|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,430 Year: 6,687/9,624 Month: 27/238 Week: 27/22 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: But, yet again, there is NOTHING in the OT to hint at this. They were promised a physical kingdom and they are still waiting on it. They were promised a kingdom by God. Psalm 89:35Once I have sworn in my holiness,To David I will not tell lies. 36His seed itself will prove to be even to time indefinite, And his throne as the sun in front of me 1Chronicles 17:14And I will cause him to stand in MY house and in my kingship to time indefinite, and his throne will itself become one lasting to time indefinite. Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of HEAVEN will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite The kingdom was always going to be a heavenly kingdom. The 'throne of David' was only temporary on earth, it represented Gods rulership, but it was never going to replace it. It was put in place until the Messiah arrived.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: Brian's reasons for seeing Jesus as a failure.1. No Davidic bloodline. No challenge to this claim Luke's geneology of Jesus traced the line through David’s son Nathan, While Mathews list traces thru the line of Solomon. Luke traces the ancestry of Mary, which proved Jesus’ natural descent from David, and Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne via Jesus adoptive father Joseph who was traced back to Solomon. Both of these lists were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time. The religious leaders were looking for ways to discredit Jesus but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. This is evidence for Luke and Mathews lists as being fair dinkum.
Brian writes: 2. Jesus was not anointed as King Of Israel. The main challenge is that Jesus was a king, but of some spiritual kingdom which was not what the Jews were expecting. A bit too convenient as this claim cannot be verified. When the kings of Isreal were anointed, they were done so by the prophet or priest at Gods direction. As you would be aware, there had been no physical king in Isreal for centuries before the first century. The last king was Zedekiah in 607bce. It was fortold by Ezekiel at 21:27: A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it [earthly Jerusalem]. As for this also, it [the scepter of kingship in David’s line] will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him. Luke reported that the angel who appeard to mary told her "This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom. When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer, he witnessed him being anointed with holy spirit, by God himself. Jesus was annointed by God becasue Gods throne (the throne of David which represented Gods rulership) is not an earthly throne but a heavenly one. Has there been a king in Isreal since 607bce?
Brian writes: 3. The Messiah would free Israel from her oppressors. Jesus did not free Israel from anyone, in fact israel more oppressed after Jesus died. This point still stands 4. The Messiah would gather the nation of Israel back to Israel. The exact opposite happened after Jesus died! My point still stands. You are looking for a physical fulfillment and it was not to be a physical fulfillment at that time. The jews wanted it to be a physical fulfillment too, but we cannot force Gods hand. His purpose was to provide 'ALL MANKIND' with the promises that he had made by means of the Messiah. This is why he told Abraham "by means of your seed, ALL the nations will bless themselves" How much good could the messiah have done if he was situated in palestine? Do you really think that he could have changed people so much that the stop fighting? Perhaps he could have spent his life permanently touring the world and performing his miracles, but it would have only lasted for as long as he was there. In order for the Messiah to benefit All mankind, he needed to be in a location where he could access everyone at the same time.
Brian writes: 5. The messiah would rebuild the Temple on Temple Mount. Jesus obviously did not achieve this as the Temple stood all through Jesus' life and was destroyed a few decades after Jesus died. My point still stands. Joh 2:19 "Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. firstly, the temple was still standing when Jesus was in Jerusalem, so he obviously wasnt talking about the physical temple. If you read his words, he actually told people that the Temple in Jerusalem was going to be destroyed...which it was in 70ce. The temple that Jesus spoke of was not herods temple. The religious leaders used this against him at his trial as Johns account shows:
John 2:20Therefore the Jews said: This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days? 21But he was talking about the temple of his body. 22When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the saying that Jesus said" Brian writes: 6. The Messiah will bring world peace! Has the world ever been in such a state of war and terror? Jesus failed here too. My point stands. Yes, the messiah would bring world peace, but only after the Kingdom of God removed present world governments and authorities. The kingdom prophecy of Daniel shows that war would ensue between Gods Kingdom and the worlds governments BEFORE peace would be achieved.
Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom...It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; So Jesus as the Messianic king of Gods Kingdom will indeed bring peace, but not until it has removed all other rulerships.
Brian writes: 7. Not single messianic prophecy can be verified in the person of Jesus. My point still stands. To the contrary, the only prophecies that have not come true yet about the messiah are the ones about what he will do after he removes present world governments. All other prophecies have certainly been fulfilled. For anyone who is interested in just how many prophecies were fullfilled by Jesus, here is a list of the prophecy and the fulfillement. Ge 49:10 Born of the tribe of JudahMt 1:2-16; Lu 3:23-33; Heb 7:14 Ps 132:11 & Isa 9:7; From the family of David the son of JesseMt 1:1, 6-16; 9:27; Ac 13:22,23; Ro 1:3; 15:8,12 11:1, 11:10 Mic 5:2 Born in BethlehemLu 2:4-11; Joh 7:42 Isa 7:14 Born of a virginMt 1:18-23; Lu 1:30-35 Jer 31:15 Babes killed after his birthMt 2:16-18 Ho 11:1 Called out of EgyptMt 2:15 Mal 3:1 & Isa 40:3 Way prepared by someone before his arrivalMt 3:1-3; 11:10-14;4:5; 17:10-13; Lu 1:17,76; 3:3-6; 7:27; Joh 1:20-23; 3:25-28; Ac 13:24; 19:4 Isa 61:1,2 Commissioned by GodLu 4:18-21 Isa 9:1,2 Ministry caused people in Naphtali and Zebulun to see great lightMt 4:13-16 Ps 78:2 would speak with IllustrationsMt 13:11-13, 31-35 Isa 53:4 Carried our sicknessesMt 8:16,17 Ps 69:9 Zealous for Jehovah’s houseMt 21:12, 13; Joh 2:13-17 Isa 42:1-4 would not wrangle in streetsMt 12:14-21 Isa 53:1 people would not believe in him.Joh 12:37,38; Ro 10:11,16 Zec 9:9 & Ps 118:26 Entry into Jerusalem on colt of an ass, hailed as kingMt 21:1-9; Mr 11:7-11; Lu 19:28-38; Joh 12:12-15 Isa 28:16 & 53:3; Ps 69:8; 118:22, 23 Rejected but becomes the cornerstoneMt 21:42, 45,46; Ac 3:14; 4:11; 1Pe 2:7 Isa 8:14, 15 Becomes stone of stumblingLu 20:17,18; Ro 9:31-33 Ps 41:9; 109:8 Betrayed by an apostleMt 26:47-50; Joh 13:18, 26-30; Ac 1:16-20 Zec 11:12 Betrayed for 30 pieces of silverMt 26:15; 27:3-10; Mr 14:10,11 Zec 13:7 Disciples scatterMt 26:31,56; Joh 16:32 Ps 2:1,2 Roman powers and leaders of Israel act together against himMt 27:1,2; Mr 15:1,15; Lu 23:10-12; Ac 4:25-28 Isa 53:8 Tried and condemnedMt 26:57-68; 27:1, 2, 11-26; Joh 18:12-14, 19-24, 28-40; 19:1-16 Ps 27:12 Use of false witnesses in his trialMt 26:59-61; Mr 14:56-59 Isa 53:7 would remain silent before accusersMt 27:12-14; Mr 14:61; 15:4,5; Lu 23:9 Ps 69:4 Hated without causeLu 23:13-25; Joh 15:24,25 Isa 50:6; Mic 5:1 Struck, spit onMt 26:67; 27:26,30; Joh 19:3 Ps 22:16, ImpaledMt 27:35; Mr 15:24,25; Lu 23:33; Joh 19:18,23; 20:25,27 Ps 22:18 Lots cast over his garmentsMt 27:35; Joh 19:23,24 Isa 53:12 Numbered with sinnersMt 26:55,56; 27:38; Lu 22:37 Ps 22:7,8 Reviled while on stakeMt 27:39-43; Mr 15:29-32 Ps 69:21 Given vinegar and gall to sooth his painMt 27:34,48; Mr 15:23,36 Ps 22:1 Forsaken by God to enemiesMt 27:46; Mr 15:34 Ps 34:20; Ex 12:46 No bones brokenJoh 19:33,36 Isa 53:5; Zec 12:10 Pierced in thighMt 27:49; Joh 19:34,37; Re 1:7 Isa 53:5, Dies sacrificial death to take sin away and open way to righteous standing with GodMt 20:28; Joh 1:29, Ro 3:24; 4:25; 1Co 15:3; Heb 9:12-15; 1Pe 2:24; 1Jo 2:2 Isa 53:9 Buried with the richMt 27:57-60; Joh 19:38-42 Jon 1:17; In grave parts of three days, then resurrectedMt 12:39,40; 16:21; 17:23;2:10; 27:64; 28:1-7; Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:3-8 Ps 16:8-11, Raised before his body sees corruptionAc 2:25-31; 13:34-37 Ps 2:7 Declared Gods son by annointing and resurrectionMt 3:16,17; Mr 1:9-11; Lu 3:21,22; Ac 13:33; Ro 1:4; Heb 1:5; 5:5 Brian, you think that Jesus was a failure, yet there is a worldwide religious movement of billions of people following him and resting their hope on him...is this really failure? Whether you believe in christianity or not, any reasonable person would conclude that he was a complete success in establishing himself as the 'light of the world' to whom people could look to for hope and comfort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: How can He claim descent from David through Joseph if Joseph had nothing to do with His conception? thru adoption being legally married to the mother makes him the legal father. In any case, Jesus, being the son of God, is the most legal person to take the throne of God because David was said to be sitting on Gods Throne.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Son Goku writes:
The jews viewed Jesus as being the son of the carpenter, Joseph. This would mean that they viewed Jesus as Josephs son, his legal child because they would have beleived Jesus was Josephs biological child. therefore his lineage could be traced thru Josephs blood line and no one would have thought anything strange about it.
In any case Jesus is described as physically being of the seed of David, even in a non legal sense. Son Goku writes: Well Jesus isn't the son of God, he is God. Or rather he is the physical/temporal aspect of one personhood of God. He's not God's son or something. well the bible writers call him Gods Son. And he is different to God in that God is eternal and has no beginning, yet John 1:1 says that the 'Word was in the beginning with God'. This is in no way implying that the word was eternal but that he had a beginning. This idea of the trinity is not a bible thing and not all christians teach it. Actually its what caused the early church to be split in two.
Son Goku writes: Son is used because it provides a human view of the relationship between this logos personhood of God with the personhood known as YHWH or the Father. Thats right, it accurately describes the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus...both are different individuals , but are as close as we understand a father and son to be. Its not 'unfortunate', it makes perfect sense to describe them this way because Jesus is not God, but a created being...the first created being who came into existence in 'the beginning' at the time when God began to create other beings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Son Goku writes: This is a minority view and hence I did not adopt it. I'd prefer to stick to the view of the vast majority of Christians and keep Jesus and YHWH as the same being. that is your perogative...i just hope that you choose this view, not becuase its what the majority believe, but its what you've come to understand from scripture. In the end, its the bible writers who's opinion matters most. They were certainly not of the opinion that Jesus and Jehovah were were the same...nor did Jesus.
Son Goku writes: Also you didn't complete your quote from John 1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Which strongly suggests that Jesus and God are the same being. i agree that if that is actually what John 1:1 says, it might appear that way. However, this view is not in harmony with the rest of the scriptures. And if you think about it logically, if the Apostle John really said that, it is an illogical thing to say that someone (the Word) was with some other individual (God) and at the same time was that other individual (God). Here i'm going to give you the first set of lines the Greek text according to the fourth-century uncial manuscripts; and then on the second line, how the Greek text is pronounced in our language today; and on the third line a word-for-word English translation: ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ EN ARKHEI ĒN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD______________________________________________________ HΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ĒN PROS ΤΟΝ THN, KAI THS ĒN HO LOGOS. WAS WITH ΤHE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD._________________________________________________________ ΟΥΤΟΣ ΗΝ ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ HOUTOS ĒN EN ARKHEI PROS ΤΟΝ THN. THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD.______________________________________________________ I highlighted each occurance of the definite article so that you can see that in the original language John used it when he said THE word was with THE God...this is what proves that they were two distinct persons.... More evidence that The word was NOT the God but was WITH the God is seen in the 2nd line where no definite article is used when John says : KAI THS ĒN HO LOGOS. AND GOD WAS THE WORD. John does not use the definite article before the word GOD which implies he was describing the nature of the word....Jesus was divine is what he was saying. But he wasnt saying that Jesus was The God who is distinct from all other gods including The Word. Just because something is believed by the majority, does not make it right. Another line of reasoning is on what the names given to individuals mean. The name by which the The Creator God chose to be known by wasYHWH , this name means 'become' or He Causes to Become whereas Jesus name means Jehovah Is Salvation. This is significant and shows that while one is known as the creator, the other is known as one who recognizes that YHWH provides salvation. They are very different and very distinct. Edited by Peg, : No reason given. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Son Goku writes: Similar in most forms of Christianity, Christ is:1. Of the same being as the father and the holy spirit (Trinitarianism) 2. Same essence (equal with) the Father (Homoousia) 3. That the divine (Logos) and human (Jesus) aspects were one individual (Hypostasis) the most interesting thing about this list is that the bible agrees with none of it.
1. Of the same being (trinitarianism)
The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity. And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament. and the The Encyclopedia of Religion says: Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. If there is no trinity doctrine in the bible, then it cannot be a teaching inspired by God.
2. Same essence/equal with the father
John 14:28, RS: [Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. Matt. 12:31,32, RS: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. If the Father & Jesus and the Holy spirit were equals, why can someone blaspheme Jesus and still be forgiven, but not the holy spirit?
3. That the divine (Logos) and human (Jesus) aspects were one individual
John 8:17,18, RS: [Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me. Here Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father...so that he could count him and his father as two in number. Mark 13:32, RS: Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. This would not be the case if the Father & Son were the same individual...they obviously have different knowledge, the fathers knowledge of thing being moreso then the Son's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi Brian,
Brian writes: As I have said many times, and I am getting bored saying it, the bloodline of Nathan is of no use. The Nathan prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 makes it clear that the messiah will come from the bloodline of he who will build the Temple, namely Solomon. I understand that, but the Messiah was also promised to come from the line of King David and the combined genologies of Luke and Matthew show that Jesus adoptive father, Joseph, and his biological mother Mary, BOTH came from two of Davids sons, Solomon and Nathan, therefore he came from the line of King David as prophecied.
Brian writes: Ah, but does he? There is absolutely nothing in Luke to suggest that this is Mary’s genealogy, so this claim has not been established.Tell me this. If this was the genealogy of Mary why did it take 1500 years to make this claim? Firstly, Jews did not recon a family line by the mother, therefore if the christians specifically used Mary it would be completely out of the norm and likely discredited by the Jews for that very reason. The fact is that they 'Rightly' trace the lines from Joseph in the case of Matthew, and Heli who was Marys father & Josephs father-in-law. This was the norm in jewish society as is stated in M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather" Again, if the geneology had something wrong with it, the Jews of the first century would have been able to dismiss it and call its fraud into question but no-one ever did because there was nothing wrong with the geneology. If it took 1500 years to make the claim that Mary's line was not being traced, then its probably because some bible skeptic thought it was a good way to bring it into question. I dont know who that person was or why they made the claim, do you?
Brian writes: No it doesn’t, for three very obvious reasons. First, inheritance of royal positions has never went through the female, second, this line goes back to Nathan who is exempt from the prophecy (and was never king), thirdly, it is not Mary’s genealogy. So let’s deal with these objections Peg, don’t just ignore them or make more empty claims. The royal positions dont go thru females, true..they go thru the male. But no one is claiming that Jesus right the the throne came thru Mary. His right to the thone came thru his paternal grandfather, Heli, and his adoptive father, Joseph. the line goes back to 'King David' thru his son Nathan...you seem to ignore the fact that the Messiah was to be a 'son of David' You've given no reason why the geneology is not Mary's. You claim its not Mary's geneology but there is no way to prove this claim. the fact is that if Mary was mentioned it would call into question the legitimacy of the geneology all together.
Brian writes: Okay, another unsupported claim. What evidence do you have of this magical ‘adoption’ that Jews were supposed to have that passed legal status to the adopted child? There are many examples of how non biological children were included in the inheritence of a family.Before Abraham had children, he considered his slave Eliezer in line for a part of an inheritence of his house. Inheritances was specifically for the children of the house, but in the case of Abraham, he was going to give his slave an inheritance. (Ge 15:2-4) Rachel and Leah both considered the children born to Jacob by their foreign handmaids as their own sons and these children recieved an inheritance along with those born directly of Jacob’s legal wives. (Ge 30:3-8, 12, 13,24)This is a form of adoption...perhaps they didnt have to go thru the legal process we do today, but it was certainly in line with what 'adoption' means. The Greek word translated adoption (huiothesia) is a technical legal term that literally means a placing as son. Joseph certainly accepted and placed Jesus as his son. The evidence for this is that all of his community, including the religious leaders, viewed Jesus as Josephs legitimate son.
Brian writes: Evidence? When were these lists compiled? When were they circulated? Evidence that Jews had an interest in them? the geneolgys would have been compiled when the public registry was still available in Jerusalem. This was before the city was destroyed in 70ce. Because they were used by the apostles to establish congregations, including Jewish congregations, these lists would have to have been available for the public otherwise how could they claim a list that was unverifiable? They couldnt. In order to convince people of Jesus identity, they had to prove to the jews that he was of the Davidic line...they could only have done this if the jews could check the lists themselves. The fact that even some jewish religious teachers became christians shows that the lists must have been accurate. And considering a large jewish congregation was formed in Jerusalem it is fairly certain that these lists made by Mark and Luke could be cross referenced with the official birth lists. The Jews were absolutely interested in anyone who claimed to be the Messiah. Matthew chpt 23 contains the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, so for those of us who believe the bible writers were not fraudsters, it was written in the first century before the destruction of 70CE. We are also told by the earliest church fathers that Matthews account was the first to be written which means it must have been earlier then Lukes. Luke & Acts were written by the same person and in Acts 1:1 we are told that the the first account, had already been written. We know that Acts was finished around 61CE because it ends when the Apostle Paul was still in jail awaiting his appeal to Caesar. So the Gospel account was probably written about 56-58C.E in Caesarea where Paul was held up for 2 years in prison before being taken to Rome for his appeal. I'll leave it there for now and come back to the rest of your post tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: So while Joseph raised and provided for Jesus, Jesus did not take on Joseph's bloodline. IOW, Jesus would not be considered in the bloodline of Solomon. And its a good thing that Jesus did not take on the bloodline. If Jesus was of Josephs actual bloodline, then he would not have been to legally rule the throne of David. The reason being that Joseph was a descendant of Solomon by Jeconiah (or Coniah, or Jehoiachin), concerning whom we read, in Jeremiah 22:24-30:
‘As I am alive,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘even if Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, happened to be the seal ring on my right hand, from there I would pull you off!’... for from his offspring not a single one will have any success, sitting upon the throne of David and ruling anymore in Judah.’ This decree barred any descendant of Jehoiachin from ever ruling upon David’s throne in Judah. But it did not prevent the royal line and inheritable privileges from passing through Jehoiachin and his descendants to Joseph and then to Jesus. So the bible makes it clear that none of Josephs biological sons (James, Joseph (II), Simon or Judas) could have rightly taken the throne of David. Only an adopted son could have and because Mary's family gave Jesus a line of natural decent from King David through Nathan, he has a legal right to rule the thone of David.
purpledawn writes: The prophecy Brian supplied is specific about the bloodline of the Messiah. Not just David's, but also of Solomon. Jesus doesn't fit both. the problem with Brian using this prophecy to claim that the Messiah was to come thru Solomon is fairly obviously. 2 Samuel 7:8-13 is specifically speaking to David. Nowhere is Solomon mentioned by name. And the promise is that Davids 'Seed' would build a house that would last to time indefinite. Solomons temple did not last to time indefinite. Solomon himself did not remain a faithful King to time indefinite, he turned to false worship toward the end of his reign was rejected by God who removed his blessing from him. So this is not talking about Solomn or the temple he built at all. Its talking about the Messianic Kingdom....the one that will last indefinitely in the Heavens.
And now this is what you will say to my servant David,...12When your days come to the full, and you must lie down with your forefathers, then I shall certainly raise up your seed after you, which will come out of your inward parts; and I shall indeed firmly establish his kingdom. 13He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly to time indefinite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: Once again let us see the evidence. If religious leaders were looking for ways to discredit Jesus why did they let Paul preach about Him in their synagogues? they didnt 'let' paul preach at all...how long did he spend in prison?...how many times was he beaten and stoned? How many cities was he kicked out of? Read the book of Acts if want to know how opposed the religious leaders were to the preaching of Paul and other apostles.
Acts 4 writes:
4 Now while the [two] were speaking to the people, the chief priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, 2being annoyed because they were teaching the people and were plainly declaring the resurrection from the dead in the case of Jesus; 3and they laid their hands upon them and put them in custody till the next day, ...15So they commanded them to go outside the San′he‧drin hall, and they began consulting with one another, 16saying: What shall we do with these men? Because, for a fact, a noteworthy sign has occurred through them, one manifest to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. 17Nevertheless, in order that it may not be spread abroad further among the people, let us tell them with threats not to speak anymore upon the basis of this name to any man at all.18With that they called them and charged them, nowhere to make any utterance or to teach upon the basis of the name of Jesus. Brian writes: Also, are you certain that no one criticized these genealogies? I need an answer to this before I type up a reply. you yourself said that the geneology given by Luke was not challenged until 1500 CE.You tell me if the geneology was challenged by the Jews before this time. I cant provide examples of something I am unaware exists. Perhaps you are aware of some?? Brian writes: Why should I accept the ‘adoption’ apologetic when every single article I have read about it states that the Jews have never had this law? I have not stated that 'adoption' in the sense that we know today was the same thing back then. But it had to do with inheritance. A child who was not biologically belonging to one of the parents was still legally entitled to a share of the inheritance. This was the law. It was called 'brother-in-law marriage' and it stated that if a man died and left a widow childless, the mans brother would marry the widow and provide a child to her. That child was then legally called by the name of the dead man and recieved the mans inheritance. Deut 25:5,6. An example is found in the book of Ruth. Naomi became a widow and her two sons were killed before they had children. She was too old to be repurchased thru brother in law marriage, but her daughter-in-law, Ruth was repurchased by Boaz (a close relative of Naomi) and the firstborn son was called, not a son of Ruth and Boaz, but a Son of Naomi. I'll admit that this is quite different to the adoption we have today, but I called it adoption because it is what the greek word means 'a placing as a son'It is similar in that today, an adopted child becomes a legal child of the parent and so it is with the Isrealites and their 'placing as sons' in the legal sense for the name to be carried on and the inheritence to go to the child, even though they are not the biological child.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: This is obviously a reference to Solomon, the man who built the Temple and became king, No Brian, its not obviously talking about Solomon. It doesnt mention solomon by name so its not 'obvious' Yes, solomon built the temple, but it didnt last indefinitely nor did solomon. The only one who lasts indefinitely is Jesus Christ in the Heavenly Kingdom on the throne that was legally given to him by God himself. That is the 'indefinitely lasting kingdom' that the prophecy speaks of. See Daniel 7 for evidence that this 'indefinitely lasting' rulership was to be a heavenly one
13I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin Edited by Peg, : Daniel 7 added.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
it doesnt make the geneology useless at all. Jesus was still of the tribe of Judah of who it was said
Genesis 49:8As for you, Judah, your brothers will laud you...10The scepter will not turn aside from Judah, neither the commander’s staff from between his feet, until Shi′loh comes; and to him the obedience of the peoples will belong. The Messiah only needed to come from the tribe of Judah...which he did.
purpledawn writes: Since they turned away from the God of Abraham and served other gods, they and their descendants lost the right to the throne. No more guarantees. Nowhere does it say that if they screwed up then the promise refers to a heavenly throne or temple. The deal for the indefinite kingdom was broken. They blew it! of course they blew it why do you think the temple solomon built was completely destroyed in 607bce? But Gods promise to Abraham, Issac and Jacob was still sure and his promise to bring a deliverer was still going to happen. The line of kings stopped as Ezekiel said Ez 21.27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him. But this didnt mean that God was suddenly going to abandon his plan to bring a Messiah to save mankind. The Messiah was a promise from God way back in the Garden of Eden. The progression of the prophecies are seen throughout the entire bible and you really need to know them all...not just one. Just as the generations of Isreal changed over the centuries , so did the progression of Messianic prophecies...you cant just pick one and conclude you know how this messianic prophecy should unfold. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: Okay peg, God has told Nathan to tell David this covenant.You are saying it is not Solomon, the first person I have ever seen claim this BTW. He is telling David that when he dies God will establish the kingdom of David's successor, and who will that be, the one who builds the Temple. Who built the Temple referred to here Peg? You left out an important party of the prophecy... and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly forever.Was Solomons throne established forever? No. His unfaithfulness and the unfaithfulness of his sons ruled him out of having his 'throne established forever'. So we understand that this has to be a dual prophecy. Yes, Solomon was the one to build the temple....but he didnt build the temple that this prophecy is pointing to. This prophecy is about the 'indefinitely lasting' one that resided with God in the heavens...and i'll show you why. Daniel 7:13 shows that it was going to be a kingdom located with God...where is God located? Heaven.
I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin how could a physical ruler gain access to God, the 'Ancient of Days'?No human could have such access...it is not possible for flesh to inhabit the heavens. So if this ruler is to be up 'close before that one' then he must be in the same form as God...he must be a spirit. 2ndly, the prophecy shows that ALL nations will serve him. A ruler in jerusalem is not going to be able to rule the entire world and have all the nations serve him. 3rdly, his rulership is 'indefinitely lasting'. How long can a physical man rule for ? 40, 50 years...then what? He gets old and dies and there goes the 'indefinitely lasting rulership' This is also why the prophecy cannot be speaking of Solomon. perhaps you want it to be speaking of Solomon because it fits with your view that Jesus was a failure. But if you dont understand this prophecy, how can you possible really know if Jesus was a failure? First, understand the prophecies, then perhaps you will be in a better position to judge and make an informed decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: Who is God referring to when He said it is the one who shall build a house for my name? forget the building of the bricks and motar of the temple....David sat on the throne without there having a temple existing. So the temple is not the important thing. The question you should be asking is, Was Solomon the one who was installed as a permanent, everlasting heir to throne of David?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
you seem to have missed my answer
The prophecy you are reading comes in two parts.the first is that Davids offspring would build a temple, the 2nd is that his seed will rule on his throne indefinately Solomon was to be the builder temple, but another decendent would be the indefinitely lasting ruler of Davids throne. if you cant see that from the verse you are reading, then I cant help you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5179 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Purpledawn writes: Why would that be the question, when I clearly showed in Message 131 that the everlasting part is contingent upon behavior? You really need to read things properly.
[qs]I shall certainly raise up your seed after you, ... and I shall certainly establish the THRONE of his kingdom firmly forever.[/b] What was God going to 'establish forever'? The Throne.I dont think a throne can behave or misbehave, can it? The throne represents a position of authority given by God to rule. Solomon had that while he was faithful, but later lost it. So the prophecy here is not speaking about Solomon. The initial part about the builder of the temple is about Solomon, but the rest of the prophecy, the position of authority that was to be established forever, is not.
purpledawn writes: I also showed in that message, through scripture, that Solomon was the one referred to Not thru scripture...thru you're own interpretation which is not in harmony with scripture. You are talking about Solomon while the prophecy, as shown above, is clearly talking about the 'throne'....or the position.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024