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

Huh?If they were Jewish scholars, they ought to have known the prophecies. And if the prophecies specified Bethlehem, why wouldn't they just go to Bethlehem?

All the books of the Bible ARE "human creations" -- inspired by God.

quote:

---

All the books of the Bible ARE "human creations" -- inspired by God.

---

Even if you assume that, humans are fallible and not restricted to the literal truth.

I agree. In particular that is what I expect a Bible literalist to do. I have no problem with your doing that, at least for the purpose of the discussion. But you are not assuming that the story is literally true, are you?The real problem I have is the little respect you have for the text of Matthew. About the only thing you seem to give credit to in the text is that there was an important star. Everything else about the Magi and the motion of the star, even where it appeared in the sky are up for grabs to the point where you assume the text is inaccurate. For the rest of your argument you lean towards Larsen's discussion even though that requires essentially taking Matthew as being metaphoric language for quite ordinary astronomical phenomena. In short you seem to like astrology much more than you like the Bible text.Just to be clear on where this post is headed, consider this. If you applied that same logic to the discussion of the Flood in Genesis, you and I might likely find ourselves in a much larger agreement. But quite frankly that isn't what I expect from any literalist. At least I can respect your view of the Flood from a theological position.I cannot muster similar respect for your opinion here. In your discussion with Paul you've denied the degree of astrology that you are accepting only to have to change after Paul pointed out just how immersed your posts are in the subject. That is not what this discussion is about at all. PaulK and I in particular have been working from the text and have argued for the text being true. The only debunking has been of your interpretation of natural events that might match the text. My own impression is that it is the astrology that is to be debunked and not the Bible itself. Maybe the Magi did believe in astrology, but even in that context, the text most take primary position over a good story.Your accusation is well off the mark.

God inspired the scriptures; God is their Author. He inspired them, He watched over them. If God is doing the inspiring, fallenness cannot prevail.

To correct you on a minor point I have not been arguing for the text as true or false. it is certainly possible to point out how far Larson is from a natural reading of the text and how much he has to add to it without taking any position on whether the text is true or not.

Except of course for the fact that God seems to be willfully ignorant when it comes to inspiration, inspiring contradictory and factually wrong stories.No Faith, you just keep making God look stupid.

quote:

---

God inspired the scriptures; God is their Author. He inspired them, He watched over them. If God is doing the inspiring, fallenness cannot prevail

---

Yet if God chose to make a point through a non-literal reading, how could that be seen as an error ? Literal truth is not listed in your quote (itself from a probably -pseudonymous epistle that very likely was not considered scripture by it's author, even if he were the Apostle) And we know that God does not guarantee that every word of scripture is true, thus allowing parts to be in error (ABE 1 Corinthians 14-15 corrected by the following verses).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

PaulK is always debunking the scriptures one way or another. That puts you in questionable company.Yes I believe that God is in charge of the Zodiac, He created it, I figure He had some purpose for it and that "declaring the glory of God" as the psalm says is the main point. It's not for living our lives by but finding the gospel in it isn't using it that way. I'm also now convinced that it reflects specific scripture passages, such as the woman of Revelation 12. There is plenty of odd imagery in scripture, such as in Revelation and other prophetic passages, that has to be interpreted; I wouldn't have expected the woman in Revelation 12 to so literally describe the sign of Virgo rising in the sky but the description is awfully precise. (watch Virgo rise on the video Message 438 about 40.00 or so.)He describes the crucifixion starting about 56.00. At about 58:00 he shows the blood moon rising; it rises with the sign of Virgo and the blood moon is at her feet. This is on the day of the crucifixion, the eclipse occurring below the horizon at the very hour Christ died. This is the day He was crucified as Larson tracked it down to April 3 of 33 AD. You'll not find this particular collection of details for the Passover maybe anywhere else ever.I really don't mind parting company with you on any point of biblical interpretation. Go ahead and smear me for it; it's a badge of honor to be smeared by you and others here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Every word of the original is true, in all 66 books. There are no deviations from this fact.

quote:

---

Every word of the original is true, in all 66 books. There are no deviations from this fact.

---

If 1 Corinthians 1:14-15 were true there wouldn't be any need for the following verse to add a correction.

Yes. But my general impression of Paul is that he debates fairly. In this case, citing the text to show that your favorite interpretation is incorrect is something that both believers and non-believers might do.So I am really not concerned about having PaulK as company. I find your accusation to be the same thing as saying that Christians cannot disagree on the interpretation of the text. Clearly, that is wrong. A valid argument is valid no matter who makes it. I don't buy that as a reasonable justification for astrology, and certainly not as an excuse for departures from the text. Your mileage may vary. But surely the meanings attached to the stars are a human creation. Or do you really think it is God that decided that a bunch of stars near Regulus looked like a lion? The discussion here is not personal. Amusing. Yet another claim to martyrdom. Perhaps you should stop making everything is about you. I am discussing your opinion and the basis for that opinion. As long as I am telling the truth about what you post, then you are smearing yourself.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You keep accusing me of departing from the text. I don't see it.Tell me, what do you do with scripture texts like ' There will be signs in the heavens" etc? What sort of things are you expecting? I didn't expect the woman of Rev 12 to be a match to the sign of Virgo but she is. I didn't expect the moon turning to blood to turn out to be an ordinary celestial event but that certainly seems to be the case. Is it just a coincidence that the crucifixion (the Passover too) occurred in the Sign of the Ram?I guess you could argue that there is no necessity to make these connections, since scripture alone is quite clear about the meanings in these cases, and that's true, but most of the correlations are too true to ignore even so.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your "telling the truth" is not done kindly, it's done in a very mean and accusatory way.abe: Oh, and it's not the truth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no contradiction. He says he baptized none of those hearing him except two he named, then went on to mention others he baptized that weren't among those hearing him.However, even if he corrected himself about a point like that, we could hardly call that a violation of scriptural inerrancy. Good grief. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.