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

In response, to the unstudied Jewish person who suggested that Jesus was not the Messiah, because HE didnt fulfill Micah.WRONG absolutely wrong.... Jesus was born in Bethlehem exactly as prophesied. Why dont the Jews know their own Old Testament.AnywayGeographyDesignofBethlehemJerusalemJordanPetraThere it is exact, EXACT GEOGRAPHY because Jesus was born exactly where He was prophesied to be born....in the exact year He was prophesied to be born.Mystery Solved, Jesus fulfilled all Messiannic prophecies.Deniers can now post if they choose to be blind.

Yet you have still failed to show any evidence of any such prophecies, rather all you have done is pervert what is written and taken passages out of context. You are still trying the old Carny Con game of palming the pea and misdirection but unfortunately for you there are people here who actually read the Bible and know you are just making stuff up.

I havent changed the Book of Micah, and moved the town of Bethlehem to a new latitude and longitude.I have not put Bethlem latitude exactly in line and according to the Christos Angle.BethlehemsLatitudeandEarthAll these exact lines of design absolutely show design rather than random geographic locations.Geography is by DESIGN, because the facts show design.Deal with it rather than whining. Study rather than complain about studying and math.Jesus wins as HE fulfilled all prophetic prophecy.

There is no such thing as the Christos Angle except in the delusions of some Christian nutjobs.There is nothing in the Book of Micah about Jesus except in the delusions of some Christian nutjobs.Sorry Charley, you lose.

The whole thing rests upon Bethlehem being at latitude of 31.68. It isn't. Its close but not Bethlehem.Everything they claim about 3168 is not accurate. All it takes is a little curiosity to realize it is all bullshit, that wow the believers.ABE
Bethlehem is about a degree off of 31.68Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Looks to me like it's a lot closer than that, as good as exact given that the town itself takes up some space: Google page gives the number 31.7054However, I don't see how the latitude is arrived at from Micah. The diagram on DJ's page showing the relationships between the towns in the area is interesting though. That sort of thing is interesting, but I don't see how it comes from Micah.(Something he didn't point out is also very interesting about the towns and that is their names: "Bethlehem" means "house of bread" and Jesus called himself "the bread that came down from heaven;" then "Nazarene" and "Nazareth" are based on the Hebrew word for "Branch" as kbertsche pointed out, which is one of the names of the Messiah in the OT.)But there are things in DavidJay's discussion that don't add up and I don't mean just mathematically:

• He uses Daniel 9 to arrive at Jesus' birthday, but that prophecy is always used to arrive at the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey, declaring Himself to be the promised King. If DJ is correcting that calculation it needs to be spelled out.
  ​
• Also, he claims that The Branch refers to a son of David who is not the Messiah, but clearly he has to be the Messiah, if only for the reason that such a prophetic name wouldn't be wasted on anyone less.
  ​
• And he confuses the two olive trees that symbolize the two witnesses of Revelation with the Messiah.

I can't read the links so I can't follow the argument beyond this, but it seems to me that while he has some interesting stuff he also has some errors.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you actually map the coordinates you will see that that coordinate is a bit off from central Bethlehem. Point being the number is not special.

I pulled it up on Google Earth. Your numbers work.Enter 31.68 into Google Earth and see what you get. It puts you at least 1 1/2 miles outside of downtown Bethlehem.

I have a fundamental problem with Davidjay's approach, irrespective of any details. His approach seems to boil down to a search for hidden meanings and messages, and to ignore or downplay the plain historical-grammatical-contextual meaning of the text.Luther emphasized the "perspicuity" (clarity) of Scripture. If God actually wrote Scripture to communicate with us, the main meaning should be clear without any special Davidjay-issued decoder glasses. (This does NOT mean that some things are difficult to interpret; they are. And it does NOT mean that some things are intentionally confusing, like Jesus' parables. But the main meaning of the text is generally clear.)The dead give-away is Davidjay's pointing to the Great Pyramid as a source of biblical truth. It's not surprising that someone can apply numerology to its dimensions and come up with some hidden correlations, just like someone can find hidden messages with a "Bible code" that skips every nth letter of the text. But this is not the point of the text, nor of the pyramid.

I know it's easy to load Google Earth but I haven't done it on this computer yet. I think I'll just take your word for it.I think what we have here is that DavidJay is being inexact about the word "exact." He might be making an interesting case if he allowed things to be off by a partial degree.

Yes, good points, and this sort of measuring game tends to bore me -- unless the evidence is really really good, and even then I'm not interested in working it out for myself. though if the evidence IS good it could be persuasive for a certain kind of mind. Unfortunately it's not all that good in this case. And yes the pyramid is indeed a giveaway.Nevertheless there are some interesting things in prophecy (no, not Bible codes) which can get awfully precise - such as the three-and-a-half-year number that shows up in so many different places. I'm curious about that but not curious enough to spend any time sorting it out. Besides it's probably not going to be clear what it means except to the people who will live through it.

Yes, I agree that we can understand the big picture of Bible prophecy (there will be lots of problems, rebellions, uprisings, but Jesus will win in the end and make everything right). And I think we can understand some of the details fairly well (7 years of trouble, with the last 3 1/2 being especially bad). But I don't think we'll understand lots of other details until after they occur (who/what is the antichrist? The mark? The beast? The great city? The four horsemen?). As Daniel records, many of these end-times details are "sealed up" until the end (Dan 12:4).

Hm, so are you saying you're a Pre-Tribulation Rapture believer?So you then at least roughly accept the Ussher/Daniel 9 prophecy? I.ve seen some good arguments for the Pre Trib point of view, but I also like to listen to Chris Pinto's radio shows (Noise of Thunder radio) and he often spells out the Historicist eschatology which he imputes to the Reformers. He has a show up I haven't heard yet on the four horsemen. I think I'll check it out after I write this.;He has made the case for the Reformers' view of the Antichrist as the papacy, which I already thought from other clues, but also for the papacy WITH Mohammed as the two legs of the Roman Empire in the Nebuchadnezzar statue of Daniel 2, two antichrists (Islam of course denies that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"), and although there are other antichrists to be considered I keep coming back to that. He also quoted some Reformer or other on the Mark as connected to confirmation in the Catholic Church -- there are surprisingly good reasons to think that including its being called the mark in Catholic literature, but it's been a long time since he's said anything about that and I may not remember it rightly.The Historicist view sees End Times events as ongoing throughout history, not one-time events that appear and then are over, although I think a future final expression of them is implied.If the Pre Trib Rapture is true then the Antichrist is to be revealed after the Church is gone. abe: I think this could still be true even if the Historicist view of the Reformers is correct that he was already revealed -- I think in 606 when Phocas declared the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop. /abeWell, that's off topic I guess. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Very interesting, I heard the radio show on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and I think I now have a new understanding. I've always felt ambivalent about the identify of the first horseman on the white horse, just doesn't seem like an Antichrist figure as he's usually interpreted to be, and Pinto says he'd had to rethink it too after reading the Reformers.They generally see him as some version of God or God's power or the gospel itself or Christ, going out to conquer with a bow. But no arrows, although some think the arrows are implied. I think now it's a good image for the gospel which conquers the heart or spirit with no arrows or invisible arrows -- fits "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God..."The other horsemen are then interpreted as God's judgments that have followed wherever the gospel is rejected, down through the centuries. Although they could represent the fury of Satan as the gospel does go forth and conquer what he thinks of as his own world.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But his whole premise is based on exact #'s. Fudging the numbers destroys his premise.