Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 241 of 427 (543325)
01-17-2010 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Buzsaw
01-17-2010 9:36 AM


Re: Jesus, Son Of Joseph
quote:
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.
I have two responses. Firstly you have yet to establish that this is fact. (Perhaps Joseph admitted indulging in pre-marital hanky-panky with Mary, and maybe he would have had to, if there were any truth in the story, but that is rather different).
The second is that even if Jesus' was Joseph's son legally we still have the problem of two conflicting genealogies, neither of which qualifies Jesus for the throne.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 9:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 242 of 427 (543329)
01-17-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
01-17-2010 9:20 AM


Re: Spiritual Kingdom: I don't think so.
My position is that the text in 2 Samuel 7:13 speaks of a real kingdom on Earth, not an ethereal kingdom.
The Messianic prophecies speak of an earthly kingdom ruled by a live person.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 9:20 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 243 of 427 (543334)
01-17-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Buzsaw
01-17-2010 9:36 AM


First Fruits of His Vigor
quote:
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.
I already covered that in Message 125. Here is more.
Legal Aspects Concerning the Firstborn - Definition of Primogeniture
The sole difference in the status of the firstborn son as compared with that of his brothers is his right to a greater share in their father's inheritance. This status is known as bekhor le-naḥalah (firstborn or primogeniture as to inheritance) and derives from the verse "he must acknowledge the firstborn the son of the unloved one, and allot to him a double portion of all he possesses; since he is the first fruit of his vigor, the birthright is his due" (Deut. 21:15—17). The firstborn in this context is the first son born to the father, even if not so to the mother, since it is written, "the first fruits of his vigor" (Bek. 8:1 and see commentators). Even if such a son is born of a prohibited union, e.g., the son of a priest and a divorced woman, or a mamzer born as first son to his father — he is included, on the strength of the words "he must acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved one" (Deut., loc. cit.), the term a "loved" or an "unloved" wife being interpreted as relating only to the question whether the wife's marriage was "loved" or "unloved," i.e., permitted or prohibited (Yev. 23a and see Rashi and Posekim ad loc.). The prerogative of the firstborn never extends to a daughter, not even in a case where she has a right of inheritance (Sif. Deut. 215; see *Inheritance). A son born to a proselyte to Judaism, who had sons before he became a proselyte, does not enjoy the prerogative of a bekhor le-naḥalah, since he is not "the first fruits of his vigor" (Yev. 62a; Bek. 47a; Posekim ad loc.); on the other hand, if an Israelite had a son by a non-Jewish woman and thereafter has a son by a Jewish woman, the latter son does enjoy the prerogative, since the former is called her, and not his, son (Maim. Yad, Naḥalot 2:12). A first son who is born after his father's death, viz., if the mother gives birth to twins, is not considered a bekhor le-naḥalah since it is written "he must acknowledge" (Deut. 21:17) and the father is no longer alive to do so (BB 142b; Rashbam and Posekim ad loc.).
You have not shown evidence that supports your contention that Jesus would inherit the royal line just as a blood son would.
Joseph's lineage is cursed. The lineage in Luke is not through Solomon. Neither fits the bill, whether Jesus is adopted as we know it today or not. So why the gymnastics?
I also noted that in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus himself implies that the Christ is not David's son/lineage.
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."
David himself calls him 'Lord." How then can he be his son?"

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 9:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 244 of 427 (543404)
01-17-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Brian
01-17-2010 5:19 AM


Bloodline to Jesus
quote:
Have we found Jesus' bloodline to David yet?
I would say no.
In the three Synoptics the authors have Jesus saying the Christ is not the son of David.
Mark 12:35-37
Matthew 22:41-46
Luke 20:41-44
If that's the case why fuss with the genealogies? Although the author of Matthew was probably being satirical, the author of Luke should have fixed it. At least be consistent with what he wrote.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Brian, posted 01-17-2010 5:19 AM Brian has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 245 of 427 (543443)
01-18-2010 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by PaulK
01-17-2010 6:58 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
PaulK writes:
That's not internal evidence. 1 Chronicles is not 2 Samuel. And it isn't even clear which documents it is referring to.
"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"
I love it, you ask for the evidence i have to say that nathan & Gad wrote 2 samuel and when provided you say it isnt clear which documents its refering to.
It seems your own skeptism blinds you. Because of this, im out of this discussion. Im not going to run around and around in circles if your reply to all the evidence i provide is like this one.
Perhaps buz can take over for a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2010 6:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2010 5:45 AM Peg has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 246 of 427 (543444)
01-18-2010 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Peg
01-18-2010 5:22 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
quote:
"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"
I love it, you ask for the evidence i have to say that nathan & Gad wrote 2 samuel and when provided you say it isnt clear which documents its refering to.
And I told the truth. How can you tell that it isn't referring to some lost document ?
If it comes to that, tell me how you can know that it actually refers to a document written by Samuel or Nathan or Gad rather than a document supposedly repeating words spoken by Samuel, Nathan and Gad ?
Even if it meant what you said it could be wrog - the Chronicler is not the most reliable source. So it's certainly not enough to overturn the scholarship (which is based on real study of the Bible instead using it to turn God into a ventriloquist's dummy)
And I'm still waiting to see the internal evidence you said we should look at.
quote:
t seems your own skeptism blinds you. Because of this, im out of this discussion. Im not going to run around and around in circles if your reply to all the evidence i provide is like this one.
By which you mean that you are going to run away because I'm not a credulous fool who accepts whatever rubbish you spout Don't expect Buz to handle it for you, he runs away from me, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Peg, posted 01-18-2010 5:22 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Peg, posted 01-20-2010 4:48 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2010 9:36 AM PaulK has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 247 of 427 (543621)
01-19-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Brian
01-17-2010 5:19 AM


Son of David
While we are having our little break here in Forest For The Trees, dwelling on what a fine fellow David was, and how important it is that our lard and savour be descended from such a wonderful king as him:
Let's have a look at Sling-Boys plan for dealing with health care and the homeless
Second Samuel 5:6-8 writes:
And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.
Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same [is] the city of David.
And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, [that are] hated of David's soul, [he shall be chief and captain]. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Brian, posted 01-17-2010 5:19 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 01-20-2010 4:18 AM Iblis has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 248 of 427 (543652)
01-20-2010 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Iblis
01-19-2010 9:07 PM


Never Crowned
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Iblis, posted 01-19-2010 9:07 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 249 of 427 (543661)
01-20-2010 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by PaulK
01-18-2010 5:45 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
Paulk writes:
And I told the truth. How can you tell that it isn't referring to some lost document ?
because in the Greek Septuagint, First Samuel was called First Kingdoms and it was divided into two parts and this was adopted by the Latin Vulgate and is still seen in some Catholic Bibles to this day.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2010 5:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2010 5:09 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2010 5:25 AM Peg has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 250 of 427 (543663)
01-20-2010 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Peg
01-20-2010 4:48 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
blah blah blah Septuagint yadda yadda yadda Vulgate etc et al ad infinitum
And all that has what to do with the affairs of David that the Chronicler apparently claims to have found written by three separate prophets in their own words and not in the third person at all, at all?
I'm going to start quoting the 70 again any minute now. Starting with "Bel and the Dragon" I think. Or "Susanna" maybe, I'm pretty sure she has some bearing on this bloodline thingie.
PS: Don't get the idea that anyone is going to just forget about this either
Peg writes:
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...
Or this
Second Samuel 23:1 writes:
Now these [be] the last words of David
Edited by Iblis, : keeping count

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Peg, posted 01-20-2010 4:48 AM Peg has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 251 of 427 (543664)
01-20-2010 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Peg
01-20-2010 4:48 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
quote:
because in the Greek Septuagint, First Samuel was called First Kingdoms and it was divided into two parts and this was adopted by the Latin Vulgate and is still seen in some Catholic Bibles to this day
Well that is a massive non-sequitur. In fact, in the Septuagint 1 Samuel - 2 Kings are named 1 Kings - 4 Kings. If here is any significance in this, then wouldn't it suggest that the 4 books all had the same author and thus cannot have been written before the time of Jehoiachin ?
And all of this is just a side point to a side point. Especially coming from someone who wants to say that Chronicles is MORE accurate than 2 Samuel ! If anything you should be trying to argue that it DOES refer to a different document !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Peg, posted 01-20-2010 4:48 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 252 of 427 (543700)
01-20-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by PaulK
01-18-2010 5:45 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
Peg writes:
It seems your own skeptism blinds you. Because of this, im out of this discussion. Im not going to run around and around in circles if your reply to all the evidence i provide is like this one.
PaulK writes:
By which you mean that you are going to run away because I'm not a credulous fool who accepts whatever rubbish you spout Don't expect Buz to handle it for you, he runs away from me, too.
Actually not at all Paul, no one is running away from you, you are running away from the the ENTIRE text which you suggests supports your position. The discusssion was over when you and Purpledawn refused to acknowledge the following very sound textual comments and points by Peg, myself and others
PaulK writes:
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 ?
Peg writes
Thats right, because the prophecy comes in two parts and you are only reading one part of it. Also, prophecies cannot be read singularly as you are doing. 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. 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.
PaulK writes:
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.
Peg writes:
No, Its Gods throne. It always was Gods throne. As 1 Chronicles 29:23 says "And SoloEmon began to sit upon Jehovahs throne as king in place of David his father
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.
The discussion was actually over when you did not and have not dealt objectively with these passages
You have steadfastly ignored, just like Purpledawn, the part of God in this process. You have steadfastly ignored, that this is Gods throne, not a physical throne and it was never intended to be exclusively a physical throne, that was simply part of the process. You have steadfastly ignored Pegs references to Gods intentions after Israels disobedience and his continued attention to a throne that was meant to be Gods throne.
Yours and Purpledawns closet agnosticism, shines through like a lighthouse beam on a dark night. Your arrogance in assuming that someone is running from your so-called arguments is as about as silly as you taking God AND HIS THRONE out of the context to make it purely a physical process.
the numerous passages that Peg has quoted and referenced closes the door on your arrogance and idiocy
When entering a Bible study the next time, it should be desirous on your part to include the entirity of what the Bible has to say on a subject, ie, its Gods throne, not Davids or Solomoms and all the other spiritual related comments in scripture, to support your position. Do you and purpledawn, think that any serious reader is not aware of the fact that you have tried to reduce this entire discussion to physical matters without any SERIOUS consideration for God in the process.
Do you think any serious reader is not aware that you have nearly categorically ignored vital passages that would speak to the nature and purpose of the kingdom, I Chron 29:23.
Peg has departed because there is no real objectivity, when conducting a so-called Bible study by yourself and Purpledawn
Really PaulK, you should stick to an area where you can atleast be objective. Running PaulK? hardly
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2010 5:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2010 10:16 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 253 of 427 (543710)
01-20-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by purpledawn
01-16-2010 10:51 AM


Re: Spiritual Kingdom
By saying that spiritual refers to anything that has to do with God, anything relating to God, plans attributed to God, methods attributed to God, ideas attributed to God, and God as a spirit, you have covered everything on the planet and the heavens from a religious standpoint. This means there is no difference between a spiritual kingdom or an earthly kingdom by your definition. It doesn't explain how the kingdom manifests itself.
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
Since you disagree with physical, then you must be talking about ethereal (of or relating to the regions beyond the earth). You haven't shown that the text refers to an ethereal kingdom.
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.
The overall intentions of Gods kingdom on earth will be found in the entirity of Gods word. the entirity of Gods extended and expaned plans will be found in the entirity of Gods word, not a single verse or some half baked idea you have ascribed to the context, to which you continually ignore God in the ENTIRE context
EAM writes:
Its Gods kingdom and therefore spiritual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpledawn writes:
Which (by your definition) doesn't say where the kingdom is located or how it manifests itself. In 2 Samuel 7:13 the kingdom is on the ground, with living people. David and Solomon were supposedly real living human beings governing over real living human beings day in and day out. Making laws, handling disagreements, dealing with enemies of the people and dealing with the everyday needs of real living human beings. (At least, they were supposed to be.)
Show me that it isn't.
If its Gods kingdom, its where God decides for it to be at any given time. Certainly Gods is everywhere, but he chose to let the people think he resided in the Mountain early on, so as to be point of reference, then it was the Ark, then it was the tabernacle, then it was the temple, now its the HEARTS OF MEN.
Even if it is, at some point in the future, as Buz believes, some physical throne in jeruselum, this will in no way make it not spiritual. How could it be anything but spiritual in actuality, whre a spirit being is involved
ofcouse its with living people, but what does that have to do with God himself, his kingdom , his OVERALL PLANS, his intentions and ultimate purpose Ofcourse the scriptures make it very clear where the kingdom of God is or is not
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by purpledawn, posted 01-16-2010 10:51 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by purpledawn, posted 01-20-2010 12:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 254 of 427 (543715)
01-20-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dawn Bertot
01-20-2010 9:36 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
quote:
Actually not at all Paul, no one is running away from you, you are running away from the the ENTIRE text which you suggests supports your position. The discusssion was over when you and Purpledawn refused to acknowledge the following very sound textual comments and points by Peg, myself and others
I am sorry but your statement has no basis in reality. Your "sound textual comments" ignore the text itself which allows no other interpretation.
quote:
You have steadfastly ignored, just like Purpledawn, the part of God in this process. You have steadfastly ignored, that this is Gods throne, not a physical throne and it was never intended to be exclusively a physical throne, that was simply part of the process. You have steadfastly ignored Pegs references to Gods intentions after Israels disobedience and his continued attention to a throne that was meant to be Gods throne.
By which you mean that I a) dare to read the Bible and b) don't assume your theology.
I know that these things upset you, but really you should calm down and try to argue rationally.
quote:
Do you think any serious reader is not aware that you have nearly categorically ignored vital passages that would speak to the nature and purpose of the kingdom, I Chron 29:23.
Now really, you could assume that the rest of the Deuteronomic History is relevant since it was at least redacted by a single hand, but to throw the Chronicler into it - and call such a reference "vital" is - from an objective point of view - based on theological assumptions that I don't share. Now you said that you were arguing that the discussion needed to find common ground - and then suddenly dropped the subject when I engaged with it. As I said then, since this thread is about Brian's assessment then you can't rely on assumptions that Brian doesn't share - at the least you need to argue for them. And you don't. You just go on and on assuming that everyone has to agree with you.
And in fact, it isn't even relevant. 2 Samuel 7:13 explicitly refers to Solomon's throne and Solomon's kingdom. Calling it God's throne as well doesn't change that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2010 9:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2010 11:20 AM PaulK has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 255 of 427 (543732)
01-20-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by PaulK
01-20-2010 10:16 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
By which you mean that I a) dare to read the Bible and b) don't assume your theology.
I know that these things upset you, but really you should calm down and try to argue rationally
I will admit you have a way of stating things that makes an opponent of yours appear irrational and overly emotional. But happily, I have been doing this long enough to recognize such tactics and dismiss them as an inability by yourself to be objective
heres what I mean:
I am sorry but your statement has no basis in reality. Your "sound textual comments" ignore the text itself which allows no other interpretation.
Its not my theology, its in the text, its in the text of the entire Old testament, to which you have not and will not respond to simple questions. Is God mentioned in the text? Does the scripture say it is Gods throne not Davids primarily and exclusively Is the miraculous involved in the process. is God the one that established, amintained and took away these thrones.
Your statement that it is my theology is an obvious attempt to distract the reader form the FACT that the text mentions ALL OF THESE THINGS, along with the physical parameters, that you so happily attach yourself to.
Please tell me what part of the text am I ignoring. My goodness man I am begging you to take it all, how can I be ignoring it.
Now really, you could assume that the rest of the Deuteronomic History is relevant since it was at least redacted by a single hand, but to throw the Chronicler into it - and call such a reference "vital" is - from an objective point of view - based on theological assumptions that I don't share. Now you said that you were arguing that the discussion needed to find common ground - and then suddenly dropped the subject when I engaged with it. As I said then, since this thread is about Brian's assessment then you can't rely on assumptions that Brian doesn't share - at the least you need to argue for them. And you don't. You just go on and on assuming that everyone has to agree with you.
But thats the point Paul, please explain what theological views you dont share. Is it simply that you dont believe there is more after the physical kingdom was taken away? its it that you dont believe God is its author and finisher? Is it you dont believe that that the scriptures call it Gods Kingdom? it is you dont believe that as Peg and Buz have pointed out, that its the throne thats involved not Solomon? Is it that you dont believe the part about Gods involvement in the process? is it you believe that we should only take what this book or single passage has to say about Davids, Solomons or Gods kingdom?
Is it that you have adopted such a humanistic approach you will not entertain God here and that all of this is the ramblings of a crazy person.
How in the world man, can you have a serious discussion about bible topics, without you telling someone what theological views you DONT SHARE. if its all physical with no REAL theological REALITIES, the text is useless AS COMMON GROUND. Paul, if you cant discuss the CONTEXT (the theological views), then the historicity is pointless
Paul, it is ridiculous to assume one can share Brians views, where the text mentions the nature of Gods kingdom and its fruition, when it (especially the Bible), is being viewed from a single point of view. Its an exercise in futility. Brians points have been approached and dealt with, even if not to his satisfaction. Now you do the same
As I said then, since this thread is about Brian's assessment then you can't rely on assumptions that Brian doesn't share - at the least you need to argue for them. And you don't. You just go on and on assuming that everyone has to agree with you.
Without sounding childish, this is the exact point I am making about you and PD. Peg, Buz and myself to a certain degree have responded to all of Brians contentions and yours concering adoption, linage and textual criticism. You on the other hand have STEADFASTLY refused to acknowledge the text from the standpoint of God, Gods involvement. Gods entire dealing of the subject of the kingdom. YOU QUIETLY IGNORE IT AND SAY ITS IRRELEVANT
And you don't. You just go on and on assuming that everyone has to agree with you.
here is another example of the point I am making at present. categorical dogmatic accusations that have NO bases in reality.
No, I am asking that you be objective and true to t he text you use with such confidence. Take it all in Paul, not just that which suits your purpose
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2010 10:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Brian, posted 01-20-2010 11:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 259 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2010 1:18 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024