With bafflement upon bafflement!

[IndigoChild5559]

If the scriptures were in existence in the Church before the Jewish Wars, as l believe they were, then the writers would have been alive and known in the Church at Jerusalem. Hence, tradition attaches the names of the writers to the writings. These same traditions allow the name of Moses to be attached to the Torah.

the gospels began to be written decades after Jesus. The are written by non-Jews who have a vested interest in appeasing Rome so that the persecutions will stop, so they are hostile to Jews. Each one is actually a patchwork quilt of more than one author's writing (example the synoptic gospels are based on the Q document, the gospel of John is based on the book of signs.) The authors basically are trying to gather together in one place all the stories about Jesus. They do not stop to ask themselves which storeis are probably only legend. They just include it all. That's why the gospels are not reliable sources for what Jesus said and did.

 

[RabbiO]

@IndigoChild5559 -

Are you familiar with Prof. Julie Galambush’s book, The Reluctant Parting: How The New Testament’s Jewish Writers Created A Christian Book?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 -

Are you familiar with Prof. Julie Galambush’s book, The Reluctant Parting: How The New Testament’s Jewish Writers Created A Christian Book?

No, I'm not. Can you share a bit about it?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What is important is to interpret the Bible the way it was intended, and not superimpose meanings that are not there.

And how was the Bible 'supposed' to have been interpreted?

I suggest we look to the Holy Spirit for the answer!

 

[Redemptionsong]

And why would we care about that? I personally know people who can trace themselves from their mother's side all the way to David, name by name. But who cares about that?

Nonsense. This idea doesn't appear anywhere.

More nonsense. And I'll prove that it's nonsense: King Herod Agrippa I was a descendant of Herod and of the Hasmoneans. The Hasmonean aspect came matrilineally. Per your point of view, this should have been enough to legitimize his kingly status in the eyes of the nation. But we know that that wasn't enough because we have a testament to this preserved in Mishnah Sotah 7:8 where his legitimacy as a Jewish king was questioned and the sages hurried to tell him that he was accepted as king in their eyes. He would not have worried about his legitimacy if people followed your view, because he had matrilineal legitimacy (the Hasmoneans being considered legitimate Jewish rulers). Herod the Great thought he would receive legitimacy merely by marrying Miriam the Hasmonean, but that was not enough. He is referred to in the Talmud as a "servant of the Hasmoneans".

No, you've got this wrong.

The royal line is Joseph's line, as recorded in Matthew. I have demonstrated the evidence in support of this belief. Few scholars would argue otherwise.

The problem that exists with Joseph's line comes with the exile in Babylon. Jeconiah was cursed, and God states, unambiguously, that none of his seed will sit upon the throne in Judah. Some have argued that Zerubbabel became king, but this is not what the scriptures tell us.

Listen to what the scriptures do say! And give it some thought!

Haggai 2:2. 'Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people...'

Zechariah 3:8-10. 'Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, l will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
For behold the stone that l have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, l will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and l will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you've got this wrong.

The royal line is Joseph's line, as recorded in Matthew. I have demonstrated the evidence in support of this belief. Few scholars would argue otherwise.

The problem that exists with Joseph's line comes with the exile in Babylon. Jeconiah was cursed, and God states, unambiguously, that none of his seed will sit upon the throne in Judah. Some have argued that Zerubbabel became king, but this is not what the scriptures tell us.

Listen to what the scriptures do say! And give it some thought!

Haggai 2:2. 'Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people...'

Zechariah 3:8-10. 'Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, l will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
For behold the stone that l have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, l will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and l will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree'.

No, you have only made claims supported by apologists. And most scholars seem to think that both nativity stories are myths. There is no good reason to believe either genealogy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And how was the Bible 'supposed' to have been interpreted?

I suggest we look to the Holy Spirit for the answer!

I assume you took English in grade school and high school. This is where you use your reading comprehension skills.

 

[Harel13]

No, you've got this wrong.

The royal line is Joseph's line, as recorded in Matthew. I have demonstrated the evidence in support of this belief. Few scholars would argue otherwise.

Are you referring to this?

Then we move to Luke. Luke's genealogy only diverges from Matthew's after David. It's quite clear that there is no inconsistency up until that point. We know, however, that David had a number of sons [2 Samuel 5:14]; Solomon and Nathan being just two. We also know that Solomon was the son who became king, and belonged to the royal line.

That's your evidence? Perhaps this is some spiritual proof, but we find:
a. When Saul and three of his sons were killed, Ishbosheth his fourth son was crowned and accepted by Israel as king.
b. Adonijah was accepted as king by several members of the government despite God already commanding that Solomon would be the rightful heir.
c. Solomon recognized Adonijah as a legitimate threat to his throne and had him killed.
d. Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat killed his brothers for the same reason.

The people of Judah had a lot of pull in terms of who was king and who wasn't. They crowned kings and dethroned them (see for example 2 Kings 11:14, 2 Kings 14:21, 2 Kings 21:24, 2 Kings 23:30). Perhaps you will try to differ to spiritual legitimacy, but we see that legal, mortal legitimacy was, in some cases, far stronger. So, I'm not going to have that as evidence for a differentiation between "natural descendants of David" and "royal descendants of David".

Listen to what the scriptures do say! And give it some thought!

Perhaps you should try that some time, instead of telling others to do that.

Haggai 2:2. 'Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people...'

I don't know who argues that, but I did notice that you completely ignored the last verse in Haggai, Haggai 2:23.
I recommend listening to what the scriptures do say and giving them some thought.

Zechariah 3:8-10. 'Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, l will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
For behold the stone that l have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, l will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and l will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree'.

I don't know why you quoted these verses. Is it evidence against Zerubbabel, because his name wasn't צמח ""branch""? If so, then it's also evidence against Jesus.

 

[dybmh]

Well, Ezekiel takes this prophecy and broadens the horizon. In Ezekiel 18, and again in 36 and 37, we get a repetition of the call.

Ezekiel 37:25, 'Then will l sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will l cleanse you.
A new heart also will l give you, and a new spirit will l put within you: and l will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and l will give you an heart of flesh.'

In chapter 37 we have the resurrection of the dry bones.
37:13,14. 'And ye shall know that l am the LORD, when l have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and l shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that l the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD'.

Chapter 18 is not the best example for your argument. Verse 30 says:

"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"​

All that's needed is to cast away your transgressions. Salvation isn't needed.

Chapter 36 is also not the best example, because, it's clear that the new spirit has not been given to anyone.

33 Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded. 34 And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by. 35 And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited. 36 Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it.
​

Yeah, I don't think the "heathens" acknowledge "the LORD" building anything. So the new spirit and heart have not been delivered yet.

Chapter 37... you did it again. You omitted the previous verse which refutes your ENTIRE point. This is lying by omission. Here's the passage including verse 12.

12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.
​

The Jewish nation **is** my people **before** the new spirit. BEFORE. The new heart and new spirit are NOT needed to be God's people, per this chapter.

So, who is 'the resurrection, and the life'? See Matthew 27:52.

Ressurection and Life are concepts. What, not who.

The dead rising from their tombs only occurs in one gospel account. And the way the verses are written out of order suggests it was a late addition to the text. So, ya know... maybe it happened, maybe not.

Either way, people rising from the graves does not fulfill the prophecy in Ezekiel 37. The last verse includes a condition which hasn't been fulfilled.

28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
​

So, Ezekiel 37 hasn't happened yet.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I assume you took English in grade school and high school. This is where you use your reading comprehension skills.

If you really believe that, then you must also claim to know the mind of God. Or, do you not believe that the Tanakh is the revealed word of God?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you really believe that, then you must also claim to know the mind of God. Or, do you not believe that the Tanakh is the revealed word of God?

I think that the Tanakh was written by men. It inspires me to keep God's commandments and draw close to God. But it is not "written by God."

 

[Redemptionsong]

I think that the Tanakh was written by men. It inspires me to keep God's commandments and draw close to God. But it is not "written by God."

That's a slippery answer.
Do you believe that all of the Tanakh is inspired by God?

 

[dybmh]

The unbroken nature of the scriptures allows us to see a repetition of the key teachings. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the Lord repeats his teaching:
v.33.' But this shall be the covenant that l will make with the house of lsrael; After those days, saith the LORD, l will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people'.

Now, the story of David taking the ark to Jerusalem, 2 Samuel 6, may strike you as totally unrelated to the theme of the new covenant, but please look again.

OK! Great! If anything, 2 Samuel 6 encourages one to dance and play... so let's have some fun!

David sets the ark (containing the Word) upon a 'new cart'.
David sang a new song, and danced, as they bore the ark to the city of David.
'And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart'.

Now. The first question is, *scripturally* what is the "new cart"? Could it be the Christian new covenant? It's a pretty big stretch, but I'll play along. If "new cart" is a special concept, then using a literal rendering of the verse is warranted.

2 Sam 6:3

וַיַּרְכִּ֜בוּ אֶת־אֲר֤וֹן הָאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־עֲגָלָ֣ה חֲדָשָׁ֔ה וַיִּ֨שָּׂאֻ֔הוּ מִבֵּ֥ית אֲבִינָדָ֖ב אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּגִּבְעָ֑ה וְעֻזָּ֣א וְאַחְי֗וֹ בְּנֵי֙ אֲבִ֣ינָדָ֔ב נֹהֲגִ֖ים אֶת־הָעֲגָלָ֥ה חֲדָשָֽׁה׃

They loaded the Ark of God onto "new cart" and conveyed it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill; and Abinadab’s sons, Uzza and Ahio, guided specifically the "new cart".

The prefix "אֶת־" at the end of the verse indicates a specific "new cart", not just any new cart. Now a person can say, "Oh, but that's not really what the verse says, clearly the verse is talking about a new cart that was made for the occasion". And that might be true. But if one is interpretting the new cart as a "new covenant", then it doesn't fit to claim that this "new covenant" could really be any covenant. If the new covenant is a specific thing, then its symbol is also a specific thing.
​

Looking into scripture, what is "new cart"? It's only mentioned one other place. The Philistines made it to carry the ark.

1 Sam 6:7

וְעַתָּ֗ה קְח֨וּ וַעֲשׂ֜וּ עֲגָלָ֤ה חֲדָשָׁה֙ אֶחָ֔ת וּשְׁתֵּ֤י פָרוֹת֙ עָל֔וֹת אֲשֶׁ֛ר לֹא־עָלָ֥ה עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם עֹ֑ל וַאֲסַרְתֶּ֤ם אֶת־הַפָּרוֹת֙ בָּעֲגָלָ֔ה וַהֲשֵׁיבֹתֶ֧ם בְּנֵיהֶ֛ם מֵאַחֲרֵיהֶ֖ם הַבָּֽיְתָה׃

Therefore, get "new cart" ready and two milch cows that have not borne a yoke; harness the cows to the cart, but take back indoors the calves that follow them.​

Uh-oh! The "new cart" ( representing the Christian new covenant ) is a foreign manufactured imported concept!

So what happens in the story? Originally, the Jewish people were given a commandment.

Num 7:8-9

וְאֵ֣ת | אַרְבַּ֣ע הָֽעֲגָלֹ֗ת וְאֵת֙ שְׁמֹנַ֣ת הַבָּקָ֔ר נָתַ֖ן לִבְנֵ֣י מְרָרִ֑י כְּפִי֙ עֲבֹ֣דָתָ֔ם בְּיַד֙ אִֽיתָמָ֔ר בֶּן־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן הַכֹּהֵֽן
וְלִבְנֵ֥י קְהָ֖ת לֹ֣א נָתָ֑ן כִּֽי־עֲבֹדַ֤ת הַקֹּ֙דֶשׁ֙ עֲלֵהֶ֔ם בַּכָּתֵ֖ף יִשָּֽׂאוּ

8 And he gave four carts and eight oxen to the sons of Merari, according to their work under the direction of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest.
9 But to the sons of Kohath he did not give, for incumbent upon them was the work involving the holy, which they were to carry on their shoulders.

Per God, no carts, carry it on their shoulders.
​

So... they recieved the "new cart" from the foriegners and put the ark in it. Continuing with the theory that this is the Christian new covenant, now the Jewish law is riding inside a foreign concept making it easier to "walk with the law", and as a result the original law ( Num 7:9 ) is no longer needed. So they roll it away, law inside a new covenant, then what happens?

The "new cart" isn't stable! Reaching into the "new cart" to protect "the ark" causes... ZAP ... instant death! ( 2 Samuel 6:6-7 ). Instead of the Christian new covenant protecting the law, making the law accessible, the opposite happened. It turns the law into death.

What happens next? They abandon the "new cart".

In verse 9, King David asks himself, "How can I get this ark to the city?" He is literally wondering how can I transport this thing without a cart? Maybe he as conflicted because, IF God ordained that the ark be returned miraculously by the Philistines, then every part of the miracle must be holy including it's miraculous travel on the "new cart" ( 1 Samuel 6:12 ). But that's not how it works apparently. The "new cart" could have been miraculous AND also forbidden.

So maybe they thought was the "new cart" must be holy too. But just because a miracle occurs for a foriegn nation, that doesn't mean it invalidates the God's laws for the Jewish people. They were supposed to carry the ark on their shoulders.

So David is confused and they leave the ark without the "new cart" for 3 months, and the ones who possessed it are blessed. ( 2 Samuel 6:11-12 ). Starting with verse 13 the ark is "carried", the original law is followed per the literal instructions given by God. In fact they do the opposite of using a "cart", instead they go very slowly and make offerings to God every six steps.

And everything is great once they stopped using the philistine's "new cart". If the "new cart" is the Christian new covenant, the story is adamantly opposed it.

Are we having fun?

Who do you think Saul, and his daughter, Michal, represent?

Well, I'm having fun, so let's keep going. Who is Michal? Michal is an empty cart. Verse 23. If you look at her rebuke it is all about the exterior presentation of a king. King David's response refers to the original law of God, "I was chosen by God, to rule over Israel, I am humbled by it, and I will humble myself more, and I will be revered".

So even if a new covenant exists, it requires the original covenant, God's commands, or else there is no seed. An empty cart ( where the new covenant jetisons the details of the original laws ) is superficial and results in a barren wife, a barren nation.

 

[dybmh]

And how was the Bible 'supposed' to have been interpreted?

I suggest we look to the Holy Spirit for the answer!

Again. A spirit is tested with scripture. If the spirit brings falsehood, even a minute little fraction of falsehood, it is not "holy". Any interpretation brought MUST be 100% impervious to rebuke. This hasnt been demonstrated, so whatever process you might advocate for to commune / cohabit with a spirit is not bringing good results.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Are you referring to this?

That's your evidence? Perhaps this is some spiritual proof, but we find:
a. When Saul and three of his sons were killed, Ishbosheth his fourth son was crowned and accepted by Israel as king.
b. Adonijah was accepted as king by several members of the government despite God already commanding that Solomon would be the rightful heir.
c. Solomon recognized Adonijah as a legitimate threat to his throne and had him killed.
d. Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat killed his brothers for the same reason.

The people of Judah had a lot of pull in terms of who was king and who wasn't. They crowned kings and dethroned them (see for example 2 Kings 11:14, 2 Kings 14:21, 2 Kings 21:24, 2 Kings 23:30). Perhaps you will try to differ to spiritual legitimacy, but we see that legal, mortal legitimacy was, in some cases, far stronger. So, I'm not going to have that as evidence for a differentiation between "natural descendants of David" and "royal descendants of David".



Perhaps you should try that some time, instead of telling others to do that.

I don't know who argues that, but I did notice that you completely ignored the last verse in Haggai, Haggai 2:23.
I recommend listening to what the scriptures do say and giving them some thought.

I don't know why you quoted these verses. Is it evidence against Zerubbabel, because his name wasn't צמח ""branch""? If so, then it's also evidence against Jesus.

Zerubbabel was chosen by God (as the 'signet') to replace 'Coniah', Haggai 2:23. However, Zerubbabel does not reign in Judah. He is described as a 'governor' [Haggai 2:21].

Salathiel and Zerubbabel appear in both Matthew and Luke's genealogies. Then there is a further divergence. Matthew follows the succession from Zerubbabel through Abiud (the royal line), and Luke follows the line through Rhesa (the natural line).

The interesting thing about the royal line in Matthew is that there are no more kings sitting on the throne of Judah after Jeconiah. Yet, if we're to believe the promise made to David by God, the throne of Solomon was to last 'for ever' [1 Chronicles 22:9,10]

Since Jeconiah's seed could not sit upon the throne of Judah, it is necessary for royalty to be found some other way. The only other way, as far as l can see, is for a male member of the royal line to marry another descendant of David who is not of the royal line. The child of such a marriage would have the royal legitimacy of the father, and the natural lineage of the mother.

The amazing thing about Zechariah 3 is that God chooses this point in time, when kingship fails in Judah, to give authority to the high priests. And Joshua, who represents the servant high priest to come (Christ), is told by God that under the high priests the Servant of God (the BRANCH) will appear. It is this branch, the Christ, who will form the corner stone of God's temple. It is also this man who will remove 'the iniquity of that land in one day'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So even if a new covenant exists, it requires the original covenant, God's commands, or else there is no seed. An empty cart ( where the new covenant jetisons the details of the original laws ) is superficial and results in a barren wife, a barren nation.

There is no suggestion that using a 'new cart' to take the word of God to Jerusalem means that the Law is jettisoned. The Law remains inside the ark, untouched. It's the figure of David that arouses Michal's disgust.

In 2 Samuel 6:20-23, we get David returning to bless his household. Who are David's household if not the Jews?

What does Michal, a representative of David's household, say to him? She says, 'How glorious was the king of lsrael to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!'
'And David said unto Michal, lt was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over lsrael: therefore will l play before the LORD.
And l will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall l be in honour'.

It seems the words ring true today.

Did Jesus not abase himself, and were the only ones to honour him not the 'maidservants'?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's a slippery answer.
Do you believe that all of the Tanakh is inspired by God?

I think there are many things that are inspired by God, including the Tanakh. But inspired doesn't mean God wrote it or that it doesn't suffer from the kinds of errors that men do.

 

[dybmh]

There is no suggestion that using a 'new cart' to take the word of God to Jerusalem means that the Law is jettisoned.

Ummm... it sure does. It's not only suggested it's precisely and literally what happens in the story. The "new cart" replaces and prohibits carrying it on their shoulders. What I said was "the details of the law are jetisoned". The detail of carrying on shoulders is gone, ignored, over-ruled, made irrelevent by the "new cart". And that's also what Hebrews perscribes about the original law. ( Hebrews 8:13 )

In 2 Samuel 6:20-23, we get David returning to bless his household. Who are David's household if not the Jews?

Yes. Jews. But again, you are skipping, skipping, skipping, repeatedly 20 verses that indicate the "new cart" was a bad idea.

What does Michal, a representative of David's household, say to him? She says, 'How glorious was the king of lsrael to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!'

Yes... she's being sarcastic

And David said unto Michal, lt was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over lsrael: therefore will l play before the LORD.

Yes, and he does not rejoice until *after* the "new cart" has been abandoned. They may have been playing music, but the joy of King David comes later.

Did Jesus not abase himself, and were the only ones to honour him not the 'maidservants'?

It doesn't matter because to be a match Jesus would need to be chosen by the LORD to be ruler and he wasn't. I don't know your scripture well enough to locate the story you're referring to. But plenty of people can act like a fool and bring honor to themself from common people. What you're describing is a comedian not a king.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I think there are many things that are inspired by God, including the Tanakh. But inspired doesn't mean God wrote it or that it doesn't suffer from the kinds of errors that men do.

Well, if you don't believe that the Torah, Prophets and Writings are inerrant, then your God is not omnipotent.

It seems odd to me that Moses should command that not a word be added to, or subtracted from, his prophecies if they were not inerrant. John says the same thing in the book of Revelation [Revelation 22:18,19].

The result of believing that there is error mixed with truth, is that nothing can be trusted. Yet, to my way of thinking, God is perfectly trustworthy, and l would sooner place my trust in God, in Christ, than in any man!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if you don't believe that the Torah, Prophets and Writings are inerrant, then your God is not omnipotent.

It seems odd to me that Moses should command that not a word be added to, or subtracted from, his prophecies if they were not inerrant. John says the same thing in the book of Revelation [Revelation 22:18,19].

The result of believing that there is error mixed with truth, is that nothing can be trusted. Yet, to my way of thinking, God is perfectly trustworthy, and l would sooner place my trust in God in Christ than any man!

Sorry, but that does not follow. In fact that claim would refute the Bible.