Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

quote:

---

...many other prophecies, including Jesus himself, emphatically declare that before the throne of the messianic kingdom would happen, Solomon's temporal temple, including his temporal throne would indeed be destroyed.

---

Did you really mean to say that Jesus prophesied the destruction of Solomon's Temple ?

quote:

---

you have not addressed any of my previous points concerinng authority and source and you are avoiding the point

---

Perhaps you would like to actually explain the relevance of those points ?

quote:

---

And it is likely that you, brian and PaulK never will, considering the fact, that you are now burying your heads in the ground and acting like children nearly.

---

I keep asking you to explain your point, but you won't. Insulting us isn't being helpful.Perhaps you would like to try rational argument instead ?

quote:

---

The text of 2 Samuel 7:13 does not refer to a heavenly throne.

​

It does if God is its source, its authority and maintanance. it does if it is for Gods purposes.

---

So if it comes from God it must say what you want it to say ? Why ?

quote:

---

When you choose to entertain the reality of God in and from the same context you are deriving your arguments, that speak of this kingdom or that kingdom, then you will be honest with your readers and yourself.

---

Perhaps you would like to explain that. Because you seem to have a curious conception of honesty. One that has nothing to do with telling the truth.

quote:

---

And ignoring the point I am making and evading answering any questions directly does not help your cause

---

I am not ignoring it, I keep asking you to explain it. And instead of an answer I get insults.

quote:

---

Have I not made myself clear, that even an fifth grader could not understand my argument, PaulK? here it is again then since you wont give up the dumb card. Are you smarter than a fifth grader Paul?

---

No, you haven't made yourself clear at all.

quote:

---

Did the Lord actually make the following statement or was this just the ramblings of some crazed guy named Nathan

---

It doesn't matter to my position. Personally I don't believe either. But then you shouldn't believe any of the speeches in ancient documents - even histories - are literally what was said.

quote:

---

If the Lord establishes a kingdom, and it is by his authority, power and administration, is it therefore a spiritual kingdom, regardless of how long it last.

---

Not if you mean that it ISN'T an earthly kingdom. After all if God establishes an earthly kingdom, then it's still an earthly kingdom. You must remember the whole point of saying that it means a spiritual kingdom is to deny that it refers to an earthly kingdom.

quote:

---

No I need inspiration in the form of an Apostle to explain all of his intentions and purposes

---

In other words you need somebody to tell you what it means. Would you like to explain why ? Can't you just read it ?

quote:

---

Just answer the simple question Paul without repeating yourself. If it is from God, established by God, would it not be considered spiritual in nature and eternal in character?

---

Not necessarily. That surely would be up to God, would it not ?

quote:

---

Do you mean the king of honesty that allows an individual to sit there time after time making an argument from a text he believes to be inaccurate, fanciful and complete fiction, specifically that of 1 and 2 Samuel. Or am I mistaken Paul and you actually do believe God to be its author and the miracles attributed to its pages and Gods intervention and direction in its content to be actual and believable.

---

If you mean the kind of honesty that truthfully and accurately represents the text instead of distorting it to fit dogma, then yes. That IS being honest.

quote:

---

Come on Paul tell the readers from which platform you are proceeding and then speak to them concerning honesty.

---

I am standing from the platform that says that we should look directly at the text and not allow dogma to prejudice our investigation. As Slevesque said we should treat the Bible as a historical document and that is what I am doing.Perhaps now you can explain your position.Why should your personal beliefs influence the way we look at the Bible ?Why do you regard honesty as an adherence to the doctrines you favour ?Maybe then we can make some progress.

quote:

---

Belief in the God the text cries out for Paul is not prejudice and dogma. in fact it makes little or no sense without it

---

That may be your opinion, but even on the evidence of this thread it does not appear to be true.

quote:

---

exacally what part of the text are you using Paul. If i believe as you do that none of the miraculous things it are true, spoken by the same person from which you derive your arguments, why would you trust any of his statements of history. where exacally in history 9outside the scriptures)for example would you expect to find nathans comments to david concerning god building a house for him.

---

Oh dear, it seems that you are still making the same mistake. This is a point I have already addressed. The tests I am using are the messianic prophecies and the alleged messianic prophecies (which are typically nothing of the sort). For the messianic prophecies we can look at them and see whether Jesus fulfilled them For the alleged Messianic prophecies we can read them in context, see what they really say - and if they are framed as predictions at all. The actual history behind the writing (aside from the dating, and whether the originator is Jewish or Christian) is of relatively little importance to this analysis.

quote:

---

have tried to explain before there is no way to proceed without a common frame of reference. its simply a vicious circle. thanks for atleast making your position on it clear however.

---

This is the first time you have said that. However, since this thread is about BRIAN'S reasons for considering Jesus a failure then the common frame of reference has to be one that makes sense to Brian. So treating the Bible as a historical document would be appropriate. Any other point of view would have to be argued for.

Well, I am afraid that your post contains a lot of arrogant nonsense, and little in the way of rational argument. It's simply not worth responding to most of it.

quote:

---

For what they "really say" would DEPEND on the ENTIRE context which CLEARLY includes God as its AUTHOR, God as its SUSTAINER and God as its DEFINITION or INTERPRETATION. You get a 'C-' at an attempt at a rational thought process in this connection PaulK

---

The "ENTIRE context" certainly does not include God as the "AUTHOR" of any of the Biblical books. In fact it excludes it. At most you will find sections which claim to relay messages from God - but authored by humans.Let me remind you. You claimed that discussion required common ground. In that case if you wish to discuss this topic - which is about Brian's assessment of the evidence - it's up to you to stick to the common ground. You don't get to demand that everyone else adopts your assumptions. No, not even if you are abusive and insulting about it.

quote:

---

Since Nathan said, that the Lord himself said, he would establish the house of David, I dont see anyway you can keep this on some kind of physical or temporal level, do you?

---

I think that we can. According to the Bible, God's promise to Abraham involved giving him and his descendants actual physical land. That's physical and temporal. Solomon's Temple was physical and temporal - and destroyed by the Babylonians.

quote:

---

I bet your buddy Brian would not agree witht his statement and I bet in another thread you would argue just the opposite of what you are implying here

​

If the entire context is not actual history, ie, the miracluous and God who cares anyway, correct. I told you it was avicious circle

---

Of course if I were discussing a different subject, different facts might be relevant. I think that in this case Brian would largely agree with me. If we have a clear prediction of what the Messiah should do, written before Jesus' career then clearly it is relevant. If, on the other hand, the "prediction" is an egregious quote-mine, concoted long after the alleged fulfilment which itself is almost certainly a legendary accretion then clearly it has little evidential value for the purposes of this discussion.

quote:

---

This is an odd statement, considering the fact that the only way brian would know whether jesus was a failure would to be examine the text of Old and New

---

Of course Brian needs to consult the OT for the messianic prophecies and the NT for he story of Jesus. Since the NT authors are strongly biased in favour of the idea that Jesus was the Messiah this is hardly being unfair to Jesus.

quote:

---

Our purpose here is not to PROVE, in the classical sense of the word, to him or you that jesus was ABSOLUTLEY this or that, he will have to decide that for himself. Ignoring very real possibities and realites, not to mention the ENTIRE context, will and can shed a different light on the question as to Jesus' success

​

therefore his and your dogmatic exclamations that Jesus was a failure quickly become less than absolute

---

Since our conclusions are neither dogmatic nor absolute - simply well-supported by the evidence - you are arguing against a strawman

quote:

---

Trust me PaulK I am not being anymore insulting than brian or yourself. however with the above statement, surely you can see that I see you in no wise objective. it would take days simply to reproduce all of the passages that say God said this or that, or those that demonstrate he is involved in the process

---

Passages that "say God said this or that" would BE passages "which claim to relay messages from God" - indeed the "God said this or that" itself would typically be the product of a human author, would it not ? "God being involved in the process" falls well short of the assertion that God is the "AUTHOR". And I am sure that you can find a number of passages which indicate that a human being was the actual author of the text.In other words, you claim that my statement is "in no wise objective" because you could spend days writing out evidence that is entirely consistent with it. That is hardly a rational position.

quote:

---

2 Sam 7:13 NWT
"He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly to time indefinite"

​

What is being established here is not Solomon, but the 'thone' which represents the position of kingly authority.

---

But it is still Solomon's throne, and Solomon's kingdom. And Solomon ruled an earthly kingdom.

quote:

---

This is why I keep saying that only the first part of the prophecy 'he will build a house for my name' refers to Solomon.

---

I'm not seeing that reason. Clearly in all the translations quoted, both parts refer to the same person. The rules of English grammar demand it. When you say that they refer to different people you are saying that 2 Samuel 7:13 is wrong. It should say "He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of some other guy's kingdom firmly to time indefinite". Does that actually make sense to you ?

quote:

---

The remainder about the 'throne' would have to be fulfilled by someone else for the reason that Solomon did not remain faithful, nor did he live forever. Only one who would live forever could rule on the throne forever.

---

Of course it doesn't say that Solomon - or whoever it refers to - will rule forever. As you correctly state: Thus the prophecy does NOT require that Solomon rule forever. It requires that Solomon's (earthly) kingdom should remain forever, it may require that Solomon's line continues to rule it, but it clearly does not say that Solomon - or any individual person - will occupy the throne forever.And - as Purpledawn has pointed out - 1 Kings 9 states that the promise was conditional on the rulers remaining faithful. If, as you say, Solomon was unfaithful then the promise no longer applies. (I will also note that Jeremiah 18:5-10 asserts that all such promises are conditional, and it is possible that the author of 2 Samuel shared that view of prophecy).And let us take a further look at 2 Samuel: So, as well as telling us that the person referred to will build a temple (as Solomon did, and Jesus did not) it also tells us that this person will - or is likely to - "commit iniquity", and God will punish him for it. Do you think that Jesus did wrong and needed to be punished by God ? Did Solomon ?

Yes, that is interesting. If that is really the case, then we pretty much have to assume that the promise is conditional.I will disagree on another point, though, 1 Kings 11 tells us when (according to the author) the promise ceases to apply, and why. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

but that has nothing to do with the prophecy.

---

The fact that the prophecy is talking about Solomon's kingdom, which was an earthly kingdom has nothing to do with the prophecy ? How can that be ?

quote:

---

Solomon did build the 'house' but notice that it is the 'throne' that is established to time indefinite? As a theocratic nation, the throne of Isreal represented Gods authority & rulership. So really, its God's sovereignty that was being established. Not solomon at all.

---

It''s Solomon's throne so therefore it must be Solomon's sovereignty that is somehow being preserved. Thus it could legitimately refer to the institution of kingship or to Solomon's line.

quote:

---

Did solomon remain in Gods favor? No.

---

Which voided the promise...

quote:

---

Solomon turned to false worship toward the end of his reign, so its imposible that this could be refering to Solomon and his rulership. Do you read anywhere in the OT that Solomon was called the 'son of God'? No.

---

Clearly it is not referring to a literal blood relationship. Why could God not adopt Solomon in this way ? Don't Christians call God "Father" and describe themselves (often meaning all humanity) as God's children ?

quote:

---

This part is even more pointed because where is Gods house? Isiah 66 tells us its in heaven.
‘The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where, then, is the house that you people can build for me, and where, then, is the place as a resting-place for me?’
So the one who is to stand in Gods house has to be a spirit person.

---

Except, of course, that Solomon's Temple is also described as God's house. You've even quoted a verse which says as much ! Even worse, you are relying on the Chronicles account including significant information omitted from 2 Samuel.

quote:

---

With a bit of background information it becomes quite clear that Solomon was not the one being spoken of in the prophecy. There is plenty of evidence for this.

---

In fact there is plenty of evidence for it. As your yourself have pointed out Solomon misbehaved, and the promise became void. Therefore the fact that the promise did not continue is not evidence against Solomon at all. And who - after all - built the Temple ?

quote:

---

you already mentioned that the "in all the translations quoted, both parts refer to the same person. The rules of English grammar demand it." Well the Hebrew language did not follow the rules of english grammer and im sure you can appreciate why.

---

But we are not reading Hebrew We are reading an English translation which must follow the rules of English grammar. If you mean that all the translators got it wrong - including the translator of your preferred version - then say so. But you can't say that English grammar doesn't apply. You can go to the Hebrew text if you like, but I doubt that it will help you.

quote:

---

The grammar could have looked like this....

​

13 He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly to time indefinite I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son.

​

14 When he does wrong, I will also reprove him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of Adam.

---

Which still indicates the same person throughout. No, you need a far more drastic rewrite.

quote:

---

Thats right, because the prophecy comes in two parts and you are only reading one part of it.

---

Well that's not true for a start.

quote:

---

Also, prophecies cannot be read singularly as you are doing.

---

Why can't this one be read alone, aside form the fact that you don't like what it really says ?

quote:

---

The OT prophecies all interwine to give the real picture and what you are doing is cutting out all other prophecies to make it appear that Solomon is the one that the kingdom was to be established through....but that is not the case.

---

So it doesn't mean what it says ? Wouldnt that mean that it is wrong ?

quote:

---

It was to David that the covenant was made, not solomon. Solomon was simply the one who would build the temple. But the earthly throne was already established because David was ruling on it before Solomon was even born.

---

In other words it is it only wrong, it's stupid. Well, it's your holy book, so if you say it's stupid because it disagrees with your beliefs, that's up to you.

quote:

---

All the promises were made to David, not Solomon. And David himself prophecied in Psalm 110:1 that the Messiah would 'sit at Gods right hand'. The only place where one could sit at Gods right hand is in heaven...and no earthly king ascended into heaven. The only one who ascended into heaven was Jesus christ.

---

Since the Nathan prophecy is about Solomon, not the Messiah, that would seem to be irrelevant.

quote:

---

You only think this because you assume the prophecy about the indefinitely lasting kingdom is about Solomon.

---

It would be more accurate that you disagree with it because you refuse to accept that the prophecy means what it says. In fact Purpledawn and I have both cited verses which indicate that the prophecy was negated, and as I have also mentioned, Jeremiah states that all such promises are conditional on good behaviour - a view which the author of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings may well have shared.

quote:

---

The promise was made to the faithful king David. It was also made to Isreal who was also faithful...and Abraham who was Gods friend and with whom God had made a covenent. Why would God suddenly change his mind and forget his promise to all these faithful people?

---

1 Kings 11 tells us exactly why. I even quoted the relevant section. Didn't you read it ?

quote:

---

Because the prophecy is not only about Solomon. Its also about the Messiah. And the Messiah (Jesus) is Gods 'only begotten son'. This means that he was the only direct creation by God. All other things came into existence 'thru' Jesus. So Jesus is the only creature in the entire universe that can claim to be directly created by God himself. He is trully Gods Son. the firstborn of all creation.

---

That is what you are trying to argue for. However it is not what the text describes. What it describes is more like an adoptive relationship - "he will become my son" implies a change of relationship.

quote:

---

You miss the point in that verse. After saying that the earth is his 'footstool' God askes them 'Where is the house that you people can build for me?

---

I am afraid that you have got it wrong again. The question is not what Isaiah 66 says, the question is whether it's ideas agree with those in 1 Chronicles 17. Now 1 Chronicles 17 refers to the Temple as the house of God - as I pointed out - so you can't simply assume that it refers to something in Heaven because of what Isaiah says.

quote:

---

If the whole earth is where he rests his feet, how could we build anything that could house him? That is what he was telling them. The temple was for their benefit only...God could not possibly dwell there

---

I thought that Christians believed that with God, all things are possible. However, the Bible contradicts you on this. 1 Chronicles 17:4-5 indicate that the Temple is a dwelling place for God.

quote:

---

I guess this discussion just goes to show that there are many different ways that these passages are being read.

---

No, it just shows that you care more about your own beliefs than about what the Bible says. The fact is that the verse refers to one person, there is no other possible reading.

quote:

---

The real test as to which way is correct is if your interpretation of the samuel verse fits in with the rest of the OT.

---

If, as in this case, there is only one valid reading there is no need to look elsewhere in the OT.

quote:

---

I can tell you right now that your interpretation contradicts many other passages of scripture.

---

If that is true - and the contradictions you have introduced have generally been your own interpretations - all that means is that there are contradictions within the Bible.

quote:

---

And for that reason I am 100% confident that your interpretation is incorrect.

---

In other words you are 100% certain that the Bible is wrong and you are right.

quote:

---

You may think the covenent was voided. 2 Samuel was written in 1040BCE yet when Jerimiah acted as prophet over 500 years later, what was he instructed to write about the covenent God made with David?

---

2 Samuel - at least in the form we have it is much more recent than that. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia it was compiled from various sources shortly before the Exile, ant quite likely that 2 Samuel 7 is mainly the work of compiler. And as Purpledawn has pointed out this person may even have been Jeremiah's scribe, Baruch,

quote:

---

As I said, your view is in complete contradiction with Gods inspired prophets. Davids Covenent was still in force 500 years later and God said that there is nothing that could break it.

---

Of course you are again distorting the truth - and ignoring the texts which indicate that the promise was voided. But even then, according to Jeremiah 33:26 the covenant allows for interruptions in the rule of the kings. For times with no king at all on the throne. If you think that that is how 2 Samuel 7:13 should be interpreted then you have thrown out your own arguments.

quote:

---

thats all speculation

---

That is based on sound scholarship. As reported with a source, with no motive to discredit any part of the OT. What do you have ?

quote:

---

From the writings we know that Jeremiah wrote in the 13th year of the reign of King Josiah of Judah.

​

2nd Samuel was written by the same writers as 1st Samuel. They were originally one scroll written by the prophets Nathan and Gad. Gad was a close associate of King David... so lets not speculate on when these books were written...lets look at their internal evidence for when they were written.

---

Now THAT is speculation. What internal evidence do you have for the authorship ?

quote:

---

the promise was not voided at all. As i've shown you, Jeremiah wrote 500 years later that Davids covenent was still a reality.
The text does not say that the promise for an indefinately lasting kingdom was voided.

---

Yet it also says that that kingship may be interrupted, so if you take it as referring to the promise of 2 Samuel 7:13 (which so far is just your interpretation) it is stil consistent with 2 Samuel 7:13 being correct.Let us note that according to Jeremiah 33:17 the covenant with David is: which refers to 1 Kings 2:4 and 1 Kings 8:25 Note that these are both explicitly conditional and that according to 1 Kings, Solomon himself violated the conditions.

quote:

---

I dont think thats how samuel should be interpreted, i have maintained that this scripture is about the 'throne' being established to time indefinite

---

If you don't think that Samuel should be interpreted as agreeing with Jeremiah's description of the covenant then you have a problem with your argument. They must be talking about the same covenant for your argument to work at all. And if they disagree about it then one must be wrong about the nature of the promise.

quote:

---

You keep saying that its Solomon who is being established to time indefinite

---

No, I NEVER said that. I said that it referred to Solomon's KINGDOM, not Solomon himself. The only person who claimed that this verse must mean that the individual it is refers to must live forever is - YOU (Message 194, for example).

quote:

---

This is shown in 1 Chronicles 29:29, which says: As for the affairs of David the king, the first ones and the last, there they are written among the words of Samuel the seer and among the words of Nathan the prophet and among the words of Gad the visionary.

---

That's not internal evidence. 1 Chronicles is not 2 Samuel. And it isn't even clear which documents it is referring to.

quote:

---

Its not speculation...its in the bible.

---

Even if it were clear, being in the Bible doesn't mean that it isn't speculation.

quote:

---

they were conditional for the individuals involved, yes. But they werent conditional on David....to him it was an assured promise as Jeremiah attested to long after David and solomon were in their graves.

---

So you are saying that it depended on the good behaviour of David's successor's but not on David's behaviour ? How does that help you ?And you've not even dealt with the other points that completely refute your argument.