Does the Bahai' religion...

[smaneck]

We know the man of sin known as the beast and final antichrist will place and idol in the temple

What I'm suggesting is that Evangelicals have conflated different things. The "man of sin" of 2 Thess. may well be the "Beast" of Revelation especially if they are both referring to Caligula. If they are not, we have no real evidence they are the same. As for the anti-christ, Revelation never mentions the the antichrist and the references to the antichrist in John's epistles appear to be references to Gnostic Christians who denied that Christ came in the flesh.

....my bad I was referring to Antiochus the type of the future antichrist

Yes, he is the one whose idol was the Abomination of Desolation.

No it's still future ...it takes place before the return of the true messiah of the world

It did take place before then.

That would be awesome....perhaps many will see it as a sign ...but no imo

Not likely, but such a miracle would be impressive. Like the lion lying down with the lamb.

 

[dfw69]

How does that constitute adoption? In the Roman Empire you adopted someone when you made them your heir. There is no evidence Joseph did that.

In his heart by his works to raise him up.. ...paper work can be destroyed

Yes, I assume he was important. We can't assume from the text that there was a priesthood named after him.

So your saying the order of melchizedek is a lie?....yeah I don't bye it...

That doesn't tell us that God had given him a tribal status.

It does to me because I believe their witness as truth...

 

[LoAmmi]

Only that hashem wants you to know where your salvation lies...

Again, I need more evidence than Christianity's desire for it to be so for me to believe.

Well this is the creation of the new temple the one of Ezekiel yet to come under a new covenant...

Nothing in the text suggests it will operate under new rules.

I understand that but it's a life ...a life for a life

So, the Jews could have grabbed just any person off the street and killed them and it would be valid?

Able sacrifice outside the temple and it was valid

Able wasn't under the Torah. Those under the Torah had rules.

A serpent was nailed to a stick and lifted up by Moses and it healed Israel

No it wasn't. Might want to read the story again.

 

[smaneck]

In his heart by his works to raise him up.. ...paper work can be destroyed

Raising someone up was not the same as adopting in those days. Caesar Augustus was adopted by Julius Ceasar, but Julius Caesar didn't raise him.

So your saying the order of melchizedek is a lie?....yeah I don't bye it...

I'm saying there is no evidence of this in the Tanakh. You can't expect a Jew to believe something on the basis of a letter in the New Testament.

It does to me because I believe their witness as truth...

Aren't you trying to find out what Jews believe?

 

[dfw69]

What I'm suggesting is that Evangelicals have conflated different things. The "man of sin" of 2 Thess. may well be the "Beast" of Revelation especially if they are both referring to Caligula. If they are not, we have no real evidence they are the same. As for the anti-christ, Revelation never mentions the the antichrist and the... references to the antichrist in John's epistles appear to be references to Gnostic Christians who denied that Christ came in the flesh.

Many Christians believe that an antichrist is also anyone claiming to be Christ or the promises Jewish messiah and that it is a future event...There is the preterist doctrines but I'm a futurist...are you suggesting that the preterist doctrines carry more weight then futurist?... That is fine if you believe so...I don't believe it though

Yes, he is the one whose idol was the Abomination of Desolation

Not fulfilled ...Jesus made a reference to it concerning the last days in Matt 24

It did take place before then.

actually no it takes place during the false messianic age Matt 24

Not likely, but such a miracle would be impressive. Like the lion lying down with the lamb.

yes I agree

 

[dfw69]

Again, I need more evidence than Christianity's desire for it to be so for me to believe.

I understand ..if I were born Jewish and knew the tanach and the things you've taught me ....I would be as sceptical as you probably...

Nothing in the text suggests it will operate under new rules.

Well Ezekiel reveals new covenant new temple new sacrifices ....implying new laws

So, the Jews could have grabbed just any person off the street and killed them and it would be valid?

Of course not...because all are sinners...no one righteous... a sinner against the law cannot take the place of a sinner...I don't think ...I mean if you created a crime worthy of death against the law..could I take your place of death ?....

Able wasn't under the Torah. Those under the Torah had rules.

I understand that bro....I'm saying a sacrifice outside the temple was excepted by hashem as valid

No it wasn't. Might want to read the story again.

Please enlighten me

 

[LoAmmi]

I understand ..if I were born Jewish and knew the tanach and the things you've taught me ....I would be as sceptical as you probably...

I imagine.

Well Ezekiel reveals new covenant new temple new sacrifices ....implying new laws

Where does Ezekiel reveal a new covenant with new laws. In fact, there's noting in the Tanach that suggests a new covenant with new rules.

Of course not...because all are sinners...no one righteous... a sinner against the law cannot take the place of a sinner...I don't think ...I mean if you created a crime worthy of death against the law..could I take your place of death ?....

No, my point was simply that human sacrifice was forbidden, but that's yet another exception to the rules that Christians want me to accept. Look, just embrace it. You guys want to say that Jesus's sacrifice was so special none of the rules were important.

I understand that bro....I'm saying a sacrifice outside the temple was excepted by hashem as valid

Not by Jews once the Torah was given.

Please enlighten me

Bronze reshaped as a serpent isn't a serpent nailed to wood. First, no living creature died and second there was no wood mentioned I could find.

 

[dfw69]

Raising someone up was not the same as adopting in those days. Caesar Augustus was adopted by Julius Ceasar, but Julius Caesar didn't raise him.

does not matter what the Romans practice....in the eyes of the Lord he chose Joseph and entrusted him with his only begotten son ...your telling me Joseph did not love his son whom he knew and understand that he was hashem son?

I'm saying there is no evidence of this in the Tanakh. You can't expect a Jew to believe something on the basis of a letter in the New Testament.

I understand..Yes your right...

Aren't you trying to find out what Jews believe?

yes always to help me be a better witness to them...

 

[dfw69]

I imagine.




Where does Ezekiel reveal a new covenant with new laws. In fact, there's noting in the Tanach that suggests a new covenant with new rules.

Hashem said I will make new new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah not like the covenant I made with them that they broke jeremiah 31:31_33...yet future..if the covenant was broken ...thus the need for a new covenant with new laws ...

No, my point was simply that human sacrifice was forbidden, but that's yet another exception to the rules that Christians want me to accept. Look, just embrace it. You guys want to say that Jesus's sacrifice was so special none of the rules were important.

Why was it forbidden? Perhaps because every man was a sinner so a human sacrifice would not be acceptable...

Not by Jews once the Torah was given.

What if the covenant was broken ..shall not hashem be allowed to make a new way to him a better way ?

Bronze reshaped as a serpent isn't a serpent nailed to wood. First, no living creature died and second there was no wood mentioned I could find.

Interesting....What does that mean? Why bronze serpent? How does that created a miracle for the Jews ?

 

[smaneck]

Many Christians believe that an antichrist is also anyone claiming to be Christ or the promises Jewish messiah and that it is a future event...

I realize that, but it is not biblical. John's epistles make quite clear what the antichrist is:
"This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son." 1 John 22

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." 1 John 4:3
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
2 John 1:7.

Now who was it denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? The Gnostics because they did not believe Jesus ever had a physical body, because they felt anything physical was bad.

We know from Eusebius how dangerous John felt the Gnostics were. When one of them came to the public bath, John ran out stark naked!

There is the preterist doctrines but I'm a futurist...are you suggesting that the preterist doctrines carry more weight then futurist?... That is fine if you believe so...I don't believe it though

Preterist interpretations are certainly more historical, however I do believe a prophecy can mean different things at different time. So while I believe the 666/616 referred originally the Roman Emperors, in a later age it referred to the Umayyad Dynasty. I think the Book of Revelation is talking about something that happens again and again.

Not fulfilled ...Jesus made a reference to it concerning the last days in Matt 24

I would say that is a good example of a prophecy being fulfilled more than once.

actually no it takes place during the false messianic age Matt 24

I would take a Preterist interpretation of that passage. Jesus is describing events leading up to the destruction of the Second Temple. He makes no mention of a false messianic age, rather he is warning people to stay away from those claiming to be the Messiah. These were generally Zealots, seeking to overthrow Roman rule.

 

[LoAmmi]

Hashem said I will make new new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah not like the covenant I made with them that they broke jeremiah 31:31_33...yet future..if the covenant was broken ...thus the need for a new covenant with new laws ...

Where does it say there will be new laws? Also, since the rest of Jeremiah 31 hasn't happen, using it to prove a new covenant is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Why was it forbidden? Perhaps because every man was a sinner so a human sacrifice would not be acceptable...

Cite the text that says this is the case.

What if the covenant was broken ..shall not hashem be allowed to make a new way to him a better way ?

It's clear in the text of Hosea and elsewhere that He wasn't letting us out of the deal. So, while we "broke" it, we're being held to it because He isn't divorcing us. Still, there's nothing in the text that suggests we will have new rules. At all.

 

[smaneck]

does not matter what the Romans practice....in the eyes of the Lord he chose Joseph and entrusted him with his only begotten son ...your telling me Joseph did not love his son whom he knew and understand that he was hashem son

No, I'm saying that there is no evidence that Joseph adopted him.

 

[smaneck]

Why was it forbidden? Perhaps because every man was a sinner so a human sacrifice would not be acceptable...

You seriously believe that is why God prohibited human sacrifice? You can't imagine there might be a better reason?

 

[dfw69]

Where does it say there will be new laws? Also, since the rest of Jeremiah 31 hasn't happen, using it to prove a new covenant is just shooting yourself in the foot

Your a hard man to convince lol

Cite the text that says this is the case.

You know I can't but I believe it though...you only follows text...I can't argue with that ...

It's clear in the text of Hosea and elsewhere that He wasn't letting us out of the deal. So, while we "broke" it, we're being held to it because He isn't divorcing us. Still, there's nothing in the text that suggests we will have new rules. At all.

Ok

 

[LoAmmi]

Your a hard man to convince lol

Because I won't just believe something without it being proven? Because I won't worship a man as G-d without it being crystal clear that this man is? Ok.

You know I can't but I believe it though...you only follows text...I can't argue with that ...

If Christians can't prove it from the text, then why should I bother?

 

[dfw69]

You seriously believe that is why God prohibited human sacrifice? You can't imagine there might be a better reason?

Like what ?....I was referring to love ....that one grown man who was willing to pay the price for a criminal so that the criminal may be free to choose a better life for himself...nothing more

 

[LoAmmi]

Like what ?....I was referring to love ....that one grown man who was willing to pay the price for a criminal so that the criminal may be free to choose a better life for himself...nothing more

Funny you should mention Jeremiah 31 earlier.

29 “In those days people will no longer say,

‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.

 

[dfw69]

No, I'm saying that there is no evidence that Joseph adopted him.

K no evidence got it...but common sense says he did love him and did all that the law required for his firstborn son by adoption in heart

 

[dfw69]

Because I won't just believe something without it being proven? Because I won't worship a man as G-d without it being crystal clear that this man is? Ok.







If Christians can't prove it from the text, then why should I bother?

I cannot prove.. not saying a Christian Jew cannot ..he would know more than me

 

[LoAmmi]

I cannot prove.. not saying a Christian Jew cannot ..he would know more than me

I've had discussions with one. Him and I basically end up in an agree to disagree state. Neither can convince the other.