Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

The big problem is that you are ASSUMING that both genealogies are accurate. Given the other discrepancies between Matthew and Luke (for instance the Nativity accounts and the post-resurrection appearances) that is an assumption that can only be defended on religious grounds.Without the religiously motivated assumption of accuracy it is more likely that one - or both- is a fabrication.

quote:

---

And if you are in the position that you think the apostles made up the story of Jesus, then you have to think that they made sure their were no contradictions in the four gospels. and in fact their is little to no contradictions between the four gospels and Jesus's life can be pretty much reconstructed in a continuous sequence. If this is your position, then you cannot logically think that they would have left such a glaring contradiction right at the beginning of the book; once again showing that the two genealogies are probably of two different persons. And the most logically reasonable is that Luke was doing Mary's genealogy, but had to write Joseph's name due to tradition.

---

As is well known Mark, Matthew and Luke share a good deal of material copied from one to the other. And there are a couple of major disagreements between Luke and Matthew, far worse than the genealogical disagreement. To say that the genealogies are the only possible disagreement between Luke and accurate is simply absurd. Not that it would be a good reason for inventing a "tradition" that is not attested anywhere even if it were true.

quote:

---

Discussing with denyers is just as complicated as discussing with conspiracy theorists, but I'll try it as long as you are willing to listen.

---

Since I am not a denier, that should not be a problem. However, your own strong biases ay be an issue;

quote:

---

As with ANY historical document, you assume it is true until proven otherwise.

---

Firstly we do NOT assume that any historical document is 100% reliable. We DO take into account what we know of the author, his biases and his sources.. Secondly we do not assume that any document is so trustworthy that we any explanation - no matter how far-fetched should be considered more likely than that the document is in error.
You are not treating the Bible as a historical document here.

quote:

---

Also we have to clearly identify what a contradiction is. It is the affirmation and the denial of the of a premise, in the same time, place and sense. If one of those three components is not the same, then it is not a contradiction. this may sound benign, but in fact it is the main reason where people go wrong about claiming contradictions in the Bible.

---

That is the strict logical meaning, however in ordinary use we accept less stringent criteria. - for the obvious reason that we should not expect direct and explicit contradiction.

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure that the ''contradictions'' you are referring to will not meet the requirements of a contradiction that I have said above.

---

If you mean that the desperate can find some implausible and unlikely excuse that satisfied them you are probably right. It;s hard to prove contradictions beyond UNREASONABLE doubt. But any reasonable person must admit that there are significant differences between Luke and Matthew.

quote:

---

In the same way you misunderstand the Kingship of Jesus, you misunderstand the nature of prophecy. Of course prophecies can have dual menaings, at times they may refer to the individual at that present time with a refernce to the future Messiah. You GOAL would be to prove that they DO NOT refer to Jesus or that he did not fulfill it from a Biblical or SPIRITUAL perspective.

---

So what you are saying is that you can look at the Gospels, find some similarity with an OT text and then CLAIM that the older text is a prophecy - without any basis in the OT text at all. What's more you don't even acknowledge that this claim can be challenged.Well that may work for you and others who need to shore up their belief that Jesus actually fulfilled prophecy. But from a rational perspective it simply doesn't work. It's not something that would be found by an honest and objective study of the Bible. The fact that you need to do it at all just emphasises Brian's point.

quote:

---

No Im NOT saying anything, the gospel writers made these claims not myself. you can see the difference between me saying something and the gospel writers saying something correct, if not Ill slow down and say it in a much simpler way if thats possible.

---

You can find a few cases where Matthew does something of the sort, but in general most of these "prophecies" are not explicitly identified by the Gosple writers. And none of them explicitly endorse the method. So it IS you saying it, not the Gospel writers.
(Not that an endorsement by the Gospel writers would make the practice any less dishonest)

quote:

---

By me and others I expect you dont mean the gospel writers correct? besides this you can challenge anything you wish. You do realize that I and brian have been debating this issue and we have been responding to eachohters arguments correct? That would constitute him challenging my points of view.

​

just a quick question here did you have anything of real value to add here or were just being silly. I sure hope it was deliberate sillness. If not, uh oh.

​

From what rational perspective does this seem not to work. I assume your a bible scholar like Brian correct?

---

I don't claim to be a Bible scholar, merely an interested layman.However I am making the rational and sensible point that your "correct" understanding of prophecy is nothing more than a rationalisation produced by strong bias.It would be more to the point to ask whether you have anything rational to contribute. Most of your posts in this thread seem to consist of an angry and arrogant attack on anyone who dares to disagree with your dogma.

quote:

---

Statements like this are designed to create prejudice and ignore the fact that I have responded and presented soild evidence to the contrary of brians arguments.

---

Let us note that I was echoing one of your statements. Thus I can legitimately conclude that you were attempting to create prejudice and ignore the fact that your "evidence" was far from solid.

quote:

---

He simply doesnt understand Gods methods, Gods intentions and gods purposes through the prophets of Old. If you dont believe me listen to Peter

---

Of course Bible scholars think it is unlikely that 1 Peter was written by Peter, dating it to a time where he was likely dead. And whoever wrote it, there is no objective reason to suppose that it contains genuine knowledge of God's intentions or goals.

quote:

---

Pay close attention to verse 12 that in all most no uncertain terms implies a dual nature of prophecy. As I stated to you before Paul Im not making things up and I do have some knowledge of these matters after a quite a few years of study

---

I don't dispute your knowledge of Christian doctrine. I do dispute any claim to the idea that Christian doctrine must be considered objective truth.

quote:

---

Do you still believe that none of the NT writers endorse the method.

---

We were talking about the Gospel writers. 1 Peter is not a Gospel, and the author of 1 Peter is not credited with writing any of the canonical Gospels.

quote:

---

They wrote by the Holy Spirit a dual program, they were still in control yet guided by the Holy Spirit. it clearly had some meaning to them, yet had an expanded meaning about Christ. The writer concerning the suffering servant would have certainly saw a meaning in and for Israel, yet God as he always did HAD A LARGER EXPANDED MEANING IN THE PROPHECIES, regarless of whether the writer understood its full implications. Imagine that, God pulling off such a neat program.

---

If you cannot see that this view presupposes the truth of Christian doctrine then we must indeed conclude that you have nothing rational to contribute. An objective analysis simply cannot assume that writings from centuries later were "guided by the Holy Spirt".

quote:

---

I didnt say anything Peter did

---

The unidentified author of 1 Peter may have made such statements, however that does not make the method objectively valid nor does it mean that you did not write the posts which appear under your name.

quote:

---

really, well i would suggest that instead of reasserting your original contention in other words, simply demonstrate it.

---

Strictly speaking the burden is on you to present evidence in support of your view. The fact is that you have to appeal to after-the-fact reinterpretations of parts of the OT - many of which do not appear to have been written as predictive prophecy at all. Your only justification was to claim that the Gospel writers endorsed it, and when that was challenged to appeal to 1 Peter, while surreptitiously trying to pretend that you had said "NT authors". Even if your initial claim had been correct it would still not have offered valid support for the methodology. Indeed your whole claim that it does is based on assuming the truth of Christian doctrine.This is quite sufficient to demonstrate that your methodology is based in bias, rather than objective fact.

In order to avoid confusion I will state now that when I refer to "genuine Messianic prophecies" I mean only those texts which are clearly intended as predictions of the Messiah. I neither assume that they are from God (or any source other than the imagination of the author) or that they will be fulfilled. (In fact I currently believe that they are not from God and will never be fulfilled. Only evidence will change my mind).

quote:

---

Son, dont you even understand the point I am making here? Brian is using sources he claims that are unreliable, ie the Old testament, assigning and ascribing exact interpretations to them, insisting that that must be thier only interpretation, uses and illustrations. now he is not just suggesting his interpretations are the correct ones, he is insisting that without question his conclusions are ezact.

---

I hardly think that Brian believes that the OT is so corrupt that it cannot even tell us what it says. Its reliability as history, and the questions over authorship and date are not that relevant to that question. Of course, if you want to argue that the OT text is in a far worse state than even Bible scholars believe then please make your case.I also see that Brian - unlike you is appealing to the actual text, to support his interpretations. So he, at least, is referring to valid evidence.

quote:

---

Yet he is certain his sources and conclusions are reliable and mine, as you do should be rejected. This is simply nonsense and a double standard

---

No, an obvious double standard is when you attack me for making a statement much like one that you made previously - and attempt to use that to dismiss the points I am making.Brian's evidence is simply better than yours and judged by a fair standard Brian has the better case. Indeed your whole argument can be seen as supporting Brian's view. If Jesus had fulfilled the clear and definite messianic prophecies, why are those ignored in favour of reinterpreting other passages in the OT as prophecy ?

quote:

---

As I told Brian. I can trot out as many scholars in the conservative scene to suggest that this is not the case. its not the point. if it were the point, then any if not all of brians conclusions would fall under the situation. if brian uses the scriptures as his source to suggest an idea, interpretation and conclusion, there is no reason to believe Peter is not the author of the Book ascribed to him.

---

So you present a dichotomy. Either the Bible is entirely reliable or so corrupt that it can tell us nothing. Of course that is a false dichotomy. You confuse reliability of transmission with accuracy and truthfulness. Brian's case depends on the first, yours depends on the second.

quote:

---

Ill be happy to discuss this with you at somother point. It is however NOT the point now.

---

I am content to set it aside so long as it is not a part of your case. Let us stick with objective and rational readings to identify the meaning without concerning ourselves with other questions of truth.

quote:

---

youve got to be kidding right? Both of use are presuppsing several things in our arguments If you dont believe Jesus was the Messiah, as brian does, then you will assume he was a failure. brian is quoting passages from the Old Testament for which he believes the history to be faulty in the first place. he is looking at what the author said and at the same time doesnt even believe the history around it.

---

Of course your presentation misses a point or two. If Jesus had fulfilled the unquestioned Messianic prophecies, Brian would have no case even if he still rejected the idea of Jesus as Messiah (and it is far from certain that he would do in such a situation). Moreover it is certainly possible to believe that the text has been reliably transmitted (or mostly so) without beleiving that it is true. After all the definitive edition of any work of fiction is based on securing maximum fidelity to the author's intent without any concern as to its truth.

quote:

---

We are using the scriptures in the BIBLE STUDY thread to determine whether or not the writers were in harmony with eachother and ofcourse i am assuming AT PRESENT, things like authorship

---

If you are claiming that "of course" you must rely on questionable assumptions to make your case you are conceding that Brian has the stronger position. If you are not, then there is no "of course" about it. You do not have to make such assumptions any more than Brian does.

quote:

---

You can see the relevence of the point that if Brian is using the scriptures in the Old Testament as a source for denying the Messiaship, yet doesnt believe thier accuracy or reliablity, then whether Peter is the author is equally irrelevant at this point, correct?

---

It is obviously incorrect for the reasons I have already given.

quote:

---

there are basically two ways to approach this topic. You can suggest that neither the prophets or Peter are reliable and say, therefore jesus was a failure. secondly, however, once you make the claim that Jesus did not fulfill any of these prophecies, your are now assuming atleast the possibility that he was real and the prophets possibly spoke about him. iassumed this was the path we were on, given the fact that many people have offered thier explanations as to the interpretations of certain passages and prohecies

---

Or there is a far simpler way. We can look at the texts to identify pprophecies and what they say, and we can look at the Gospels to see what Jesus allegedly did. Or indeed we can look at the world and see if it matches up with what the situation should be after the coming of the Messiah. If we do not find an extremely good match then at the very least you must concede that Jesus has not succeeded yet. Appealing to questionable reinterpretations of other OT texts - based on your religious doctrines - can hardly be considered objective evidence to counter Brian's points/

quote:

---

again I am not suggesting that brians conclusions and interpretations are wrong, I am only suggesting that the same source from which he quotes and looks for answers includes, implies and directly implies inspiration and guidance from God, especially in the Old testament.

---

I am afraid that you are completely and utterly wrong here. I cannot speak for Brian but I would regard the genuine Messianic prophecies as defining what the Messiah is. Since that requires no inspiration from God your suggestion is simply false.

quote:

---

there is therfore no reason to believe Christ was a failure atleast from a prophecy standpoint.
Dont mean to be rude but you are taking it in a direction that is not now relevant. I consider I have now responded to most if not all of your objections, so I will try and stay with the Biblical topic at present

---

Unfortunately since we know that Jesus did not succeed in fulfilling the genuine Messianic prophecies there are good reasons to consider him a failure. The standard Christian doctrine is that the Second Coming will change that, however an objective rational view can hardly take that for granted.I also disagree that I have taken things in a direction that is not relevant. Since I was simply - and directly - answering some of your major points the direction was yours.

quote:

---

This becoming a bit tedious

---

I am sorry if your powers of invention are becoming exhausted. But really, if youmust make up excuses you could at least try to make up credible excuses which don't rely on assuming the truth of your religion.

quote:

---

instead of wasting my time responding to your entire post, to which i have already several times now,

---

Since the major point of my last post was exposing the fallacy in your previous post it is rather obvious that you have NOT answered anything like all of it.

quote:

---

will simplfy it to bring it back into perspective and hopefully be able to engage in a discussion with someone that actually understands Bible doctrine. As I said before I dont want to be rude but it appears you understand very little about bible doctrine and you fail to realze this is a Bible Study thread

---

If you are utterly opposed to takin an objective reading of the Bible, instead insisting that it must be read assuming Christian doctrine you may simply say so. However you should recognise that there is a difference between knowing Christian doctrine and not believing it. Nor does Bible study require assent to Christian doctrine.

quote:

---

two basic premises have been offered in my and brians discussion, one by him, that Jesus is a failure because he did not fulfill prophecy. he and yourself have offered no objective evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

---

This is quite simply false. We know, for instance that Jesus did not take the throne of Israel and that Israel did not even survive as a political entity past the Bar Kochba revolt. This is objective. The issues over the genealogies are also objective.

quote:

---

stated that he does not understand the nature and purpose of prophecy, if he did he would understand that christ (if he was alive, existed and actually participated in the action he is said to have) did actually fulfill these prophcies.

---

Which is based on doctrine neither I, nor Brian believe. Look at teh title of the thread. This thread is about Brian giving reasons to support his opinion, not about providing absolute proof.

quote:

---

Now, Paulk, pay close attention Son. Brian said in no uncertain terms, that "Jesus saaaaaaaaid he was a king and yet we know that he had no kingdom." Do you understand he is quoting jesus out of the Gospels assuming his existence and that jesus made this statement. based upon this fact, we can assume that for the sake of argument that he would allow the other things Jesus said and attributed to him.

---

You should be very careful making that assumption - even if you have not left out any important context (and it would hardly surprise me if you had). Even assuming that Brian considers that saying authentic there is no guarantee that he considers all sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels as authentic. And, of course, what Jesus said is very unlikely to be of relevance to the debate.

quote:

---

yes brian is appealing to the text, and so am I, but he is appealing to a text he does not even believe as reliable, even in the Old Testament in context of both the old and the New to try and deduce whether maybe according to the text, Christ met the requirements of the prophecies.

---

OK, if you want to argue that that saying is not authentic you might be able to come up with a case. But somehow I don't think that you want to do that. And it wouldn't be a very strong case anyway, because what Jesus said is not very relevant.

quote:

---

I then stated that the prophecies are dual in nature because it is and has always been about, through and for God, Christ, Israel, etc, etc, etc. I offered Peter as an example of how this worked. While Peters explanation is valid and applicable for any thinking person that understands these matters, you complained it was not a Gospel writer. I will now offer prophecies that are dual in natur to demonstrate this point.

---

Now you are telling untruths again. You specifically insisted that the gospel writers supported your "dual" reading. When I disagreed you THEN offered only 1 Peter - and misrepresented my position, too. Clearly you were wrong when you claimed support from the gospels, clearly you have told falsehoods to try to conceal your error. Is this a Christian way of behaving ?So let me make it absolutely clear the ONLY reason for pointing out that 1 Peter is not a gospel was that you claimed support from the gospel authoers and were not honest enough to admit your error - even stooping to misrepresentation in an attempt to conceal it. To attempt to paint this as an irrelevant objection to your use of 1 Peter - as you have just done - is a further instance of dishonesty.As to your point all that need be said is that if it had "always" worked this way you should find plenty of OT examples. Instead you look only at the NT. Moreover when we look at the actual examples it seems that "dual interpretation" is a rather generous look at the matter. Ripping small pieces of text out of their context hardly semms like a valid method of interpretation at all.

quote:

---

In Matthew chapter 2, the writer, states "this was done to fulfill the prophecy, out of Egypt have I called my Son". Now, any thinking person can see that this has application to both Israel which is also Gods chosen son and to Christ. the writer of the time and its hearers would have understood it to mean Israel, then, inspiration of the holy Spirit reveals that its truest meaning is about Christ. Christ thus fulfills the prophecy and Brian is incorrect, atleast from a biblical perspective.

---

And any person who has followed this discussion would see that I had already said that there were examples in Matthew. However, aside from the point that the event Matthew refers to is likely a legend with no basis in fact, simple endorsement by NT writers is only sufficient to those who start by assuming Christian doctrine.

quote:

---

If the lost of Israel aare being converted to Christ, literally thousands upon thousands through the centuries his plan has succeded and he can hardly be considered a failure, except by those that are ignorant of Gods methods and purposes.

---

Let me put is simply. Despite your condescending attitude, the turth of Christian doctrine is simply a belief you hold. Others disagree. If your claim that Jesus was not a failure relies on assuming Christian doctrine that you implicitly concede that non-Christians can legitimately consider Jesus to be a failure - and here, I refer you back to the title of thread.

quote:

---

No No, you misunderstand, there is simply nothing more here that you have offered that I have not already addressed. its tedious because your approach is a waste of time.

---

If honestly and objectively reading the Bible is a waste of time, then there seems to be something wrong with the Bible. And taking a condescending attitude to anyone who attempts to do so is not much of an answer.

quote:

---

Well Paul, if there are examples in Matthew (as you agree)that demonstrate the point that I am making, (dual nature of prophecy) what else do I need to do, to demonstrate MY POINT. first you complain about Peter, which demonstrates my point, then I cite passages out of the gospels, you argee with, then complain I have not demonstrated my point.

---

Of course you fail to mention that you have reversed the chronological order of the two quotes and you have left out the context. But if you wish to say that your methodology of reading the Bible is correct then you will have to do rather better. If the author of Matthew took a fragment of OT text out of context and nmisrepresented it as a prediction of a fictional event it hardly demonstrates that such readings are valid.

quote:

---

I noticed you did not demonstrate why my point and illustration from matthew were not valid, you only complained about it being christian doctrine. you do realize that one is only a complaint and I am still waiting for a response as to why Matt 2 and 3 do not constitute a dual usage of Prophecy, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Christian doctrine.

---

Given that the whole nature of the method (ripping small pieces of text out of context and reinterpreting them to fit - at best a past event) is obviously questionable I really think that you need a stronger case for validity than "the anonymous guy who wrote Matthew did it". And I *did* point out that the alleged fulfillment was likely a complete fiction, which woulod seem to deal with the validity quite nicely.Any "prediction" that relies on hindsight is dubious. Any "prediction" that relies on cherry-picking parts of the real prediction is dubious. Any reading of a text that relies on deliberately ignoring the context is dubious. And that assessment is generous. It is you who needs to make a case why such readings are "valid" when you would rightly object to them if they were used to support any point you disagreed with.

quote:

---

This is what i meant when I said this is tedious and I will expand it to the point now that your post in this connection are a waste of my time. I give you example after example and all you do is attack the concepts of Christianity and its doctrine.

---

By which you mean that since you cannot adequately answer my points you wish to bully me into shutting up. Failing that you will turn tail and run, all the while asserting your "victory".Yes, I refuted your points. Yes I caught you in an obvious (and repeated) piece of dishonesty. If these things indicate that I am a "waste of your time" then you don't want honest discussion.

quote:

---

here is a simple question. If Jesus existed actually went down into Egypt and God called them out of Egypt. Could the passage in that is quoted by Matthew apply both to Israel coming out of Egypt and Christ if God is inolved in the process?

​

does it appear a dual usage is under contemplation here?

---

We cannot usefully identify whether a dual use is contemplated by the original author by referring to a hindsight interpretation. Even if the hindsight interpretation happens to fit the text (and refer to something that really happened - which is very unlikely in this case). We must go to the text being quoted (and your failure to do so is a major weakness in your case - a failure to even examine the most important evidence).Matthew 2:15, the text you have referred to cites Hosea 11:1 This is clearly speaking of a past event, in the early days of Isreal as a "nation". There is no indication that it intends to also refer to a future event.Verses 2 and 3 go on: Again it appears to be past events, that are referred to. And the NT Jesus seems to be more concerned with conflicts between Jewish sects than with Jews following pagan religions.If we look further into the context it is clear that Hosea 11 is about the Assyrian conquest of Israel - and that is the only element phrased as a prediction.So, I see no sign in Hosea 11 (or the preceding chapter) that "Matthew's" use is intended at all. Add to that the fact that the supposed fulfilment is in all probability a complete fiction and we have to ask what rational ground there is to possibly consider it valid.Indeed, readings of this kind seem so obvious an afterthought that they were more likely concocted (in my view sincerely, but mistakenly) to give Jesus a connection to the OT which was largely lacking.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Again you misunderstand. Im not against Bible study, Im against and opposed to someone avoiding obvious points, when presented In this context the matter of dual usage. I demonstrated its usage and you simply avoid the point by using different words to make your original contention

---

It is clear that you fail to understand. Your arguments are based on assuming the authority of Christian doctrine. An honest and objective reading - by definition - cannot assume Christian doctrine.Thus your arguments oppose an honest and objective reading of the Bible.

quote:

---

Secondly im opposed to someone using one set of scriptures (old Testament), explaining them in Bible study context, to refute the NT, then when presented with the information from those scriptures, (NT)insisting that the NT passages cannot be viewed as reliable, therefore my interpretation must be false

---

To simplify the above, you insist that anyone who uses the OT to argue against NT documents must accept the NT as authoritative. That is hardly an objective requirement.

quote:

---

Any prediction that relies on inspiration and divine guidance is believable and acceptable. the context from which the prediction is made and the one that it is fulfilled is repleat with God and ind divine guidance. you do understand this simple point correct.

---

It is far from clear what you are saying. The more so since the majority of genuine predictions we are dealing with tend to support Brian's point. But anyway, are you asserting that only predictions that are clearly "believable and acceptable" "rely on inspiration and divine guidance" ? If not, how do we objectively identify those that do "rely on inspiration and divine guidance" ?

quote:

---

So the point at present is not reliablity of the text, but whether the OLD TESTAMENT supports the NT in the area of prophecy.

​

A simple point you seem to be missing and to why I consider your contribution here a waste of time at present

---

Of course what you say is utterly false. You are the one who has chosen to focus on NT writings instead of producing support from the OT.

quote:

---

first you complained that the gospel writers did not use prophecy in a dual usage, now you manuver to avoid the point that they obviously do use it this manner. Or avoid answering it in the affirmative

---

This is another of your misrepresentations. I made no such complaint (the actual text you refer to explicitly states that the Gospel of Matthew has some of these highly questionable usages of OT scripture).Moreover the objections you refer to simply emphasise something I have said all along - that such a use of ANY text is highly dubious and that it requires justification. Simply saying that NT writers did it or said it was OK are not sufficient to an objective reader.

quote:

---

your kidding correct? what other usage or context could the writer be referancing but that of Israel in Egypt or Christ in Egypt. What would be the context of Matthew.

---

It seems that you are so interested in the question of support from the OT that you have not even bothered to read my points.In context Hosea 11:1 refers to the Exodus and nothing else. As I stated it clearly refers to an event that was in the past, even in the time of Hosea. There is simply nothing in Hosea 10 or 11 to suggest that it refers to a time centuries in Hosea's future.

quote:

---

I say this again as nice as I can, please try sound as if you have some knowledge of the scriptures. thanks for your quotes and attempts to remove Christ as the fulfillment of those passages. The question here is not CAN I CONVINCE PAULK OF THOSE FULLFILLMENTS, BUT DOES CHRIST AS REFERNCED BY THE NT WRITES FULLFILL THOSE OT PASSAGES OR SEEM TO FULLFILL THEM. Since brian claiomed he did not FULLFILL a single one. The simple answer is a resounding YES.

---

Taking Hosea 11:1 as an example, to convince me that Jesus fulfilled it you would have to show evidence that:1)That the text in question was intended as a prediction of the future.
(My reading of Hosea 10-11 indicates that Hosea 11:1 was NOT)2) That your reading makes sense in the context
(It appears not, the point in context is God's past care for the people of Israel, and the text goes on to deal with the "present" behaviour of Israel, and to a lesser extent Judah, which as I pointed out does not fit with the concerns found in the NT).3) That the alleged fulfillment actually happened.
(There are strong reasons to think that it did not)You haven't attempted to deal even one of these in any of your replies to me. And that is why you've been wasting your time - you have been evading the real issues.

quote:

---

However, Paul, Anyone reading along here would know that your last statement is completely false.

---

How exactly could they know that when it is a clear fact that you have not made any valid arguments on any of the points in our discussion ?

quote:

---

Secondly Paul, when i say knowledge of the scriptures I mean all of the scriptures, the part also, that involves God in its context. when all of it, not simply that which you choose, is taken into consideration, Jesus can esasily be seen to have fulfilled these prophcies. Bible is bible study when, all of its components are taken ito consideration.

---

This is simply not true. Knowledge is not the same as belief. For instance the knowledge that the NT authors rip bits of OT scripture out of context to create so-called "dual prophecies" (which appear to be nothing of the sort) can easily be seen as support for Brian's position - bereft of genuine prophetic fulfilment the early Christians created their own false fulfilments.

You've got my position wrong. I don't believe the genealogies or either of the conflicting Nativity accounts (and much of that in Matthew is pretty obviously legendary) but I don't go so far as to argue that there wasn't a person behind the stories.

That's still a bit of an exaggeration - especially since a "euhemeristic myth" could refer to a mythical person based on a god (the prologue to Snorri Sturlusson's Edda contains some likely examples).Describing Jesus as "a man, largely obscured by legend" would come closer to my views.

quote:

---

Solomon was to be the builder temple, but another decendent would be the indefinitely lasting ruler of Davids throne.

​

if you cant see that from the verse you are reading, then I cant help you.

---

Peg, are you using some translation that actually makes this distinction ?Presumably you mean 2 Samuel 7:13NASB Clearly the same person.NIV Again, the same personKJV Again, the same person.Which Bible are you using and what does it say ?

quote:

---

While I , Buzzsaw and Peg do not agree on all the details in such matters, we all agree that God and inspiration is in charge of these matters and that a spiritual kingdom of some sort is contemplated in the entirity of passages. Now watch, the idiocy which disregards this fact, while arguing from a positon and a book repleat with such supernatural matters, trying at the sametime to make a position for the text to make it fit a stricly human theory, is simply ludicrous beyond belief.

---

You keep saying things like this, but it is hard to see how anybody is ignoring that fact - with the possible exception of the three of you. Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean.

quote:

---

Hi Paulk. The three of us are not ignoring that fact. The prophesied kingdom of God on earth, i.e. the messianic kingdom, i.e. the earthly setup is, nevertheless a spiritual kingdom.

---

I cannot think of anyone else who might be ignoring that fact. After all your personal beliefs aren't even relevant to the arguments put forward by Brian or Purpledawn or myself.However, it does seem to me that the three of you are trying to argue that the text doesn't mean what it says - which you should not be doing, if you truly believed it to be inspired.