Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 256 of 427 (543739)
01-20-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Dawn Bertot
01-20-2010 11:20 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
Brians points have been approached and dealt with, even if not to his satisfaction.
My very first objection, the Davidic bloodline, has not been dealt with to anyone's satisfaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2010 11:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 257 of 427 (543748)
01-20-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Dawn Bertot
01-20-2010 10:02 AM


Re: Spiritual Kingdom
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.
Matter - 2 a : the substance of which a physical object is composed b : material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy
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.
Ethereal - 1 a : of or relating to the regions beyond the earth b : celestial, heavenly c : unworldly, spiritual
2 a : lacking material substance : immaterial, intangible
Message 164
PurpleDawn writes:
That's what I said. The text does not support the idea of a heavenly throne instead of an earthly one.
Yes it does. if God establishes something through and by someone, how can it be considered anything but spiritual. from what source is its authority?
Message 170
PurpleDawn writes:
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.
Message 184
EMA in response to PaulK writes:
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?
Message 252
EMA in response to PaulK writes:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2010 10:02 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2010 1:17 PM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 258 of 427 (543761)
01-20-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by purpledawn
01-20-2010 12:23 PM


Re: Spiritual Kingdom
Your argument concerning a "Spiritual Kingdom" really has nothing to do with this discussion on 2 Samuel 7:13.
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.
As I said before if your stricly humanistic approach makes you happy, then by all means, stick with it
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by purpledawn, posted 01-20-2010 12:23 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by purpledawn, posted 01-20-2010 3:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 259 of 427 (543763)
01-20-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Dawn Bertot
01-20-2010 11:20 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
quote:
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
Really, I have no need of any such tactic. Your posts are all that is required. As any objective observer can see.
quote:
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.
Even if everything you said were entirely true, that would not make it relevant. What you need to provide - and you have failed to provide - is an argument that gets from there to actually addressing the point you hope to refute.
quote:
But thats the point Paul, please explain what theological views you dont share
To name two, I don't share your view that God had anything to do with the Bible. I don't share your view that the Bible is a unified whole. So obviously I don't assume that a statement made in Chronicles is cause to say that a statement in 2 Samuel means something other than it says. Even if you could provide the connecting argument - which you don't.
quote:
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.
I'm treating the Bible as a collection of historical documents, just as Slevesque said should be done.
quote:
How in the world man, can you have a serious discussion about bible topics, without you telling someone what theological views you DONT SHARE.
Here's a simple answer - when you rely on theological assumptions you could make it explicit. If someone doesn't agree with those assumptions you could try to support your assumptions with evidence and rational argument - or admit that your argument relies on assumptions you can't adequately support. Or you could actually have made a serious attempt to find common ground instead of suddenly abandoning the topic.
quote:
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
Of course this is wrong. The point of looking at the text is to SEE WHAT IT SAYS. We can do this with the prophecy in 2 Samuel 7. We don't need to make a lot of theological assumptions to do that.
quote:
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
That smacks of a double standard. Your responses have hardly been adequate rebuttals. In particular I am afraid that your posts resemble angry rants attempting to bully me into agreement in lieu of any rational argument.
Let us remember that in this discussion you have inserted yourself into, Peg was attempting to argue that 2 Samuel 7:13 spoke of two different people, one who would build the Temple and another whose kingdom would be established. That is ruled out by the grammar - and the only attempt to address it was a speculation that the translators had all got it wrong - without any attempt to support it from the Hebrew text. No number of quotes from OT or NT could overcome the fact that multiple translations leave no room for other interpretations.
And in that context, the whole point of Peg arguing that the kingdom was spiritual was to DENY that it could refer to Solomon's kingdom (as if arguing that the text was wrong would be a good reason to pretend that it didn't mean what it said !). Adopting a definition of "spiritual" that would include Solomon's kingdom simply destroys Peg's argument.
So, how exactly does the quote from 1 Chronicles 37:33 prove that 2 Samuel 7:13 means something other than it says ? If it is so obvious to you, then explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2010 11:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-21-2010 11:23 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 260 of 427 (543779)
01-20-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Dawn Bertot
01-20-2010 1:17 PM


Re: Spiritual Kingdom
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-20-2010 1:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 261 of 427 (543866)
01-21-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by PaulK
01-20-2010 1:18 PM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
To name two, I don't share your view that God had anything to do with the Bible. I don't share your view that the Bible is a unified whole. So obviously I don't assume that a statement made in Chronicles is cause to say that a statement in 2 Samuel means something other than it says. Even if you could provide the connecting argument - which you don't.
I will admit and am very happy you have decided to answer these questions directly. this is something that many here would not do regardless of ones persistence to such important questions.
Thank you for your honestly
At this point I am sure you could see why such a response would for all intents and purposes end any type of rational discussion for common ground.
Out of curiosity however, why do yo think the composers of such books under consideration would reference God in the first place? Why do you think they believed God was directling these affairs and thier comments. If they believed this and they were mistaken from your perspective, would much of anything else they had to say be of any real value.
I'm treating the Bible as a collection of historical documents, just as Slevesque said should be done.
My mistake, I thought when brian and yourself were considering the fact that Jesus was or was not a failure, that all relevant information in the text would be considered. If not who cares who Samuel or Jesus were, correct? Surely Samuel, Nathan David, Solomon and Jesus were just made up or they were all insane, pyschotic or very imaginative and if this is the case, who really cares?
For sake of argument, if you were to assume, Gods actual involvement in the process as the text CLEARLY suggest, would this make difference in your evaluations?
Forgive my ignorance, who is Slevesque? If he is just another atheist, your response is not necessary.
Here's a simple answer - when you rely on theological assumptions you could make it explicit. If someone doesn't agree with those assumptions you could try to support your assumptions with evidence and rational argument - or admit that your argument relies on assumptions you can't adequately support. Or you could actually have made a serious attempt to find common ground instead of suddenly abandoning the topic.
Why would I not RELY ON THEOLOGICAL arguments when they litter the text. Surely without them, the text is a joke, like that of any greek mythology, correct?
Your verbage above assumes indirectly that the supernatural is not a rational or logical way to proceed, when it is a very real part of the text. I will say it again, the supernatural is not my ASSUMPTION, its right there in the text.
I might ask, why do you assume it is correct to cherry pick the text, then try and make a rational argument without it. Who truely is assuming anything here, if we are going to go stricly by the text?. te reader of our debate can easily see that it is yourself, who is assuming anything.
Of course this is wrong. The point of looking at the text is to SEE WHAT IT SAYS. We can do this with the prophecy in 2 Samuel 7. We don't need to make a lot of theological assumptions to do that.
surely you can see the completly contradictory statements in your above interesting comment. Thats what I have been contending for you to do, TELL US WHAT THE TEXT SAYS IN CONTEXT. Surely you wouldnt want us to take it out of context with the whole chapter of book would you
That smacks of a double standard. Your responses have hardly been adequate rebuttals. In particular I am afraid that your posts resemble angry rants attempting to bully me into agreement in lieu of any rational argument.
Wow, again with the insults and debating tactics. Im happy to let ther reader decide whether i have made rational arguments and rebutals
Angry rants? really, Paul
Let us remember that in this discussion you have inserted yourself into, Peg was attempting to argue that 2 Samuel 7:13 spoke of two different people,
I remember one time I was reading the Bogard-Warlick debate between a baptist Ben M Bogard and Joe S. Warlick, and watching Bro. Joe gettiing up and looking straight at Mr Bogard, in much frustration and make this statement, "ben I believe it is impossible for you to get anything correct"
Paul, I cant INSERT, myself into a discussion that Brian and myself started. I challenged Brian to demonstrate why Jesus was a failure, that makes myself and him the originators of this discussion. Do you get the implication here?
Peg was attempting to argue that 2 Samuel 7:13 spoke of two different people, one who would build the Temple and another whose kingdom would be established. That is ruled out by the grammar - and the only attempt to address it was a speculation that the translators had all got it wrong - without any attempt to support it from the Hebrew text. No number of quotes from OT or NT could overcome the fact that multiple translations leave no room for other interpretations.
Your attempts derive a conclusion on a broad topic like the kingdom of God, kingdom of David, Kingdom of Solomom and the such like from one single verse is simply ludicrous.
besides all of this to exclude the most important aspect is simply ludicrous.
And in that context, the whole point of Peg arguing that the kingdom was spiritual was to DENY that it could refer to Solomon's kingdom (as if arguing that the text was wrong would be a good reason to pretend that it didn't mean what it said !). Adopting a definition of "spiritual" that would include Solomon's kingdom simply destroys Peg's argument.
Peg did not say it was not Solomons kingdom entirley. This another direct statement by yourself to cause prejudice. His implicatioon was simply that the THRONE was under consideration, not a single person at that point.
Now watch this, his conclusions do not violate that text and more importantly they are supported by the rest of the Old and NT
So, how exactly does the quote from 1 Chronicles 37:33 prove that 2 Samuel 7:13 means something other than it says ? If it is so obvious to you, then explain it.
If you cannot see what his points and conclusions are at this point, its likely you never will. What passage were you refering to in Chronicles, there is no 37
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2010 1:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2010 12:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 262 of 427 (543872)
01-21-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Dawn Bertot
01-21-2010 11:23 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
quote:
At this point I am sure you could see why such a response would for all intents and purposes end any type of rational discussion for common ground.
Of course it does not. If you admitted that you are incapable of dealing with the texts on that basis, that would end it. Are you incapable of doing that ?
quote:
Out of curiosity however, why do yo think the composers of such books under consideration would reference God in the first place?
That would depend on the work, and it's purpose would it not ? If it collects old stories it might take it's references from those stories. If it expresses the author's views it might be an expression of his faith. You could ask much the same question about texts outside of your religion, such as the Quran.
quote:
My mistake, I thought when brian and yourself were considering the fact that Jesus was or was not a failure, that all relevant information in the text would be considered. If not who cares who Samuel or Jesus were, correct? Surely Samuel, Nathan David, Solomon and Jesus were just made up or they were all insane, pyschotic or very imaginative and if this is the case, who really cares?
And I've not said anything to contradict that. Of course, relevance is not always obvious and sometimes has to be shown, and you have been rather poor on that.
quote:
For sake of argument, if you were to assume, Gods actual involvement in the process as the text CLEARLY suggest, would this make difference in your evaluations?
Again we have your confusion between understanding the text and believing the text. That is, the text credits God with originating the Nathan prophecy, but it can be read and understood without believing that to be true. And in this case it would not make the slightest difference.
quote:
Forgive my ignorance, who is Slevesque? If he is just another atheist, your response is not necessary.
I was referring to Slevesques' comments in this thread ! And no, he isn't an atheist.
quote:
Why would I not RELY ON THEOLOGICAL arguments when they litter the text. Surely without them, the text is a joke, like that of any greek mythology, correct?
I don't consider Greek mythology a joke, and I don't see the fact that I don't believe in it as providing any reason to twist or misrepresent it.
quote:
Your verbage above assumes indirectly that the supernatural is not a rational or logical way to proceed, when it is a very real part of the text. I will say it again, the supernatural is not my ASSUMPTION, its right there in the text.
It's right there in Greek mythology and the Quran, too. But you don't believe those, do you ?
quote:
I might ask, why do you assume it is correct to cherry pick the text, then try and make a rational argument without it. Who truely is assuming anything here, if we are going to go stricly by the text?. te reader of our debate can easily see that it is yourself, who is assuming anything.
I don't assume anything of the sort. It sounds more like your approach to me.
quote:
I remember one time I was reading the Bogard-Warlick debate between a baptist Ben M Bogard and Joe S. Warlick, and watching Bro. Joe gettiing up and looking straight at Mr Bogard, in much frustration and make this statement, "ben I believe it is impossible for you to get anything correct"
Paul, I cant INSERT, myself into a discussion that Brian and myself started. I challenged Brian to demonstrate why Jesus was a failure, that makes myself and him the originators of this discussion. Do you get the implication here?
Yes. You fail to understand that there can be numerous sub-threads of discussion spun off from the OP. You decided to insert yourself into a one of these sub-threads, a discussion between myself and Peg. My point in referring to it is to establish the context of that discussion.
quote:
Your attempts derive a conclusion on a broad topic like the kingdom of God, kingdom of David, Kingdom of Solomom and the such like from one single verse is simply ludicrous.
besides all of this to exclude the most important aspect is simply ludicrous.
Except for the fact that I am not attempting to do anything so broad. All I am attempting to do is establish whose kingdom it is, according to 2 Samuel 7:13. And the most important aspect would be the text of 2 Samuel 7:13. And yes it is absurd to try to exclude the clear meaning of it as Peg tried to do.
quote:
Peg did not say it was not Solomons kingdom entirley. This another direct statement by yourself to cause prejudice. His implicatioon was simply that the THRONE was under consideration, not a single person at that point.
I am afraid that you have made the mistake of believing Peg. Peg was the one who said that it had to be interpreted as meaning that the king would reign forever. I never said that it meant anything more than the kingdom and the king's lineage. For instance we find this in Message 145
Solomon was to be the builder temple, but another decendent would be the indefinitely lasting ruler of Davids throne.
quote:
Now watch this, his conclusions do not violate that text and more importantly they are supported by the rest of the Old and NT
Really ? Perhaps you can explain how the quote above can be read from 2 Samuel 7:13
He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever
quote:
If you cannot see what his points and conclusions are at this point, its likely you never will. What passage were you refering to in Chronicles, there is no 37
Typo for 1 Chronicles 29:23, the verse you referred to. And if you can see the point you can explain it. So go on. Do it. Show me what's so obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-21-2010 11:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-21-2010 2:00 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 269 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-26-2010 9:47 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 274 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-27-2010 10:55 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 303 by Peg, posted 02-03-2010 7:51 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 263 of 427 (543880)
01-21-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by PaulK
01-21-2010 12:24 PM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
Typo for 1 Chronicles 29:23, the verse you referred to. And if you can see the point you can explain it. So go on. Do it. Show me what's so obvious.
Ok ill try once more, have to run for now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2010 12:24 PM PaulK has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 264 of 427 (544329)
01-25-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
12-20-2009 12:08 PM


Why I know Jesus was a success
Jews continue to deny that Jesus is the Messiah that God promised would decend from the seed of Abraham that would bless all the nations of the world (Gen 22:18). Peter declared this on the day pf Pentecost in Acts 2,
29 "Brethren , I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
30 "And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE,
31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.
32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.
33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.
34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says : 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."'
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ -this Jesus whom you crucified."
Deny if you will that Jesus was crucified on a cross, was resurrected, and now sits at the right hand of God the Father. But the fulfilled prophesy of
Acts 2:34-35 was prophesied in Psa 110:1. Psa 2 describes what is taking place today until Messiah Jesus returns,
1 Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing ?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 "Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!"
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying,
6 "But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain."
7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD : He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
8 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. 9 'You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware .' "
10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment ; Take warning, O judges of the earth.
11 Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling.
12 Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
Jews began to take refuge in their Messiah 2000 years ago (Acts 2:41), and will do so again as a nation when the prophesy of Acts 3:19-21 is fulfilled.
19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord ;
20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.
NOW IS THE TIME for this prophesy to come to pass. Will you Brian be one that takes refuge in your Messiah?
Blessings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 12:08 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Brian, posted 01-25-2010 3:40 PM John 10:10 has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 265 of 427 (544359)
01-25-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by John 10:10
01-25-2010 1:15 PM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
We are our own messiahs.
When you escape your world of circular reasoning you will understand this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by John 10:10, posted 01-25-2010 1:15 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by John 10:10, posted 01-25-2010 5:49 PM Brian has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 266 of 427 (544373)
01-25-2010 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Brian
01-25-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
What you think is "circular reasoning" will come to an end when Jesus returns according to Acts 1:11,
They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky ? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."
Then you will see that the prophetic word of the Bible is God's truth.
Blessings
Edited by John 10:10, : revised last sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Brian, posted 01-25-2010 3:40 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by AdminPD, posted 01-25-2010 7:14 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 268 by Brian, posted 01-26-2010 6:40 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 267 of 427 (544385)
01-25-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by John 10:10
01-25-2010 5:49 PM


Debate Not Preach
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Please enlarge upon the argument, not preach.
Thanks
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by John 10:10, posted 01-25-2010 5:49 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 268 of 427 (544419)
01-26-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by John 10:10
01-25-2010 5:49 PM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
What you think is "circular reasoning" will come to an end when Jesus returns according to Acts 1:11,
We get told this everytime there's a disaster or a war or terrorist attack, people have been told this every few decades for the last 2000 years, it simply isn't going to happen, the guy was no messiah.
While you are here, since no one has explained my first point, the bloodline of David, why don't you have a go at solving that major obstacle instead of firing out meaningless garbage from God's Big Book of Fairytales?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by John 10:10, posted 01-25-2010 5:49 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by John 10:10, posted 01-26-2010 6:56 PM Brian has not replied

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


Message 269 of 427 (544426)
01-26-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by PaulK
01-21-2010 12:24 PM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
PaulK writes:
Typo for 1 Chronicles 29:23, the verse you referred to. And if you can see the point you can explain it. So go on. Do it. Show me what's so obvious.
Sorry I have neglected this presently, I have been very busy with job related stuff. I will return to your last post as soon as I can. again sorry
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2010 12:24 PM PaulK has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 270 of 427 (544486)
01-26-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Brian
01-26-2010 6:40 AM


Why I know Jesus was a success
As I explained to you, the bloodlines of the Christian/Jewish faith go back to God's promise to Abraham in Gen 22:18, not just to God's promises to David.
Paul explains how this was fulfilled in Messiah Jesus in Gal 3,
15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations : even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
17 What I am saying is this : the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise ; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
19 Why the Law then ? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God ? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female ; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
You can split hairs if you want concerning whether or not Jesus descended from the bloodline of David. The geneologies of Matt 1 and Luke 3 show that Jesus did. After the temple records were destroyed in 70 AD, no one since then can prove they are descended from David if they say they are the promised Messiah. So valid proof that the Christian/Jewish Messiah descended from David says that the promised Messiah came before 70 AD.
Maybe you should try to answer this question Jesus put to the Pharisees in Matt 22?
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question :
42 "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David."
43 He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,
44 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET "'?
45 "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son ?"
46 No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.
The problem Jews have had for 2000 years is in not understanding how the prophetic prophesies concerning the Messiah required two different comings, first to redeem man from his sins through His death on the cross, then to set up His kingdom on earth.
Blessings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Brian, posted 01-26-2010 6:40 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-26-2010 7:09 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 272 by bluescat48, posted 01-26-2010 7:41 PM John 10:10 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