|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Bloodline doesn't mean one is a good ruler. I think it's fascinating that no one addressed the issue that Jesus was never crowned king of Israel, so his bloodline (or lack there of) is irrelevant. Jesus didn't rule over Israel. He did free Israel from its oppressors, which is really bigger than his bloodline. So even if he hailed from the golden bloodline, he didn't do the job. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:No. Matter - 2 a : the substance of which a physical object is composed b : material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy There is a difference between a spiritual kingdom and a physical kingdom.Nothing like wasting our time since Message 155! quote:Working from dictionary meanings and not your revised world. Ethereal - 1 a : of or relating to the regions beyond the earth b : celestial, heavenly c : unworldly, spiritual 2 a : lacking material substance : immaterial, intangible Message 164PurpleDawn writes: That's what I said. The text does not support the idea of a heavenly throne instead of an earthly one. Yes it does. if God establishes something through and by someone, how can it be considered anything but spiritual. from what source is its authority? Message 170PurpleDawn writes: The text of 2 Samuel 7:13 does not refer to a heavenly throne. It does if God is its source, its authority and maintanance. it does if it is for Gods purposes. Message 184EMA in response to PaulK writes: Since Nathan said, that the Lord himself said, he would establish the house of David, I dont see anyway you can keep this on some kind of physical or temporal level, do you? Message 252EMA in response to PaulK writes: You have steadfastly ignored, just like Purpledawn, the part of God in this process. You have steadfastly ignored, that this is Gods throne, not a physical throne and it was never intended to be exclusively a physical throne, that was simply part of the process. Your argument concerning a "Spiritual Kingdom" really has nothing to do with this discussion on 2 Samuel 7:13. To put it very bluntly, either the kingdom in on the planet Earth or it isn't. 2 Samuel 7:13 speaks of a kingdom located on planet Earth. The issue of for ever has been addressed in Message 173 and Message 182. Edited by purpledawn, : Added quote from Message 252. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:2 Samuel 7:13 didn't present anything supernatural to reject. You have agreed the kingdom is earthbound. The meaning of spiritual doesn't mean earthbound. My objectivity and common sense are pretty much in tact. Try making a precise argument with genuine supporting evidence instead of generalities and attacking the individual. Since you didn't address the contents of the post and your inconsistent position, that tells me you really don't have anything. Since the kingdom mentioned in the prophecies is an earthly kingdom, Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecies. Jesus wasn't crowned the king of any Earthly kingdom. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Please provide scripture to support your comments. Where does it say in the messianic prophecies that the dead would rise and join the messiah in heaven or that God would "do the whole universe all over again"? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The text does not tell us that God wrote the account. God does speak in the story, but the text does not tell us that God was directing all aspects of the story. quote:You haven't actually addressed the text in the entire context of the chapter and the book. I'm not going to type the whole chapter or book, people can read. The italics are my addition and understanding. 2 Samuel 7:11-13 (Nathan is to say this to David) "The LORD declares to you (David) that the LORD himself will establish a house for you (David): When your (David) days are over and you (David) rest with your (David) fathers, I (God) will raise up your (David) offspring to succeed you (David), who will come from your (David) own body, and I (God) will establish his (David's offspring) kingdom. He (the offspring who will succeed David) is the one who will build a house for my name (God), and I (God) will establish the throne of his (the offspring who will succeed David) kingdom forever. God will establish the throne of the offspring's kingdom for ever. IOW, it is the throne of Solomon's kingdom. The throne in this promise is not separate from Solomon. Nathan continues in verse 16:
Your (David) house and your (David) kingdom will endure for ever before me (God); your (David) throne will be established for ever. Show me in the text that the throne (and I assume we aren't talking about the physical chair but the authority) is separate from David or Solomon or their heirs. It has already been discussed that the continuation of the kingship through Solomon's line was dependent on behavior. Message 131 and Message 197 It has also been discussed that words translated as forever does not mean never ending. Message 173 It has been discussed that even their songs reflected that God revoked his promise. Message 216 I've also shown in Message 228, that the supposed speech by Jeremiah that God doesn't break promises was not in the Septuagint. So it was a later addition. Show me that the throne spoken of in 2 Samuel is separate from David or his heirs through Solomon. You haven't shown us that yet. God's own authority is separate from David and his heirs and is not connected to the throne spoken of in 2 Samuel. The throne in 2 Samuel is attached to the people. It is about governing the people of Israel. Jesus didn't govern the people of Israel. Please address the text. Since you feel it is obvious, then show us. Edited by purpledawn, : Typo Edited by purpledawn, : Fixed link Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The problem with what the author is saying in Acts is that the phrase supposedly spoken by Moses was not referring to a time over 1,000 years later. Moses is talking to the audience in front of him. Those actual people would receive a prophet like Moses, not people a thousand years later. Italic additions are mine.
Deuteronomy 18:14-15 (This is Moses talking to his audience) The nations you (people listening to Moses) will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you (people listening to Moses), the LORD your God has not permitted you (people listening to Moses) to do so. The LORD your God will raise up for you (people listening to Moses) a prophet like me from among your (people listening to Moses) own brothers. You (people listening to Moses) must listen to him. Since that specific group of people didn't want to hear God's booming voice, only one person would talk with God. God said that was good and he said so to Moses.
Deuteronomy 18:17 The LORD said to Me (Moses): "What they say is good. I (God) will raise up for them (people listening to Moses) a prophet like you (Moses) from among their (people listening to Moses) brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them (people listening to Moses) everything I command him. The Israelites needed someone to lead when Moses died. They didn't care about 1,000 years in the future. Joshua was like Moses. God spoke to him and told him what to tell the Israelites. The author of Acts is not keeping true to the simple reading of the OT verses referenced when he applies the verse to Jesus. More of a technique to manipulate their audience instead of speaking facts. Jesus wasn't like Moses. He didn't lead or govern the Israelites. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
And still you don't address the text.
quote:The beauty of it is that the words are there for all to see despite one's belief system or lack there of. I laid out my analysis of the text in Message 284. The text does not tell us that God wrote the account. God does speak in the story, but the text does not tell us that God was directing all aspects of the story. If you disagree with my analysis, then show me where the text supports your position. quote:The Bible is a compilation of writings by several different authors, covering various ages. Yes, anyone can look at one verse and derive any conclusion they wish. Mankind has done this since they put chisel to stone. That is why you have been asked to address the text and show how we are supposedly misunderstanding what was written. You haven't provided that analysis. quote:I don't know what passages of Peg's you are referring to and am not going to guess. Again, I laid out my analysis in Message 284. The CEO of a company has his position of authority. Managers within that company have their positions of authority. Managers can come and go, but that doesn't change the authority of the CEO. In the Judeo/Christian Religions, God is the CEO. David would be equivalent to a manager. God promised that David and subsequently his descendants through Solomon would manage the Nation of Israel as long as they behaved. They didn't behave. They lost Israel and were allowed to continue managing Judah, but eventually lost that also. Once the kingdoms fell to Gentiles, the position of manager was gone because Israel was no longer an independent nation with a government to manage. None of this affects the authority of the CEO (God). God has his own seat of authority. David was not given God's seat of authority. David was given his own seat of authority from God. So the Messianic prophesies are essentially saying that God is going to reinstate that managerial position because Israel will be a nation again. Now if you want to argue that the promise made to David ended and the messianic prophesies are making a new promise, I would entertain that possibility and analyze the text; but I disagree that Jesus fulfills the promise made in 2 Samuel 7:13.
quote:As I said before; Show me that the throne spoken of in 2 Samuel is separate from David or his heirs through Solomon. You haven't shown us that yet. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I do understand what the throne means in 2 samuel 7:13. In the context of 2 Samuel 7:13, the throne is just that; a throne that the king of Israel sat on a reigned from. Deuteronomy 17:18 When he (the king) takes the throne of his (the king) kingdom, he (the king) is to write for himself (the king) on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him (the king), and he (the king) is to read it all the days of his (the king) life so that he (the king) may learn to revere the LORD his (the king) God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself (the king) better than his (the king) brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he (the king) and his (the king) descendants will reign a long time over his (the king) kingdom in Israel. By "his kingdom" it is referring to the kingdom that the king governs. This takes nothing away from God. The Israelites are still God's people. You are the one who claims otherwise and have yet to explain how the story supports your view of the throne.
quote:Since you didn't reference the scripture, I only have the above and I don't see that God said the throne the king was sitting on was not the king's own. As with any ruler, the throne, IOW the position not the physical throne, is the king's until the king's reign is over. The human king's job is to govern the people using God's laws. quote:These verses are not referring to the position of human king as 2 Samuel 7:13 is. That is the issue you are missing. As I tried to illustrate to EMA, there are levels of management. The use of the word throne in the Bible isn't automatically referring to the same position or thing.
quote:The kingship is described in many different ways, but it is still referring to the job of human king the same as 2 Samuel 7:13. 1 Kings 1:35 Then you (people David was talking to) are to go up with him (Solomon), and he (Solomon) is to come and sit on my (David's) throne and reign in my (David's) place. quote:Languages have certain rules. If they didn't then they would be useless, IMO. Pronouns are used to replace nouns within sentences, making them less repetitive and mechanic. I would like you to show me how the verse does not refer to Solomon in the same way I showed who was speaking and who was being spoken of. Break it down.
2 Samuel 7:11-13 (Nathan is to say this to David) "The LORD declares to you (David) that the LORD himself will establish a house for you (David): When your (David) days are over and you (David) rest with your (David) fathers, I (God) will raise up your (David) offspring to succeed you (David), who will come from your (David) own body, and I (God) will establish his (David's offspring) kingdom. He (the offspring who will succeed David) is the one who will build a house for my name (God), and I (God) will establish the throne of his (the offspring who will succeed David) kingdom forever. The pronouns can only refer to the nouns within the sentence. As for why this refers to Solomon, aside from the other scriptures I have provided earlier confirming that it is Solomon (Message 131); the one who builds the temple is the one who will succeed David. That was Solomon. The one who will succeed David is the one whose kingdom will last for a long time. So within the rules of English show me otherwise.
quote:The verse does not imply firmness; just established. quote:And I showed in Message 228 that that speech by Jeremiah was not in the Septuagint. It was a later addition. quote:The throne of David is nothing more than human kingship over Israel. Jesus didn't do that. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:We are discussing the Davidic Covenant. I'm not sure what you're asking or mean by fits. Scripture is already written. No fitting is necessary. How dogma stacks up against the scripture is what we've been arguing. We are studying what the Bible actually says. I say the promise made to David concerning his dynasty ended due to the bad behavior of his descendants and you disagree. As I said to EMA: Now if you want to argue that the promise made to David ended and the messianic prophesies are making a new promise, I would entertain that possibility and analyze the text; but I disagree that Jesus fulfills the promise made in 2 Samuel 7:13. You seem to have difficulty accepting that covenants are contracts that are conditional. Throughout the Bible we see that covenants with God can come and go as God pleases. According to the writers of the Bible, Israel and her kings didn't follow God as they should have and God took back some promises. Even Jeremiah says these promises are conditional and you have been shown this earlier in this thread. (See Message 196) This verse is in the Septuagint. Message 228 Jeremiah 18 6 Shall I not be able, O house of Israel, to do to you as this potter? behold, as the clay of the potter are ye in my hands. 7 If I shall pronounce a decree upon a nation, or upon a kingdom, to cut them off, and to destroy them; 8 and that nation turn from all their sins, then will I repent of the evils which I purposed to do to them. 9 And if I shall pronounce a decree upon a nation and kingdom, to rebuild and to plant it; 10 and they do evil before me, so as not to hearken to my voice, then will I repent of the good which I spoke of, to do it to them. The promise in 2 Samuel 7:13 that we call the Davidic Covenant was restated many times in the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Through all these references it is made clear that the promised job of human king over God's chosen people is conditional and the promise that the job would be held by one of David's descendants is also conditional. We have shown you those verses. Message 131 BTW, Solomon was considered a son of God. These are all from the Septuagint.
1 Chronicles 17 11 And it shall come to pass when thy days shall be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build me a house, and I will set up his throne for ever. 13 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: and my mercy will I not withdraw from him, as I withdrew it from them that were before thee. 14 And I will establish him in my house and in his kingdom for ever; and his throne shall be set up for ever. 1 Chronicles 22 6 And he called Solomon his son, and commanded him to build the house for the Lord God of Israel. 7 And David said to Solomon, My child, it was in my heart to build a house to the name of the Lord God. 8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast carried on great wars: thou shalt not build a house to my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth before me. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, he shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house to my name; and he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom in Israel for ever. 1 Chronicles 28 5 And of all my sons, (for the Lord has given me many sons,)he has chosen Solomon my son, to set him on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. 6 And God said to me, Solomon thy son shall build my house and my court: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be to him a father. 7 And I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he continue to keep my commandments, and my judgments, as at this day. 8 And now I charge you before the whole assembly of the Lord, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek all the commandments of the Lord our God, that ye may inherit the good land, and leave it for your sons to inherit after you for ever. While reading the Septuagint I noticed that 1 Chronicles 29:23, which you shared earlier, is written differently than standard Bibles.
Septuagint 23 And Solomon sat upon the throne of his father David, and was highly honoured; and all Israel obeyed him. NIV So Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of his father David. He prospered and all Israel obeyed him. If we look at 2 Samuel closer we see that the kingship is not the only promise God had Nathan pass on to David.
Septuagint 2 Samuel 7 8 And now thus shalt thou say to my servant David, Thus says the Lord Almighty, I took thee from the sheep-cote, that thou shouldest be a prince over my people, over Israel. 9 And I was with thee wheresoever thou wentest, and I destroyed all thine enemies before thee, and I made thee renowned according to the renown of the great ones on the earth. 10 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell by themselves, and shall be no more distressed; and the son of iniquity shall no more afflict them, as he has done from the beginning, 11 from the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel: and I will give thee rest from all thine enemies, and the Lord will tell thee that thou shalt build a house to him. 12 And it shall come to pass when thy days shall have been fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, even thine own issue, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build for me a house to my name, and I will set up his throne even for ever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And when he happens to transgress, then will I chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men. 15 But my mercy I will not take from him, as I took it from those whom I removed from my presence. 16 And his house shall be made sure, and his kingdom for ever before me, and his throne shall be set up for ever. That promise didn't last for Israel either, supposedly because of behavior. God giveth and God taketh away. Of course the promise to David is useless when it comes to Jesus. You agree that Jesus was not Joseph's biological son. Message 238 I explained in Message 125 that Jewish adoption in that age isn't like ours today, especially when it comes to the royal line. The NT text also doesn't say that Mary is from the line of Judah, let alone David. Her relative Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron. It isn't my job to mesh what's written in the Bible with your position. It is your job to show us that what is written in the Bible supports your position. Oddly enough, I've given you a way out of this promise corner that shouldn't conflict with your belief system or the messianic prophecies. It still doesn't help Jesus because the prophecies still require a person who governs, but at least you wouldn't need to twist the rules of grammar. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:When used figuratively a throne represents royalty, power authority. Physically it is a seat usually used by royalty. Only when the word is used in the correct way in a sentence would it refer to God's authority. I've shown several times that within the grammar of the sentence in 2 Samuel 7, the throne represents the position of the human king. (Message 284) You haven't shown grammatically that it doesn't. The writer(s) of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles present the Ark of the Covenant as being God's throne. (2 Sam 6:2, 2 Kings 19:15, 1 Chr 13:6, Is 37:16) That is the representation of God's power, not the king's seat.
2 Samuel 6:2 He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. quote:Just like the CEO and manager or Owner and Plant Manager. The owner owns the company, but someone has to run it, to deal with the people. God did not deal directly with the people. Remember in Exodus they didn't want to hear the booming voice. Yes an owner can remove a person from a leadership position, which BTW is exactly what God did, but when the person is in the position it is that person's job, not God's. That person works for God, but that person is in the seat of authority for that job. In the case of 2 Samuel 7:13, it is the job of human king over Israel. Because of Israel and Judah's misbehavior and the misbehavior of their kings, God pulled the plug on the kingdom business. All the kings fired and a hostile takeover by another kingdom. The Hebrews were still God's people, but they didn't have a government of their own. They were governed by their oppressors.
quote:Yes, the overall concept of the Bible books is the everything belongs to God. Like the owner of a company. In our jobs we know the chair and desk don't belong to us, but to the company. When we leave the position, those stay behind; but while we are in the job they are considered ours. When the boss says, "Go to your desk", I know he is talking about the desk in the office, not the desk I own at home. When I take another job in the company, that desk is no longer mine even though I'm still with the company. Just as Solomon's descendants lost Israel. They still had the position over Judah, but not Israel. The throne referenced in 2 Samuel 7:13 refers to the position of human king and you haven't shown otherwise. That position was conditional. The messianic prophecies say Israel will have a king again. IOW, they will have their own government again and someone to govern them. Jesus didn't govern. As I've pointed out several times. For ever doesn't mean without end. Message 173 quote:Again using basic reading and grammar skills, those verses were not referring to the position of human king. The kings are gone, the temple destroyed. quote:Sidetracking techniques.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But it is what is written in the Bible. quote:And just as many times I have shown you that Jeremiah 33:14-26 is not in the Septuagint. I provided a link with supporting information. (See Message 228). You didn't address that issue. I also provided the verses from Jeremiah that are in the Septuagint that say God does change his mind when circumstances change.
6 Shall I not be able, O house of Israel, to do to you as this potter? behold, as the clay of the potter are ye in my hands. 7 If I shall pronounce a decree upon a nation, or upon a kingdom, to cut them off, and to destroy them; 8 and that nation turn from all their sins, then will I repent of the evils which I purposed to do to them. 9 And if I shall pronounce a decree upon a nation and kingdom, to rebuild and to plant it; 10 and they do evil before me, so as not to hearken to my voice, then will I repent of the good which I spoke of, to do it to them. You didn't address that issue either.
quote:Read the article "The Jeremiah Scroll" that I linked to in Message 228 and quoted. Among the Qumran texts was a scroll of Jeremiah. This is very significant because the LXX version of Jeremiah is seven chapters shorter than the Masoretic, and what remains is in a different order! The Dead Sea Scrolls backs up the LXX version, not our Masoretic Bibles. quote:Contracts usually end with the death of the other party. The promise to David concerning his descendants being on the throne was contingent upon their behavior and that is the way they understood the promise. Message 131 quote:I've shown you that before also. You didn't respond. See Message 197. Even Psalm 89 reflects that the people felt God had renounced the promise. Message 199 Psalm 89 38 But you (God) have rejected, you have spurned, you have been very angry with your anointed one (David). 39 You have renounced the covenant with your servant and defiled his crown in the dust. ... I've been quite patient, now it is your turn to address the text as I requested in Message 320.
PurpleDawn writes: The pronouns can only refer to the nouns within the sentence. As for why this refers to Solomon, aside from the other scriptures I have provided earlier confirming that it is Solomon (Message 131); the one who builds the temple is the one who will succeed David. That was Solomon. The one who will succeed David is the one whose kingdom will last for a long time. So within the rules of English show me otherwise. In Message 322 you said: how about you explain how the covenent that God made with David fits into the scripture. then we can discuss it. Although I said I didn't understand what you meant by fits (I tried), you didn't bother to explain. So it is your turn to address the text. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:How is my interpretation out of harmony with the writings since my interpretation lines up with what happened? quote:And you provide no support for your assertion. Why are you so sure that you are not basing your position on a revised manuscript? The NT authors used the LXX. The Septuagint in the New Testament Septuagint Usage The Early Christian Church used the LXX and the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX. The Qumran supports the LXX.
The Early Christian Church used the Greek texts since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Greco-Roman Church (Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity, which used the Targums). In addition the Church Fathers tended to accept Philo's account of the LXX's miraculous and inspired origin. Furthermore, the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.[27] So the apostles and Jesus wouldn't have had that chunk of Jeremiah to read. Please show support for your assertion that the majority of scholars agree.
quote:Time indefinite doesn't mean without end. We've shown this also. David is dead when the temple is destroyed. He is unable to lead a kingdom. His descendants would only continue to lead if they obeyed. David knew that. They didn't and God described in 1 Kings 9:4-8 what would happen. David's descendants blew it. I'm not sure why you are arguing this since it still doesn't support Jesus as the messiah. Jesus didn't reign over a physical kingdom, which is what David did. Jesus wasn't a descendant of David. So why are you fighting for the covenant when it doesn't fit Jesus anyway? I've even showed you in Mark 12:37 and in Matthew and Luke, Jesus denies being a descendant of David.
quote:When you make stuff up, I'm not going to waste time on it. quote:I do understand the covenant. It is a promise to a human that if his descendants obey then his descendants will continue to govern God's chosen people, the Israelites, for a long time. If they don't obey, then David's dynasty ends. For ever doesn't mean without end. The covenant doesn't take on a new meaning just because the descendants screwed up. The promise dealt with leading and governing the people of Israel (Jews) in a physical kingdom located on this planet. It does not refer to something off planet or internal. Jesus implied he was not the son of David and Jesus implied that his kingdom was not a physical governing of the Jews.
John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." You have changed the Davidic Covenant to something it is not. The covenant was made to a human for humans, not a spirit. Your dogma is not supported by the Bible and you still haven't shown a viable analysis of the text to show how it refers to anyone but Solomon and his descendants or that it implies a shift to an ethereal kingdom in the event the humans screw up. If the words "for ever" are your only defense, then you have nothing. You haven't shown the words have a meaning of no end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
EMA writes: PD there is nothing wrong with grammar, but context and the totality of scripture trump grammar as I have indicated above. Even the context of the old testament does not support your smokescreen attempts to dethrone God. Nitpicking passages and making single passages conform to theory do not A SOUND ARGUMENT MAKE. Even the simplest of readers can see you attempt is both silly and nonsensical Speaking of nonsense. Context can only be understood within the confines of grammar. Ignoring the rules means you're ignoring the context. You continue to speak of context, but provide none.
quote:I'm sure it is nonsensical to you. I'm actually reading the words provided in the context they were provided or at least trying. You are creating fiction to suit yourself. quote:Actually in Message 320, that the verses she provided were not referring to the position of human king as in 2 Samuel 7:13. Pesky English rules again. Of course neither of you have been able to support your interpretation without breaking English language rules. IOW, you change what God supposedly said. quote:That type of "rulership" is not what God promised David and his descendants and that type of "rulership" is not what the messianic prophecies foretold. Yes those pesky rules of English again. You're going down that spiritual kingdom rabbit hole again with no biblical lifeline. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Yes the promise is made to David, but it is fulfilled through Solomon's line, not just any descendant of David. You're losing sight of the issue. The genealogy in Luke is not through Solomon's line and the one in Matthew is through the cursed line. Again it is a useless point since Jesus wasn't the biological son of Joseph anyway and the NT doesn't tell us that Mary is from the line of David and don't go back to the adoption issue. It doesn't hold water either. The request I made to you is that you show in the text following all the rules of English, that the promise does not involve Solomon's line. The promise will be fulfilled through Solomon and his descendants. That is the promise. It didn't apply to just any one of his sons. quote: The missing chunk we were discussing is Jeremiah 33:14-26. Did you read Jeremiah 33:14-24 in the Septuagint? Not the same words.
14 And behold, I am in your hands; do to me as is expedient, and as it is best for you. 15 But know for a certainty, that if ye slay me, ye bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon them that dwell in it; for in truth the Lord has sent me to you to speak in your ears all these words. 16 Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and to the false prophets; Judgment of death is not due to this man; for he has spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God. 17 And there rose up men of the elders of the land, and said to all the assembly of the people, 18 Michaeas the Morathite lived in the days of Ezekias king of Juda, and said to all the people of Juda, Thus saith the Lord; Sion shall be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become a desolation, and the mountain of the house shall be a thicket of trees. 19 Did Ezekias and all Juda in any way slay him? Was it not that they feared the Lord, and they made supplication before the Lord, and the Lord ceased from the evils which he had pronounced against them? whereas we have wrought great evil against our own souls. 20 And there was another man prophesying in the name of the Lord, Urias the son of Samaeas of Cariathiarim; and he prophesied concerning this land according to all the words of Jeremias. 21 And king Joakim and all the princes heard all his words, and sought to slay him; and Urias heard it and went into Egypt. 22 And the king sent men into Egypt; 23 and they brought him thence, and brought him into the king; and he smote him with the sword, and cast him into the sepulchre of the children of his people. 24 Nevertheless the hand of Achicam son of Saphan was with Jeremias, to prevent his being delivered into the hands of the people, or being killed. The point was that the words stating that the covenant with David would never be broken aren't in the Septuagint at all. The Septuagint wasn't necessarily in the same order as the Masoretic
Masoretic 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. quote:The Qumran text was in Hebrew. You did not provide support for your assertion that the majority of scholars agree that the Greek translation is defective. You also didn't provide support for the claim that the targums contain the missing verses written as we know them today. quote:Exactly! The end date wasn't known when the promise was made. It would end whenever God wanted it to end. Again, David's line continuing to rule was contingent upon behavior. Just because David's descendants blew it doesn't change the promise to an ethereal or internal kingdom. The promise to David concerned governing a kingdom (like a country or a state) in real time and space. If you disagree with that, then show me where the text supports that it is otherwise. Your only reasoning so far is that because the words for ever (they are not one word) are there and that it had to change to accommodate your idea that they mean without end. Unknown end date doesn't mean without end. David's dynasty did last a very long time, but ended with the overthrow of the kingdom and the destruction of the temple. Never failing to have a son on the throne would mean no breaks. Indefinite ending would mean no breaks. The Hasmoneans were not descendants of David. So David's line did fail to have a descendant rule Israel. The Davidic Dynasty ended.
quote:This is what I keep asking you to show me in the text!!!!! You can't because that isn't what the text says. You're rewriting it. See you do feel that for ever means without end. You're not even sticking with the definition you provided earlier in your post. Peg writes: 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. quote: Then we have contradiction, because in the Synoptics he does. Different writer's different thoughts. Both supposedly from the mouth of Jesus. quote:You can't pull that out of the promise in 2 Samuel. Please show support. The throne of David was a rulership over Israel only. Please show support that Mary was from the line of David and that the mother's lineage determined royalty. That still doesn't get around the prerequisites of the promise to David. The promise was through the line of Solomon. I know you don't like hearing that, but you haven't gotten around that hurdle legitimately yet. Things you need to clarify and provide support:1. David's kingdom was to be something other than earthly. 2. The Promise was not specific to any one of David's descendants. 3. That the words for ever mean without end, as opposed to unknown end. 4. That royal leadership was determined through the mother. 5. That "adopted" children could be royal heirs. 6. That "You shall never fail to have a man to rule over Israel." allows for breaks. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024