Zone1 The Second Coming of Christ

[hobelim]

I'm pretty happy with this exchange.

Sure you are. lol.

What you have intended for evil, God is using for good.

Oh boy! You have been reduced into spewing prepackaged one liners you learned by rote.

Whats next?

You can do all things through Christ who strengthens you? lol. Sure you can do anything in your unrestrained imagination, except accepting the truth. You have not eaten the flesh of Jesus nor drank his blood. You have wasted your precious time on earth pandering to a lie.


If you had any class you would thank me because you still have time left on earth to repent.

 

[hobelim]

Yes. It's quite powerful.

Of course it is. Imagination can be a powerful thing. The only problem is that you have neglected to restrain your imagination with reality. Thats why you are so confused that you can't understand English or what Jesus meant by saying ,"Eat my flesh". So instead...

 

[ding]

You can do all things through Christ who strengthens you?

Why do you keep deleting your posts and then re-posting them?

Yes. It's quite powerful.

 

[ding]

Of course it is. Imagination can be a powerful thing. The only problem is that you have neglected to restrain your imagination with reality. Thats why you are so confused you can't understand English or what Jesus meant by saying ,"Eat my flesh". So instead...

View attachment 1202603

You seem pretty wound up.

 

[hobelim]

You seem pretty wound up.

 

[ding]

I agree, it is funny that you think Paul's letters prove your conspiracy theory that Paul was a shill for Rome, hated Jesus and was a guilt ridden self loathing masochistic homophobic misogynist.

 

[alang1216]

My point is that there wasn't a more credible witness than Paul

Paul never met Jesus so everything he knew about him was second hand so he was less than credible. I guess you could use his encounter on the road to say he had first hand knowledge of Jesus but, however much he believed in it, I don't give it much high marks for credibility.

What evidence or reason do you believe Paul didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Then I want you to compare your reasons to my reasons and let me know which one is more credible.

What part of "I don't doubt that Paul honestly believed in the resurrection of Jesus" has confused you?

 

[Hafar1014]

Paul never met Jesus so everything he knew about him was second hand so he was less than credible. I guess you could use his encounter on the road to say he had first hand knowledge of Jesus but, however much he believed in it, I don't give it much high marks for credibility.


What part of "I don't doubt that Paul honestly believed in the resurrection of Jesus" has confused you?

He made it all up 60 years after Jesus the man died

 

[ding]

Paul never met Jesus so everything he knew about him was second hand so he was less than credible. I guess you could use his encounter on the road to say he had first hand knowledge of Jesus but, however much he believed in it, I don't give it much high marks for credibility.

Not according to Paul. According to Paul he met the risen Christ. According to Paul he was filled with the Holy Spirit. Which perfectly explains why he would risk his life and soul to spread the good news.

What part of "I don't doubt that Paul honestly believed in the resurrection of Jesus" has confused you?

The part where you explained why Paul believed so strongly that Jesus was God that he would risk his life and soul to spread the good news.

 

[alang1216]

Then how did he come to believe all the things he wrote about Jesus?

The Holy Spirit.

I guess you answered your own question.

 

[alang1216]

He made it all up 60 years after Jesus the man died

I doubt anyone ever made up a religion, they are always an offshoot of an existing one, a cult.

 

[alang1216]

Peter said it, Jesus confirmed it. Quit talking out of your ass. You have nothing to offer here.

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

Feel free to ignore me in the future since you don't seem to have anything to offer.

 

[hobelim]

I agree, it is funny that you think Paul's letters prove your conspiracy theory that Paul was a shill for Rome, hated Jesus and was a guilt ridden self loathing masochistic homophobic misogynist.

I think its funny you believe the conversion on the road to Damascus story. I'm sure the disciples got a good chuckle watching Paul fumble around pretending to be blind and then pretending to be cured by Jesus knowing that Jesus healed a blindness of perception, not sight.

What then?

 

[Hafar1014]

I doubt anyone ever made up a religion, they are always an offshoot of an existing one, a cult.

They are all made up thats why there are so many

 

[alang1216]

You see alang1216 , this is why you can't prove conspiracy, there is no evidence because it never happened. Just like there was no embellishment because that never happened either.

You're the one who cries 'conspiracy', I never used that term. As for embellishments, the OT and NT are filled with them, as you well know.

 

[alang1216]

Not according to Paul. According to Paul he met the risen Christ. According to Paul he was filled with the Holy Spirit. Which perfectly explains why he would risk his life and soul to spread the good news.

OK, but that can neither be proved nor disproved.

The part where you explained why Paul believed so strongly that Jesus was God that he would risk his life and soul to spread the good news.

Religious zeal. It can make people do surprising things, e.g., fly planes into buildings.

 

[buttercup]

That is theoretically impossible, according to Jewish faith.
You are citing the king james version, which is not correct.

B. Isaiah 9:6 — “Mighty God, Everlasting Father”​

This is the biggest point of disagreement.

Christian reading:​

The child is divine because he is called “Mighty God.”

Jewish reading:​

The Hebrew grammar is different than English translations.Jewish translations read it as:


In other words:

• God is giving the name
• The child is not being called God
• The titles describe God, not the child

This reading is consistent with:

• Jewish grammar
• Ancient Jewish commentaries
• The fact that no other biblical king is ever called God

That wasn't the KJV, it was the new NKJV, but that doesn't matter because I checked a ton of different versions, and they all say the same thing.

It appears that you copy / pasted that, do you have a link for where you got that from? Because it sounds to me like it's from one of those Jewish counter-missionary sites, the kind that go out of their way to try to refute Christianity and any prophetic scriptures that point to Jesus.

I just looked into this a bit, and it turns out that not all Jewish translations of the Tanakh re-arranged the words in the way your source shows. There are some Jewish translations that have basically the same sentence structure as standard Christian bibles. Which clearly shows that the names in that passage were about the CHILD.

Furthermore, it can't be about King Hezekiah (or any human being) because when you read the whole passage, it speaks about His Kingdom having no end and peace with no end... and obviously King Hezekiah's kingdom came to an end, and there is no peace yet. It's clearly speaking about a Messiah that is not a normal human being.

I might add more to this later, but for now I just wanted to do a quicker reply.

 

[hobelim]

You see alang1216 , this is why you can't prove conspiracy, there is no evidence because it never happened. Just like there was no embellishment because that never happened either.

You do know conspiracies happen all the time and many are ongoing right now, don't you?

As if the Romans had no vested interest in conspiring with Paul to bury the teachings of Jesus under a mountain of blasphemy upon which your Roman church sits like a dragon.

 

[TNHarley]

That wasn't the KJV, it was the new NKJV, but that doesn't matter because I checked a ton of different versions, and they all say the same thing.

It appears that you copy / pasted that, do you have a link for where you got that from? Because it sounds to me like it's from one of those Jewish counter-missionary sites, the kind that go out of their way to try to refute Christianity and any prophetic scriptures that point to Jesus.

I just looked into this a bit, and it turns out that not all Jewish translations of the Tanakh re-arranged the words in the way your source shows. There are some Jewish translations that have basically the same sentence structure as standard Christian bibles. Which clearly shows that the names in that passage were about the CHILD.

Furthermore, it can't be about King Hezekiah (or any human being) because when you read the whole passage, it speaks about His Kingdom having no end and peace with no end... and obviously King Hezekiah's kingdom came to an end, and there is no peace yet. It's clearly speaking about a Messiah that is not a normal human being.

I might add more to this later, but for now I just wanted to do a quicker reply.

It was AI

 

[Quantrill]

Do you really have no clue how incoherent this post is? No inkling at all that your bullshit has already been irrevocably extirpated? Thats a shame!

You do have my condolences.

I showed you what the Bible says. You don't show shit. Because you don't have shit. All you got is you. And, that aint shit.

I don't care for your 'condolences'. They are just more of your bullshit.

Answer my questions. Who is your god? What is his name? Can he write? Has he written anything? Is the Bible the only written Word of God? Is Jesus Christ the only Son of God and Saviour?

You see, as everyone else does, you're a fake. A phony. Full of shit.

Quantrill