With bafflement upon bafflement!

[dybmh]

So, neiher the LORD, the-father, nor Jesus chose Jesus to be king. It didn't happen.

Luke 1:31. 'And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.'

This came from an angel, not the LORD, the-father, nor Jesus. But hey, you found something. So that's good.

It still never happened, though, so that's a problem.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Conflate? I'm not sure about that. They're opposites. Are they alternating themes? sure.

OK. These prophecies do not show a time gap. Got it.

But, but, you just said that the prophecies don't show a time gap. So, now you're making stuff up.

This is still made up, right? Where is it written?

I'm not following this at all. I've tried to research 'maid servants' and nothing is coming up. Without something scriptural, it looks like this is another dead end.

OK, let's look at it

Sorry, there's no suffering here. It's just the future king. Next!
Nope. The whole passage is about mercy, no king. Next!

Now you're splitting up verses. It doesn't work in this case ( if it ever does ). You're ignoring the word "AND" connecting the beginning and the end of the verse. That's number one; you're changing scripture to force a meaning that isn't there. Shame on you.

Second, the future king brings peace. That's in Isaiah 11. You said that verse 9 was "King Messiah". Verse 9 is about peace. Now you're saying the 2nd coming where Jesus is king will be a day of vengeance not peace. Make up your mind, you're contradicting yourself.

Regarding Luke, he stopped mid-verse, the day of vengeance had not come. That doesn't mean there are two advents.
Regarding Acts, there still hasn't been reasons given to believe the stories are true. But if it's true, the angels say nothing about a king, nothing about ruling, nothing about being finally actually anointed. All they say is he will return the way he came. Poof. Still no king.

So to review: Jesus was never king, was never chosen to be king, never called himself king, never ruled. And none of the scripture you brought indicate a 2nd coming. O yeah, and much of the scripture you brought cannot be referring to Jesus.

The Hebrew scriptures are written for Israel. The Church Age remains hidden in scripture. When the Church Age comes to an end, at the Rapture, then the final week of the covenant with Israel will begin.

Have you never wondered why the temple in Jerusalem has not been rebuilt? Is the diaspora not God's judgement on the Jews?

While Jews have been wondering about the destruction of the temple, the temple of God has been constructed, with Christ as the cornerstone.

In Zechariah 3:8, who do you think is referred to as 'the BRANCH'? In verse 9, why are 'seven eyes' upon one stone? Are the 'seven eyes' not a reference to God's Spirit?

In Zechariah 6:13 it's the BRANCH that builds the temple of the LORD. Who do you think builds it?

If you say Zerubbabel, then once again, I will accuse you of idolatry!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Few people would argue that Jesus was not crucified while Pontius Pilate was governor in Judea.

It takes more than a bit of knowledge of Hebrew scripture to write the NT. Jews had no idea what was about to unfold! As Jesus was dying, he quoted the opening line of Psalm 22. How could a disciple have made this up? If they did, then it means the disciple had special insight into Psalm 22. Even today, Torah Jews cannot agree about the meaning of this Psalm. But, Jesus knew that the Psalm, written nearly a thousand years before his birth, was a Psalm about the crucifixion. This is something you cannot stage!

Why start a post with such a red herring? No one was disputing that. The rest appears to be a very weak denial.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

No, it just means that man is not omnipotent.

 

[dybmh]

The Hebrew scriptures are written for Israel. The Church Age remains hidden in scripture. When the Church Age comes to an end, at the Rapture, then the final week of the covenant with Israel will begin.

Where is this written? Please.

Have you never wondered why the temple in Jerusalem has not been rebuilt? Is the diaspora not God's judgement on the Jews?

Do I wonder about the temple? Maybe a little. Is it God's judgement? I vote yes, but I'm sure there are those that disagree.

While Jews have been wondering about the destruction of the temple, the temple of God has been constructed, with Christ as the cornerstone.

Bst case scenario, it's a spiritual temple, non-conforming to Hebrew scripture ( again Ezekiel 44:9 ), where concepts are made into a god. My sincere hope for any Jews who end up there is that they have a speedy recovery from their ailments.

In Zechariah 3:8, who do you think is referred to as 'the BRANCH'?

Zechariah 6:12-15. The "sprouting" ( a more literal translation not be confused with isaiah 11:1, that's a totally different word. ) is a man who rebuilds the temple. Most people think it's the future king. But some people think it's multiple people similar to a sapling that "branches out". Here's 3:8 with a more literal translation.

Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH to sprout.
​

"My servant" could be the righteous remnant; sprouting means multiple leaders come from it.

Are the 'seven eyes' not a reference to God's Spirit?

I mean, it's a weird vision. So maybe. I see it differently. The stone is transgression. God watches it intently, but will remove it "in a day".

In Zechariah 6:13 it's the BRANCH that builds the temple of the LORD. Who do you think builds it?

That's just a few verses later, Zechariah 6:15. It's built by a massive team of experts.

If you say Zerubbabel, then once again, I will accuse you of idolatry!

Whew! I passed the test. By sticking to the text, of course.

 

[Redemptionsong]

None of this shows that Jesus will only return will Israel is ready to accept him,

Apologies for the extra large font above; but, this is important and it's not getting addressed.

Where is it written that he *only* returns when Israel is ready to accept him? Please.

Daniel saw a vision of God's unfolding plan.

This was a vision intended for lsrael.

Daniel 9:24. 'Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate'.

Do you notice that the transgression is only finished when the most Holy is anointed? Do you notice that the most Holy is not the king, but the Messiah prince? Do you notice that the Messiah prince is cut off, 'but not for himself'? Do you see the connection between your own anointing and the anointing of the 'most Holy'?

The prince 'that shall come' is not the same prince. This is the Roman, Titus, who destroys the city and the sanctuary.

If your anointing is linked to the anointing of the Messiah prince, and you deny the Messiah prince, how can you hope to receive the anointing that he offers?

 

[Harel13]

Zerubbabel was chosen by God (as the 'signet') to replace 'Coniah', Haggai 2:23.

I don't see any Coniah mentioned there. It's also fairly likely that Jeconiah was already dead by then. Zerubbabel was his great-grandson after all.

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].

So, did Haggai lie?

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).

Yes, they do. Is it a coincidence that there were two pairs of these people (by the way, why does everyone ignore Pedaiah..?)? I mean, clearly they were not descended from exactly the same people. Will we be going the in-laws route again? That would distant Jesus and Mary, per your view, even further from David, making their "natural lineage", as you call it, even more questionable.

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.

I don't see how that solves anything. According to your view, Jeconiah's lineage is still cursed, i. e. zero legitimacy. Thus, there is no "royal legitimacy" for any descendant of Jeconiah. If anything, we should be looking for a descendant of a different king of Judah.

Of course, there's always the option that Jeconiah's line is no longer cursed and therefore apologetics surrounding Luke's lineage don't make any sense.

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'.

And then he defers again to Zerubbabel in the next chapter, making him out to be the champion of God (not in those words, of course). So, your point fails. To every text there is a context.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why start a post with such a red herring? No one was disputing that. The rest appears to be a very weak denial.

The crucifixion is not 'a red herring'. It's the cross-hair of scripture!

Since you accept the crucifixion as historical, you might like to explain Psalm 22.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I don't see any Coniah mentioned there. It's also fairly likely that Jeconiah was already dead by then. Zerubbabel was his great-grandson after all.

The connection is the signet, taken from Jeconiah, and given to Zerubbabel.

Jeremiah 22:24 tells us this.
'As l live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would l pluck thee thence;'

Jeremiah 22:30.'Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah'.

Haggai 2:23. 'In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will l take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for l have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Where is this written? Please.

Do I wonder about the temple? Maybe a little. Is it God's judgement? I vote yes, but I'm sure there are those that disagree.

Bst case scenario, it's a spiritual temple, non-conforming to Hebrew scripture ( again Ezekiel 44:9 ), where concepts are made into a god. My sincere hope for any Jews who end up there is that they have a speedy recovery from their ailments.
Zechariah 6:12-15. The "sprouting" ( a more literal translation not be confused with isaiah 11:1, that's a totally different word. ) is a man who rebuilds the temple. Most people think it's the future king. But some people think it's multiple people similar to a sapling that "branches out". Here's 3:8 with a more literal translation.

Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH to sprout.
​

"My servant" could be the righteous remnant; sprouting means multiple leaders come from it.


I mean, it's a weird vision. So maybe. I see it differently. The stone is transgression. God watches it intently, but will remove it "in a day".

That's just a few verses later, Zechariah 6:15. It's built by a massive team of experts.

Whew! I passed the test. By sticking to the text, of course.

We know the Church Age is hidden because Paul tells us so.

1 Corinthians 2:6-14.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The crucifixion is not 'a red herring'. It's the cross-hair of scripture!

Since you accept the crucifixion as historical, you might like to explain Psalm 22.

Sorry, it is a red herring because no one denied it.

There is nothing to explain about Psalm 22. Read it in context, remember that it is describing poetically an event in the past.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sorry, it is a red herring because no one denied it.

There is nothing to explain about Psalm 22. Read it in context, remember that it is describing poetically an event in the past.

Nothing to explain, except that Jesus quoted the first line from this psalm whilst on the cross! Why do you think he did this? Why was he drawing attention to this particular psalm?

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, it just means that man is not omnipotent.

And if man is not omnipotent, why are you following his religion? Is that not a form of idolatry?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing to explain, except that Jesus quoted the first line from this psalm on the cross! Why do you think he did this? Why was he drawing attention to this particular psalm?

No, you can't really say that. One of the Gospels makes that claim. Do not make the error of their conflating what a gospel says and the truth.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, you can't really say that. One of the Gospels makes that claim. Do not make the error of their conflating what a gospel says and the truth.

Either Jesus said it, or two of the Gospel writers made it up.

Normally, when you have two independent witnesses providing harmonious evidence, the testimony is adjudged to be acceptable evidence.

Either way, the account appears twice, and the connection between Jesus' crucifixion and Psalm 22 exists.

Why would the Gospel writers want to connect the crucifixion to Psalm 22 if the psalm had nothing to do with a man's death?

Maybe you could explain the psalm without reference to Jesus' crucifixion?

 

[dybmh]

Daniel 9:24. 'Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate'.

where is the 2nd advent here? where is the need for Israel to be ready to accept it?

Do you notice that the transgression is only finished when the most Holy is anointed?

Yes.

Do you notice that the most Holy is not the king, but the Messiah prince?

No.
The messiah and the most holy are two seperate things. "The most holy" in Hebrew is the inner sanctuary of the temple.

Exodus 29:37, Exodus 30:10

Also wikipedia has an article on it: Holy of Holies - Wikipedia

Also, what I see is "desire" for the most holy to be an annointed ruler. The word used there is actually a "ruler". Here's a list of occurences:

Strong's Hebrew: 5057. נָגִיד (nagid or nagid) -- 44 Occurrences. If you trust the KJV, it almost always translates the word as "ruler" "cheif" or "captain". There's at least one outright mistranslation that I found. 1 Kings 14:7, the KJV says it's a "prince". But it's talking about Jeroboam who was made king earlier in 1 Kings 12:20.

1 Kings 12:20 - KJV says Jeroboam is king. True!

כוַיְהִ֞י כִּשְׁמֹ֚עַ כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ כִּֽי־שָׁ֣ב יָרָבְעָ֔ם וַֽיִּשְׁלְח֗וּ וַיִּקְרְא֚וּ אֹתוֹ֙ אֶל־הָ֣עֵדָ֔ה וַיַּמְלִ֥יכוּ אֹת֖וֹ עַל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לֹ֚א הָיָה֙ אַחֲרֵ֣י בֵית־דָּוִ֔ד זוּלָתִ֥י שֵֽׁבֶט־יְהוּדָ֖ה לְבַדּֽוֹ

KJV: And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.
​

1 Kings 14:7 - KJV says Jeroboam was prince. False!

ז לְכִ֞י אִמְרִ֣י לְיָרָבְעָ֗ם כֹּֽה־אָמַ֚ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יַ֛עַן אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֲרִֽמֹתִ֖יךָ מִתּ֣וֹךְ הָעָ֑ם וָאֶתֶּנְךָ֣ נָגִ֔יד עַ֖ל עַמִּ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

KJV: Go, tell Jeroboam, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee prince RULER over my people Israel,
​

Daniel 9:25 - The KJV says the anointed is a prince? Probably not. The KJV is not inerrant.

כה וְתֵדַ֨ע וְתַשְׂכֵּ֜ל מִן־מֹצָ֣א דָבָ֗ר לְהָשִׁיב֙ וְלִבְנ֚וֹת יְרֽוּשָׁלִַ֙ם֙ עַד־מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד שָֽׁבֻעִ֖ים שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְשָֽׁבֻעִ֞ים שִׁשִּׁ֣ים וּשְׁנַ֗יִם תָּשׁוּב֙ וְנִבְנְתָה֙ רְח֣וֹב וְחָר֔וּץ וּבְצ֖וֹק הָעִתִּֽים​

KJV: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince RULER shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
​

So, the KJV is not perfect. It's mistranslated the word at least one time. And it usually translates the word as "ruler". If you want to continue the discussion using the word "prince", that's OK. But to make it bold as if the word "prince" carries important connotation is wrong.

In your own words, you have confirmed that the word translated as "prince" is actually a ruler. You said: "The prince 'that shall come' is not the same prince. This is the Roman, Titus" Titus was a RULER, an emperor, not a prince.

Do you see the connection between your own anointing and the anointing of the 'most Holy'?

Where in the passage from Daniel am I being anointed? That sounds like something you made up.

If your anointing is linked to the anointing of the Messiah prince, and you deny the Messiah prince, how can you hope to receive the anointing that he offers?

Well, this fails because "my anointing" is not in the passage you quoted from Daniel. Maybe it's somewhere else? Here's a link to get you started of the occurences of the verb form "to anoint". I think you'll see that Israel are not anointed.

Strong's Hebrew: 4886. מָשַׁח (mashach) -- 69 Occurrences

So I ask again, and this is important: You said

Jesus will return in the clouds from heaven, but

he comes only when lsrael are ready to accept His salvation

You brought Daniel 9:24-27. There is NO return here in the passage! Where is it written that he will not return until Israel is ready to accept him????

 

[dybmh]

When the Church Age comes to an end, at the Rapture, then the final week of the covenant with Israel will begin.

Where is it written about the "final week of the covenant"? Please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Either Jesus said it, or two of the Gospel writers made it up.

Normally, when you have two independent witnesses providing harmonious evidence, the testimony is adjudged to be acceptable evidence.

Either way, the account appears twice, and the connection between Jesus' crucifixion and Psalm 22 exists.

Why would the Gospel writers want to connect the crucifixion to Psalm 22 if the psalm had nothing to do with a man's death?

Maybe you could explain the psalm without reference to Jesus' crucifixion?

None of the Gospels are independent. Mark was written first. At least 35 years after the events. Matthew and Luke followed and copied huge swaths of Mark about 15 years later. Last was John after about another ten years. And the authors of that were aware of the other three, but at least they did not copy from it. All four are anonymous and none of them appear to be eyewitness accounts at all. So in effect you only have one "independent" source. And as you remember from Luke's nativity myth, and if you look into it honestly Matthews is mythical too, they are not all that reliable. But I know, you apparently do not like to study the history of the Bible.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And if man is not omnipotent, why are you following his religion? Is that not a form of idolatry?

God often speaks and acts through human beings. He does not need us to be perfect or infallible for this to be true.

 

[Redemptionsong]

where is the 2nd advent here? where is the need for Israel to be ready to accept it?

The second coming is the bound up with the 'consummation'. This is the destruction brought about on the enemies of God.

The need for 'Israel' to be ready is found in the nature of the 'second coming'.
1 Thessalonians 5:2. 'For yourselves [the Church] know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night'.

Will Jews be ready? The prophet Joel sees the coming day of the LORD in this way:
'The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?
Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.
Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?'

In the desperate times that are to come, Jews will seek the face of God. If there is repentance and a turning to God (of whom, Christ is the countenance) then God will be gracious to save.

Isaiah 45:17, 'But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.'

Romans 11:26,27. 'And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.'

So, do you consider yourself a part of Jacob, or of Israel? Can you guarantee that all Jacob will be saved?