|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
EMA responds to me:
quote: That is precisely the circularity I am talking about. You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. All you can do is show that the text is internally consistent. This tells us nothing about the validity or veracity of the text: Only that a statement made in one part is not contradicted in another part. The Iliad has the same internal structure as the Bible, and yet I don't see you proclaiming the validity of the story told.
quote: Circular reasoning. You are claiming that the Bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god.
quote: Incorrect. There will only be a problem if the people who think that the text is "a total work of god" are unable to provide any justification for that claim outside of the book in question. That is a circular argument: The Bible is god's word because it says it is. If all this is is a discussion about the internal consistency of the work, then knock yourselves out. That doesn't mean the work is by a single person, however. It simply means that the story doesn't contradict itself. In order to show that the work has a single author (or even "inspiration" to be more abstract about it), you have to show evidence outside of the text in question. You cannot use the text to justify itself.
quote: And yet, you demand anybody who dares to examine the Bible to kow-tow to your insistence that they believe. Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?
quote: And your justification for why that same claim can't be made against your holy book? Oh, that's right: You're assuming that which you're trying to prove through a circular argument. The Bible is the word of god because it claims to be. Well, the Iliad claims to be the story of the gods, too, so why should we deny it?
quote: First, you have no idea what I believe, so please do yourself a favor and stop trying to react to that impression that you have constructed for yourself. Pay attention to what I say and not what you wish I would say. Second, your demand that others have to accept your premises in order to have any legitimate criticism of a text is illegitimate, especially when the premises are circular arguments. Your refusal to accept criticism from those who do not share your theological structure is just as offensive and false as that which you feel upon being forced to apply the same attitude you have toward other works. Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?
quote: Who said anything about "atheist"? I know I certainly didn't. You're suffering from two different fallacies: First: Anybody who disagrees with your theology is an atheist. Second: You can infer what someone believes simply because they disagree with you. For all you know, I may certainly consider the Bible to be the word of god. The only thing you actually know is that I consider your method of reasoning to come to that conclusion to be invalid. Please pay attention to what I actually say and not what you wish I would say. I take great pains to keep my personal theological position out of it precisely because of the reaction you had: Oh, you must be an X so of course your argument can be dismissed. No actual discussion of the argument that was put forward, just a knee-jerk dismissal because the argument was presented by a person who has a trait you find distasteful. Consider the possibility that I am Christian. How would you respond to my assertion that using the Bible to justify the Bible is a circular argument and therefore invalid?
quote: Why does it matter? How does my answer to that question have any effect upon whether or not a circular argument is legitimate?
quote: Are you asking if it is internally consistent? It clearly isn't. And no, that has nothing to do with who authored it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:How is my interpretation out of harmony with the writings since my interpretation lines up with what happened? quote:And you provide no support for your assertion. Why are you so sure that you are not basing your position on a revised manuscript? The NT authors used the LXX. The Septuagint in the New Testament Septuagint Usage The Early Christian Church used the LXX and the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX. The Qumran supports the LXX.
The Early Christian Church used the Greek texts since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Greco-Roman Church (Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity, which used the Targums). In addition the Church Fathers tended to accept Philo's account of the LXX's miraculous and inspired origin. Furthermore, the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.[27] So the apostles and Jesus wouldn't have had that chunk of Jeremiah to read. Please show support for your assertion that the majority of scholars agree.
quote:Time indefinite doesn't mean without end. We've shown this also. David is dead when the temple is destroyed. He is unable to lead a kingdom. His descendants would only continue to lead if they obeyed. David knew that. They didn't and God described in 1 Kings 9:4-8 what would happen. David's descendants blew it. I'm not sure why you are arguing this since it still doesn't support Jesus as the messiah. Jesus didn't reign over a physical kingdom, which is what David did. Jesus wasn't a descendant of David. So why are you fighting for the covenant when it doesn't fit Jesus anyway? I've even showed you in Mark 12:37 and in Matthew and Luke, Jesus denies being a descendant of David.
quote:When you make stuff up, I'm not going to waste time on it. quote:I do understand the covenant. It is a promise to a human that if his descendants obey then his descendants will continue to govern God's chosen people, the Israelites, for a long time. If they don't obey, then David's dynasty ends. For ever doesn't mean without end. The covenant doesn't take on a new meaning just because the descendants screwed up. The promise dealt with leading and governing the people of Israel (Jews) in a physical kingdom located on this planet. It does not refer to something off planet or internal. Jesus implied he was not the son of David and Jesus implied that his kingdom was not a physical governing of the Jews.
John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." You have changed the Davidic Covenant to something it is not. The covenant was made to a human for humans, not a spirit. Your dogma is not supported by the Bible and you still haven't shown a viable analysis of the text to show how it refers to anyone but Solomon and his descendants or that it implies a shift to an ethereal kingdom in the event the humans screw up. If the words "for ever" are your only defense, then you have nothing. You haven't shown the words have a meaning of no end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
When used figuratively a throne represents royalty, power authority. Physically it is a seat usually used by royalty. Only when the word is used in the correct way in a sentence would it refer to God's authority. I've shown several times that within the grammar of the sentence in 2 Samuel 7, the throne represents the position of the human king. (Message 284) You haven't shown grammatically that it doesn't. If God is its author and sustainer it always refers to God. Any throne established by God, is from and by God and can be taken away by God. Mans authority in any situation is always contingent on Gods authority. Any throne in existence is actually Gods territory. Ofcourse you have a point grammatically, just as anyone else would have a point, were they to isolate Jesus' words when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world", then conclude outside of CONTEXT AND REASON THAT HIS KINGDOM EXISTED EXCLUSIVLEY OUTSIDE OF THIS WORLD. While one could make a case grammatically for that contention, that is not what he meant to imply, exclusively, if it is KEPT IN CONTEXT of both the text, the entire context, AND WHEN THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. In the same way one can isolate a single passage like 7:13 of Samuel, then conclude grammatically, that that is all that can be derived from that teaching, that the kingdom was only physical, for physical purposes. i have already explained it is nonsensical to make a case from a single passage, as seems to be your goal. Collectively the scriptures represent Davids throne as Gods throne. If the method of approach you have chosen to interpret scriptures works for you , then I would suggest you stick with it. It is both, unreasonable and nonsensical to me.
The writer(s) of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles present the Ark of the Covenant as being God's throne. (2 Sam 6:2, 2 Kings 19:15, 1 Chr 13:6, Is 37:16) That is the representation of God's power, not the king's seat. Peg has already demonstrated with to many other passages that Israels throne, David throne, whoevers throne, are also Gods throne. You simply keep throwing the passages under the BUS and saying they dont apply
The throne referenced in 2 Samuel 7:13 refers to the position of human king and you haven't shown otherwise. That position was conditional. The messianic prophecies say Israel will have a king again. IOW, they will have their own government again and someone to govern them. Jesus didn't govern. As I've pointed out several times. For ever doesn't mean without end. Message 173 But I have always agreed on this point. I agree God never wanted them to have an earthly king, even from the beginning as Samuel clearly indicates. Your statement that jesus didnt Govern is both unwarrented and unsubstantiated. your assuming that Gods rule has to be one of a physical NATURE ONLY. Was the Old Mosaic law only a physical law or was there a SPIRITUAL aspect to it as well, ie, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heartt, mind and soul" tThis is a rule and law of the heart and mind, not purely a physical thing to be observed. While there is a certain physical aspect of and to Jesus Church/Kingdom, he rules the primarily the HEARTS AND MINDS OF HIS servants. he governs the more important aspects. "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself". That he accomplished with unbelievable success Col 1: 9For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. 10And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully 12giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you[d] to share in the inheritance of the saints in the KINGDOM OF LIGHT. 13For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the KINGDOM OF THE SON he loves, 14in whom we have redemption,[e] the forgiveness of sins. 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. His kingdom is the hearts and minds of people by which we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin by becoming a member of his body the church which is a physical kingdom as described above Not only is a king with a kingdom, he is God that desired to be Israels spiritual king from the begininng. In Pauls words we have not only that christ was and is a king, but WHAT AND WHERE HIS KINGDOM IS AND ITS NATURE
Again using basic reading and grammar skills, those verses were not referring to the position of human king. The kings are gone, the temple destroyed. PD there is nothing wrong with grammar, but context and the totality of scripture trump grammar as I have indicated above. Even the context of the old testament does not support your smokescreen attempts to dethrone God. Nitpicking passages and making single passages conform to theory do not A SOUND ARGUMENT MAKE. Even the simplest of readers can see you attempt is both silly and nonsensical EAM EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Circular reasoning. You are claiming that the Bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god. Exacally correct in this context and for these purposes. have you read the entire context of the discussion? we are arguing what the Apostles and prophets have to say concering the Kingdom of God. there is no need at this point to discuss whether these are actually Gods words, that would be simply ignorant, let me demonstrate. lets say one person started talking to another concering Bigfoot. The one that started the discussion assumed the other believed in bigfoot. Assuming this the originator STARTS DISCUSSING VERY SPECIFIC DETAILS about and for Bigfoot. It then becomes very obvious to the second that the first assumes he agrees with the existence of a creature in the first place. The second interupts the first and says, hooold, hoold hoold on a minute, I dont believe in Bigfoot in the first place, why would I discuss any SPECIFICS of a creature i dont believe in. the first insists that there is evidence for his existence, the second says well lets talk about that instead, the first says I dont want to talk about that I want to talk about the specifics, of what he eats and how he would poop, etc. the second says we havent established his existence yet, etc, etc etc, back and forth. Rrhain, we are discussing internally, assuming for all intents and purposes that the prophets and Apostles were correct in thier estimations, guided by God and his authority, that these are true statements. Arguing your positions that you are contenting for, whilest trying to determine a specfic menaing of scripture is nonsensical. Both will be approaching it from a COMPLETELY OPPOSITE POINT OF VIEW and the meaning will be altered forever by what you view the SCRIPTURES AS AND WHOS WORK IT ACTUALL IS OR IS NOT. Why would I have discussion about Bigfoots hunting skills if I dont believe he existed in the first place. Do you see the point its fine to discuss that which you are observing but not really at this point. Atleast it is totally nonsensical to bat it back and forth at this time. if these fellows were not guided by the Holy Spirit, who cares what they had to say, they believed God was directing thier words, some thought God spoke directly to them, if he did not they were either delusional, deceptive or liars. We are ASSUMING they were correct in thier approach. this is a Bible discussion, much the same way two mormons would be debating over the book of Mormon
If all this is is a discussion about the internal consistency of the work, then knock yourselves out. That doesn't mean the work is by a single person, however. It simply means that the story doesn't contradict itself. Exacally correct. perhaps you could approch it from that aspect to put your skills of verbosness and your understanding of tautologies to work here EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
EMA writes: PD there is nothing wrong with grammar, but context and the totality of scripture trump grammar as I have indicated above. Even the context of the old testament does not support your smokescreen attempts to dethrone God. Nitpicking passages and making single passages conform to theory do not A SOUND ARGUMENT MAKE. Even the simplest of readers can see you attempt is both silly and nonsensical Speaking of nonsense. Context can only be understood within the confines of grammar. Ignoring the rules means you're ignoring the context. You continue to speak of context, but provide none.
quote:I'm sure it is nonsensical to you. I'm actually reading the words provided in the context they were provided or at least trying. You are creating fiction to suit yourself. quote:Actually in Message 320, that the verses she provided were not referring to the position of human king as in 2 Samuel 7:13. Pesky English rules again. Of course neither of you have been able to support your interpretation without breaking English language rules. IOW, you change what God supposedly said. quote:That type of "rulership" is not what God promised David and his descendants and that type of "rulership" is not what the messianic prophecies foretold. Yes those pesky rules of English again. You're going down that spiritual kingdom rabbit hole again with no biblical lifeline. 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 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: How is my interpretation out of harmony with the writings since my interpretation lines up with what happened? because you are applying to Solomon, what is ultimately a promise to David. The covenant with David was that the throne of HIS (not solomons) kingdom would be firmly established. Solomon was fortold to be the buider of the temple, but the covenant for the throne wasnt made with Solomon...it was made with David. So you are applying to Solomon, what is a promise to David.
purpledawn writes: And you provide no support for your assertion.Why are you so sure that you are not basing your position on a revised manuscript? The NT authors used the LXX. The Septuagint in the New Testament Septuagint Usage The Early Christian Church used the LXX and the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX. The Qumran supports the LXX. because i did my homework. I wrote to the author of webpage you provided in your link and asked him why Jeremiah 35 doesnt appear in his webpage. He wrote back the following reply to me:
Septuagint Webpage creator Ernie writes:
Hi,Looks like I have a mistake. Verses 15-20 are here http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Jeremias/ but in the comparisons, I left them out. http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/jeremiah/jer_033.htm I will get this fixed. Thanks for letting me know, Ernie purpledawn writes: So the apostles and Jesus wouldn't have had that chunk of Jeremiah to read. Please show support for your assertion that the majority of scholars agree. There are hebrew manuscripts that do contain Jeremiah 33 such as in the Aramaic Targums. If the septuagint did leave out some of Jeremiah, it certainly wasnt because the chapters/verses didnt exist. The hebrew manuscripts should be what you compare translations to, not the other way around.
purpledawn writes:
Lexicographer Gesenius defines the hebrew word ‛oh‧lam′ as meaning hidden time, i.e. obscure and long, of which the beginning or end is uncertain or indefinite. So they translate this hebrew word as time indefinite or indefinitely lasting to convey the thought of the original hebrew word. If I told you something was going to be here indefinitely, you'd know it means that there is no useby date or no end date. The length of the throne of David is the same...it has no end date.
Time indefinite doesn't mean without end. We've shown this also. purpledawn writes: I do understand the covenant. It is a promise to a human that if his descendants obey then his descendants will continue to govern God's chosen people...If they don't obey, then David's dynasty ends. Wrong. You dont understand the covenant at all. It had nothing to do with Davids immediate decendents. God didnt make a covenant with any of Davids sons, he made it with David. The covenant guaranteed that he would raise up to King David a seed or descendant who would sit upon the throne forever and whose kingdom would have no end.
purpledawn writes: Jesus implied he was not the son of David Really? I dont see any evidence of Jesus trying to imply that he is not davids son in the following scriptures.
Revelation 22:16"I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." Matthew 16:13 Jesus went asking his disciples:... YOU, though, who do YOU say I am? 16In answer Simon Peter said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17In response Jesus said to him: Happy you are, Simon son of Jo′nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did." Matthew 21:9As for the crowds, those going ahead of him and those following kept crying out: Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!15When the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous things he did and the boys that were crying out in the temple and saying: Save, we pray, the Son of David! they became indignant 16and said to him: Do you hear what these are saying? Jesus said to them: Yes. Did YOU never read this, ‘Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have furnished praise’? purpledawn writes: You have changed the Davidic Covenant to something it is not. The covenant was made to a human for humans, not a spirit. and this is precisely what Jesus was... a human who would rule the throne of David for the benefit of all humans. He was Davids son through the linage of his biological mother Mary and this gave him the legal right to the throne of David. So he was a seed of David and he had the legal right to the throne. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
EMA writes:
quote: That only tells us about consistency, not accuracy. You're trying to justify a circular argument.
quote: And that's your mistake. Arguments do not depend on your belief state. If your argument does, then it is an illogical argument that is circular, assuming what it is attempting to prove.
quote: And that's your circular argument. Their claim is that it is the word of god because the Bible said it was. But that isn't valid. Just because someone else used the circular argument, that doesn't allow you to come along and pick it up to shout out, "See! It's true!" There is no way to extract validity out of a circular argument. Consistency, yes. Validity, no.
quote: Which necessarily means that the arguments are completely unjustified. The truth value of an argument is independent of one's "point of view." Things are true despite your point of view, not because of them. If you have to believe before it can work, then you are engaging in a circular argument.
quote: Ah, yes. The Lord/Liar/Lunatic fallacy. There are at least two other possibilities to consider. No, I'm not going to tell you what they are right now because I want you to think about it for a second. Suppose somebody says something that isn't true. What other possibility might there be for why it was said other than the person is lying or the person is crazy (for we know person isn't "lord" since the statement isn't true)?
quote: What do you think I'm doing? I'm pointing out that you're using a circular argument. You are trying to justify the Bible with the Bible and that is a logical fallacy. If all you were trying to do was determine consistency, you wouldn't be arguing about belief states. You certainly wouldn't be trying to grill me about my own personal theology, let alone accuse me of being an atheist simply because I am disagreeing with you. Let's not play dumb. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Yes the promise is made to David, but it is fulfilled through Solomon's line, not just any descendant of David. You're losing sight of the issue. The genealogy in Luke is not through Solomon's line and the one in Matthew is through the cursed line. Again it is a useless point since Jesus wasn't the biological son of Joseph anyway and the NT doesn't tell us that Mary is from the line of David and don't go back to the adoption issue. It doesn't hold water either. The request I made to you is that you show in the text following all the rules of English, that the promise does not involve Solomon's line. The promise will be fulfilled through Solomon and his descendants. That is the promise. It didn't apply to just any one of his sons. quote: The missing chunk we were discussing is Jeremiah 33:14-26. Did you read Jeremiah 33:14-24 in the Septuagint? Not the same words.
14 And behold, I am in your hands; do to me as is expedient, and as it is best for you. 15 But know for a certainty, that if ye slay me, ye bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon them that dwell in it; for in truth the Lord has sent me to you to speak in your ears all these words. 16 Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and to the false prophets; Judgment of death is not due to this man; for he has spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God. 17 And there rose up men of the elders of the land, and said to all the assembly of the people, 18 Michaeas the Morathite lived in the days of Ezekias king of Juda, and said to all the people of Juda, Thus saith the Lord; Sion shall be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become a desolation, and the mountain of the house shall be a thicket of trees. 19 Did Ezekias and all Juda in any way slay him? Was it not that they feared the Lord, and they made supplication before the Lord, and the Lord ceased from the evils which he had pronounced against them? whereas we have wrought great evil against our own souls. 20 And there was another man prophesying in the name of the Lord, Urias the son of Samaeas of Cariathiarim; and he prophesied concerning this land according to all the words of Jeremias. 21 And king Joakim and all the princes heard all his words, and sought to slay him; and Urias heard it and went into Egypt. 22 And the king sent men into Egypt; 23 and they brought him thence, and brought him into the king; and he smote him with the sword, and cast him into the sepulchre of the children of his people. 24 Nevertheless the hand of Achicam son of Saphan was with Jeremias, to prevent his being delivered into the hands of the people, or being killed. The point was that the words stating that the covenant with David would never be broken aren't in the Septuagint at all. The Septuagint wasn't necessarily in the same order as the Masoretic
Masoretic 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. quote:The Qumran text was in Hebrew. You did not provide support for your assertion that the majority of scholars agree that the Greek translation is defective. You also didn't provide support for the claim that the targums contain the missing verses written as we know them today. quote:Exactly! The end date wasn't known when the promise was made. It would end whenever God wanted it to end. Again, David's line continuing to rule was contingent upon behavior. Just because David's descendants blew it doesn't change the promise to an ethereal or internal kingdom. The promise to David concerned governing a kingdom (like a country or a state) in real time and space. If you disagree with that, then show me where the text supports that it is otherwise. Your only reasoning so far is that because the words for ever (they are not one word) are there and that it had to change to accommodate your idea that they mean without end. Unknown end date doesn't mean without end. David's dynasty did last a very long time, but ended with the overthrow of the kingdom and the destruction of the temple. Never failing to have a son on the throne would mean no breaks. Indefinite ending would mean no breaks. The Hasmoneans were not descendants of David. So David's line did fail to have a descendant rule Israel. The Davidic Dynasty ended.
quote:This is what I keep asking you to show me in the text!!!!! You can't because that isn't what the text says. You're rewriting it. See you do feel that for ever means without end. You're not even sticking with the definition you provided earlier in your post. Peg writes: Lexicographer Gesenius defines the hebrew word ‛oh‧lam′ as meaning hidden time, i.e. obscure and long, of which the beginning or end is uncertain or indefinite. quote: Then we have contradiction, because in the Synoptics he does. Different writer's different thoughts. Both supposedly from the mouth of Jesus. quote:You can't pull that out of the promise in 2 Samuel. Please show support. The throne of David was a rulership over Israel only. Please show support that Mary was from the line of David and that the mother's lineage determined royalty. That still doesn't get around the prerequisites of the promise to David. The promise was through the line of Solomon. I know you don't like hearing that, but you haven't gotten around that hurdle legitimately yet. Things you need to clarify and provide support:1. David's kingdom was to be something other than earthly. 2. The Promise was not specific to any one of David's descendants. 3. That the words for ever mean without end, as opposed to unknown end. 4. That royal leadership was determined through the mother. 5. That "adopted" children could be royal heirs. 6. That "You shall never fail to have a man to rule over Israel." allows for breaks. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
The thread is getting bogged down on geneologies and word/phrase semantics. This could go on til the cows come home and the cows are'nt in sight.
This is how skeptics bury the important observable data relative to the fulfilled messianic prophecies and those obviously emerging into fulfillment which I and others have cited such as the fulfillment of Jesus and OT prophets that Israel, after being dispersed globally would providentially return and re-emerge as a powerful tiny nation to their original location smack dab in the middle of all of her enemies calling & waring for her anhilation. Then there's the cited fulfilled prophecies of Jesus, the suffering messiah, a pre-requesit to the reigning messiah, etc. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hERICtic Member (Idle past 4547 days) Posts: 371 Joined: |
What "cited" prophecies are there regarding Jesus? Without using dual meanings and metaphors, which ones are you refering to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
hERICtic writes:
What "cited" prophecies are there regarding Jesus? Without using dual meanings and metaphors, which ones are you refering to? What "cited" prophecies are there regarding Jesus? Without using dual meanings and metaphors, which ones are you refering to? Hi Eric. Welcome to EvC. Thanks for asking. Your interest is appreciated. I suggest you do a reading of the thread. There a lot there. Secondly you can click on my name to bring up my topic/message profile for the last seven years or so which I've been here. There are topics relative to Biblical prophecy in the archives. Thirdly, you can do an on site search of "Jesus prophecies" entering the name Buzsaw and you should find something. As for the Jesus prophecies, Isaiah chapters 53 to 57 are some examples. Do a google search on "messianic prophecies Jesus" or just "Jesus prophecies" and you should get plenty of data. If you find something that you wish to debate on or discuss relative to what you find and whether he was a failure or not, bring it on and we'll address it. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: If it is getting bogged down it is because the Bible "believers" won't deal with what the Bible actually says. They are only interested in finding excuses to pretend it says what they want it to say.
quote: Of course you HAVEN'T cited anything of significance in this thread - all you have done is make vague references to your past claims which have already been dealt with in the threads where you raised them. So the "skeptics" aren't trying to bury anything - it is nit up to them to answer arguments that are not raised.
quote:Which Brian has already addressed in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Then those who disagree should answer clearly and not change the laws of language to support their dogma, not what the Bible says, but their dogma. quote:Actually I think the skeptics are the ones actually bringing the observable data into the light. If your data doesn't hold up under the spot light, then the data is faulty. The Bible doesn't speak of global dispersion, just dispersion within the neighboring empires of the time. Not The Planet quote:Why complicate the issue with an unnecessary prerequisite that doesn't match what we know of Jesus? As Brian pointed out in Message 48, the servant songs do not refer to a future messiah. The wording itself (you know the word of God) supports that position. This has been debated ad nauseam on this board. I don't understand why those who claim to believe the Bible contains the "word of God" and the manuscripts were "authored" by God, don't accept what the text actually says. That's what's bogging this thread down. Getting those people to clearly explain and show how the text truly supports their dogma without bending the rules of language and ignoring the reality of the time. Jesus doesn't fit the prerequisites for the Jewish Messiah. He may have served as a messiah for the gentiles, but he doesn't fit the requirements for the Jewish Messiah. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hERICtic Member (Idle past 4547 days) Posts: 371 Joined: |
Hey, Buz...
Until I can figure out why my computer cannot cut and paste your comments, I'll have to stand down. I have also been told my posts are not relevant. Not sure how, since this thread conerns the failures of Jesus. I was going to take the "messianic prophecy" route and show how Jesus could not have fulfilled them.... But I guess sine the current topic refers to Solomon.... I also typed out a long response, posted it...but it seems to have disappeared, but my original stills stands. Oh well. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Again, until I can figure out what is wrong, I'll stand down.
Issue Handled Off Thread - Please Do Not Respond to this message. AdminPD Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Statement
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator
|
hERICtic,
We frown upon useless posts here at EvC. I suggest you read the Forum Guidelines. So far your posts in this thread have not helped to move the discussion forward concerning the topic. Buzsaw gave you very sound advice to bring yourself up to speed concerning your question dealing with dual prophecies. Your question has the potential to drag this thread off topic. I suggest you read what has been said in this thread so far and the steps that Buzsaw suggested will also help bring you up to speed on the subject of your question. In the future, make sure your posts serve to move the discussion forward.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread. Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension. Thank you Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024