>>2795>If hes a Freemason then he is a Devil worshiper.
Nope.>There are many differences between Ancient Judaism, Christianity and modern Judaism. Picture related.
And they're all different variations on the same myths.>That is literally the Jewish position,
And they're right in that Jesus didn't fulfill the necessary requirements for being the Messiah. That's why Christians jump through hoops trying to justify him with verses that have nothing to do with him.>I guess you didn't see the webm i posted saying the jewish messiah would bring world peace, Which is the anit-christ.
I did watch it, and it's just Steven Anderson making claims without anything to back them up. It's based on a flawed reading of Revelation.>You're repeating yourself, i've already answered this, "18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. "
And I've already responded: that's from John, which postdated the destruction of the Temple and might have even been finished as late as 110 A.D. Why is it that we only start to see that interpretation catching on after the Temple was destroyed and nothing was changed?>Your completely ignoring the answer i gave you and just declaring victory. His promised return in that generation was the "end of days" told Daniel by Gabriel for the desolations of Jerusalem. His return was a day of judgment just as all OT prophesy is couched as "a coming of the Lord," or a "day of the Lord," or a "day of calamity," or the "day of His wrath." His return was not to set up a physical kingdom on earth but to remove the last remnant of the old Mosaic sacrificial covenant, the temple where the Jews were still offering animal sacrifices. Those sacrifices had become profane once His blood became that sacrifice promised by OT prophesy (Dan. 9:24-27; Psa. 22:16-18; 2 Sam. 7:14; Isa. 53:5, etc.)
Like I said, that interpretation only came later. What was predicted was that the Messiah would come and usher in an age of peace and prosperity for Israel. None of those verses refer to Jesus, and the fact that so few people seemed to believe he fit the bill in his own life seems to point in that direction.>'The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands.
What wrong did Jesus do if he was without sin?>For dogs are all around me;
a company of evildoers encircles me.
My hands and feet have shriveled;[b]
17 I can count all my bones.
They stare and gloat over me;
18 they divide my clothes among themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots.
Obviously the character described is in rough shape, but nothing here is specific to Jesus's crucifixion.>Isa. 53:5
The "suffering servant" is Israel. Israel is referred to as God's servant elsewhere in the Old Testament, and other parts of Isaiah point to the identity of the passage's subject.
Isaiah 41:8:>But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
the offspring of Abraham, my friend;
Isaiah 49:3:>And he said to me, "You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will be glorified."
Isaiah 48:20:>Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea,
declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it,
send it forth to the end of the earth;
say, "The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!"
>That's your opinion.
It's the most obvious conclusion to come to.>The same could be said about people against Christianity, You act like there aren't people with personal problems or agendas who want to discredit the Bible. The teachings of the Bible are very difficult to practice, who wants to avoid lust in the internet age, disregarding the Bible is dangerously convenient.
There are people with axes to grind no matter the belief. You don't have to come up with tortuous logical justifications to justify the fallibility of the Bible the way you do for a divinely inspired Bible though.>That is two diffrent veiw points of one thing that happened. For example, if I saw a car hit a pedestrian, I might simply say that the pedestrian died because he was hit by the car. The coroner who came on the scene later but did not actually see the accident might give a graphic description of the injuries to the pedestrian. Both the coroner and I are describing the same event just different aspects of it. Matthew tells us that Judas died by hanging (death is inferred from the passage). Luke, being a doctor, gives us a graphic description of what occurred following the hanging
There's still a problem if you ignore the fact that Acts suspiciously never brings up the hanging itself. One passage says that Judas rejected his reward and the field was bought by the priests, while another says that he bought the field he died in with his payment.>Either Matthew Didn't Record the First Statement of Jairus or Different Point of Emphasis. The translation of the phrase "just died" in Matthew could also be translated "near death." Arti eteleutēsen is the Greek phrase used in this text, and the Greek word arti is often translated as "henceforth" or "hereafter." If this theory is correct, then Matthew did not omit any discourse with Jairus. When Jairus left his house, his daughter was at the point of death; so he may have thought that by the time he was with Jesus, she quite possibly had already died. Indeed, by the time he arrived, she had passed away, as confirmed by the messenger who brought the account of her death before Jesus came to the house.
From what I've read, the word "arti" can be used that way, but only in certain tenses. It apparently isn't used in the way suggested anywhere in the entire New Testament.>I don't know your situation, but i bet you didn't look at the Christians side too much or didn't like the Christians answers.
Wrong. I went fundamentalist for several years to try and hold onto my faith.>It's simplistic but Good vs Evil is all around us, not just in a spiritual sense.
Good and evil are subjective labels that people use to paint themselves as the good guys and everyone else as villains.