the coming and great day of the Lord (Page 2)

DontNeedChrist:

I stay on topic and you delete the posts. It's not to your advantage.

Apokalupto: don't make petty one-up comments and stay on topic and they won't be deleted. quite simple.

DontNeedChrist:

I never strayed from the topic. YOU did by making reference to a veil and the "wrong side." I only responded to your insults.

Apokalupto: do you have anything else to say about John the Baptist? if not then you have nothing to contribute to the topic.

Apokalupto: Bible facts are not insults.

DontNeedChrist:


He was not Eliyahu. Not in spirit or any other form. Eliyahu has not yet arrived as the true Moshiach has not arrived. It does not matter what the NT says. Just as nothing the qu'ran or the book of mormon or any other scriptures, faiths, religions, or cults says about christianity or Judaism. You deny their claims but it's ok. We deny your claims and we are blind.

That is a direct comment for your topic.

Apokalupto: he was not actually Elijah that is correct as I've already stated in the op, you're not correcting anything there as you presume.

I'm paraphrasing, but Elisha asked Elijah if after Elijah left he might have twice or double the spirit of Elijah, when Elisha, so to speak would take his place afterward. it also refers to a transition.

John the Baptist did in fact come in the power and spirit of Elijah to announce and bear witness of Messiah Jesus and to make that transition and also to lead the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. you are not in any position to decide if whether or not John the Baptist was doing that and you certainly have no scriptural standing to show that he didn't. the word of God decides this not you and it was announced that he would so he did.

Apokalupto: Just because it doesn't detail that doesn't mean it didn't happen. John was 30 something years old when he bore witness of Messiah Jesus and we get less than a year of his life written about him. in the New testament the Romans occupy Israel, just because the New testament does not detail the history of the birth of the Romans leading up to that point does not mean that it also did not exist.

DontNeedChrist:

“Just because it doesn't detail that doesn't mean it didn't happen.” - AA aka XP

With that logic it can be said he possibly did the exact opposite of what Eliyau was supposed to do. No evidence or documentation to show otherwise. What we do know and can document is a few decades after jesus’ death, the Temple fell and the nation was scattered. Hardly the hearts of the fathers and children turning towards each other. If it did happen then it should be evident and easy to prove. However this is not the case. It will be evident to the entire world when Eliyahu arrives and fulfills the words of the prophet Malachi.

I present scriptural facts instead of hopeful speculation.

Apokalupto: your comment is nothing short of denial and hubris of the actual fact that the word of God says something that you're unable to agree with.

DontNeedChrist:
I disagree with the christian narrative of Hebrew scripture.

Apokalupto: you have all the right in the world to disagree with whatever you want, but if you have nothing to back that up but your own opinion because it doesn't suit your fancy, then I suggest you keep the hubris inside from now on.

DontNeedChrist:

As I stated in my last post, I support all my arguments with scriptural facts. I rarely if ever offer opinion.

If John had turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and vice-versa, one should be able to offer tangible evidence. Your answer to that is just because it’s not documented doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Nothing but baseless speculation. The proof he failed to accomplish that is the Temple destruction and Diaspora. Scriptural facts. Not hubris, not opinions.

Apokalupto: you don't like it disagree with it. but the fact remains John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah and did exactly as the New testament says of him.

DontNeedChrist:

Malachi is the source. The Tanach is the source. No other bibles are relevant. You’re free to disagree as well. That fact remains.

Apokalupto: the temple destruction has nothing to do with whether or not John the Baptist was able to turn the hearts of the fathers to children and the children to fathers in his earlier years leading up to the baptism of Jesus. now that I would say is a pretty baseless claim and it is pure opinion, just like your previous comments about John the Baptist. the temple wasn't even destroyed until over more than 30 years later. what you're saying is actually outrageous goes against scripture and is pure speculation. I'm sorry you can't see that you're actually projecting because of your distaste and bias.

the temple was destroyed because the Romans destroyed it. the angel prophesied of John and that's scriptural fact you cannot change that, and we get zero details of his past life. and many other exhortations did John preach so says the scriptures. and one of the reasons why Jesus may have been so well received by the common people of Israel was actually because of John the Baptist and his preaching an exhortation and because he came in the spirit and power of Elijah and prepared the way for the Lord the Messiah Jesus.

Apokalupto: we've already discussed that Malachi was not the source of this prophecy The source was the angel in in the New testament and the angel said that he would come in the spirit and power of Elijah. it's that simple. you just ignoring the entire op now, lol..

Apokalupto: the old testament and the new testament may be two different testaments but it is one Bible fulfilled by Jesus Christ who John the Baptist first bear witness of him.

DontNeedChrist:

The Tanach is the source and the origin of the concept of Moshiach. No other scriptures own that fact.

Apokalupto: except he is not a concept. John the Baptist did bear witness of Jesus the Messiah. and Elijah will come before the great and terrible day of the Lord in his return.

DontNeedChrist:

This is simply you getting the last word by repeating your unfounded claims over and over. As usual a complete waste of time. The facts have been presented. Choose to learn from them. Or not. Shrug.

Apokalupto: I have never suggested that the old testament, the tanakh was not the origin of the person of Messiah. and what's more interesting is Jews say that they don't know who the Messiah is, they don't even know his name they don't really know anything about him at all because they literally only accept a handful of scriptures about the Messiah, and this is because they reject the tanakh as a whole when attempting to understanding the Messiah and that's really where they fail to get a grasp of him, just seems to me that if anyone wants to debate that topic Jews seem to be least qualified if they're going to reject 99% of the scriptures when interpreting who the Messiah is. is extremely unwise and dangerous to one's understanding, that view produces extremely warped results.

Apokalupto: it's high time that Jews begin looking at the entire Tanakh and searching every book of the word of God to understand the Messiah.

Apokalupto: you have a warped and self-admitted limited view of the Messiah. if people like yourself actually accepted the entire Tanakh as a source to understanding the Messiah then they would believe in Jesus. unfortunately you don't . it's not my fault if you're literally putting your hands over your eyes.

Apokalupto: the direct concrete prophecy is a new testament prophecy spoken by the angel about John the Baptist. but because you put your hands over your eyes and you're not able to except the whole Tanakh, and you forcefully limit your view of who the Messiah is you're unable to see the divine plan, pattern, and foreshadow that led to this very fact, and that's why only hear about your denials. you might as well be a self-admitted blind man. try shooting a bow and arrow with less than one eye open. you think Christians are drawing circles around the target arrow but here we are wondering why you have your eyes shut.

first open your eyes, allow God's word to speak for itself and its entirety, not putting the Messiah in a box or closing your eyes to 99% of God's word when you try to understand who he is, then maybe we might actually have something substantial to talk about and then you'd really learn something.