Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

Exactly.

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.

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.

how about you explain how the covenent that God made with David fits into the scripture. then we can discuss it.

thats right i do disagree with you because that is not what the bible says.I have shown you about 3 times how Jeremiah...a prophet who lived hundreds of years after Davids (and Solomons) death... wrote that Gods covenent with David would not be broken and would still see a fulfillment. these words were given at the time when Nebudchudnezza was about to destroy jerusalem and remove the last king of Judah, zedekiah. So Gods plan was still current. The covenent with David to have a righteous man for his throne was still ahead. The covenent had not ended at all.You do realise that David died faithful? So for what reason would God have to renig on his covenant with David? None.Show me scripture that says that the covenant with David had been abandoned.

no, its what your interpretation of one verse in one book says is writtenWhat is actually written in the bible is the opposite of what you have stated. Over and over again we see the mention of Davids covenant being repeated and God himself saying that the covenant is a sure thing.What you are doing is taking one verse out of context and out of harmony with the rest of the bible and making a claim that is contradictory to many other scriptures. The Greek Septuagint is said to be shorter than the Hebrew text by about 2,700 words thus the majority of scholars agree that the Greek translation is defective....not the hebrew text itself.Why are you so sure that you are not basing this on an incomplete manuscript? Im sorry but this passage does not say that Davids covenent has been abandoned. This passage is a warning to Solomon and his decendents that they must obey God the way David did otherwise the kingdom will be taken from them.But it doesnt say anything about the kingdom being taken away from David. In fact it says in Vs 5I also shall indeed establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel to time indefinite, just as I promised David your father, saying, ‘Not a man of yours will be cut off from [sitting] upon the throne of Israel.Where does God say that Davids covenant will be thrown out? No, Psalm 89 does not relfect this idea at all.
It tells us that Davids coventant is sure while its his SONS who will be cut off if they transgress.
It is also a prophetic description of the Messiah. David and the covenant God made with him forshadowed the messiah and his role as the future king. This Psalm is speaking of both david and the Messiah as being assured of Gods promise and his covenant. The remainder are now speaking of a different set of circumstances. These verses are describing, not only the times when the kingdom of Judah would be defeated by enemy nations, but also about the Messiah and the death he would experience at the hands of his enemies.
So it is completely unrelated to the covenant of the previous verses. If you dont understand the covenant, then it is very clear why you keep applying the everlasting kingdom to Solomon.The sons of David were not the ones with whom the covenant was made which is why God could cut any of them off for lack of obedience. But David himself was promised that one from his line would take the throne and rule on it forever.What human could rule on a throne forever? None.But the Messiah was more then human, he was a mighty spirit person who would reside in heaven and so he could rule on the throne forever.Jesus christ was that faithful man who was resurrected to heavenly life and given the throne of david his father. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

because you are applying to Solomon, what is ultimately a promise to David.The covenant with David was that the throne of HIS (not solomons) kingdom would be firmly established. Solomon was fortold to be the buider of the temple, but the covenant for the throne wasnt made with Solomon...it was made with David.So you are applying to Solomon, what is a promise to David. because i did my homework. I wrote to the author of webpage you provided in your link and asked him why Jeremiah 35 doesnt appear in his webpage. He wrote back the following reply to me: There are hebrew manuscripts that do contain Jeremiah 33 such as in the Aramaic Targums. If the septuagint did leave out some of Jeremiah, it certainly wasnt because the chapters/verses didnt exist. The hebrew manuscripts should be what you compare translations to, not the other way around. Lexicographer Gesenius defines the hebrew word ‛oh‧lam′ as meaning hidden time, i.e. obscure and long, of which the beginning or end is uncertain or indefinite. So they translate this hebrew word as time indefinite or indefinitely lasting to convey the thought of the original hebrew word. If I told you something was going to be here indefinitely, you'd know it means that there is no useby date or no end date. The length of the throne of David is the same...it has no end date. Wrong.You dont understand the covenant at all. It had nothing to do with Davids immediate decendents. God didnt make a covenant with any of Davids sons, he made it with David. The covenant guaranteed that he would raise up to King David a seed or descendant who would sit upon the throne forever and whose kingdom would have no end. Really? I dont see any evidence of Jesus trying to imply that he is not davids son in the following scriptures. and this is precisely what Jesus was... a human who would rule the throne of David for the benefit of all humans.He was Davids son through the linage of his biological mother Mary and this gave him the legal right to the throne of David. So he was a seed of David and he had the legal right to the throne. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Ok, lets break this down.The promise is made to David, yes. But it is not thru Solomons line that the promise will be fulfilled. In fact, God had repeatedly stated that if any of Davids sons became unfaithful they would be cut off. So the promise being fulfilled is not dependent on Davids sons remaining faithful.The promise to David was assured whether his sons were faithful or not. Thats why God said thru Jeremiah "if you could break the covenent of the night and day, you could also break my coventant with David"2ndly. The promised seed did not have to be thru Solomons line, he had to be thru Davids line and all Davids decendents were said to be of the 'kingly line' so any of the sons of David were legally entitled to take the throne...If Solomon had of died for instance, one of Davids other sons would have been legally entitled to take the throne.3rdly, You keep saying that Mary is not of Davids line, yet the geneology in Mathew, which traces from a man named Heli...who is said to be Josephs 'father'...is from Davids line. The only way that heli could be josephs father is through his mariage to mary. This is completely in harmony with jewish tradition that females were not recorded in geneological records, only sons which is why Joseph is called heli's son in Matthews geneolgy, but Jacobs son in Lukes.4th, rules of english are a moot point when we are talking about hebrew. And with regard to the scripture being fulfilled via Solomons line, the text says nothing about that. It tells us that Solomon would build a temple and the throne of the kingdom of David would be everlasting. You admitted yourself that the promise is made to David and the promise was for an everlasting kingdom....a kingdom whom David was still ruling at the time. Nor was the septuagint necessarily a well written translation, as i mentioned, it is shorter by 2,700 words. How is it known that it is shorter? Because hebrew manuscripts contain what the septuagint does not. As I said, usually people compare translations to what they were translated from, not the other way around.And just as a side point, jeremiah 33 was found amongst the dead sea scrolls collection.The rest of your critisim of the bible is not worth arguing over...not again anyway.

I have shown you the text! Several times. You yourself acknowledged that the promise for a kingdom was made to David, so why should a promise made to David about Davids house be contingent on any of his sons?Evidence of what I am saying comes from Jeremiah 33:15-20. I'll say it again just to be clear. Jeremiah lived hundreds of years after Davids death, he spoke of the covenant God made with David as still current. This was at the time that Babylon invaded Judah and completly destroyed the temple and removed the last of Davids sons from the throne.Yet even though this was taking place, God assured the people thru Jeremiah that the covenant with David was still in place. So a promised seed would still take the throne and rule on it forever.This is precisely why you cannot draw a conclusion based on one scripture...you need the ongoing revelation of Gods word by means of his prophets to understand how Gods plans unfold. I have done this over and over but you just dont get it.The promise to David is not just for a temple to be built, but for an heir to take the throne of David and rule on it forever. 2 Samuel 7:11 says that the house that Solomon was to build was actually for David. "And Jehovah has told you that a house is what Jehovah will make for YOU (David)." So right from the beginning, the house/temple was actually for Davids posterity...not for Solomon or any of his sons. The purpose in this covenant was to provide a kingly dynasty based on Davids throne and to provide a means of identifying the seed that was to come.More evidence that Davids covenent did not end is found from the prophet ezekeil. 4 years before Zedekiah was dethroned by Babylon Ezekiel said at Ezekeil 21:25-27 "Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him." this is more evidence that even though Davids sons were unfaithful and were removed from their positions, the covenant to David for a seed to sit on the throne forever was still in Gods plan. God would still give the throne of David to a selected person....the disloyalty of Davids sons did not put an end to Gods promise to David.

Hi PD,this will be my final word about Davids covenantFrom your septuagint link when was Jeremiah written? Soon after the destruction of the temple and the nation was captives to Babylon. Solomon was long gone, and from this point on, no more Davidic kings sat on the the throne of David.So.
Your claim that the promise was to be made possible thru Solomon and his decendents is blown out of the water based on this scripture. At this point in time there are no more decendents of Solomon ruling on Davids throne and yet God tells the nation that one of Davids decendents will be raised up to rule on his throne.As you've been told over and over, you cannot ignore the continued revelation of Gods expressed will and draw conclusions based on one verse.Also, as you beleive the throne should be a physical throne, I would like to point out to you Davids own inspired words from Psalms 110 If David was the head of the nation, why would he call this person his Lord?
Only because he knew this person was to be placed in the highest position even above David. He was to sit at Gods right hand....this could only be a heavenly position.

The psalms are a collection of 150 sacred songs that were set to music and used in public worship at the temple in Jerusalem. Many of them have headings, or superscriptions which often name the writer. Seventy-three headings bear the name of David, including Psalm 110 stating that he was the writer.Im sorry, im not sure what 'the lord is god, the lord is david' means... could you clarify that?

Hi heERICtic I keep saying this because PD has made the claim that Davids covenent became void due to the disobedience of Davids sons.Its for this reason that I have pointed out that the covenant with David was not dependent upon any of his sons remaining faithful. The covenant with David was a sure thing whether Solomon remained in favor with God or not for the reason that the covenant was not made with Solomon, but with David.Davids faithfulness is what makes the covenant secure. Even after God had removed the last Davidic king (Zedekiah) from the throne, he still promised that a decendent of David would be given the throne and would bring peace and security to Isreal.Jeremiahs and Ezekiels prophecies prove that the covenant had nothing to do with Solomon...except that Solomon was the one who would build the temple. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Matthew 22:29In reply Jesus said...31As 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"that may not be your view, but it certainly is Gods. No. What I have done is taken the progressive revelation about the seed into consideration and not just one verse.Davids covenant is the continuation of a previous promise made to other individuals. Its the promise of a 'seed' who would be the one to deliver mankind from their fallen condition. It began in Genesis with the promise to "crush the head of the Serpant" at Gen3:15. In order for the seed to be able to destroy a spriitual enemy, he would have to be a spirit person himself.The identity of who this seed would appear among progressed to the man Abraham who God made the promise that thru his decendents the seed would appear: Gen 22:18And by means of your seed ALL NATIONS of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.’
And notice that the seed would benefit, not only Isreal, but ALL NATIONS.Then from Abrahah, it was narrowed down to Isaac at Gen21:12 It is by means of Isaac that what will be called your seed will be
Then again it was promised thru Isaacs son Jacob at Gen 28:14 it was said of Jacob "By means of you all the nations of the ground shall bless themselves"then later the seed was identified as coming thru the tribe of the tribe of Judah at Ge 49:10 and then finally, thru the covenant with David, the seed would come thru Davids line of decendents. at 2Sa 7:12-16So, do you see why its impossible that Davids covenant could have become voided?
Probably not, but just to reiterate...it was the continuation of the existing promise to provide a deliverer for ALL the nations of the earth. 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. 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'1 John 3:10-12 identifies Adam and Eve’s first son Cain is an example of one of the Serpent’s offspring. The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God,...not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother.So Davids 'seed', in the symbolic sense, would be one of his decendents who was as faithful to God as David was. He did not have to come from his sperm. 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. Yes that was true for the line of Davidic kings. God had removed the throne from them because of their badness just as he had said he would do....but you cant ignore that when he did remove the throne, he also promised that the seed would still come and be given the throne againEzekiel 21:25-27 Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low [the series of Gentile world powers, one after another], and bring low even the high one [the Messianic kingdom in David’s family line]. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him.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.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. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

heavenly position, heavenly kingdom, rulership over entire earthDaniel 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. 14And 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

do you realise that you will never know because you refuse to let God speak.PD,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.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. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.