Total Posts:362|Showing Posts:211-240|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for the religion experts

RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 5:54:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 5:39:49 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 3/9/2017 4:50:32 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Whether or not he was offended is not really the issue. The curse came from God regardless of whether or not Elisha personally felt offense, or felt no emotion whatsoever. And how you view biblical arguments is irrelevant as well. Your like (which I take to mean dislike) doesn't change anything. It's not an argument. And the fact that more questions are made is a good thing. The problem is that many want nails placed on a coffin that's not there. An example would be archaeology. One of the silliest claims made is that archaeology disproves the Bible. And what you find the most offensive is irrelevant as well. Major earthquake events are terrible. Are they worse than major tsunami events? I guess it might be a matter of opinion. Yeah, some ugly things happened that are dictated in the Bible. Just as there are in modern day news periodicals.

Either the incident with the bears and Elisha happened, or it's fiction. If it happened, then the event is not open for interpretation. If it didn't really happen, which I assume bible critics don't think it did, then it doesn't matter whether Elisha was offended, why the curse was implemented, etc. But yet bible critics do make it an issue.

The claim by bible critics is similar to the tongue-in-cheek claim that Sherlock Holmes is a homosexual. But at least that's done in tongue-in-cheek. We all understand that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never made such an indication, therefore it's just a non-sense based insinuation.

Let me get this straight: you say either the bears story happened, or it didn't. Obviously I don't believe it did, but it's in a book that people talk about as being divinely inspired and inerrant. It's in a book that people base entire lives around. IT's important if it isn't true, because that means that it's full of errors and unreliable. I don't understand why anyone would want to worship the god who sent bears to eat kids, but okay, we're all free to believe whatever I suppose.

Your first part is correct. Either it happened, or it didn't. And I'd like to answer your question, but I'm not clear on your use of the word 'kids'. Are you past the idea that these were little children, or are you still holding to that?

Yeah, horrible stuff happens in the newspapers every day, but no one makes the newspaper into their bible...I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Can you clarify?
Many of the horrors that are recorded in the Bible are attributed to God, when they are actually either natural disasters, collapsed buildings due to maybe poor retrofitting, or conditions brought about by unlawfulness (various judgments, voluntary servitude, etc.).

In other words, it's a brutal world.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 6:07:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 5:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/9/2017 5:39:49 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 3/9/2017 4:50:32 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Whether or not he was offended is not really the issue. The curse came from God regardless of whether or not Elisha personally felt offense, or felt no emotion whatsoever. And how you view biblical arguments is irrelevant as well. Your like (which I take to mean dislike) doesn't change anything. It's not an argument. And the fact that more questions are made is a good thing. The problem is that many want nails placed on a coffin that's not there. An example would be archaeology. One of the silliest claims made is that archaeology disproves the Bible. And what you find the most offensive is irrelevant as well. Major earthquake events are terrible. Are they worse than major tsunami events? I guess it might be a matter of opinion. Yeah, some ugly things happened that are dictated in the Bible. Just as there are in modern day news periodicals.

Either the incident with the bears and Elisha happened, or it's fiction. If it happened, then the event is not open for interpretation. If it didn't really happen, which I assume bible critics don't think it did, then it doesn't matter whether Elisha was offended, why the curse was implemented, etc. But yet bible critics do make it an issue.

The claim by bible critics is similar to the tongue-in-cheek claim that Sherlock Holmes is a homosexual. But at least that's done in tongue-in-cheek. We all understand that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never made such an indication, therefore it's just a non-sense based insinuation.

Let me get this straight: you say either the bears story happened, or it didn't. Obviously I don't believe it did, but it's in a book that people talk about as being divinely inspired and inerrant. It's in a book that people base entire lives around. IT's important if it isn't true, because that means that it's full of errors and unreliable. I don't understand why anyone would want to worship the god who sent bears to eat kids, but okay, we're all free to believe whatever I suppose.

Your first part is correct. Either it happened, or it didn't. And I'd like to answer your question, but I'm not clear on your use of the word 'kids'. Are you past the idea that these were little children, or are you still holding to that?

Yeah, horrible stuff happens in the newspapers every day, but no one makes the newspaper into their bible...I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Can you clarify?
Many of the horrors that are recorded in the Bible are attributed to God, when they are actually either natural disasters, collapsed buildings due to maybe poor retrofitting, or conditions brought about by unlawfulness (various judgments, voluntary servitude, etc.).

In other words, it's a brutal world.

THe bible says boys, right? It's neither here nor there I suppose, but reading the story in a way that it isn't written is an easy way to support any point you want. A group of 42 boys is a lot of boys...but it's also not a mob of rioters, words that also appear in the bible elsewhere, so they were available for specificity. The bible doesn't say voluntary servitude. It says slaves. It also doesn't prohibit rape in the 10 COmmandments, basically the foundation of the faith prior to Jesus (who also didn't include it in his own commandment).

So you're saying that the bad stuff that happens in the brutal world is NOT attributable to God? He could do nothing about any of them? This is a version of god which doesn't correspond to any other understanding of god, in that the world is not under his control.
iamgodsonilovemygod
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 6:26:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
my believe says something else on beginning of life which can be listened in my holy book truth in my language.

you can check my god exist and real
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 6:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 6:07:48 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 3/9/2017 5:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/9/2017 5:39:49 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 3/9/2017 4:50:32 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Whether or not he was offended is not really the issue. The curse came from God regardless of whether or not Elisha personally felt offense, or felt no emotion whatsoever. And how you view biblical arguments is irrelevant as well. Your like (which I take to mean dislike) doesn't change anything. It's not an argument. And the fact that more questions are made is a good thing. The problem is that many want nails placed on a coffin that's not there. An example would be archaeology. One of the silliest claims made is that archaeology disproves the Bible. And what you find the most offensive is irrelevant as well. Major earthquake events are terrible. Are they worse than major tsunami events? I guess it might be a matter of opinion. Yeah, some ugly things happened that are dictated in the Bible. Just as there are in modern day news periodicals.

Either the incident with the bears and Elisha happened, or it's fiction. If it happened, then the event is not open for interpretation. If it didn't really happen, which I assume bible critics don't think it did, then it doesn't matter whether Elisha was offended, why the curse was implemented, etc. But yet bible critics do make it an issue.

The claim by bible critics is similar to the tongue-in-cheek claim that Sherlock Holmes is a homosexual. But at least that's done in tongue-in-cheek. We all understand that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never made such an indication, therefore it's just a non-sense based insinuation.

Let me get this straight: you say either the bears story happened, or it didn't. Obviously I don't believe it did, but it's in a book that people talk about as being divinely inspired and inerrant. It's in a book that people base entire lives around. IT's important if it isn't true, because that means that it's full of errors and unreliable. I don't understand why anyone would want to worship the god who sent bears to eat kids, but okay, we're all free to believe whatever I suppose.

Your first part is correct. Either it happened, or it didn't. And I'd like to answer your question, but I'm not clear on your use of the word 'kids'. Are you past the idea that these were little children, or are you still holding to that?

Yeah, horrible stuff happens in the newspapers every day, but no one makes the newspaper into their bible...I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Can you clarify?
Many of the horrors that are recorded in the Bible are attributed to God, when they are actually either natural disasters, collapsed buildings due to maybe poor retrofitting, or conditions brought about by unlawfulness (various judgments, voluntary servitude, etc.).

In other words, it's a brutal world.

THe bible says boys, right? It's neither here nor there I suppose, but reading the story in a way that it isn't written is an easy way to support any point you want. A group of 42 boys is a lot of boys...but it's also not a mob of rioters, words that also appear in the bible elsewhere, so they were available for specificity. The bible doesn't say voluntary servitude. It says slaves. It also doesn't prohibit rape in the 10 COmmandments, basically the foundation of the faith prior to Jesus (who also didn't include it in his own commandment).

But I'm not reading it in a way it's not written in that it was written in Hebrew, the na'ar having a broader meaning in age range. Does the fact it was originally written in Hebrew and translated into English not mean anything to you? Even in modern English we sometimes refer to men as boys. Same as the word slave (ebed) also means servants. It was voluntary servitude. People who found themselves in debt, or stole from other people could voluntarily submit themselves to servitude to pay off their debt. This was done as an alternative to imprisonment.

And just because something is not included in the 10 Commandments didn't mean it was condoned. And the Bible is very clear that rape is prohibited.
So you're saying that the bad stuff that happens in the brutal world is NOT attributable to God? He could do nothing about any of them? This is a version of god which doesn't correspond to any other understanding of god, in that the world is not under his control.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA:
Is it reasonable to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70?
Is it reasonable to believe that Daniel was written before the NT epistles or Gospels? (If you say no then I want to see your factual evidence).
Is it reasonable to believe every NT epistle and Gospel were written before A.D. 70?
Is it reasonable to believe that after A.D. 70 the covenant requirements laid out in the Mosaic Law could no longer be met?
Is it reasonable to believe that God judged the nation of Israel, these OT people, as He said He would if they continued to disobey Him or not? Is it reasonable to believe that a Messiah promised to an OT people would come to them before God abrogated that covenant and divorced Israel for her unfaithfulness to Him?

There was a gap of over 400 years between the last prophet Malachi and Jesus. Was it because the Jews repented and there was no need for prophets?

Again, you failed to address most of these questions I asked you yet you barrage me with a multitude of issues.

I reason that the gap was there for the reasons God put it there. I'm sure others could find other reasons I am missing at this time, but I'm not going to dwell on it.

These people continued to do what were evil in the eyes of their God so He drew back from them until their sins reached the limit that He was willing to permit before He would address. Also, God waited until the fullness of time before sending the Messiah not only to save His people but to judge apostate Israel. Prophecy had a time line to it.

"Answer: The 400 years of silence refers to the time between the Old Testament and New Testaments, during which God did not speak to the Jewish people. The 400 years of silence [1] began with the warning that closed the Old Testament: "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet [2] before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, [3] so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse" (Malachi 4:5-6) and ended with the coming of John the Baptist, the Messiah"s forerunner. "

[1] John the Baptist did not close the Old Testament. It could not close until everything required of it had been fulfilled by the Messiah. It could not be fulfilled while the temple and worship system still existed. It could not be fulfilled until the full requirements of the Law had been met. Those requirements meant that the curses for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28) had been met. All those curses were met in A.D. 70 and not before. Compare Deuteronomy 28 with the Revelation.

Your point is mute.

[2] The great and terrible day of the Lord for this people did not come until A.D. 70. Do you understand that? The whole OT economy came to an end, it was terminated, at that point of time, just like Jesus said it would in His Olivet Discourse.

[3] The majority of the people did not repent. They opposed God and rejected His promised Messiah. They heaped up their sins to the limit by persecuting and killing their Messiah and those prophets God sent to them, per Matthew 23.

31"So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32"Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?...34""Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35"so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah,..., whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36"Truly..., all these things will come upon this generation.

The blood of all the prophets and saints that they killed would be accounted for in this generation.

But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!

We have been through this before.

John was the forerunner of the Messiah. When persecution came John questioned Jesus as the Messiah, possibly because he thought, like many others did, that when the Messiah came He would come as a conquering king and sit on the throne of David. That was not the purpose of His First Advent. The purpose of the First Advent was to save a people, provide and open the means of reconciliation before God. Jesus said that He had not come to do His own will but the will of the Father. What was the will of the Father?

Jesus said to tell John what He was doing in compliance with the prophecy concerning the Messiah. That should be justification for your allegations.

John 6:38-40
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

The "last day" was His Second Advent or coming when He came as the conquering King in judgment of all those who would not repent and turn back to God by the means God had given.

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:3-5
3"and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4"Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5"the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.


IOW's, since you can't figure it out, Jesus meets all the requirements of the Messiah as outlined in the OT.

That alone should have ended Jesus's deluded belief that he was the messiah. There was no Elijah, the Elijah that was to come before the promised one never showed up.

Again, you are trying to promote your own worldview agenda instead of understanding the Scriptures. Every OT book is a revelation and has typology in it of Jesus Christ. This is something you fail to see also.

From Genesis to Malachi, there are over 300 specific prophecies detailing the coming of this Anointed One. These prophesies were repeated over a period of 4000 years. Should these numbered prophesies be evidence that established Jesus was indeed the Anointed One? It actually proves they were all guesses and not prophesies. In fact Jesus himself was not sure he was the Anointed One. He asked his disciples not to tell anyone.

Matthew 16:20 - Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

That is because His time had not yet come to return to the Father. The Pharisees and religious leaders were plotting His death. They would have put Him to death before He had completed His work if it was within their ability. Jesus told the disciples not to tell anyone for now so that all righteousness could be fulfilled.

For instance, in Matthew 3:14-16:

14"But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?" 15"But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he *permitted Him. 16"After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,


In fact, repeatedly in the NT you see the statement, "This was to fulfill...spoken by the prophet..."
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 10:07:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA wrote:
But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!

Sure he was. He was the Elijah foretold who would come.

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:11-14
11"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. 13"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.


Luke 1:17
17"It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
John denied it but Jesus affirmed it. Who has the greater testimony?


In the spirit and power of Elijah. The Elijah to come!

Matthew 17:10-13
10"And His disciples asked Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11"And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; 12"but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13"Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.

Who has the greater testimony, Jesus or John? And did John lie? The article below explains that John the Baptist was responding to their concept of who Elijah was to be, the actual prophet or a physically resurrected Elijah, or the Elijah God sent.

http://eschatology.org...

That alone should have ended Jesus's deluded belief that he was the messiah. There was no Elijah, the Elijah that was to come before the promised one never showed up.

(see the link above, anyone who is interested)

From Genesis to Malachi, there are over 300 specific prophecies detailing the coming of this Anointed One. These prophesies were repeated over a period of 4000 years. Should these numbered prophesies be evidence that established Jesus was indeed the Anointed One? It actually proves they were all guesses and not prophesies. In fact Jesus himself was not sure he was the Anointed One. He asked his disciples not to tell anyone.

It proves nothing of the sort. As I pointed out in my last post, throughout the NT you see words to the effect that "It is written" or "This is written to fulfill that was spoken of by the prophet...."

Matthew 16:20 - Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Covered in my last post.

That is a contradiction of scriptures. 300 prophesies spread over 4000 years from Genesis to Malachi detailing the coming of this Anointed One and when the Messiah finally arrives he tells his disciples to keep hush about it. Was Jesus afraid to admit he was the Anointed One? Was he unprepared to accept his role? That he was crucified proves the latter.

Again, addressed in my last post.

Now Daniel supposedly gave the exact date of the Messiah's arrival and death. Much has been made about the accuracy of his prediction. So why was Jesus referring to Daniels prophecy to validate his messianic presence? He had arrived and could well stand behind his own claims of being the Anointed One. Why was he asking the people to believe Malachi and Daniel so they could accept him as their Messiah? That is further proof Jesus believed the people found the prophets were more trustworthy than him and was struggling to use them to validate his claims. He failed, they saw through his delusional scheming and crucified him.

24""Seventy weeks have been decreed [1] for your people and your holy city, [2] to finish the transgression, [3] to make an end of sin, [4] to make atonement for iniquity, [5] to bring in everlasting righteousness, [6] to seal up vision and prophecy and [7] to anoint the most holy place.

Everything mentioned was fulfilled in or by A.D. 70
[1] The city and people were given seventy weeks, then this OT people (those who did not repent)
[2] Finished their transgression against God.
[3] God put an end to it in judging it.
[4] Iniquity was atoned for with an everlasting righteousness. The people who put their trust in their Messiah never had to offer an animal sacrifice again that never took away for sin, it just covered it until this pure, everlasting sacrifice was made.
[5] Everlasting righteousness was brought in when the Messiah came. His death on the cross was the sacrifice need to bring in everlasting righteousness. He was the scapegoat for sinners.
[6] Prophecy was sealed up or fulfilled by A.D. 70.
[7] The Holy Place or Holy Person, however or which ever way you want to look at it, was anointed.

So how was the end of the seventy years not fulfilled?

We also see he was irrationally evasive and told his disciples not to tell anyone. He then wanted the people to accept John as Elijah which would then indirectly imply he was the promised One. But John denied he was Elijah and even began to doubt Jesus. And when he was asked directly at the trial if he was the Messiah.

Your false interpretations distort the meaning because you read into Scripture (eisegesis) instead of exegeting it. Explained above.

John 18:33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

So what? His kingdom is not of this world.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA:
Is it reasonable to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70?
Yes, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD to brutally put down a Jewish rebellion.

Is it reasonable to believe that Daniel was written before the NT epistles or Gospels? (If you say no then I want to see your factual evidence).
Yes, Daniel was written for a Babylonian audience. Daniel was exiled to Babylon and never lived in Israel,or Judah.

Is it reasonable to believe every NT epistle and Gospel were written before A.D. 70?
No, there is no consensus the Gospels were written before 70 AD.

Is it reasonable to believe that after A.D. 70 the covenant requirements laid out in the Mosaic Law could no longer be met?
Sacrifices could not be made without the temple. Other aspects of Judaism continued without the temple. Rabbis replaced priests and synagogues replaced the temple. Repentance and prayer (a broken and contrite heart ) was the new sacrifice and no longer animals sacrifice.

Is it reasonable to believe that God judged the nation of Israel, these OT people, as He said He would if they continued to disobey Him or not? Is it reasonable to believe that a Messiah promised to an OT people would come to them before God abrogated that covenant and divorced Israel for her unfaithfulness to Him?

It was Romans that judged the nation of Israel. They were the rulers since 64BC before Jesus was born. God had no authority over the Romans. The Romans worshipped Caesar and their pagan God's. The Romans crucified Jesus, then to put down a Jewish rebellion destroyed their temple and as retribution punished the Jews. Their actions were not dependent on Biblical prophesies. The fact they went on to replace the temple
with the Roman Catholic Church proves God and Jesus were caught without a paddle.

These people continued to do what were evil in the eyes of their God so He drew back from them until their sins reached the limit that He was willing to permit before He would address. Also, God waited until the fullness of time before sending the Messiah not only to save His people but to judge apostate Israel. Prophecy had a time line to it.

God chose a bad time to send Jesus. The Jews were under Roman rule. Jesus proved powerless to deal with the Roman might. He let himself be mocked, beaten, ridiculed and crucified by the Romans. God and Jesus underestimated the might of the Romans.

"Answer: The 400 years of silence refers to the time between the Old Testament and New Testaments, during which God did not speak to the Jewish people. The 400 years of silence [1] began with the warning that closed the Old Testament: "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet [2] before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, [3] so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse" (Malachi 4:5-6) and ended with the coming of John the Baptist, the Messiah"s forerunner. "

[1] John the Baptist did not close the Old Testament. It could not close until everything required of it had been fulfilled by the Messiah. It could not be fulfilled while the temple and worship system still existed. It could not be fulfilled until the full requirements of the Law had been met. Those requirements meant that the curses for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28) had been met. All those curses were met in A.D. 70 and not before. Compare Deuteronomy 28 with the Revelation.

The temple was destroyed before. Temples are always the target to humiliate and destroy the will of the the people by their enemies. Crucifying messiahs are rare. When the Jews saw Jesus being beaten and ridiculed, they could not accept him as their messiah. That was too much shame for them to bear. They were promised a deliverer and not some helpless retard.

John not being Elijah the Elijah that was to come was not as powerful as Elijah. He himself was jailed and beheaded. Elijah commanded an army of angels. John was no Elijah.


[2] The great and terrible day of the Lord for this people did not come until A.D. 70. Do you understand that? The whole OT economy came to an end, it was terminated, at that point of time, just like Jesus said it would in His Olivet Discourse.

The Jews and Romans maintained their good relationship for decades after Jesus was crucified by the Romans. The abomination of desolation did not happen as Jesus predicted upon his death and rejection. His body temple was mocked, beaten and desecrated by the Romans. Jesus's death was insignificant.

[3] The majority of the people did not repent. They opposed God and rejected His promised Messiah. They heaped up their sins to the limit by persecuting and killing their Messiah and those prophets God sent to them, per Matthew 23.


The blood of all the prophets and saints that they killed would be accounted for in this generation.

The Jewish people did not kill their prophets. Jesus was crucified by the Romans, john was beheaded by Herod over a personal matter.

But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!


John was the forerunner of the Messiah. When persecution came John questioned Jesus as the Messiah, possibly because he thought, like many others did, that when the Messiah came He would come as a conquering king and sit on the throne of David. That was not the purpose of His First Advent. The purpose of the First Advent was to save a people, provide and open the means of reconciliation before God. Jesus said that He had not come to do His own will but the will of the Father. What was the will of the Father?

The will of the father was Jesus should fail and be put to death.

John 6:38-40
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

On the last day Jesus cried out.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:3-5
3"and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4"Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5"the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Jesus tried this line before but it didn't work because no one was impressed by his works.

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

That alone should have ended Jesus's deluded belief that he was the messiah. There was no Elijah, the Elijah that was to come before the promised one never showed up.

From Genesis to Malachi, there are over 300 specific prophecies detailing the coming of this Anointed One. These prophesies were repeated over a period of 4000 years. Should these numbered prophesies be evidence that established Jesus was indeed the Anointed One? It actually proves they were all guesses and not prophesies. In fact Jesus himself was not sure he was the Anointed One. He asked his disciples not to tell anyone.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 10:37:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA wrote:
Jesus claimed he was an alien from some other world which again contradicts all the prophesies. Jesus was sent to save the Jews and reestablish the Davidic Kingdom. At the trial he was claiming his kingdom was already there and was not of this world. But it turns out that was not the kingdom he established. That was the existing kingdom of God the father where he was going to, to do house cleaning.

He was speaking of His rightful place before the Father in heaven. He came to do the Father's will and now He was returning to the Father.

As for the Davidic kingdom read acts 2:24-40.

29""Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30"And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, 31"he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32"This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33"Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34"For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
"The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.""
36"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ"this Jesus whom you crucified."


John 14:2 My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

Come off it. Going to clean the Father's house? These kind of statements just show the lengths you will go to in order to poison the well and make up stuff with no backing by taking passages OUT OF CONTEXT, a craft in which you have mastered to distort the Word of God.

Not only did Jesus cast doubts he was the Anointed One. His failure to fulfill the Messianic prophesies was why he was crucified.

Not at all. He fulfilled Messianic prophecy by His crucifixion. Isaiah 53 explains adequately.

The prophesies also predicted Jesus would fail. Daniel said the Messiah would be cut off. Psalms 22 said the messiah would be brutally put to death and would feel betrayed by God. Jesus confirmed he was betrayed by God.

No, the do not prophecy failure. They fulfill prophecy concerning the First Advent.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

He died, as a man, the death of condemnation and separation from God in order to redeem mankind in that He died in the place of those who would believe. He was the NT equivalent of the scapegoat used in the OT in which the sins of the people were heaped on, then sent off into the desert, symbolizing separation from God. The Old Testament leaders charged Him untruly and gave Him a criminals death. He died this death in order to pay the penalty for sin.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 12:13:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 10:07:45 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA wrote:
But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!

Sure he was. He was the Elijah foretold who would come.

Wouldn't John know if he was Elijah? John emphatically denied he was Elijah. Move on!!

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:11-14
11"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. 13"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.


You are quoting Jesus who was proven to be a blasphemous liar and lunatic. John even began to doubt Jesus was the promised one after denying he was Elijah.
Matthew 11:3 to ask him, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?"

Jesus lied again when he accused the people for killing John when everyone knew it was Herod who beheaded John over his wife's complaints.

Matthew 17:12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands."

Matthew 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Luke 1:17
17"It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
John denied it but Jesus affirmed it. Who has the greater testimony?


Both John and Jesus were equally put to death.
First John denied he was Elijah. He also failed to turn the people towards Jesus. The Jews rejected Jesus and asked that he be crucified.

In the spirit and power of Elijah. The Elijah to come!

Matthew 17:10-13
10"And His disciples asked Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11"And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; 12"but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13"Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.

Who has the greater testimony, Jesus or John? And did John lie? The article below explains that John the Baptist was responding to their concept of who Elijah was to be, the actual prophet or a physically resurrected Elijah, or the Elijah God sent.

Both John and Jesus were equally put to death.
John was not Elijah in spirit or power.

Miracles in the Career of Elijah:

1) Causing the rain the cease for 3 1/2 years (1Ki 17:1)
2) Being fed by the ravens (1Ki 17:4)
3) Miracle of the barrel of meal and cruse of oil (1Ki 17:14)
4) Resurrection of the widow's son (1Ki 17:22)
5) Calling of fire from heaven on the altar (1Ki 18:38)
6) Causing it to rain (1Ki 18:45)
7) Prophecy that Ahab's sons would all be destroyed (1Ki 21:22)
8) Prophecy that Jezebel would be eaten by dogs (1Ki 21:23)
9) Prophecy that Ahaziah would die of his illness (2Ki 1:4)
10) Calling fire from heaven upon the first 50 soldiers (2Ki 1:10)
11) Calling fire from heaven upon the second 50 soldiers (2Ki 1:12)
12) Parting of the Jordan (2Ki 2:8)
13) Prophecy that Elisha should have a double portion of his spirit (2Ki 2:10)
14) Being caught up to heaven in a whirlwind (2Ki 2:11)

That alone should have ended Jesus's deluded belief that he was the messiah. There was no Elijah, the Elijah that was to come before the promised one never showed up.


From Genesis to Malachi, there are over 300 specific prophecies detailing the coming of this Anointed One. These prophesies were repeated over a period of 4000 years. Should these numbered prophesies be evidence that established Jesus was indeed the Anointed One? It actually proves they were all guesses and not prophesies. In fact Jesus himself was not sure he was the Anointed One. He asked his disciples not to tell anyone.

Matthew 16:20 - Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.


That is a contradiction of scriptures. 300 prophesies spread over 4000 years from Genesis to Malachi detailing the coming of this Anointed One and when the Messiah finally arrives he tells his disciples to keep hush about it. Was Jesus afraid to admit he was the Anointed One? Was he unprepared to accept his role? That he was crucified proves the latter.

Now Daniel supposedly gave the exact date of the Messiah's arrival and death. Much has been made about the accuracy of his prediction. So why was Jesus referring to Daniels prophecy to validate his messianic presence? He had arrived and could well stand behind his own claims of being the Anointed One. Why was he asking the people to believe Malachi and Daniel so they could accept him as their Messiah? That is further proof Jesus believed the people found the prophets were more trustworthy than him and was struggling to use them to validate his claims. He failed, they saw through his delusional scheming and crucified him.

24""Seventy weeks have been decreed [1] for your people and your holy city, [2] to finish the transgression, [3] to make an end of sin, [4] to make atonement for iniquity, [5] to bring in everlasting righteousness, [6] to seal up vision and prophecy and [7] to anoint the most holy place.

Everything mentioned was fulfilled in or by A.D. 70
[1] The city and people were given seventy weeks, then this OT people (those who did not repent)
[2] Finished their transgression against God.
[3] God put an end to it in judging it.
[4] Iniquity was atoned for with an everlasting righteousness. The people who put their trust in their Messiah never had to offer an animal sacrifice again that never took away for sin,
[5] Everlasting righteousness was brought in when the Messiah came. His death on the cross was the sacrifice need to bring in everlasting righteousness. He was the scapegoat for sinners.
jesus was chosen for the role, he was incoherent and clueless.

No one is questioning Daniel. He did not prophecy 500 years into the future anymore than Jesus could predict when those dreadful days would happen. There was no world catastrophe. Not even after Jesus was crucified or after the temple was destroyed or after the Jews were scattered. The Jews have regrouped. We might see a new temple and animal sacrifice. Human sacrifice after Jesus left a bitter taste.

We also see he was irrationally evasive and told his disciples not to tell anyone. He then wanted the people to accept John as Elijah which would then indirectly imply he was the promised One. But John denied he was Elijah and even began to doubt Jesus. Jesus was asked directly at the trial if he was the Messiah.

John 18:33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

So what? His kingdom is not of this world.

So why are Christians worshipping a dead alien?
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 12:43:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 10:37:14 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA wrote:
Jesus claimed he was an alien from some other world which again contradicts all the prophesies. Jesus was sent to save the Jews and reestablish the Davidic Kingdom. At the trial he was claiming his kingdom was already there and was not of this world. But it turns out that was not the kingdom he established. That was the existing kingdom of God the father where he was going to, to do house cleaning.

He was speaking of His rightful place before the Father in heaven. He came to do the Father's will and now He was returning to the Father.

Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, -

Never happened. David's kingdom was an earthly kingdom.

As for the Davidic kingdom read acts 2:24-40.

29""Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30"And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, 31"he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32"This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33"Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34"For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
"The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.""
36"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ"this Jesus whom you crucified."



The promise that David"s "house," "kingdom," and "throne" will be established forever is significant because it shows that the Messiah will come from the lineage of David and that He will establish a kingdom from which He will reign. The covenant is summarized by the words "house," promising a dynasty in the lineage of David; "kingdom," referring to a people who are governed by a king; "throne," emphasizing the authority of the king"s rule; and "forever," emphasizing the eternal and unconditional nature of this promise to David and Israel.

Other references to the Davidic Covenant are found in Jeremiah 23:5; 30:9; Isaiah 9:7; 11:1; Luke 1:32, 69; Acts 13:34; and Revelation 3:7."

Note the promise to David and the people of Israel an everlasting kingdom to be established by Jesus. Jesus has not established a kingdom. He is now in his fathers basement living as a house cleaner.

John 14:2 My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

Come off it. Going to clean the Father's house? These kind of statements just show the lengths you will go to in order to poison the well and make up stuff with no backing by taking passages OUT OF CONTEXT, a craft in which you have mastered to distort the Word of God.

Read your scriptures. Jesus is living in his fathers basement. His day job preparing rooms for guests.

John 14:2 My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

Not only did Jesus cast doubts he was the Anointed One. His failure to fulfill the Messianic prophesies was why he was crucified.

Not at all. He fulfilled Messianic prophecy by His crucifixion. Isaiah 53 explains adequately.

The prophesies also predicted Jesus would fail. Daniel said the Messiah would be cut off. Psalms 22 said the messiah would be brutally put to death and would feel betrayed by God. Jesus confirmed he was betrayed by God.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

No, the do not prophecy failure. They fulfill prophecy concerning the First Advent.


Several Advents have occurred.

Jesus came into the world. First coming.
Jesus rose on the third day. Second coming.
Preterists say he returned. Third coming.
Armageddon calling Jesus. Fourth coming.

Why hasn't he gone blind coming that often?

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

He died, as a man, the death of condemnation and separation from God in order to redeem mankind in that He died in the place of those who would believe. He was the NT equivalent of the scapegoat used in the OT in which the sins of the people were heaped on, then sent off into the desert, symbolizing separation from God. The Old Testament leaders charged Him untruly and gave Him a criminals death. He died this death in order to pay the penalty for sin.

Jesus was put to death for his blasphemous lies and lunacy. He was warned on two occasions but managed to slip away to safety. His death wish was answered by the Romans.

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 2:51:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA:
These people continued to do what were evil in the eyes of their God so He drew back from them until their sins reached the limit that He was willing to permit before He would address. Also, God waited until the fullness of time before sending the Messiah not only to save His people but to judge apostate Israel. Prophecy had a time line to it.

God chose the time to send Jesus. Daniel even predicted the exact date 500 years before the birth of Jesus. But God was not prepared fir the might of the Romans even though the people were ready to accept Jesus and shouted out Hosanna in celebration of their messiah.
Matthew 21:9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Hosanna in the highest heaven!"

But when they saw Jesus allow the Romans to mock, beat , ridicule and desecrate his body temple. The shame of seeing their messiah so badly a used was too much for them. This could not be the messiah that was expected to deliver them from their enemies. God gave them a reason to doubt and reject Jesus. It was even prophesied Jesus would fail and be cut off. Jesus true to prophecy failed and was crucified.
Even the Pope declared Jesus was a failure of the cross.

"Answer: The 400 years of silence refers to the time between the Old Testament and New Testaments, during which God did not speak to the Jewish people. The 400 years of silence [1] began with the warning that closed the Old Testament: "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet [2] before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, [3] so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse" (Malachi 4:5-6) and ended with the coming of John the Baptist, the Messiah"s forerunner. "

[1] John the Baptist did not close the Old Testament. It could not close until everything required of it had been fulfilled by the Messiah. It could not be fulfilled while the temple and worship system still existed.
John proved at the beginning Jesus was a liar. Jesus lied John was Elijah. Jesus lied John was killed by the people. John was killed by Herod over a personal matter. John began to doubt Jesus.

[2] The great and terrible day of the Lord for this people did not come until A.D. 70. Do you understand that? The whole OT economy came to an end, it was terminated, at that point of time, just like Jesus said it would in His Olivet Discourse.

The terrible day did not come because Jesus was rejected. Jesus was crucified by the Romans. The Jews and Romans continued to co-exist peacefully after Jesus. His death was insignificant.

[3] The majority of the people did not repent. They opposed God and rejected His promised Messiah. They heaped up their sins to the limit by persecuting and killing their Messiah and those prophets God sent to them, per Matthew 23.

It was the Romans who crucified Jesus. When the Jews rebelled against the Romans, God stood idly by and watched his temple and people destroyed by the Romans.

31"So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32"Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?...34""Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,

The people never killed their prophets. They ignored them.

The blood of all the prophets and saints that they killed would be accounted for in this generation.

John was killed by Herod and not the Jewish people. The Romans crucified Jesus. The Jews had no authority to put anyone to death. Jesus falsely accused the people for killing their prophets. The Jews were not prophet killers. The priest were give authority by God to put to death false prophets. The people were not appointed as judges of prophets.

Deuteronomy 18:20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death."

John was the forerunner of the Messiah. When persecution came John questioned Jesus as the Messiah, possibly because he thought, like many others did, that when the Messiah came He would come as a conquering king and sit on the throne of David. That was not the purpose of His First Advent. The purpose of the First Advent was to save a people, provide and open the means of reconciliation before God. Jesus said that He had not come to do His own will but the will of the Father. What was the will of the Father?

The will of the father was that Jesus should fail and be put to death. Jesus failed as was put to death.

Jesus said to tell John what He was doing in compliance with the prophecy concerning the Messiah. That should be justification for your allegations.

Jesus dud not fulfill the role of a Messiah. He was running around making wine from water and playing Dr. Oz.

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:3-5
3"and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4"Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5"the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.


The enemy that destroyed the temple, slaughtered the people and crucified Jesus were not the poor and sick. It was the Romans. John saw Jesus was not dealing with the real issues which was to save the people from their enemy and began to doubt Jesus.

That alone should have ended Jesus's deluded belief that he was the messiah. There was no Elijah, the Elijah that was to come before the promised one never showed up.

From Genesis to Malachi, there are over 300 specific prophecies detailing the coming of this Anointed One. These prophesies were repeated over a period of 4000 years. Should these numbered prophesies be evidence that established Jesus was indeed the Anointed One? It actually proves they were all guesses and not prophesies. In fact Jesus himself was not sure he was the Anointed One. He asked his disciples not to tell anyone.

Matthew 16:20 - Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

That is because His time had not yet come to return to the Father. The Pharisees and religious leaders were plotting His death. They would have put Him to death before He had completed His work if it was within their ability. Jesus told the disciples not to tell anyone for now so that all righteousness could be fulfilled.

Jesus should have known he had very little time to get the word out to the people. His ministry lasted only 1-3 years. Yet he chose to keep his identity a secret. Duh!

For instance, in Matthew 3:14-16:

14"But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?" 15"But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he *permitted Him. 16"After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,


Jesus did not believe he was the anointed one in the beginning. That thought occurred towards the end of his ministry when it was too late.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 6:42:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA:
Is it reasonable to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70?
Yes, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD to brutally put down a Jewish rebellion.

True, but the underlying theme of its destruction was prophesied to happen during the reign of the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2, in line with God's covenant curses. This is something you seem totally unaware of. Do you understand the scope of the Mosaic covenant and the reward or blessings for obedience and consequences for disobedience? I think you totally ignore this theme that is constant throughout the entire OT.

Is it reasonable to believe that Daniel was written before the NT epistles or Gospels? (If you say no then I want to see your factual evidence).
Yes, Daniel was written for a Babylonian audience. Daniel was exiled to Babylon and never lived in Israel, or Judah.

It was an account that includes the judgment of God's people in Babylon and God's plans for them.

Daniel 2 is a vision given to the King of Babylon concerning, in part, Daniel's people. Daniel 7 also speaks of these FOUR kingdoms before God sets up His eternal kingdom. Four kingdoms or empires that dominate that part of the world would transpire concerning these people until God set up an eternal kingdom that would not be destroyed. In relation to Israel that fourth kingdom is the Roman kingdom or empire.

Do you dispute this?

The fact is that Babylon is identified as the first kingdom or empire.

The Medes conquered the Babylonians.

The traditional view of the second and third kingdoms are the Medo-Persian and Greek kingdoms. That is not as important as the fourth kingdom in which the fulfillment of the prophetic message hinges. My contention is that you can't reasonably and logically contend it is any other than the Roman kingdom or empire.

Jesus makes reference to the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel which is mentioned three times to my knowledge by Daniel (Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), and Jesus makes reference to the abomination concerning a 1st century OT people.

Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of the time remaining for this people to finish their transgression.

Daniel's people are given 70 weeks of years or heptads to finish their transgression, a time when their sins would be put away with judgment. The period starts at a specific point in time. It speaks of the Messiah coming near the end of those 70 weeks and being cut off or killed. It speaks of all righteousness being fulfilled in the 70 weeks scope regarding these people. It speaks of another destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, of a desecration and abomination and then the end will come.

70 X 7 = 490 years from when the decree is issued to rebuild the temple and city until it is destroyed again.

In fact, Daniel 12 speaks of a time when Daniel's OT people would have their power shattered, a time of tribulation unlike anything they or any other nation had experienced and like nothing they as an OT people would ever again, and at the end of that tribulation every one of them who was written in the book of life would be resurrected.

Daniel 12:1-2, 7, 13
12""At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people"everyone whose name is found written in the book"will be delivered. 2"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt...
6"One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?"
7"The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed."
8"I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, "My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?"
9"He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end.
13""As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance."


Address these points in their context if you even know how:
1) This chapter speaks of the end in verse 4, 9, 13.
2) It speaks of a time of trouble for Daniel's people like nothing they had ever, or would ever experience again.
3) It speaks of a time of resurrection and judgment - the living separated from the dead - reward and punishment.
4) It speaks of everything written being completed.

Your comment about Daniel is not true. He came from Judah.

Daniel 1:6
6"Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 7"The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.


So, the point of my question, and you have agreed, is that Daniel was written before the NT times or the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It predicted the time of judgment on that OT people after the Messiah was killed and that with the fall of Jerusalem the end would come, Daniel's people would be resurrected. Everything is accurate.

Is it reasonable to believe every NT epistles and Gospel accounts were written before A.D. 70?
No, there is no consensus the Gospels were written before 70 AD.

Is it reasonable?
1) There is much consensus that some or all of the epistles were written before A.D. 70 and that at least the Gospel of Mark also.
2) Each and every NT writing does not mention the fall of Jerusalem as already happening. This is highly significant to the Jews writing these epistles and Gospels because their whole way of life would be threatened.
3) Most, if not every one of the canonized NT writing mentions warnings to the people it was written to flee from the coming wrath (a 1st century audience).
4) Most, if not all, of the NT writings addresses makes reference to the OT worship system as though it still stands.
5) Various writings give details of structures in Jerusalem that would not be around after A.D. 70.
6) The fact is that after A.D. 70 these OT people CANNOT follow the Law of the covenant required and agreed to by them with God.
7) It is reasonable to believe that no Messiah can come to an OT people after A.D. 70 because He was to come to the people of the Book. Jesus is the ONLY Messianic figure who is able to fit the prophetic message.

There are numerous other reasons that can be brought up.

Is it reasonable to believe that after A.D. 70 the covenant requirements laid out in the Mosaic Law could no longer be met?
Sacrifices could not be made without the temple. Other aspects of Judaism continued without the temple. Rabbis replaced priests and synagogues replaced the temple. Repentance and prayer (a broken and contrite heart ) was the new sacrifice and no longer animals sacrifice.

Where is your proof of these animal sacrifices taking place without a priesthood to administer them after A.D. 70? As for rabbis and synagogues, the question to you, Is this in compliance to the agreement or Mosaic Covenant they made which is recorded in the Torah? (The answer is most definitely NO)

The REASONABLENESS of your claims are not evident so far in the third point. You agreed with my view to some extent on the other two.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 8:37:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA:
Is it reasonable to believe that after A.D. 70 the covenant requirements laid out in the Mosaic Law could no longer be met?
Sacrifices could not be made without the temple. Other aspects of Judaism continued without the temple. Rabbis replaced priests and synagogues replaced the temple. Repentance and prayer (a broken and contrite heart ) was the new sacrifice and no longer animals sacrifice.

The point is could they still honor the Mosaic Covenant they made as it is laid out in the Torah and they had been following for centuries prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70?

If they could not be obedient to the covenant and if the curses as laid out in that covenant had already been executed and completed by A.D. 70 then how can you say the covenant was still in effect? Jesus had repeatedly said during His ministry that He was establishing a new covenant. Do you think that God would keep two contrasting covenants in effect (one defective in atoning for sin), especially since the OT prophets had said that God would establish a new covenant with Israel, the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

He promised to establish the throne of David once again.

Isaiah 9:6-7
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.

The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.


Accomplished in the 1st century.

How could the prophesies of these OT people be fulfilled after A.D. 70?
You have to establish, from Scripture, that the Mosaic Covenant they were under before A.D. 70 was still in effect and you can't. Nor can you show that its sanctions were not applied at that time.

17""Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Is it reasonable to believe that God judged the nation of Israel, these OT people, as He said He would if they continued to disobey Him or not? Is it reasonable to believe that a Messiah promised to an OT people would come to them before God abrogated that covenant and divorced Israel for her unfaithfulness to Him?

It was Romans that judged the nation of Israel. They were the rulers since 64BC before Jesus was born. God had no authority over the Romans. The Romans worshipped Caesar and their pagan God's. The Romans crucified Jesus, then to put down a Jewish rebellion destroyed their temple and as retribution punished the Jews. Their actions were not dependent on Biblical prophesies. The fact they went on to replace the temple with the Roman Catholic Church proves God and Jesus were caught without a paddle.

They judged the nation of Israel as foretold and predicted to happen in the OT and by Jesus in the NT.

When you say their actions were not dependent on Bible prophecy you go against what was predicted centuries earlier to happen and happened.

What does the Roman Catholic Church have to do with this? It was not established until the fourth century as a major authority.

These people continued to do what were evil in the eyes of their God so He drew back from them until their sins reached the limit that He was willing to permit before He would address. Also, God waited until the fullness of time before sending the Messiah not only to save His people but to judge apostate Israel. Prophecy had a time line to it.

God chose a bad time to send Jesus. The Jews were under Roman rule. Jesus proved powerless to deal with the Roman might. He let himself be mocked, beaten, ridiculed and crucified by the Romans. God and Jesus underestimated the might of the Romans.

Bad time? He fulfilled His word when He sent the Messiah at the time He did, during the fourth kingdom, when God determined to act.

Jesus did not come to deal with the Roman might. His mission on His First Advent or coming was to do the will of the Father, live a righteous life before God with the obedience God required of man, and pay the penalty for sin. It required the sacrifice for sin in order to reconcile men with God and that in a way the Old Covenant economy was ineffectual nor could not do in that the sacrifice was inferior and had to be given repeatedly instead of a one time sacrifice. (see Romans 8-10).

Yes, He did allow Himself to be mocked, beaten, ridiculed and crucified by the Romans in consorted union with the Jewish leaders on behalf of the people who cried out "Crucify Him!" The leaders where the ones who denied Jesus as their Messiah stating they had no king but Caesar. Jesus also attributed all the blood shed on the earth (or land) to that generation because of their rejection of Him and history proves His judgment held up.

[1] John the Baptist did not close the Old Testament. It could not close until everything required of it had been fulfilled by the Messiah. It could not be fulfilled while the temple and worship system still existed. It could not be fulfilled until the full requirements of the Law had been met. Those requirements meant that the curses for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28) had been met. All those curses were met in A.D. 70 and not before. Compare Deuteronomy 28 with the Revelation.

The temple was destroyed before. Temples are always the target to humiliate and destroy the will of the the people by their enemies. Crucifying messiahs are rare. When the Jews saw Jesus being beaten and ridiculed, they could not accept him as their messiah. That was too much shame for them to bear. They were promised a deliverer and not some helpless retard.

John not being Elijah the Elijah that was to come was not as powerful as Elijah. He himself was jailed and beheaded. Elijah commanded an army of angels. John was no Elijah.

Whether he was as powerful or not is debatable depending on how you look upon his mission for he was given the honor of announcing the Messiah to the nation of Israel, Someone they had been waiting for centuries, the One who would set up the eternal government.

[2]The great and terrible day of the Lord for this people did not come until A.D. 70. Do you understand that? The whole OT economy came to an end, it was terminated, at that point of time, just like Jesus said it would in His Olivet Discourse.

The Jews and Romans maintained their good relationship for decades after Jesus was crucified by the Romans. The abomination of desolation did not happen as Jesus predicted upon his death and rejection. His body temple was mocked, beaten and desecrated by the Romans. Jesus's death was insignificant.

The AoD did happen, in fact the Romans in the land of Judea constituted an abomination for if they were receiving the blessings of God as stated in Deuteronomy 28 they would be the head, not the tail, they would have victories over their enemies, not be the vanquished of their enemies. God promised to protect them if they were faithful to the covenant they agreed to. They did not. The Romans were there for a reason. Then to actually break through and stand on the temple grounds, not the outer courts was in itself another abomination and evidence that God had indeed left the temple.

As for Jesus' body, it was resurrected three days later in fulfillment of prophecy.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 9:11:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:

[1] John the Baptist did not close the Old Testament. It could not close until everything required of it had been fulfilled by the Messiah. It could not be fulfilled while the temple and worship system still existed. It could not be fulfilled until the full requirements of the Law had been met. Those requirements meant that the curses for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28) had been met. All those curses were met in A.D. 70 and not before. Compare Deuteronomy 28 with the Revelation.

The temple was destroyed before. Temples are always the target to humiliate and destroy the will of the the people by their enemies. Crucifying messiahs are rare. When the Jews saw Jesus being beaten and ridiculed, they could not accept him as their messiah. That was too much shame for them to bear. They were promised a deliverer and not some helpless retard.

The temple was prophesied by Daniel to be destroyed one more time before the end. As I pointed out in Daniel 12:7, the power of the holy people would be shattered and everything written would be complete - everything. That includes the resurrection of the dead and judgment on those not written in the book of life. The end is the end of the OT economy, their system of worship, everything they knew, the heaven and earth.

Some, a majority, of Jews would not accept Him because they were an apostate people who no longer submitted to God nor where they faithful and obedient to Him. The Deliverer came to deliver the elect, those who remained faithful and He came to usher in a new age. He constantly spoke of the two ages and it can be demonstrated most effectively that "this age" was the one these OT people were a part of. They could not accept Him because they were looking for the conquering King, but before this He came as a suffering Servant. Two different comings, not many. He would come again to establish the new age, the age He spoke of that was to come, the eternal covenant age, age without end.

Hebrews 9:27-28
27"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28"so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


So again, your testimony goes against what Scripture teaches - two comings, one time to bear sin and the second time to bring salvation for those waiting for Him and judgment for those who were not.

John not being Elijah the Elijah that was to come was not as powerful as Elijah. He himself was jailed and beheaded. Elijah commanded an army of angels. John was no Elijah.

The two Elijah's had different roles in the plan of God.

But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!

John was the forerunner of the Messiah. When persecution came John questioned Jesus as the Messiah, possibly because he thought, like many others did, that when the Messiah came He would come as a conquering king and sit on the throne of David. That was not the purpose of His First Advent. The purpose of the First Advent was to save a people, provide and open the means of reconciliation before God. Jesus said that He had not come to do His own will but the will of the Father. What was the will of the Father?

The will of the father was Jesus should fail and be put to death.

You make it up as you go. You do this by your eisegesis of Scripture. You rip Scripture out of context, ignore massive teachings of Scripture and confuse another agenda of your training in all these other aspects of religions that you boast about with the biblical narrative.

John 6:38-40
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

On the last day Jesus cried out.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

IN FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY! I explained this and you never addressed my critique. I'm not going to restate it. I'm beginning to think you are not all there. You have an esoteric view of Scripture. It does not comply with what the words in context convey.

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:3-5
3"and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4"Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5"the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Jesus tried this line before but it didn't work because no one was impressed by his works.

Non-sense. He changed the world.

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Exactly, they understood His claim to be God but were unwilling to accept Him because of their traditions and religious bias.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 10:51:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2017 6:42:08 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA:
Is it reasonable to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70?
Yes, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD to brutally put down a Jewish rebellion.

True, but the underlying theme of its destruction was prophesied to happen during the reign of the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2, in line with God's covenant curses. This is something you seem totally unaware of. Do you understand the scope of the Mosaic covenant and the reward or blessings for obedience and consequences for disobedience? I think you totally ignore this theme that is constant throughout the entire OT.

The destruction of the temple had nothing to do with Daniel or Moses and everything to do with the Jewish rebellion against the Romans. The Romans destroyed the temple to punish the Jews for their rebellion. The Jews revolted against the mighty Romans and was at war with the Romans. They were not revolting against God or at war with God. So why would he seek to punish them. Daniels prophesied didn't apply to this generation.

The First Jewish"Roman War (66"73 CE), sometimes called the Great Revolt was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews of Judea Province (Iudaea) against the Roman Empire. The second was the Kitos War in 115"117, which took place mainly in the diaspora, and the third was Bar Kokhba's revolt of 132"136 CE. It was a culmination of the three wars that destroyed the nation of Israel. These details were not in Daniel.

Jesus was crucified by the Romans. His death was insignificant. The Jews continued to live with the Romans peacefully for decades after Jesus's crucifixion. Daniel did not prophecy the Jews rebelling against the Romans or their resulting consequences for going against the mighty Romans. Daniel spoke about their disobedience to God. There is no evidence of Jews desecrating their temple. But there is evidence of Romans desecrating the temple.

Is it reasonable to believe that Daniel was written before the NT epistles or Gospels? (If you say no then I want to see your factual evidence).
Yes, Daniel was written for a Babylonian audience. Daniel was exiled to Babylon and never lived in Israel, or Judah.

It was an account that includes the judgment of God's people in Babylon and God's plans for them.

Daniel blames both the desecration of the temple and the death of the messiah on the Jews. But he was wrong. The Romans desecrated both the temple and crucified Jesus after desecrating his body temple by mocking, beating and piercing it. The abomination of desolation should have befallen on the Romans not the innocent Jews. Daniel fails again.

Daniel 2 is a vision given to the King of Babylon concerning, in part, Daniel's people. Daniel 7 also speaks of these FOUR kingdoms before God sets up His eternal kingdom. Four kingdoms or empires that dominate that part of the world would transpire concerning these people until God set up an eternal kingdom that would not be destroyed. In relation to Israel that fourth kingdom is the Roman kingdom or empire.

Do you dispute this?


That was dream that the king iof Babylon had. It concerned his kingdom and had nothing to do with the Jews. Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a statue made of four different materials, identified as four kingdoms:

The fact is that Babylon is identified as the first kingdom or empire.

The Medes conquered the Babylonians.

The traditional view of the second and third kingdoms are the Medo-Persian and Greek kingdoms. That is not as important as the fourth kingdom in which the fulfillment of the prophetic message hinges. My contention is that you can't reasonably and logically contend it is any other than the Roman kingdom or empire.

What you are ignoring is according to Daniel the destruction of the fourth kingdom would signal the end of times which is another failed prophecy of Daniel. The Roman Empire was destroyed in 476CE. But many more Empires followed the end of the Roman Empire. (Turkish Empire, Mongol Empire, British Empire, etc, etc.) no end times in sight, no everlasting kingdom of heaven. Daniel fails.

Jesus makes reference to the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel which is mentioned three times to my knowledge by Daniel (Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), and Jesus makes reference to the abomination concerning a 1st century OT people.

Jesus believed Daniel abomination of desolation. But Jesus could not tell when these things would happen or the end of the world. So he was clueless and also proven wrong. The end times never happened. There was no abomination of desolation. The Romans crucified Jesus and ruled the Jews peacefully for decades. The destruction of the temple was to punish the Jews for rebelling against the Romans and not their disobedience to their Jewish God. The Romans were pagans and could care less about Jesus or his God.

Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of the time remaining for this people to finish their transgression.

Daniel's people are given 70 weeks of years or heptads to finish their transgression, a time when their sins would be put away with judgment. The period starts at a specific point in time. It speaks of the Messiah coming near the end of those 70 weeks and being cut off or killed. It speaks of all righteousness being fulfilled in the 70 weeks scope regarding these people. It speaks of another destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, of a desecration and abomination and then the end will come.

The end never came because the Romans messed his prophecy.
Jesus was a failure of the cross. He was cut off by the Romans. The Romans destroyed the temple to put down a Jewish rebellion which was not an abomination of desolation. It took three wars before the nation of Israel was destroyed. All this had nothing to do with the Jews being disobedient to God. The Jews were at war with might Rome that brought about their demise.

In fact, Daniel 12 speaks of a time when Daniel's OT people would have their power shattered, a time of tribulation unlike anything they or any other nation had experienced and like nothing they as an OT people would ever again, and at the end of that tribulation every one of them who was written in the book of life would be resurrected.

Daniel was speaking to the generation of Jews living in exile in Babylon 500 years before the events happened. The Jesus generation were many generations removed from that generation and were living under Roman rule. God was punishing the wrong generation blaming them for the sins of the Romans. Applying prophesies from a different time 500 years later on a different generation is absurd.

What Jesus said was either fulfilled during the generation he was addressing or it was a false prophecy. That is no different than Daniels prophesies. It cannot be applied 500 years later to a totally different generation.

Daniel 12:1-2, 7, 13
12""At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people"everyone whose name is found written in the book"will be delivered. 2"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt...

No one is disputing what Daniel said. He certainly knew more than Jesus. He would have made a better Messiah.

Your comment about Daniel is not true. He came from Judah.

I said Daniel never lived in Israel or Judah. At the age of 15 he was carried off to Babylon where he lived the rest of life.
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 1:45:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2017 8:37:40 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA:
Is it reasonable to believe that after A.D. 70 the covenant requirements laid out in the Mosaic Law could no longer be met?
Sacrifices could not be made without the temple. Other aspects of Judaism continued without the temple. Rabbis replaced priests and synagogues replaced the temple. Repentance and prayer (a broken and contrite heart ) was the new sacrifice and no longer animals sacrifice.

The point is could they still honor the Mosaic Covenant they made as it is laid out in the Torah and they had been following for centuries prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70?

Try to put things in perspective. Their temple which was a building was destroyed. They still had their faith, their God and the written Torah. The Rabbis replaced the priests and the synagogue replaced the temple. Judaism is still practiced today. Religion doesn't die because a temple or church is destroyed.

If they could not be obedient to the covenant and if the curses as laid out in that covenant had already been executed and completed by A.D. 70 then how can you say the covenant was still in effect? Jesus had repeatedly said during His ministry that He was establishing a new covenant. Do you think that God would keep two contrasting covenants in effect (one defective in atoning for sin), especially since the OT prophets had said that God would establish a new covenant with Israel, the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Yes they could because the Jews were written off by their prophets over 300 times in prophesies but they always rebounded. They survived 70 AD too by adapting. The only covenants that still remain are those made between God and the people of Israel. Even Jesus only preached to the Jews. His disciples were all Jews, his audience were all Jews. The Jews even welcomed him as their Messiah. But when they saw Jesus allow the Romans to mock, beat and ridicule him. They no longer believed he was their messiah sent to save them from their enemies. They began to suspect he was a helpless liar and a lunatic. Jesus let them down.

John 12:13 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the king of Israel!"

He promised to establish the throne of David once again.

Isaiah 9:6-7
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,

Accomplished in the 1st century.

Jesus did not establish the throne of David. He was crucified before he could finish his mission. God underestimated the might of the Romans who crucified Jesus. We know Jesus said he was going to live in his fathers house (basement) and take up house cleaning.

John 14:2 My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

How could the prophesies of these OT people be fulfilled after A.D. 70?
You have to establish, from Scripture, that the Mosaic Covenant they were under before A.D. 70 was still in effect and you can't. Nor can you show that its sanctions were not applied at that time.

The Mosaic Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 "The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestor when I took them by theur hand to lead them out of Egypt because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]" declares the Lord.
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, "Know the Lord,"
because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.
"For I will forgive their wickednes and will remember their sins no more."

That is the promise God made to Jeremiah and even though Jesus failed because of his short ministry. The Jews are still the only people God made a new covenant with.


It was Romans that judged the nation of Israel. They were the rulers since 64BC before Jesus was born. God had no authority over the Romans. The Romans worshipped Caesar and their pagan God's. The Romans crucified Jesus, then to put down a Jewish rebellion destroyed their temple and as retribution punished the Jews. Their actions were not dependent on Biblical prophesies. The fact they went on to replace the temple with the Roman Catholic Church proves God and Jesus were caught without a paddle.

They judged the nation of Israel as foretold and predicted to happen in the OT and by Jesus in the NT.

How could the Romans judge the Jews on behalf of God when it was the Romans that crucified God's son Jesus, it was the Romans that desecrated God's Temple and destroyed it. The Jews rebelled against the Romans to protect the temple believing God would be on their side. But God stood idly by as the Romans crucified his son Jesus, destroyed his temple. Read your scriptures.

These people continued to do what were evil in the eyes of their God so He drew back from them until their sins reached the limit that He was willing to permit before He would address. Also, God waited until the fullness of time before sending the Messiah not only to save His people but to judge apostate Israel. Prophecy had a time line to it.

God chose a bad time to send Jesus. The Jews were under Roman rule. Jesus proved powerless to deal with the Roman might. He let himself be mocked, beaten, ridiculed and crucified by the Romans. God and Jesus underestimated the might of the Romans.

Bad time? He fulfilled His word when He sent the Messiah at the time He did, during the fourth kingdom, when God determined to act.

But there were many more kingdoms after the end of the Roman Empire. Daniel only went as far as 4 kingdoms. That is why prophesies no longer apply. God never expected the world would continue 2000 years after Jesus crucifixion. He forgot there were other Gods besides the God of the Bible that sustained the rest of the world which were in the majority. The Jews have always been a minority tribal group compared to the rest of the world.

Quoting Daniel and other prophesies does not change the fact Jesus did not fulfil them. Claiming they pointed to him does not make it a fact.
The scriptures are very clear what the messiah would deliver.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

Specifically, the Bible says he will:

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world " on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zecha
Composer
Posts: 6,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 2:01:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2017 5:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Many of the horrors that are recorded in the Bible are attributed to God, . . . .
Yes it is all because of the biblical as-hole God(s) -

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities"all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 2:21:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2017 9:11:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:

[1] John the Baptist did not close the Old Testament. It could not close until everything required of it had been fulfilled by the Messiah. It could not be fulfilled while the temple and worship system still existed. It could not be fulfilled until the full requirements of the Law had been met. Those requirements meant that the curses for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28) had been met. All those curses were met in A.D. 70 and not before. Compare Deuteronomy 28 with the Revelation.

The temple was destroyed before. Temples are always the target to humiliate and destroy the will of the the people by their enemies. Crucifying messiahs are rare. When the Jews saw Jesus being beaten and ridiculed, they could not accept him as their messiah. That was too much shame for them to bear. They were promised a deliverer and not some helpless retard.

The temple was prophesied by Daniel to be destroyed one more time before the end. As I pointed out in Daniel 12:7, the power of the holy people would be shattered and everything written would be complete - everything. That includes the resurrection of the dead and judgment on those not written in the book of life. The end is the end of the OT economy, their system of worship, everything they knew, the heaven and earth.

Only the temple was destroyed by the Romans to punish the Jews for rebelling. Daniel said the temple would be destroyed because it would be desecrated and God would punish the Jews for desecrating it. It turns out it was the Romans who were desecrating the temple. Daniel was wrong.

Some, a majority, of Jews would not accept Him because they were an apostate people who no longer submitted to God nor where they faithful and obedient to Him. The Deliverer came to deliver the elect, those who remained faithful and He came to usher in a new age. He constantly spoke of the two ages and it can be demonstrated most effectively that "this age" was the one these OT people were a part of. They could not accept Him because they were looking for the conquering King, but before this He came as a suffering Servant. Two different comings, not many. He would come again to establish the new age, the age He spoke of that was to come, the eternal covenant age, age without end.

No, the Jews accepted Jesus and shouted Hosanna.

Matthew 21:9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Hosanna in the ...

But when they saw Jesus allow the Romans to mock, beat and desecrate his body temple. They no longer believed Jesus was the messiah sent to save them. jesus couldn't even save himself. Jesus let the Jews down.

Hebrews 9:27-28
27"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28"so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


Jesus arrives on earth. First coming.
Jesus rose from the dead. Second coming.
Jesus returned in 70 AD. Third coming.
Armageddon calling Jesus. Fourth coming.

So again, your testimony goes against what Scripture teaches - two comings, one time to bear sin and the second time to bring salvation for those waiting for Him and judgment for those who were not.

What can Jesus do coming four times, what he couldn't do coming the first time?


John not being Elijah the Elijah that was to come was not as powerful as Elijah. He himself was jailed and beheaded. Elijah commanded an army of angels. John was no Elijah.

The two Elijah's had different roles in the plan of God.


Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah. John denied he was Elijah. It is in the scriptures. Read it.

But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!

John was the forerunner of the Messiah. When persecution came John questioned Jesus as the Messiah, possibly because he thought, like many others did, that when the Messiah came He would come as a conquering king and sit on the throne of David. That was not the purpose of His First Advent. The purpose of the First Advent was to save a people, provide and open the means of reconciliation before God. Jesus said that He had not come to do His own will but the will of the Father. What was the will of the Father?

The will of the father was Jesus should fail and be put to death.

You make it up as you go. You do this by your eisegesis of Scripture. You rip Scripture out of context, ignore massive teachings of Scripture and confuse another agenda of your training in all these other aspects of religions that you boast about with the biblical narrative.

The prophesies in Psalms 22, Daniel and Isaiah all prophesied Jesus would fail, he would be rejected and he would be put to death. Prophesies are from God given to prophets. Jesus failed, he was rejected and he was crucified. Just as God told his prophets.

John 6:38-40
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

On the last day Jesus cried out.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

IN FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY! I explained this and you never addressed my critique. I'm not going to restate it. I'm beginning to think you are not all there. You have an esoteric view of Scripture. It does not comply with what the words in context convey.

I am using historical context, textual criticism, archeological discoveries and biblical scholarship. You are trapped in your Preterists interpretation.

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:3-5
3"and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4"Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5"the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Jesus tried this line before but it didn't work because no one was impressed by his works.

Non-sense. He changed the world.
The people he was asking to consider his miracles and works were not impressed. Read below.

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Exactly, they understood His claim to be God but were unwilling to accept Him because of their traditions and religious bias.

He was making blasphemous claims and trying to fool the people with trivial magic like making wine from water. That was not enough to prove he was God.
At his trial he refused to say he was the messiah (king of the Jews) or God. He said his kingdom was not of this world. The Romans nailed him to a wooden cross and sent him packing to his alien kingdom. Aliens had no business meddling in human affairs.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 2:24:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 1:45:25 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:37:40 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA:
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

Then who did?

Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

Yes.......He did. You leave out the obvious signs/prophesies, then you twist the ones that aren't so obvious to the natural eye.....

Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

According to you.

Jewish belief is based on national revelation.


That's irrelevant.

Specifically, the Bible says he will:

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

Here is what those verses say....
"26"I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land[a] and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27"My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28"Then the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."

And of course....where is the problem exactly??

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Here is what the passage says....
5 "Do not fear, for I am with you;
I will bring your offspring from the east,
And gather you from the west.
6"I will say to the north, "Give them up!"
And to the south, "Do not hold them back."
Bring My sons from afar
And My daughters from the ends of the earth,"

And where exactly did that fail....?

Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

It's not the end of the world, many things are to happen yet...you don't seem to understand or comprehend the time-less nature of prophecy.

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite hum

And.......this has taken place......
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 2:33:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 2:21:16 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/10/2017 9:11:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:


Some, a majority, of Jews would not accept Him because they were an apostate people who no longer submitted to God nor where they faithful and obedient to Him. The Deliverer came to deliver the elect, those who remained faithful and He came to usher in a new age. He constantly spoke of the two ages and it can be demonstrated most effectively that "this age" was the one these OT people were a part of. They could not accept Him because they were looking for the conquering King, but before this He came as a suffering Servant. Two different comings, not many. He would come again to establish the new age, the age He spoke of that was to come, the eternal covenant age, age without end.

No, the Jews accepted Jesus and shouted Hosanna.

Matthew 21:9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Hosanna in the ...

But when they saw Jesus allow the Romans to mock, beat and desecrate his body temple. They no longer believed Jesus was the messiah sent to save them. jesus couldn't even save himself. Jesus let the Jews down.


How did the Messiah let the Jews down by fulfilling prophecy which they have no control over?? you don't comprehend the nature of both the rejection and acceptance of the prophecy. One being material the other spiritual but then again.....you wouldn't anyways....

Hebrews 9:27-28
27"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28"so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


Jesus arrives on earth. First coming.
Jesus rose from the dead. Second coming.
Jesus returned in 70 AD. Third coming.
Armageddon calling Jesus. Fourth coming.

So again, your testimony goes against what Scripture teaches - two comings, one time to bear sin and the second time to bring salvation for those waiting for Him and judgment for those who were not.

What can Jesus do coming four times, what he couldn't do coming the first time?


John not being Elijah the Elijah that was to come was not as powerful as Elijah. He himself was jailed and beheaded. Elijah commanded an army of angels. John was no Elijah.

The two Elijah's had different roles in the plan of God.


Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah. John denied he was Elijah. It is in the scriptures. Read it.

But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!

John was the forerunner of the Messiah. When persecution came John questioned Jesus as the Messiah, possibly because he thought, like many others did, that when the Messiah came He would come as a conquering king and sit on the throne of David. That was not the purpose of His First Advent. The purpose of the First Advent was to save a people, provide and open the means of reconciliation before God. Jesus said that He had not come to do His own will but the will of the Father. What was the will of the Father?

The will of the father was Jesus should fail and be put to death.

You make it up as you go. You do this by your eisegesis of Scripture. You rip Scripture out of context, ignore massive teachings of Scripture and confuse another agenda of your training in all these other aspects of religions that you boast about with the biblical narrative.

The prophesies in Psalms 22, Daniel and Isaiah all prophesied Jesus would fail, he would be rejected and he would be put to death. Prophesies are from God given to prophets. Jesus failed, he was rejected and he was crucified. Just as God told his prophets.

John 6:38-40
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

On the last day Jesus cried out.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

IN FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY! I explained this and you never addressed my critique. I'm not going to restate it. I'm beginning to think you are not all there. You have an esoteric view of Scripture. It does not comply with what the words in context convey.

I am using historical context, textual criticism, archeological discoveries and biblical scholarship. You are trapped in your Preterists interpretation.

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:3-5
3"and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4"Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5"the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Jesus tried this line before but it didn't work because no one was impressed by his works.

Non-sense. He changed the world.
The people he was asking to consider his miracles and works were not impressed. Read below.

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Exactly, they understood His claim to be God but were unwilling to accept Him because of their traditions and religious bias.

He was making blasphemous claims and trying to fool the people with trivial magic like making wine from water. That was not enough to prove he was God.
At his trial he refused to say he was the messiah (king of the Jews) or God. He said his kingdom was not of this world. The Romans nailed him to a wooden cross and sent him packing to his alien kingdom. Aliens had no business meddling in human affairs.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 5:49:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2017 12:13:32 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:07:45 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA wrote:
But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!

Sure he was. He was the Elijah foretold who would come.

Wouldn't John know if he was Elijah? John emphatically denied he was Elijah. Move on!!

This has already been answered in my response to your last posts

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Already answered.

Matthew 11:11-14
11"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. 13"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.


You are quoting Jesus who was proven to be a blasphemous liar and lunatic. John even began to doubt Jesus was the promised one after denying he was Elijah.
Matthew 11:3 to ask him, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?"

Man, your theology is complete and utter buffoonery. You just pull it out of the air. The Jews expected the real Elijah so John could not say he was that Elijah. Even so, Malachi 4:5 spoke of the great and terrible day of the Lord, speaking to an OT people. That is what John came to warn the people of. The prophets were sent to Israel to warn them to repent. After A.D. 70 there is no more covenant people so any unfulfilled biblical prophecy that applied to these people meant nothing after A.D. 70. They meant nothing because they were already fulfilled before that time.

Matthew 17:9-13
9"As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead." 10"And His disciples asked Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11"And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; 12"but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13"Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.


Not only this, the prophet Isaiah wrote of this messenger of God, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight." How can this prophecy be fulfilled after A.D. 70? It can't when you understand that the people who agreed to be obedient to the Lord in the Mosaic Covenant no longer have the means of the priesthood and animal sacrifice to atone for their sins.

Look, you are trying to read everything literally in Scripture. It can't be done. As I have explained before the language in context gives the meaning. Jesus said, "And if you will Receive it, this Is Elijah, which was for to come." If you don't want to receive it then it is up to you but when you make allegations that the OT could still be obeyed after A.D. 70, and that just by assertion with nothing to back up your claims, it tells me that you do not understand Scripture and you can't give evidence for what you say by Scripture. You don't understand it because after A.D. 70 none of the OT prophecy could apply. Prove what you said that these OT people could still follow Torah after A.D. 70. Prove it through Scripture and don't take passages out of context or I will call you on it.

Jesus lied again when he accused the people for killing John when everyone knew it was Herod who beheaded John over his wife's complaints.

During the time of the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus (134"104 BCE), Judea conquered Edom (Idumea) and forced the Edomites to convert to Judaism.
The Edomites were gradually integrated into the Judean nation, and some of them reached high-ranking positions. In the days of Alexander Jannaeus, Edomite Antipas, was appointed governor of Edom. His son Antipater, father of Herod the Great, was the chief adviser to Hasmonean Hyrcanus II and managed to establish a good relationship with the Roman Republic, who at that time (63 BCE) extended their influence over the region, following conquest of Syria and intervention in a civil war in Judea.


Converted to Judaism - one explanation.

Luke 1:17
17"It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
John denied it but Jesus affirmed it. Who has the greater testimony?


Both John and Jesus were equally put to death.

They were put to death, so what?

First John denied he was Elijah.

He wasn't Elijah, he was the Elijah to come, so why would he say he was the prophet Elijah?

He also failed to turn the people towards Jesus. The Jews rejected Jesus and asked that he be crucified.

You read in Matthew 3 that many were turning, they were coming out to the Jordan to repent and be baptized by him.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 1:15:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 2:24:22 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 3/11/2017 1:45:25 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:37:40 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA:
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

Then who did?

Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

Yes.......He did. You leave out the obvious signs/prophesies, then you twist the ones that aren't so obvious to the natural eye.....

Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

According to you.

Jewish belief is based on national revelation.


That's irrelevant.

Specifically, the Bible says he will:

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

Here is what those verses say....
"26"I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land[a] and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27"My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28"Then the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."

And of course....where is the problem exactly??

The problem is your poor comprehension. Israel is still embroiled in conflict when they should be enjoying a covenant of peace. The temple God's sanctuary lies in ruins and their religion claimed by Gentiles.

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Here is what the passage says....
5 "Do not fear, for I am with you;
I will bring your offspring from the east,
And gather you from the west.
6"I will say to the north, "Give them up!"
And to the south, "Do not hold them back."
Bring My sons from afar
And My daughters from the ends of the earth,"

And where exactly did that fail....?

Only 6 million Jews live in Israel out of the 14 million Jews in the world. There is still dispute about their land and boundaries. Jews still cannot call it their homeland when they are threatened by their neighbours. The world still doesn't accept the Lord has made his sanctuary in their midst forever :" Then the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."

Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

It's not the end of the world, many things are to happen yet...you don't seem to understand or comprehend the time-less nature of prophecy.

Prophesies are not timeless. They are spoken to a generation who will witness its fulfillment or the prophet is a false prophet. Prophecy is foretelling of events to follow and not some timeless proclamation.

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite hum

And.......this has taken place......
The Jews have suffered 1,500 years of persecution and expulsion. Antisemiticism is still rampant. All the scriptures point to Israel first before the Gentiles. jesus said he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. Why don't you Christians get it?

Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

1. The Jews have a priority over Gentiles as the chosen people of God
2. The Jews have a priority over Gentiles as the guardians of God's special revelation, the Old Testament Scriptures
3. The Jews have a priority over the Gentiles in that the Messiah himself, Jesus Christ, came first as a Jew to the Jews
4. The Jews have a priority over the Gentiles in that salvation is from the Jews
5. The Jews have a priority over the Gentiles in that Paul evangelized Jews first when he brought the gospel to a new place
6. The Jews have a priority over the Gentiles in final judgment and final blessing.

So when Paul says in Romans 1:16, "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek," we should call to mind these six ways that the Jews have a priority over the Gentiles.

They are the historic chosen people of God.

They are the guardians of God's special revelation, the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Messiah and Savior, Jesus, comes to the world as a Jew to Jews.

Salvation is from the Jews, since everyone who is saved is saved by being connected to the covenant with Abraham by faith.

The Jews are to be evangelized first when the gospel penetrates a new region.

The Jews will enter first into final judgment and final blessing.
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 1:40:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 2:33:47 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 3/11/2017 2:21:16 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/10/2017 9:11:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:


Some, a majority, of Jews would not accept Him because they were an apostate people who no longer submitted to God nor where they faithful and obedient to Him. The Deliverer came to deliver the elect, those who remained faithful and He came to usher in a new age. He constantly spoke of the two ages and it can be demonstrated most effectively that "this age" was the one these OT people were a part of. They could not accept Him because they were looking for the conquering King, but before this He came as a suffering Servant. Two different comings, not many. He would come again to establish the new age, the age He spoke of that was to come, the eternal covenant age, age without end.

No, the Jews accepted Jesus and shouted Hosanna.

Matthew 21:9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Hosanna in the ...

But when they saw Jesus allow the Romans to mock, beat and desecrate his body temple. They no longer believed Jesus was the messiah sent to save them. jesus couldn't even save himself. Jesus let the Jews down.


How did the Messiah let the Jews down by fulfilling prophecy which they have no control over?? you don't comprehend the nature of both the rejection and acceptance of the prophecy. One being material the other spiritual but then again.....you wouldn't anyways....

The prophesies all predicted Jesus would fail. Daniel said the Messiah would be cut off. Isaiah spoke of the suffering saviour's failures. The Pope declared Jesus was a failure of the cross. Psalms 22 said the messiah would be brutally put to death and would feel betrayed by God. Jesus confirmed he was betrayed by God.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

Pope Francis said during his whirlwind U.S. tour. "And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus ... and His life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross."

Jesus was a Jew, he only preached to the Jews and he failed the Jews. No one can claim Jesus messiahship lifted the Jews or delivered them from their enemies. In fact Jesus was mocked, beaten and crucified by the Romans.

When they saw Jesus allow the Romans to mock, beat and desecrate his body temple. They no longer believed Jesus was the messiah sent to save them. jesus couldn't even save himself. Jesus let the Jews down.

Hebrews 9:27-28
27"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28"so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


Jesus arrives on earth. First coming.
Jesus rose from the dead. Second coming.
Jesus returned in 70 AD. Third coming.
Armageddon calling Jesus. Fourth coming.

So again, your testimony goes against what Scripture teaches - two comings, one time to bear sin and the second time to bring salvation for those waiting for Him and judgment for those who were not.

What can Jesus do coming four times, what he couldn't do coming the first time?

John not being Elijah the Elijah that was to come was not as powerful as Elijah. He himself was jailed and beheaded. Elijah commanded an army of angels. John was no Elijah.

Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah. John denied he was Elijah. It is in the scriptures. Read it.

But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!

John was the forerunner of the Messiah. When persecution came John questioned Jesus as the Messiah, possibly because he thought, like many others did, that when the Messiah came He would come as a conquering king and sit on the throne of David. That was not the purpose of His First Advent. The purpose of the First Advent was to save a people, provide and open the means of reconciliation before God. Jesus said that He had not come to do His own will but the will of the Father. What was the will of the Father?

The will of the father was Jesus should fail and be put to death.

You make it up as you go. You do this by your eisegesis of Scripture. You rip Scripture out of context, ignore massive teachings of Scripture and confuse another agenda of your training in all these other aspects of religions that you boast about with the biblical narrative.

The prophesies in Psalms 22, Daniel and Isaiah all prophesied Jesus would fail, he would be rejected and he would be put to death. Prophesies are from God given to prophets. Jesus failed, he was rejected and he was crucified. Just as God told his prophets.

John 6:38-40
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

On the last day Jesus cried out.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

IN FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY! I explained this and you never addressed my critique. I'm not going to restate it. I'm beginning to think you are not all there. You have an esoteric view of Scripture. It does not comply with what the words in context convey.

I am using historical context, textual criticism, archeological discoveries and biblical scholarship. You are trapped in your Preterists interpretation.

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:3-5
3"and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4"Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5"the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Jesus tried this line before but it didn't work because no one was impressed by his works.

Non-sense. He changed the world.
The people he was asking to consider his miracles and works were not impressed. Read below.

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Exactly, they understood His claim to be God but were unwilling to accept Him because of their traditions and religious bias.

He was making blasphemous claims and trying to fool the people with trivial magic like making wine from water. That was not enough to prove he was God.
At his trial he refused to say he was the messiah (king of the Jews) or God. He said his kingdom was not of this world. The Romans nailed him to a wooden cross and sent him packing to his alien kingdom. Aliens had no business meddling in human affairs.
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 2:45:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 5:49:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 3/10/2017 12:13:32 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:07:45 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 9:37:50 AM, PGA wrote:
But John the Baptist was not Elijah. John was even asked if he was Elijah and John said No!

Sure he was. He was the Elijah foretold who would come.

Wouldn't John know if he was Elijah? John emphatically denied he was Elijah. Move on!!


John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

John was not Elijah Read John 1:21

Matthew 11:11-14
11"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

You are quoting Jesus who was proven to be a blasphemous liar and lunatic. John even began to doubt Jesus was the promised one after denying he was Elijah.
Matthew 11:3 to ask him, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?"

Man, your theology is complete and utter buffoonery. You just pull it out of the air. The Jews expected the real Elijah so John could not say he was that Elijah. Even so, Malachi 4:5 spoke of the great and terrible day of the Lord, speaking to an OT people. That is what John came to warn the people of. The prophets were sent to Israel to warn them to repent. After A.D. 70 there is no more covenant people so any unfulfilled biblical prophecy that applied to these people meant nothing after A.D. 70. They meant nothing because they were already fulfilled before that time.

70AD was not the fulfillment of the messianic prophesies. The messiah was sent to save the Jews not leave them suffering, in more doubtful and lost. History of the Jews proves the success of the Jews today owe it to the destruction of the temple and the priesthood. It forced the Jews to concentrate of education and less on religious doctrines that was previously forced on them by their priests. Today the Jews are the most successful people despite they tragic history.

It took 3 wars to destroy the nation of Israel. But the Jews regrouped and are back to rebuilding their nation. 70AD was not the end of the world for the Jews or their religious convictions.

Matthew 17:9-13
9"As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead." 10"And His disciples asked Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11"And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; 12"but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13"Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.


Jesus wanted the people to believe Elijah had come because the messiah was to follow Elijah's coming and that would point to him. But John denied he was Elijah. It's in the scriptures.
Jesus accused the people for killing John/Elijah. But the scriptures tell us it was Herod who beheaded John over a personal matter. John's death had nothing to do with the people. Read your scriptures.

Not only this, the prophet Isaiah wrote of this messenger of God, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight." How can this prophecy be fulfilled after A.D. 70? It can't when you understand that the people who agreed to be obedient to the Lord in the Mosaic Covenant no longer have the means of the priesthood and animal sacrifice to atone for their sins.

The Jews are still following the Torah by not offering sacrifices. . Because it was forbidden to bring sacrifices outside of the Holy Temple. Jews follow, today, the instructions taught us by King Solomon, the Prophet Hosea and the other Prophets, and we pray without bringing sacrifices.

About Usauah. Isaiah promised King Ahaz God would send him a sign a virgin mother and a child named Immanuel to reassure him that God was with him. Ahaz never found the virgin mother or a child name Immanuel.
Why do you quote failed prophets?

You make a big deal about the Jews not being able to make animal sacrifices because their temple was destroyed. That was the least of their problems. You forget God stood idly by when the Romans were mocking, beating and crucifying his son Jesus. Gid stood idly by when the Romans destroyed the temple his holy sanctuary and watched the Romans slaughter his chosen people. God failed both his son Jesus and the Jews. God has a lot more to atone for.

Look, you are trying to read everything literally in Scripture. It can't be done. As I have explained before the language in context gives the meaning. Jesus said, "And if you will Receive it, this Is Elijah, which was for to come." If you don't want to receive it then it is up to you but when you make allegations that the OT could still be obeyed after A.D. 70, and that just by assertion with nothing to back up your claims, it tells me that you do not understand Scripture and you can't give evidence for what you say by Scripture. You don't understand it because after A.D. 70 none of the OT prophecy could apply.

70AD was not the end of the world for the Jews or their religious convictions. It took 3 wars to destroy the nation of Israel. But the Jews regrouped and are back to rebuilding their nation and soon their temple.

Jesus lied again when he accused the people for killing John when everyone knew it was Herod who beheaded John over his wife's complaints.

During the time of the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus (134"104 BCE), Judea conquered Edom (Idumea) and forced the Edomites to convert to Judaism.
The Edomites were gradually integrated into the Judean nation, and some of them reached high-ranking positions. In the days of Alexander Jannaeus, Edomite Antipas, was appointed governor of Edom. His son Antipater, father of Herod the Great, was the chief adviser to Hasmonean Hyrcanus II and managed to establish a good relationship with the Roman Republic, who at that time (63 BCE) extended their influence over the region, following conquest of Syria and intervention in a civil war in Judea.


Converted to Judaism - one explanation.

But Herod's reason for killing John was not on the bequest of the Jewish people. It was his wife that wanted John beheaded. Read your scriptures.

Luke 1:17
17"It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
John denied it but Jesus affirmed it. Who has the greater testimony?


Both John and Jesus were equally put to death.

They were put to death, so what?

First John denied he was Elijah.

He wasn't Elijah, he was the Elijah to come, so why would he say he was the prophet Elijah?

John came as John. John denied he was Elijah.

He also failed to turn the people towards Jesus. The Jews rejected Jesus and asked that he be crucified.

You read in Matthew 3 that many were turning, they were coming out to the Jordan to repent and be baptized by him.

They wanted to be baptized by John. No one ever asked Jesus to baptize them. John was not rejected by the people, Jesus was. It didn't help Jesus to hear John deny he was Elijah or John expressing his doubts about Jesus.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 4:11:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 2:01:22 AM, Composer wrote:
At 3/9/2017 5:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Many of the horrors that are recorded in the Bible are attributed to God, . . . .
Yes it is all because of the biblical as-hole God(s) -

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities"all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Yeah, just imagine how evil the Biblical God is in context of him actually being real, and the creator of the universe. We're just denied so much pleasure in life. I hope you didn't have too walk to far (I assume barefooted) to find a library with a computer.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 10:59:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 2:21:16 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/10/2017 9:11:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
The temple was prophesied by Daniel to be destroyed one more time before the end. As I pointed out in Daniel 12:7, the power of the holy people would be shattered and everything written would be complete - everything. That includes the resurrection of the dead and judgment on those not written in the book of life. The end is the end of the OT economy, their system of worship, everything they knew, the heaven and earth.

Only the temple was destroyed by the Romans to punish the Jews for rebelling.

God used the Romans to destroy the city and temple in punishment of their apostasy and according to the curses of the covenant these OT people had agreed to.


Deuteronomy 28
15""But it shall come about, if you do not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
16""Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.

Leviticus 26:31
I will lay waste your cities as well and will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your soothing aromas.

Leviticus 26:33
You, however, I will scatter among the nations and will draw out a sword after you, as your land becomes desolate and your cities become waste.


Daniel said the temple would be destroyed because it would be desecrated and God would punish the Jews for desecrating it. It turns out it was the Romans who were desecrating the temple. Daniel was wrong.

It was desecrated both by the Roman's and by the Jewish faction fighting within the city for control of it.

The city and temple were surrounded by the Romans twice from the span of Christ's ascension to His Second Coming in A.D. 70, once by Cestius and then by Titus. After the first time those who believed Jesus fled to Pella. When the Romans began their siege again after this, those who were left could not escape.

1st Siege:

5. In the mean time, many of the principal men of the city were persuaded by Ananus, the son of Jonathan, and invited Cestius into the city, and were about to open the gates for him; but he overlooked this offer, partly out of his anger at the Jews, and partly because he did not thoroughly believe they were in earnest; whence it was that he delayed the matter so long, that the seditious perceived the treachery, and threw Ananus and those of his party down from the wall, and, pelting them with stones, drove them into their houses; but they stood themselves at proper distances in the towers, and threw their darts at those that were getting over the wall. Thus did the Romans make their attack against the wall for five days, but to no purpose. But on the next day Cestius took a great many of his choicest men, and with them the archers, and attempted to break into the temple at the northern quarter of it; but the Jews beat them off from the cloisters, and repulsed them several times when they were gotten near to the wall, till at length the multitude of the darts cut them off, and made them retire; but the first rank of the Romans rested their shields upon the wall, and so did those that were behind them, and the like did those that were still more backward, and guarded themselves with what they call Testudo, [the back of] a tortoise, upon which the darts that were thrown fell, and slided off without doing them any harm; so the soldiers undermined the wall, without being themselves hurt, and got all things ready for setting fire to the gate of the temple.

6. And now it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately; but the people upon this took courage, and where the wicked part of the city gave ground, thither did they come, in order to set open the gates, and to admit Cestius (30) as their benefactor, who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day.


http://www.ccel.org...

Cestius left the city and the seditious factions within, seeing him leave, pursued him and inflicted great causalities upon his troops, chasing them out of the land for a brief time. (see same link above, Ch. 19:7-9)

Luke 21:20-23
20""But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21"Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22"because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23"Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;


Please pay attention to the underlined Scripture.

"The battering ram continues. More desertions. The Romans break into the outer court. Soldiers set fire to the Temple. Titus regrets this, wants to save the Temple. Sanctuary burns, "the most wonderful edifice ever seen or heard of", having lasted 1040 years. Looting, children butchered, city on fire. Former portents and prophecies of doom. The Romans bring their standards into the Temple area and erect them. Temple plundered by the Romans. Titus tries to slow his men's destruction. He berates the Jews for bringing this destruction upon themselves.""

https://mcgoodwin.net...

What is more there were three different Jewish factions fighting within the city and desecrate the temple during the siege of Jerusalem that Josephus makes reference to.

"... 3 factions are fighting: Eleazar son of Simon seizes the inner court of the Temple; John and his men continue the plunder in the city, and Simon son of Gioras also fights to win the temple. They are effectively destroying the city. The grain that would feed them during the siege is destroyed in flames, the hunger that will follow thus being their responsibility. John purloins the sacred timbers to make engines of war.""


https://mcgoodwin.net...

Josephus, The Jewish Wars:
Ch 17:5
"5. Upon this the men of power, with the high priests, as also all the part of the multitude that were desirous of peace, took courage, and seized upon the upper city [Mount Sion;] for the seditious part had the lower city and the temple in their power; so they made use of stones and slings perpetually against one another, and threw darts continually on both sides; and sometimes it happened that they made incursions by troops, and fought it out hand to hand, while the seditious were superior in boldness, but the king's soldiers in skill. These last strove chiefly to gain the temple, and to drive those out of it who profaned it; as did the seditious, with Eleazar, besides what they had already, labor to gain the upper city. Thus were there perpetual slaughters on both sides for seven days' time; but neither side would yield up the parts they had seized on."


http://www.ccel.org...
(for above quote)

http://www.ccel.org...

So, your claims, to date, are just assertions without any adequate biblical or extra biblical data to back them up - fluff. That is how poor and unreasonable your argument continues to be, so far. Pathetic.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 11:35:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 2:21:16 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/10/2017 9:11:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
Some, a majority, of Jews would not accept Him because they were an apostate people who no longer submitted to God nor where they faithful and obedient to Him. The Deliverer came to deliver the elect, those who remained faithful and He came to usher in a new age. He constantly spoke of the two ages and it can be demonstrated most effectively that "this age" was the one these OT people were a part of. They could not accept Him because they were looking for the conquering King, but before this He came as a suffering Servant. Two different comings, not many. He would come again to establish the new age, the age He spoke of that was to come, the eternal covenant age, age without end.

No, the Jews accepted Jesus and shouted Hosanna.

Some did, the rest plotted to kill Him and undermine Him. This can be demonstrated over and over again. What is more, some turned away from Him when they decided His teaching was too hard to live with.

John 6:66"
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.


Matthew 21:9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Hosanna in the ...

Matthew 22:15
[ Tribute to Caesar ] Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.

Matthew 26:4
and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him.


But when they saw Jesus allow the Romans to mock, beat and desecrate his body temple. They no longer believed Jesus was the messiah sent to save them. jesus couldn't even save himself. Jesus let the Jews down.

That is because they failed to differentiate between His first coming as a suffering servant to atone for their sins and His second coming when He would come in power to judge these apostate people.

Hebrews 9:27-28
27"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28"so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


Jesus arrives on earth. First coming.
Jesus rose from the dead. Second coming.

Still first coming. He had not received His kingdom yet. You just ignored completely what Scripture said in Hebrews because you are so intent on being dishonest with Scripture to suit your own purposes and warped interpretation. You pull bits and pieces out of here and there to support your view, but you do not considerer the greater context and its application.

His Second Coming is the kingdom coming in Hebrews when He comes to bring salvation to those awaiting Him.

Jesus returned in 70 AD. Third coming.

Armageddon calling Jesus. Fourth coming.

Armageddon calling Jesus? What does that mean? Does it mean His coming or presence at Armageddon? Those last two are His Second Coming in judgment.

Notice the difference - He comes as a suffering Servant, then He comes again in His glory. His glory is His kingdom. That is when again He receives the glory He shared with the Father before He became incarnate and took on humanity.

So again, your testimony goes against what Scripture teaches - two comings, one time to bear sin and the second time to bring salvation for those waiting for Him and judgment for those who were not.

What can Jesus do coming four times, what he couldn't do coming the first time?

You miss the scope of the first and second coming and the purpose of each. Many times in the OT the Messiah is presented in two light, that of the suffering Servant like in various Scriptures of Isaiah and then again when He is presented as the conquering King or Lord of lords. The same attributes that are ascribed to God Almighty are also ascribed to Him over and over again. In fact, the very things said of God in the OT are also said of Jesus in the NT.

Isaiah 9:6 says a child is born and also that a Son is given. The child born describes His humanity (He took on flesh and blood - humanity) and the Son is given (He came from the right hand of the Father in heaven, His rightful place from all eternity, and He humbled Himself and because a man - Philippians 2:5-8)

These are things that you miss because you are not spiritual but fleshly, natural in your thinking. You speak of things you know virtually nothing of as though you are an expert. You are not.

What is more, are you Jewish?

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2017 12:12:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 2:21:16 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/10/2017 9:11:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
John not being Elijah the Elijah that was to come was not as powerful as Elijah. He himself was jailed and beheaded. Elijah commanded an army of angels. John was no Elijah.

The two Elijah's had different roles in the plan of God.

Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah. John denied he was Elijah. It is in the scriptures. Read it.

He was not Elijah in flesh and blood, but he came in the spirit and power of Elijah, not to do what Elijah did in the OT but to herald in the coming King, their Messiah, the figure that the whole OT Scriptures point to, if not directly then indirectly in type and shadow (metaphorically and figuratively in that these OT leaders all display or do things that Jesus does in the NT). Moses is a prophet who is sent to deliver His people from Egypt, the land of sin and bondage. Jesus is sent to deliver His people from their own sin and bondage. The comparisons are numerous because Jesus not only came to fulfill the OT in all its requirements, He also came to deliver a New Covenant, just as Moses had delivered the covenant to the people at Mount Sinai. There is an earthly Jerusalem and there is a heavenly Jerusalem. There is an earthly Promised Land and there is a heavenly Promised Land. There is an earthly tabernacle and a heavenly one, an earthly sacrifice for sin (many in fact) and a heavenly one, one that is sufficient to take away sins, not just cover them until another sin is committed by the people. There is a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel, a serpent that is lifted up that all who look upon it and believe it will save them are saved. There is also Jesus who is lifted up upon a cross that all who look upon His sacrifice and believe in what He did and who He is are saved. Over and over there are comparisons and contrasts between the OT and NT. These are things that someone unspiritual does not see the significance of (you probably still don't even after I have pointed many spiritual things out to you).

Do you see? Do you hear? Does your heart believe?

The will of the father was Jesus should fail and be put to death.

You make it up as you go. You do this by your eisegesis of Scripture. You rip Scripture out of context, ignore massive teachings of Scripture and confuse another agenda of your training in all these other aspects of religions that you boast about with the biblical narrative.

The prophesies in Psalms 22, Daniel and Isaiah all prophesied Jesus would fail, he would be rejected and he would be put to death. Prophesies are from God given to prophets. Jesus failed, he was rejected and he was crucified. Just as God told his prophets.

The prophesies of Psalm 22 were to show you the suffering Servant, not the King of glory. Isaiah 53 shows that once Jesus had accomplished saving His people the Father would receive Him again.

Isaiah 53:11-12
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.

Zechariah 12:10
10""I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.


Again, you look at only those passages that you think bolsters your view and do not consider the rest.

On the last day Jesus cried out.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

IN FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY! I explained this and you never addressed my critique. I'm not going to restate it. I'm beginning to think you are not all there. You have an esoteric view of Scripture. It does not comply with what the words in context convey.

I am using historical context, textual criticism, archeological discoveries and biblical scholarship. You are trapped in your Preterists interpretation.

Where? You lift out only that which is suitable to you, ignoring the rest of the text or the rest of Scripture.

John 1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

Matthew 11:3-5
3"and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4"Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5"the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Jesus tried this line before but it didn't work because no one was impressed by his works.

Non-sense. He changed the world.
The people he was asking to consider his miracles and works were not impressed. Read below.

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

The Scribes and Pharisee and teachers of the Law would did not profit from Jesus' teachings were opposed to Him. And some of the people did not have eyes to see nor ears to hear nor a heart to believe as Scripture points out. So what?

Exactly, they understood His claim to be God but were unwilling to accept Him because of their traditions and religious bias.

He was making blasphemous claims and trying to fool the people with trivial magic like making wine from water. That was not enough to prove he was God.

No, He was not. His resurrection was proof that He is who He claims to be. 3000 Jews, at Pentecost believed because they understood. Thousands, millions, billions of people throughout history have understood. You do not.

At his trial he refused to say he was the messiah (king of the Jews) or God. He said his kingdom was not of this world. The Romans nailed him to a wooden cross and sent him packing to his alien kingdom. Aliens had no business meddling in human affairs.

11"Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say." 12"And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He did not answer. 13"Then Pilate *said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" 14"And He did not answer him with regard to even a single charge, so the governor was quite amazed.

He was silent to fulfill prophecy:

Acts 8:32
Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: "He was led as a sheep to slaughter; And as a lamb before its shearer is silent, So He does not open His mouth.


The Jewish religious leaders were liken to shearers.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 38,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2017 1:41:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 10:59:24 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/11/2017 2:21:16 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/10/2017 9:11:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 10:20:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/9/2017 8:06:32 PM, PGA wrote:
At 3/9/2017 3:39:46 PM, Harikrish:
The temple was prophesied by Daniel to be destroyed one more time before the end. As I pointed out in Daniel 12:7, the power of the holy people would be shattered and everything written would be complete - everything. That includes the resurrection of the dead and judgment on those not written in the book of life. The end is the end of the OT economy, their system of worship, everything they knew, the heaven and earth.

Only the temple was destroyed by the Romans to punish the Jews for rebelling.

God used the Romans to destroy the city and temple in punishment of their apostasy and according to the curses of the covenant these OT people had agreed to.

The Romans were punishing the Jews for rebelling against Roman rule. The Romans crucified their messiah Jesus and were desecrating their temple. They also started taxing the Jews heavily. The Jews revolted and the Romans brutally put down the rebellion. Why would God use the Romans who crucified his son Jesus and persecuted his chosen people to punish his chosen people? The Jews believed God would support their cause. But God betrayed them like he betrayed Jesus.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). -


Deuteronomy 28
15""But it shall come about, if you do not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
16""Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.

Leviticus 26:31
I will lay waste your cities as well and will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your soothing aromas.

Leviticus 26:33
You, however, I will scatter among the nations and will draw out a sword after you, as your land becomes desolate and your cities become waste.


But the Jews were not rebelling against God, they were rebelling against the Romans who crucified their messiah Jesus and desecrated their temple.

Daniel said the temple would be destroyed because it would be desecrated and God would punish the Jews for desecrating it. It turns out it was the Romans who were desecrating the temple. Daniel was wrong.

It was desecrated both by the Roman's and by the Jewish faction fighting within the city for control of it.

Caligula first desecrated it by putting his bust on the alter. The Romans began to loot the temple. The Jews were trying to win their country back from a pagan ruler. You are saying God sided with the pagan Romans. You are completely lost!!

The city and temple were surrounded by the Romans twice from the span of Christ's ascension to His Second Coming in A.D. 70, once by Cestius and then by Titus. After the first time those who believed Jesus fled to Pella. When the Romans began their siege again after this, those who were left could not escape.

Where was Jesus who said he was given all authority over heaven and earth? Where was God? They both stood idly by as the pagan Romans destroyed God's temple and slaughtered God's chosen people after crucifying their messiah Jesus.

1st Siege:

5. In the mean time, many of the principal men of the city were persuaded by Ananus, the son of Jonathan, and invited Cestius into the city, and were about to open the gates for him; but he overlooked this offer, partly out of his anger at the Jews, and partly because he did not thoroughly believe they were in earnest; whence it was that he delayed the matter so long, that the seditious perceived the treachery, and threw Ananus and those of his party down from

6. And now it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately; but the people upon this took courage, and where the wicked part of the city gave ground, thither did they come, in order to set open the gates, and to admit Cestius (30) as their benefactor, who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had certainly taken the city; but it was, .


http://www.ccel.org...

Cestius left the city and the seditious factions within, seeing him leave, pursued him and inflicted great causalities upon his troops, chasing them out of the land for a brief time. (see same link above, Ch. 19:7-9)

The Jews tried to defend God's temple, but the Romans proved too powerful. They crucified God's son Jesus as a warning to God to stay out of the fight. God stood idly by and caved in.

Luke 21:20-23
20""But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21"Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22"because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23"Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;


Yes, Jesus had warned his disciples not to resist the Romans. If they could crucify the messiah they could not be challenged. Jesus proved his cowardice at his trial. He allowed the Romans to mock, beat and ridicule him before his people.

Please pay attention to the underlined Scripture.

"The battering ram continues. More desertions. The Romans break into the outer court. Soldiers set fire to the Temple. Titus regrets this, wants to save the Temple. Sanctuary burns, "the most wonderful edifice ever seen or heard of", having lasted 1040 years. Looting, children butchered, city on fire. Former portents and prophecies of doom. The Romans bring their standards into the Temple area and erect them. Temple plundered by the Romans. Titus tries to slow his men's destruction. He berates the Jews for bringing this destruction upon themselves.""

https://mcgoodwin.net...

Jesus and God failed the Jews. Daniel prophesied Jesus would be cut off and the desolation would fall on his people. Jesus was sent to 1) "to finish transgression," 2) "to put an end to sin," 3) "to atone for wickedness," 4) "to bring in everlasting righteousness," 5) "to seal up vision and prophecy," and 6) "to anoint the most holy."
But the Romans continued their transgression against the Jews, continued their pagan practices and disrupted God's plan by establishing the Church of Rome to replace the temple they destroyed.

Isaiah, Psalms 22, Daniel all prophesied the messiah sent by God would fail. God had predetermined Jesus's failure.
But the The Jews welcome Jesus as their messiah.
John 12:13 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the king of Israel!"

But when they found out John was not Elijah, that John himself began to doubt Jesus, the lies by Jesus began mount. The final straw was seeing their messiah mocked, beaten and ridiculed by the Romans. This could not be their messiah who couldn't even defend himself against pagans. Jesus vindicated them of their doubts. Jesus confirmed he too was betrayed by God.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
Composer
Posts: 6,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2017 2:05:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2017 4:11:24 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/11/2017 2:01:22 AM, Composer wrote:
At 3/9/2017 5:54:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Many of the horrors that are recorded in the Bible are attributed to God, . . . .
Yes it is all because of the biblical as-hole God(s) -

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities"all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Yeah, just imagine how evil the Biblical God is in context of him actually being real, and the creator of the universe. We're just denied so much pleasure in life. I hope you didn't have too walk to far (I assume barefooted) to find a library with a computer.
There are currently about 5000 God(s) being worshipped, but sadly for you, as I proved, you picked the biblical as-hole one!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.