Do the gospels report that Jesus liked his food and wine with nasty people, sometimes to excess?

[Fallen Prophet]

FP, you are so full of your own words that any quotes from the gospels are well hidden within.

Again - this is hilarious coming from you.

Sacrificial Laws? One source of many actions and words?

This should be good.

Matthew {9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Are you serious?

This was the Lord Jesus Christ quoting from the prophet Hosea to rebuke the Pharisees,

"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6)

The Lord Jesus Christ was pointing out to the Pharisees that even though God wants His people to observe outward ordinances of sacrifice - the external compliance with the duties of religion - He was more pleased with acts of benevolence and kindness.

God wants the observance of the Law to change His people - to help them learn to show mercy - which in this case meant benevolence or kindness to others.

The Lord Jesus Christ was reminding the Pharisees that it was supposed to be their job to call sinners to repentance - to be merciful to them - but they weren't - all they did was observe the outward ordinances of the Law.

Which is why He later criticized them thusly,

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extrotion and excess.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." (Matthew 23:25-28)

The Pharisees weren't learning the appropriate lessons from observing the Law. They weren't allowing the Law to change them. Make them better.

So - no - the Lord Jesus Christ was not claiming that the Jews should stop performing sacrifices - He was telling the Pharisees that God wanted them to observe the outward ordinances so that they would change them internally - make them more benevolent and kind to others - which is one of the ultimate goals of them having the Law and making sacrifice in the first place.

And just for your edification - the Lord Jesus Christ quoted this same scripture from Hosea again in Matthew 12:7 when the Pharisees criticized Him and His disciples for picking and eating corn on the Sabbath.

In that instance the Lord Jesus Christ was not condemning the practice of observing the Sabbath day - but pointing out the ignorance of the Pharisees and their hypocrisy in valuing their own Man-made rules concerning the Sabbath than what God would have them value.

Jesus turning away from adultery? Although Jesus spoke out against adultery he certainly redacted any punishments against it, FP

John {8:3} And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, {8:4} They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. {8:5} Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what
sayest thou? {8:6} This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not. ]{8:7} So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin
among you, let him first cast a stone at her. {8:8} And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. {8:9} And they which heard [it,] being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Hah! I knew you would try to use this one - because you are ignorant.

During this time Judah was under Roman occupation - the Jewish elders could try criminal cases - but they could not carry out a death penalty without Roman approval.

This is why the Lord Jesus Christ was brought before Pilate - because the Jewish elders wanted Him executed and they needed his approval to do so.

So - these scribes and Pharisees were trying to trap the Lord Jesus Christ when they brought the woman to Him. It was all a farce.

They wanted Him to either, 1.) Condemn her to stoning - which they could use to accuse Him of breaking Roman law or 2.) Absolve her - which they could use to accuse Him of not observing the Law of Moses.

This - of course - was very hypocritical of them - since they themselves could not kill the woman without Roman approval - yet they were asking the Lord Jesus Christ to make that judgment without Roman approval.

Also - where was the man who committed adultery with her? Wouldn't he need to be stoned as well? (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22) Where were the witnesses of the act needed to accuse them and who were required to cast the first stones? (Deuteronomy 17:5-7)

These scribes and Pharisees were not being compliant with the trial, conviction and sentencing required by the Law of Moses. Hypocrites all.

The Lord Jesus Christ masterfully confounded these scribes and Pharisees without breaking either the Roman law or the Law of Moses.

He knew that these scribes and Pharisees had not satisfied the requirements to accuse this woman or demand her execution under either the Law of Moses or Roman law - so He could not lawfully condemn or absolve her either.

Which is why after the crowds dispersed He told her that He did not condemn her - because He legally could not under both the Law of Moses and Roman law - yet He was firm in the fact that adultery was still sinful when He told her that she should sin no more. (John 8:11)

Those were both pathetic attempts to prove that the Lord Jesus Christ "redacted" these Laws - but I appreciate that you provided your sources.

In your mind, FP.

No - not "in my mind" - they are literally syonyms of each other.

Inebriated | Definition of Inebriated by Merriam-Webster

If you click the link you will notice that in the list of synonyms both the words "drunk" and "drunken" appear.

But most folks use the word 'inebriated' in your first two examples, above, and not drunkard.

I never once claimed that inebriated meant "drunkard".

The only time I used the word "drunkard" was when I was defining the term "wine-bibber" or referencing when you used it.

I never once claimed that inebriated meant "drunkard".

You've tried to marry the two terms together from the beginning, FP.

You are either confusing me with someone else or you did not read my posts.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I think that the idea of your God having a good drink of wine with folks that you might not sit with is irritating for you, FP.

Now I'm convinced that you have me confused with someone else.

My very first post on this thread (Post #57) was,

"I don't believe that the Lord Jesus Christ ever drank until He was inebriated - that practice was condemned by the prophets.

However - drinking alcohol was not prohibited by the Law of Moses and I believe the Lord often ate and drank with His disciples and others.

Breaking bread is one of the best ways to meet new people, grow closer to your friends and honor special occasion."

I have maintained this position all throughout this thread.

So your God can burn thousands, rip down city walls, bring death in wars, etc etc (read your bible, FP!) but not enjoy a good drink with his meat?

God burned those who willingly covenanted to keep His commandments - to do all that He commands - then disobeyed Him.

Wasn't the battle of Jericho awesome?

I remember reading that He tried to avoid most of those battles and wars.

I know my Bible - better than you know my posts - you are either confusing me with someone else or not reading them.

And those nasty Priests, how do you know that they lied? The Baptist wasn't sure..... but do you think you know it all?

You are lying again.

You tried to claim that what took place in Luke 7 was based on these accusations of these "nasty Priests" - but the text does not support that conclusion.

I didn't want to - but since you continue to lie - I will now quote the beginning verses of Luke 7 -

"Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.

And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.

And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.

And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:

For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.

Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:

Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.

For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

¶ And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and much people.

Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.

And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.

And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

And this rumour of him went forth throughout all Judæa, and throughout all the region round about.

And the disciples of John shewed him of all these things.

¶ And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?" (Luke 7:1-19)

Notice how there was no mention of any "nasty Priests" in these verses?

The Lord Jesus Christ healed a sick man and brought another back from the dead.

And just in case you are wondering - the other mention of John the Baptist sending his disciples from prison to ask the Lord these things also had nothing to do with anything any "nasty Priest" said.

"Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" (Matthew 11:2-3)

Notice that it mentions that John heard of the "works" of Christ - which is a reference to "godly works or deeds".

I am convinced that the reason that John sent his disciples to the Lord Jesus Christ was to hopefully convince them to follow Him.

He had done it earlier,

"Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus." (John 1:35-37)

John always knew that his days were numbered - that he would diminish and that the Lord Jesus Christ would come to take his place and then some - so while he was in prison he most likely knew that he would not live long.

"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judæa; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

¶ And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

For John was not yet cast into prison.

¶ Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.

And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

He must increase, but I must decrease.

He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.

For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:22-36)

The text does not support your claim that John the Baptist started to doubt the Lord Jesus Christ because of the rumors spread by "nasty Priests" that He ate with publicans and sinners and was a "winebibber".

Instead - the text supports the claim that John the Baptist immediately knew who and what the Lord Jesus Christ was.

That he never doubted Him - but instead marvelled at His works - and often testified of Him before his own disciples with the hope that they would follow Him - for John knew that he himself was destined to "decrease" as the Lord "increased".

I believe that he sent his disciples to the Lord - armed with those questions - so that they could have them answered by the Lord Himself - and see His works and come to know that He was the long awaited Messiah.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Because Jesus had just heard Disciples who were sent to enquire, 'Are you the one?' which of course could be difficult because the Baptist was supposed to know Jesus very very well, being a relative.

Well - despite the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself refuted the idea that any "relative" of His would come to know or believe that He was a prophet or Son of God -

"A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." (Mark 6:4)

The Lord Jesus Christ grew up in Nazareth while John the Baptist grew up right outside of Jerusalem - a distance of roughly 100 miles.

I doubt they saw each other all that much while growing up - perhaps only when Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple.

I believe the New Testament records only two times that Mary and the young Lord Jesus Christ visited Jerusalem together - when He was in the womb and when He was a young boy that they lost and later found at the Temple.

I mean - yes - Mary and Elisabeth were cousins - but they had a huge age gap - so who is to say that they were really all that close?

Excellent! You're getting there slowly.

I literally began this conversation by saying much of the same. You're not paying attention.

Wine was a staple source of safe beverage back then. And Jesus drank it with his meat, with people who you wouldn't like much (imo) and there were folks who mentioned this.

What gave you the impression that I wouldn't like tax-collectors and sinners?

And - no - the "nasty Priests" did not lie when they claimed that He ate with publicans and sinners - but they did lie when they claimed that He was a "winebibber" - which means "drunkard" or "alcoholic".

The Lord Himself gave His reasons for why He ate with publicans and sinners - which rebuked the Pharisees soundly and exposed their hypocrisy.

Yet - the New Testament never records the Lord drinking wine in excess. It does not record Him becoming inebriated - so it most definitely does not record Him being any sort of "winebibber".

You are free to believe the enemies of the Lord all you want - but I see no reason to.

And stop spreading the lie that John the Baptist heard these rumors from the "nasty Priests" - because the record does not support that claim.

It is a lie.

But your God can't drink too much wine, it seems.

My God decided not to drink too much wine - because He had no need - and He perfectly kept the Law of Moses.

Yes, Fallen Prophet...... it is.

Thank you for agreeing with me - that the notion that you know or understand the Gospels is hilarious.

I don't think you would know it, but there were 613 laws of Moses, and about 100 of these were all about sacrifice and ceremony which the Baptist and Jesus both were dead set against.

Sources please!

I know this because the disciples of both Baptist and Jesus were offering redemption and cleansing thru' immersion in water for nothing, and thus thousands of folks didn't feel the need to get ripped off at the Temple. What did you think that was all about, FP?

I think that you do not know what you are talking about.

The Lord Jesus Christ often went to the Temple Himself.

He told His followers and those who listened to His teachings to go to the Temple.

"Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." (Matthew 5:23-24)

His disciples continued to go to the Temple after His death.

Plus his repeated speeches about 'Mercy and not sacrifice'. Please just read the gospels, FP.

You mean the two times the record claims that He quoted from the prophet Hosea?

You don't know the Gospels, the Law or the Prophets.

You lack understanding. Context. History. Culture.

SOURCES PLEASE!

HAH!

Exactly where did Jesus say that he would not support a mandate of giving for the benefit of the poor?

Again - you are employing that lazy, "Jesus didn't specifically talk about X - so it's ok." argument.

I have a better question - where in the Gospels did the Lord Jesus Christ claim that anything should be mandated?

Now understand - when I said "mandate" I meant it like an "edict" or a command that someone can be compelled by force to follow.

WE know he didn't support funds to the leaders because they kept them.

No - the record claims that the leaders - or at least the rich which I assume included leaders - gave a lot - but they gave from their abundance. (Mark 12:41-44)

The Lord Jesus Christ did not condemn these rich for having an abundance nor did He say that they shouldn't have an abundance.

Who is your Prophet/God? The Patriarch and Prophet or Jesus?

I don't think these questions make sense.

Are you claiming that the Lord Jesus Christ has condemned the Patriarchs and Prophets for amassing wealth?

Jesus sat with the people that he wanted to sit with.

Of course I believe this to be true - but of the instance we are referencing - the record indicates that these publicans and sinners were the ones who decided to sit with the Lord Jesus Christ.

"And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples." (Matthew 9:10)

Back at you, FP

I quoted verbatim all the verses in Luke 7 leading up to John the Baptist asking his disciples to go to the Lord Jesus Christ.

No where did it mention any rumors made by "nasty Priests".

I even quoted from Matthew - which also proves - that John the Baptist reacted to the "works" (i.e. godly deeds) - and not to any rumors made by "nasty Priests".

There is no evidence from the New Testament that the Lord Jesus Christ had ever become inebriated.

Jesus supported the Laws of Moses, about 500 of them. He redacted the other 100.

Sources please!

And - to use your own argument against you - if you cannot quote the Lord Jesus Christ saying exactly what you want Him to say - you cannot claim He said it.

However I have yet to read any Christian who supports 500 of the laws of Moses. I wonder whether you do?
I doubt it.

The Law of Sacrifice is still in effect - yet it is what He commands to be offered that has changed.

Since the sacrifices symbolized both the death of the one offering sacrifice (who is worthy of death because of their sin) as well as a foreshadowing of the Atoning Sacrifice of the Son of God - blood is no longer an acceptable offering - since both the death of the one offering the sacrifice has been averted through Christ and the Son of God has already offered His blood for sin.

Therefore - what the Lord Jesus Christ has commanded to be offered are a broken heart and a contrite spirit (Psalms 51:17) which leads to "godly sorrow" and repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Basically - He has asked us to forsake or sacrifice our sins.

So you think that the peasant classes of the Galilee and Northern Provinces of Palestine spoke or understood Greek?

Yes - of this there is no doubt.

The Septuagint - which is the Greek version of the Old Testament - was written in 282 B.C.E and it was essential to worship because the Hebrew language was functionally extinct among the Jews by the time of Christ and had been less and less used since the time of the Babylonian Captivity (605-536 B.C.E.).

By the time Alexander the Great conquered Judea (332 B.C.E) - the Hebrew version of the scriptures were only used by the High Priest and certain Jewish elders.

I believe it was both the decline in functional Hebrew and their being conquered by the Greek-speaking Alexander that caused the Jews to write the Septuagint.

Outside of Judea the Jews spoke Greek in their synagogues and used the Septuagint exclusively since the time it was written - centuries before Christ was born.

Any Levite officials would have, but the peasant classes? They spoke Eastern Aramaic!

No - the exact opposite is true.

The Levites, priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes were more likely to read from the Hebrew - not the Greek.

The Greek version of the scriptures was more widely available. More common.

Ha ha ha! Because of this you think that Jesus could speak (read/write) Greek?

No - the many centuries of Greek being the common language of scripture among the Jews is the reason I believe that Jesus could speak and/or write Greek.

The people who spun Christianity (to the Romans) from the life of Jesus wrote in Greek.

Yes - as did many Jews for many centuries before this.

What the people who founded the Eastern Orthodox churches wrote in..... I have no idea.

Are you serious?

The Eastern Orthodox churches have been called the "Greek Orthodox" for about as long as the western church has been called "Roman".

Jesus was a Galilean Nagar working (probably) in wood, stone and other materials. He spoke as Galileans did.

Correct - and being a Jew - He would have been familiar with the Septuagint. The Greek Bible.

You really should read your gospels! The Southern (Judean?) woman at the entrance to the Court told Cephas .....'Are you one of them? You speak like they do!'
Go and look it up......... read it. Remember it.

He probably either spoke of a certain dialect or had a particular accent.

That doesn't mean Cephas did not also know some Greek.

Some members abbreviate other members' RF (that's Religious Forums, Fallen Prophet) names.
You are the first to criticise that, but I will not forget.
From now on, always and forever I shall call you 'Fallen Prophet'.

No - you misunderstand.

I want you to stop using my name entirely.

Notice that I have not used yours once since this conversation has started.

You saying my name to punctuate every one of your posts is irritating and I would like it to stop.

....and don't forget that Cephas did not speak like Judean folks, he spoke like 'them', like Jesus. Galilean Aramaic, Fallen Prophet.

He spoke with a certin accent or dialect.

 

[oldbadger]

Again - this is hilarious coming from you.

This should be good.

Are you serious?

This was the Lord Jesus Christ quoting from the prophet Hosea to rebuke the Pharisees,

"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6)

The Lord Jesus Christ was pointing out to the Pharisees that even though God wants His people to observe outward ordinances of sacrifice - the external compliance with the duties of religion - He was more pleased with acts of benevolence and kindness.

God wants the observance of the Law to change His people - to help them learn to show mercy - which in this case meant benevolence or kindness to others.

The Lord Jesus Christ was reminding the Pharisees that it was supposed to be their job to call sinners to repentance - to be merciful to them - but they weren't - all they did was observe the outward ordinances of the Law.

Which is why He later criticized them thusly,

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extrotion and excess.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." (Matthew 23:25-28)

The Pharisees weren't learning the appropriate lessons from observing the Law. They weren't allowing the Law to change them. Make them better.

So - no - the Lord Jesus Christ was not claiming that the Jews should stop performing sacrifices - He was telling the Pharisees that God wanted them to observe the outward ordinances so that they would change them internally - make them more benevolent and kind to others - which is one of the ultimate goals of them having the Law and making sacrifice in the first place.

And just for your edification - the Lord Jesus Christ quoted this same scripture from Hosea again in Matthew 12:7 when the Pharisees criticized Him and His disciples for picking and eating corn on the Sabbath.

In that instance the Lord Jesus Christ was not condemning the practice of observing the Sabbath day - but pointing out the ignorance of the Pharisees and their hypocrisy in valuing their own Man-made rules concerning the Sabbath than what God would have them value.

Hello Fallen Prophet!
So you still haven't clicked upon who Jesus really was, nor what his movement was all about.
Just because Jesus quoted Hosea you are misled in to believing that he didn't really mean what he said.
You need to understand that Jesus meant EXACTLY what he said...... he not only wanted an end to Priesthood and Temple corruption and injustice as spoken in words, but IN DEEDS, Fallen Prophet. Jesus's actions spoke out strongly as well as his words. You won't have figured this out, I guess, but if you need educating about Jesus's actions which showed what he thought about Priesthood and Temples corruption, scams and injustice then just ask...... there's much more to teach you than the Temple clearance and/or the Temple picketing.....much more.

I'll give you a clue as to how wrong you are when you reduce what Jesus wanted by trying to pretend that Jesus was only quoting Hosea........ Did Hosea want to end the process completely? I don't know, but Jesus certainly did.
Read, Remember, and learn, Fallen Prophet.

Mark ]{13:2} And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall
not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

One useful 'tell' about the uneducated is that they call out ignorance upon others...... Fallen Prophet.

Next?

 

[oldbadger]

Hah! I knew you would try to use this one - because you are ignorant.
During this time Judah was under Roman occupation - the Jewish elders could try criminal cases - but they could not carry out a death penalty without Roman approval.

You need to brush up on your history of early 1st century Palestine, Fallen Prophet.
You have placed Jesus in Jerusalem for both of your examples, and Judea, Idumea and Samaria were all governed by a Roman Prefect at that time, and adultery was not a capital offence at all......
But in Perea, Gaulanitus, Decapolis, Galilee, Phoenicia the Romans did not rule........ and Jesus was making his case against the adultery laws anywhere, not just in Jerusalem.

Earlier you asked me not to use your initials, Fallen Prophet......... I have kept to that. It's time for you to end your direct iunsults, Fallen Prophet. Very bad habit, that.

 

[oldbadger]

No - not "in my mind" - they are literally syonyms of each other.
Inebriated | Definition of Inebriated by Merriam-Webster
If you click the link you will notice that in the list of synonyms both the words "drunk" and "drunken" appear.
I never once claimed that inebriated meant "drunkard".
The only time I used the word "drunkard" was when I was defining the term "wine-bibber" or referencing when you used it.
I never once claimed that inebriated meant "drunkard".
You are either confusing me with someone else or you did not read my posts.

It's not good, Fallen Prophet....you reversing in to dictionary definition to somehow show that your God didn't like his wine, sometimes to excess. That actually causes me to like him the more.....more human, if you like.

Jesus did enjoy his meat and wine with 'bad' people, sometimes to excess, but was not any kind of alcoholic drunkard? You call those people who saw Jesus 'enemies'..... yet you agree that they told the truth in at least half of that observation......

So nasty people sometimes told the truth, sometimes not, as suits your purpose? Cherry-picking, Fallen Prophet

Matthew . {11:19} The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.

 

[oldbadger]

Now I'm convinced that you have me confused with someone else.

My very first post on this thread (Post #57) was,

"I don't believe that the Lord Jesus Christ ever drank until He was inebriated - that practice was condemned by the prophets.

However - drinking alcohol was not prohibited by the Law of Moses and I believe the Lord often ate and drank with His disciples and others.

Breaking bread is one of the best ways to meet new people, grow closer to your friends and honor special occasion."

I have maintained this position all throughout this thread.

I know my Bible - better than you know my posts - you are either confusing me with someone else or not reading them..

This was already covered in my last post.
You might know your bible generally but I think your grasp of the gospels is rubbish, Fallen Prophet.

 

[oldbadger]

You are lying again.

You tried to claim that what took place in Luke 7 was based on these accusations of these "nasty Priests" - but the text does not support that conclusion.

I didn't want to - but since you continue to lie - I will now quote the beginning verses of Luke 7 -

Why do some extreme Christians throw such insults around? I am making a case for the real Jesus, so obviously I think your proposals are junk. But I don't call anybody a liar on RF, Fallen Prophet. You must belong to some other forum where such trash can be thrown around. I would not do that here.

Your conduct shows the value of your particular faith, in my opinion.

"Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.

And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.....................

Notice how there was no mention of any "nasty Priests" in these verses?

The Lord Jesus Christ healed a sick man and brought another back from the dead.

Stop you there, Fallen Prophet.
Jesus may have appeared to bring people back from death, just as can happen today in various circumstances, but that's as far as it can go for me.
You don't like the Priesthood of early first century Palestine so don't pretend otherwise. And at one moment you have them telling truth, the next it is lies.

You seem to reverse in to anything that suits you. Actually that's exactly what Christianity did where I live...... it reversed in to many of the ancient beliefs, meeting places etc of the pagans....oh well.

I am convinced that the reason that John sent his disciples to the Lord Jesus Christ was to hopefully convince them to follow Him.

He had done it earlier,

"Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus." (John 1:35-37)

I am convinced that John was worried about what he had heard about Jesus. Either way this makes a mockery of how John and Jesus knew each other as relatives.

John always knew that his days were numbered - that he would diminish and that the Lord Jesus Christ would come to take his place and then some - so while he was in prison he most likely knew that he would not live long.

Stop making stuff up, Fallen Prophet.
We all do know that our days are numbered, but John the Baptist just carried on doing what he was doing until he got caught...... and he was in Perea when he got caught! Perea! Why else was Antipas told to bring him in?
Oh! You don't believe that Antipas went after him because John was wailing about his new wife, do you? No....John was cutting down Temple takings thru free immersion in the river. Antipas like John and spoke with him in prison....
*sighs..... I try.....I try.....*

 

[oldbadger]

"A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." (Mark 6:4)

The Lord Jesus Christ grew up in Nazareth while John the Baptist grew up right outside of Jerusalem - a distance of roughly 100 miles.

Yes! Remember that........... it's 70-100 miles between the Galilee and Jerusalem. Please remember that when reading John's gospel which has Jesus popping up and down all the time. That was just untrue.
And Jesus and the Baptist were no relatives. Jesus was a Galilean peasant (there was no middle class) and The Baptist a holy many living out in the wastelands.......

I doubt they saw each other all that much while growing up - perhaps only when Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple.

I believe the New Testament records only two times that Mary and the young Lord Jesus Christ visited Jerusalem together - when He was in the womb and when He was a young boy that they lost and later found at the Temple.

I mean - yes - Mary and Elisabeth were cousins - but they had a huge age gap - so who is to say that they were really all that close?

If Mark didn't write about an early Jesus, then most of it will be rubbish.
Don't forget..... neither Matthew nor Luke witnessed anything, they even needed to copy Mark's accounts.

And - no - the "nasty Priests" did not lie when they claimed that He ate with publicans and sinners - but they did lie when they claimed that He was a "winebibber" - which means "drunkard" or "alcoholic".

Oh please, you've already quoted from your dictionary to show that 'winebibber does not mean drunkard.... it simply means a person who likes to drink wine........ perfect. I'll bet that some of those meetings were brilliant affairs, Fallen Prophet.

You are free to believe the enemies of the Lord all you want - but I see no reason to.

But you do! You do! YOu have chosen to believe half of the observations as claimed, Fallen Prophet.

And stop spreading the lie that John the Baptist heard these rumors from the "nasty Priests" - because the record does not support that claim.

It is a lie.

No, it is not..........

My God decided not to drink too much wine - because He had no need - and He perfectly kept the Law of Moses.

No, Fallen Prophet...... he loved his meat, wine and company....all!

How do you know what your God decided? If you stopped dreaming up stuff and actually bothered to research properly you might learn more.

The Lord Jesus Christ often went to the Temple Himself.

He told His followers and those who listened to His teachings to go to the Temple.

Read what you write!
Written by Fallen Prophet:- The Lord Jesus Christ grew up in Nazareth while John the Baptist grew up right outside of Jerusalem - a distance of roughly 100 miles

Again - you are employing that lazy, "Jesus didn't specifically talk about X - so it's ok." argument.

You fill in wherever you please, I think.....

I have a better question - where in the Gospels did the Lord Jesus Christ claim that anything should be mandated?

Now understand - when I said "mandate" I meant it like an "edict" or a command that someone can be compelled by force to follow.

So where do you get all your rules and laws from? The Laws of Moses? You've junked 85% of them!

 

[oldbadger]

No - you misunderstand.

I want you to stop using my name entirely.

Notice that I have not used yours once since this conversation has started.

You saying my name to punctuate every one of your posts is irritating and I would like it to stop.

So you don't like your chosen name, Fallen Prophet...... well that's a shame.
I'll teach you something....... ready?
You have thrown trash and insults throughout your posts...at me. You are full of insults, Fallen Prophet.
I have not insulted you, calling out 'lies' and other insults.
I want you to stop throwing trash at me (or any other) in your posts. If you can't convince me with accurate quotes and history, geography then you're not going to win anything....

So you hate your chosen name....you chose it.
I'll never write your name again........and you will clean up your posts to me. Fair enough?
If you go back to your old habits then your name shall return, I think.

 

[oldbadger]

He spoke with a certin accent or dialect.

Stop making stuff up!
They all spoke like Galileans! (almost definitely in Eastern Aramaic)

Mark 14:69} And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them. {14:70} And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art [one] of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth [thereto. ]

So Jesus spoke in Galilean Eastern Aramaic. He gave Cephas his nick-name.
What language did you think that was, Samoan?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Whoa! Not all Christians think he was God, because he made it clear a number of times that he wasn't God..
For examp he said- “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19)

Was Jesus good ? Is He still good? He was good then and He is good now. You may ask why Jesus asks these kind of questions, He did it a lot.
Here is what Peter says:
“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”
‭‭I Peter‬ ‭2:21-25‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You'd think after eight posts you would have said - something - but no - only empty "non-answers" given in an attempt to distract from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

By actually quoting from the scriptures - both Old and New Testaments - and supplying accurate historical facts - thus viewing them in their proper context - all your claims were debunked.

However - rather than accept the facts - or at least muster up enough courage and self-awareness to at least try to defend your position - you instead attack me personally and double down on nonsense.

I knew this was coming - because it always happens when one's ignorance is exposed. - but you went down in spectacular fashion - blindly ignoring that which you didn't wish to see, projecting your own inadequacies onto me and just saying nothing throughout eight posts.

It's sad - but expected.

So let's dive into the void that is your posts.

I don't believe you will listen - that you are passed feeling - but for anyone who stumbles upon this thread - I want them to know.

Hello Fallen Prophet!
So you still haven't clicked upon who Jesus really was, nor what his movement was all about.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

You keeping hinting at mysterious things that I have yet to see - but you always fail to share them.

Just because Jesus quoted Hosea you are misled in to believing that he didn't really mean what he said.

What He said was what Hosea said. He quoted a prophet whose words the Pharisees would have known and He said something that they would understand as a rebuke.

In Hosea 5 - Hosea called Israel to repentance and accuses them of committing "whoredoms" and being "defiled" - and therefore they offended God and that God claimed that He would somehow wound Ephraim and Judah then leave and He would not return until they acknowledged their offenses.

Hosea 6 begins with the prophet begging Israel to return to God - that He will heal them if they do - but then God begins to speak to Israel - Ephraim and Judah in particular.

He claimed that their "goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away." (Hosea 6:4) -which means that it is shallow and short-lived - not real.

Then He clamed that this is why He sent His prophets to them - that He "hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth." (Hosea 6:5) - meaning that they stood condemned before the Word of God that was given by His prophets - with no excuse - no defense.

Which leads us to Hoses 6:6 - the part that the Lord Jesus Christ quoted to the Pharisees - and I will add verse 7 for good measure -

"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me."

So - in Matthew 9 - when the Pharisees criticized the Lord for eating with publicans and sinners - He soundly rebuked them with the words of a prophet -

"But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Matthew 9:12-13)

The Lord Jesus Christ was claiming that the Pharisees were like the inhabitants of Ephraim and Judah at the time of Hosea the prophet - that they commit "whoredoms" and that they "defile" Israel - their "goodness" is a façade that quickly evaporates like "early dew" - for they gave sacrifice - but they lacked mercy.

You need to understand that Jesus meant EXACTLY what he said...... he not only wanted an end to Priesthood and Temple corruption and injustice as spoken in words, but IN DEEDS, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

You have provided zero evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ wanted to end anything - let alone the Priesthood and the Temple - while I quoted the Lord claiming that He came to fulfill both the Law and the Prophets and how He taught His followers to go to the Temple.

Jesus's actions spoke out strongly as well as his words. You won't have figured this out, I guess, but if you need educating about Jesus's actions which showed what he thought about Priesthood and Temples corruption, scams and injustice then just ask...... there's much more to teach you than the Temple clearance and/or the Temple picketing.....much more.

Yes - the Lord Jesus Christ often spoke out against the corruption among the Jewish elders - but that does not mean the Priesthood and Temple had become corrupted - only the men who claimed to be righteous when they were not.

Again - zero evidence.

I'll give you a clue as to how wrong you are when you reduce what Jesus wanted by trying to pretend that Jesus was only quoting Hosea........ Did Hosea want to end the process completely? I don't know, but Jesus certainly did.

So - where is this clue? This mysterious thing that you keep alluding to?

Hosea wanted his people to return to God - to allow the Law and the words of the Prophets to change them - to make them better.

The Lord Jesus Christ knew this and that is why He used Hosea's words against the Pharisees - for with those words they were "slain" by the words of God. (Hosea 6:5)

Read, Remember, and learn, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

Mark ]{13:2} And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

The Lord Jesus Christ accurately foretelling the future of the Romans utterly destroying the Temple does not convey any desire that He wanted it to happen.

You are making stuff up again. Lying.

It's sad - but expected.

One useful 'tell' about the uneducated is that they call out ignorance upon others...... Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

Another "tell" about the uneducated is that they lack self-awareness - like how you have been claiming that I am ignorant throughout this entire discussion without ever being able to prove how.

So - you are providing evidence that you yourself are the uneducated - as well as hypocritical.

I - on the other hand - do not just tell you that you are wrong or ignorant - I provide examples from the scriptures that prove it.

You need to brush up on your history of early 1st century Palestine, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

You have placed Jesus in Jerusalem for both of your examples, and Judea, Idumea and Samaria were all governed by a Roman Prefect at that time, and adultery was not a capital offence at all......

Adultery was a capital offense according to the Law of Moses. (Leviticus 20:10-11, Deuteronomy 22:22)

 

[Fallen Prophet]

But in Perea, Gaulanitus, Decapolis, Galilee, Phoenicia the Romans did not rule........ and Jesus was making his case against the adultery laws anywhere, not just in Jerusalem.

Wrong - the Romans had taken control of Galilee in 63 B.C.E - I believe they had taken control of Galilee even before Jerusalem.

And the Lord Jesus Christ made literally no case about adultery - other than to say that it was a sin and that He did not condemn the sinner.

He never claimed that the Law of Moses was incorrect. He actually was observing the Law by not condemning that woman because the evidence necessary according to the Law had never been presented and the man she committed adultery with was not present.

This woman had not been tried properly - according to the Law - therefore what the Lord Jesus Christ said and did had nothing to do with the Law of Moses - or Roman law.

Earlier you asked me not to use your initials, Fallen Prophet......... I have kept to that. It's time for you to end your direct iunsults, Fallen Prophet. Very bad habit, that.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

My claiming that you are ignorant is not a insult - because I have proven that it is true - besides - you have been claiming that I am ignorant throughout this entire discussion - so get off your high horse with that hypocritical behavior.

An argument is only ad hominem if an insult is used instead of an actual argument - like what you have been doing to me - but I have proven that you don't know what you are talking about multiple times - and now I have proven that you are acting hypocritical by negatively judging me for what you yourself have been doing.

It's not good, Fallen Prophet....you reversing in to dictionary definition to somehow show that your God didn't like his wine, sometimes to excess. That actually causes me to like him the more.....more human, if you like.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

What did I do? I "[reversed] in to dictionary definition"? What does that mean?

And again - you seem to confusing me with someone else - I never claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ did not drink wine or that He did not like it - only that the New Testament never recorded Him becoming inebriated - and the facts we know about Him and His character would suggest that He never did - since the Law and the Prophets often condemned drunkeness.

Jesus did enjoy his meat and wine with 'bad' people, sometimes to excess, but was not any kind of alcoholic drunkard?

Where in the New Testament does it claim that He drank in excess?

Are you referring to the claims made by the Pharisees? That He was a "winebibber"?

Those same men who claimed that He was possessed by the devil?

I believe you need the Lord Jesus Christ to be a "winebibber" to somehow justify your love for wine or alcohol.

Is that what this is? You just trying to excuse you being a drunkard?

You call those people who saw Jesus 'enemies'..... yet you agree that they told the truth in at least half of that observation......

Correct - liars always tell half-truths - it makes their lies more convincing. Like the serpent in the Garden.

Besides - the New Testament record clearly states that the Lord Jesus Christ ate and drank with publicans and sinners - that cannot be disputed.

There is - however - no claim that He ever drank wine in excess or that He was any kind of "winebibber".

So nasty people sometimes told the truth, sometimes not, as suits your purpose? Cherry-picking, Fallen Prophet

You used my name again after I told you not to.

Like the best of liars - the Pharisees were using the truth to perpetuate their lies.

Everyone knew that the Lord Jesus Christ ate and drank with publicans and sinners - so what use would the Pharisees have in claiming that He didn't?

They used that truth as a foundation to claim that His eating and drinking with publicans and sinners meant that He did so in excess - with no proof.

I mean - you know how this works - you have been doing it all throughout this discussion.

You quote from the New Testament and use it to refer to some mysterious and hidden clues about the Lord Jesus Christ that just don't appear in the text or anywhere.

This is bread and butter - for you and the Pharisees.

Matthew . {11:19} The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.

We went over this already.

He was criticizing the Pharisees - comparing Himself to John the Baptist - claiming that no matter what any man does - lives alone in the wilderness and never drinks or lives among the people and eats and drinks with them - they will reject them if those men speak out against their wickedness and hypocrisy.

The Lord Jesus Christ also said this in relation to the Law - for Deuteronomy 20:20-21 reads,

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

He was also pointing out their murderous intent - that they wanted Him dead and they believed that they could use the Law to justify His murder.

They were hypocrites.

This was already covered in my last post.
You might know your bible generally but I think your grasp of the gospels is rubbish, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

You either confused me for someone else or lied about what I have said - and when I prove that to you - you just claim that I'm ignorant for the umpteenth time?

You are being ridiculous and you can't own up to your own mistakes/lies.

Why do some extreme Christians throw such insults around?

It's not an insult if it is the truth - and I corrected you many times on this.

You are lying about the motivations about why John the Baptist sent his disciples to the Lord.

You are making stuff up. You are persisting to lie in the face of what the text actually says.

I am making a case for the real Jesus, so obviously I think your proposals are junk.

My quoting verbatim from the New Testament is not a "proposal" - it is quoting verbatim from the New Testament.

You don't have to believe in the New Testament - but you cannot claim that it says things that it never did.

You are lying.

But I don't call anybody a liar on RF, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

I don't recall calling you a liar. I claimed that you had lied - of course - after correcting you so many times and quoting - verbatim - from the New Testament proving that what you said was not true.

The first time you may have simply been misinformed - but after the second and third time - you have no excuse - you are just making stuff up - which is lying.

You have not once provided any evidence that John the Baptist believed - or even heard - the rumors made by those "nasty Priests" - you just keep insisting that it is the case.

It's sad - but expected.

You must belong to some other forum where such trash can be thrown around. I would not do that here.

You believe that it is okay to throw lies about - but it is inappropriate to call out someone when they lie?

It's sad - but expected.

Your conduct shows the value of your particular faith, in my opinion.

Pure ad hominem.

Instead of trying to destroy my character - prove that I am wrong.

Prove that you aren't lying about John the Baptist. Quote from the New Testament where it says that John the Baptist became worried about the rumors he heard from "nasty Priests" and that's why he sent his disciples to the Lord.

If you cannot do that - then what I said was right - and being that this is the third time I have corrected you - you are lying at this point.

Stop you there, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

Jesus may have appeared to bring people back from death, just as can happen today in various circumstances, but that's as far as it can go for me.

I don't really care about how far you wish to go - the New Testament claims that the Lord Jesus Christ brought multiple people back from the dead.

You don't have to believe in the New Testament - actually you not believing in it would explain a lot of your conduct here - but I do - and our beliefs don't even really matter here.

All that matters here is what the text actually says - whether or not it is true is irrelevant.

The text never claims that the Lord Jesus Christ got drunk.

The text never claims that John the Baptist heard any rumors from "nasty Priests".

You claiming otherwise is just you making stuff up. It is you lying.

And my claim that you are lying can easily be debunked by you providing the verses that prove your claims.

It is so easy - but no - you'd rather just claim that I am wrong - allude to some mysterious clues - and then badger me with ad hominem attacks - because you know that you have been lying.

You don't like the Priesthood of early first century Palestine so don't pretend otherwise.

The Priesthood is independent from the men who claim to hold it.

The Lord Jesus Christ often called out the wickedness of the men - not the Priesthood.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

And at one moment you have them telling truth, the next it is lies.

That's what liars do.

The serpent claimed that Eve would become wise by gaining Knowledge of Good and Evil - which was the truth - but it lied when it said that she would not die.

It used the truth to perpetuate a lie.

You were correct when you claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ ate with publicans and sinners - the text says as much - but the text never claimed that He drank to excess - so you were using the truth to perpetuate a lie.

You were correct when you claimed that John the Baptist sent his disciples to the Lord to inquire of Him - the text says as much - but the text never claimed that he did so because he had heard rumors from some "nasty Priests" - so you were using the truth to perpetuate a lie.

As I said before - using the truth to perpetuate a lie is what all liars do.

You seem to reverse in to anything that suits you.

I'm just not adding to the text. And what do you mean by "reverse"?

Actually that's exactly what Christianity did where I live...... it reversed in to many of the ancient beliefs, meeting places etc of the pagans....oh well.

I don't care. What do you mean by "reversed"?

I am convinced that John was worried about what he had heard about Jesus.

Good for you - but the New Testament does not support your conviction - so what is it based on?

The only thing the New Testament claims that John the Baptist heard about the Lord while he was in prison were His "works" or "Godly deeds" - which continued to astonish him.

Either way this makes a mockery of how John and Jesus knew each other as relatives.

The New Testament never claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist ever knew or even met each other until the time of the Lord's baptism.

It only provided the one account of John moving in his mother's womb when Mary entered. That's hardly a meeting.

You can believe what you want - but unless you can provide evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist spent time together and knew each other intimately while growing up - you have nothing.

Stop making stuff up, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

And your lack of self-awareness and level of projection is staggering.

You are the only one making stuff up here.

We all do know that our days are numbered, but John the Baptist just carried on doing what he was doing until he got caught...... and he was in Perea when he got caught! Perea! Why else was Antipas told to bring him in?

I quoted from John 3 when John the Baptist told his disciples that "He must increase, but I must decrease."

Oh! You don't believe that Antipas went after him because John was wailing about his new wife, do you? No....John was cutting down Temple takings thru free immersion in the river. Antipas like John and spoke with him in prison....
*sighs..... I try.....I try.....*

You are free to believe what you want - but unless you have evidence - you have nothing.

Yes! Remember that........... it's 70-100 miles between the Galilee and Jerusalem.

I was the one who told you.

Please remember that when reading John's gospel which has Jesus popping up and down all the time. That was just untrue.

What are you talking about?

And Jesus and the Baptist were no relatives. Jesus was a Galilean peasant (there was no middle class) and The Baptist a holy many living out in the wastelands.......

Yet - you claimed earlier that the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist "knew each other as relatives".

You are all over the place - you don't even know what you believe.

If Mark didn't write about an early Jesus, then most of it will be rubbish.
Don't forget..... neither Matthew nor Luke witnessed anything, they even needed to copy Mark's accounts.

So - you don't believe that the New Testament is factual - that explains a lot.

Oh please, you've already quoted from your dictionary to show that 'winebibber does not mean drunkard.... it simply means a person who likes to drink wine........ perfect.

First off - it is not "my" dictionary - it is everyone's.

And lastly - winebibber literally means a "drunkard" or "alcoholic" - whose preferred beverage was wine.

I'll bet that some of those meetings were brilliant affairs, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

I don't know what constitutes a "brilliant affair" - but I bet the Lord Jesus Christ was a fun guy to be around.

But you do! You do! YOu have chosen to believe half of the observations as claimed, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

The New Testament confirms some of what they claimed - but not all.

I didn't choose what the New Testament records - so I didn't choose what to believe in regards to what the Pharisees said.

No, it is not..........

Then why can't you prove it?

No, Fallen Prophet...... he loved his meat, wine and company....all!

You used my name again after I told you not to.

And no one said that He didn't love eating meat or drinking wine with publicans and sinners.

You really wish I hadn't said what I did in my first comment - don't you?

How do you know what your God decided?

Based on the fact that that same God often condemned the practice of drinking in excess in the Old Testament.

If you stopped dreaming up stuff and actually bothered to research properly you might learn more.

Again - your lack of self-awareness and level of projection is staggering.

Read what you write!
Written by Fallen Prophet:- The Lord Jesus Christ grew up in Nazareth while John the Baptist grew up right outside of Jerusalem - a distance of roughly 100 miles

You used my name again after I told you not to.

Yes - grew up. The Lord Jesus Christ grew up far from the Temple.

However - once He began His ministry - He traveled to Jerusalem and the Temple many times.

And the New Testament clearly records the Lord telling His followers to go to the Temple and that the Apostles went to the Temple for years after the Lord's death and Resurrection.

You fill in wherever you please, I think.....

I'm quoting from the text and sharing historical facts.

So where do you get all your rules and laws from? The Laws of Moses? You've junked 85% of them!

You keep claiming this - but have failed to provide actual examples.

So you don't like your chosen name, Fallen Prophet...... well that's a shame.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

No - I like the name I chose - I just don't like how you use it.

Stop.

I'll teach you something....... ready?

This will be a first.

You have thrown trash and insults throughout your posts...at me. You are full of insults, Fallen Prophet.

You used my name gain after I told you not to.

I accurately pointed out when you were lying, being ignorant or hypocritical - and I provided evidence to prove my claims.

I have not insulted you, calling out 'lies' and other insults.

You have often claimed that I don't know what I am talking about. That I haven't read the Gospels.

And you have yet to call out any lie on my part because I have not been lying - unlike you.

I want you to stop throwing trash at me (or any other) in your posts. If you can't convince me with accurate quotes and history, geography then you're not going to win anything....

I will have no reason to point out your lies if you stop lying.

I will have no reason to point out your ignorance if you stop being ignorant.

I will have no reason to point out your hypocrisy if you stop being hypocritical.

So you hate your chosen name....you chose it.

Nope - I like it - I just don't like how you use it - it feels like abuse. Stop it.

I'll never write your name again........and you will clean up your posts to me. Fair enough?

My posts are squeaky clean - but I keep having to clean yours up for you - which seems to have upset you.

Stop giving me reason to clean up your posts.

If you go back to your old habits then your name shall return, I think.

Hah! You thinking that you are in a position of strength is funny.

Stop making stuff up!
They all spoke like Galileans! (almost definitely in Eastern Aramaic)

Mark 14:69} And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them. {14:70} And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art [one] of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth [thereto. ]

Yet this maid spoke to Peter in Aramaic - did she not? Otherwise - how could he understand her and her him?

His speaking Aramaic was not what singled him out as a Galilean - because that was the commonly spoken language of Jerusalem as well- but his "speech" - which refers to a dialect or accent - was what sent him apart - not language.

And - interesting footnote - Peter's names of Simon (Hebrew), Peter (Greek) and Cephas (Aramaic) all prove that those three languages were common in that region.

And when they crucified the Lord the sign they placed above His head was written in Latin, Hebrew and GREEK! Why use those three languages?

So Jesus spoke in Galilean Eastern Aramaic. He gave Cephas his nick-name.

Cephas is simply Peter - from the Greek petros - in Aramaic. Not really a "nick-name".

And the Lord using the Aramiac equivalent does not remove the centuries of Greek influence on both Judea and Rome - or somehow make the Septuagint no longer exist.

What language did you think that was, Samoan?

Just because the common spoken language was Aramaic does not mean that they could not also know Hebrew and Greek.

Now you are lacking in common sense.

 

[ElishaElijah]

@Fallen Prophet
What a gifting you have, that’s some kind of response!

 

[Fallen Prophet]

@Fallen Prophet
What a gifting you have, that’s some kind of response!

Was it a little much?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Was it a little much?

Sounded necessary, was impressed by your response to all his comments in that. Would’ve taken me 2 weeks and some paper and pen.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Sounded necessary, was impressed by your response to all his comments in that. Would’ve taken me 2 weeks and some paper and pen.

Well - I do have a knack for remembering comments based on how ridiculous they are.

His will be seared in my brain forever.

 

[oldbadger]

You'd think after eight posts you would have said - something - but no - only empty "non-answers" given in an attempt to distract from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

By actually quoting from the scriptures - both Old and New Testaments - and supplying accurate historical facts - thus viewing them in their proper context - all your claims were debunked.

However - rather than accept the facts - or at least muster up enough courage and self-awareness to at least try to defend your position - you instead attack me personally and double down on nonsense.

I knew this was coming - because it always happens when one's ignorance is exposed. - but you went down in spectacular fashion - blindly ignoring that which you didn't wish to see, projecting your own inadequacies onto me and just saying nothing throughout eight posts.

It's sad - but expected.

So let's dive into the void that is your posts.

I don't believe you will listen - that you are passed feeling - but for anyone who stumbles upon this thread - I want them to know.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

You keeping hinting at mysterious things that I have yet to see - but you always fail to share them.

What He said was what Hosea said. He quoted a prophet whose words the Pharisees would have known and He said something that they would understand as a rebuke.

In Hosea 5 - Hosea called Israel to repentance and accuses them of committing "whoredoms" and being "defiled" - and therefore they offended God and that God claimed that He would somehow wound Ephraim and Judah then leave and He would not return until they acknowledged their offenses.

Hosea 6 begins with the prophet begging Israel to return to God - that He will heal them if they do - but then God begins to speak to Israel - Ephraim and Judah in particular.

He claimed that their "goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away." (Hosea 6:4) -which means that it is shallow and short-lived - not real.

Then He clamed that this is why He sent His prophets to them - that He "hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth." (Hosea 6:5) - meaning that they stood condemned before the Word of God that was given by His prophets - with no excuse - no defense.

Which leads us to Hoses 6:6 - the part that the Lord Jesus Christ quoted to the Pharisees - and I will add verse 7 for good measure -

"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me."

So - in Matthew 9 - when the Pharisees criticized the Lord for eating with publicans and sinners - He soundly rebuked them with the words of a prophet -

"But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Matthew 9:12-13)

The Lord Jesus Christ was claiming that the Pharisees were like the inhabitants of Ephraim and Judah at the time of Hosea the prophet - that they commit "whoredoms" and that they "defile" Israel - their "goodness" is a façade that quickly evaporates like "early dew" - for they gave sacrifice - but they lacked mercy.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

You have provided zero evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ wanted to end anything - let alone the Priesthood and the Temple - while I quoted the Lord claiming that He came to fulfill both the Law and the Prophets and how He taught His followers to go to the Temple.

Yes - the Lord Jesus Christ often spoke out against the corruption among the Jewish elders - but that does not mean the Priesthood and Temple had become corrupted - only the men who claimed to be righteous when they were not.

Again - zero evidence.

So - where is this clue? This mysterious thing that you keep alluding to?

Hosea wanted his people to return to God - to allow the Law and the words of the Prophets to change them - to make them better.

The Lord Jesus Christ knew this and that is why He used Hosea's words against the Pharisees - for with those words they were "slain" by the words of God. (Hosea 6:5)

You used my name again after I told you not to.

The Lord Jesus Christ accurately foretelling the future of the Romans utterly destroying the Temple does not convey any desire that He wanted it to happen.

You are making stuff up again. Lying.

It's sad - but expected.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

Another "tell" about the uneducated is that they lack self-awareness - like how you have been claiming that I am ignorant throughout this entire discussion without ever being able to prove how.

So - you are providing evidence that you yourself are the uneducated - as well as hypocritical.

I - on the other hand - do not just tell you that you are wrong or ignorant - I provide examples from the scriptures that prove it.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

Adultery was a capital offense according to the Law of Moses. (Leviticus 20:10-11, Deuteronomy 22:22)

TLDR