Divinity of Jesus

More specifically, the Messiah would be a descendant of Solomon, which Jesus wasn't.Just one example of why Jesus was not a/the Messiah.

Hi J,The prophecy can be found specifically in 2 Samuel 7:13.God spoke to Nathan and told him to pass on a message to King David saying that Yahweh hasn't dwelt in a building since the Exodus and that Yahweh is with David and Israel and will establich a home for them.Yahweh promises to preserve David's dynasty forever after David dies, God will raise up David's offspring and in particular it will be the offsrping that builds a house for Yahweh whose line will succeed.As you can see this is supported by 2 Sam 7:13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Read in context, this reference clearly informs us that it is relating to one person. 'He' will build a house, 'his' kingdom forever. The 'house for my name' is the Temple built by Solomon, and it is Solomon?s kingdom that will be established forever.That it is Solomon who is chosen by God is further supported by 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. Solomon was chosen to build the Temple, it is Solomon's line that succeeds and Jesus has no line to Solomon, thus Jesus was not the Messiah.

Could you provide any references from the Hebrew Bible that suggest the messiah would be anything other than a normal everyday human being? Do you have evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.Also, are you sure you have read Micah properly?Micah 5:2But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." The problem with this passage you have referenced is that it is not referring to a town at all, it is referring to a clan. It is out of this clan that the Messiah will come, so your 'outstanding' fulfillment is based on a misunderstanding.

Well this would mean that this 'messiah' mentioned by Micah would not have to be born in Bethlehem, as the author of Matthew incorrectly stated.The child could have been born anywhere in the world, as long as the child was from the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah.From the context of Micah it is obvious that he is speaking about a clan, there has never been thousands of towns in Israel.It is equally obvious that this leader will appear soon and smite the Assyrians. It is a bit like the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy where the 'virgin' will give birth very soon as a sign to Ahaz that the current alliance against him would fail.Whoever wrote gMat completely ripped this prophecy out of context, which is a big and recurring feature of his work.

My point exactly.The BIBLE says that the messiah comes from Solomon's bloodline, the BIBLE says Jesus was a descendant of Nathan (through Mary, even though bloodline doesnt go through women), thus Jesus could not have been the Messiah.Cognitive dissonance has to be at the core of Christianity.

About what Jay?

We have already been through this Jay, as you have already pointed out.

Oh I will have.

I would agree as far as their personal beliefs go, but I know a lot of people have changed their minds about certain histoical events after reading information on discussion boards. But this is different from a person's faith, and I worked out pretty quickly that I wouldn't change a Christian's mind about their faith. Only they can do that, but I still get amazed that anyone can study the OT and still take Jesus seriously, but that is their choice of course. Sure, and is another reason why I dont post here very often, but EvC has served a good purpose. An improved subject knowledge.

When I decided to leave Christianity, it was a very difficult decision, I obviously began to look at the Bible from a very different angle, and I do have a few problems with Paul’s conversion experience (apart from the usual objections of conflicting accounts).Think about this, if you wanted to popularise something what better way is there than to tell people that you once hated this product but now you realise how wrong you were? People would obviously find it more convincing that an opponent of something is now an avid supporter of it now. Well, surely you agree that we only have Paul’s word that this conversion happened, we only have his word that he hated Christianity, and most of all, we only have his word that he had persecuted Christians. It is this final point that I have a real problem with because it just doesn’t sit right with what we know from external evidence.The idea that Paul could swoop into Damascus, on the orders of the Sanhedrin, to persecute Christians there really doesn’t sound plausible at all. What power did the Sanhedrin have in Syria?Then we have to recognise that the very same group that was supposed to be persecuting Christians allowed Paul to preach in their synagogues.Finally, under Pax Romana, it is difficult to imagine the Romans allowing this persecution to go ahead when they themselves allowed the nations under their Empire to follow their own faith. Thus, to me, I feel it is more believable that Paul never persecuted Christians, but that the story is a piece of propaganda invented to persuade people that Christianity must be true because one of its most fervent opponents is now persuaded that it is true.

Your evidence for this is what? Evidence? Evidence? Evidence? Evidence? So you think it is logical that a man died and came back to life three days later?You think a 3 hour eclipse of the sun is logical?You think the dead jumping out their graves and walking the streets is logical? Evidence? Evidence? Evidence? Why? What does it indicate then?

I hardly ever mention that I used to be a Christian, and whether I left or remained in Christianity has no bearing on whether Christianity is true or not. So I am hardly sensationalising it when I hardly talk about it. Well since it is an argument that I have never used I have to disagree It wasn’t dramatic.And yes I could be telling lies, but there’s an easy way to check out my story, but that would involve some work on your behalf. So who else witnessed the Damascus road episode and where can I read this account. It is okay you disagreeing with it but that is not a very convincing argument. It is a very strong argument thought, and one that cannot be shown to be true. We don’t really have a lot of Paul’s writings, perhaps 7 texts in the NT probably belonged to him, but there is so much of his life missing we would find it difficult to know what his favourite angle was. Have a look and find out.But he does frequently speak about the gospel coming to him in a supernatural manner. The evidence I posted in the same post you replied to. But this is where you again fail to address the point. Just like the dance you are doing with PaulK, you are avoiding the real issue.You are saying he went above and beyond the call to protect Judaism, but how plausible is it that his approach is historically accurate?Why would Paul be allowed to persecute Christians when Rome itself didn’t persecute them? Why would Paul be allowed to persecute Christians when it was Roman Law that everyone in the Empire was free to follow their own faith? Give me some sort of relevant reply here, not some dodge or YOUR opinion. I have asked two very well known Christians, who have both sold MILLIONS of books, and both of their replies have been infantile. So what have you got? Indeed, but he had to obtain letters from the High Priest to take to the Synagogues in Damascus, so if he found any Christians he could bind them and take them back to Jerusalem for trial and possibly to be put to death. Again, this is contrary to Pax Romana, so what evidence do you have that Paul would be exempt from this Roman Law?Also, what power did the Sanhedrin have in Syria? It doesn’t matter what he invented it out of, the whole episode is historically unlikely. You call asking for evidence scepticism?You call examining the evidence and drawing valid conclusions scepticism?What do you call the blind acceptance of a text as accurate despite the huge mountains of contrary evidence? As opposed to Glen Miller’s theology for kids? I sometimes wonder if you even read the Bible.Allegedly Paul went to persecute Christians in Damascus, he had letters from the High Priests to the synagogues, we have to assume there was tension between the Jews and Christians otherwise the letters would be pointless. The Jews must have really hated the Christians in Damascus when they even let Paul preach there:Acts 9:20 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. He whole story of Paul’s conversion is just ludicrous, and not to mention ontradictory. Don’t worry it isn’t infectious. Why would I want to be a liar and a crook? You really should try responding to the points that I and others have made, this dancing around doesn’t reflect well on you.So, I would appreciate if you could address the points I have made with some real evidence.

Searching for the truth, as all historians should do.You see, people like myself, Jar and Paul actually do care about the truth and we use several research methods to arrive at plausible accounts of the past. We do not just blindly accept what a source tells us, we test it and retest it alongside the other available evidence to try and discover a plausible, falsifiable theory.The blinkered approach that you and others like you take, means that you are missing out on so much of the amazing literature contained in the Bible.Are you really not intersted in how the Bible came to be, are you not interested in the history of the peoples mentioned in it, are you mot interested in discovering what actually went on in the ancient near east?

This is completely irrelevant.I asked why Paul, before his conversion was allowed to persecute Christians when Rome didn't persecute them. In fact, Rome didnt persecute any groups for their religious beliefs, people were free to continue folowing their faith under the protection of Rome. But this is the whole point I am making. Rome didn't ignore 'religious squabbles', they protected religious groups. You do know about Pax Romana don't you? Romans allowing hit squads to do what they want within the Empire is a ludicrous suggestion. Well, apart from the idea that Jesus was God wasnt accepted until about 400 years after He died, this whole idea is falsified by the FACT that Jews did not consider a caesar to be god and the Jews were not persecuted by anyone for that.When you say 'some caesars' do you have any particular caesar in mind, one that says what you would like them to say? There was another king besides caesar, have you never heard of King Herod?Rome happily allowed many nations to retain their monarchies, so try another approach. I think you have some fairytale history going on that ignores all the evidence.However. I really didnt say that the Romans couldn't care less about the cult of Jesus, i did in fact say the exact opposite. That may well be, but what I asked was why PAUL was allowed to persecute Christians when Rome didnt presecute them. So, I would be requiring evidence that Rome persecuted Christians at the same time as Paul. If you dont have any, then why would the Romans break their own law and allow Paul to persecute people who were under the protection of the Roman Empire. I'm wary of Christians in general. Paul or the anonymous author of the Book of Acts, who knows? They were tolerant of all the religious groups under their protection at that time, which really is common knowledge Jay. Well if there is anything else you would like to know just give me a shout, I don't mind helping you out.

So, after making multiple responses to Paul and I about what you now feel were off topic posts, you suddenly decide that it belongs elsewhere!You are hilarious Jay.What's wrong, having trouble supporting your fantasies yet again?But, I'll start a thread, hope you contribute.Brian.Edited by Brian, : spilled my beer when i read jay's post!