|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Did you really mean to say that Jesus prophesied the destruction of Solomon's Temple ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Perhaps you would like to actually explain the relevance of those points ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I keep asking you to explain your point, but you won't. Insulting us isn't being helpful. Perhaps you would like to try rational argument instead ?
quote: So if it comes from God it must say what you want it to say ? Why ?
quote: Perhaps you would like to explain that. Because you seem to have a curious conception of honesty. One that has nothing to do with telling the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I am not ignoring it, I keep asking you to explain it. And instead of an answer I get insults.
quote: No, you haven't made yourself clear at all.
quote: It doesn't matter to my position. Personally I don't believe either. But then you shouldn't believe any of the speeches in ancient documents - even histories - are literally what was said.
quote: Not if you mean that it ISN'T an earthly kingdom. After all if God establishes an earthly kingdom, then it's still an earthly kingdom. You must remember the whole point of saying that it means a spiritual kingdom is to deny that it refers to an earthly kingdom.
quote: In other words you need somebody to tell you what it means. Would you like to explain why ? Can't you just read it ?
quote: Not necessarily. That surely would be up to God, would it not ?
quote: If you mean the kind of honesty that truthfully and accurately represents the text instead of distorting it to fit dogma, then yes. That IS being honest.
quote: I am standing from the platform that says that we should look directly at the text and not allow dogma to prejudice our investigation. As Slevesque said we should treat the Bible as a historical document and that is what I am doing. Perhaps now you can explain your position. Why should your personal beliefs influence the way we look at the Bible ? Why do you regard honesty as an adherence to the doctrines you favour ? Maybe then we can make some progress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That may be your opinion, but even on the evidence of this thread it does not appear to be true.
quote: Oh dear, it seems that you are still making the same mistake. This is a point I have already addressed. The tests I am using are the messianic prophecies and the alleged messianic prophecies (which are typically nothing of the sort). For the messianic prophecies we can look at them and see whether Jesus fulfilled them For the alleged Messianic prophecies we can read them in context, see what they really say - and if they are framed as predictions at all. The actual history behind the writing (aside from the dating, and whether the originator is Jewish or Christian) is of relatively little importance to this analysis.
quote: This is the first time you have said that. However, since this thread is about BRIAN'S reasons for considering Jesus a failure then the common frame of reference has to be one that makes sense to Brian. So treating the Bible as a historical document would be appropriate. Any other point of view would have to be argued for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well, I am afraid that your post contains a lot of arrogant nonsense, and little in the way of rational argument. It's simply not worth responding to most of it.
quote: The "ENTIRE context" certainly does not include God as the "AUTHOR" of any of the Biblical books. In fact it excludes it. At most you will find sections which claim to relay messages from God - but authored by humans. Let me remind you. You claimed that discussion required common ground. In that case if you wish to discuss this topic - which is about Brian's assessment of the evidence - it's up to you to stick to the common ground. You don't get to demand that everyone else adopts your assumptions. No, not even if you are abusive and insulting about it.
quote: I think that we can. According to the Bible, God's promise to Abraham involved giving him and his descendants actual physical land. That's physical and temporal. Solomon's Temple was physical and temporal - and destroyed by the Babylonians.
quote: Of course if I were discussing a different subject, different facts might be relevant. I think that in this case Brian would largely agree with me. If we have a clear prediction of what the Messiah should do, written before Jesus' career then clearly it is relevant. If, on the other hand, the "prediction" is an egregious quote-mine, concoted long after the alleged fulfilment which itself is almost certainly a legendary accretion then clearly it has little evidential value for the purposes of this discussion.
quote: Of course Brian needs to consult the OT for the messianic prophecies and the NT for he story of Jesus. Since the NT authors are strongly biased in favour of the idea that Jesus was the Messiah this is hardly being unfair to Jesus.
quote: Since our conclusions are neither dogmatic nor absolute - simply well-supported by the evidence - you are arguing against a strawman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Passages that "say God said this or that" would BE passages "which claim to relay messages from God" - indeed the "God said this or that" itself would typically be the product of a human author, would it not ? "God being involved in the process" falls well short of the assertion that God is the "AUTHOR". And I am sure that you can find a number of passages which indicate that a human being was the actual author of the text. In other words, you claim that my statement is "in no wise objective" because you could spend days writing out evidence that is entirely consistent with it. That is hardly a rational position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But it is still Solomon's throne, and Solomon's kingdom. And Solomon ruled an earthly kingdom.
quote: I'm not seeing that reason. Clearly in all the translations quoted, both parts refer to the same person. The rules of English grammar demand it. When you say that they refer to different people you are saying that 2 Samuel 7:13 is wrong. It should say "He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of some other guy's kingdom firmly to time indefinite". Does that actually make sense to you ?
quote: Of course it doesn't say that Solomon - or whoever it refers to - will rule forever. As you correctly state:
What is being established here is not Solomon, but the 'thone' which represents the position of kingly authority.
Thus the prophecy does NOT require that Solomon rule forever. It requires that Solomon's (earthly) kingdom should remain forever, it may require that Solomon's line continues to rule it, but it clearly does not say that Solomon - or any individual person - will occupy the throne forever. And - as Purpledawn has pointed out - 1 Kings 9 states that the promise was conditional on the rulers remaining faithful. If, as you say, Solomon was unfaithful then the promise no longer applies. (I will also note that Jeremiah 18:5-10 asserts that all such promises are conditional, and it is possible that the author of 2 Samuel shared that view of prophecy). And let us take a further look at 2 Samuel:
13 "He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 "I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men,
So, as well as telling us that the person referred to will build a temple (as Solomon did, and Jesus did not) it also tells us that this person will - or is likely to - "commit iniquity", and God will punish him for it. Do you think that Jesus did wrong and needed to be punished by God ? Did Solomon ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Yes, that is interesting. If that is really the case, then we pretty much have to assume that the promise is conditional.
I will disagree on another point, though, 1 Kings 11 tells us when (according to the author) the promise ceases to apply, and why.
6 Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not follow the LORD fully, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. 8 Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. 9 Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the LORD had commanded. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, "Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant. 12 "Nevertheless I will not do it in your days for the sake of your father David, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 "However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen."
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The fact that the prophecy is talking about Solomon's kingdom, which was an earthly kingdom has nothing to do with the prophecy ? How can that be ?
quote: It''s Solomon's throne so therefore it must be Solomon's sovereignty that is somehow being preserved. Thus it could legitimately refer to the institution of kingship or to Solomon's line.
quote: Which voided the promise...
quote: Clearly it is not referring to a literal blood relationship. Why could God not adopt Solomon in this way ? Don't Christians call God "Father" and describe themselves (often meaning all humanity) as God's children ?
quote: Except, of course, that Solomon's Temple is also described as God's house. You've even quoted a verse which says as much ! Even worse, you are relying on the Chronicles account including significant information omitted from 2 Samuel.
quote: In fact there is plenty of evidence for it. As your yourself have pointed out Solomon misbehaved, and the promise became void. Therefore the fact that the promise did not continue is not evidence against Solomon at all. And who - after all - built the Temple ?
quote: But we are not reading Hebrew We are reading an English translation which must follow the rules of English grammar. If you mean that all the translators got it wrong - including the translator of your preferred version - then say so. But you can't say that English grammar doesn't apply. You can go to the Hebrew text if you like, but I doubt that it will help you.
quote: Which still indicates the same person throughout. No, you need a far more drastic rewrite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Well that's not true for a start.
quote: Why can't this one be read alone, aside form the fact that you don't like what it really says ?
quote: So it doesn't mean what it says ? Wouldnt that mean that it is wrong ?
quote: In other words it is it only wrong, it's stupid. Well, it's your holy book, so if you say it's stupid because it disagrees with your beliefs, that's up to you.
quote: Since the Nathan prophecy is about Solomon, not the Messiah, that would seem to be irrelevant.
quote: It would be more accurate that you disagree with it because you refuse to accept that the prophecy means what it says. In fact Purpledawn and I have both cited verses which indicate that the prophecy was negated, and as I have also mentioned, Jeremiah states that all such promises are conditional on good behaviour - a view which the author of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings may well have shared.
quote: 1 Kings 11 tells us exactly why. I even quoted the relevant section. Didn't you read it ?
quote: That is what you are trying to argue for. However it is not what the text describes. What it describes is more like an adoptive relationship - "he will become my son" implies a change of relationship.
quote: I am afraid that you have got it wrong again. The question is not what Isaiah 66 says, the question is whether it's ideas agree with those in 1 Chronicles 17. Now 1 Chronicles 17 refers to the Temple as the house of God - as I pointed out - so you can't simply assume that it refers to something in Heaven because of what Isaiah says.
quote: I thought that Christians believed that with God, all things are possible. However, the Bible contradicts you on this. 1 Chronicles 17:4-5 indicate that the Temple is a dwelling place for God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, it just shows that you care more about your own beliefs than about what the Bible says. The fact is that the verse refers to one person, there is no other possible reading.
quote: If, as in this case, there is only one valid reading there is no need to look elsewhere in the OT.
quote: If that is true - and the contradictions you have introduced have generally been your own interpretations - all that means is that there are contradictions within the Bible.
quote: In other words you are 100% certain that the Bible is wrong and you are right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 2 Samuel - at least in the form we have it is much more recent than that. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia it was compiled from various sources shortly before the Exile, ant quite likely that 2 Samuel 7 is mainly the work of compiler. And as Purpledawn has pointed out this person may even have been Jeremiah's scribe, Baruch,
quote: Of course you are again distorting the truth - and ignoring the texts which indicate that the promise was voided. But even then, according to Jeremiah 33:26 the covenant allows for interruptions in the rule of the kings. For times with no king at all on the throne. If you think that that is how 2 Samuel 7:13 should be interpreted then you have thrown out your own arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That is based on sound scholarship. As reported with a source, with no motive to discredit any part of the OT. What do you have ?
quote: Now THAT is speculation. What internal evidence do you have for the authorship ?
quote: Yet it also says that that kingship may be interrupted, so if you take it as referring to the promise of 2 Samuel 7:13 (which so far is just your interpretation) it is stil consistent with 2 Samuel 7:13 being correct. Let us note that according to Jeremiah 33:17 the covenant with David is:
'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;
which refers to 1 Kings 2:4
..the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, 'If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'
and 1 Kings 8:25
Now therefore, O LORD, the God of Israel, keep with Your servant David my father that which You have promised him, saying, 'You shall not lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your sons take heed to their way to walk before Me as you have walked.'
Note that these are both explicitly conditional and that according to 1 Kings, Solomon himself violated the conditions.
quote: If you don't think that Samuel should be interpreted as agreeing with Jeremiah's description of the covenant then you have a problem with your argument. They must be talking about the same covenant for your argument to work at all. And if they disagree about it then one must be wrong about the nature of the promise.
quote: No, I NEVER said that. I said that it referred to Solomon's KINGDOM, not Solomon himself. The only person who claimed that this verse must mean that the individual it is refers to must live forever is - YOU (Message 194, for example).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That's not internal evidence. 1 Chronicles is not 2 Samuel. And it isn't even clear which documents it is referring to.
quote: Even if it were clear, being in the Bible doesn't mean that it isn't speculation.
quote: So you are saying that it depended on the good behaviour of David's successor's but not on David's behaviour ? How does that help you ? And you've not even dealt with the other points that completely refute your argument.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024