Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

quote:

---

Let's have a look at Sling-Boys plan for dealing with health care and the homeless

---

Bloodline doesn't mean one is a good ruler. I think it's fascinating that no one addressed the issue that Jesus was never crowned king of Israel, so his bloodline (or lack there of) is irrelevant.Jesus didn't rule over Israel. He did free Israel from its oppressors, which is really bigger than his bloodline.So even if he hailed from the golden bloodline, he didn't do the job.

---

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

quote:

---

Now you are starting to get the point PD, your right, there is ESSENTIALLY no difference between a physical kingdom and a spiritual one where God is its author and finisher. Physical matter is spiritual matter of some sort if God is all that there actually is, correct

---

No. There is a difference between a spiritual kingdom and a physical kingdom.
Nothing like wasting our time since Message 155!

quote:

---

Where did I ever say it wasnt physical in some respects. this type of statement by yourself is designed to cause prejudice on your part twords myself in the readers mind. All I am saying is that if God is its author and finisher, (AS YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE WITH YOUR CLOSET AGNOSTCISM and which the scriptures more than indicate)its plans can and are explicated in more than one verse, somewhere.

---

Working from dictionary meanings and not your revised world. Message 164
Message 170
Message 184
Message 252
Your argument concerning a "Spiritual Kingdom" really has nothing to do with this discussion on 2 Samuel 7:13.To put it very bluntly, either the kingdom in on the planet Earth or it isn't. 2 Samuel 7:13 speaks of a kingdom located on planet Earth.The issue of for ever has been addressed in Message 173 and Message 182.Edited by purpledawn, : Added quote from Message 252.

---

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

quote:

---

While I know you dont really believe this if you have any belief in God at all, this statement along with the rest of your post demonstrates a total lack of objectivity, rational and even slightest bit of common sense, not to mention a total disregard to contextual consideration and biblical considerations.

---

2 Samuel 7:13 didn't present anything supernatural to reject.
You have agreed the kingdom is earthbound.
The meaning of spiritual doesn't mean earthbound.My objectivity and common sense are pretty much in tact.Try making a precise argument with genuine supporting evidence instead of generalities and attacking the individual.Since you didn't address the contents of the post and your inconsistent position, that tells me you really don't have anything.Since the kingdom mentioned in the prophecies is an earthly kingdom, Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecies. Jesus wasn't crowned the king of any Earthly kingdom.

---

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

quote:

---

i do not believe the term is "kingdom on earth". the first coming was his perfect life, death, and resurrection. the second coming was after the rapture. the dead rise and join jesus in heaven, and jesus comes with his big army of angels and the words for his name are all over him.blah, blah, blah. he never sets up an "earthly kingdom". he leaves with all of the saved believers, with the world at satan's disposal. then God does the whole universe all over again.

---

Please provide scripture to support your comments.Where does it say in the messianic prophecies that the dead would rise and join the messiah in heaven or that God would "do the whole universe all over again"?

---

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

quote:

---

I dont know where you studied logic or how to analyze a text, but I m pretty sure even the simplest of minds would require us to keep 7:13 in the entire context of the chapter and book, which clearly includes God as its author and God as directing these affairs.

---

The text does not tell us that God wrote the account. God does speak in the story, but the text does not tell us that God was directing all aspects of the story.

quote:

---

relevance of the plain text needs to be demonstrated??????. First you cry that we are disregarding the plain text, then you isolate a single verse, which disregards the plain text, then you disregard the rest of the text which speaks of Gods involvement, then you disregard Pegs very insightful observation that it is the THRONE, not a person, that is under consideration, then AFTER ALL OF THIS ABSURDITY, you have the nerve to conclude that I am somehow not going by the plain text. reaaly Paul, do you think your readers are not seeing these simple points.

---

You haven't actually addressed the text in the entire context of the chapter and the book. I'm not going to type the whole chapter or book, people can read. The italics are my addition and understanding. God will establish the throne of the offspring's kingdom for ever.IOW, it is the throne of Solomon's kingdom. The throne in this promise is not separate from Solomon.Nathan continues in verse 16: Show me in the text that the throne (and I assume we aren't talking about the physical chair but the authority) is separate from David or Solomon or their heirs.It has already been discussed that the continuation of the kingship through Solomon's line was dependent on behavior. Message 131 and Message 197It has also been discussed that words translated as forever does not mean never ending. Message 173It has been discussed that even their songs reflected that God revoked his promise. Message 216I've also shown in Message 228, that the supposed speech by Jeremiah that God doesn't break promises was not in the Septuagint. So it was a later addition.Show me that the throne spoken of in 2 Samuel is separate from David or his heirs through Solomon. You haven't shown us that yet.God's own authority is separate from David and his heirs and is not connected to the throne spoken of in 2 Samuel. The throne in 2 Samuel is attached to the people. It is about governing the people of Israel. Jesus didn't govern the people of Israel.Please address the text. Since you feel it is obvious, then show us.Edited by purpledawn, : TypoEdited by purpledawn, : Fixed linkEdited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

I will give you one more prophesy concerning Jesus in Acts 3. When you see the Jewish people turning as nation to Jesus as their Messiah, then you can be assured the Lord's 2nd coming is very near.

---

The problem with what the author is saying in Acts is that the phrase supposedly spoken by Moses was not referring to a time over 1,000 years later.Moses is talking to the audience in front of him. Those actual people would receive a prophet like Moses, not people a thousand years later. Italic additions are mine. Since that specific group of people didn't want to hear God's booming voice, only one person would talk with God. God said that was good and he said so to Moses. The Israelites needed someone to lead when Moses died. They didn't care about 1,000 years in the future. Joshua was like Moses. God spoke to him and told him what to tell the Israelites. The author of Acts is not keeping true to the simple reading of the OT verses referenced when he applies the verse to Jesus. More of a technique to manipulate their audience instead of speaking facts.Jesus wasn't like Moses. He didn't lead or govern the Israelites.

---

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

Is it my imagination or did EMA still not address the actual text?Did I miss his explanation of what the throne means in context of the story?He didn't address my explanation in Message 284.Can I assume he has nothing contrary to what we've been saying all along? More posts wasted on gobbledygook just like the one's about a spiritual kingdom.I don't see in his explanation or Peg's that the throne refers to anything other than the leadership of the Israelite's government.I think they're trying to imply it is God's "throne", but the text doesn't support that idea either. God had his own "throne" he didn't need David's. The Israelites needed someone to run the day to day dealings of a government.It's a shame they don't even try to show how the text supports their position. I was hoping to get an idea of how their mind works, but I'm still disappointed.

---

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

And still you don't address the text.

quote:

---

Oh no, am I going to need to extract from you as we did Paul exacally what your position on God and Gods alleged word is or is not?

---

The beauty of it is that the words are there for all to see despite one's belief system or lack there of. I laid out my analysis of the text in Message 284. The text does not tell us that God wrote the account. God does speak in the story, but the text does not tell us that God was directing all aspects of the story. If you disagree with my analysis, then show me where the text supports your position.

quote:

---

You speak as if you dont believe the bible can be taken as one text. As I explained to Paul anyone can look at one verse and derive any conclusion they wish, especially if they percieve it as a work of a man or group of men with no particular direction except thier own.

---

The Bible is a compilation of writings by several different authors, covering various ages. Yes, anyone can look at one verse and derive any conclusion they wish. Mankind has done this since they put chisel to stone. That is why you have been asked to address the text and show how we are supposedly misunderstanding what was written. You haven't provided that analysis.

quote:

---

here is a simple question. If the throne is not Gods throne as the other passages Peg has quoted indicate and ascribe, then what are the scriptures? Are they a work of men or are they work of God through men.

---

I don't know what passages of Peg's you are referring to and am not going to guess. Again, I laid out my analysis in Message 284.The CEO of a company has his position of authority. Managers within that company have their positions of authority. Managers can come and go, but that doesn't change the authority of the CEO.In the Judeo/Christian Religions, God is the CEO. David would be equivalent to a manager. God promised that David and subsequently his descendants through Solomon would manage the Nation of Israel as long as they behaved. They didn't behave. They lost Israel and were allowed to continue managing Judah, but eventually lost that also. Once the kingdoms fell to Gentiles, the position of manager was gone because Israel was no longer an independent nation with a government to manage. None of this affects the authority of the CEO (God). God has his own seat of authority. David was not given God's seat of authority. David was given his own seat of authority from God.So the Messianic prophesies are essentially saying that God is going to reinstate that managerial position because Israel will be a nation again.Now if you want to argue that the promise made to David ended and the messianic prophesies are making a new promise, I would entertain that possibility and analyze the text; but I disagree that Jesus fulfills the promise made in 2 Samuel 7:13.

quote:

---

My and Pegs mind work as if the scriptures are the word of God, completely. If that is not what you expected can please tell me how you expected our minds to work

---

As I said before; Show me that the throne spoken of in 2 Samuel is separate from David or his heirs through Solomon. You haven't shown us that yet.

---

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

quote:

---

If you read the bible as a whole, you would understand what the throne meant. How did the isrealites understand it? How about the kings themselves?

---

I do understand what the throne means in 2 samuel 7:13. In the context of 2 Samuel 7:13, the throne is just that; a throne that the king of Israel sat on a reigned from. By "his kingdom" it is referring to the kingdom that the king governs. This takes nothing away from God. The Israelites are still God's people. You are the one who claims otherwise and have yet to explain how the story supports your view of the throne.

quote:

---

Moses told the Isrealites that when they starting asking for a king they couldn't choose one for themselves, God would choose the king. And the king could not make his own laws for the isrealites, he would have to impart the laws of God because the throne he was sitting on was not his, it was Gods and he would sit as a representation of Gods rulership over the nation.

---

Since you didn't reference the scripture, I only have the above and I don't see that God said the throne the king was sitting on was not the king's own. As with any ruler, the throne, IOW the position not the physical throne, is the king's until the king's reign is over. The human king's job is to govern the people using God's laws.

quote:

---

the bible does not agree with you

​

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

---

These verses are not referring to the position of human king as 2 Samuel 7:13 is. That is the issue you are missing.As I tried to illustrate to EMA, there are levels of management. The use of the word throne in the Bible isn't automatically referring to the same position or thing.

quote:

---

1chronicles 29:23 " Solomon began to sit on Gods throne"

---

The kingship is described in many different ways, but it is still referring to the job of human king the same as 2 Samuel 7:13.

quote:

---

the thing is PD, you read one scripture and try to put a meaning to it rather then taking the whole bible into consideration before drawing your conclusions.

​

this is a fatal flaw in your reasoning on the scriptures because the bible is a coherent whole and needs to be read in whole. In MSG 284, you give a rundown of the scripture about David but then immediately apply it to Solomon.

​

????

​

How did you manage that? Seriously? Just take a look

---

Languages have certain rules. If they didn't then they would be useless, IMO. Pronouns are used to replace nouns within sentences, making them less repetitive and mechanic. I would like you to show me how the verse does not refer to Solomon in the same way I showed who was speaking and who was being spoken of. Break it down. The pronouns can only refer to the nouns within the sentence. As for why this refers to Solomon, aside from the other scriptures I have provided earlier confirming that it is Solomon (Message 131); the one who builds the temple is the one who will succeed David. That was Solomon. The one who will succeed David is the one whose kingdom will last for a long time. So within the rules of English show me otherwise.

quote:

---

The LORD declares to you (David) that the LORD himself will establish a house for you (David)

​

The throne was already in existence because David was sitting on it. So God is declaring that Davids kingdom is going to be firmly established.

---

The verse does not imply firmness; just established.

quote:

---

You have to remember that God made a covenant with David and here in Davids old age, God was reassuring him that his kingdom and the covenant that God had made was going to come to fruition. The covenant was so binding that centuries after Davids death God said at Jeremiah 33:20-21 ‘If you people could break my covenant of the day and my covenant of the night, even in order for day and night not to occur in their time, likewise could my own covenant be broken with David my servant so that he should not come to have a son ruling as king upon his throne.’

​

Notice there is no mention of Solomon in that scripture? This is because the verse in Samuel is the promise to David that his existing kingdom would last forever and one of his decendents would appear who would be the messiah.

---

And I showed in Message 228 that that speech by Jeremiah was not in the Septuagint. It was a later addition.

quote:

---

This is why the gospel account mentions the Angels words to mary about Jesus birth in Luke 1:32
"This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father.

---

The throne of David is nothing more than human kingship over Israel. Jesus didn't do that.

---

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

quote:

---

how about you explain how the covenent that God made with David fits into the scripture. then we can discuss it.

---

We are discussing the Davidic Covenant. I'm not sure what you're asking or mean by fits. Scripture is already written. No fitting is necessary. How dogma stacks up against the scripture is what we've been arguing. We are studying what the Bible actually says. I say the promise made to David concerning his dynasty ended due to the bad behavior of his descendants and you disagree. As I said to EMA: Now if you want to argue that the promise made to David ended and the messianic prophesies are making a new promise, I would entertain that possibility and analyze the text; but I disagree that Jesus fulfills the promise made in 2 Samuel 7:13.You seem to have difficulty accepting that covenants are contracts that are conditional. Throughout the Bible we see that covenants with God can come and go as God pleases. According to the writers of the Bible, Israel and her kings didn't follow God as they should have and God took back some promises. Even Jeremiah says these promises are conditional and you have been shown this earlier in this thread. (See Message 196) This verse is in the Septuagint. Message 228The promise in 2 Samuel 7:13 that we call the Davidic Covenant was restated many times in the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Through all these references it is made clear that the promised job of human king over God's chosen people is conditional and the promise that the job would be held by one of David's descendants is also conditional. We have shown you those verses. Message 131BTW, Solomon was considered a son of God. These are all from the Septuagint. While reading the Septuagint I noticed that 1 Chronicles 29:23, which you shared earlier, is written differently than standard Bibles. If we look at 2 Samuel closer we see that the kingship is not the only promise God had Nathan pass on to David. That promise didn't last for Israel either, supposedly because of behavior.God giveth and God taketh away. Of course the promise to David is useless when it comes to Jesus. You agree that Jesus was not Joseph's biological son. Message 238 I explained in Message 125 that Jewish adoption in that age isn't like ours today, especially when it comes to the royal line. The NT text also doesn't say that Mary is from the line of Judah, let alone David. Her relative Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron.It isn't my job to mesh what's written in the Bible with your position. It is your job to show us that what is written in the Bible supports your position.Oddly enough, I've given you a way out of this promise corner that shouldn't conflict with your belief system or the messianic prophecies. It still doesn't help Jesus because the prophecies still require a person who governs, but at least you wouldn't need to twist the rules of grammar.

---

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

quote:

---

Just like the ark, the tabernacle and the judges, the THRONE is a representation of Gods rule over Israel. Notice carefully in context of 1 Samuel chapter 7, whos throne it actually is, starting verse 8

---

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.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.

quote:

---

you know these are just vain attempts to avoid the fact that God is the ruler, God is the king, the kingdom is his and, all the other facts in this connection

---

Just like the CEO and manager or Owner and Plant Manager. The owner owns the company, but someone has to run it, to deal with the people. God did not deal directly with the people. Remember in Exodus they didn't want to hear the booming voice. Yes an owner can remove a person from a leadership position, which BTW is exactly what God did, but when the person is in the position it is that person's job, not God's. That person works for God, but that person is in the seat of authority for that job. In the case of 2 Samuel 7:13, it is the job of human king over Israel.Because of Israel and Judah's misbehavior and the misbehavior of their kings, God pulled the plug on the kingdom business. All the kings fired and a hostile takeover by another kingdom.The Hebrews were still God's people, but they didn't have a government of their own. They were governed by their oppressors.

quote:

---

there is nothing wrong with identifying certain specfic aspects and points in specfic passages, but the TEXT TRUMPS the individual verse. the context, is that it is MY PEOPLE, MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, MY JUDGES, MY TABERNACLE, MY ARK, MY THRONE, MY TEMPLE, MY KINGDOM and MY KINGSHIP You fellas are simply my insturments to complete MY WILL. And MY WILL is that the throne and the kingdom will continue forever and it has in the nature and purpose of Jesus Christ, who was and is the very God that spoke to Nathan, Samuel and David. It came full circle, as if it would not

---

Yes, the overall concept of the Bible books is the everything belongs to God.Like the owner of a company. In our jobs we know the chair and desk don't belong to us, but to the company. When we leave the position, those stay behind; but while we are in the job they are considered ours. When the boss says, "Go to your desk", I know he is talking about the desk in the office, not the desk I own at home.When I take another job in the company, that desk is no longer mine even though I'm still with the company. Just as Solomon's descendants lost Israel. They still had the position over Judah, but not Israel.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

quote:

---

Again pointing to the fact that often times the word throne is refering to a person or persons does not allivate you of your problem concering the context and verses quoted above by Peg that CLEARLY INDICATE AND DESIGNATE, who is actually the king and what is involved in context as king of Israel.

---

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.

quote:

---

from this aspect alone you have been demonstrated to be in error and have demonstrated certain sidetracking techniques to avoid that obvious point

---

Sidetracking techniques.

quote:

---

thats right i do disagree with you because that is not what the bible says.

---

But it is what is written in the Bible.

quote:

---

I have shown you about 3 times how Jeremiah...a prophet who lived hundreds of years after Davids (and Solomons) death... wrote that Gods covenent with David would not be broken and would still see a fulfillment.

---

And just as many times I have shown you that Jeremiah 33:14-26 is not in the Septuagint. I provided a link with supporting information. (See Message 228). You didn't address that issue.I also provided the verses from Jeremiah that are in the Septuagint that say God does change his mind when circumstances change. You didn't address that issue either.

quote:

---

these words were given at the time when Nebudchudnezza was about to destroy jerusalem and remove the last king of Judah, zedekiah. So Gods plan was still current. The covenent with David to have a righteous man for his throne was still ahead. The covenent had not ended at all.

---

Read the article "The Jeremiah Scroll" that I linked to in Message 228 and quoted.

quote:

---

You do realise that David died faithful? So for what reason would God have to renig on his covenant with David? None.

---

Contracts usually end with the death of the other party. The promise to David concerning his descendants being on the throne was contingent upon their behavior and that is the way they understood the promise. Message 131

quote:

---

Show me scripture that says that the covenant with David had been abandoned.

---

I've shown you that before also. You didn't respond. See Message 197.Even Psalm 89 reflects that the people felt God had renounced the promise. Message 199I've been quite patient, now it is your turn to address the text as I requested in Message 320. In Message 322 you said: how about you explain how the covenent that God made with David fits into the scripture. then we can discuss it.Although I said I didn't understand what you meant by fits (I tried), you didn't bother to explain. So it is your turn to address the text.

---

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

quote:

---

What you are doing is taking one verse out of context and out of harmony with the rest of the bible and making a claim that is contradictory to many other scriptures.

---

How is my interpretation out of harmony with the writings since my interpretation lines up with what happened?

quote:

---

The Greek Septuagint is said to be shorter than the Hebrew text by about 2,700 words thus the majority of scholars agree that the Greek translation is defective....not the hebrew text itself.

​

Why are you so sure that you are not basing this on an incomplete manuscript?

---

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 TestamentSeptuagint UsageThe Early Christian Church used the LXX and the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX. The Qumran supports the LXX. 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:

---

Im sorry but this passage does not say that Davids covenent has been abandoned. This passage is a warning to Solomon and his decendents that they must obey God the way David did otherwise the kingdom will be taken from them.

​

But it doesnt say anything about the kingdom being taken away from David. In fact it says in Vs 5 I also shall indeed establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel to time indefinite, just as I promised David your father, saying, ‘Not a man of yours will be cut off from [sitting] upon the throne of Israel.

---

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:

---

The remainder are now speaking of a different set of circumstances. These verses are describing, not only the times when the kingdom of Judah would be defeated by enemy nations, but also about the Messiah and the death he would experience at the hands of his enemies.
So it is completely unrelated to the covenant of the previous verses.

---

When you make stuff up, I'm not going to waste time on it.

quote:

---

If you dont understand the covenant, then it is very clear why you keep applying the everlasting kingdom to Solomon.

​

The sons of David were not the ones with whom the covenant was made which is why God could cut any of them off for lack of obedience. But David himself was promised that one from his line would take the throne and rule on it forever.

​

What human could rule on a throne forever? None.

---

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. 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.

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 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.

---

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:

---

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

---

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:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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

---

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. 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

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Really? I dont see any evidence of Jesus trying to imply that he is not davids son in the following scriptures.

---

Then we have contradiction, because in the Synoptics he does. Different writer's different thoughts. Both supposedly from the mouth of Jesus.

quote:

---

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.

---

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