Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

Judaism does not have a spiritual kingdom. Judaism does not teach this, so how can they expect a spiritual kingdom when this concept is not a part of their faith? 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. Why not? All I have here is you word for it and it is contrary to what Judaism teaches. Why should I believe you instead of centuries of Jewish thought? You seem to be doing very well in reading the mind of God EMA. Again though this claim is not even hinted at in the OT, again all we have is your word that this is what God meant because God cannot tell the Jewish nation exactly what He meant for some reason! Why on Earth would God play these silly games? Isa 9:6 is about Hezekiah. That’s fine. But nothing to do with the OT. You really are a piece of work. You dismiss almost 3000 years of a nations faith as if it is nothing. You really think that the millions of followers of Judaism are all morons? Not a single one of them actually realised what God was trying to say to them because what God said to them he didn’t really mean! And what are you replacing this ancient faith with? Someone who achieved nothing at all that resembles the OT prophecies. What is your justification for that other than circular reasoning?You seem unaware that people can lie and invent stories, but the stories that the NT invented would have had an impact on history and this is where we can confirm that Jesus failed. It even solidifies my stance when all we get are apologetics about concepts that are not even Jewish. We get excuses like ‘such and such a verse doesn’t really mean what it says’ and the reinterpretation of that verse is ludicrous.Don’t you realize that if Jesus was the Messiah then the authors of the NT would not have had to misrepresent the OT on so many occasions? Why do you think the author of Matthew has over 50 prophecies taken out of context from the OT? The NT authors are simply making it up EMA, Jesus failed and they are protecting their own interests. Look at the stories the NT authors tell about Jesus, the miracles, the arrest, the trial, the crucifixion, the resurrection, all unadulterated garbage. Now compare it to the Jewish Messiah, how can there be such a difference? Is God some kind of retard that He cannot tell His people what to expect, how does God get it so wrong? What is the excuse for that? He did tell them but they misunderstood because God told them something that was 100% the opposite of what they were to expect? Jesus H EMA, how obvious does it have to be? It may well do, but Jesus cannot be the one on it. As you and every other xian has failed to do is to establish that bloodline, that fatal flaw. How can you ignore that, are you really so desperate to make this con man into something He wasn’t? Ah, a little bit convenient that isn’t it considering Jesus failed first time around. You are reading spiritual because that’s what you NEED to save your failed messiah. You have this crazy notion that Jews were somehow worried about an afterlife, I have no idea where you get this from. Here we find the problem. You really are not interested in the truth, this is why you cannot see the obvious. You have already made up your mind that Jesus is the promised Messiah and nothing will ever change that view. I can sympathise. Until you take a step back and try to read the Bible for what it is you will never learn anything about it, it is always going to be this magical document to you. Before I decided examine my faith I found it difficult to take the Bible as anything other than the Truth. But it was only when I truly wanted to discover if my faith had a solid foundation that I found out what a con Christianity actually is. I could not believe I had been so blind. What a relief though when one takes off the blinkers of faith and sees the NT in context. ALL it is really is a collection of propaganda, literature to start off an institution of self preservation. There came a time for me when enough was enough. The excuses were worn very thin. Almost on every occasion that I researched a topic there was no support for the biblical claim, or there was a huge amount of evidence against that claim. Then when I kept hearing stuff like ‘well Jesus didn’t do that yet, but He will in the future’, or ‘you cannot understand this or that without the guidance of the holy spirit’, there then comes a point when it is blatantly obvious that Christianity is a piss take. Who can be happy following something that makes no sense at all, is rife with internal contradictions, full of logical errors, strewn with historical inaccuracies, and comes with a book full of myths, legends, and folk tales that contradict science, I certainly don’t want to live a life like that. It is a life of ignorance and fear.So, it does not surprise me that you have done no objective research into the Bible, you will learn nothing except regurgitated dogma until you do. But they don’t. What comes alive is man’s ingenuity, man’s ability to distort the past and make it fit their purposes. If you ever read the NT properly, then investigate Matthew, the out-of-context and fictional prophecies in that book really are clear to understand. Well I haven’t met any Jew that thinks Judaism teaches a spiritual kingdom for the messiah. I have no idea what you are on about here. My source, the OT, is different from your source, the NT. There is nothing contradictory at all. If the OT says that the Messiah will be a king of Israel and the NT says Jesus wasn’t, then where am I contradicting myself? I am using two different collections of texts. Now the concept we are speaking of here, a king of Israel descended for David may indeed come true, who knows. But each individual text needs to be scrutinised individually for reliability and this is where some texts can be rejected. The examples I gave, enslavement, exodus, sojourn, and conquest have all been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be inaccurate, they simply never happened. Now this is not to say that something else in another book HAS to be wrong as well, that’s just silly. Just as these events, alleged historical events, can be investigated for their veracity so too can the claim that the Messiah will sit on the throne of David, it is easy to find out. Did Jesus sit on the throne of David, obviously He did not, so we can accept that it needs to be someone else, there’s no contradiction, there’s only a failure on Jesus part to sit on the throne of David. Someone else may well do it, I personally doubt it but it is not outside the realms of possibility. One thing is certain though, Jesus did not sit on it so we can comfortably reject Him as the Messiah promised in the OT. I did not say ALL of the sources are unreliable, we need to examine each claim individually for its merits. Well if you want to take that route we are as well throwing the Bible in the bin. I can say exactly the same with you and the NT.But the thing with historical research is that all of it is simply degrees of plausibility. 3 million people in the Exodus group, historically impossible and has been shown to be untrue. A king descended from David is completely plausible there is nothing fantastic about it. Do you see the difference? We cannot reject an entire collection of texts just because much of it has been shown to be untrue, that’s just silly. It’s like saying that just because Joshua and his armies did not conquer Jericho then there was no such city as Jericho! History is about degrees of truth, and your sources need to be examined individually. So we dismiss my argument that we can discover through history whether Jesus was a king or not? He wasn’t king of this realm then He must be king of another? Can you see how childish this is? Xianity really can be torn apart with the most superficial of enquiries. But sin in the OT is not the same as sin in the NT. There are a variety of definitions for sin. People can save themselves from sin in the OT. No it doesn’t. I’ve already explained this reference, it is referring to the nation of Israel and your repetition of spiritual kingdom does not affect what that reference is saying. Keep repeating your claim though, you might talk yourself into it. Of course it won’t be found in history because Jesus failed to establish the Jewish messianic kingdom, and since He failed we do need some excuse for Him don’t we? Tell you what, let’s invent a spiritual kingdom then that way no one can prove us wrong (again). It sounds like something Hans Christian Anderson would have written.

But they didn't, and they still don't.This is going nowhere.So, a wee update.Brian's reasons for seeing Jesus as a failure.1. No Davidic bloodline. No challenge to this claim
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.
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.
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.
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.
7. Not single messianic prophecy can be verified in the person of Jesus. My point still stands.7 points, and the best excuses we have for any of them is that the jewish nation cannot understand their own scriptures and that Jesus is king of some unverifiable kingdom.So, these are my reasons for proclaiming Jesus as a failure, I was asked and I gave them. Nothing at all in this thread so far to make me reconsider anything, in fact most of the posts have just reassured me that I am correct.

You see EMA this is where I completely lose interest, and hopefully you will understand why.Now right away we have to agree that you will never be persuaded that Jesus was not the Messiah regardless of how much evidence is shown to you. You agree that you do not know of a bloodline to David for Jesus yet this makes no difference to you, you look for all other possibilities to link Him to David even though you know of none. You are clutching at straws here EMA, and I am not wasting any more of my time.Don’t you see that this approach is as bad as the creation ‘scientists’? You have already concluded that Jesus was the Messiah, and even when you acknowledge that you know of no way to link Jesus to David you are happy to accept that there MUST be some way to do it! If you cannot establish a bloodline to David then why not just stop there, why bother with the contortions to make Jesus fit the OT messiah? He failed at the first hurdle. If Jesus did not have a human father then He could not be the Messiah, how obvious does this have to be?You are even looking to ‘inspiration’ as a way of solving this problem! Why? If we are going down that road then again the discussion is pointless.But I’m getting off the point. I have been on this merry-go-round many times and I am not prepared to do so again. I have a great deal of work here to do and I am not wasting time batting scriptures back and forward. The events involving the Messiah would have a direct impact on history, it would be easy to see when the Messiah lived, and he clearly hasn’t yet, I doubt he ever will.You asked my reasons for concluding that Jesus was a failure and I have given some of them, and to me it is perfectly clear that He failed, and nothing here has made any difference to my stance.Edited by Brian, : grammar

How can He claim descent from David through Joseph if Joseph had nothing to do with His conception?

The problem is though that although these churches and many Christians flippantly claim this ‘adoption under Jewish law’ makes Him a descendant of David is completely unfounded, I have never seen a single shred of evidence to support this stance, nothing is ever given to support this claim. Yet, as has already been posted on this thread, this ‘adoption’ that would give Jesus the required status is unknown in first century Jewish law; it really does not have any support. But it is patently obvious that the Nathan prophecy states that the messiah HAS to be a blood descendant.2 Sam 7:12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. So it looks as if the blood relative IS a requirement. For me, this unsupported ‘adoption’ claim does not make any sense, in fact it reeks of desperation. It is obvious that it is a blood line that is required, the Virgin Birth negates this possibility so it is more reasonable to accept that the author of Matthew made an error in translating Isa. 7:14. This claim was not made until about 1500 years after Jesus died, so it is difficult to believe that it is an obvious reference to Mary. As we know, blood was not passed through the female line, it was the male line that inheritance passed through.There’s also two facts from the Old Testament that terminate the Mary genealogy stance. First is the prophecy that the Messiah would come through David’s son Solomon, yet the genealogy that is said to be Mary’s goes back to Nathan, who was David’s other son and never king.I think what really dismisses the Mary line claim is in Luke 2:2 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. It is obvious that the genealogies in the NT refer to Joseph, none of them are Mary’s. Which does contradict 2 Sam 7:12-14 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Therefore it is clear that it is Solomon’s bloodline that the Messiah will come from and Nathan’s is irrelevant as there was no promise made to his line.It does make me wonder that when things are as obvious as this why followers do not question their churches’ teachings.Are people so desperate to make Jesus into something He wasn’t that they will ignore the Bible in order to achieve this?

Let’s go through your post a bit at a time and see if we can get somewhere this time.Hopefully, when I point out what I believe are errors on your part you will be able to appreciate where I am coming from.Okay, to begin with you say: So, right away, we have a major problem don’t we?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 don’t know how many times I am expected to keep saying this, is there something here that I am not explaining correctly? Okay. So Matthew’s artificial genealogy goes back to Solomon. 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? 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. 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? Thousands of biblical scholars have been looking for this ‘adoption’ law and have been unsuccessful thus far, so for you to make this claim I take it you have some evidence of this invisible law? Evidence? When were these lists compiled? When were they circulated? Evidence that Jews had an interest in them? 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? Also, are you certain that no one criticized these genealogies? I need an answer to this before I type up a reply. There is one major fly in the ‘fair dinkum’ ointment, you haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to support your claim.DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?Do you see my position here? Every single thing you said in your post is nothing more than your opinion, you have given me nothing at all as support for your arguments. Tell me you can see where I am coming from. Your belief that these things are true has no bearing on the historicity of these events, you need to providesomething other than your opinion.Does it not concern you that the ‘adoption’ apologetic that is trotted out by xians to try and establish a bloodline does not exist? Are you not keen to find evidence to support the adoption assertion?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?Think about it this way Peg. If you submitted an essay to a college or uni and claimed that Jesus was the legal heir to the throne because Joseph had adopted Him then do you think you would get away with not referencing this law? Of course you wouldn’t. And another thing, you would also have to support where in the Bible it is stated that Joseph adopted Jesus because, just like you pointed out in regard to the Trinity, it is not there. So, since you do not accept things that are not in the Bible, such as the Trinity, and you claim Jesus was adopted, where does it state in the Bible that Jesus was adopted?Once we deal with these problems we can move on to look at another part of your post, this way we can focus on an issue at a time and hopefully discover an agreed conclusion.

Amazing the lengths a fundy will go to in their sad attempts to maintain their faith. Even as far as denying what the Bible says, even to the extreme of saying that black is white.Look at the passsage Peg When your (David) days are over and you (David) rest with your fathers, I will raise up your (David) offspring to succeed you (David), who will come from your (David) own body, and I will establish his (who could this be?) kingdom. He (?) is the one who will build a house for my Name (A clear reference to the Temple), and I will establish the throne of his (The builder of the Temple who was Solomon) kingdom (obviously for to have a kingdom you need to be a king) forever. This is obviously a reference to Solomon, the man who built the Temple and became king, and thus had a kingdom. Did Nathan ever become king?I think I have seen it all now Peg, you even deny the Bible to keep your fantasy entact.Another waste of time.

I'm going to take this slow, just to see if I can work out where your coming from.You say : No Brian, its not obviously talking about Solomon. It doesnt mention solomon by name so its not 'obvious' No probs.Let's look at the verse. When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 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?No if or buts, straightforward answer, one name, who was it?

Hi Brad welcome to the fray!Can I start by saying that I have never denied that Jesus was a real person, I happen to believe that He was real, I just don’t think the historical Jesus is the same as the Jesus of the New Testament. You do know that this Josephus reference is one of the best known forgeries in biblical studies? I don’t think anyone accepts this as a genuine part of Josephus’ writings. Which is strange isn’t it, considering that Josephus claimed in the Testimonium Flavianum that Jesus was the Messiah?
Don’t you find it strange that Josephus writes screeds of texts about nondescript characters yet he limits the mention of his messiah to a few obscure sentences? Don’t you also find it strange that Josephus allegedly says that Jesus was the Messiah yet Origen tells us that Josephus died a pharisaic Jew? Eh no they haven’t! Josephus has made a lot of errors in his writings, they are rife with anachronisms for a start, plus Josephus makes so many mistakes when referring to the Old testament it is difficult to believe he ever read it. This is a non-sequitur. Well it doesn’t do this at all. There are many other alternatives. For example, even supposing this is not a forgery, all it does is support the claim that there were followers of Jesus in the 1st century CE, it in no way verifies anything about what Jesus was supposed to have said or done. Again, it does not support anything.I have no problem with there being an historical Jesus, but using a well-known forgery as some sort of evidence is not convincing regarding events in His life. As I said, even if this is not a forgery, as far as historical research goes it does not prove anything. Jesus died before Josephus was even born so this weakens the argument even more. Again though this is nothing more than a report of what some people believed not of anything that supports an historical crucifixion. Reporting what people believe has no bearing on whether that belief is true or not.There are severe doubts about the authorship of this quote as well Brad. Well the Annals were written around 116 CE, so that is almost one hundred years after Jesus died, ample time for the myths to settle in. But this still doesn’t mean Jesus did anything, all it means is that there were people who believed He did certain things. But there are references from the second century (and maybe earlier) that refuted the claims made for Jesus.Celsus, for example makes this claim: Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery, with a soldier named Panthra. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god. (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28)Tertullian This is your carpenter's son, your harlot's son; your Sabbath-breaker, your Samaritan, your demon-possessed! This is he whom you bought from Judas. This is he who was struck with reeds and fists, dishonored with spittle, and given a draught of gall and vinegar! This is he whom his disciples have stolen secretly, that it may be said, 'He has risen', or the gardener abstracted that his lettuces might not be damaged by the crowds of visitors! (Tertullian, De Spetaculis 100.30) Well Jews didn’t seem that bothered by them because they allowed Paul to preach about Jesus in their synagogues. Who is it in particular you have in mind here?Finally, I do believe Jesus existed, I just do not believe He was the Messiah, I have no good reason to believe He was.

Oh well mystery solved!Jesus was concieved out of wedlock to a poor Jewish woman who had slept with a Roman soldier. He probably buggered off to Egypt where he learned a few con tricks, came back and conned people. His followers, who were too embarrassed to admit they had been hoodwinked, stole His body, made up some ridiculous stories about Him that the local uneducated people swallowed up, and hey presto we have a Messiah.The thing is, all joking aside, this evidence can make for a better historically plausible case than the gospels do for Jesus!

Who is God referring to when He said it is the one who shall build a house for my name?

I just want to ask a simple question.Is it your belief that the Nathan prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 is not a reference to Solomon?

No, I read your answer but it is so unbelievable that I have asked for clarification. I thought I had misread some of it. I can't believe I am having to go through this! Look at part of the prophecy. When David is dead his offspring will succeed him, a son that came from David's body, a biological son. This son will have the throne of his kingdom established forever. There is no other reading there as it clearly says that it is the offspring from David's body the one who succeeds David who will have the throne of his kingdom established forever.Now who is this successor to be, well we are told.... The house for me Name is the Temple and Solomon the son of David succeeded David, and built the Temple.Then we are told: The establishment of throne of his kingdom forever is clearly speaking of the person who will build the Temple. 'AND I will....' this is the same person Peg, no amount of ducking and diving can change that, and as has already been pointed out to you there are other parts of the Bible that support this.There's no other person even hinted at in that passage Peg, no matter how you wish to twist things, there is only one person referred to in that passage. I cannot see it Peg because it is not even hinted at.At least be honest with yourself.I know what you WANT it so say, but sadly it does not say anything like you would want it to.Keep going though, your doing your case far more harm than I ever could.

HTF can I be quote mining when I posted the entire prohecy!2 Samuel is quite clear.The person who builds the temple will have his kingdom established forever. Well the promise was made to David Buz. It says that David's dynasty will last forever, and his immediate successor will be the one who builds the Temple. When is this happening Buz and what does it have to do with 2 Samuel? How can it be phenomenal when people manipulated the situation and that Israel is NOT back in the land that God promised them? They don't even own the freakin Temple Mount! People have been saying that for 2000 years Buz, it's never going to happen.How many years is that you have wasted of your life on this fantasy Buz, is it about 50 or so?So much wasted lives on such an obvious fraud.Oh well, as long as you are happy.

I'll tell you something, this thread would be a great boon to anyone studying the Psychology of Religion.