|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
The OT does not state that the messiah was to become God and reign in Heaven.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:IOW, you're free to add what you want. quote:You need some nouns in there so I know what "that" you're talking about. I have no idea what you're referring back to. Jesus didn't fulfill any OT prophecies.
quote:God didn't need the human king's chair. He had his own. The ark. The position of human king is just a position, not a thing to own. The position wasn't there until God created it for Saul. It's just a job. Before kings they had judges. People need humans to deal with the day to day governing of a civilization. Even Moses had to listen to people's troubles and make decisions on day to day issues of the community. Remember Solomon's wise decision concerning the two women and the baby? Try taking that problem before God or Jesus. Do not talk to any human or read any religious book. No decision from our own head. How will the decision be presented?
quote:Actually, that analogy still supports what I'm saying. I never said the kings didn't answer to God or follow God's laws. I said they govern the day to day dealings of the people. The priests were the mouth pieces of God. I'm not sure why you need to make the human kingship over Israel more than it was. Civilizations need a human government. ABE: Especially since you feel that God didn't want kings to begin with. Edited by purpledawn, : Added thought. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I seriously doubt that it is God's view. IMO, Matthew is written as a satire and if you check out the quote, you would see that God was talking to Moses. He was identifying which god he was. Remember, Moses grew up in Egypt. What God said had nothing to do with whether the men were still alive or not. The resurrection doctrine came about later either while they were in exile after the destruction of the temple or after. Probably influenced by the Persians and Zoroastrianism. A promise of real resurrection of dead bodies is not in the OT that I've seen.
quote:There is no such promise. quote:In dogma world ,yes, because it really messes up your belief system. In reality, no. quote:That also isn't a promise in the OT. The good and evil battle is also a later development. Again, probably influenced by Zoroastrianism. quote:You and I have been down this road before and you apparently still have trouble differentiating between when the text is referring to seed as offspring and when it is referring to someone following a pattern of someone else as in 1 John 3:10-12. 2 Samuel 7:12 is very specific. From thine own issue. It very definitely is from David's own sperm. Sorry. Look at the parallels.
English Standard Version When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. Please don't try to present the it-meant-offspring-then-but-is-symbolic-now ploy. It is BS like this that makes me doubt that you understand the Bible within the context it was intended and not from the context of your own dogma.
quote:Took the part you liked and missed the other part. No the promise spoken in 2 Samuel 7 to David didn't promise kingship past Solomon, only lineage. As I pointed out the conditional part relayed later doesn't show up in the original promise. So where is the conditional promise God made to David? These books were written after the fact. The writers already knew who had been king and who hadn't. Unfortunately we don't have any way to know what was in the original memoirs of Samuel. Of course the promise is really irrelevant to the issue. As I showed you, the OT prophets were not speaking of a messiah for the 1st century. They were prophesying for their people in their time. They were already saved from exile and had peace and were governed by one of their own even though he wasn't king. The Jews didn't have a problem with Persian rule. In fact they began to recover and flourish under Persian rule. The Greek invasion brought new conflicts. In the first century some, not all, Jews were unhappy with Roman rule. That's what they wanted to be saved from. Jesus didn't fulfill any OT prophecy or relieve the Jews from oppression. He didn't govern the Jews in any way.
quote:No it doesn't. You're reading that into it. It just says that God will eventually give leadership of Israel to someone more deserving. God picked Zerubbabel to govern after the exile and then Nehemiah. Then the Maccabees ruled. God didn't say it would be from David's line. Like I said, the prophets weren't talking about something to come beyond the time of their audience.
quote:I still disagree. The prophets weren't speaking of an ethereal throne. David's throne wasn't in heaven. It was on earth ruling very live people. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:1. It is a vision 2. A son of man is just a man. 3. Doesn't speak of the planet. 4. The interpretation starting with Daniel 7:15 doesn't support your contention. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You say that because I disagree with you. I let God speak and I read the text. You're assuming God wouldn't use someone to show you that your position is incorrect. Christians supposedly believe that God can use anybody to get a message across, whether they are a believer or not; but some Christians won't believe a correction can be from God until they themselves decide they want to change. It's the nature of man. We only change when we're ready to change. quote:I haven't claimed a scripture was fraudulent. I've shown that your interpretations are inconsistent with the plain reading of the text. I also haven't claimed that the Bible is not a legitimate and honest work. I've shown the reality that inspires the writing. My battle is against Dogma, not God or the Bible.
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds 2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church quote:Again, I haven't said the scriptures you provided were false. I've said the scriptures you provided don't support what you're saying or don't say what you claim they are saying. My disagreement isn't with the authors of the Bible. My disagreement is with what you claim the writers were saying. In this discussion the text is clear. God promises David offspring from his sperm. You continue to take that one word and change the meaning regardless of the surrounding sentence. You're taking the promise and changing it to suit your own dogma. If you were keeping true to the text, you would be able to explain, as I do, how the scriptures or words do support your point. You're unable to do that. Notice that you've addressed nothing in my post. You're not standing up for your reinterpretation of the word "seed". You know I'm right and the translations prove I'm right. Just admit you're changing the meaning of the word to fit a current dogma. At least be honest about it. You're trying to convince people to suspend the rules of language and common sense to accept that the text actually supports your position. That's difficult. Mine's easy. The text is right there in black and white. I find many of the teachings in the old and new testament useful, but I'm not so disgusted with life or afraid of death that I have to wish for a new planet or eternal life. I try to take care of the world that God gave us and make every day count. If one doesn't respect the creation how can one respect the creator? If one can't accept the reality behind the Bible, how can one understand the real lessons? IMO, dogma is a very tangled web of deceit that goes against common sense. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024