Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which just happens to be in the heartland of the Samaritan territory. Curious indeed (not!). There were other routes to Jerusalem. Via Jericho, for example. In fact, many Jews preferred the other routes because of the animosity between them and the Samaritans.
How can you say it doesn't exist in Hebrew scripture when the clues are derived from Psalm 90:4? This passage is quoted by the rabbis in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a. Where else do you think they got the idea from?False. Again."A day of a thousand years" does not exist in Hebrew scripture. I already explained this. You did not / could not refute it. If you have something from Jewish scripture to support this then bring it. Otherwise you are just spreading falsehood. Proverbs 13:3, Proverbs 19:9.
The blindness of the Jewish people relates specifically to the Messiah. Once again I turn to my friend Isaiah.False. Again.
Peter's epistles are opinion. What reasons are there to believe it's word of God?
- He never speaks in God's name or in God's voice.
- The vision he supposedly had in Acts 10 describes his god instructing him to break the law of Moses. So, really he's not connected to the same god as Jewish scripture? Thus his epistle is not word of God.
- If you go back to the Gospels, Peter is far from a perfect vessel of faith in Jesus. So, again, **at best** anything coming from Peter is weak evidence because according to the story his faith is inconsistent. He could backslide at anytime.
Per Jewish scripture Peter is a false prophet. He spoke falsehood about The Lord.
- Look closely at 2 Peter 3:8, he is NOT directly quoting scripture. If he were, it would indicated as in 1 Peter 1:6. "διότι περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ ... " "There contained in scripture ..." If it's not a direct quote, then Peter's assertion about days and years is opinion, not scripture.
Deut 13:6 And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.Where does Peter speak falsehood?
But the Lord doesn't share glory... Isaiah 42:8
8 I am the Lord, that is My Name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to the graven images.But, if a person ignores ( or is blind
- 2 Peter 3:8 does NOT provide a direct equivalence 1 day = 1000 years. Look at the text. It is using a simile, a poetic device. The verse says "one day with the Lord is LIKE [ὡς] a thousand years, and a thousand years are LIKE [ὡς] day one". So you cant use this verse to do any date-math.
So again, at best 2 Peter 3:8 is weak evidence that 1 day = 1000 years. You're still stuck with a weak argument in this debate. So much is dependent on one word "day". Deriving a thousand years for this day is NOT scriptural.
- 2 Peter 3:8 CANNOT be used to interpret Hosea 6:2. Again, look at the text. The condition in Peter's letter is "With God". The speaker in Hosea 6:2 is NOT with God. They are bound, smitten, and in need of healing. So the comment from Peter does not apply here.
Do you have any scriptural reasons to think Jewish people are spiritually blind? You have utterly failed to this point.
And Jesus must have regularly used these other routes. But on this occasion he chose to go through Samaria. My guess is that he followed the leading of the Holy Spirit, in order that this specific meeting might be recorded for posterity.
You are citing the Talmud again. The Talmud refutes Christianity. The Talmud is not scripture. This is a dead end.
Nope. Never anointed. Depending on which Gospel, It's either the wrong oil, the wrong procedure, or both.
yup.
The heart is deceitful above all things... Jer. 17:9
If you have to change the words of scripture to mach your beliefs... guess what? That's not evidence in a sciptural debate. The verse says "ruler IN Israel", your guy wasn't. Micha 5:2 CANNOT be talking about Jesus unless the text is altered.
Easy! What would King David do? Psalms 119. Step by step, one verse at a time.
HA! Show me the scripture that supports that!
It's easy IF you read the verse. Have you done that?
Is the Talmud scripture? Yes or No?
It doesn't matter. Psalms 90:4 doesn't fit with Hosea 6:2. 2 Peter 3:8 doesn't fit with Hosea 6:2. It needs to fit with Hosea in order to make your point. Neither do, so your point has failed. You need different verses to make your point. done.
Ahhh... So If I don't "see Jesus" as "I" in verses 17 & 18 ... I'm blind? Is that the extent of it?
You've confused two different anointings!You are citing the Talmud again. The Talmud refutes Christianity. The Talmud is not scripture. This is a dead end.
Nope. Never anointed. Depending on which Gospel, It's either the wrong oil, the wrong procedure, or both.
In Matthew it is called expensive oil. That means it was purchased somewhere. Therefore it's not the holy anointing oil. Exodus 30:33. It's highly unlikely this oil came from the temple as being sold. (Strike 1)
In Mark, it's also listed as expensive with the additional problem that it conatined the wrong ingredient, νάρδου spikenard. (Strike 2 and 3).
In John, same problems, expensive oil... wrong ingredient ... But here there's another problem, she didn't annoint his head, just his feet. So that's the wrong procedure also ( Exodus 29:7). Strike 4, 5, and 6.
In Luke, the oil isn't described, but the woman doesn't annoint his head only his feet. That's the wrong procedure, strike 7.
yup.
The heart is deceitful above all things... Jer. 17:9
Show me with scripture.
That is not stated anywhere. You have no evidence of this, hence you stick in "must have". There's no "must have" about it. Before I told you the main Jewish route from the Galilee to Jerusalem was via Jericho, you thought that everyone always passed through Samaritan territory. You altered your understanding of the text - of your god - on a whim. How do you know that Jesus only changed his travel route that one time???
I don't. But the route along the river Jordan to Jericho was well trodden by pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem. And the parable of the Good Samaritan is set on this particular road. We also have stories of Jesus healing a blind man.
Mark 14:3-6:
Tell me who the 'l' refers to. You must have a teaching on this subject.
Do you not know that Christ is the 'Word of God'?
That is the claim. It does not make it a fact.
You just quoted a verse from Song of Songs that shows it had other uses...
I don't expect someone who doesn't accept the existence of God to even entertain the idea that his Word can become flesh, but this is exactly what John records: