How to remain Christian

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I agree. Especially those who presuppose that whatever they believe about the Bible is true, and any out of context quote that even looks like supporting them is undeniable fact, and any solidly -argued reason to differ is dismissed with a jedi wave and patronizing smile.

[TRANSPONDER]

It certainly isn't able to activate an effective refutation of my arguments.

[TRANSPONDER]

eusebius.

The Jews didn't have any problem with Peter using Psalm 16:10 and saw the clear truth to the matter and understood prophetic statements. Had Peter improperly ripped the passage out of context and improperly used it, they would have ridiculed him.

We have only Luke's account that Peter even said this, let alone the question of Jews ridiculing him. And I have already found examples of Luke not only getting things wrong, but lying (Paul says he fled Damascus to avoid the army of Aretas, but Luke says it was because the Jews wanted to kill him. This is clearly untrue and yet Luke put it in Acts and we hear nothing about Jews 'ridiculing' the lie. The fact is that Luke and the others could put any tosh they wanted in their gospels and could expect to get away with it.

Truly Peter was acquainted with decay in the grave. Clearly Christ was not acquainted with decay in the grave.

In fact I think he was, and I think the disciples knew it. That is why the resurrection accounts conflict - because Jesus didn't rise from decay.

Also, this was not about David but rather David's Lord:

In the wider context it is about David (a live king, a messianic spirit in heaven, someone's Lord or someone having someone else as a Lord. It's all those things, so you have no business to limited the parameters to suit yourself.

“My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven”. Psalm 89:34-37

Peter's explanation (Acts 2 16 - 36) is supposedly an explanation to all the Jews by Peter using bits of scriptural prophecy that Jesus whom they crucified was Lord and Christ.I of course argue that this never happened and is pure fabrication by Luke, but to support Christian beliefs, represent the Jews as far from ridiculing the explanation, they repented (which is hard to swallow) I have to show that the explanation is a cobbled together collection of out of context quotes that would indeed have elicited raucous mockery from those learned in the Law rather than whimpering repentance.

However, all I need to do right now is see whether your quotes hang together as referring to the seed of David on the throne never mind to Jesus rising from the dead or whether you are totally wrong, as usual.

Acts 2 17 -21 quotes Joel 2 28 -32.

Acts 2. 25 - 29 refers to Psalm 16. 8-11)
Psalm 16
A miktam[poem set to an existing tune] of David.

1 Keep me safe, my God,
for in you I take refuge.

2 I say to the Lord, “You are my Lord;
apart from you I have no good thing.”
3 I say of the holy people who are in the land,
“They are the noble ones in whom is all my delight.”
4 Those who run after other gods will suffer more and more.
I will not pour out libations of blood to such gods
or take up their names on my lips.

5 Lord, you alone are my portion and my cup;
you make my lot secure.
6 The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;
surely I have a delightful inheritance.
7 I will praise the Lord, who counsels me;
even at night my heart instructs me.
8 I keep my eyes always on the Lord.
With him at my right hand, I will not be shaken.

9 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest secure,
10 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
nor will you let your faithful[b] one see decay.
11 You make known to me the path of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence,
with eternal pleasures at your right hand.

This is clearly David to God - he will have no other gods before him.

Acts 2. 34 - 35 refers to psalm 110 -1

Psalm 110
Of David. A psalm.

1 The Lord says to my lord:[a]

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

2 The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
your young men will come to you
like dew from the morning’s womb.[b]

4 The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

5 The Lord is at your right hand[c];
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
7 He will drink from a brook along the way,[d]
and so he will lift his head high.

In the context of psalms written by David this sounds very much as though God is saying to the lord (King David) of the musician who is setting the poem that he is going to see David allright. It can also be made to fit Jesus resurrected and in heaven and the spread of the church, In the context of their Temple wrangle David is supposed to be saying that God has said to David's Lord (Jesus) sit here until I make your enemies crawl. But did David or his musician know of that? Surely the context had to be God looking after David. And isn't Luke's Peter in Acts doing a reach by saying that David when alive envisaged a risen Jesus in heaven. And even then, it has to be clairvoyance of a future event and cannot refer to a Jesus pre -existing David (so how can he be David's son?)

You must see that the contexts are mixed up and conflict.And of course none of it has any bearing on thrones or seeds.

Now as to the quotes you collate to make Acts relate to thrones and seeds:

We have already looked at this lot:

Psa_110:1 A Davidic Psalm The averring of Yahweh to my Lord:Sit at My right Until I should set Your enemies as a stool for Your feet.

Mat_22:44 Said the Lord to my Lord, 'Sit at My right, Till I should be placing Thine enemies underneath "Thy feet!"'?

Mar_12:36 For he, David, said, in the holy spirit, 'Said the Lord to my Lord, "Sit at My right, Till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet."'"

Luk_20:42 For he, David, is saying in the scroll of the Psalms, 'Said the Lord to my Lord, "Sit at My right,

In the NT context it is about who is in heaven - David or Jesus? Just as I said. In the OT context it is about David while still alive and King.

“THE LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.” Psalm 132:11
11 The Lord swore an oath to David,
a sure oath he will not revoke:
“One of your own descendants
I will place on your throne.
in the context of the psalm a reference to the continuance of his line. In no way pointing to Jesus, other than in the eyes of those who want it to be so. Further, Acts 2 does not reference this psalm


“THE LORD (God) said unto my Lord (Davids seed), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool”. Psalm 110:1

Act_2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, yet he is saying, 'Said the Lord to my Lord, "Sit at My right"

Heb_1:13 Now to which of the messengers has He declared at any time, "Sit at My right, till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet"?

Now then David's Lord was Jesus Christ. David's Lord was not David himself. These Jews knew David was prophesying concerning the Christ.

We have already done this, other than Hebrews, which when you think of would FIRST have suggested that this Psalm quote related to Jesus, rather than David, and thus the Synoptic writer picked up on it and Luke used it in Acts for the argument that David did not according to Jewish belief ascend - an arguable statement as I rather think that the Jews might well think David's messianic spirit DID ascend and it was this messianic spirit that made Jesus son of David, even if he actually wasn't (as the problem with the birth -material). Apart from the Luke 20 quote that suggests that Jesus predated David, so how can he be David's son?

You will that the point is not to say that Jesus was NOT David's son, but was both predating David (as God) and David's son by descending into the body of a Davidic descendent (as Luke and Matthew want us to believe)

All that (rather thankfully!) aside, none of it puts Jesus on the Davidic throne or relates to the seed of David in or out of the context of Acts 2.

I'd say your attempt to fox us all has again bombed.