Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[The Blaatschapen]

It's a recurring nomos, the bigger the hat, the more important the person.

According to that logic women are superior to men in Islam. They always wear hats anyway.

Atheists 0 Muslims 1

Leave us atheists out of your abrahamic squabbles.

[Luminesa]

*Jumps front behind Arch, with a purple saber.* CHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Too late - you're outnumbered.

FLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP!!!!

*Runs away.*

[Herskerstad]

You know, I don't see any argument for Mormonism that wouldn't work equally well as an argument for Islam. Both religions claim to follow the supposed "original teachings" of Christ (and the other prophets), which are shockingly different from what Christianity has historically believed, and both religions claim to have been started by a new prophet who received a book from an angel that was intended to "correct" the "errors" of a corrupt Christian Church.

Both religions also deny the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ, and support these denials with the new books that were supposedly revealed by the respective angels.

As far as I'm concerned, Mormonism is Islam 2.0 - at least with regard to its claims to legitimacy.

The historical analogy doesn't really work because 'restorationism' draws on traditions predating the arrival of Islam. Acknowledging both that I'm not claiming a continuous history, and that the issue is muddied due to most of what we know about early heresies was written by opponents of that heresy, Mormonism draws on strands that seem to have existed within Christian heresies (using the latter term in the narrow technical sense) dating back to Montanus and Marcion.

There are new elements as well in Mormonism, of course. Neither Marcion nor Montanus had access to the unpublished novels of Solomon Spalding, for one. But there's no need to go looking outside of Christianity for the core theological strands that Smith eventually drew on to form his new religion.

I would imagine Smith's attempt at translating hieroglyph messages should humor you to some degree.

I think the only one he got right was the sign for 'sun.' With the added problem that he used it for 48 different words as well.

[The Archregimancy]

The historical analogy doesn't really work because 'restorationism' draws on traditions predating the arrival of Islam. Acknowledging both that I'm not claiming a continuous history, and that the issue is muddied due to most of what we know about early heresies was written by opponents of that heresy, Mormonism draws on strands that seem to have existed within Christian heresies (using the latter term in the narrow technical sense) dating back to Montanus and Marcion.

There are new elements as well in Mormonism, of course. Neither Marcion nor Montanus had access to the unpublished novels of Solomon Spalding, for one. But there's no need to go looking outside of Christianity for the core theological strands that Smith eventually drew on to form his new religion.

I would imagine Smith's attempt at translating hieroglyph messages should humor you to some degree.

I think the only one he got right was the sign for 'sun.' With the added problem that he used it for 48 different words as well.

My understanding of Smith's 'translation' of 'reformed Egyptian' is different.

Since no images or transcriptions of the original Golden Plates exist, we have little way of knowing what 'reformed Egyptian' consisted of, unless the Anthon Transcript is authentic. If the Anthon Transcript is authentic, then 'reformed Egyptian' bears absolutely no resemblance to any form of Egyptian script known to historians or archaeologists.

In any case, it seems that Smith was unaware of Champollion's near-contemporary work on hieroglyphs. At the time, it likely seemed safe to claim that the Golden Plates were written in a form of a language that up to that point no one had been able to decipher.

[Herskerstad]

I would imagine Smith's attempt at translating hieroglyph messages should humor you to some degree.

I think the only one he got right was the sign for 'sun.' With the added problem that he used it for 48 different words as well.

My understanding of Smith's 'translation' of 'reformed Egyptian' is different.

Since no images or transcriptions of the original Golden Plates exist, we have little way of knowing what 'reformed Egyptian' consisted of, unless the Anthon Transcript is authentic. If the Anthon Transcript is authentic, then 'reformed Egyptian' bears absolutely no resemblance to any form of Egyptian script known to historians or archaeologists.

In any case, it seems that Smith was unaware of Champollion's near-contemporary work on hieroglyphs. At the time, it likely seemed safe to claim that the Golden Plates were written in a form of a language that up to that point no one had been able to decipher.

Not so much the golden plates which conveniently was described as removed, but the JSP or Joseph Smith Papyri, which was essential to the writing of the book of Abraham.

[Auristania]

Today is precisely 40 days after Christmas, and that means we are celebrating a feast day that marks the official end of the "extended Christmas season", as it were - the time of the year related to the birth and early life of Christ. In the English-speaking Latin Christian tradition, today's feast is usually called Candlemas. But it is also one of the 12 Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church, officially known as...

The Meeting of the Lord in the Temple
(also called the Presentation of the Lord in the Temple)

(Image)
x
When Christ's earthly parents arrived with Him at the Temple, they were met by the Elder Simeon and the Prophetess Anna, who happened to be there by divine providence. The Elder Simeon had been told in a prophecy that he would not die until he saw the Messiah. And so, as he picked up the infant Christ in his arms, he said the famous prayer that we recite near the end of every service of Vespers:

"Lord, now let Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word, for my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all people, a light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel."

The Prophetess Anna also testified that Jesus was the Messiah, and Simeon told Mary that her Son would be the cause of the rising and falling of many in Israel, that He will be "a sign which shall be spoken against", and furthermore that "a sword shall pierce through your own soul also". This is considered to be a prophecy about the Passion of Christ, and about the great suffering that Mary herself would endure at the Cross. It is also the source of this type of icon.

The Feast of the Meeting of the Lord is very ancient - in fact, you might be surprised by how old it is, considering the fact that it's generally not very well known. We have sermons written for this Feast in the early 300s. It became a particularly important Feast in Constantinople after the year 542, as it was associated with thanksgiving for the end of the Plague of Justinian.



As usual when I post to mark a Great Feast, here are some hymns for the occasion on YouTube:

Troparion for the Meeting of the Lord (in Greek and Arabic)
Troparion for the Meeting of the Lord (in Romanian)
That which came to pass in Thee - 9th Ode for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord (in English)
That which came to pass in Thee - 9th Ode for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord (in Arabic)
The entire service of Matins for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord (in Arabic; this is one of the best collections of Arabic Orthodox chants that I have ever found on YouTube!)

Troparion:

Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos, full of grace!
From you shone the Sun of Righteousness, Christ our God.
Enlightening those who sat in darkness!
Rejoice, and be glad, O righteous elder;
You accepted in your arms the Redeemer of our souls,
Who grants us the Resurrection.

Kontakion:

By Your nativity, You did sanctify the Virgin's womb,
And did bless Simeon's hands, O Christ God.
Now You have come and saved us through love.
In the midst of wars grant peace to Your people,
And strengthen your Church, O only Lover of mankind!

I am scoring these Troparia by Awesomeness Quotient:
1 Grk Arb 60; 2 Rom 56; 3 Eng 65; 4 Arb 57; 5 Arb 65.

So Orthodox DO have Candlemas after all. My friend is Serbian, she said 40 days after Xmas aint no big deal. Just like Rick, she was misinformed.

[Nordengrund]

What are your thoughts on evictionism?

I think that is a position that should be explored further. On one hand, evictionists believe that the fetus is a parasite and the woman has sovereignty over her body and has the right to eject the baby. On the other, they also believe that life begins at conception and that the baby should be ejected, or removed without killing it.

I don't agree with their view about the fetus being a parasite, but I think it's a view worth exploring as a potential middle ground.

[Constantinopolis]

So Orthodox DO have Candlemas after all. My friend is Serbian, she said 40 days after Xmas aint no big deal. Just like Rick, she was misinformed.

Well, it's true that this Great Feast is not much of a social or cultural event anywhere that I know of. I mean, unlike Christmas or Theophany or the Transfiguration or other Great Feasts, this one doesn't really have any cultural traditions associated with it. There's no gift-giving or family get-togethers or icy swimming contests or anything like that. People only celebrate it by going to church and that's about it. So in that sense, your friend could be correct that it's "no big deal".

[Venerable Bede]

Mormons think that, and it follows logically from their premise that it's, and I quote, "another testament of Jesus Christ." Its that premise I disagree with.

Why?

Surely they wouldn't write it if it wasn't true?

Mormons have died for their faith. If it wasn't true - they'd just recant. Surely.

Really, GnI? Regurgitating this freethinker dreck would be understandable if you were posting on r/atheism...and were fourteen. But a man of your years spouting this sort of mendacity is embarrassing. If you had bothered to even make use of a single thought in relation to the distinction of the situations, you could have made a post of mature quality, but instead you treat memes like the trump suit. You seriously don't know that Christ's followers, unlike Smith's, were actually firsthand witnesses of the Resurrection? And that Smith's firsthand supporters actually fell out with him? No? You didn't know that? Or you didn't know that the miracle of Christ's Resurrection was initially met with skepticism by his followers, and that the witness of the four women was rejected outright? They were far from gullible. Or did it not occur to you that the miracle of the Resurrection was something witnessed after Christ's death, and therefore not possibly a tool or delusion stemming from one leader (unless, of course, you accept it as true, in which case it stemmed from Christ). Did it also not occur to you that Christ's followers did not gain any worldly advantage (like the ability to have multiple wives), but rather the Apostles had to forfeit their worldly life. Or maybe you didn't consider that some followers, like James the Just, and Paul, were powerful and respected religious leaders, and forfeited that to follow Christ? Or maybe you didn't consider that while Mormons were killed, the direct choice of "recant or be killed" wasn't faced by any of them? In being Mormons they took a risk, yes, but there weren't situations where they were on a scaffold and told if they recanted, they'd be immediately be freed.

[Venerable Bede]

Except...Christians, at least Orthodox Christians, accept a lot of books in their canon. The NT is not some book written 2,000 years after the last books of the Bible. There's a consistent and ongoing canon right up to it. So please, no tedious, false equivalencies.

I'm not sure the interval matters with an omnipotent and eternal god.

If the first book of the Hebrew scripture is supposed to be 1200 years old when the first book of the Greek scripture is penned, less than 17 centuries isn't that much.

Besides - the Book of Mormon may have been translated in 1830, but the text was written between 2200BC and AD421.

From the first book of Hebrew Scripture to the first book of Greek Scripture, there is a continuous series of ongoing books. If Mormons had a series of continuous books from ancient times stretching to the Book of Mormon, then their tradition would hold a little more water.

[Venerable Bede]

That is what Bede did, or claims the Early Fathers did, in regards to Ecclessiastes. Ignore a very clear and overt meaning of the text, and supplanting within it a new, contrived meaning, that supports their new theologies. I'm pretty sure Bede is misrepresenting the Early Father's positions, (and I'd take his claims of things being Patristic with a grain of salt). The Early Church Fathers would did not teach that this is how we should do this rather, they taught should take both theologyies, side by side. And see how one illuminates the other.
Progression, not replacement.

The Church Fathers didn't see the Old Testament having a theology distinct from the New Testament. They saw the New Testament as completing the Old Testament, making it whole and realized.

[Venerable Bede]

Yes, a lot of people were not ready or able to understand the entire message. Nonetheless, there was still plenty to understand, and I think it is fine to say that the distinction between spiritual and worldly sorrow wasn't totally inaccessible to God's prophets.

As you've defined them, your ideas of spiritual and worldly sorrow surely appear in both the old and new testaments in ways that the authors themselves would have understood.

That raises an interesting question: do you think anyone prior to Christ understood the full extent of what the coming of the messiah would entail, or does that require the evangelion introduced by Jesus himself and spread through his apostles? Or, alternatively, did the evangelion exist prior to Jesus?

It occurs to me that at one point Jesus says it isn't even He who accuses the people who don't recognize him for what he is- it's Moses, who they claim to follow, who accuses them: because Moses wrote about him. At a first reading, that might seem to support the idea that Moses already understood what the messiah would be. What do you think?

Isaiah and David both knew who the Messiah would be, so probably Moses did, who was apparently more spiritually advanced (shining so brilliantly with God's activity he had to wear a veil).

[Auristania]

Why?

Surely they wouldn't write it if it wasn't true?

Mormons have died for their faith. If it wasn't true - they'd just recant. Surely.

Really, GnI? Regurgitating this freethinker dreck would be understandable if you were posting on r/atheism...and were fourteen. But a man of your years spouting this sort of mendacity is embarrassing. If you had bothered to even make use of a single thought in relation to the distinction of the situations, you could have made a post of mature quality, but instead you treat memes like the trump suit. You seriously don't know that Christ's followers, unlike Smith's, were actually firsthand witnesses of the Resurrection? And that Smith's firsthand supporters actually fell out with him? No? You didn't know that? Or you didn't know that the miracle of Christ's Resurrection was initially met with skepticism by his followers, and that the witness of the four women was rejected outright? They were far from gullible. Or did it not occur to you that the miracle of the Resurrection was something witnessed after Christ's death, and therefore not possibly a tool or delusion stemming from one leader (unless, of course, you accept it as true, in which case it stemmed from Christ). Did it also not occur to you that Christ's followers did not gain any worldly advantage (like the ability to have multiple wives), but rather the Apostles had to forfeit their worldly life. Or maybe you didn't consider that some followers, like James the Just, and Paul, were powerful and respected religious leaders, and forfeited that to follow Christ? Or maybe you didn't consider that while Mormons were killed, the direct choice of "recant or be killed" wasn't faced by any of them? In being Mormons they took a risk, yes, but there weren't situations where they were on a scaffold and told if they recanted, they'd be immediately be freed.

WTF? Every religion with martyrs is automatically true?
If so, then all religions are true. Even the dogmas that contradict other dogma are both true.

[The Blaatschapen]

Really, GnI? Regurgitating this freethinker dreck would be understandable if you were posting on r/atheism...and were fourteen. But a man of your years spouting this sort of mendacity is embarrassing. If you had bothered to even make use of a single thought in relation to the distinction of the situations, you could have made a post of mature quality, but instead you treat memes like the trump suit. You seriously don't know that Christ's followers, unlike Smith's, were actually firsthand witnesses of the Resurrection? And that Smith's firsthand supporters actually fell out with him? No? You didn't know that? Or you didn't know that the miracle of Christ's Resurrection was initially met with skepticism by his followers, and that the witness of the four women was rejected outright? They were far from gullible. Or did it not occur to you that the miracle of the Resurrection was something witnessed after Christ's death, and therefore not possibly a tool or delusion stemming from one leader (unless, of course, you accept it as true, in which case it stemmed from Christ). Did it also not occur to you that Christ's followers did not gain any worldly advantage (like the ability to have multiple wives), but rather the Apostles had to forfeit their worldly life. Or maybe you didn't consider that some followers, like James the Just, and Paul, were powerful and respected religious leaders, and forfeited that to follow Christ? Or maybe you didn't consider that while Mormons were killed, the direct choice of "recant or be killed" wasn't faced by any of them? In being Mormons they took a risk, yes, but there weren't situations where they were on a scaffold and told if they recanted, they'd be immediately be freed.

WTF? Every religion with martyrs is automatically true?
If so, then all religions are true. Even the dogmas that contradict other dogma are both true.

Also a lack of faith in god is true. Since plenty of people have died because of their lack of faith

The solution here is clearly that martyrdom is not a valid way of measuring truth.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That is what Bede did, or claims the Early Fathers did, in regards to Ecclessiastes. Ignore a very clear and overt meaning of the text, and supplanting within it a new, contrived meaning, that supports their new theologies. I'm pretty sure Bede is misrepresenting the Early Father's positions, (and I'd take his claims of things being Patristic with a grain of salt). The Early Church Fathers would did not teach that this is how we should do this rather, they taught should take both theologyies, side by side. And see how one illuminates the other.
Progression, not replacement.

The Church Fathers didn't see the Old TestamentCovenant having a theology distinct from the New Testament Covenant. They saw the New TestamentCovenant as completing the Old TestamentCovenant, making it whole and realized.

FTFY

Once again I think you completely miss the point. And, I'll try one last time to get you to understand. I'm not saying that we need to drive a wedge between the two collections. I've repeatedly said multiple times, which you fail to acknowledge or comprehend every time, that it is not wrong to interpret Old Testament books in new ways light of the New Testament, and seeing how the Old Testament works flow into a firm foundation that the New Testament builds off of. What I'm saying to you, is it is wrong to override overt intentions of the Biblical Authors, and insert new meanings into the text. (I make the same criticisms of tools like Joel Osteen who does the same thing)

I'll give you a prime example from Ecclesiastes:
8 Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? Wisdom makes one’s face shine, and the hardness of one’s countenance is changed.
2 Keep[a] the king’s command because of your sacred oath. 3 Do not be terrified; go from his presence, do not delay when the matter is unpleasant, for he does whatever he pleases. 4 For the word of the king is powerful, and who can say to him, “What are you doing?” 5 Whoever obeys a command will meet no harm, and the wise mind will know the time and way." 6 For every matter has its time and way, although the troubles of mortals lie heavy upon them. 7 Indeed, they do not know what is to be, for who can tell them how it will be?"

From what you seem to be advocating, you would Claim that the King referred to here, is Christ. That the author would be specifically referring to Christ when he means King. This would be an in correct assertion. The Author is referring to the general figure of the King, who is in Jerusalem. David, Solomon,...etc etc... Hezzekiah, Josiah, Etc Etc. These are all Kings.

So it is wrong to say that the author is intentionally referring to Christ in his words. However it is not wrong to understand this in the light of Christ, because we know that Christ is also a King. Thus we can apply this teaching to Christ, without saying the Author is referring to Christ.

[Venerable Bede]

Really, GnI? Regurgitating this freethinker dreck would be understandable if you were posting on r/atheism...and were fourteen. But a man of your years spouting this sort of mendacity is embarrassing. If you had bothered to even make use of a single thought in relation to the distinction of the situations, you could have made a post of mature quality, but instead you treat memes like the trump suit. You seriously don't know that Christ's followers, unlike Smith's, were actually firsthand witnesses of the Resurrection? And that Smith's firsthand supporters actually fell out with him? No? You didn't know that? Or you didn't know that the miracle of Christ's Resurrection was initially met with skepticism by his followers, and that the witness of the four women was rejected outright? They were far from gullible. Or did it not occur to you that the miracle of the Resurrection was something witnessed after Christ's death, and therefore not possibly a tool or delusion stemming from one leader (unless, of course, you accept it as true, in which case it stemmed from Christ). Did it also not occur to you that Christ's followers did not gain any worldly advantage (like the ability to have multiple wives), but rather the Apostles had to forfeit their worldly life. Or maybe you didn't consider that some followers, like James the Just, and Paul, were powerful and respected religious leaders, and forfeited that to follow Christ? Or maybe you didn't consider that while Mormons were killed, the direct choice of "recant or be killed" wasn't faced by any of them? In being Mormons they took a risk, yes, but there weren't situations where they were on a scaffold and told if they recanted, they'd be immediately be freed.

WTF? Every religion with martyrs is automatically true?
If so, then all religions are true. Even the dogmas that contradict other dogma are both true.

We're talking about martyrs who were firsthand witnesses.

[Sanctissima]

WTF? Every religion with martyrs is automatically true?
If so, then all religions are true. Even the dogmas that contradict other dogma are both true.

We're talking about martyrs who were firsthand witnesses.

Of which there are a lot. Many whose dogmas contradict each others'.

[Venerable Bede]

The Church Fathers didn't see the Old TestamentCovenant having a theology distinct from the New Testament Covenant. They saw the New TestamentCovenant as completing the Old TestamentCovenant, making it whole and realized.

FTFY

Once again I think you completely miss the point. And, I'll try one last time to get you to understand. I'm not saying that we need to drive a wedge between the two collections. I've repeatedly said multiple times, which you fail to acknowledge or comprehend every time, that it is not wrong to interpret Old Testament books in new ways light of the New Testament, and seeing how the Old Testament works flow into a firm foundation that the New Testament builds off of. What I'm saying to you, is it is wrong to override overt intentions of the Biblical Authors, and insert new meanings into the text. (I make the same criticisms of tools like Joel Osteen who does the same thing)

I'll give you a prime example from Ecclesiastes:
8 Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? Wisdom makes one’s face shine, and the hardness of one’s countenance is changed.
2 Keep[a] the king’s command because of your sacred oath. 3 Do not be terrified; go from his presence, do not delay when the matter is unpleasant, for he does whatever he pleases. 4 For the word of the king is powerful, and who can say to him, “What are you doing?” 5 Whoever obeys a command will meet no harm, and the wise mind will know the time and way." 6 For every matter has its time and way, although the troubles of mortals lie heavy upon them. 7 Indeed, they do not know what is to be, for who can tell them how it will be?"

From what you seem to be advocating, you would Claim that the King referred to here, is Christ. That the author would be specifically referring to Christ when he means King. This would be an in correct assertion. The Author is referring to the general figure of the King, who is in Jerusalem. David, Solomon,...etc etc... Hezzekiah, Josiah, Etc Etc. These are all Kings.

So it is wrong to say that the author is intentionally referring to Christ in his words. However it is not wrong to understand this in the light of Christ, because we know that Christ is also a King. Thus we can apply this teaching to Christ, without saying the Author is referring to Christ.

Covenant and Testament are literally just two translations of the same word in both Greek and Hebrew.

The New Testament also tells us to obey kings in Romans 13. As for your suggestion that it did not occur to Solomon that God and the Messiah are kings, that seems questionable..

[Venerable Bede]

We're talking about martyrs who were firsthand witnesses.

Of which there are a lot. Many whose dogmas contradict each others'.

No, there are not a lot who fulfill the same situations mentioned in that post.

[Sanctissima]

Of which there are a lot. Many whose dogmas contradict each others'.

No, there are not a lot who fulfill the same situations mentioned in that post.

Are we talking about just witnesses of the Resurrection or people who've witnessed spiritual/divine events in general? Because there are a lot of the latter.

Either way, although she wasn't martyred, Mary Magdalene was one of the first to witness the Resurrection, and she ended up founding a sect a Gnostics. Just throwing that out there.

[Venerable Bede]

No, there are not a lot who fulfill the same situations mentioned in that post.

Are we talking about just witnesses of the Resurrection or people who've witnessed spiritual/divine events in general? Because there are a lot of the latter.

Either way, although she wasn't martyred, Mary Magdalene was one of the first to witness the Resurrection, and she ended up founding a sect a Gnostics. Just throwing that out there.

Uh, no, she did not. Just because later Gnostics revered her doesn't mean she founded a sect, they also revered Judas and Christ.

[Sanctissima]

Are we talking about just witnesses of the Resurrection or people who've witnessed spiritual/divine events in general? Because there are a lot of the latter.

Either way, although she wasn't martyred, Mary Magdalene was one of the first to witness the Resurrection, and she ended up founding a sect a Gnostics. Just throwing that out there.

Uh, no, she did not. Just because later Gnostics revered her doesn't mean she founded a sect, they also revered Judas and Christ.

It's pretty clear she was butting heads with Peter and Paul after Christ's death. In all likelihood the Gnostic sect that worshipped her was comprised of the descendants of those who supported her during the early fracturings of Judeo-Christianity.

[Venerable Bede]

It's pretty clear she was butting heads with Peter and Paul after Christ's death.

Only if we accept the Gnostic account as accurate, which I don't since it postdates every single of the four canonical Gospels.

[Venerable Bede]

I also don't think the four canonical Gospels would give Mary Magdalene such an important and praiseworthy role if they were the texts of a sect that opposed her.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

FTFY

Once again I think you completely miss the point. And, I'll try one last time to get you to understand. I'm not saying that we need to drive a wedge between the two collections. I've repeatedly said multiple times, which you fail to acknowledge or comprehend every time, that it is not wrong to interpret Old Testament books in new ways light of the New Testament, and seeing how the Old Testament works flow into a firm foundation that the New Testament builds off of. What I'm saying to you, is it is wrong to override overt intentions of the Biblical Authors, and insert new meanings into the text. (I make the same criticisms of tools like Joel Osteen who does the same thing)

I'll give you a prime example from Ecclesiastes:
8 Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? Wisdom makes one’s face shine, and the hardness of one’s countenance is changed.
2 Keep[a] the king’s command because of your sacred oath. 3 Do not be terrified; go from his presence, do not delay when the matter is unpleasant, for he does whatever he pleases. 4 For the word of the king is powerful, and who can say to him, “What are you doing?” 5 Whoever obeys a command will meet no harm, and the wise mind will know the time and way." 6 For every matter has its time and way, although the troubles of mortals lie heavy upon them. 7 Indeed, they do not know what is to be, for who can tell them how it will be?"

From what you seem to be advocating, you would Claim that the King referred to here, is Christ. That the author would be specifically referring to Christ when he means King. This would be an in correct assertion. The Author is referring to the general figure of the King, who is in Jerusalem. David, Solomon,...etc etc... Hezzekiah, Josiah, Etc Etc. These are all Kings.

So it is wrong to say that the author is intentionally referring to Christ in his words. However it is not wrong to understand this in the light of Christ, because we know that Christ is also a King. Thus we can apply this teaching to Christ, without saying the Author is referring to Christ.

Covenant and Testament are literally just two translations of the same word in both Greek and Hebrew.

sigh.....

You're also technically correct about Christ being the completion of the Old Testament but you're applying the woefully incorrectly. The words Testament and Covenant are interchangeable, being derived from the Greek word diathéké. Christ is the completion of the Old Covenant. His death satisfied the Covenant of Moses, and created a New Covenant. When the Bible uses the words Old Testament and New Testament, it's not referring to the scripture itself, it's referring to the covenants that the blocks of scripture pertain to chronologically. The OT catalogues the lead up to, the formation of, and the living out of the Mosaic Covenant, the "Old Covenant". The New Testament Chronicles the Lead up to, the formation of, and the living out of the Messianic Covenant, the "new Covenant". To then use this to say that every word of the scripture is a reference to Christ in the mind of the creator, is again eronious.

For this reason it becomes necessary to distinguish between the covenants themselves, and the corresponding scriptures. You aren't making that distinction.

The New Testament also tells us to obey kings in Romans 13.

And? That only furthers my point, the Christianity builds off of existing traditions.

As for your suggestion that it did not occur to Solomon that God and the Messiah are kings, that seems questionable..

Well it would be if that were what I said. I said that the Author (who's not actually Solomon but a person writing in his character, the earliest dating of the book is hundreds of years after his death. ) is referring to the figure of the King, who is appointed over them by God. The Monarchy of God or the Messiah, (they were all Messiahs after all) is not questioned. Just that in that particular passage, it's not what he's talking about.