Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

quote:

---

If the author of Matthew took a fragment of OT text out of context and misrepresented it as a prediction of a fictional event it hardly demonstrates that such readings are valid.

---

I still think that Matthew was written as a satire. The dual prophecy is a perfect example. The author was making fun of all the would be messiahs coming out of the woodwork trying to use prophecy to support their claim. Unfortunately, the Greeks took it seriously. Genealogy
Mark carries no genealogy. Luke does not mention the women, which is normal. The women mentioned in the Matthew genealogy are rather questionable. An unusual group to bring forward and Luke didn't.We also find that the genealogy doesn't stack up to what is written in Kings and Chronicles. Four generations seem to be omitted.Luke did not support Matthew's genealogy. The point being that the investigator came up with different information and Matthew was trying to keep the numbers even. Phony Fulfilments
This brings up the ever popular virgin birth which was already fulfilled by Isaiah's son, which the Jews would know.Mark didn't have the birth story and Luke downplayed the impression that there was no sex between Joseph and Mary. Luke also doesn't bring up the name Immanuel. So the investigator again doesn't strongly support Matthew.The prophecies brought out by Matthew don't hold water and aren't supported by the other two synoptics. (Out of Egypt 2:15, Nazarene 2:23, and Donkey Riding King 21:4-5.)Dual prophecy was born from satire.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

purpledawn, arguing that he is satire;

---

Actually my point was that the book of Matthew was written as a satire, not that Jesus is satire.IOW, the double prophecy bits weren't supposed to be taken seriously. The writer was making fun of the messianic prophecy gymnastics of the time using the book of Mark. The first "prophecy" supposedly fulfilled in Mark is a concoction from Malachi and Isaiah.I don't see that the OT prophecies that were truly referring to a messiah fit what we know of Jesus.I've been reading the thread and hoping someone would make a reasonable counter argument, but alas; I am disappointed.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

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.

---

From what I can find, Jewish adoption is not the same as we have today. It is closer to fostering than what we view as adoption. The child does not lose his connection to his biological family. If there was no formal legal procedure, I doubt if an adopted child could take the throne. 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.Please show that when there are biological heirs that an "adopted" child had legal bloodline status equal to the biological heirs.

quote:

---

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.

---

The children were of Jacob's bloodline. They were his biological children and his legal heirs. The mother only determines Jewishness. This is not the same situation as Jesus.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.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

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.

---

You have effectively rendered both genealogies useless. Solomon made it clear in 1 Kings 5 that God was talking about him in 2 Samuel 7. Unless of course you want to say that Solomon, who was the wisest man in the world, didn't know what God really promised.

quote:

---

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.

---

The promise of indefinite kingship was contingent upon their behavior as you noted and as shown in 1 Kings 2:4 and in the dedication of the temple in 1 Kings 8:25. God also confirmed this in 1 Kings 9. 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!

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

it doesnt make the geneology useless at all. Jesus was still of the tribe of Judah of who it was said
Genesis 49:8 As for you, Judah, your brothers will laud you...10 The 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.

---

Even if Shiloh refers to the messiah, the verse isn't saying that the messiah must come from the tribe of Judah. If the messiah was from Judah, then the "rod" of leadership wouldn't be leaving Judah; which is what the verse is saying. The new leadership will not be from the tribe of Judah.So you've still thrown Jesus out of the running.

quote:

---

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.

---

No the messiah was not a promise back in the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden is a story that does not contain a messianic prophecy.

quote:

---

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.

---

Exactly!! God promised saviors when the people needed them. They all weren't necessarily pointing to one individual messiah. That's why what we know of Jesus doesn't fit with the actual prophecies, as opposed to the one liners pulled out to fit with Jesus/Christian Dogma.Jesus doesn't match to any full prophecy in the OT.Edited by purpledawn, : Change ID

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

The question you should be asking is, Was Solomon the one who was installed as a permanent, everlasting heir to throne of David?

---

Why would that be the question, when I clearly showed in Message 131 that the everlasting part is contingent upon behavior?You also agreed in your response that they lost that guarantee due to behavior.I also showed in that message, through scripture, that Solomon was the one referred to.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Brian, here's where you err. Yes, Solomon was to build the temple but the throne of the temple Solomon built did not last forever. Thus one must conclude that the term throne that would last forever had a messianic conotation which corroborates with other prophets that messiah's throne would be located at the same location as that on which Solomon's temporal throne was. As per numerous other prophets, the throne of messiah would be forever.

---

The forever was contingent upon behavior. Since David's descendants didn't behave they lost the promise. That prophecy/promise ended. Contract broken.When a contract is broken the consequences then apply, we don't go back and change the nature of the contract.The Book of Kings was supposedly written after the destruction of the temple. The writer already knew David's line wouldn't reign forever and that the temple wouldn't last forever; but the writer didn't change the contract to a heavenly one.The Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were all written after the fact while in exile if not after.The Jews didn't need a messiah until after they had lost their kingdom and were exiled and oppressed.The promise made to David in the Book of Samuel has nothing to do with the messiah and is not a messianic prophecy.Even if you wanted to carry the promise forward, Peg already rendered the genealogies useless. One is through the wrong son and the second is through a cursed line. Even the promise from Israel concerning Judah doesn't fit the bill.The text does not support the idea of a heavenly throne instead of an earthly one.Edited by purpledawn, : Wrong ID

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Sorry, forgot to swap ID. My statement that "The text does not support the idea of a heavenly throne instead of an earthly one." wasn't a general statement concerning the entire Bible. It was referring specifically to 2 Samuel 7:13, which was being discussed. Show me how that text clearly speaks of a heavenly throne. Show me the words.

quote:

---

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.

---

I've made no comments in this thread concerning Isa 9:6-7 and I don't see that it has been brought up in this thread or what that has to do with what I was discussing.In the Septuagint it is translated:

quote:

---

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 nature

---

I'm discussing a very specific promise concerning David's line; not promises in general. In Message 131 I showed that the forever is based on behavior.If a new promise was made and the Messiah is to be from the line of Solomon, Jesus still doesn't fit. He isn't from the bloodline of Solomon as I showed in Message 129. The adoption theory doesn't change that problem.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Ezekiel is a new promise. What does that have to do Solomon?

quote:

---

PD, are you paying attention to the affirmed facts refferenced? Scripture emphatically states that messianic throne and messianic kingdom will be earthly in Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount.

---

That's what I said. The text does not support the idea of a heavenly throne instead of an earthly one. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Hi PD. Why don't you factor in all of the corroborating fulfillments relative to Jesus, such as the suffering one of Isaiah 53 -57, cited prophecy concerning his riding in Jerusalem on the foal of an ass and many more in determination on the geneologies?

---

Because I was discussing a specific issue with Peg concerning adoption, so my comments were centered on that issue. See Message 125.Jesus doesn't fit Isaiah 53 either, which has been discussed on this forum ad nauseam.As for Zechariah, there is more to the prophecy than riding a donkey. Riding a donkey doesn't make one a king. I don't see that the rest of the prophecy fits Jesus either. Jesus didn't rule a kingdom.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

You should have enough sense to know that Solomon would not live forever and that so many other prophecies, including Jesus himself, emphatically declare that before the throne of the messianic kingdom would happen, Solomon's temporal temple, including his temporal throne would indeed be destroyed.

---

Those we have been discussing with know which verse we are referring to and understand that the reference to Solomon's forever refers to his descendants, so we don't have to say descendants each time when referring to Solomon. Please read the previous discussion before attacking my common sense.Jesus still isn't a descendant of Solomon and the promise made to David was made void due to the disobedience of Solomon's descendants. So if the new promise requires that the messiah be of the bloodline of Solomon, then Jesus still doesn't fit.

quote:

---

That's not what I understood you to say, PD. You did not reference the messianic throne which was to be the eternal throne from the line of David. The messianic throne does not reference Solomon's temporal throne. It references the forever throne on earth that Jehovah promised to David and Solomon, Solomon;'s temporal throne being the imminent contemporaneous one which was to be commissioned by David and built by Solomon.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about, which is probably because you don't seem to be addressing the same thing I am. My comments refer to 2 Samuel 7 and the genealogies in the NT. The text in 2 Samuel 7 does not refer to a heavenly throne. If you disagree, then show how the words refer to a heavenly throne.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

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?

---

The spirit is not something that exists outside the human body. The throne spoken of in 2 Samuel 7:13 is a physical throne with a physical earthly king. Show me that the words say otherwise.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm not comparing you and Buz, so I don't really care what you two do agree or don't agree on. Don't take my response to him as a response to you and vice versa.

quote:

---

if Solomon is gone and his kingdom is gone, how is anything God promised to and through David, FOREVER AND EVERLASTING.

---

As I said several times, the forever was contingent upon behavior. See Message 131.

quote:

---

IOW, by whos and what authority was this kindom removed, as you believe it was presently.

---

God giveth and God taketh away.

quote:

---

Secondly, can ANYTHING and I mean anything God does, be considered less than spiritual

---

Irrelevant. 2 Samuel 7:13 does not refer to a heavenly throne.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

you have not addressed any of my previous points concerinng authority and source and you are avoiding the point

---

I have no idea what your point is concerning 2 Samuel 7:13. I've seen no explanation on how the text refers to a heavenly throne and king instead of an earthly throne and king.The text of 2 Samuel 7:13 does not refer to a heavenly throne.All the pieces and parts you pull together can't make the words in 2 Samuel 7:13 refer to a heavenly throne. It's all earthly.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

And it is likely that you, brian and PaulK never will, considering the fact, that you are now burying your heads in the ground and acting like children nearly.

​

However, my guess is that you are not that simplistic, as to miss my point

​

Truely PD, do you not see the point i am making or are you simply being silly?

---

As I said, I have no idea what your point is concerning 2 Samuel 7:13 and what I've argued concerning that verse. If you want a discussion, then you need to explain your point and explain what you mean by spiritual.Until then, I'll make another observation.The sticking point of 2 Samuel 7:13 seems to be the word for ever, which is two words in that verse: ad (as far as, even to, up to, until, while) and olam (long duration, antiquity, futurity). So God is promising David that his lineage through Solomon would rule an earthly kingdom for a long, indefinite, unlimited, undisclosed, hidden or a concealed period of time. It didn't mean that it wouldn't end at some point.Even our use of the words forever, everlasting and perpetual carry a meaning of continuing indefinitely or for a long period of time.The continuing kingship was contingent upon behavior as I showed in Message 131.The verse is not referring to a messiah or a heavenly kingdom. God is setting up the physical leadership for the Israelite people of the time.Even if some don't accept the fact that the promise to David ended with the destruction of the first temple due to his descendants misbehavior; Jesus is not from the line of Solomon. To top it off, as Peg so nicely pointed out in Message 126, Joseph was from a cursed line. 2 Samuel 7:13 has nothing to do with a messiah or a spiritual kingdom and the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are useless.If the messiah was to be from the bloodline of Solomon, then Jesus doesn't fit the bill.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Since Nathan said, that the Lord himself said, he would establish the house of David, I dont see anyway you can keep this on some kind of physical or temporal level, do you?

​

do you still want to talk about context?

---

YES!!!!!! You keep avoiding it. Stop the commentary and actually debate.The book of Samuel was written after the fact. It wasn't being written in the moment. The author was writing about David and his actual lineage and their position as leaders of Israel. It all took place on planet earth in normal time and space. David was appointed king and his descendants would continue to reign over the people of Israel on earth as long as they behaved. This has all happened in the past. It is done.There is nothing in the Bible that supports your contention that God was establishing something ethereal. The idea that it is ethereal because God is ethereal is (as you like to say) nonsense. In that case the whole planet is ethereal since God laid the foundation of the earth. Was God speaking of ethereal hornets when he said he would send them to drive out the Hivites? No, that would be ridiculous. The authors were writing about what happened to physical Israel on physical planet Earth.The opposition just changes the setting to ethereal because it messes up the dogma if the messiah was actually supposed to be a human leader.Show us which words in 2 Samuel 7:13 or in the surrounding text that tells the reader that the throne is ethereal. It isn't there.Remember, the context is the text in its time; not ours.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion