Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies?

quote:

---

Perhaps it is off topic. But it is totally responsive to the discussion to the points being raised here.

---

Then I guess that you are going to have to explain the relevance - because I can't see any.

quote:

---

I believe a perfectly good response to the question of why the Christian messiah failed to fulfill the messianic prophecies is that Jesus is not the Jewish messiah.

---

And I'd agree. But it's a problematic answer for a Christian, in so much as it says that Jesus is not the Christ.

quote:

---

I made that argument and the OP responds to the effect that Jesus not being the messiah means that he is not worthy of worship

---

Actually, it looks to me as if you made that up. He only argued that Christianity is a fake religion, and in so far as Christianity is based on the idea that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah you seem to agree.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I disagree, but isn't it your position that pursuing this point is off topic?

---

Certainly not. I've never suggested any such thing.

quote:

---

Well, you are simply wrong about that. He stated in Message 66 that worship of Jesus was idolatry, which led to my pointing out that his arguments up to that point, even if taken as correct, did not require such a conclusion. At some point during that line of discussion, you intervened to tell me Eliyahu was simply assuming that Judaism was correct. Thanks, but I already knew that.

---

Obviously you didn't understand that, or you wouldn't have responded as you did. If Christianity is false (and you really need to address the issues there rather than just saying that you personally don't care if you want to argue) then it follows that Jesus isn't God.

quote:

---

Your ignorance of prophecy doesnt negate Jesus fulfilling ALL Messianic Prophecy including the exact year of His Birth

---

Your ignorance of prophecy does not change the fact that there is no such prophecy or any way of knowing the exact year of Jesus' birth.I suggest you go away and do some real research instead of embarrassing yourself with these displays of ignorance.

quote:

---

Challenge me, Paul K have some courage and ask for a new TOPIC on the exact year of Jesus birth, exact as in EXACT.

---

Oh, so you don't have the guts to create your own topic ?The simple fact is that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew disagree on the birth date and nobody else gives any information at all.

quote:

---

I and any Christian or any studied person can easily do the math, and calculate from known confirmed dates, and then absoluterly prove the year of Jesus' BIRTH.

---

No, they can't. They might be able to play silly games with numbers that can't be known to be right or even relevant. But that is all. You don't have the numbers. And let's not forget that we've seen you botch a calculation here and dishonestly tried to ignore it when it was pointed out.

quote:

---

Whewee, this is the basic prophecy of all time...and the basic design for all of the End Time

---

No wonder that you keep getting the date of the end wrong, then. Last time you were here you said it would be 2011, you still have a web page up saying it would start this year and I see signs of at least one earlier date. So much for your "exact" mathematics.Daniel 7 is about events from the second century BC. If you did some real research instead of relying on people who try to force fit the text to their own ideas you would know that.

Matthew has Jesus born late in the reign of Herod the Great (made absolutely clear by Matthew 2:22 if there is any doubt). Luke has the birth occur during the census of Quirinius (Luke2:2) which took place shortly after the removal of Herod's successor, Archelaus.(As a side note Herod the Great's realm was divided after his death, Archelause ruled a large part of it until he was deposed by Rome)

To be fair many may be ignorant and deceived rather than dishonest. But there is no doubt that Daniel 9 is not about Jesus, and any claims of exact dates from Daniel 9 are certainly false.

quote:

---

And who are you to contradict the entire Church?

---

I don't.Who am I to contradict popular falsehoods ? Someone who has done the research and found the truth. It isn't hard to do. The lame excuses of the apologists are easy to see through with just a little digging.If you think that there are convincing arguments start a thread. I will take them down. And you have been here long enough to know that I am not bluffing.

There are points against the idea that the prophecy refers to Jesus without touching on when it was written (e.g. the numbers don't add up quite right, even given the questionable choice of start point, the seventieth week did not happen on schedule).However since the evidence favours the scholarly view (that is WHY it is the view taken by scholars) naturally I favour it.

So here is a serious question, since you have watched the video. How long does Larson allow for the trip from Jerusalem to Bethlehem and how far does Jupiter "move" in that time, ignoring the rotation of the Earth ?

I didn't ask about the journey from Babylon, I asked about the journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. According to Matthew 2:9 it was that journey which was lead by the star, and ended with the star stopping.(ABE: they saw the star in the East according to Matthew 2:2 and Jerusalem is West of Babylon so following the star from Babylon makes no sense anyway)Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The line about seeing it in the east can't mean the star WAS in the east; that's not a mistake the scripture could have made. They went to Judea and that's west so that line has to be understood in some other way.

---

The scripture doesn't say that they followed the star to Jerusalem, so the question of the scripture being in error does not arise.

quote:

---

It's five miles south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, about a two or three hour trek I would guess, and the software shows Jupiter in the southern sky during the time Larson thinks they made the trip. Yes it would have moved, but the question is what is meant by the star stopping since of course the sky continues to move.

---

This is where Larson's idea of retrograde motion as the explanation runs into trouble. The motion observed in a single night is completely dominated by the rotation of the Earth. The orbital motion - including the appearance of retrograde motion - is detected by observing the relative location of the planet over a number of nights. Hardly something that would be done in a journey of a couple of hours.

quote:

---

The star would not have appeared in the east if it announced the birth of a King of the Jews.

---

On what grounds do you make this claim ?

quote:

---

Observation may not be the key to the stopping of the star, it could have been based on the Magis' own calculations since they had spent their lives at that sort of thing. I think this is an implication, though Larson doesn't say this.

---

That is more than a bit dubious. Even assuming that they could get an exact time, how do they get from that to a location ? And why would Matthew describe it in a way that seems to indicate that the star was going ahead of them and stopped at a particular place ?

In other words you can't figure out how Larson's ideas fit with the scripture it is supposed to be explaining. Isn't that a pretty serious deficiency in Larson's argument ? Isn't that precisely what he should be explaining ?Add to this the fact that the evidence still favours a 4BC date of death for Herod (yes, I am familiar with various arguments pro and con)The idea of a particular conjunction specifically indicating the birth of a King of the Jews also seems to be dubious.I would also suggest that defending Larson's video tooth and nail before seeing how it stands up to criticism is unwise. Making excuses for Larson is not a good idea.

quote:

---

There's so much that is compelling in this video showing how various scripture passages are reflected in the celestial movements, I hate to get all caught up in one point like this.

---

But that is the central point, is it not ? All his astrology doesn't help explain the Star of Bethlehem as described by the Gospel. If you want to believe that the passage in Matthew 2 is a distorted version of Larson's ideas that is up to you, but I don't think that is what you want to argue for.