Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

You consistently do this with dates, and you have to stop. 1040 BC is the traditional date for the birth of David. The date you think you want would be much closer to 970 BC, the date of his death.But even that is wrong. There is plenty of evidence that the author of Samuel is also the author of Kings. The narrative structure and wording, particularly in the portion depicting the conception, birth, life and death of Solomon, which runs from Second Samuel 11 through First Kings 11, is all one story by one author. If you assume single authorship for Samuel and for Kings, then that author must be the same person too. And Kings ends with the return of Jehoiachin (Coniah) to favor under Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk) in 561 BC. Jeremiah ends with the same event. So all three books were proofed by the same person, sometime between 561 and 538 BC. "Thus far the book of Jeremiah."There's no "speculation" to it. All you have to do is read instead of believing the lies you have been told second-hand by people who specifically set out to undermine a truth that was being used against them by German atheists. We don't give up screwdrivers just because some nutbag kills someone with one, do we? So don't give up reason just because your opponents are reasonable.

Have we found Jesus' bloodline to David yet?

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?

---

I'm not sure how you came about that dating for the Book of Samuel, but the timeline in my NIV study Bible has the end of David's reign as 970 BCE, which means the book could not have been written in 1040 BCE (the timeline has that as the year David was born). Other signs that it was written after the kingdoms split are the references to the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Needless to say that your dating of 2 Samuel is incorrect. As far as what Jeremiah writes, what is written or actually not written in the Septuagint also disagrees. Since the Septuagint is the Bible the NT writers relied upon, that is significant. Jeremiah 33:14-26 emphasizing that God doesn't not break covenants is not in the Septuagint, but the part that explains that God can change his mind is in the Septuagint. The Jeremiah scrolls found in the Qumran caves back up the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. I'm still not sure why you focus on the 2 Samuel promise when you have already shown that Jesus is from a cursed line. If you really believe that God does not change his mind and you really believe the adoption theory; then Jesus does not fit the bill as Messiah. No matter how you look at it, Jesus doesn't fit into the promise in 2 Samuel.Unless, of course, you do believe God can change his mind.

---

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:

---

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).

why would i want the date of Davids death when I am talking about when the book of 2 Samuel was written? 1st kings is a continuation of the history that ended in 2nd Samuel, but this does not mean that they had to be the same writer living at the same time.
According to Jewish tradition, Jeremiah was the writer of First and Second Kings.The fact is that 2 Samuel does not record David’s death and this has always been used as strong evidence that it was written prior to Davids death...around 1040BCE. But Jeremiah lived during the reign of King Josiah and more specifically, in his 13th year of the rule...this was 647BCEJeremiah was also the prophet who penned the famous song 'By the rivers of Babylon' in the book of Lamentations. This was written after jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon and the Isrealites were taken into captivity in 607BCE. So Jeremiah was there at the time, the writers of Samuel were not.

i meant that the writing was completed around 1040BCEThe time that the writing covered was from around 1077-1040BCE.If its incorrect to date 2nd samuel around this time, explain way. you keep harping on about this cursed line business and if Jesus was of the blood of Joseph, then i'd have to agree with you. But he is not Josephs biological child...he is Gods biological child born thru the line of King David as God has promised by the covenent he made with David.So if he was Josephs biological child, then yes, you would be right.But he is not Josephs biological child. Therefore he is not of the cursed bloodline. Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah, thru the line of King David and because of this it gave him a legal right to the throne.

"By the Rivers of Babylon" isn't in Lamentations, it's Psalm 137. Why do you keep believing this false stuff that is so easily checked? You have to stop.If you had picked a reasonable date for the actual prophecy, like 1012 or 1013 BC, I wouldn't have bothered with you. But you had to give 1040, because you are just blindly believing sources that are setting you up to look like a liar. You did the same thing for your argument about the translation of the Septuagint, the date you gave was the very beginning of the reign of that Ptolemy. Like that was the first thing he did! The story is clear, he was already a big deal and had compiled a huge library before he got to the Jewish Law. But your sources don't care, they are already lying so why should they bother to check their work? You have to stop.If you want to work out which parts of Samuel-Kings are by Nathan, I will be happy to help you. The reason that Samuel ends before the death of David is because it closes with around 4 chapters of Gad material, and his book does end when he dies, before David. But his stuff is stuck smack dab in the middle of Nathan, which spans both books. But look, now we really are speculating. We don't have a record as to which books are by who, we just have to read them and see what's what. The only thing we can be sure of, from the scribal markings in the text itself, is that those very markings were made by someone who finished his work between 561 and 538 BC.So, do you want to speculate? Because if you do, you are going to have to stop believing random lies from wicked liars, and be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove. Or else "after 561" is all you've got. Decide.PS: Jerusalem wasn't destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar until 587 BC. 607 is when Jeremiah first prophecied it. Some sources believe he may have swung by and kidnapped some boys to be eunuchs like Daniel and his pals as early as 605 BC. He wasn't king at that point, but he was fighting about 100 miles north of there and, had a fondness for boys. He didn't take young Coniah until 598/7 BC. Zedekiah reigned on until 587/6. Stop believing random crap. Please.Edited by Iblis, : there is nothing new under the sun

This is shown in 1Chronicles 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.Its not speculation...its in the bible. 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.

Which tells you something about potential sources for Chronicles, not Kingdoms. Not that you're wrong, the Deuteronomic Historian did use those same books, though the Chronicler focused on keeping track of what was left out by him, ie not scripture. But we know that because we use our minds.All that Chronicles actually said was that some people wrote some books. It doesn't tell you who wrote Samuel-Kings. It may mention them, as "The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel". In which case, they are separate books from Nathan and Gad anyway. Get it?If you want to use your brain, first stop believing lies. If you want to take the word as written, first stop believing lies. If you want to look rididiculous, well, you are doing fine. Lamentations! WTF, third most famous Psalm in the book.

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.

ah yes sorry that was my mistake. I was thinking of lamentations because Jeremiah wrote similar sentiments about the same captivity. the date i gave for 2 samuel is correct. The writer makes no mention of Davids death. This is evidence that the book was completed before David died. We read about Davids death in 1 Kings.You really need to explain to me why a book about king davids reign failed to include the momentous occasion of the kings Death? haha and you say i believe random crap! that is funny.

Do I? Really? All you have to do is read. Please. Stop believing lies and just read.PS: It may help if you actually have an explanation for why you stick Samuel at 1040, the traditional date of the birth of David, as calculated by the count of reigns in Samuel-Kings and co-reigns in Chronicles and corraborated by dates in Assyrian and Babylonian records since recovered showing the rations of Coniah and the war with Hezekiah, as well as known dating for Sennacherib, Necho, and other folks the later kings dealt with. My dates are the ones everyone has. David - WikipediaEdited by Iblis, : happy shall he be who taketh the heads of thy littlest ones and dasheth them against the stones

quote:

---

If its incorrect to date 2nd samuel around this time, explain way.

---

I already did, Peg and provided a link for you. The book of Samuel was not written before the fact. It was written after events happened. As I said, the time line in my NIV study Bible has the end of David's reign as 970 BCE, so it couldn't be written before that. I also pointed out that the NIV study Bible has 1040 as the year David was born. Again, the book could not have been written before the events happened.

quote:

---

But he is not Josephs biological child. Therefore he is not of the cursed bloodline. Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah, thru the line of King David and because of this it gave him a legal right to the throne.

---

So if he is not Joseph's biological son, then he had no legal right to kinship. The legal kingship was through Solomon's line according to 2 Samuel. You haven't shown that any male descendant of David could reign. Actually, you haven't shown that Jesus reigned.As I showed you in Message 125, the mother determines Jewishness, but the father determines tribe or any royal rights. Jesus had no rights to Joseph's bloodline, which is good since it is cursed. A son adopted by a member of the royal line cannot become heir to the throne.Jesus also doesn't qualify because the genealogy in Luke is not through Solomon and it also claims to be Joseph's line. The text doesn't say it's Mary's. The text also doesn't say that Mary is from the line of Judah, let alone David. Her relative Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron.All these pieces don't fit together and are useless to support that Jesus fit the Messianic prophecies.Of course in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus himself implies that the Christ is not David's son/lineage. Matthew and Luke didn't get their genealogies from Mark. Interesting twist.

---

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

I stand corrected as to what your position is PD. I lost focus on your position, which, if not mistaken, is that the covenant/prophecy was annulled and that it was not literally to be a forever kingdom; that God would not preserve a memnant for the ultimate kingdom. Therefore that Israel has not been restored for a future messianic kingdom. There is no prophetic significance to the fact that the Jews have been gathered from the nations to restore the nation. Is that correct?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I have cited several valid reasons why Jesus was not adopted by Joseph. The Jews at the Temple bore that out and Joseph, according to Jewish law and tradition was the patriarch of the household of Mary and the legal father of all of her children. The birthright inheritance went to the eldest son of the legal father; not the mother. Jesus was the eldest legal son of Joseph's house and was never adopted from another family/father.I eagerly await responses to this fact from you, Paulk, Brian and others who appear to be supporting your position on this aspect of the debate.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.