Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 384 of 427 (546629)
02-12-2010 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Dawn Bertot
02-12-2010 10:11 AM


Re: The Throne
The OT does not state that the messiah was to become God and reign in Heaven.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-12-2010 10:11 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-12-2010 10:41 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 389 by Peg, posted 02-13-2010 8:53 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 391 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 9:24 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 386 of 427 (546642)
02-12-2010 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by Dawn Bertot
02-12-2010 10:41 AM


Re: The Throne
quote:
More add ons and twist by yourself to distract the fact that Jesus Christ more than adequatley met the prophecies of the Old Testament. By mentioning the idea that the scriptures to not mention a detail about this or that, is to ignore what they do indicate and prove.
IOW, you're free to add what you want.
quote:
ITS YOUR RULE not the scriptures or Gods that they MUST mention that point. Besides all of that what does that have to do with what they do say concerning Christ and what he obviously fulfilled.
You need some nouns in there so I know what "that" you're talking about. I have no idea what you're referring back to.
Jesus didn't fulfill any OT prophecies.
quote:
If it is God who decides who will be on the throne, then it is for all intents and purposes Gods throne. If it is his laws by which the throne is maintained, it is his throne.
God didn't need the human king's chair. He had his own. The ark.
The position of human king is just a position, not a thing to own. The position wasn't there until God created it for Saul. It's just a job. Before kings they had judges. People need humans to deal with the day to day governing of a civilization.
Even Moses had to listen to people's troubles and make decisions on day to day issues of the community.
Remember Solomon's wise decision concerning the two women and the baby? Try taking that problem before God or Jesus. Do not talk to any human or read any religious book. No decision from our own head. How will the decision be presented?
quote:
If it is God who decides who will be on the throne, then it is for all intents and purposes Gods throne. If it is his laws by which the throne is maintained, it is his throne.
Just like our Government (company owner) bailed out the motor companies and then became property of the Government. God bailed Israel out of Egypt and bought them at a price. The whole shabang to do with as he pleases.
Thats why Mr Obama can, no you wont give yourself bonuses and you will follow my rules or the governments rules.
Even your illustration of Comapany owner and CEO backfires on you in this circumstance
Actually, that analogy still supports what I'm saying.
I never said the kings didn't answer to God or follow God's laws. I said they govern the day to day dealings of the people. The priests were the mouth pieces of God.
I'm not sure why you need to make the human kingship over Israel more than it was. Civilizations need a human government.
ABE: Especially since you feel that God didn't want kings to begin with.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added thought.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-12-2010 10:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 388 of 427 (546737)
02-13-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Peg
02-12-2010 8:13 PM


Re: King David is Dead
quote:
Matthew 22:29 In reply Jesus said...31 As regards the resurrection of the dead, did YOU not read what was spoken to YOU by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living."
Gods ability and plan to resurrect people means that they are in a state of rest. All those whom God resurrects will be as though they have never died at all which is why Jesus said "they are all living to him"
I seriously doubt that it is God's view.
IMO, Matthew is written as a satire and if you check out the quote, you would see that God was talking to Moses. He was identifying which god he was. Remember, Moses grew up in Egypt. What God said had nothing to do with whether the men were still alive or not.
The resurrection doctrine came about later either while they were in exile after the destruction of the temple or after. Probably influenced by the Persians and Zoroastrianism. A promise of real resurrection of dead bodies is not in the OT that I've seen.
quote:
Its the promise of a 'seed' who would be the one to deliver mankind from their fallen condition.
There is no such promise.
quote:
So, do you see why its impossible that Davids covenant could have become voided?
In dogma world ,yes, because it really messes up your belief system. In reality, no.
quote:
That promise will not end until the deliverer has accomplished his task to destroy Satan the Devil, and to redeem all of mankind from sin and death.
That also isn't a promise in the OT. The good and evil battle is also a later development. Again, probably influenced by Zoroastrianism.
quote:
But you have the wrong idea of what a 'seed' means. When the Bible speaks of seed in a symbolic sense, it does not refer to literal children, or offspring, but to those who follow the pattern of their symbolic father, . At Gen 3:15 it says that the Serpant will have his own 'seed'
You and I have been down this road before and you apparently still have trouble differentiating between when the text is referring to seed as offspring and when it is referring to someone following a pattern of someone else as in 1 John 3:10-12.
2 Samuel 7:12 is very specific. From thine own issue. It very definitely is from David's own sperm. Sorry. Look at the parallels.
English Standard Version
When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
Please don't try to present the it-meant-offspring-then-but-is-symbolic-now ploy. It is BS like this that makes me doubt that you understand the Bible within the context it was intended and not from the context of your own dogma.
quote:
Thats exactly right and its why I keep saying that the covenant was not dependent upon any of Davids sons. The covenent was still in place even though the kings were unfaithful. The promise for a seed of David to regain the throne after Babylon had removed the last king and destroyed the temple, was still on offer.
Took the part you liked and missed the other part. No the promise spoken in 2 Samuel 7 to David didn't promise kingship past Solomon, only lineage.
As I pointed out the conditional part relayed later doesn't show up in the original promise. So where is the conditional promise God made to David?
These books were written after the fact. The writers already knew who had been king and who hadn't. Unfortunately we don't have any way to know what was in the original memoirs of Samuel.
Of course the promise is really irrelevant to the issue. As I showed you, the OT prophets were not speaking of a messiah for the 1st century. They were prophesying for their people in their time. They were already saved from exile and had peace and were governed by one of their own even though he wasn't king. The Jews didn't have a problem with Persian rule. In fact they began to recover and flourish under Persian rule. The Greek invasion brought new conflicts. In the first century some, not all, Jews were unhappy with Roman rule. That's what they wanted to be saved from.
Jesus didn't fulfill any OT prophecy or relieve the Jews from oppression. He didn't govern the Jews in any way.
quote:
This shows us that Davids covenant for an everlasting kingdom would still become a reality...it would become a reality when this promised 'seed' would be given the throne of David.
No it doesn't. You're reading that into it. It just says that God will eventually give leadership of Israel to someone more deserving. God picked Zerubbabel to govern after the exile and then Nehemiah. Then the Maccabees ruled. God didn't say it would be from David's line.
Like I said, the prophets weren't talking about something to come beyond the time of their audience.
quote:
Was Jesus given the throne of David? Yes. This happened after the fortold 'times of the gentiles' When that time ended, God gave Jesus, who resided in heaven at Gods right hand, the throne of David his father. Its a huge subject in itself and probably deserves a thread of its own.
I still disagree. The prophets weren't speaking of an ethereal throne. David's throne wasn't in heaven. It was on earth ruling very live people.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Peg, posted 02-12-2010 8:13 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Peg, posted 02-13-2010 9:02 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 395 of 427 (546829)
02-14-2010 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Peg
02-13-2010 8:53 PM


Re: The Throne
quote:
heavenly position, heavenly kingdom, rulership over entire earth
Daniel 7:13 I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin
1. It is a vision
2. A son of man is just a man.
3. Doesn't speak of the planet.
4. The interpretation starting with Daniel 7:15 doesn't support your contention.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Peg, posted 02-13-2010 8:53 PM Peg has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 396 of 427 (546832)
02-14-2010 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by Peg
02-13-2010 9:02 PM


Re: King David is Dead
quote:
do you realise that you will never know because you refuse to let God speak.
You say that because I disagree with you. I let God speak and I read the text. You're assuming God wouldn't use someone to show you that your position is incorrect. Christians supposedly believe that God can use anybody to get a message across, whether they are a believer or not; but some Christians won't believe a correction can be from God until they themselves decide they want to change. It's the nature of man. We only change when we're ready to change.
quote:
When ever a scripture is posted that contradicts your view, you immediately claim the scriptures to be fraudulent. You do no allow the bible to explain itself because you refuse to accept that it is a legitimate and honest work.
Its not a very honest debate when you continually do this.
I haven't claimed a scripture was fraudulent. I've shown that your interpretations are inconsistent with the plain reading of the text.
I also haven't claimed that the Bible is not a legitimate and honest work. I've shown the reality that inspires the writing.
My battle is against Dogma, not God or the Bible.
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
quote:
You want christians to explain and prove from the scriptures why they believe this or that, but when they do you say the scriptures they are using are false. You are not allowing an honest debate so this is my last post on the subject to you.
Again, I haven't said the scriptures you provided were false. I've said the scriptures you provided don't support what you're saying or don't say what you claim they are saying.
My disagreement isn't with the authors of the Bible. My disagreement is with what you claim the writers were saying. In this discussion the text is clear. God promises David offspring from his sperm. You continue to take that one word and change the meaning regardless of the surrounding sentence. You're taking the promise and changing it to suit your own dogma.
If you were keeping true to the text, you would be able to explain, as I do, how the scriptures or words do support your point. You're unable to do that. Notice that you've addressed nothing in my post.
You're not standing up for your reinterpretation of the word "seed". You know I'm right and the translations prove I'm right. Just admit you're changing the meaning of the word to fit a current dogma. At least be honest about it. You're trying to convince people to suspend the rules of language and common sense to accept that the text actually supports your position. That's difficult. Mine's easy. The text is right there in black and white.
I find many of the teachings in the old and new testament useful, but I'm not so disgusted with life or afraid of death that I have to wish for a new planet or eternal life. I try to take care of the world that God gave us and make every day count. If one doesn't respect the creation how can one respect the creator? If one can't accept the reality behind the Bible, how can one understand the real lessons?
IMO, dogma is a very tangled web of deceit that goes against common sense.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Peg, posted 02-13-2010 9:02 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024