the old testament writers may have been conveying DIRECTLY, but the same God that direct the Old directed the New, so I have a glance into what was intended BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.I am only presenting a point of view, if you dont like it, take up the issueEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I disagree. you have paid not a single bit of attention to the fact that I demonstrated God never intended them to have a physical king, becuae he was thier king. he only gave them a king to demonstrate that they didnt need a king and nearly every king was wicked and unruley.As a matter of fact there is no reason to believe that God EVER intended Israel to have a physical king THROUHOUT, history other than himself. he then demonstrates this point AGAIN (as he did in the Old testament), in the nature and purpose of Christ It is irrelevant what Israel as a people expected, because God had already explained the principle of a king. and they misunderstood that. there is no reason to expect they would understand the nature of his purposes in the Messiah, if they did not understand anything else. Do you see whats going on there Brian. He then demonstrated in the Old Testament passages that I indicated, that he is clearly talking about HIMSELF, describing himself, by terms such as, Mighty God Eteranal Father, etc. What thinking person would attribute these passages to any single man, especially the Isralites, given there very respectful nature twords God here i agreed I am no expert, but if inspiration is involved, and there is controversy as to the specific details by authorites on this matter, there is no reason to reject what is offered by Matt and the other Gospel writers as absolutley false but it can be verified by jesus' own words and the way God is represented in the Old test passages I cited. Your only contention to this is that the Jews needed to understand this or that. Most of the time they did not I asked you the direct question if GOD HIMSELF, (see the point Brian) did not deliver them in most if not all those situations back there, unless he was punishing them, AND HE DID. Today from a physical standpoint they are out of Gods physical perview, except through Christ. The Messiah was to deliver his people from the oppession of sin, ie, "he would save his people from thier sins He is and still does gather the remnant of Israel, through Christ in the Chruch or Kingdom, Col 1:13. this what was meant in the Messiah, whether it was understood or not.As I stated earlier, prophecy was not the all in all for proof of the Messiahship. Jesus said, "if you dont believe me for the words that I speak, believe me for the WORKS that I do, because they testify of me. understanding all the prophecies was not a requirement, believing in the Christ was jesus made it very clear to the women at the well, that the time was coming that men would not worship God in jeruselum or some other place but in the hearts of men.The temple spoken of in the messiah was his body and the hearts of men as temples"destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days, but this spake he of his body". he rebuilt a temple that was not physical specifically and was eternal in nature jesus stated, "I bring peace not as the world brings peace". jesus or the Messiah brought peace in a world sense in the hearts and minds of people, atleast he has given the world a way to live in peace with men and MORE SPECIFICALLY WITH GOD.Now listen again Brian and dont make the same mistake like that of old. God is spiritual, God is eternal, it stands to reason his purposes are spiritual and eternal in character. Are you still with me? God IS and only ever has or will be the king of Israel and the world, whether they accept him or understand him.Your goal here would be to demonstrate this otherwise, but how will you since God has already made it clear, he only wished to be there king. This then fits perfectly with what is wriiten of and about Christ in the nature of God and the messiah As you can see you are wrong, because like the people of old you misuderstood Gods purpose from the start.again, now listen carefully, God only wanted himself as a king of Israel and eventually the world.christ meets and fulfills every prophecy, if the are understood from Gods ORIGINAL INTENTIONSEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

well ofcourse you lost intrest because it is the only thing you have chosen to address, in any fashion. youve totally ignored any thing else that has been brought up,. Gods intentions that they never have an earthly king, passages that clearly could not refer to men, but God the concept of dual usages of prophetic prediction, God as a spiritual being with eternal spiritual purposes as indicated in both testaments, Israels failure to understand Gods purposes and many other things I have demonstrated during this discussion, you have simply set aside as not applicable, when good debate would require that you atleast address them in some form. Nice form Briannot being an expert myself I certainly can understand the information of others to demonstrate that alleged contradictions are not always onesided in your favor as you try and make it appear, through verbage and intimidation. Men of scholarship did not believe these things in vain, nor did they leave to speculation or chancethis writer points out after a very comprehensive examination"How clear! How plain! In a very real sense, rather than disproving the Messianic credentials of Yeshua Ha Moshiach -- Jesus Christ -- as the Saviour and Redeemer of all mankind, these alleged discrepancies, when thoroughly studied, add powerful proof and convincing evidence that Jesus was indeed all that He claimed to be -- the One destined to rule upon the Throne of David, as our Messiah and King" William F DankenbringHere is the article in its entirity, which demonstrates once again your sphere of influnece in these matters is limited to your own opinions and are not as absolute as you might thinkhttp://www.triumphpro.com/genealogy-of-christ.htmthe fact that you have ignored that the Bible is a book about and for God, yet ignore with a wave of the hand, inspiration in the mix, to understand possible explanations in the area of prophecy, shows you are not objectivethe fact that you have ignored the principle of internal interpretation of both testaments to explain fulfillment of prophecyLast but not least you categorical wave of the hand debating method for the very real demonstrable nature of a spiritual kingdom in both testaments to which I clearly (or the scriptures) point. Again brian, nice form thanks for putting words in my mouth. i never said there wasnt a way to link him, I simply said yours was not the only arguments or approach
you seem to believe yours is the only information in this area and that it cannot be argued or questioned in any fashion. have we closed the book on CREATION SCIENCE because some people believe a certain method or approach is the only one. has any one proven that the TOE is absolutley 100%, with no possibilites that creation science is not true.Such arrogance is truley bad FORM brian You arrogant pompous clown, when was inspiration never a consideration in a book about a spiritual being and why should it be pointless. if it is simply PROVE that it did not take place.Bad form Captain H Brain my simple friend, batting scriptures back and forth is ONE of the very pointS of bible study. you would have been better off dealing with any of the point I brought up verses bashing me personally as a means of intimidation, as is characteristics of you fellas here. You use it as a form of debate and intimidation, hoping that your opponent will ignore that you responded to nearly nothing you brought upbad form brian, very bad form This IS probably one of the most ignorant, completley stupid statments I have ever heard. Please tell me who you believe has had more impact in History than Jesus Christ the Messiah? You have just demonstrated the point that he was not a failure, thank youEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Admin writesWhile I , Buzzsaw and Peg do not agree on all the details in such matters, we all agree that God and inspiration is in charge of these matters and that a spiritual kingdom of some sort is contemplated in the entirity of passages. Now watch, the idiocy which disregards this fact, while arguing from a positon and a book repleat with such supernatural matters, trying at the sametime to make a position for the text to make it fit a stricly human theory, is simply ludicrous beyond belief.Secondly, the text more than supports a spiritual kingdom, eternal in character and nature. If one can look at a simple passage and understand it in the context of God and eternal purposes, example, I challenged Brian to demonstrate how in Isa 9:6-7, these statements could be refering to ANY MAN."Mighty God", "The everlasting father", etc, etc. At a glance any Jew would have understood this to mean God, it should be obvious that it is refering to God, specifically in the nature of Christ. Only a blind eye and humanistic nonsense would ignore such evidence.Speaking of David throne and about God in the same context he writes"and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth FOREVER"Show me in anyother passage where any Jewish writer in the scriptures ever refered to a man with such designations, it would be blasphemeousIt takes a total disregard for and a complete burying of ones head in the sand, to not see the hand of God in such matters, from atleast, a biblical perspective.When a person views and understands the scriptures for the purpose for which they were intended, spiritual matters from the foundation of the world, all of the seeming problems go awayhere is a simple question. If God is involved in such matters, as it is clearly stated and indicated from the text (Bible) the humanist derives his conclusions out of, is it possible that Christ fulfilled such matters? But here is the point you are missing, while they were punished god made certain PERPETUAL PROMISES to and about them, which were ofcourse eternal and physical in nature1. "Jehovah will bring thee, and thy king whom thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation that thou hast not
known, thou nor thy fathers; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone. And thou shalt become
an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all the peoples whither Jehovah shall lead thee
away "(Deuteronomy 28:36-37).2. "And Jehovah will scatter thee among all peoples, from the one end of the earth even unto the other
end of the earth; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers,
even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, and there shall be no rest for the
sole of thy foot: but Jehovah will give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and pining of soul;
and thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear night and day, and shalt have no assurance
of thy life" (Deuteronomy 28:64-66).3. "And you will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land shall
be desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor
them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Jehovah their God" (Leviticus
26:33,44).4. "For I am with thee, saith Jehovah, to save thee: for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I
have scattered thee, but I will not make a full end of thee; but I will correct thee in measure, and will in
no wise leave thee unpunished" (Jeremiah 30:11).5. "If these ordinances depart from before me, saith Jehovah, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from
being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith Jehovah: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations
of the earth searched out beneath, then will I also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have
done, saith Jehovah" (Jeremiah 31:36-37; see also Jeremiah 46:27-28).6. "Behold, the eyes of the Lord Jehovah are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the
face of the earth; save that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith Jehovah. For, lo, I will
command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all the nations, like as grain is sifted in a sieve, yet
shall not the least kernel fall upon the earth" (Amos 9:8-9).There was always an eternal plan and notice how specifically these very prophecies, while not refering directly to Christ WERE and ARE being fulfilledEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Yes it does. if God establishes something through and by someone, how can it be considered anything but spiritual. from what source is its authority?As i stated before Buz and I have different perspective as to what the kingdom is in a physical form, i believe it is the Church, matt 16, Col 1:17 and he believes it is a future one in jeruselum.But to me (presently) this is beside the point. Anything God does is spiritual in nature and eternal in character. if Solomon is gone and his kingdom is gone, how is anything God promised to and through David, FOREVER AND EVERLASTING.IOW, by whos and what authority was this kindom removed, as you believe it was presently. it was given from spiritual sources, maintained by spiritual forces (Gods supernatural intervention to sustain it), then taken away from spiritual places and sourcesSecondly, can ANYTHING and I mean anything God does, be considered less than spiritualWhile there is certainly a heavenly aspect to Gods existence and KINGDOM, as there can really be nothing else, the earthly part is no less spiritual, becuase heavenly and spiritual have to do with authority first, then position and place. Its source and power determine its true DESIGNATIONEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.