Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

Hi,I think it would make sense for Christians to accept that the author of Matthew made a boob when he misunderstood Isaiah 7:14, then there is no problem with a bloodline.But to deny the virgin birth is to deny fertilisation by the Holy Spirit, and I think most christians would not do that.But, there are other 'prophecies' that have been invented by the author of Matthew that make his testimony less than reliable.Brian.

Joseph was still his father. He still looked after him.The problem is just not a problem. We know that a strict literalism of Samuel is required - and an emphasis on his "body".To concentrate on these few words alone don't mean much. Christ was of the line of David through Joseph, and so it makes sense to make sure we inform you that these few words are the same as Abraham's seeds, or Adam surely dying the day he ate the fruit - if taken literally, wrongful conclusions can be derived, Now prophecy is especially cryptic, look at Revelation for example. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 17:16 AM

Can you evidence your claim as to me lying please. A quote - so that all can see it. It's just that according to you, I seem to be a liar in every thread I exchange posts with you, aswell as not a true christian etc.. What is this intolerant rage you have against believers.Also, you cannot contain yourself concerning creationists - and turn every thread into how mean and nasty we all are.These harsh judgemental words paint a picture of one so consumed by hatred of mikey - that his unbarable and lusty rage cannot be contained. I think in truth that you lie when you say I lie about you because I truly don't in truth but lie you do, I don't.

Hi Mike, Yep, but Jospeh passed on no blood to baby Yeshua, so no messiah here. Not to you it isn's Mike, but you have already made up your mind that there cannot be an error.However, people such as myself, whi are completely objective, see huge problem, especially when Xians tell me that the Messiah was ot be born of a virgin, and Jesus was. I canot help it if they are ignorant of the Bible, I have made the effort to be familair with it so why can't they? I know, but I am not concentrating on these few words, this is only the beginning of the thread. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.How many times do you need to be shown that Joseph was not his father, and thus there is no bloodline, keep dreaming Mike. yes, complete fairy tales Oh, let me see, we should ignore every OT prophecy that negates Jesus because we are not reading it correctly?Gzus H, for that matter Mike I could be the messiah Revelation is not a prophetic book.BTW, if prophecy is cryptic how do you know the correct answer? Do we need the mind numbing Holy Spirit to help us arrive at the true meaning?If it is cryptic, then the bible is no better than Nostradamus' prophecies.Brian.

Message #27 first. I'm not taking up the position of defending Samuel if I doubt it's Messianic meaning myself.

Well Mike, the thing is that I already pointed out where you were lying - and all you did was ignore that and demand that explain again. Since you've already done that once - and since you could easily go back and reread the post I can only conclude that you are indulging in another dishonest ploy.But since you insist Mike - just to make sure everyone knows just how dishonest you are, Message 15 is full of lies.We can go through it sentence by sentence.

quote:

---

Rubbish

---

Lie 1 - you did not point out even one error.

quote:

---

We don't hold that one scripture proves Christ - but many. And many the more point to him, and have only described him.

---

A clear strawman - while in context this pretends to be describing my position it has no basis in anything I actually said.

quote:

---

Thus your rational procedure - is one of assertion, to no end.

---

Another lie. No sensible person would deny that ripping a fragment of text completely out of its context was not a valid metohd of intepretation. It's too easy to misrepresent the text by doing so

quote:

---

For the many outdo the few - and the few you cling on to, are desperate reminders of your impulse of wrongful endeavours.

---

Yet another lie. If you have seen my previous comments on such claims you would know that I have answers to many more. If you have not then you have no way of knowing that I cling to one example as you falsely claim. And you are quick to accuse me of engaging in "wrongful endeavours"

quote:

---

You're straining at a nat - and swallowing a camel.

---

Yet another lie - you don't even try to say what the "camel" is - or why rejecting an obviously invalid interpretation of a prophecy is "straining at a nat [sic]".And of course you lie again in Message 17 as I pointed out in Message 19Neither message contains any valid criticisms of any point I have raised. Both make false personal attacks instead. Any reasonable person would think THAT a clearer example of "intolerant rage" than the injured party complaining about undeserved abuse.So stop whining just because you got caught misbehaving. Again.

Hi Mike,I will give you a decent answer tomorrow before I go out, I have had a wee bit too much whisky tonight to give you a respectable answer.Catch you later.Brian.

Lets approach this thread without getting irate with each other. Also, lets keep to the topic at hand. This is Brians thread and he wants to know: Now...as soon as Brian wakes up from his spiritual experience, we can continue...

All I ask of Mike is that if he wants to rpely to my posts that hea) Read them properlyb) Answer them with reasonable and rational responses rather than making false personal attacks.If Mike cannot manage that much then he needs to be sent to Boot Camp or banned.

Calling someone a liar is rather strong. It is easy to mistake a person's confusion, overstatement and disagreement as a lie.It is not clear to me that Mike is actually lieing. He is not doing a good job of holding up his side but not clearly lieing.

...lurk mode off...sorry about butting in here, but as an outsider who knows bugger all about the bible I thought my two cents would be useful.It looks like you have three options here.1) Jesus was the son of God, concieved by the Holy Spirit, and has no blood connection to Joseph. This means no blood connection to David unless Mary's bloodline can be discerned. The phrase "of the body" seems pretty damn clear that they're talking about an actual blood descendent of David - and how do you know it's not meant to be taken literally? I really hope it's not just because it's convienient, and you have some kind of criteria to determine the proper context. In this case, he does not fulfil the requirements of the prophesy.2) Jesus was the son of Joseph, a mortal man descended from David, and not the son of God - in which case he fulfils the requirements for messiahship (sp?).3) The prophesy isn't talking about Jesus.The case for the prophesy being about Jesus hangs on either Mary's bloodline or a metaphorical interpretation of the phrase "of the body", seeing as I'm sure no Christian is going to go with option 3. Prove either one of these and you're home and dry.My neat little summary of the thread so far. Hope it's useful.The Rockhound...lurk mode on...

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

Trust a rock-knapper to get to the heart of a problem

Hi Mike, Every Christian that believes that Jesus is the Messiah will say this Mike, as this is the chapter that presents us with the Davidic Covenant. This is not just a messianic prophecy Mike, it is *THEE* messianic prophecy as it is the one that informs us that the messiah will be descended from David. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee The Samuel quote, through the Nathan Prophecy, tells us of the establishment of David’s eternal dynasty: and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. Even when David was near the end of his life he still recalled the promise that God made to him.2 Samuel 23:5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant It obviously does relate to Solomon, read the verses that I provided.1 Chronicles 29:1: Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen, is young and inexperienced The task is great, because this palatial structure is not for man but for the LORD God. What do you think the task is Mike, given that it is a palatial structure for God? Obviously the Temple, which we all know was built by Solomon.Remember, it is the person who builds a house for God’s name whose throne is established forever. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.David was not permitted to build the Temple, but Solomon was, so the covenant that David had with God is honoured. Solomon was David’s son, so David’s seed has been ‘set up’.You may possibly claim that Samuel is not talking about Solomon, but I have no idea how it can apply to anyone else, and every commentary I have read on Samuel agree on it. Why does it have to apply to Solomon? Any messianic prophecy only needs to apply to a descendant of Solomon’s, and thus a person from the bloodline of David.The rest of the post is concerning Isaiah, which we haven’t arrived at yet.Cheers.Brian.

I was given the solved problem. Apparently - more experienced Biblists had the answer in another thread,(I'm only young.) and yet you make a new thread to debate this, when they offered an answer??? Please understand - that the answer satisfies me and the problem is solved for the wiz, so I'll be bowing out of this one now. Hope you understand Brian. But also - I guess this one just isn't that big a deal as I easily think this curse thing is the answer.But I have read Isaiah, and am convinced it prophecizes Christ. Only blinding my eyes could change that.God promised that David would always have a descendant on his throne (Jeremiah 23:5-6, 1 Chronicles 17:10-14). The legal right to this throne was passed through David's son, Solomon, to his descendants. Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin), a great, great grandson of Solomon and king of Judah, was so wicked that God punished him by declaring that none of his children would ever again sit on the throne (Jeremiah 22:17-30). This caused a 'problem' since Joseph, the supposed 'father' of Jesus, was a descendant of Jeconiah. If Joseph had been Jesus' biological father, Jesus would have had the legal right to the throne, but would have been unable to occupy it due to being under Jeconiah's curse. God solved this problem by using Mary: Jesus was the first-born son of Mary, a virgin (Matthew 1:23) and a descendant of David through another son, Nathan. So Jesus has the right to sit on the eternal throne of David legally, through his adoptive father, Joseph; and physically, through His natural mother, Mary. In this way, God's promise, mentioned above in Jeremiah and Chronicles, was fulfilled. - AIG.

We'll be by later this week with the hot pokers. Try to keep your schedule open.Kidding!