Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

Laws of language deal with gramatical fundamentals of language Nobody has changed those. How about the fundamentals of interpreting and understanding words, phrases and statements relative to context? This, PD, is a classic example of violation of the fundamentals of interpretation and understanding relative to Biblical eschatological/prophetical context. You and yours consistently violate those fundamentals. Astute and objective Biblical scholars studied in Biblical eschatology recognize that there were futuristic Biblical prophets, particularly relative to what is regarded as the prophecy books of OT, often aluded to in the NT as prophecy by Jesus and other writers. Who is Brian? Brian is just another delusioned member, purporting to be Biblically authoratative , all the while obviously demonstrating a disdainful bias against anything Biblical or the operative existence of any power or intelligence beyond that of humankind. You just don't get it Biblically, PD. Corroboration and context matters if you ever aspire to understanding the harmonious whole of the word of God which we call the Bible. Again, you folks mine out some controversial aspect of the debate, totally ignoring and denying the more pertinent and observable evidence relative to messiah Jesus.PD, If Jesus was a messianic imposter, why did his phenominal prophecy, specifying the old walled city of Jerusalem and Gentile occupation not fail ?Jesus's prophecied on the Mt of Olive in the corroborative gospel accounts, corroborative with all of the major OT prophets, being Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, that the city of Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed and and would become occupied by gentile nations until the end times when the times of the Gentiles (particlarly relative to Jerusalem) would end.When Jesus unttered these prophecies, it was the early 1st century. 19+ centuries down, in our times, specifically the 1967 war know as the Six Day War, Jesus's prophecy was fulfilled when the Israel's military marched into the occupied old portion of the city and celebrated at the Wailing Wall on the old Temple Mount.For six millenniums Gentiles ruled the earth. For six days Jehovah's people fought to usher in the end times which will end Gentile rule of the earth and initiate the messianic rule as per messiah, Jesus and the corroborative prophets.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

Laws of language deal with gramatical fundamentals of language Nobody has changed those. How about the fundamentals of interpreting and understanding words, phrases and statements relative to context?

---

Context: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning. It all goes together Buz. Context doesn't change who the pronoun is referring to.

quote:

---

This, PD, is a classic example of violation of the fundamentals of interpretation and understanding relative to Biblical eschatological/prophetical context. You and yours consistently violate those fundamentals. Astute and objective Biblical scholars studied in Biblical eschatology recognize that there were futuristic Biblical prophets, particularly relative to what is regarded as the prophecy books of OT, often aluded to in the NT as prophecy by Jesus and other writers.

---

Eschatology (a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind) is a Christian term. I would agree I'm not, because I'm reading the text, not looking at a belief system outside the text. Nothing should change the simple reading of the text.

quote:

---

Corroboration and context matters if you ever aspire to understanding the harmonious whole of the word of God which we call the Bible.

---

The Bible I understand. It's the gymnastics, by those who supposedly believe it is the word of God, to make it say something it doesn't I don't understand. I have no problem with what the Bible says.

quote:

---

Again, you folks mine out some controversial aspect of the debate, totally ignoring and denying the more pertinent and observable evidence relative to messiah Jesus.

---

In this forum arguments have to be concise. We go where the argument takes us. When someone presents a verse or interpretation as support, but it doesn't add up; I question. That doesn't mean I haven't read more than that one verse or how it fits into the bigger picture of the time. It's your job to present a better argument that doesn't change the simple reading of the text or the writer's message to his audience.

quote:

---

Jesus's prophecied on the Mt of Olive in the corroborative gospel accounts, corroborative with all of the major OT prophets, being Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, that the city of Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed and and would become occupied by gentile nations until the end times when the times of the Gentiles (particlarly relative to Jerusalem) would end.

---

See you say that, but you don't provide the OT verses that go along with your position and why it is a fulfillment of the OT verses.The messiah was to be a ruler, per the messianic prophecies. Do any of the messianic prophecies state that the messiah will prophesy that the 2nd temple (515 BCE) will fall?

---

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

My point sailed right over your head, PD. I repeat, if Jesus was an imposter/liar, claiming he was messiah, why were and are his prophecies coming to fulfillment?The OT prophecies which shout over and over that the land will become desolate and the Jews dispersed, clearly implying that all Jerusalem, including the temple will also become desolation to some extent. Jesus re-inforced and corroborated those prophecies to specify exactly what would happen. Indeed history attests to the fulfillment and to the ability of Jesus to corroborate, by this power, his other claims that he is indeed messiah.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

My point sailed right over your head, PD. I repeat, if Jesus was an imposter/liar, claiming he was messiah, why were and are his prophecies coming to fulfillment?

---

Nope it didn't. The thread isn't about his prophetic accuracy. It is about whether he fulfilled the job of the Jewish messiah. Brian's point is that he failed. You haven't shown evidence to the contrary. Biblical or otherwise.

quote:

---

The OT prophecies which shout over and over that the land will become desolate and the Jews dispersed, clearly implying that all Jerusalem, including the temple will also become desolation to some extent. Jesus re-inforced and corroborated those prophecies to specify exactly what would happen. Indeed history attests to the fulfillment and to the ability of Jesus to corroborate, by this power, his other claims that he is indeed messiah.

---

Again, you don't provide the OT prophecies you're referring to or that the messiah was to have prophetic powers. He needs to fit all the requirements. The main job of the messiah was to free the Jews from their oppressors.

---

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

I know the thread is a long read, but I've already cited some of the relative OT prophecies both in this thread and others. Once should suffice. Perhaps an on site search will help.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

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.

quote:

---

I know the thread is a long read, but I've already cited some of the relative OT prophecies both in this thread and others. Once should suffice. Perhaps an on site search will help.

---

Maybe you could provide the number of the post, like I do when I've already address a point to someone else and don't want to repeat myself. It's not my job to figure out which prophecy you're referring to and go looking for it.

---

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

IOW, if all else fails repeat yourself without providing support. You've been asked repeatedly to show that the promise is not restricted to Solomon's line. Show me the text!

quote:

---

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.

---

I've shown you scripturally that the promise is fulfilled through Solomon. (Message 131 & Message 320) It's in the text. Show me where God has repeatedly stated that if any of David's sons became unfaithful they would be cut off from sitting on the throne. Show me that the promise is not dependent on David's descendants behavior, specifically Solomon's. You haven't shown how the text supports your position. The pronouns are very clear. It is singular. The one who builds the temple is the one the promise continues through. No, the promise does not imply that the humans will never die. The promise is saying that David's dynasty will last a long time as long as Solomon's decendants behaved. David's dynasty ended with the destruction of the 1st temple. I don't think the messianic prophecies were referring to that promise. I think they were more along the lines that the messiah would free the Israelites from oppression and make the kingdom whole again as it was when David was king. Jesus didn't do that either.

quote:

---

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"

---

And I've shown you that that comment isn't in the Septuagint that the NT writers used. Yes, I've shown you that the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint. Show me that that isn't a later addition to the Jewish text or that the NT writers knew of that portion. I've shown you that the early church fathers used the Septuagint also. Message 332 Message 338

quote:

---

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.

---

Except that isn't what God said. If you disagree, then show me where God implies that. Message 131In 1 Kings 9 God spoke to Solomon saying: He didn't say if Solomon or his sons disobeyed he would put one of David's other sons on the throne. When God took Israel away from Solomon's line he didn't give it to another in David's line. He gave it to another family. Please provide support for your position.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, that line is through Nathan and not Solomon. Royal lines are not through the mother. You haven't demonstrated that any descendant of David would fulfill the promise of 2 Samuel 7:13, which is what you're referring back to. That's what we've been asking you to do.

quote:

---

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.

---

We are working with an English translation. If you have proof in Hebrew, lay it out. Otherwise you are saying the translators got it wrong, which then puts the whole English Bible in question.I agree the promise is made to David, but not for a dynasty that couldn't end. Part of the promise is that the dynasty would continue through Solomon's line. David's rulership ended when he died. The rulership was to continue through Solomon and Solomon's descendants. Read the text!

quote:

---

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.

---

Please show support. Yes, Jeremiah 33 was in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the two verses you are referring to aren't in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Show me that they are!Please support what you're saying and stop repeating. You've said a lot, but shown nothing.

---

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

Purple, with all due respect, I can't believe you're so oblivious to the fact that my prophile is loaded with messianic prophecies and that I have cited some in this thread.Perhaps you should apply what you advised hERICtic to do, which was to read up on the thread and search my profile in answer to your question in order that we can move forward.If you make and effort and can't find anything, get back to me and I'll help you out.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

It's not my job to find support for your arguments.

Purple, I'm sure you are fully aware that I have supported my arguments. If you're too lazy to go back and read them, I can't help you. There's no reason for me to have to drag this thread on and on regurgitating support which I have already posted.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Simply providing a link to a previous post is hardly regurgitating.

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.

EMA writes:
quote:
________________________________________
we are arguing what the Apostles and prophets have to say concering the Kingdom of God.
________________________________________
Rrhain writes What accuracy are you speaking of?
Consistency is where we are at in the discussion. We have already discussed Brians issues and we don’t agree with him, he does not agree with us on geneology and historical accuracy, we have pretty much left that behind because allpoints that could be discussed have been discussed
EMA writes: ________________________________________
R writes: They do if the scriptures are the word of God and I have never seen a conclusive argument that they are not the word of God After examining the evidence all one has left is their beliefs
Besides this I assumed you knew by belief I meant what one could demonstrate, in a belif not simply their opinion
Your assuming the scriptures are not the word of God SIMPLY because I have assumed it for argument sake here. There is every good reason to know or belief it is the word of God, even if it doesn’t satisfy youYour approval of the evidence to establish validity is not required to proceed with a sound argument concerning connected matters.EMA writes ________________________________________
Rrhain writes: Is this habit you have of putting words in peoples mouth, building a strawman and knocking him down, a longtime problem, or has it just started recently. Im not claiming the Bible is true ONLY because it says so, Im convinced it is because of the consistency that can be extracted even from its own merit to establish a pattern for the prophecies, kingdom and MessiashipNo one has ASSUMED EXCLUSIVELY that the Bible is Gods word. Its assumed (based on sound reasons) at PRESENT to proceed with another area. Assumption is not THE ONLY requirement for a valid belief that the scriptures are Gods word. Facts are a very large part of the process concerning the scriptures being the Word of GodFor all your intelligence you seem to be unable to comprehend that point. You approval is not required to proceed logically to establish validity, consistency or methodology. Your approval is not necessary to establish what circular reasoning is or is not concerning obvious evidenceEMA notes ________________________________________
R writes: Again, your approval of the initial evidence is not necessary to make a subsequent argument worthy or valid. No amount of evidence will convince some people we actually walked on the moon or that the Holocost actually happened. If you don’t believe me wait 1000 years and wait to see what they will be saying about these events. They will be called fiction and fantasy n a large scaleEMA writes: ________________________________________
R WritesYou miss the point of my statement and its logical import. It doesn’t matter why they said what they said or whether they lied or that they were mistaken or that they were mislead (did I get the other two?). It only matters (NOW WATCH THIS RRHAIN) WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THEIR STATE OF MIND,THEIR STATEMENT AND WHAT THEY BELIEVED. Whether enough external evidence and internal evidence is present to establish validity before discussing consistency. Clearly you don’t believe there is, so whats your point?It only matters if the initial evidence is convincing enough to you to get you to their comments and statements, about God. It does not matter all the reasons they may have had occasion to assert such things. Im telling you I could not give a rats behind what they had to say, about a bunch of mystic viewpoints, if God was not their influence. Who cares,correct?So my import concerned you, not why they made such commentsNot to be overly obvious but it should be observed that consistency in the text and by the writers goes along way to establish validity, oorrect?
quote:
________________________________________
EAM writes: ________________________________________
R writes:Im sorry, I missed the part where you ESTABLISHED THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT THEWORD OF GOD, they are unreliable, inconsistent, to assume I am proceeding with an invalid approach. Arent you making an enormous ASSUMPTION. Can I not discuss the Declaration 0f Independence’s intrinsic values without being accused of circular reasoning when discussing several of its internal declarations as parts, then a whole? Do I need, at every setting to discuss the DOIs evidences, before discussing its individual parts for validiy. As far we are concerned the DOI had one author and there is every good reason to proceed as if theris oneauthor in the scriptures If you weren’t ignoring obvious, yet unspoken evidence, at present, that has been rehearsed 1000 times on this website, I wouldn’t need to talk about your belief systems, or your beliefs concerning the scriptures. And you wouldn’t assume I was ASSUMING ANYTHING EITHER PERSONALLY OR IN ARGUMENT FORM. Certainly you are smart enough to deduce that at some point the outlandish claims contained in the scriptures alongside the common statements have to be taken into consideration, when approaching these subjects. Again it does not matter why the author included God and the miraculous, only that they did and that they believed God to be directing these affairs over long periods of time, past certain individuals life spans.If this is true in any or every sense of the word, then of course your belief system will come into play concerning such topics. Certainly anyone could point out circular reasoning if they believed the scripturesto be the work of several men over several centuries, but if it is a work of an omnipotent God, then there is no real reason to ascribe circular reasoning
God actual or imaginary involvement in these matters and whether you actually think that happened makes all the difference in the world and in such a discussion. If you don’t you really are wasting your time and mine. I will not let up off the point because it is actually very vitalEAM
________________________________________Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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?

---

I know you really can't be that dense when it comes to comprehending what is written in books. Try putting yourself in Nathan's position and act as though you are talking to David. God simply promised David that he would have descendants. His bloodline would continue. Men tend to worry about that. They still do today. God also promised that David's bloodline through Solomon would continue to rule all of Israel as long as they behaved. You have not explained how the pronouns in 2 Solomon 7:13 can refer to anyone but Solomon.Supposedly David's bloodline does still exist. If the records are correct, then that part of the promise seems to be holding; but the kingship part did not. Leadership was dependent upon the behavior of Solomon and his descendants.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you're ignoring the fact that the section is probably a later addition and we don't really know when it was written. Since you feel it is valid, let's look at the text.Verse 14: Refers to a promise made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. 2 Samuel 7:13 is a promise made to David, not Israel. David was over a united kingdom. The wording has a divided kingdom view. So show me this promise.Verse 17: This verse also says that the Levites will also never fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices. This didn't pan out either. Odds are this section was added after the second temple resumed sacrifices.The reality doesn't agree with the section. The temple was destroyed and hasn't been rebuilt and there haven't been sacrifices there since.

quote:

---

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)."

---

The promise is not for one heir to rule without end. That's physically impossible. The house for the ark is the temple. The house for David is his bloodline. It isn't the temple.

quote:

---

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.

---

The seed to come was Solomon. The promise to David has nothing to do with the messiah.

quote:

---

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."

---

Jesus wasn't crowned king. Jesus didn't rule over a united Israel. So Jesus was still a failure. Did you realize that Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are also from the cursed line of Jeconiah? They show up in both genealogies.

quote:

---

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.

---

The promise was not for some descendant in the far future. The promise of an heir to the throne was referring to Solomon. The words of the text don't support your position, Peg. Reality doesn't support your position, Peg.God can and does change his mind. The text and reality support my position.

---

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