|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total) |
| |
Michaeladams | |
marc9000 | |
Total: 919,027 Year: 6,284/9,624 Month: 132/240 Week: 75/72 Day: 0/30 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5125 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Iblis writes: I think you have the most viable argument against the "failure" hypothesis. I have some questions though. Do you think that when he gets back, and fulfills the "Conquering King" and "Mighty Messenger" groups of prophecies, the Jews will then recognize him as their messiah? Other people might stick on the point that claiming to be God is a no-no for Judaism no matter how many prophecies one fulfills, but I don't believe you have to deal with that particular setback. Then also -- this is the rough part -- how about the Moslems? They also say that they expect him back for the End Times, to defeat the false messiah and reunite all the Abrahamic religions. Jesus will descend at the point of a white arcade, east of Damascus, dressed in yellow robes - his head anointed. He will then join the Mahdi in his war against the Dajjal. Jesus, considered in Islam as a Muslim, will abide by the Islamic teachings. Eventually, Jesus will slay the Dajjal, and then everyone from the people of the book (ahl al-kitb, referring to Jews and Christians) will believe in him. Hi Iblis. Thanks. (ABE: Peg and the rest of us holding the line debunking Brian's POV don't agree on everything, but imo, we're rendering Jesus the honor he deserves as legitimate lord and master. ) I've cited Zechariah 12:10 where in messianic context it states "they will look on him whom the pierced" (and mourn). The apostle John confirms this to be a messianic prophecy in John 19:37. Scripture clearly implies that Jews as a nation will not acknowledge him as messiah until they see him return in splendor and power to the Mt of Olives where he is prophesied to light and where he ascended. There are other numerous OT prophecies which alude to their rejection, including Psalms. Ezekiel and others who prophesied the latter day reinstatement of Israel agree that they will return in unbelief so that's exactly what we should expect. As for Islam, Mohammed screwed up the Biblical aspects of the Koran consistently, as did Joseph Smith in the book of Mormon, both using the Bible, interspersing bits and pieces of it into their own thinking so as to render their jonnycomelately distortions of scripture some legitimacy. The distorted Islamic stuff about a messianic Jesus, it's just another plug for Koranic legitimacy. The fact is that if one should go on the streets or in the mosques and preach Jesus, one's head will likely get lopped off. Allah is Islam's god and Mohammed is their prophet, the only one allowed to be proclaimed and preached. Proclaim that about Mohammed and his Koranic rendering of god, Allah and you are officially a Muslim for life or else as per Islamic law.
In practice, devout Muslims, particularly the imams would agree with Birian's hypothesis that Jesus failed and needed to be replaced by Mohammed for the folks to publically revere. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add comment Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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:
Luke's geneology of Jesus traced the line through David’s son Nathan, 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?
While Mathews list traces thru the line of Solomon. Okay. So Matthew’s artificial genealogy goes back to Solomon.
Luke traces the ancestry of Mary, 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?
which proved Jesus’ natural descent from David, 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.
and Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne via Jesus adoptive father Joseph who was traced back to Solomon. 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?
Both of these lists were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time. Evidence? When were these lists compiled? When were they circulated? Evidence that Jews had an interest in them?
The religious leaders were looking for ways to discredit Jesus 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?
but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. Also, are you certain that no one criticized these genealogies? I need an answer to this before I type up a reply.
This is evidence for Luke and Mathews lists as being fair dinkum. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5125 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3652 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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. There is a certain irony in the Jewish view of adoption. Jewish sources teach two contradictory messages. On one hand, the Bible and the Talmud are filled with wonderful examples of adoption and beautiful aggadic sayings about people who raise children born to others. On the other hand, because of the strong emphasis in Judaism on bloodlines and lineage, adoption as a formal legal procedure is totally unknown. In the Bible, Abraham adopts his servant Eliezer and Mordecai raises his orphaned cousin Esther. The Talmudic sage Abaye often quotes wise sayings in the name of his foster mother. If there was no formal legal procedure, I doubt if an adopted child could take the throne.
However, adoption as practiced in our modern society means the removal of all rights and responsibilities of the biological parent, and their transfer to another couple or individual. For all intents and purposes, the child's biological lineage is broken. This procedure has its roots in ancient Roman law, where the concern was finding an heir for a childless couple. In contrast, British common law, coming from a society that placed great emphasis on lineage, bloodlines, and class, never developed an adoption procedure, To illustrate this point, suppose Prince Charles and Princess Diana adopted a baby boy; he certainly would not be in line for the throne. Jewish law is far closer to British common law than to ancient Roman law. In Judaism, personal status is based on bloodlines and lineage, the moment of birth gives a Jew his or her identity. No legal procedure or court decree can erase that identity. 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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5125 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 5125 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
So this is not talking about Solomn or the temple he built at all. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad H Member (Idle past 5149 days) Posts: 81 Joined:
|
Well the ONLY record of the life of Jesus is the text of the New Testament and of other biblical texts (such as The Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Barnabas) that did not make the cut when the editing committees constructed the NT. Hi Brian, I just picked out the first of your barrage of points and figured we could work our way through them. The truth is we have several extra biblical sources we can fall back on to support some of the claims made in the gospels and existence of the real Jesus. The writings of a non-Christian Jewish historian named Josephus, from the first century (AD. 93), were discovered which describe the stoning of a man named "James, the brother of Jesus, for transgressing the law of God." Josephus commented that "a wise man named Jesus, who performed many surprising feats, won over many Jews, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and that the tribe of Christians who called after him has still not disappeared to this day." Josephus' writings mainly reported on the Jewish/Roman war, so he did not mention much about Jesus. But historians have found him to be accurate with all of his other statements about the war and therefore there is no reason to doubt what he said concerning Jesus. What his report does help establish is that there was a "real" man named Jesus who had drawn many followers and supposedly did many surprising feats. It also establishes that He was in fact Crucified by Pilate just as the scriptures describe. This validated at least those portions of the four gospels and demonstrates that those parts of the Jesus story were not contrived. Some insist that the legend of His claim to deity did not develop until several centuries later. Enter the writings of a Roman historian from the first century named Tacitus. Tacitus stated that "King Nero used a Christian sect who were followers of Christus, a man who suffered the most extreme penalty under Pilate, as a scapegoat for the fires in Rome." He goes on to describe the spread of this religion which is based on the worship of this man who suffered this most ignominious death possible. So here we have a very important testimony from an unsympathetic witness to the success and spread of Christianity, based on a real historical figure--Christ. It's also important to note that Tacitus reported that an immense multitude held so strongly to their claims of his resurrection that they were willing to die rather than recant. So here we have evidence that belief in His deity and resurrection had developed before the end of the first century. Next we should take a look at the writings of a first century Roman governor named Pliny the Younger, who describes how he would ask prisoners if they were Christians, warning them that the penalty was death. He said if they admitted to it 3 times that he would execute them. He stated that they would honor Christ as God. Pliny's writings are further evidence that the early believers in Jesus were already calling Him God, and that this belief absolutely did not develop as a myth many centuries later. The fact that these beliefs about Jesus originated in the first century means that opposition that was there could have easily refuted the claims that the Christians were making about Jesus and His resurrection. To date no such refutations have been found coming from that time period. Some try to argue that refuting Christians was the least on their minds and none would have been bothered with such a task. My question then is how is it that they were so bothered that they went through all the trouble to hunt them down and execute them? Edited by Brad H, : No reason given. Edited by Brad H, : No reason given. Edited by Brad H, : No reason given. I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5125 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3652 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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.
1 Kings 5:5 I (Solomon) intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the Lord my God, as the Lord told my father David, when he said, 'Your son whom I will put on the throne in your place will build the temple for my Name' 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: 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.
1 Kings 2:1-4 When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son. "I am about to go the way of all the earth," he said. "So be strong, show yourself a man, and observe what the Lord your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in th Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, and that the Lord may keep his promise to me: 'If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul, you wil never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.' 1 Kings 9:4-8 "As for you (Solomon), if you walk before me in integrity of heart and uprightness, as David your father did, and do all I command and observe my decrees and laws, I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father when I said, 'You shall never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.' "But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples." 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 4091 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Hi Brad, sorry it has to be me to break it to you, but you've been swindled. We have no first century copies of Josephus, Tacitus, or Pliny. (Nor the New Testament!) We derive our knowledge of all these texts from allusions to them made later, and copies preserved from even later than that by the Vatican.
Third century supergenius Origen spends thousands of words trying to defend the historicity of Jesus against the heretic Celsus, and would have killed for references like these. He has copies of all three collections, but does not find these passages in them. They aren't there in his time. The first reference to the Josephus testimony is in the fourth century, by Eusebius. All the copies we have now are derived from his, and the passages have long been considered false on purely philological grounds. The Testimonium Flavium is a clear insert into a section about three persecutions of the Jews, instigated by Pilate; it is slammed in between the introduction of the third persecution, and the actual story of the massacre regarding the aqueduct which is that persecution. The James story is even more obvious, the Jesus mentioned in that passage pre-editing is clearly James's brother, Jesus son of Damneus, who is made high priest by the governor in the course of cleaning out the Ananus-Caiphas faction. The first mention of the creed recital in Tacitus is by Sulpicius Severus, in the fifth century. Again, all modern copies are derived from his. The fraud is inserted into a sequence of accounts of Nero's good points, and purports to blame him for the burning of Rome and to create an unfounded myth of Christian martyrs which is entirely contrary to the historical fact of Roman religious freedom. Nero was in Anzio during the fire, and his response to it was to increase the head-tax on Jews, not your fictional first-century Christians. The alleged letters between Pliny and Trajan are not part of the 9 books of correspondence prepared by Pliny himself, consisting of 247 such letters that he himself specifies by number. They are appended to his work during the Middle Ages as an undocumented 10th book, supposedly derived from the imperial library in Rome by the Catholic scholars there. Nor are they the least bit believable, in them Pliny claims to be unfamiliar with a point of law, though he had been a lawyer, held high political rank, and on close terms with the imperial government since the age of 17. They depict him as seeking advice about this minor matter from the emperor himself! The only way we could put any credence in such a mass of contradictory and convenient "testimonies" is if we had reason to believe that Eusebius, Sulpicius and the medieval Vatican were somehow trustworthy sources. Eusebius is the author of the Letters of Antoninus Pius, a pseudoepigraphal fraud, and the 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation, the 32nd chapter of which is entitled "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." Sulpicius Severus is the author of the Life of St. Martin, which attributes more miracles to the Pelagian political speaker in question per chapter than the whole New Testament attributes to Jesus. The Vatican is where the Borgias are born, to their father Pope Alexander VI. If you want to actually fight these fine points out, as usual, find another thread to do it in. Brian has conceded fictionality already, just to make his argument that even a historical Jesus who does everything the NT says he did, still can't be the messiah predicted by the Hebrew scriptures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Brian, I just picked out the first of your barrage of points and figured we could work our way through them. The truth is we have several extra biblical sources we can fall back on to support some of the claims made in the gospels and existence of the real Jesus. 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.
The writings of a non-Christian Jewish historian named Josephus, from the first century (AD. 93), were discovered which describe the stoning of a man named "James, the brother of Jesus, for transgressing the law of God." Josephus commented that "a wise man named Jesus, who performed many surprising feats, won over many Jews, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and that the tribe of Christians who called after him has still not disappeared to this day." 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.
Josephus' writings mainly reported on the Jewish/Roman war, so he did not mention much about Jesus. 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? But historians have found him to be accurate with all of his other statements about the war 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.
and therefore there is no reason to doubt what he said concerning Jesus. This is a non-sequitur.
What his report does help establish is that there was a "real" man named Jesus who had drawn many followers and supposedly did many surprising feats. 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.
It also establishes that He was in fact Crucified by Pilate just as the scriptures describe. This validated at least those portions of the four gospels and demonstrates that those parts of the Jesus story were not contrived. 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.
Enter the writings of a Roman historian from the first century named Tacitus. Tacitus stated that "King Nero used a Christian sect who were followers of Christus, a man who suffered the most extreme penalty under Pilate, as a scapegoat for the fires in Rome." 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.
He goes on to describe the spread of this religion which is based on the worship of this man who suffered this most ignominious death possible. So here we have a very important testimony from an unsympathetic witness to the success and spread of Christianity, based on a real historical figure--Christ. It's also important to note that Tacitus reported that an immense multitude held so strongly to their claims of his resurrection that they were willing to die rather than recant. So here we have evidence that belief in His deity and resurrection had developed before the end of the first century. 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.
The fact that these beliefs about Jesus originated in the first century means that opposition that was there could have easily refuted the claims that the Christians were making about Jesus and His resurrection. To date no such refutations have been found coming from that time period. 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)
Some try to argue that refuting Christians was the least on their minds and none would have been bothered with such a task. Well Jews didn’t seem that bothered by them because they allowed Paul to preach about Jesus in their synagogues.
My question then is how is it that they were so bothered that they went through all the trouble to hunt them down and execute them? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 4091 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
And, conceding fictionality briefly myself for the pure fun of it
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. Scholars believed for centuries that the soldier in question was a cypher, invented by Celsus as a pun on the Greek parthena meaning "virgin." Until, that is, his grave was discovered in Germany. The connection depends on the assumption that Celsus' information about Jesus' illegitimacy was correct, and so a soldier with this name, living at the right period, might be the father. Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera's career would place him in Judea (present day Palestine) as a young man around the time of Jesus' conception.[4] Scholars Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan note that Celsus was antagonistic towards Christianity and that the suggestion of Roman parentage might derive from the memory of Roman military operations suppressing a revolt at Sepphoris near Nazareth around the time of Jesus' birth. Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera - Wikipedia
Serving the faithAbduction the oath It lie in wait for the offering Religion is oldFor drawing the young Purity withers and dies -- Pantera
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024