Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

Oh no, it's a declaration of moral victory on top of the intellectual victory.

Is it my imagination or did EMA still not address the actual text?Did I miss his explanation of what the throne means in context of the story?He didn't address my explanation in Message 284.Can I assume he has nothing contrary to what we've been saying all along? More posts wasted on gobbledygook just like the one's about a spiritual kingdom.I don't see in his explanation or Peg's that the throne refers to anything other than the leadership of the Israelite's government.I think they're trying to imply it is God's "throne", but the text doesn't support that idea either. God had his own "throne" he didn't need David's. The Israelites needed someone to run the day to day dealings of a government.It's a shame they don't even try to show how the text supports their position. I was hoping to get an idea of how their mind works, but I'm still disappointed.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

the obvious thing you are missing is that 'his kingdom' and 'the throne' are two entirely separate entities.The throne existed before Solomon was born, so the throne was not something that came into existence by Solomons Kingdom.What God promised to King David was that his son (Solomon) would build the temple and the throne of that kingdom would be established to time indefinite. The throne that already existed was going to exist forever...not Solomon and his kingdom. and this still stands because scriptures do not contradict each other. At 2 Samuel 7:16 God told David "And your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.And Isiah also prophecies about the Messiah as ruling on the throne forever
Isaiah 9:6-7 6For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. So the one who was said to rule the throne of David would do so forever.God lives forever, as do the angels in heaven and as does the Son of God Jesus Christ who was the Messiah, the promised seed of David. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

PD writes:Oh no, am I going to need to extract from you as we did Paul exacally what your position on God and Gods alleged word is or is not? He was man enough to bring forward his position and beliefs in this respect, which basically demonstrated the fallacy of his approach, atleast from my and others respectYou speak as if you dont believe the bible can be taken as one text. As I explained to Paul anyone can look at one verse and derive any conclusion they wish, especially if they percieve it as a work of a man or group of men with no particular direction except thier own.In that respect, not only was jesus a failure but so was everybody else in the Old Testament as well.here is a simple question. If the throne is not Gods throne as the other passages Peg has quoted indicate and ascribe, then what are the scriptures? Are they a work of men or are they work of God through men.When you can answer this question candidly and without evasion, you have no problem figuring out whose throne it actually is in the scripturesMy guess is that you will not be as straight forword as was Paul, you and I have been down this road before.My and Pegs mind work as if the scriptures are the word of God, completely. If that is not what you expected can please tell me how you expected our minds to work

Hardly, I was simply pointing out your failure to acknowledge the simple rule of exegesis which requires any form of contextual examination. I was claiming no victory, I was actually expressing disappointment on your part to provide this simple ruleEAM

I notice Christians use the "dual prophecy/meaning" excuse when:1) Its shown the context of the story has nothing to do with prophecy.
2) Its shown the prophecy refers to something else entirely.
3) A prophecy fails. Peg actually brought up the King of Trye prophecy which is an utter failure, but "saved" bc the context is obliterated to make it "say" something else.So my question, where in the OT does it mention dual prophecies/meanings?

If you read the bible as a whole, you would understand what the throne meant. How did the isrealites understand it? How about the kings themselves?Moses told the Isrealites that when they starting asking for a king they couldn't choose one for themselves, God would choose the king. And the king could not make his own laws for the isrealites, he would have to impart the laws of God because the throne he was sitting on was not his, it was Gods and he would sit as a representation of Gods rulership over the nation.Saul and David were both annointed to be kings by prophets sent at Gods direction and 1chronicles 29:23 says " Solomon began to sit on Gods throne"So they understood that it was Gods throne they were sitting on, not their own. The kings could not make their own laws like other nations, they had to abide by the Mosaic laws....laws given by God. So the throne was just a representation of Gods rulership and thats how they understood it. the bible does not agree with youJeremiah 3:17 In that time they will call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and to her all the nations must be brought together to the name of Jehovah at JerusalemJeremiah 14:20 We do acknowledge, O Jehovah, our wickedness, the error of our forefathers, for we have sinned against you. 21Do not disrespect [us] for the sake of your name; do not despise your glorious throneEzekeil 43:7 And He went on to say to me: Son of man, [this is] the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I shall reside in the midst of the sons of Israel to time indefinite1chronicles 29:23 " Solomon began to sit on Gods throne" the thing is PD, you read one scripture and try to put a meaning to it rather then taking the whole bible into consideration before drawing your conclusions.this is a fatal flaw in your reasoning on the scriptures because the bible is a coherent whole and needs to be read in whole. In MSG 284, you give a rundown of the scripture about David but then immediately apply it to Solomon.????How did you manage that? Seriously? Just take a look and yet that scripture says: The LORD declares to you (David) that the LORD himself will establish a house for you (David)The throne was already in existence because David was sitting on it. So God is declaring that Davids kingdom is going to be firmly established. This is why the future messiah was to be called 'Davids Son'You have to remember that God made a covenant with David and here in Davids old age, God was reassuring him that his kingdom and the covenant that God had made was going to come to fruition. The covenant was so binding that centuries after Davids death God said at Jeremiah 33:20-21 ‘If you people could break my covenant of the day and my covenant of the night, even in order for day and night not to occur in their time, likewise could my own covenant be broken with David my servant so that he should not come to have a son ruling as king upon his throne.’Notice there is no mention of Solomon in that scripture? This is because the verse in Samuel is the promise to David that his existing kingdom would last forever and one of his decendents would appear who would be the messiah.This is why the gospel account mentions the Angels words to mary about Jesus birth in Luke 1:32
"This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This is so true, Peg. You've nailed it. Corroborate, corroborate and corroborate before arriving at conclusions.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Exactly.

Of course this is just another example of twisting and misrepresenting the Bible.For a start nobody who has honestly studied the BIble could say that it is a unified whole - and what unity there is s the product of selection and redaction. The Bible is an assemblage of different works by different authors with different beliefs.Simply twisting the text to support the mistaken idea of unity is bad enough. But what we see here is worse - the erroneous idea of unity is used as a pretext for twisting and misrepresenting the text.For instance Jeremiah 3:17 read in context refers to a future date when Jerusalem will be metaphorically known as "the throne of Jehovah". How is this even relevant ? Obviously this isn't an example of a serious exegesis, it's just superficial quote-mining of the text.The other quotes aren't much better. If the throne of Judah or the throne of the united Israel is also called God's throne it's still the throne of an earthly kingdom. And that is very obviously what is going on in 1 Chronicles 29:23The treatment of 2 Samuel 7:11-13 is even worse.

quote:

---

In MSG 284, you give a rundown of the scripture about David but then immediately apply it to Solomon.

​

????

​

How did you manage that? Seriously? Just take a look

---

How did Purpledawn manage that ? Well for a start by noting that David's son who will take the throne when David dies and who will build the Temple is not David. Reading the "whole Bible" can you tell us which of David's sons succeeded on David's death and built the Temple ? Do you know, I think that it might be Solomon !

the only twisting and misrepresenting comes from bible critics.When a critic makes a comment such as "I think they're trying to imply it is God's "throne", but the text doesn't support that idea either. God had his own "throne" he didn't need David's.and I provide several scriptures from various writers that show that they viewed the throne as belonging to God, then it is quite obvious who is misrepresenting and twisting the bible. but you keep missing the point that the scripture was not just about building a temple...it was about establishing Davids Kingdom forever which is in complete harmony with the promise made to David for an everlasting covenant.As evidence that the scripture refers to David is the promise made:
And Jehovah has told you that a house is what Jehovah will make for you.The house, or temple, was for David, not Solomon. And its that very house that will endure forever through one of Davids decendents who would sit on that throne forever in a rulership over the entire earth. This fits in with the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah and Jeremiah...they were all pointing to this very fact.and just to add, the reason why you or PD are not understanding this fundamental bible truth is because you do not view the bible as a coherent whole. The bible has one theme and one theme only...the messiah and the kingdom that would endure forever. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

quote:

---

the only twisting and misrepresenting comes from bible critics.

---

Since you are determined to say that the prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 doesn't mean what it says, and you apparently deny that Solomon was the son of David who succeeded his father on the throne of Israel and built the Temple, I suppose we must number you among the "Bible critics".

quote:

---

When a critic makes a comment such as "I think they're trying to imply it is God's "throne", but the text doesn't support that idea either. God had his own "throne" he didn't need David's.

​

and I provide several scriptures from various writers that show that they viewed the throne as belonging to God, then it is quite obvious who is misrepresenting and twisting the bible.

---

I think that Purpledawn's statement is poorly argued and I would not endorse it as written. I believe that Purpledawn is arguing that the throne of 2 Samuel 7:13 refers to rulership of the united kingdom of Israel. Given that it is referred to as Solomon's throne, rather than God's there that seems to be a reasonable inference.However it is also fact that your citations included at least one example that was clearly not relevant, and it is also a fact that you have yet to really explain what all this "God's throne" argument is really about. If it is simply saying that the throne of the kingdom of Israel can be called God's throne in some sense - as another of your cites has it - then how is it relevant ? And why cite verses that are clearly talking about something else ?
If you believe that it refers to something else then how can it be clearly identified as Solomon's throne in 2 Samuel 7:11-13 and why cite 1 Chronicles 23:23 which clearly IS referring to the throne of Isreal ?

quote:

---

but you keep missing the point that the scripture was not just about building a temple...it was about establishing Davids Kingdom forever which is in complete harmony with the promise made to David for an everlasting covenant.

---

No, I don't "keep missing it". You just haven't built a coherent argument from it.

quote:

---

The house, or temple, was for David, not Solomon. And its that very house that will endure forever through one of Davids decendents who would sit on that throne forever in a rulership over the entire earth. This fits in with the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah and Jeremiah...they were all pointing to this very fact.

---

Let's suppose that you are correct in your reading. If so we have the fact that it has not happened. Nor have you even shown that Jesus would be qualified to be this ruler if it ever did happen. So it's obviously no use in arguing that Jesus was not a failure.

quote:

---

The obvious thing you are missing is that 'his kingdom' and 'the throne' are two entirely separate entities.

---

The phrase "the throne of his kingdom" rather clearly links the two. So they are not entirely separate. If you think I have ignored the distinction in any relevant sense then please make an explicit case.

quote:

---

The throne existed before Solomon was born, so the throne was not something that came into existence by Solomons Kingdom.

​

What God promised to King David was that his son (Solomon) would build the temple and the throne of that kingdom would be established to time indefinite. The throne that already existed was going to exist forever...not Solomon and his kingdom.

---

Of course I am not alleging that the throne was brought into existence. But let us clear that the text clearly states that is is the throne of "his" kingdom, where "he" is the son of David, who will immediately succeed David and build the Temple. And obviously this is Solomon that is referred to. In what sense can the throne of Solomon's kingdom endure when there is no kingdom ? It doesn't seem likely that the physical throne would be "established forever".

quote:

---

PaulK writes:

​

Peg was the one who said that it had to be interpreted as meaning that the king would reign forever.

​

and this still stands because scriptures do not contradict each other. At 2 Samuel 7:16 God told David " And your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.

---

Quite obviously the verse you cite does not mean that the king will reign forever (and if it did it would be wrong because it is talking about David who did NOT reign forever !). So in what sense does your claim still stand ?Oh, and congratulations on reviving an argument that is so obviously stupid that you actually tried to pretend that it was MY position rather than admit that it had been yours !

quote:

---

And Isiah also prophecies about the Messiah as ruling on the throne forever

---

Since the person in question is Solomon and since I very much doubt that you think that Solomon was THE messiah, what Isaiah says about the Messiah is not really relevant, is it ?Edited by PaulK, : Corrected a qs tag

quote:

---

Hardly, I was simply pointing out your failure to acknowledge the simple rule of exegesis which requires any form of contextual examination

---

Of course I was not denying that the verse should be read in context. However I do not agree with your idea of "total context" (which is founded in a doctrine that I do not accept) - and even if I did it would still be incumbent on you to actually produce an argument - whcih you did not do.

lol....this is why debating with you is futile.now you are even twisting my words. I never claimed that solomon was not the one being spoken of in the verse...i have repeatedly said that Solomon was the one to build the temple as per the scripture says.What i have said is that the 'indefinitely lasting kingdom' spoken of in that verse is not a reference to Solomon but to the Messiah AND that the 'throne' is what will be established, not Solomon. actually its not a reasonalble inference for the reason that the throne was always Davids and the kingdom would always be called the 'house of David'. it is absolutely relevant because PD proclaimed that the bible does not say or imply that tit was Gods throne. The scriptures I posted showed clearly that the Isrealites viewed the throne as belonging to God. It was a theocracy! Theocracy means 'God Rule' and the king was bound by the laws of God.So you can keep denying that the isrealites viewed the throne as Gods throne, but the writings of the isrealites themselves prove otherwise. the early followers of Jesus did not live the life of outcasts because they felt like being persecuted....they lived such a life because they were eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus life. They witnessed his miracles, heard his teachings, saw his death and most importantly, witnessed his resurrection from the dead and they were 100% convinced that he fulfilled the role of the Messiah...that he was the messiah.Lets say that is the case, Jesus is the Messiah, then we can expect some very great things in the near future. The role of messiah is not complete yet, he still has work ahead of him and until that time, no one can say that he has failed.When all is said and done, then we will be able to judge the extent of his success or failure.