| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Weatherwax" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 07:17:02 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:1ojm60l50ct4ieinpr7sqo7h2bf0rco8os@4ax.com...
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in
alt.atheism
It was decided that the gentiles shouldn't be forced to live
by the burden of Moses Law nor the jewish culture.
Forced by who? Who do you think would dare try to
enforce some Jewish religious dietary and other laws on
people?
We should also consider that the community in Jerusalem depended
upon Paul raising money from the gentiles for their relief. It
would be against their best interest to impose restrictions upon
gentile converts.
--
Wax
..
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
28 Apr 2004 05:32:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:49:55 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
===>You are disturbed because I am showing how you change the subject
to escape the realities of the issue!
Of course, we know you are GENERALLY disturbed, Baby Dukie!
Nope, I'm not disturbed at all. I enjoy making a fool out of your lack of knowledge of
the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
25 Apr 2004 07:53:09 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:19:38 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will
give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
Sorry, lib. but Isaiah came 300 years earlier. (740-701BC)
Speusippus - His date of birth is harder to get a fix on; it has reasonably been estimated
at ca. 410.
Biographer Diagenes Laertius reports on the basis of books
by Speusippus (Funeral Banquet of Plato), Clearchus (Panegyric on Plato,)
and Anaxilides (The second book of his History of Philosophers)
reports that
a pure virgin named Perictone, had been engaged to Ariston
before they had intercourse, she conceived by the influences of the deity Apollo,
and Apollo appeared to Ariston
in a dream
in which Apollo declared to Ariston the divine parentage of the child.
Ariston was stopped from consummating his marriage, and
kept the mother pure from intercourse until she brought forth her son, Plato.
Compare this to:
MATTHEW 1:19 ff.
"...Mary had been engaged to Joseph,
before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
an angel of the Lord appeared to him [i.e. Jopseph]
in a dream,
saying, "...that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." ...
Joseph arose from his sleep,
and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son.
He named him JESUS."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
26 Apr 2004 09:53:32 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<rncn80d97r5tjhlcq4nkpm4m9tvosf6rk6@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:19:38 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will
give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
Sorry, lib. but Isaiah came 300 years earlier. (740-701BC)
Sorry, duKKKe. The bible was compiled into one book in the
7th century CE, more than 700 years after Greek civilization.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
27 Apr 2004 04:38:55 AM |
|
|
On 26 Apr 2004 07:53:32 -0700, (Bob Dog) wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<rncn80d97r5tjhlcq4nkpm4m9tvosf6rk6@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:19:38 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will
give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
Sorry, lib. but Isaiah came 300 years earlier. (740-701BC)
Sorry, duKKKe. The bible was compiled into one book in the
7th century CE, more than 700 years after Greek civilization.
Sorry, bobdog. Compilation under a bound cover as nothing to do with it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
25 Apr 2004 09:24:03 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:19:38 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child
===>LOOK, the YOUNG WOMAN IS with child!
and will give birth to a son,
===>and ABOUT TO GIVE BIRTH to a son.
and will call him Immanuel.
===>LET HER NAME HIM Immanuel.
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
Sorry, lib. but Isaiah came 300 years earlier. (740-701BC)
===>You should be sorry, Baby Dukie, with another infantile
declaration! Why?
Because your false translation came hundreds
of years later. There's NOTHING about any "virgin". The statement
is about a YOUNG WOMAN ("ALMAH"), who was none other than
Isaiah's already visibly pregnant wife, not about someone born hundreds of
years later!
THINK: When did Mary call her son "Immanuel"???
Speusippus - His date of birth is harder to get a fix on; it has reasonably been estimated
at ca. 410.
===>He was a contemporary of Plato,
actually knew the guy, unlike the Gospel writers,
none of whom knew Jesus!
Any other ignorant comments from Baby Dukie??? -- L.
Biographer Diogenes Laertius reports on the basis of books
by Speusippus (Funeral Banquet of Plato), Clearchus (Panegyric on Plato,)
and Anaxilides (The second book of his History of Philosophers)
reports that
a pure virgin named Perictone, had been engaged to Ariston
before they had intercourse, she conceived by the influences of the deity Apollo,
and Apollo appeared to Ariston
in a dream
in which Apollo declared to Ariston the divine parentage of the child.
Ariston was stopped from consummating his marriage, and
kept the mother pure from intercourse until she brought forth her son, Plato.
Compare this to:
MATTHEW 1:19 ff.
"...Mary had been engaged to Joseph,
before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
an angel of the Lord appeared to him [i.e. Jopseph]
in a dream,
saying, "...that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." ...
Joseph arose from his sleep,
and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son.
He named him JESUS."
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
25 Apr 2004 02:00:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 08:24:03 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child
===>LOOK, the YOUNG WOMAN IS with child!
Same difference.
and will give birth to a son,
===>and ABOUT TO GIVE BIRTH to a son.
Same difference.
and will call him Immanuel.
===>LET HER NAME HIM Immanuel.
Same difference.
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
Sorry, lib. but Isaiah came 300 years earlier. (740-701BC)
===>You should be sorry, Baby Dukie, with another infantile
declaration! Why?
libby, Isaiah came 300 years before your boy. One's in present tense, and the other in
future tense. It's the same story. You blew-blew-blew it as usual.
THINK: When did Mary call her son "Immanuel"???
Luke 1
32He 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,
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [1] a sign: The virgin will be with child and
will give birth to a son, and [2] will call him Immanuel. [3]
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
Libby, you just screwed the pooch - as usual.
Any other ignorant comments from Baby Dukie??? -- L.
You can't stand the embarrassment, libby.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
25 Apr 2004 06:08:51 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 08:24:03 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child
===>LOOK, the YOUNG WOMAN IS with child!
Same difference.
===>Poor baby! Cannot tell the difference between
"is" and "will be"!
and will give birth to a son,
===>and ABOUT TO GIVE BIRTH to a son.
Same difference.
===>Again, the event is IMMINENT.
A woman ALREADY visibly pregnant is about to go into labor!
and will call him Immanuel.
===>LET HER NAME HIM Immanuel.
Same difference.
===>The stress is on HER calling him IMMANUEL.
The Gospels say something else.
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
Sorry, lib. but Isaiah came 300 years earlier. (740-701BC)
===>You should be sorry, Baby Dukie, with another infantile
declaration! Why?
libby, Isaiah came 300 years before your boy.
===>So, what???
It has nothing to do with it, silly kid!
One's in present tense, and the other in
future tense. It's the same story. You blew-blew-blew it as usual.
THINK: When did Mary call her son "Immanuel"???
Luke 1
32He 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,
===>Which was a LIE, since Jesus never got the throne of David!
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [1] a sign: The virgin will be with child and
will give birth to a son, and [2] will call him Immanuel. [3]
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
===>Looks like you are unable to think, or to give a
direct answer to anything.
AGAIN: When did Mary call her son "Immanuel"???
You're an idiot!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
26 Apr 2004 05:49:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:08:51 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Same difference.
===>Poor baby! Cannot tell the difference between
"is" and "will be"!
Sorry, lib, Plato copied the story from the OT.
===>The stress is on HER calling him IMMANUEL.
The Gospels say something else.
Why "her"? Now you changing your story to hide your shame.
libby, Isaiah came 300 years before your boy.
===>So, what???
It has nothing to do with it, silly kid!
It shows your silliness.
Luke 1
32He 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,
===>Which was a LIE, since Jesus never got the throne of David!
Of course he did. Didn't you know that?
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [1] a sign: The virgin will be with child and
will give birth to a son, and [2] will call him Immanuel. [3]
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
===>Looks like you are unable to think, or to give a
direct answer to anything.
AGAIN: When did Mary call her son "Immanuel"???
She never did. Plato copied the story from Isaiah.
You're an idiot!
Then why am I laughing so hard at you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
26 Apr 2004 08:57:49 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:08:51 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Same difference.
===>Poor baby! Cannot tell the difference between
"is" and "will be"!
Sorry, lib, Plato copied the story from the OT.
===>There's no such story in the OT, Dummkopf!
Nothing to copy!
===>The stress is on HER calling him IMMANUEL.
The Gospels say something else.
Why "her"? Now you changing your story to hide your shame.
===>Changing WHAT story, Stupid?
You lack the honesty to answer the question:
"When did Mary call her son "Immanuel"???"
You quoted Isaiah, saying that the mother was going to name her son
"Immanuel".
Mary NEVER named her son Immanuel.
libby, Isaiah came 300 years before your boy.
===>So, what???
It has nothing to do with it, silly kid!
It shows your silliness.
Luke 1
32He 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,
===>Which was a LIE, since Jesus never got the throne of David!
Of course he did. Didn't you know that?
===>Sure, Stupid.
The Romans had her seated on a "throne", with
a crown of thorns. So, you think that was the
throne of king David?
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [1] a sign: The virgin will be with child and
will give birth to a son, and [2] will call him Immanuel. [3]
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
===>Looks like you are unable to think, or to give a
direct answer to anything.
AGAIN: When did Mary call her son "Immanuel"???
She never did.
===>Thank you.
The verse you claim relates to Jesus says that
the mother
"will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel"
(YOUR QUOTATION).
So, you are forced to admit that had nothing to do with Jesus!
Plato copied the story from Isaiah.
===>Plato did not copy anything.
There was nothing to copy. You are a fool!
You're an idiot!
Then why am I laughing so hard at you?
===>Because you are a FOOL.
Idiots like you are known for your kind of laughter!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: "VIRGIN BIRTH" story copied |
27 Apr 2004 04:37:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 07:57:49 -0600, Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Sorry, lib, Plato copied the story from the OT.
===>There's no such story in the OT, Dummkopf!
Nothing to copy!
Too late - you already blew it.
===>Changing WHAT story, Stupid?
You lack the honesty to answer the question:
"When did Mary call her son "Immanuel"???"
You quoted Isaiah, saying that the mother was going to name her son
"Immanuel".
Mary NEVER named her son Immanuel.
Of course not. The point is totally over your head. "God with us" is the New Testament
fulfillment of the OT.
===>Which was a LIE, since Jesus never got the throne of David!
Of course he did. Didn't you know that?
===>Sure, Stupid.
The Romans had her seated on a "throne", with
a crown of thorns. So, you think that was the
throne of king David?
What throne?
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [1] a sign: The virgin will be with child and
will give birth to a son, and [2] will call him Immanuel. [3]
Footnotes
7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
===>Looks like you are unable to think, or to give a
direct answer to anything.
AGAIN: When did Mary call her son "Immanuel"???
She never did.
===>Thank you.
The verse you claim relates to Jesus says that
the mother
"will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel"
(YOUR QUOTATION).
Awww, poor lib. You are such a weakling biblically speaking.
So, you are forced to admit that had nothing to do with Jesus!
Not a chance. Jesus is "God become man and is with us".
Plato copied the story from Isaiah.
===>Plato did not copy anything.
There was nothing to copy. You are a fool!
You blew it again, lib.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
24 Apr 2004 06:00:33 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4087EB8B.640527C@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
===>One, much more successful than Jesus, was BAR KOKHBA,
who actually became ruler for a time! He was recognized as "Messiah"
by Rabbi Akiba, who was active in the Bar Kokhba rebellion against
Rome, 132-135 C.E.. He believed that Bar Kokhba was the Moshiach
(Messiah), though some other rabbis openly ridiculed him for that belief
That would tell you why their messianic view has been the erreneous one
because very temporal. This is the point that Christianity is trying to
make regarding the jews reading of the Scriptures and their messianic
expectation.
Now tell me why you think that Bar kokhba fits more than Jesus in the
Mosaic prediction
===>There is no "Mosaic prediction".
But the "Messiah" was to be a liberator king even according to the Gospels.
Jesus could not even liberate himself.
Bar Kokhba did liberate Judaea for a time.
However, the "Messiah" is just a variation on the Zoroastrian idea of
the Saoshyant, a mythical savior figure leading the "Sons of Light" against
AHRIMAN (the "Devil") and the "Sons of Darkness" in the "Last Days".
He will bring about the "resurrection" and the "Judgment Day" with a
conflagration that will engulf the planet Earth. Just like some of the
earliest
universalistic Christians, e.g. Origen, who were declared heretical by the
Roman "orthodoxy", the Zoroastrianism was universalistic, teaching that
even the sins of the damned will be purged in this fire,
and ultimately all shall return in joy to AHURA MAZDA, the GOOD GOD
after the defeat of AHRIMAN.
Although both King Cyrus and Bar Kokhba were declared
Messiahs by people deemed qualified to do so, in fact the whole
idea is a piece of religious fantasy.
Since Jesus did not accomplish either the liberation of the Jews or
the "End Time", Jews cannot possibly think of him as the "Messiah",
and Christians needed to change their "Christos" into one who has
liberated the Gentile believers in Pauline christology and teach a
"second coming" at which time he would do what he could not do
the first time. -- L.
We
===>"WE"???
Liars like you, Duped the Liar???
used to call this frivolous speculation by clueless idiot
but now, some call it scholarship. Everything in the text makes
perfect sense and fit altogether in an amazing manner expect for
you because your ignorance does not want you to see that without
the Mosaic prediction, the controversies between Jews and Christians
about Jesus as the MESSIAH make NO SENSE. You are off base
Now tell me where the prophet that Moses spoke of in Deut 18:15 is:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you the Messiah,
===>KEEP ON LYING!
There is no such verse in Deuteronomy! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Apr 2004 05:17:32 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<408AF191.51DD8441@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4087EB8B.640527C@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
===>One, much more successful than Jesus, was BAR KOKHBA,
who actually became ruler for a time! He was recognized as "Messiah"
by Rabbi Akiba, who was active in the Bar Kokhba rebellion against
Rome, 132-135 C.E.. He believed that Bar Kokhba was the Moshiach
(Messiah), though some other rabbis openly ridiculed him for that belief
That would tell you why their messianic view has been the erreneous one
because very temporal. This is the point that Christianity is trying to
make regarding the jews reading of the Scriptures and their messianic
expectation.
Now tell me why you think that Bar kokhba fits more than Jesus in the
Mosaic prediction
===>There is no "Mosaic prediction".
But the "Messiah" was to be a liberator king even according to the Gospels.
Jesus could not even liberate himself.
Bar Kokhba did liberate Judaea for a time.
However, the "Messiah" is just a variation on the Zoroastrian idea of
the Saoshyant, a mythical savior figure leading the "Sons of Light" against
AHRIMAN (the "Devil") and the "Sons of Darkness" in the "Last Days".
He will bring about the "resurrection" and the "Judgment Day" with a
conflagration that will engulf the planet Earth. Just like some of the
earliest
universalistic Christians, e.g. Origen, who were declared heretical by the
Roman "orthodoxy", the Zoroastrianism was universalistic, teaching that
even the sins of the damned will be purged in this fire,
and ultimately all shall return in joy to AHURA MAZDA, the GOOD GOD
after the defeat of AHRIMAN.
Although both King Cyrus and Bar Kokhba were declared
Messiahs by people deemed qualified to do so, in fact the whole
idea is a piece of religious fantasy.
Since Jesus did not accomplish either the liberation of the Jews or
the "End Time", Jews cannot possibly think of him as the "Messiah",
and Christians needed to change their "Christos" into one who has
liberated the Gentile believers in Pauline christology and teach a
"second coming" at which time he would do what he could not do
the first time. -- L.
We
===>"WE"???
Liars like you, Duped the Liar???
used to call this frivolous speculation by clueless idiot
but now, some call it scholarship. Everything in the text makes
perfect sense and fit altogether in an amazing manner expect for
you because your ignorance does not want you to see that without
the Mosaic prediction, the controversies between Jews and Christians
about Jesus as the MESSIAH make NO SENSE. You are off base
Now tell me where the prophet that Moses spoke of in Deut 18:15 is:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you the Messiah,
===>KEEP ON LYING!
There is no such verse in Deuteronomy! -- L.
Please do tell us who the prophet is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Apr 2004 07:11:31 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<408AF191.51DD8441@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4087EB8B.640527C@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
===>One, much more successful than Jesus, was BAR KOKHBA,
who actually became ruler for a time! He was recognized as "Messiah"
by Rabbi Akiba, who was active in the Bar Kokhba rebellion against
Rome, 132-135 C.E.. He believed that Bar Kokhba was the Moshiach
(Messiah), though some other rabbis openly ridiculed him for that belief
That would tell you why their messianic view has been the erreneous one
because very temporal. This is the point that Christianity is trying to
make regarding the jews reading of the Scriptures and their messianic
expectation.
Now tell me why you think that Bar kokhba fits more than Jesus in the
Mosaic prediction
===>There is no "Mosaic prediction".
But the "Messiah" was to be a liberator king even according to the Gospels.
Jesus could not even liberate himself.
Bar Kokhba did liberate Judaea for a time.
However, the "Messiah" is just a variation on the Zoroastrian idea of
the Saoshyant, a mythical savior figure leading the "Sons of Light" against
AHRIMAN (the "Devil") and the "Sons of Darkness" in the "Last Days".
He will bring about the "resurrection" and the "Judgment Day" with a
conflagration that will engulf the planet Earth. Just like some of the
earliest
universalistic Christians, e.g. Origen, who were declared heretical by the
Roman "orthodoxy", the Zoroastrianism was universalistic, teaching that
even the sins of the damned will be purged in this fire,
and ultimately all shall return in joy to AHURA MAZDA, the GOOD GOD
after the defeat of AHRIMAN.
Although both King Cyrus and Bar Kokhba were declared
Messiahs by people deemed qualified to do so, in fact the whole
idea is a piece of religious fantasy.
Since Jesus did not accomplish either the liberation of the Jews or
the "End Time", Jews cannot possibly think of him as the "Messiah",
and Christians needed to change their "Christos" into one who has
liberated the Gentile believers in Pauline christology and teach a
"second coming" at which time he would do what he could not do
the first time. -- L.
We
===>"WE"???
Liars like you, Duped the Liar???
used to call this frivolous speculation by clueless idiot
but now, some call it scholarship. Everything in the text makes
perfect sense and fit altogether in an amazing manner expect for
you because your ignorance does not want you to see that without
the Mosaic prediction, the controversies between Jews and Christians
about Jesus as the MESSIAH make NO SENSE. You are off base
Now tell me where the prophet that Moses spoke of in Deut 18:15 is:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you the Messiah,
===>KEEP ON LYING!
There is no such verse in Deuteronomy! -- L.
Please do tell us who the prophet is.
===>NO ONE.
It just one of those false promises found throughout the literature
compiled in the Bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Apr 2004 04:14:24 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<408AF191.51DD8441@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4087EB8B.640527C@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
===>One, much more successful than Jesus, was BAR KOKHBA,
who actually became ruler for a time! He was recognized as "Messiah"
by Rabbi Akiba, who was active in the Bar Kokhba rebellion against
Rome, 132-135 C.E.. He believed that Bar Kokhba was the Moshiach
(Messiah), though some other rabbis openly ridiculed him for that belief
That would tell you why their messianic view has been the erreneous one
because very temporal. This is the point that Christianity is trying to
make regarding the jews reading of the Scriptures and their messianic
expectation.
Now tell me why you think that Bar kokhba fits more than Jesus in the
Mosaic prediction
===>There is no "Mosaic prediction".
But the "Messiah" was to be a liberator king even according to the Gospels.
Jesus could not even liberate himself.
Bar Kokhba did liberate Judaea for a time.
However, the "Messiah" is just a variation on the Zoroastrian idea of
the Saoshyant, a mythical savior figure leading the "Sons of Light" against
AHRIMAN (the "Devil") and the "Sons of Darkness" in the "Last Days".
He will bring about the "resurrection" and the "Judgment Day" with a
conflagration that will engulf the planet Earth. Just like some of the
earliest
universalistic Christians, e.g. Origen, who were declared heretical by the
Roman "orthodoxy", the Zoroastrianism was universalistic, teaching that
even the sins of the damned will be purged in this fire,
and ultimately all shall return in joy to AHURA MAZDA, the GOOD GOD
after the defeat of AHRIMAN.
Although both King Cyrus and Bar Kokhba were declared
Messiahs by people deemed qualified to do so, in fact the whole
idea is a piece of religious fantasy.
Since Jesus did not accomplish either the liberation of the Jews or
the "End Time", Jews cannot possibly think of him as the "Messiah",
and Christians needed to change their "Christos" into one who has
liberated the Gentile believers in Pauline christology and teach a
"second coming" at which time he would do what he could not do
the first time. -- L.
We
===>"WE"???
Liars like you, Duped the Liar???
used to call this frivolous speculation by clueless idiot
but now, some call it scholarship. Everything in the text makes
perfect sense and fit altogether in an amazing manner expect for
you because your ignorance does not want you to see that without
the Mosaic prediction, the controversies between Jews and Christians
about Jesus as the MESSIAH make NO SENSE. You are off base
Now tell me where the prophet that Moses spoke of in Deut 18:15 is:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you the Messiah,
===>KEEP ON LYING!
There is no such verse in Deuteronomy! -- L.
You just don't know any better...
But tell me on what scriptural groung was Bar Kolba anointed as the Messiah
by the High Priest?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Apr 2004 06:10:41 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<408AF191.51DD8441@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4087EB8B.640527C@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
===>One, much more successful than Jesus, was BAR KOKHBA,
who actually became ruler for a time! He was recognized as "Messiah"
by Rabbi Akiba, who was active in the Bar Kokhba rebellion against
Rome, 132-135 C.E.. He believed that Bar Kokhba was the Moshiach
(Messiah), though some other rabbis openly ridiculed him for that belief
That would tell you why their messianic view has been the erreneous one
because very temporal. This is the point that Christianity is trying to
make regarding the jews reading of the Scriptures and their messianic
expectation.
Now tell me why you think that Bar kokhba fits more than Jesus in the
Mosaic prediction
===>There is no "Mosaic prediction".
But the "Messiah" was to be a liberator king even according to the Gospels.
Jesus could not even liberate himself.
Bar Kokhba did liberate Judaea for a time.
However, the "Messiah" is just a variation on the Zoroastrian idea of
the Saoshyant, a mythical savior figure leading the "Sons of Light" against
AHRIMAN (the "Devil") and the "Sons of Darkness" in the "Last Days".
He will bring about the "resurrection" and the "Judgment Day" with a
conflagration that will engulf the planet Earth. Just like some of the
earliest
universalistic Christians, e.g. Origen, who were declared heretical by the
Roman "orthodoxy", the Zoroastrianism was universalistic, teaching that
even the sins of the damned will be purged in this fire,
and ultimately all shall return in joy to AHURA MAZDA, the GOOD GOD
after the defeat of AHRIMAN.
Although both King Cyrus and Bar Kokhba were declared
Messiahs by people deemed qualified to do so, in fact the whole
idea is a piece of religious fantasy.
Since Jesus did not accomplish either the liberation of the Jews or
the "End Time", Jews cannot possibly think of him as the "Messiah",
and Christians needed to change their "Christos" into one who has
liberated the Gentile believers in Pauline christology and teach a
"second coming" at which time he would do what he could not do
the first time. -- L.
We
===>"WE"???
Liars like you, Duped the Liar???
used to call this frivolous speculation by clueless idiot
but now, some call it scholarship. Everything in the text makes
perfect sense and fit altogether in an amazing manner expect for
you because your ignorance does not want you to see that without
the Mosaic prediction, the controversies between Jews and Christians
about Jesus as the MESSIAH make NO SENSE. You are off base
Now tell me where the prophet that Moses spoke of in Deut 18:15 is:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you the Messiah,
===>KEEP ON LYING!
There is no such verse in Deuteronomy! -- L.
===>Where does it say that YHWH called king Saul "my messiah"???
ADMIT YOU'RE A LIAR!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
20 Apr 2004 06:51:13 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0404111508.30471038@posting.google.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
Hidden in your response is an admission that Psalm 16
has nothing to do with a Messiah or a resurrection.
"...You must understand this in the first place, that no
prophecy in Scripture can be understood through one's
own intellectual powers, for no prophecy ever originated
in the human will, but under the influence of the Holy
Spirit men spoke for God." 2 Peter 1:20
In which case, why have the prophecy to begin with? They would
be useless.
I suspect that pseudo-Peter wrote that only as an excuse for the
prophecies not coming out as written.
As I said I will stick to the Apostolic interpretation and
built on that foundation, don't count on me to build a new
foundation to match the fancy of the erring scholars.
Which means that you don't know if the apostles were inspired by
the Holy Spirit, or were absolute frauds, but you are going to
believe them anyway.
And you say that you're Not-easily-duped.
===>NOT ANY MORE!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
11 Apr 2004 10:02:50 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0404111508.30471038@posting.google.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
Hidden in your response is an admission that Psalm 16
has nothing to do with a Messiah or a resurrection.
"...You must understand this in the first place, that no
prophecy in Scripture can be understood through one's
own intellectual powers, for no prophecy ever originated
in the human will, but under the influence of the Holy
Spirit men spoke for God." 2 Peter 1:20
In which case, why have the prophecy to begin with? They would
be useless.
I suspect that pseudo-Peter wrote that only as an excuse for the
prophecies not coming out as written.
===>Not just that, but as a follower of Saul/Paul,
he was totally embarrassed that the prophecies
of Saul/Paul, regarding to imminent coming of CHRISTOS
and the end of death never happened, even Saul/Paul himself
was no doubt dead by then.
2 Peter can be best understood
in the light of that embarrassment.-- L.
As I said I will stick to the Apostolic interpretation and
built on that foundation, don't count on me to build a new
foundation to match the fancy of the erring scholars.
Which means that you don't know if the apostles were inspired by
the Holy Spirit, or were absolute frauds, but you are going to
believe them anyway.
And you say that you're Not-easily-duped.
--
Wax
Will you speak falsely for God,
and speak deceitfully for him?
Job 13:7
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
12 Apr 2004 09:19:26 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<407A06DA.B801ED4F@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0404111508.30471038@posting.google.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
Hidden in your response is an admission that Psalm 16
has nothing to do with a Messiah or a resurrection.
"...You must understand this in the first place, that no
prophecy in Scripture can be understood through one's
own intellectual powers, for no prophecy ever originated
in the human will, but under the influence of the Holy
Spirit men spoke for God." 2 Peter 1:20
In which case, why have the prophecy to begin with? They would
be useless.
I suspect that pseudo-Peter wrote that only as an excuse for the
prophecies not coming out as written.
===>Not just that, but as a follower of Saul/Paul,
he was totally embarrassed that the prophecies
of Saul/Paul, regarding to imminent coming of CHRISTOS
and the end of death never happened, even Saul/Paul himself
was no doubt dead by then.
2 Peter can be best understood
in the light of that embarrassment.-- L.
2 Peter also gives credits to the same Paul that you now deride.
How do you explain that?
As I said I will stick to the Apostolic interpretation and
built on that foundation, don't count on me to build a new
foundation to match the fancy of the erring scholars.
Which means that you don't know if the apostles were inspired by
the Holy Spirit, or were absolute frauds, but you are going to
believe them anyway.
And you say that you're Not-easily-duped.
--
Wax
Will you speak falsely for God,
and speak deceitfully for him?
Job 13:7
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
20 Apr 2004 07:12:30 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<407A06DA.B801ED4F@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0404111508.30471038@posting.google.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
Hidden in your response is an admission that Psalm 16
has nothing to do with a Messiah or a resurrection.
"...You must understand this in the first place, that no
prophecy in Scripture can be understood through one's
own intellectual powers, for no prophecy ever originated
in the human will, but under the influence of the Holy
Spirit men spoke for God." 2 Peter 1:20
In which case, why have the prophecy to begin with? They would
be useless.
I suspect that pseudo-Peter wrote that only as an excuse for the
prophecies not coming out as written.
===>Not just that, but as a follower of Saul/Paul,
he was totally embarrassed that the prophecies
of Saul/Paul, regarding to imminent coming of CHRISTOS
and the end of death never happened, even Saul/Paul himself
was no doubt dead by then.
2 Peter can be best understood
in the light of that embarrassment.-- L.
2 Peter also gives credits to the same Paul that you now deride.
How do you explain that?
===>By the fact that you have been duped into believing
it was written by Peter. Saul/Paul was already DEAD!
The author is simply telling his readers not to take the Pauline
teachings seriously, since obviously the "appearing" did not
happen, but to use the new interpretations given by himself
and keep on hoping!
He is just like our Millerite Adventists and
Jehovah's Witnesses of the 19th-21st Centuries.
The explanation is found in Leon Festinger's study of
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
(SEE: "WHEN PROPHECY FAILS") -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
12 Apr 2004 09:02:53 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<407A06DA.B801ED4F@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0404111508.30471038@posting.google.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
Hidden in your response is an admission that Psalm 16
has nothing to do with a Messiah or a resurrection.
"...You must understand this in the first place, that no
prophecy in Scripture can be understood through one's
own intellectual powers, for no prophecy ever originated
in the human will, but under the influence of the Holy
Spirit men spoke for God." 2 Peter 1:20
In which case, why have the prophecy to begin with? They would
be useless.
I suspect that pseudo-Peter wrote that only as an excuse for the
prophecies not coming out as written.
===>Not just that, but as a follower of Saul/Paul,
he was totally embarrassed that the prophecies
of Saul/Paul, regarding to imminent coming of CHRISTOS
and the end of death never happened, even Saul/Paul himself
was no doubt dead by then.
2 Peter can be best understood
in the light of that embarrassment.-- L.
How this qualifies Cyrus as the Messiah as you said before?
As I said I will stick to the Apostolic interpretation and
built on that foundation, don't count on me to build a new
foundation to match the fancy of the erring scholars.
Which means that you don't know if the apostles were inspired by
the Holy Spirit, or were absolute frauds, but you are going to
believe them anyway.
And you say that you're Not-easily-duped.
--
Wax
Will you speak falsely for God,
and speak deceitfully for him?
Job 13:7
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
20 Apr 2004 06:54:43 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<407A06DA.B801ED4F@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0404111508.30471038@posting.google.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
Hidden in your response is an admission that Psalm 16
has nothing to do with a Messiah or a resurrection.
"...You must understand this in the first place, that no
prophecy in Scripture can be understood through one's
own intellectual powers, for no prophecy ever originated
in the human will, but under the influence of the Holy
Spirit men spoke for God." 2 Peter 1:20
In which case, why have the prophecy to begin with? They would
be useless.
I suspect that pseudo-Peter wrote that only as an excuse for the
prophecies not coming out as written.
===>Not just that, but as a follower of Saul/Paul,
he was totally embarrassed that the prophecies
of Saul/Paul, regarding to imminent coming of CHRISTOS
and the end of death never happened, even Saul/Paul himself
was no doubt dead by then.
2 Peter can be best understood
in the light of that embarrassment.-- L.
How this qualifies Cyrus as the Messiah as you said before?
===>Typical inane question, designed to distract.
It does not.
YHWH HIMSELF calls him his "Messiah", according to
Isaiah 45:1.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
21 Apr 2004 10:21:47 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<93806705772ddf65aa000d56b0437b4c@news.teranews.com>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<407A06DA.B801ED4F@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0404111508.30471038@posting.google.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
Hidden in your response is an admission that Psalm 16
has nothing to do with a Messiah or a resurrection.
"...You must understand this in the first place, that no
prophecy in Scripture can be understood through one's
own intellectual powers, for no prophecy ever originated
in the human will, but under the influence of the Holy
Spirit men spoke for God." 2 Peter 1:20
In which case, why have the prophecy to begin with? They would
be useless.
I suspect that pseudo-Peter wrote that only as an excuse for the
prophecies not coming out as written.
===>Not just that, but as a follower of Saul/Paul,
he was totally embarrassed that the prophecies
of Saul/Paul, regarding to imminent coming of CHRISTOS
and the end of death never happened, even Saul/Paul himself
was no doubt dead by then.
2 Peter can be best understood
in the light of that embarrassment.-- L.
How this qualifies Cyrus as the Messiah as you said before?
===>Typical inane question, designed to distract.
It does not.
YHWH HIMSELF calls him his "Messiah", according to
Isaiah 45:1.
I have telling you that Yahweh also called Saul by the same name
how about that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
21 Apr 2004 02:29:00 PM |
|
|
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
I have telling you that Yahweh also called Saul by the
same name how about that?
In general, any king or high priest, in Israel can be called a
messiah. However, we are not talking about "a messiah", we are
referring to "THE messiah". This expression refers to a king
who would restore the kingdom of Israel. The kingdom was
restored with Cyrus' decree permitting the Jews to return.
Therefore, Cyrus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Obviously,
Jesus did not restore the kingdom of Israel.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
22 Apr 2004 09:47:57 AM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<0Yzhc.7566$_o3.251032@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
I have telling you that Yahweh also called Saul by the
same name how about that?
In general, any king or high priest, in Israel can be called a
messiah. However, we are not talking about "a messiah", we are
referring to "THE messiah". This expression refers to a king
who would restore the kingdom of Israel. The kingdom was
restored with Cyrus' decree permitting the Jews to return.
Therefore, Cyrus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Obviously,
Jesus did not restore the kingdom of Israel.
Where is this grounded in the Scriptures and
What messianic prophecy are you referring to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
22 Apr 2004 04:54:46 PM |
|
|
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote > > >
I have telling you that Yahweh also called Saul by the
same name how about that?
In general, any king or high priest, in Israel can be called
a
messiah. However, we are not talking about "a messiah",
we are referring to "THE messiah". This expression
refers to a king who would restore the kingdom of Israel.
The kingdom was restored with Cyrus' decree permitting
the Jews to return. Therefore, Cyrus fulfilled the messianic
prophecies. Obviously, Jesus did not restore the kingdom
of Israel.
Where is this grounded in the Scriptures and
What messianic prophecy are you referring to?
As far as the messianic prophecy goes. Try reading Isaiah 9:1-7,
Micah 5:2-5a, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Ezekiel 34:23-24, and other
places. You can see that these messianic prophecies all refer to
the re-establishment of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
The title "messiah" merely means "anointed". The practice of
anointing has a long history and was common throughout the middle
east. Basically, the word merely means "to apply oil on". Done
in religious ceremonies, the purpose was to sanctify or
consecrate the person, image, or object being anointed. It was
commonly done to idols to give them the essence of a god. In
fact the first reference to anointing found in the Bible is in
Genesis 28:18 where Jacob sets up a stone and pours oil on top of
it (see also Gen 31:13.)
In Leviticus 8:10-13, Moses anoints the tabernacle, the altar,
the vessels and wash basin, everything else in the tabernacle and
then anoints Aaron as priest.
David is anointed several times. The first time at 1 Samuel
16:13 and then states, "the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David
from that day onwards." In 2 Samuel 4, he is anointed king over
Judah.
It is David himself who refers to Saul as "the LORD's anointed"
(2 Samuel 1:13). I know of no place where Yahweh himself calls
Saul his anointed. But the text does have Yahweh referring to
David as being anointed:
Psalm 89:20
I have discovered David, my servant.
With my holy oil I have anointed him as king.
Regardless of what is said in Acts 4, the anointed in Psalm 2
refers to no one else but David:
Acts 2:2
The kings of the earth form a united front;
the rulers collaborate
against the Lord and against his anointed one.
Then David is then quoted as saying:
2:7 The king says, "I will tell you what the LORD
decreed. He said to me:
'You are my son! This very day I have become your father!
The father-son relationship was established by the "Nathan
prophecy"when Yahweh says of David:
2 Samuel 7:14
I will become his father and he will become my son.
Solomon is anointed king in 1 Kings 1:39 and the other kings of
Judah and Israel were likewise anointed, although it is not
always so stated.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
22 Apr 2004 11:34:02 AM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<0Yzhc.7566$_o3.251032@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
I have telling you that Yahweh also called Saul by the
same name how about that?
In general, any king or high priest, in Israel can be called a
messiah. However, we are not talking about "a messiah", we are
referring to "THE messiah". This expression refers to a king
who would restore the kingdom of Israel. The kingdom was
restored with Cyrus' decree permitting the Jews to return.
Therefore, Cyrus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Obviously,
Jesus did not restore the kingdom of Israel.
Where is this grounded in the Scriptures and
What messianic prophecy are you referring to?
===>Read Isaiah 44-45.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Apr 2004 05:39:46 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4087F3F9.E17D3584@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<0Yzhc.7566$_o3.251032@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
I have telling you that Yahweh also called Saul by the
same name how about that?
In general, any king or high priest, in Israel can be called a
messiah. However, we are not talking about "a messiah", we are
referring to "THE messiah". This expression refers to a king
who would restore the kingdom of Israel. The kingdom was
restored with Cyrus' decree permitting the Jews to return.
Therefore, Cyrus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Obviously,
Jesus did not restore the kingdom of Israel.
Where is this grounded in the Scriptures and
What messianic prophecy are you referring to?
===>Read Isaiah 44-45.
And where is the scriptural ground for your Bar Kolba being the Messiah?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Apr 2004 07:22:01 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4087F3F9.E17D3584@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<0Yzhc.7566$_o3.251032@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
I have telling you that Yahweh also called Saul by the
same name how about that?
In general, any king or high priest, in Israel can be called a
messiah. However, we are not talking about "a messiah", we are
referring to "THE messiah". This expression refers to a king
who would restore the kingdom of Israel. The kingdom was
restored with Cyrus' decree permitting the Jews to return.
Therefore, Cyrus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Obviously,
Jesus did not restore the kingdom of Israel.
Where is this grounded in the Scriptures and
What messianic prophecy are you referring to?
===>Read Isaiah 44-45.
And where is the scriptural ground for your Bar Kolba being the Messiah?
Stop changing the subject, Dummkopf.
And, as I have told you before, there never was any "Bar Kolba".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
22 Apr 2004 11:27:56 AM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
I have telling you that Yahweh also called Saul by the
same name how about that?
In general, any king or high priest, in Israel can be called a
messiah. However, we are not talking about "a messiah", we are
referring to "THE messiah". This expression refers to a king
who would restore the kingdom of Israel. The kingdom was
restored with Cyrus' decree permitting the Jews to return.
Therefore, Cyrus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Obviously,
Jesus did not restore the kingdom of Israel.
===>DUPED THE LIAR cannot show that YHWH calls king
Saul "MY MESSIAH".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Apr 2004 05:50:27 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4087F28C.550FDC97@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
I have telling you that Yahweh also called Saul by the
same name how about that?
In general, any king or high priest, in Israel can be called a
messiah. However, we are not talking about "a messiah", we are
referring to "THE messiah". This expression refers to a king
who would restore the kingdom of Israel. The kingdom was
restored with Cyrus' decree permitting the Jews to return.
Therefore, Cyrus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Obviously,
Jesus did not restore the kingdom of Israel.
===>DUPED THE LIAR cannot show that YHWH calls king
Saul "MY MESSIAH".
You don't know that Messiah, Anointed, Chosen One are all synonymous
otherwise you would not embarass yourself.
You are an idiot
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
