Can Christians Ever Answer WHY?

[Meriweather]

Meri,
so you admit knowing what the word anointed translates to so what's your excuse with Ezekiel 28 only selectively placing Jesus in scripture whereby you admitted they do often falaciously, but chose to change that standard everytimevit reveals Jesus fulfills Lucifer prophecy.

Your reference to Ezekiel 28 continues to puzzle me. In this chapter, God is clearly addressing Ezekiel by the term, "Son of man" (ben Adam) instead of using his given name of Ezekiel. I do not place Jesus in Ezekiel. Where do you see him?

By turns you seem to be accusing Jesus of being Yehudah, Theudas, Krishna, Lucifer, and now Ezekiel? The first four are not even mentioned in scripture. Ezekiel flat out says that God is addressing him as Son of Adam or Son of Man instead of by his given name of Ezekiel.

Just as Jesus was not the only one anointed to accomplish a certain purpose, nor was he the only one in scripture referenced as Son of Man or ben Adam.

Since Lucifer is not mentioned in scripture, I have no idea what Lucifer prophecy you are speaking of.

By the way, I ignore personal commentary. I am not here to discuss other USMB members, and I have no interest in discussing (or reading about) me. For me, I find it best to focus solely on discussion and opinions of religious beliefs and teachings. Thus far, I have shown why I believe Jesus cannot be Yehudah, Theudas, Krishna, Lucifer, and now Ezekiel. I do not see a proven case that Jesus was any of the above people you have mentioned.

Jesus was simply the person described by the New Testament, Tacitus, and even Josephus. Therefore, I do not see a checkmate, but if you say it is game over, then shall we both move on to other threads?

 

[hortysir]

Meri,
so you admit knowing what the word anointed translates to so what's your excuse with Ezekiel 28 only selectively placing Jesus in scripture whereby you admitted they do often falaciously, but chose to change that standard everytimevit reveals Jesus fulfills Lucifer prophecy.

Your reference to Ezekiel 28 continues to puzzle me. In this chapter, God is clearly addressing Ezekiel by the term, "Son of man" (ben Adam) instead of using his given name of Ezekiel. I do not place Jesus in Ezekiel. Where do you see him?

By turns you seem to be accusing Jesus of being Yehudah, Theudas, Krishna, Lucifer, and now Ezekiel? The first four are not even mentioned in scripture. Ezekiel flat out says that God is addressing him as Son of Adam or Son of Man instead of by his given name of Ezekiel.

Just as Jesus was not the only one anointed to accomplish a certain purpose, nor was he the only one in scripture referenced as Son of Man or ben Adam.

Since Lucifer is not mentioned in scripture, I have no idea what Lucifer prophecy you are speaking of.

By the way, I ignore personal commentary. I am not here to discuss other USMB members, and I have no interest in discussing (or reading about) me. For me, I find it best to focus solely on discussion and opinions of religious beliefs and teachings. Thus far, I have shown why I believe Jesus cannot be Yehudah, Theudas, Krishna, Lucifer, and now Ezekiel. I do not see a proven case that Jesus was any of the above people you have mentioned.

Jesus was simply the person described by the New Testament, Tacitus, and even Josephus. Therefore, I do not see a checkmate, but if you say it is game over, then shall we both move on to other threads?

Jesus was, how ever, mentioned in Joshua

 

[HaShev]

That's not the excuse you made the first few times it was brought up when you shot yourself up and threw Jesus under the bus. Notice that when you lie your lie changes because you forgot your initial excuse? *L*
Caught lying again:
I showed you where the match was in Ezekiel 28=failed attempt to avoid the inevidible by lying and you avoided refuting it, becausr you can't play your game without your king. I liken your replies to that of a child throwing the chess board and pieces to the floor when they lost thier king.
Using your argument against you:
I do not place Jesus in Isaiah 7 or 53 like you admited was falacious too, I do not place Jesus in the OT at all except on accounts of a false prophet imposter messiah.
Where do you see him?
What you avoided was the fact your faith's falacious placements like in Zech 12:10 proves my points and is the cause for your being check mated. And yet you still remain playing (even though it requires you to lie) without your king that you killed (check under the bus).
Still waiting for the anseer as to who your christ is since you denied it being Theudas which is the only christ in the time of Pilate if he existed, your source did not proved did because it had historical and gramatical errors which point to reporting the rehash farce and not historical accurate descriptions.

 

[HaShev]

Hort please give us a source (verses) and why you say that so we can reply. Thanks

 

[Meriweather]

That's not the excuse you made the first few times it was brought up when you shot yourself up and threw Jesus under the bus. Notice that when you lie your lie changes because you forgot your initial excuse? *L*
Caught lying again:
I showed you where the match was in Ezekiel 28=failed attempt to avoid the inevidible by lying and you avoided refuting it, becausr you can't play your game without your king. I liken your replies to that of a child throwing the chess board and pieces to the floor when they lost thier king.
Using your argument against you:
I do not place Jesus in Isaiah 7 or 53 like you admited was falacious too, I do not place Jesus in the OT at all except on accounts of a false prophet imposter messiah.
Where do you see him?
What you avoided was the fact your faith's falacious placements like in Zech 12:10 proves my points and is the cause for your being check mated. And yet you still remain playing (even though it requires you to lie) without your king that you killed (check under the bus).
Still waiting for the anseer as to who your christ is since you denied it being Theudas which is the only christ in the time of Pilate if he existed, your source did not proved did because it had historical and gramatical errors which point to reporting the rehash farce and not historical accurate descriptions.

Once again, you do not know my faith. You seem to draw your conclusions from King James, and I don't read King James. I have told you time and again that I do not believe Jesus was in the Old Testament. My position is that Jesus' life story parallels the history of Israel as it is recorded in the Old Testament.

In Zechariah, God's people were thrust through. In Jesus' life, he was thrust through by the spear of the Roman soldier. Listen: That Jesus' side was pierced by a sword means nothing to people of the Jewish faith, only to those of the Christian faith.

I haven't the faintest idea why you are throwing a tantrum because Christians find meaning that Jesus' life has many parallels with the Old Testament. We are not changing the Old Testament, although it can be argued that poor Christian scholars and worse translators make a good stab at some versions of it. We are not changing the history of Israel. We are not claiming that Jesus was some Old Testament character or even the reincarnation of an Old Testament character. He was his own person who lived in New Testament times.

Perhaps the trouble here is that while you are playing chess and mention other games, I am not playing any game at all. I am offering you a perspective on how many Christians perceive Jesus and the Old Testament. How you can call that a lie is beyond my capacity to understand. It is like me saying, "I saw a beautiful sunset tonight," you maintain I saw an an ugly sunset--and that to call it beautiful makes me a liar.

 

[hortysir]

Hort please give us a source (verses) and why you say that so we can reply. Thanks

Joshua 5:13

 

[HaShev]

Hort thanks I'll check it out later to see why you think that.

Meri, you are talking like a politician and evangelist in that you talk around the subject and keep avoiding the pink elephant in the room.
You forget or did not read my post you formerly replied to regarding Zech 12:10 or you are deceptively playing dumb. Zech 12:10 is about 2 seperate people not one.
One who is pierced but you mourn for another as if he was the one pierced. To claim jesus in that verse eouod be to admit I am right and you confuse christ figures.
That iscehy I said check mate because you no longer have a move, all replies gives up yourcoing andclosescyour former arguments admitting you lied= check mate. By continuing to lie to save face just mskes things worse and proves more on the discussion of affiliation pride.

 

[Meriweather]

Hort thanks I'll check it out later to see why you think that.

Meri, you are talking like a politician and evangelist in that you talk around the subject and keep avoiding the pink elephant in the room.
You forget or did not read my post you formerly replied to regarding Zech 12:10 or you are deceptively playing dumb. Zech 12:10 is about 2 seperate people not one.
One who is pierced but you mourn for another as if he was the one pierced. To claim jesus in that verse eouod be to admit I am right and you confuse christ figures.
That iscehy I said check mate because you no longer have a move, all replies gives up yourcoing andclosescyour former arguments admitting you lied= check mate. By continuing to lie to save face just mskes things worse and proves more on the discussion of affiliation pride.

You are not listening, you are not understanding. You are not seeing. But I thank you for the discussion, such that it was. May God bless you and keep you.

 

[HaShev]

Hort I looked it up, sure you have the right verse csuse nothing in there suggests messianic prophecy nor matches anything.
But I want you to realize something about the Jericho
story. The lady Rahab who helped Joshua was a harlot who was not Jewish and yet when they plagiarized the OT to create Jesus lineage by mentioning all the famous woman in the Bible they placed Jesus in the lineage of all the Harlots including this Rahab who was a non Jew.
-oops! It's one of a few reasons why the RCC is called the Harlot Church.
This crushes Meri's argument that there is no errors nor plagiarism going on while backing my statement that comical blunders show up from doing so and not understanding what you're placing your character in.
*drops the mic and walks out the room arms folded*

 

[HaShev]

you stated:You are not listening, you are not understanding.

You are deflecting your inability to keep straight what you say and what you read, as you've yet to justify all your errors that by the way you found on your own, I merely shined a mirror on what you said so you'd stop being blind to your own standard and logic when used on your own beliefs and claims. Remember you killed Jesus not me. It's you who admited you didn't believe what he said and you've yet to share a historical figure .
You've been arguing over a comic book character all this time.

 

[hortysir]

Hort I looked it up, sure you have the right verse csuse nothing in there suggests messianic prophecy nor matches anything.
But I want you to realize something about the Jericho
story. The lady Rahab who helped Joshua was a harlot who was not Jewish and yet when they plagiarized the OT to create Jesus lineage by mentioning all the famous woman in the Bible they placed Jesus in the lineage of all the Harlots including this Rahab who was a non Jew.
-oops! It's one of a few reasons why the RCC is called the Harlot Church.
This crushes Meri's argument that there is no errors nor plagiarism going on while backing my statement that comical blunders show up from doing so and not understanding what you're placing your character in.
*drops the mic and walks out the room arms folded*

In the book of Joshua, he sees a man approach that tells him to take of his shoes, he's standing on holy ground.
A mere angel wouldn't ask someone to do that.
Notice the priests marched everyday, including the Sabath?
That's because they had the Law with them

 

[HaShev]

Ok you mean into 5:15 the captain of the hosts is always Michael.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why could your god not save himself, his apostles, nor his followers?
Why did your god say he had a G0d?
Why would he argue with himself and ask why did he forsake himself? Split personality?
Why could he not deliver on his promises?
Why would your god choose to heal only a few followers instead of all?
Why does your god have handicap parking spaces at his churches if he did come to heal all?
Why does your god have cemetaries and hospitals in his name?
Why does your god try to convert Jews away from YHWH if he is one in the same and why does he switch names and birthdates and eras to suit your stories?
Why would your god say he was the nemesis of the hebrew God (Rev 22;16) if they are the same?
Why would your god say he was Lucifer the one placed higher then G0d?
Why can't Priests/Pastors/Followers answer the most basic question:
Who is the historical christ you are calling Jesus? So simple yet 1 out of a hundred ever answer it.

Because religion and 'god' are creations of man, where there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.

 

[HaShev]

Agree but was the intent of Judaism a deity or an essence/nature since the sages taught:
God (source &power of life) was not a man, nor form, was not to be anthropromorphized or carry a name (only definitions of this essence seen as names).
Thus the sages write in reflection and manifestation of this essence (inspired by their form of the force in life).
The intent is so mankind learns and progresses from it's past. THE HOLY CITY TELLS US ALL
The Gemarah (Baba Batra 75) Tells us Jerusalem is named after G0D and is the place commemorating his name and essence. In Sefer D’varim (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; 14:23,24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11).the place that I will choose to place My Name. That is referring to YeruShalem because Sifri identifies the place which Hashem will choose (12:18) as “Yerushalayim”.
Shalem means completeness and wholeness
aka to evolve to all we could and should be.
The intent was in the age of idol worship was to bring man into a transhumanist ideology whereby we relied on our hands repairing this world to what it could and should be, instead of relying on idols and magic fairies to just hand us what we could never deserve.

 

[Penelope]

Meri I say your because you have another precept that's forbiden. You have a physical form, an idol.
Your faith proves it's another by spending millions trying to convert Jews instead of non believers.
When people like the forum poster Jeremiah tries to sway
people away from Yhwh and over to zjesus and lift This idol over God then they prove it's not the same.
Basically you're still Baal worshipers and because you gave it a new name doesn't make it any different then the harvest seed hustlers of old.

The Hebrews in the OT worshipped many Gods, they were not monotheistic. Yahweh is a Hebrew tribal war God, nothing more. Volcano God. Also the OT writers too much from others before them, changed names and the stories to suit them.

 

[HaShev]

Lot of what you learn ends up being missinfornation and propaganda by atheists, so you have to fact check info or be only as good as the info feed to you.
The Yhwh and Shalem and Ra words can be the same as worshi0ed beings, but the meaning changes because they used the term Yhwh to be "the one who causes to be" a defined word not an entity. Shalem was Canaanite god but the term was used to denote compketeness and wholeness. Ra was a word meaning father in heaven
not to be confused with or term the Egyptian sun god.
Even Baal meant lord and had nothing to do with the mythology. Why they redefined cultural words is beyond me except maybe they took the familiar and tried to reshape their oerceptions snd logics into a reality sense uding definition rather then anthropromorphization.

 

[Penelope]

Lot of what you learn ends up being missinfornation and propaganda by atheists, so you have to fact check info or be only as good as the info feed to you.
The Yhwh and Shalem and Ra words can be the same as worshi0ed beings, but the meaning changes because they used the term Yhwh to be "the one who causes to be" a defined word not an entity. Shalem was Canaanite god but the term was used to denote compketeness and wholeness. Ra was a word meaning father in heaven
not to be confused with or term the Egyptian sun god.
Even Baal meant lord and had nothing to do with the mythology. Why they redefined cultural words is beyond me except maybe they took the familiar and tried to reshape their oerceptions snd logics into a reality sense uding definition rather then anthropromorphization.

Yahweh is a Hebrew cult god, a God they invoked to win a battle.

 

[Penelope]

The Hebrews were never monotheistic until the Persian influence in Babylon.

 

[HaShev]

1) Look up the term Yhwh in Hebrew=
"He Will Cause To Be"
first off Y is H sound so transliteration is wrong. Would be like saying Hiyah!
Yhwh is not the sole term used for the Hebrew God as I showed and you ignored.
I also told you that the many definitions (names) either derived from cultural terms or became the common word for god in general.
Like El was a Canaanite god, but became used as a word for God in General. Baal was a harvest god but the word became used for meaning Lord. Ra was a Egyption sun god but the word became used to mean father in heaven. Why can't you recognize cultures use similar words but have their own meaning?
I'd hate to see how you handle the name for cigs in England, because according to your logic San Francisco is full of Cigarettes. *lol*

2) the name in the bush was "I am what will be" (because it was a verb). The speaker was not God since God has no voice and the term used gave the clue where the message came from (the time to be). That's if you believe it truly occured which I'm guessing you don't through your poor use of propaganda.
Your propaganda is useless when it's derived from those who know nothing about Judaism or Hebrew meaning of words. It just makes you look foolish and uneducated and gullible being taken by those who sold you their hate speach.

 

[Penelope]

Look up Yahweh in Wiki. Or better yet read:


While Cyrus the Persian allowed the Judaeans to return to their homeland in 538 BC, most chose to remain in Babylon. A large number of Jews in Egypt became mercenaries in Upper Egypt on an island called the Elephantine. All of these Jews retained their religion, identity, and social customs; both under the Persians and the Greeks, they were allowed to run their lives under their own laws. Some converted to other religions; still others combined the Yahweh cult with local cults; but the majority clung to the Hebraic religion and its new-found core document, the Torah.

The Diaspora Jewish Virtual Library

Cult, and the Torah was not wrote till after the exile , also most of you go by the Babylon Talmud, which is very nasty full of hatred for the goy.