Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 343 of 427 (546076)
02-08-2010 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Buzsaw
02-07-2010 8:01 PM


Not Global
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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:
Then there's the cited fulfilled prophecies of Jesus, the suffering messiah, a pre-requesit to the reigning messiah, etc.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 8:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 12:02 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 347 of 427 (546105)
02-08-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Buzsaw
02-08-2010 12:02 PM


Re: Not Global
quote:
Laws of language deal with gramatical fundamentals of language Nobody has changed those. How about the fundamentals of interpreting and understanding words, phrases and statements relative to context?
Context: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning. It all goes together Buz. Context doesn't change who the pronoun is referring to.
quote:
This, PD, is a classic example of violation of the fundamentals of interpretation and understanding relative to Biblical eschatological/prophetical context. You and yours consistently violate those fundamentals. Astute and objective Biblical scholars studied in Biblical eschatology recognize that there were futuristic Biblical prophets, particularly relative to what is regarded as the prophecy books of OT, often aluded to in the NT as prophecy by Jesus and other writers.
Eschatology (a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind) is a Christian term. I would agree I'm not, because I'm reading the text, not looking at a belief system outside the text. Nothing should change the simple reading of the text.
quote:
Corroboration and context matters if you ever aspire to understanding the harmonious whole of the word of God which we call the Bible.
The Bible I understand. It's the gymnastics, by those who supposedly believe it is the word of God, to make it say something it doesn't I don't understand. I have no problem with what the Bible says.
quote:
Again, you folks mine out some controversial aspect of the debate, totally ignoring and denying the more pertinent and observable evidence relative to messiah Jesus.
In this forum arguments have to be concise. We go where the argument takes us. When someone presents a verse or interpretation as support, but it doesn't add up; I question. That doesn't mean I haven't read more than that one verse or how it fits into the bigger picture of the time. It's your job to present a better argument that doesn't change the simple reading of the text or the writer's message to his audience.
quote:
Jesus's prophecied on the Mt of Olive in the corroborative gospel accounts, corroborative with all of the major OT prophets, being Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, that the city of Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed and and would become occupied by gentile nations until the end times when the times of the Gentiles (particlarly relative to Jerusalem) would end.
See you say that, but you don't provide the OT verses that go along with your position and why it is a fulfillment of the OT verses.
The messiah was to be a ruler, per the messianic prophecies. Do any of the messianic prophecies state that the messiah will prophesy that the 2nd temple (515 BCE) will fall?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 12:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 2:26 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 349 of 427 (546115)
02-08-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Buzsaw
02-08-2010 2:26 PM


Re: Not Global
quote:
My point sailed right over your head, PD. I repeat, if Jesus was an imposter/liar, claiming he was messiah, why were and are his prophecies coming to fulfillment?
Nope it didn't. The thread isn't about his prophetic accuracy. It is about whether he fulfilled the job of the Jewish messiah. Brian's point is that he failed. You haven't shown evidence to the contrary. Biblical or otherwise.
quote:
The OT prophecies which shout over and over that the land will become desolate and the Jews dispersed, clearly implying that all Jerusalem, including the temple will also become desolation to some extent. Jesus re-inforced and corroborated those prophecies to specify exactly what would happen. Indeed history attests to the fulfillment and to the ability of Jesus to corroborate, by this power, his other claims that he is indeed messiah.
Again, you don't provide the OT prophecies you're referring to or that the messiah was to have prophetic powers. He needs to fit all the requirements. The main job of the messiah was to free the Jews from their oppressors.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 2:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 7:39 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 352 of 427 (546175)
02-09-2010 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Buzsaw
02-08-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Not Global
quote:
I know the thread is a long read, but I've already cited some of the relative OT prophecies both in this thread and others. Once should suffice. Perhaps an on site search will help.
Maybe you could provide the number of the post, like I do when I've already address a point to someone else and don't want to repeat myself. It's not my job to figure out which prophecy you're referring to and go looking for 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 7:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2010 8:48 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 353 of 427 (546186)
02-09-2010 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Peg
02-08-2010 10:19 PM


Re: Still Has to Go Through Solomon
IOW, if all else fails repeat yourself without providing support. You've been asked repeatedly to show that the promise is not restricted to Solomon's line. Show me the text!
quote:
The promise is made to David, yes. But it is not thru Solomons line that the promise will be fulfilled. In fact, God had repeatedly stated that if any of Davids sons became unfaithful they would be cut off. So the promise being fulfilled is not dependent on Davids sons remaining faithful.
I've shown you scripturally that the promise is fulfilled through Solomon. (Message 131 & Message 320) It's in the text. Show me where God has repeatedly stated that if any of David's sons became unfaithful they would be cut off from sitting on the throne. Show me that the promise is not dependent on David's descendants behavior, specifically Solomon's.
12 And it shall come to pass when thy days shall have been fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, even thine own issue, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build for me a house to my name, and I will set up his throne even for ever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.
You haven't shown how the text supports your position. The pronouns are very clear. It is singular. The one who builds the temple is the one the promise continues through. No, the promise does not imply that the humans will never die. The promise is saying that David's dynasty will last a long time as long as Solomon's decendants behaved. David's dynasty ended with the destruction of the 1st temple. I don't think the messianic prophecies were referring to that promise. I think they were more along the lines that the messiah would free the Israelites from oppression and make the kingdom whole again as it was when David was king. Jesus didn't do that either.
quote:
The promise to David was assured whether his sons were faithful or not. Thats why God said thru Jeremiah "if you could break the covenent of the night and day, you could also break my coventant with David"
And I've shown you that that comment isn't in the Septuagint that the NT writers used. Yes, I've shown you that the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint. Show me that that isn't a later addition to the Jewish text or that the NT writers knew of that portion. I've shown you that the early church fathers used the Septuagint also. Message 332 Message 338
quote:
2ndly. The promised seed did not have to be thru Solomons line, he had to be thru Davids line and all Davids decendents were said to be of the 'kingly line' so any of the sons of David were legally entitled to take the throne...If Solomon had of died for instance, one of Davids other sons would have been legally entitled to take the throne.
Except that isn't what God said. If you disagree, then show me where God implies that. Message 131
In 1 Kings 9 God spoke to Solomon saying:
"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."
He didn't say if Solomon or his sons disobeyed he would put one of David's other sons on the throne. When God took Israel away from Solomon's line he didn't give it to another in David's line. He gave it to another family. Please provide support for your position.
quote:
3rdly, You keep saying that Mary is not of Davids line, yet the geneology in Mathew, which traces from a man named Heli...who is said to be Josephs 'father'...is from Davids line. The only way that heli could be josephs father is through his mariage to mary. This is completely in harmony with jewish tradition that females were not recorded in geneological records, only sons which is why Joseph is called heli's son in Matthews geneolgy, but Jacobs son in Lukes.
Again, that line is through Nathan and not Solomon. Royal lines are not through the mother. You haven't demonstrated that any descendant of David would fulfill the promise of 2 Samuel 7:13, which is what you're referring back to. That's what we've been asking you to do.
quote:
4th, rules of english are a moot point when we are talking about hebrew. And with regard to the scripture being fulfilled via Solomons line, the text says nothing about that. It tells us that Solomon would build a temple and the throne of the kingdom of David would be everlasting. You admitted yourself that the promise is made to David and the promise was for an everlasting kingdom....a kingdom whom David was still ruling at the time.
We are working with an English translation. If you have proof in Hebrew, lay it out. Otherwise you are saying the translators got it wrong, which then puts the whole English Bible in question.
I agree the promise is made to David, but not for a dynasty that couldn't end. Part of the promise is that the dynasty would continue through Solomon's line. David's rulership ended when he died. The rulership was to continue through Solomon and Solomon's descendants. Read the text!
quote:
Nor was the septuagint necessarily a well written translation, as i mentioned, it is shorter by 2,700 words. How is it known that it is shorter? Because hebrew manuscripts contain what the septuagint does not. As I said, usually people compare translations to what they were translated from, not the other way around.
And just as a side point, jeremiah 33 was found amongst the dead sea scrolls collection.
Please show support. Yes, Jeremiah 33 was in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the two verses you are referring to aren't in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Show me that they are!
Please support what you're saying and stop repeating. You've said a lot, but shown nothing.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Peg, posted 02-08-2010 10:19 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Peg, posted 02-10-2010 12:24 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 355 of 427 (546194)
02-09-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Buzsaw
02-09-2010 8:48 AM


Re: Messianic Prophecies of Jesus
It's not my job to find support for your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2010 8:48 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2010 11:53 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 360 of 427 (546338)
02-10-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Peg
02-10-2010 12:24 AM


The Davidic Covenant Does Not Refer To A Messiah
quote:
I have shown you the text! Several times. You yourself acknowledged that the promise for a kingdom was made to David, so why should a promise made to David about Davids house be contingent on any of his sons?
I know you really can't be that dense when it comes to comprehending what is written in books. Try putting yourself in Nathan's position and act as though you are talking to David. God simply promised David that he would have descendants. His bloodline would continue. Men tend to worry about that. They still do today. God also promised that David's bloodline through Solomon would continue to rule all of Israel as long as they behaved. You have not explained how the pronouns in 2 Solomon 7:13 can refer to anyone but Solomon.
Supposedly David's bloodline does still exist. If the records are correct, then that part of the promise seems to be holding; but the kingship part did not. Leadership was dependent upon the behavior of Solomon and his descendants.
quote:
Evidence of what I am saying comes from Jeremiah 33:15-20. I'll say it again just to be clear. Jeremiah lived hundreds of years after Davids death, he spoke of the covenant God made with David as still current. This was at the time that Babylon invaded Judah and completly destroyed the temple and removed the last of Davids sons from the throne.
So you're ignoring the fact that the section is probably a later addition and we don't really know when it was written. Since you feel it is valid, let's look at the text.
Verse 14: Refers to a promise made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. 2 Samuel 7:13 is a promise made to David, not Israel. David was over a united kingdom. The wording has a divided kingdom view. So show me this promise.
Verse 17: This verse also says that the Levites will also never fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices. This didn't pan out either. Odds are this section was added after the second temple resumed sacrifices.
The reality doesn't agree with the section. The temple was destroyed and hasn't been rebuilt and there haven't been sacrifices there since.
quote:
The promise to David is not just for a temple to be built, but for an heir to take the throne of David and rule on it forever. 2 Samuel 7:11 says that the house that Solomon was to build was actually for David. "And Jehovah has told you that a house is what Jehovah will make for YOU (David)."
The promise is not for one heir to rule without end. That's physically impossible. The house for the ark is the temple. The house for David is his bloodline. It isn't the temple.
quote:
So right from the beginning, the house/temple was actually for Davids posterity...not for Solomon or any of his sons. The purpose in this covenant was to provide a kingly dynasty based on Davids throne and to provide a means of identifying the seed that was to come.
The seed to come was Solomon. The promise to David has nothing to do with the messiah.
quote:
More evidence that Davids covenent did not end is found from the prophet ezekeil. 4 years before Zedekiah was dethroned by Babylon Ezekiel said at Ezekeil 21:25-27
"Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him."
Jesus wasn't crowned king. Jesus didn't rule over a united Israel. So Jesus was still a failure. Did you realize that Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are also from the cursed line of Jeconiah? They show up in both genealogies.
quote:
this is more evidence that even though Davids sons were unfaithful and were removed from their positions, the covenant to David for a seed to sit on the throne forever was still in Gods plan. God would still give the throne of David to a selected person....the disloyalty of Davids sons did not put an end to Gods promise to David.
The promise was not for some descendant in the far future. The promise of an heir to the throne was referring to Solomon. The words of the text don't support your position, Peg. Reality doesn't support your position, Peg.
God can and does change his mind. The text and reality support my position.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Peg, posted 02-10-2010 12:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Peg, posted 02-10-2010 7:32 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 362 of 427 (546362)
02-10-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Dawn Bertot
02-10-2010 10:13 AM


Re: The Throne
quote:
You see PD, now that we are agreeing with you on grammar and interpretation of 7:13, it is forcing you to move to the entire context. Something that will destroy your theories
It's about time.
So we agree that the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:13 concerned his bloodline and the continuation of the kingship of Israel through Solomon. The throne was the human governing of Israel.
Unfortunately you haven't provided any "context" to address.
As I said to Peg: Supposedly David's bloodline does still exist. If the records are correct, then that part of the promise seems to be holding; but the kingship part did not. Leadership was dependent upon the behavior of Solomon and his descendants.
Jesus did not become a human king over Israel.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-10-2010 10:13 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2010 11:21 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 373 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2010 10:18 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 370 of 427 (546479)
02-11-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Peg
02-10-2010 7:32 PM


Re: The Davidic Covenant Does Not Refer To A Messiah
quote:
Your claim that the promise was to be made possible thru Solomon and his decendents is blown out of the water based on this scripture. At this point in time there are no more decendents of Solomon ruling on Davids throne and yet God tells the nation that one of Davids decendents will be raised up to rule on his throne.
As you've been told over and over, you cannot ignore the continued revelation of Gods expressed will and draw conclusions based on one verse.
You're still stuck on the words for ever in spite of your own definitions. You can't draw a conclusion based on one word. Read the story of the Jews.
These books about David and the kings were written after the destruction of the temple. They were based on books that were already written. They were written to the people of the time. They were not written for us. They were not written for 1st century Jews. This was the time that Judaism was spawned.
The promise to David does not refer to a 1st century messiah because David was the anointed one for the people of his time. Psalm 110 is about David not a 1st century messiah. If you read about David, God did away with his enemies. The unknown psalmist is saying David was like Melchizedek who was a king and a priest. Melchizedek was the king of Salem. It's a song.
David is the anointed and the people have peace from their enemies. God promises David that his lineage will continue. IOW, you will have sons to carry on your name. God also promised David that his lineage through Solomon would also continue to rule Israel as long as they behaved. At the time of the promise, no end date is given. It is open ended.
Throughout the Bible, God makes it clear that he will chastise those who misbehave no matter what he has promised them and he will reward those who behave, no matter what he has promised them.
Move forward and Solomon's descendants lost rulership of Israel. They were left with Judah. The rulership of Israel is not given to a descendant of David.
Continue moving forward and the temple is destroyed and the Davidic Dynasty has ended due to misbehavior. The people are in exile and have no government of their own. Now they need another anointed.
They will not receive one until they return from exile. The exile is their punishment. Jeremiah warned them to repent. During the exile Ezekiel's message was that salvation from their current condition was through religious purity. Based on "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, Judaism emerged. The laws were studied and read aloud, the sabbath was strongly reinforced, regular feasts were held, etc.
Ezekiel stressed that their situation was due to breach of the law, but unlike in the past when collective guilt due to kings and leaders was stressed; Ezekiel stressed individual responsibility. With no leader the exiled Jews could only blame themselves.
A small group of Jews were successful in returning to Jerusalem in 520bce. It had the full backing of Cyrus' son Darius and was under the official leader, Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel was a descendant of Solomon through the cursed line. Zerubbabel was appointed as Persian Governor of Judah. This group started rebuilding the temple.
The final group of exiles returned about 445 bce with Nehemiah, a Jew, who was given the governorship of Judah and the authority to build it into an independent city within the Persian empire. During this time the Jews made a new covenant with God.
Once the work was completed Jerusalem is calm. 400-200 bce are the lost centuries of Jewish history. No great events or calamities were recorded. The Jews seem to like the Persians the best of those who ruled them. The Jews didn't revolt against the Persians. The Persians allowed the Jews to practice their religion without interference.
The Jews were brought back from exile and restored to their homeland. They were at peace and safe. At this point they no longer need anyone to save them from exile or from their oppressors. They just needed to behave and follow God's laws.
The OT prophecies written prior to this time do not refer to a messiah in the 1st century. The prophets wrote for the people of the time. The warnings before exile and to raise hope of those in exile. Their time has passed. They served their purpose. That's why the old prophecies don't fit Jesus.
IMO, planetary renovation is a later development, possibly influenced by the Persian Zoroastriaism. Either in exile or post exile. I don't see the text of the prophets referring to a messiah to usher in planetary renovation.
This is the reality behind the Bible. This is the context of the writings in the Bible. Read the books as books, not just support for current dogma. These writers weren't concerned with the 1st century problems, they were concerned with the state of their country in their time.
The Davidic Covenant does not refer to a future messiah that will usher in the "end times."
Edited by AdminPD, : Added Bold
Edited by purpledawn, : Change ID

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Peg, posted 02-10-2010 7:32 PM Peg has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 371 of 427 (546481)
02-11-2010 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Buzsaw
02-10-2010 11:21 PM


Re: The Throne
quote:
He answered by corroborating the OT prophets that the Jews would be scattered globally and return in the latter days/end times.
The OT prophets do not state that the Jews were to be scattered globally. I explained that before.
In the OT prophecies, the people would be scattered to the surrounding nations. No global scattering. As I pointed out to Peg, the OT prophets were not speaking of a 1st century messiah or the eschatological end times. That is a later view.
I'm very clear on the reality of prophecy. I just don't milk another meaning out of 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2010 11:21 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2010 9:02 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 374 of 427 (546508)
02-11-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by Buzsaw
02-11-2010 9:02 AM


Re: The Throne
quote:
Either way, we know they were scattered.
Yep, it's 5 o'clock somewhere.
quote:
None of the corroborating prophecies relative to end times had fulfilled until the modern restoration of Israel.
None of the pre-exilic porphecies or the one's during the exile dealt with an eschatological end time.
quote:
Nobody but Jesus fulfilled those prohecies. Nothing phenomenal happened until what we observe today. The latter day restoration was to be forever. The modern restoration is the only one that meets all of the criteria.
There were no end time prophecies from the OT prophets for Jesus to fit. Jesus doesn't fit any prophecies in the OT.
quote:
Add up all of the evidence, admit to something supernatural; things that God does and go, figure, lest like the foolish virgins in Jesus's parable, the bridegroom comes and you miss it, not having oil in your lamp, so to speak.
As far as OT prophecies are concerned, the wedding is over.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2010 9:02 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 375 of 427 (546515)
02-11-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Dawn Bertot
02-11-2010 10:18 AM


Re: The Throne
quote:
Not only have we provided context but provided passages, context, and content that directly state whos kingdom and throne it actually, but Peg and Buzz have demonstrated beyond any doubt that it was to extend past any human being or group of people
No they haven't. The text doesn't support that concept.
quote:
As it has been demonstrated to many times now the timeline and purposes of the throne, were only limited in and as to who would posses the throne at any given time. Yes leadership was dependant on the behavior, for thier (Solomon's and others) purposes, but not for the continued and perpetual existence of the throne itself.
Sure it was. Human rulership of Israel by Solomon's descendants lasted as long as they behaved. For ever doesn't mean without end. It just means the end is unknown. The end was witnessed by the exiles.
quote:
Now, if you can IN CONTEXT of what the scriptures has to say entirely concerning the kingdom, without isolating passages and pointing to obvious details of physical aspect only, demonstrate that it was not ACTUALLY GODS THRONE AND GODS KINGDOM, you will have demonstrated your point and won the debate.
The promise to David concerns David and his descendants and their physical rulership of Israel. The promise doesn't impact the fact that the Israelites are God's chosen people. Human kings come and go, but that doesn't change that the Israelites are God's chosen people. Symbolically there are two different thrones. The one promised to David is a human rulership, which ended with the destruction of the first temple.
My task is simple. It's right there in the book.
quote:
Just as you miss the point that God is actually in charge of all that happened to Israel from beginning to end. Just as you miss the point that its Gods throne (not stricly Davids) and he always wanted to be the exclusive king over Israel as Samuel clearly indicates. Just as you will not take into consideration what ALL OF GODS WORD has to say concerning the prophets, the Messiah, the kingdom and kingship, YOU TOTALLY MISS THE POINT of Gods utimate purposes from the foundation of the world.
I haven't missed anything and I've probably read more of the Bible than you have. You're talking various concept and trying to justify melting them together in spite of reality.
What you're saying about God's kingdom has nothing to do with the promise to David. The promise to David has nothing to do with a 1st century messiah.
quote:
Christ (God again) was and is a physical and spiritual king over Israel, as he was and intended from the beginning.
That position is not supported by the OT.
quote:
You insult God PD with your methodology and approach to his word and plans
And you insult God by ignoring his text that you claim he wrote.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2010 10:18 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2010 11:07 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 377 of 427 (546529)
02-11-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Dawn Bertot
02-11-2010 11:07 AM


Re: The Throne
In 2 Samuel 7:13, God is not giving David God's throne. God is giving David human rulership over Israel. Just like the analogy of an owner of a company and the CEO or manager of the company. The CEO doesn't own the company he only manages it.
God's Throne = Company
David's Throne = CEO position
David didn't own God's Company he only managed the day to day human aspects of it.
quote:
Jeremiah 3:17 In that time they will call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and to her all the nations must be brought together to the name of Jehovah at Jerusalem
Jeremiah 14:20 We do acknowledge, O Jehovah, our wickedness, the error of our forefathers, for we have sinned against you. 21 Do not disrespect [us] for the sake of your name; do not despise your glorious throne
Ezekeil 43:7 And He went on to say to me: Son of man, [this is] the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I shall reside in the midst of the sons of Israel to time indefinite
Message 320
quote:
1chronicles 29:23 " Solomon began to sit on Gods throne"
Message 324
1 Chronicles 29:23 reads differently in the Septuagint.
23 And Solomon sat upon the throne of his father David, and was highly honoured; and all Israel obeyed him.
quote:
Now that your contention that God has his throne and David his, theory is destroyed maybe you can see the simple point that Leadership has to with behavior of specific people, NOT THE CONTIUANCE OF THE ENTIRE THRONE OF GOD.
2 Samuel 7:13 isn't about the Company. It concerns the position of CEO within the Company.
quote:
there were MORE wicked kings in Israel than not. that being the case God should have very quickly removed the kingship and kingdom from Israel, regardless of his perserverance and patience.
We are discussing the promise made to David, not other kings. God removes and appoints people as he sees fit.
quote:
thus you theory is not sound, that the entire throne depended upon faithfulness verses the theory that it was ALWAYS Gods throne for very specfic purposes, that extended past individuals and thier adherence to rules
The Company continues, but the CEO's position does depend on the individual. The Owner can decide to remove the CEO position and run the Company himself. The Owner can be Owner/CEO, but the appointed CEO cannot be Owner/CEO. The appointed CEO is only a CEO.
quote:
Thus the promise to David is everlasting, because it is actually Gods throne which has no end
Nope. The end was unknown to David and his descendants, but the Dynasty came to an end. The bloodline seems to be continuing. Two different parts of the promise. God's throne is the company. The company wasn't part of the promise, just the position of CEO.
quote:
the is no end to his kingship. really could there ever be?
Never implied God lost ownership.
The OT does not support the idea of a CEO position that isn't a human king ruling over living people in Israel.
Jesus wasn't a king over Israel.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2010 11:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2010 2:05 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 379 of 427 (546573)
02-11-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Dawn Bertot
02-11-2010 2:05 PM


Re: The Throne
quote:
really? So tell me who the ruler, king or owner would be in this instance
If you're talking about 2 Samuel 7:13, I already did. You quoted it.
quote:
really? Who makes up the company in Gods or Davids kingdom? Did David rule himself. Uhhh I think it is always about the company
A CEO doesn't manage himself. The Company contains God's chosen people. David is going to manage the day to day issues of that Company. No the promise is not about the Company. It is about David's lineage and about David's position (CEO) in the Company.
quote:
I agree but it so happens that these kings were sitting in the same place david sat
Only Solomon's descendants were part of the promise. God decides when he's had enough. Talk to God if you don't like his timeframe.
quote:
No dynasty came to an end WHERE GOD IS THE OWNER AS YOU SUGGEST.
Dynasty refers to David's descendants serving as CEO. It has nothing to do with the Owner's position. The Owner can continue using a CEO or not. His choice.
quote:
Right and the promise of the throne not the position continues because God is the owner and king, as the scriptures suggest
The word "throne" in 2 Samuel 7:13 is referring to the CEO position, not the Company. After the exile, the Jews had a foreign CEO, and a Jewish Plant Manager. IOW, they did not have a human Jewish king.
quote:
It is not necessary for me to disagree with this for this to be true. jesus said in response to a query put to him.
"Are you king of the Jews, he replied, it is as you have spoken"
One isn't a CEO until one actually gets the gig.
Show evidence that he was properly anointed.
Show evidence that he functioned as a Jewish king.
God usually made his choice clear to a priest so that a proper anointing can take place. The chosen one can't anoint himself. There's procedure so that all know who was chosen.
The Jews weren't free to have a human king at that time.
quote:
Jesus was physical, he had a physical audience as he does today, he claimed to be king of the Jews, as God he would certainly know who and what he was. When he was raised his body was CHANGED NOT EXCHANGED, it was still physical, he was still a king as he proclaimed over a physical kingdom A BODY OF PEOPLE REAL IN PHYSICALITY AND LOCATION, THE CHURCH.
Sorry doesn't fit the bill. The OT doesn't support that type of CEO. As I said earlier, the OT prophets weren't referring to any 1st century messiah.
None of the Jewish prophecies claim the messiah would become God.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2010 2:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-12-2010 10:11 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 383 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-12-2010 10:12 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 381 of 427 (546623)
02-12-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Peg
02-12-2010 1:09 AM


King David is Dead
quote:
Its for this reason that I have pointed out that the covenant with David was not dependent upon any of his sons remaining faithful. The covenant with David was a sure thing whether Solomon remained in favor with God or not for the reason that the covenant was not made with Solomon, but with David.
I'm not sure why you act as though King David is still alive.
The Promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 in the Septuagint
9 And I was with thee wheresoever thou wentest, and I destroyed all thine enemies before thee, and I made thee renowned according to the renown of the great ones on the earth.
10 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell by themselves, and shall be no more distressed; and the son of iniquity shall no more afflict them, as he has done from the beginning,
11 from the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel: and I will give thee rest from all thine enemies, and the Lord will tell thee that thou shalt build a house to him.
The last line differs from what we have today. (The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you)
King David was and still renowned among the Jews.
I think the promise fell a bit short concerning Israel's distress and no more affliction.
In our current version, the house refers to David's lineage and that he will have one. That promise seems to be fulfilled if the records are correct for those claiming to be descendants today. So David's lineage has lasted a long time.
12 And it shall come to pass when thy days shall have been fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, even thine own issue, and I will establish his kingdom.
The promise says that a child that comes from David's own sperm will reign over Israel after David's death. Future descendants do not come from David's own sperm. None of the translations present the "seed" as some distant descendant.
This promise was also fulfilled in Solomon.
13 He shall build for me a house to my name, and I will set up his throne even for ever.
The child from David's sperm will build a house for the ark. That's the temple and that was Solomon, who is from David's sperm. Solomon's reign lasted a long time.
Promise fulfilled.
14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And when he happens to transgress, then will I chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men. 15 But my mercy I will not take from him, as I took it from those whom I removed from my presence.
This same child from David's sperm, who builds the temple, (Solomon) will not be removed from God's presence if he screws up.
Promise fulfilled. This only pertains to Solomon.
quote:
16 And his house shall be made sure, and his kingdom for ever before me, and his throne shall be set up for ever.
This same child from David's sperm, who builds the temple, (Solomon) will have a lineage also and his reign will last a long time. Once Solomon dies, that's it.
That's all that is in the promise to David as written in 2 Samuel 7.
In Kings 2, David relays the promise to Solomon this way:
4 that the Lord may confirm his word which he spoke, saying, If thy children shall take heed to their way to walk before me in truth with all their heart, I promise thee, saying, there shall not fail thee a man on the throne of Israel.
This follows the idea you presented that any of David's descendants would qualify if they behaved. Even though this is still conditional, we don't find this part of the original promise in 2 Samuel 7:13. This is interesting because one thought is that the same person wrote Samuel and Kings. It is still conditional. When we look at reality, the reign of Judah remained in Solomon's family (despite their behavior) and when God took Israel away from Solomon he didn't give it to another descendant of David.
The idea of "never failing to have a man on the throne" implies no breaks and is conditional upon behavior.
After the destruction of the first temple, there weren't any kings in Israel. So even that promise has ended due to misbehavior.
So the promise to David was fulfilled and finished. What is written in 2 Samuel 7 really doesn't go past the death of Solomon. It doesn't refer to a future messiah.
quote:
Davids faithfulness is what makes the covenant secure. Even after God had removed the last Davidic king (Zedekiah) from the throne, he still promised that a decendent of David would be given the throne and would bring peace and security to Isreal.
Jesus didn't bring peace and security to Isreal. Nehemiah did after the exile. The prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel are address to the people of the time. Not the 1st century.
After the exile a descendant of Solomon did govern the Jews, but he wasn't king. Look at reality. The OT prophets don't refer to a 1st century messiah.
Your whole argument is based on the idea that the words translated for ever mean without end, as opposed to a long time. So since the Dynasty ended, you go back to the promise and change the conditions to fit the idea of without end.
Show me that "olam" means never ending.
Strong's 5769
long duration, antiquity, futurity
Here are our current English definitions for forever
Noun
a seemingly interminable time : excessively long (it took her forever to find the answer)
Adverb
1 : for a limitless time (wants to live forever)
2 : at all times : continually (is forever making bad puns)
Edited by purpledawn, : Added thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Peg, posted 02-12-2010 1:09 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Peg, posted 02-12-2010 8:13 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024