Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies?

quote:

---

There is no contradiction. He says he baptized none of those hearing him except two he named, then went on to mention others he baptized that weren't among those hearing him.

---

It's a letter not a speech! There is nobody "hearing" him. So he said he baptised none except two, then remembered a few more and maybe others he couldn't remember.

quote:

---

However, even if he corrected himself about a point like that, we could hardly call that a violation of scriptural inerrancy. Good grief.

---

If scripture was entirely free of error then there wouldn't need to be any corrections. And of course you won't accept any of the contradictions or known errors either.Well we already know that your beliefs don't control reality. So be wrong. But just remember that we know that you are wrong, just like all the other times.

The fact that the tale about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree is a myth does not detract from those things he actually did do.The fact that Jesus never fulfilled the criteria to be the Jewish Messiah simply means that he is not the Jewish Messiah.Even if all the stories about Jesus are only tales told round the campfire the message is still of value.

I don't think this is a great example of a failure of inerrancy. The scripture describes Paul's flagging memory very well. If Paul actually made those statements, where is the issue with the scripture?Surely this wasn't your best example...

I spelled out exactly what text you are departing from. If you don't see it, that is not due to my lack of pointing it out. Or does it simply mean that somebody is talking in astrological terms. If it had occurred in another sign, I am sure that something could be made of that too. Astrology is BS. Human beings have a natural tendency for identifying patterns even when they are not there. Astrology is the best-known example of that, but so is the idea that comets are evil omens.Knowing that, folks might well write using those terms, even if they don't practice astrology. It is possible that Bible authors did that as well.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Sometimes the truth hurts and it is not so easily dismissed as a lie. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, you are having one of your familiar failures of logic.And "the truth hurts" is just a way of denying your meanness, and it's not the truth either though you arrogantly assume it is.ABE: I guess I'll never know what I "departed from," because I'm not going to go look it up. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're right. So maybe they weren't Jewish.

The evidence is there, the scriptures not only declare that there will be signs in the heavens, encouraging us to look for them in order to understand the prophecies, but there really are scripture passages that must be understood as pointing to an astrological sign, and the woman of Revelation 12 is a very striking example of that. It requires the ability to make distinctions between astrology as a reflector of God's truths versus its misuses for other purposes. Making distinctions is a necessary function of intellect. There is nothing good about a skepticism that is really just ossified categorical thinking.Since we are told that there will be signs in the heavens in relation to important prophecies, it may be useful to consider astrological signs in relation to some things we have trouble understanding, such as some of the imagery in Revelation.Enough of this for now I think.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is a good example of the fact that scriptural writers are allowed to make errors because it is corrected. There are plenty of contradictions, there are plenty of things known to be untrue but is Faith going to accept any of those ? With this one at the least the correction is also scripture and obvious.

Well, I'm not ready to give up on the "Star of Bethlehem" video Message 438 completely. I'm mulling the whole question of objections to astrological symbolism.A couple things come to mind: first, the way this symbolism is used by Larson isn't much if at all like the way it is used in standard astrology: as I recall there are meanings assigned to planets and positions of planets, but they don't have much to do with the traditional meanings and names given to those things. Some, but very little.For instance the fact that Jupiter represents the main god in some religions doesn't have anything to do with how Jupiter is used in astrological charts. It's described in terms like "expansiveness" or "luck." It "expands" the effect of other elements in the chart with which it is in some kind of close relation for instance.And I've never seen a chart that includes a star outside the Zodiac, such as Regulus.So Larson's description of Jupiter as the King planet, and its making three conjunctions with Regulus the King star, taken to symbolize God and Christ, is unique to the Biblical context as far as I know: at least it has nothing to do with regular astrology.Likewise in ordinary astrology although there is some meaning attached to the symbols of the signs, surprisingly little. So the fact that Aries is the Ram is just about never mentioned as having anything to do with an interpretation. Of course I never got very deeply into astrology so I may have missed such things, but I read books on it and I don't recall that sort of use of the symbols. I would encounter comments about the twins of Gemini perhaps in some interpretation of two-facedness or even bipolar personality, and Leo the Lion in terms of lion-like appearance, sometimes lionlike qualities but more often appearance. Cancer, Pisces and Scorpio I don't recall ever being described in terms of the crab, fishes and scorpion, but only in terms of their all being "water signs." Etc.Just a quick glance at the book The Witness of the Stars, which is about the gospel as symbolized in the constellations, shows that it is all about the main symbols and names of the signs/constellations and the planets. Leo is the Lion of Judah, Virgo is the Virgin Mary or the nation of Israel that brought forth the Savior, Aries the Ram is the sacrificial lamb etc etc etc.So for starters the symbolism is entirely different in the two contexts.Next I thought about symbolism as such in the Bible. Shouldn't we just read the Bible straight, for its clearest meanings? The thing is there are definitely images in scripture that have to be interpreted symbolically. Even at the most superficial level we have to interpret the woman in Revelation 12 symbolically because it is given as a symbol and not otherwise identified. So we understand her to be Mary or Israel. The city on seven hills is a symbol of Rome, and those are just the obvious ones; Revelation is full of symbolic images. But they are also found in the Old Testament. Zechariah is full of visionary images that have to be interpreted symbolically. Even the simple stuff like Hosea's marrying a harlot is symbolic -- of God's relation to Israel. And Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the status in the book of Daniel is all symbolism, each part of the statue reprenting an empire. The angel tells Daniell their meaning in that case. But clearly we are SUPPOSED to think symbolically about a lot of things in the Bible. There is no way to understand them otherwise.So, biblical symbolism is nothing like astrological symbolism even if it uses astrological symbols. When the sign of Virgo is shown in the Star video rising on Larson's Astronomy program, it's the image of a constellation recognized even in astronomy, though they ignore its meanings. Astrology would certainly not interpret it as the Virgin of scripture, and all it means in ordinary astrology that it is rising with the sun is that the characteristics of the sign are paramount in the life being studied, and the moon that follows the constellation into the sky would be interpreted in terms of the emotional life.But for anyone who knows the description of the woman in Revelation 12 there is no way to avoid that it is exactly what is described there: a woman "clothed in the sun" with the "moon at her feet" --- those two things are LITERALLY there in the image of the constellation -- it's engulfed in the sun and the moon is at the very bottom of the image where the "feet" would be -- and the "twelve stars on her head" has to refer to the Zodiac itself, as well as the twelve tribes of Israel. There's nothing artificial or made up about the correspondence between the astronomical image and the description in Revelation 12 -- they are literally identical. So why would scripture describe the woman in terms of an astronomical/astrological sign? I'd guess because it's one way God communicates to us, if the signs are read correctly rather than the way astrology reads them. Far from telling us to avoid that kind of symbolic meaning it seems to encourage us to learn it.Peter tells the crowd on Pentecost, fifty days after the crucifixion, that they themselves had already experienced the meaning of the prophecy of Joel, which he quotes to them: Those signs were given in Joel to mark the Messiah's death. They had been witnessed by all the Jews in Jerusalem. The blood moon is the only one that occurred in the sky, but scripture describes the sun being darkened at noon, three hours before Christ died on the cross.Larson came to the conclusion from many clues, which he says he discusses on his website as well as giving some of them on the video, that the crucifixion occurred on April 3, 33AD when the blood moon lunar eclipse began at the moment of Christ's death, beneath the horizon, and then later rose "at the feet of" the constellation Virgo.[Yes it could be asked how often this particular phenomenon occurs and I haven't checked it out. But there are a lot of different clues that have to come together to identify the day of the crucifixion and all of them occurring together has to be a very rare thing.]So there are some examples of how symbolism is used in scripture, in relation to prophecy, including some that refer to ordinary celestial events,A couple of other instances of symbolic use occur though not astronomicallyl related, and in fact I haven't studied either of these, just heard about them: the names of the Patriarchs from Seth to Noah are said to form a sentence that describes God's plan of redemption; and the names of the children of Haman, the enemy of Israel in the book of Esther, are all said to denote a different kind of sin.(Perhaps Eliyahu who started this thread would know about that.)And in this vein I'd also point out that people in OT Israel often gave their children symbolic names, often having to do with current events involving the nation: Ichabod, for instance, "The glory has passed" was given to a boy born on the day the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant.All that is probably more than necessary to show that the Bible is favorable to symbolic meanings, and perhaps, I hope, also sufficient to show that astrological symbolism can be used in a way that doesn't violate biblical principles.The use of such symbolism would of course be of value for understanding what is happening in the world. Nebuchadnezzar's statue is a clue to the revived Roman Empire in the end times for instance. The blood moon on the day of Christ's crucifixion was a sign of the finished work of the Messiah, which Peter made use of to convince the Jews that He had come, converting I think three thousand of them on that day.So since there is still unfulfilled prophecy yet to come, perhaps we are being advised to consider heavenly events as a clue to their meaning so we won't be caught off guard when they come.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So Larson's description of Jupiter as the King planet, and its making three conjunctions with Regulus the King star, taken to symbolize God and Christ, is unique to the Biblical context as far as I know: at least it has nothing to do with regular astrology.

---

The fact that Jupiter is the King of the Roman Gods ought to give you a hint.But - as I have saying all along - Larson's astrology is to a significant extent his own invention and you should not mask that by talking about a "Biblical context"Remember that it is important to Larson's argument - and your position - that the magi should interpret the astrological signs as referring to a new King of the Jews, and encourage them to visit, bringing expensive gifts. If Larson has to make up his own astrology then that is all seriously undermined.

quote:

---

The use of such symbolism would of course be of value for understanding what is happening in the world. Nebuchadnezzar's statue is a clue to the revived Roman Empire in the end times for instance.

---

This is simply an example of the weakness of symbolism - it is often ambiguous and can be twisted by those with an agenda as is clearly the case here. There is no revived Roman Empire in the end times prophecies. Indeed Rome is NOT yet an Empire in Daniel's End Times (the Republic is a rising power, however, and is referenced in Daniel)

Not at all. God made the planets, not the Roman Empire. Larson's context IS the Biblical context, and there is no other way to use the symbols in that context than the way he uses them. But it is you who are making up that Larson made it up. The Magi might not have used the name Jupiter anyway, but it wouldn't matter because such symbols are universal. Many ancient cultures had an astrological system that used more or less the same constellations and planets and they had their own names for all of it. They are all fallen humanity so their astrology would deviate from God's original intention, and where else to look for that intention but the Bible?Larson's interpretations are completely natural taken in the biblical context. Jupiter is a symbol, the highest god in whatever religion uses it as a symbol, so in fallen cultures it's a fallen angel, but in the biblical context it represents the one true God, it can't represent anything else.The cultural source of the symbols is irrelevant if God is in charge of it all anyway, and Larson's use of them is completely in keeping with the biblical context. Nobody would come up with any other correspondence than he did.

Well, believers will interpret it differently than you do of course. There is always some ambiguity in anything in scripture. Your problem is that being an unbeliever you impose a fallen perspective on it. That's why I can't take anything you say about the Bible seriously. The Bible can only be interpreted through the Holy Spirit. Unredeemed human intellect will never get it right, no matter how good the intellect.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sheesh, how useless is that?There are only two interpretations.1. It's miracle, in which case DavidJay's angel is the best option as it would actually work. An angel really could guide a few blokes from one place to another place. (Unlike a planet 360 million miles away, that moves all over the place.)2. It's a story....Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.