25 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusA realistic point, Darfius? As realistic as Judas throwing the pieces of
It wasn't the lack of originality that made me chuckle, clive.
It was the lack of a realistic point. Conspiracy theorists need help.
silver, retrieving them, buying a plot of land, hanging himself, and
someone cutting him down (after becoming bloated) and spilling his
intestines on the ground? Would you say that this theory (which has
no basis in the Bible) is more realistic than the idea that the Bible
has no contradictions?
Nemesio
25 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusIt doesn't at all. That was where I thought it was, but it obviously isn't. The ancient Jews didn't necessarily believe in hereditary succession, so just occupying the throne of David does not state that this Messiah would actually be the decendant of David. Surely there is something better? Why did the NT writers make such a deal about it if that verse is all there is?
Isaiah 9:7
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.
Hope that helps.
... --- ...
25 Feb 05
Okay, since no one is coming to bat, I have to do my own dirty work. Here is Jer 23:5 : "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land."
and Jer 33:14-15 : "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth."
Funny, I always thought Isaiah mentioned it, but I guess Jeremiah is the winner. If I find anything else, I will of course report it.
... --- ...
25 Feb 05
Originally posted by YozzerHey Yozzer,
In its two-thousand year history, the Christian faith has endured persecution. It has survived heresy, and dissention in the ranks. It has persevered in the face of war, famine, and disease. The Church has been proof against all these things. What it has not been proof against, however, is scrutiny. Close scrutiny by educated scholars, be they archaeologists, ...[text shortened]... ously the proper context, since his encyclopedic knowledge of the scriptures is well documented.
I was just amused more than anything by this thread.
Could it not have been better said "The Failure Of Humans To Stand Up To Reason"?
What do "christians" do that we all don't do? And that includes those of us like myself who call themselves "atheists"?
For example, is not being "anti-war" kind of silly until and unless your enemies sign on to the notion?
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulOkay, why is it that no one but me is bothered by the idea of Jesus Christ being of the line of David? Or um. Excuse me . . . . being the righteous Branch of David? I would think that this was a serious point in the mostly trivial cut and paste job that started this post.
Okay, since no one is coming to bat, I have to do my own dirty work. Here is Jer 23:5 : "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land."
and Jer 33:14-15 : "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, " ...[text shortened]... ess Jeremiah is the winner. If I find anything else, I will of course report it.
... --- ...
... --- ...
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulWhy should we be bothered?
Okay, why is it that no one but me is bothered by the idea of Jesus Christ being of the line of David? Or um. Excuse me . . . . being the righteous Branch of David? I would think that this was a serious point in the mostly trivial cut and paste job that started this post.
... --- ...
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusBecause in order for Jesus to be of the line of David Joseph had to be his father. However, if you buy that God was Jesus' father, then obviously Joseph couldn't be Jesus' father and therefore the whole situation fails to satisfy the prophesy of Jeremiah.
Why should we be bothered?
... --- ...
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulInteresting point.
Because in order for Jesus to be of the line of David Joseph had to be his father. However, if you buy that God was Jesus' father, then obviously Joseph couldn't be Jesus' father and therefore the whole situation fails to satisfy the prophesy of Jeremiah.
... --- ...
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulMary's line (noted in Luke) was also from David. Matthew showed Joseph's so that people would know Jesus came from David through both lines, blood and legally.
Because in order for Jesus to be of the line of David Joseph had to be his father. However, if you buy that God was Jesus' father, then obviously Joseph couldn't be Jesus' father and therefore the whole situation fails to satisfy the prophesy of Jeremiah.
... --- ...