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

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)

quote:

---

Not at all. God made the planets, not the Roman Empire

---

Well there's a massive non-sequitur. Astrology is pagan and uses pagan associations.

quote:

---

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.

---

By which you mean he is inventing meanings for the symbols to suit his purposes. Just as I said. It is nice to see you agreeing with my criticisms but trying to make them into positives by using phrases you find positive doesn't offer any rational answer.

quote:

---

But it is you who are making up that Larson made it up.

---

Then where did Larson get it from ? You haven't offered anything and what I've seen indicates that ancient sources had quite different ideas.

quote:

---

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

---

Chinese astrology is rather different and most of the similar systems are related. Even the Vedic system differs mainly by rejecting Ptolomy's fixing of the Signs to locations in the sky rather than the constellations.

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh, they certainly could - especially if they did not have a particular meaning in mind when they started. The Jews for instance are associated with no astrological marker at all or Pisces or Aquarius or Taurus or Virgo or Capricorn. See [url=https://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/the-star-of-bethlehem-documentary-the-constellation-leo-as-the-sign-of-the-jews/]here[\url] for more.Symbolism is often ambiguous, as I pointed out. That is why "finding" the meaning you are looking for is less significant than you or Larson think.

quote:

---

Well, believers will interpret it differently than you do of course.

---

Yes, they will reject the intended meaning for one of their own invention.

quote:

---

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

---

Which only means that I refuse to twist it to fit your beliefs.I don't trust your claims about the Bible because you care more for your beliefs than for the truth. As you did only yesterday when you tried to cover up Paul's slip in 1 Corinthians 1 by saying that he was only referring to those he was speaking to.You on the other hand don't trust what I say about the Bible because I DO care about interpreting it correctly - and get it right far more often than you.

But which King, and what is the interpretation of the conjunction? To quote from another page in the critique of Larson I think that there is rather a big distinction between the conception and the overthrow of a King.

quote:

---

I just went to get myself some breakfast and kept pondering what you wrote here. I had to keep from getting tears in my food.

---

You should be used to ideas you like turning out to have serious problems.

quote:

---

Larson saw the figures of Jupiter moving back and forth past Regulus and saw only that this was a King relating to a king, and the three passes made it seem very important. It also occurred in Leo, the sign of the Lion of Judah, the tribe from which the Messiah was to come, and it was closely followed by Virgo the virgin "clothed with the sun" with the new moon of Rosh Hashana at her feet, and the twelve stars on her head signifying all the tribes of Israel.

---

You do realise that he constellations are essentially fixed ? That Virgo always follows Leo ? Anyway the fact remains that this is Larson's interpretation, created to fit the meaning he wanted and not one the magi could be expected to subscribe to.

quote:

---

But what you have posted about its meaning as an overthrown king brings it into focus. This is God the Father designating His Son to be the sacrificial lamb, at the time of His conception (the new moon). Or possibly birth, but Larson found the bright conjunction of Jupiter with Venus (God the Father with the virgin) nine months later.

---

And there you are doing it yourself. As I said the problem with symbolism is that there are too many things that it can mean. Astrology is especially prone to this - to the obvious advantage of astrologers.

quote:

---

PaulK, learn to differentiate and be exact

---

Exact like this statement, written in 2004 ? The "exact" prophecies showed the "End" in 2011 then. Funny how that didn't happen Message 74I realise that you creationists like to try and do down your opponents - and without any regard for the truth. But the truth will still win, and you will lose.

quote:

---

If you haven't figured it out yet, my tears were because of the touching meaning I now see in Jupiter's passing of Regulus three times. Fred Larson read it as "crowning" Regulus, but I think from what you quoted it's more likely a sign of the overthrowing of the king, the passes signifying the forsaking of him by God the Father (My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?), a pushing away, a rejection, at the same time an anointing of him as king.

---

Are you going to move the crucifixion to 2 BC then ? and let us be honest, Jesus never got to be a King on Earth, had no rule to be overthrown.

quote:

---

The meanings are so obvious there is no way Larson just made them up. Really, anyone thinking biblically about these signs would see Leo as the Lion of Judah, Virgo as the virgin mother, Jupiter and Regulus as a relationship between God the Father and another king and so on. You and others keep saying there are other interpretations, I don't see any for a Bible believer.

---

I'm sure you could find others if they were convenient for you. But let us not forget that the supposed Magi were not "Bible believers", and lived before any of the New Testament was even written.

quote:

---

And of course I know how the constellations follow one another. The fact that Virgo always rises after Leo isn't in itself important, it's the activity of Jupiter and Regulus going on in the sign of the lion of Judah, followed by the rising of Virgo looking exactly identical to the woman in Revelation 12. Virgo is always going to rise "clothed with the sun" at that time of year, but always with the crescent moon at her feet on Rosh Hashana? Probably not. When you put ALL the clues together you get a unique event.

---

Leo is not "the" sign of Judah - it isn't even one of the several proposed signs of Judah, which obviously leaves you plenty of other options. Rosh Hashanah is always held on a new moon, and the new moon is in line with the sun, so the "crescent moon at her feet" at Rosh Hashanah would also be a common event, I think.

quote:

---

Same with the crucifixion. Blood moons are fairly frequent events, though probably not so frequent rising at the feet of Virgo, and even less frequent also occurring at three in the afternoon (which is when Jesus died on the cross). And the day itself had to fit a collection of clues, such as Nisan 14, the Day of Preparation, falling on a Friday. No matter how common each clue is in isolation, together they amount to something rare.

---

Just by chance Nisan 14 falling on a Friday ought to be once in seven. And isn't it a bit awkward that the "blood moon" would not have risen by 3:00 pm ? Wouldn't it be a better sign if the totality actually occurred while the moon was visible from Jerusalem ?

quote:

---

Of course not. This is a prophecy of the life that is just now being created, a portrait of what the man will be.

---

Which only shows the flexibility of symbolism. The timing is quite unimportant.

quote:

---

The Magi knew he was to be a king, and he was mocked as a king, His followers knew him to be a king. His life on earth isn't finished, he's coming back to reign.

---

So if he is going to be overthrown as King, it is still in the future. And you don't even believe that will happen. What a great "prediction".

quote:

---

Not that I see. If you can why not suggest them?

---

You say that the "blood moon" being in Virgo is significant for some reason but you could easily link Leo or Aries or Pisces to Jesus.

quote:

---

I wasn't talking about the Magi, they had their own sources of knowledge. But again there seems to be good reason to think they were Jewish anyway, who would have known the prophecies of the OT.

---

As I have already pointed out the whole point of the astrology is that the Magi supposedly believed it. If they didn't the story falls apart. And as others have pointed out the story says that they needed to consult with Jewish scholars to find out about Bethlehem. And no, there is no good reason to think that they were at all Jewish, if they existed.

quote:

---

The crescent moon occurs always on Rosh Hashana, which I believe I said myself, but it doesn't occur in the same position.

---

It will very often be in Virgo for the reason I gave - the moon must be in line with the Sun at new moon.

quote:

---

But you are leaving out the other events that make this New Year unusual: the Jupiter-Regulus event

---

That is a bit more unusual but it was common enough for a meaning to get into ancient astrological texts. And, of course, we have reasons to doubt that it occurred at the right time to have anything to do with Jesus' birth.

quote:

---

It would have been quite dramatic enough that the blood moon rose that night after all the other phenomena that attended the crucifixion.

---

Except that it didn't really rise over Jerusalem. By my reading there is at most a small chance that the very end of the Lunar Eclipse would have been visible on the horizon at the time of rising. But likely not. How much more impressive it would have been if the totality occurred over Jerusalem that night - or the preceding night.
If that was the right night at all - and there is no way of knowing that.

quote:

---

The timing is VERY important. This triple passing of Regulus by Jupiter occurred in Leo just before the conception of Christ.

---

So Jesus the King was overthrown when he was conceived ? Except that the conception date is assumed on the basis of Larson's astrology anyway, without any other evidence at all, so even that is very shaky.So much for the "importance" of timing.

quote:

---

I "don't believe" WHAT?

---

You don't believe that Jesus will be overthrown after he comes back and actually starts to reign of course.

quote:

---

What I believe is that he WAS overthrown AS KING. He's always King whether recognized or not. Riding into Jerusalem on the donkey, for instance, is something Kings did to announce their reign.

---

It is something anyone who could get a donkey could do. It's hardly a coronation. So no, Jesus never reigned as a king and can't have been overthrown as king. It would make a better sign of Herod's death and the Roman interference in the succession. Except those had already happened by the best evidence we have.

quote:

---

Well Aries IS linked to Jesus, being the symbol of the Lamb of God that marks the month in which He was sacrificed as the Passover Lamb

---

And you have already used Leo and the fish is a well-known symbol for Jesus so Pisces applies, too.

quote:

---

The moon being frequently in Virgo at Rosh Hashana doesn't always put it at the feet of the constellation

---

There aren't that many places in the constellation that it can be, so still a common event.

quote:

---

Of course they believed it.

---

Unfortunately you haven't come up with a good reason why they would believe it. Assuming that they would agree with Larson rather than Zoroastrian ideas (if they were real Magi) or Babylonian ideas if they were Eastern astrologers does not make a lot of sense.

quote:

---

Either they weren't Jewish and needed that information since the star hadn't been that specific; or they were Jewish and unfamiliar with Judea and needed to be pointed toward Bethlehem.

---

Matthew tells us that they didn't know that the birth would be in Bethlehem.

quote:

---

Many good reasons they might have been Jewish have been discussed.

---

Name one.

quote:

---

If the blood moon wasn't visible the night of the crucifixion then Peter was wrong to say to the crowd assembled at Pentecost that they had all witnessed the signs. That would mean looking for a different date for the crucifixion.

---

Looks more like something he expects to happen in the near future. Pentecost is the prophesying at the start of the Joel quote - which is about the Last Days anyway - and the other signs appear to come later. So it seems to me that it would be better for you to say that Peter was wrong - since the world is still here, the best part of 2000 years later.

Well, let's address Revelation 12First this is supposed to be a "great wonder" and I don't see how the sun being in Virgo, with the moon at her "feet" qualifies. So the actual content of the vision is likely different.Second, the woman is described as giving birth, so I can't see how it can be considered a sign of anything else.Third, if the woman is a constellation how can she hide in the desert ? And what can the events after that mean ? I think that the idea that the original appearance is pure astrological symbolism is questionable unless the rest can also be explained in those terms.

quote:

---

It's always possible to demand that something have other characteristics than it has, to the point that you can utterly ignore the characteristics it does have as insufficient by your exacting standards

---

But that is not what I am doing is it? All I am suggesting is that since so much of the relevant passage does not seem to be astrological imagery it is questionable whether the original image is entirely astronomical imagery. That is hardly unreasonable.

quote:

---

The fact is that the actual phenomenon, the woman in Revelation 12, fits the description of Virgo on a particular date, doesn't disappear when you insist it be something other than it iS

---

Of course it is possible that the Revelation contains astrological imagery. But since there seems to be other imagery in there it is possible that it means something else instead. Especially as we have no confirmation that the date Larson refers to had any importance to the early Christians. And even Larson thinks it is the conception, when the Revelation specifically says that the woman is giving birth.

Maybe it does. But given the obscurity of the rest - and the fact that it hardly follows a clear timeline - it is hard to say that it has any significance, beyond the - assumed - use of astrological imagery.Taking a small part of Revelation 12 and claiming that it refers to something without any clear idea of what it means or how it fits into the rest is simply not a compelling argument.

quote:

---

We know what the woman of Rev 12 means without the astrology, that's not a problem. We know this is a passage about the birth of Christ

---

Is it ? Or is the birth part of the symbolism ? Surely you can't claim that the narrative in Revelation 12 is an actual close match for Jesus' life on Earth,

quote:

---

Why it is also an image of Virgo I don't know but it appears to be exactly that

---

Or maybe it is symbolism that you don't understand. Is the description actual astrology or Larson's invention ? Did the vision just show Virgo or did it show the image as the author describes it ? It seems significant that when I search google for the crown of twelve stars I only get apologetic sites.And even Answers in Genesisfind that one dubious.

Larson seems to be trying to fit the evidence to his beliefs.He starts by trying to find astronomical events which could explain the story of the Star of Bethlehem in astrological terms, and uses that to date Jesus birth.This has two big problems. First the astrological interpretations seem to be his invention - there is no good reason to think that ancient astrologers would agree, adding to the implausibility of a story that is already quite implausible even with the unlikely movements of the star removed. Second, the date of Herod's death is quite well established as 4BC and is more likely a little earlier than later.Also it does not fit too well with the text of Matthew, which is the only source for the story. Although the former should only be of great concern for those who require the Bible to be absolutely reliable - Matthew must be misleading through misunderstanding and omission for Larson to be correct.Larson's view on the image from Revelation 12 are also questionable. While the chapter contains a couple of other images that could be astrological (but may well not be), the "crowned with twelve stars" seems to be another Larson invention, and most of the chapter seems to have other symbolism in mind. More, Larson associates the astrological configuration with the conception (for some reason) but the woman in the vision is giving birth. So, again, this looks like the link is more in Larson's mind than in the intended meaning of the text.

I have seen bits of it and those confirmed what I said. It was even worse than I expected.Of course it is also based on what you have told me - if you have badly misrepresented Larson (something you admittedly have done with other sources) it is time for you to admit it and take responsibility.