If Jesus was God, explain this verse...

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
Shabbat Shalom!
Like you yourself I accept Talmud as being Torah, but not all of it.
A case in point: My Messiah Yahushua appears to reject the directive of the Rabbis prohibiting eating with unwashed hands as exhibited below:
Mat 15:1
1 Then came to Yahushua scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
The Torah plainly dictates that the instructions of the Elders must be strictly followed right here:
Deuteronomy 17:9-11
9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which YAHWEH shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
Clearly, My Messiah Yahushua declined to follow the sentence of the Elders, and My Messiah sets aside their sentence by HIS instruction to HIS Disciples:
Matthew 15:20
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Accordingly, right here the Torah determines the fate of someone like Messiah Yahushua who has set aside a decree of the Torah given by the Elders:
Deuteronomy 17:12
12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before YAHWEH thy ELOHIM, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
My question for you is this: Do you believe that Yahushua transgressed the Torah by rejecting the sentence of the Rabbis, and do you believe that Yahushua was worthy of death for that sin? If not, why not?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

I have been struggling with this question for a long time.

I would assume not, because the Pharisees represented a faction of leadership, and they shared rivalry with other claimants to this position of elderhood. Who is to say that they, and not the Sadducees or the Essenes, should have been considered the Elders?

Though Jesus does say "Do as they say for they sit in the seat of Moses".

It's a tough call that hopefully one day I will be able to know.

 

[Prophet]

I said when I get one I'll give one.

I refused nothing. I said when I get one I will give it to you. You demand in on command. You act as if prophecy is something I can put a quarter in a machine and receive. Maybe that's how you derive YOUR prophethood from, but if I don't give it to you immediately because I haven't received something to tell you, you think I am refusing. I never said prophethood excuses me from this request. You can't win arguments so you resort to straw men and twisting what a person says. Your dishonesty precedes you.

I'm quite sorry if I exaggerated when I accused you of outright refusing to provide evidence of your prophethood, however, if we go by your own wording, here:

I'll let you know if I get anything specific to tell you. Probably not going to happen though.

...you are certainly guilty of exaggeration as well when you imply that I should be expecting a prophecy from you. While, again, I admit I had gone too far by objecting to your dodge, it still seems quite right that I suspected it, but this is a belief I'm willing to readdress if evidence that you aren't dodging surfaces.

No actually it's said some very disturbing things which I'm not going to share with you.

I questioned them for a long time.

I've seen no evidence that you question any of your beliefs, but this is a belief I'm willing to readdress if evidence that you are capable of rational, unattached thought emerges.

It's VERY interesting how hostile and insulting you are to other people who claim some form of prophecy. Believe me, I'm not about to go kill anyone because of what I hear in a dream. You on the other hand, I would worry about since you like to put words in people's mouths like "You would murder me if you had the power".

Thank you for being an example of tolerance for other people who claim some form of prophecy.

On the topic of murderous motives, I never had to put any words in your mouth. You admitted that were you in a position of authority, you wouldn't even view my execution as murder when you tried to excuse yourself under the shield of Judaism and the Sanhedrin, saying that if I view your attitude as murderous, I must condemn all Jews along with you. I rejected that claim, twice, despite your assertions that you speak for others. Many murderers view their act as having just cause, but that does not necessarily make it so.

You are unable to present evidence that Mosaic Law is special and from God. Evidence and reason suggest that it is nothing but ancient laws of men. Jesus said:

6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

History, Jewish history INCLUDED, is filled with tyrants who had the force of law on their side and killed indiscriminately, justified by might making right. If the only thing keeping you from killing another out of anger are your circumstances and applicable consequences, you have murderous motives. It is demonstrable that if you were given the power of a tyrant, the murder would not be contained by your motives alone for very long.

The prophet Jesus taught on this matter:

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Jesus was murdered, lawfully executed for breaking Mosaic Law.

I guess this relates to why you refused to even address any questions of why you considered yourself a prophet in the other thread. Basically what your claim of prophecy amounts to is you thinking you speak for God because you think you have the right idea. How would you even determine whether it has the "Spirit of Truth" exactly? If it agrees with YOUR confirmation bias? Who gets to define who has the Spirit of Truth? If it agrees with your own confirmation bias?

I suspect that your prophecies defy reason as flagrantly as your teachings in general. I believe your reluctance to present these prophecies is based upon seeing what I've done to your teachings at every turn, demonstrating they defy both reason and your professed prophet, Jesus.

Ultimately, it appears you simply can't stand the idea of anyone opposing or questioning your own line of thinking.

Thank you for being a shining example of tolerance for opposing views, sir.

In addition to your claim of being a prophet. I'll bet you don't even know how to interpret dreams yet.

You're quite right. Will you teach me?!

You should change your name from "Prophet" to "Projection", you can keep the first 3 letters. It's about the only thing you know how to do. Everything you accuse me of fits yourself to a tee. When you can't actually dispel what I say, you accuse me of not having reasoning or rationality or support. What exactly would I support my views with? What are you supporting your views with? What are you supporting your dismissals and assertions and denials with? Nothing. You have nothing. You have nothing but dismissal and nuh uh in your arsenal. It's a sad case, it really is. When you accused me of having something to hide, that's exactly what you did. Then you accuse me of doing so.

When I reject your claims, I demonstrate reasons for doing so that actually consider the absurd implications of your claims being true. For example, when I pointed out that your belief that Mosaic Law was the basis for sin and that Abel was murdered before Moses existed, you just squirmed. This is a clear conflict which you just dance around. For example two, I pointed out that your beliefs that goodness was equivalent to not breaking Mosaic Law should translate directly to you cutting off any body parts which tempt you to sin, because "surely it is better to arrive in heaven maimed than to have the whole of your body thrown into hell", just as Jesus said! Your comeback: telling me my interpretation of Jesus message was wrong, and you know this because you're a prophet. EXACTLY what you accuse me of.

And every effort you have demonstrated that you want people to not condemn others for murder and rape and theft.

I would say every effort I have demonstrated that I do not want anyone to condemn others for selfish reasons.

You are the one who ignores rationality, and then calls things irrational that disagree with your confirmation bias. How do we decide which one of us is the irrational one here? Again, playing chess with a pigeon perfectly applies to you. You'll think you're right and "rational" no matter what. It doesn't matter what the other person says.

The only thing you've drawn attention to is your woeful lack of honesty, civility and ability to debate.

I think I addressed this already, but thank you for your example of honesty, civility, and raw debating ability.

Meanwhile, you didn't give a single prophecy in your "ask a prophet' thread. As I demonstrated, you angrily refused to even answer civil questions and then insulted me and my beliefs before I said anything remotely insulting to you.

6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

Teaching and prophecy are demonstrably not something Jesus or Isaiah made distinctions between.

If you understood how it works, you'd know it's just something you can give on the spot on demand as you're expecting and demanding.

Whenever you're ready, I'm ready to play out my definition of a prophet and dispel every demonstrably false thing you say on demand.

 

[Prophet]

Hi Latuwr,

Though we come from highly differing world views, I hope I can offer you some insight into Matthew 15.

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

I will give my interpretation into Jesus' explanation of the conflict he sees in the Pharisees:

Why do you defy the universal law of love and selflessness to honor the laws of men? Selflessness demanded that we honor our parents, but laws of men say things like "Saturdays are for observance of God" so you end up with inane conclusions like it is wrong to assist your parents with plowing their fields on Saturdays. Thus, you nullify selflessness for the sake of your regulations, and the spirit of the law for sake of its letter.

 

[natasha levchenko]

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

If Jesus was God, why was he tempted by the Devil? Can God be tempted by the Devil, his own creation?

Granted, he passed the test. But if he was God... Why was there a test in the first place? Does God need to test himself?

Are God and Jesus really one in the same? Please answer logically how this is possible given the verse above.

you think logically. if Jesus was God why he never told that he was God. whom did he pray ?
we read: Math4:1 Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2*After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry. 3*Also, the Tempter came and said to him: “If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.

how can God be led by the spirit if the spirit is his active force? God uses the spirit to accomplish his purposes.
why he did not say: "if you are God,....." did not Satan know whom he addressed? he had other intentions

 

[Prophet]

you think logically. if Jesus was God why he never told that he was God. whom did he pray ?
we read: Math4:1 Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2*After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry. 3*Also, the Tempter came and said to him: “If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.

how can God be led by the spirit if the spirit is his active force? God uses the spirit to accomplish his purposes.
why he did not say: "if you are God,....." did not Satan know whom he addressed? he had other intentions

Any story in which Jesus goes off by himself is highly unlikely to be based upon eyewitness testimony, and is, in my judgement, likely to be a fabrication.

 

[Shermana]

Prophet, the only thing worth replying to you that isn't just a series of you repeating yourself and me repeating myself, in your attempt to vainly say you are right and I am wrong blah blah blah, is your misunderstanding of the meaning of "Prophecy" as Jesus said Isaiah prophecied.

When Isaiah "prophecied" that, it was part of a general prophecy regarding the fate of Israel.

Other than that, you're welcome to your delusions and egomania.

Whether I really am a "prophet" or not, you fell right into another "Clever trap". You proved yourself to be a complete hypocrite, lashing out at anyone who merely asks you civil questions about your claims, and then lashing out at anyone who claims a similar one as you.

You think the only thing that constitutes "rational" thought is that which agrees with you, and you think that you know what the "Spirit of truth" is but in reality you have nothing but your own criteria. If anyone actually believes you have something worthy to say, more power to them.

Other than that, my point is made, that you have no idea how to even read the Scriptural quotes in "context", and despite you making a big deal that you have the "right context" and I don't, there's really no way to prove anything to you. Even if I make it clear as day, you'll dismiss and deny and then claim that verses are fabricated if they don't match your interpretation. I myself claim many verses are interpolated....but usually there's much scholarly support for those. You don't have even the foggiest idea of Biblical scholarship to begin with.

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Shermana,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
The Scribes and Pharisees which challenged Yahushua came from Jerusalem. This indicates to me that they themselves were representatives of the Sanhedrin or perhaps even members of the Sanhedrin eventhough this is not something that I can prove. Jerusalem is the chosen place indicated in Deuteronomy 17:8, and it is from Jerusalem that the Supreme Court of Israel must render decrees.
We learn from Acts 22:30-Acts 23:10 that Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin and the Chief Priests. The High Priest was also present. In the absence of a King, the High Priest served as Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin. No mention is made in Acts of Essenes being present at this Assembly of the Sanhedrin, but both Pharisees and Sadducees were present, and we all know how Paul got them arguing amongst themselves.
The Talmud does not speak very favorably about the Sadducees, and the Talmud, from my reading in it, indicates that the High Priests of Israel were primarily Pharisees. I partly believe this because of the behavior of the High Priest, Caiaphas, at the trial of Yahushua. Caiaphas rent his clothes upon hearing Yahushua utter the Sacred Name (see Mark 14:61-63). According to the Written Torah, the High Priest was forbidden to rend his clothes, but according to the Oral Torah, the High Priest was required to rend his clothes should the Sacred Names be blasphemed in his presence. (Shermana, I am certain that I have read of this requirement in the Talmud, but I did not notate where it is located, and I have since looked and looked and cannot again find the reference. Does this ever happen to you?) Anyways, the rending of his clothes tells me that Caiaphas was a Pharisee as Sadducees follow Written Torah over Oral Torah. If Caiaphas were a Sadducee, then he would not have rent his clothes.
Who then has the authority to make decisions concerning the Torah. Is it not the Sanhedrin? And does not the Sanhedrin reside in Jerusalem? So, in my humble opinion, the Pharisees who came to Yahushua from Jerusalem did indeed sit in Moses's Seat, and they did have authority to question those who were not following Oral Torah.
When I began to search into Judaism, I noticed that Jews set a place for Eliyah at their Passover celebrations. According to their reasoning, when Eliyah appears, he will answer all the difficult issues of Torah that exist before Judaism. Do you yourself believe that Yahushua is the Eliyah prophesied to come.
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Shermana]

I believe John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah, and his soul will incarnate again, or already has several times.

 

[roger1440]

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

If Jesus was God, why was he tempted by the Devil? Can God be tempted by the Devil, his own creation?

Granted, he passed the test. But if he was God... Why was there a test in the first place? Does God need to test himself?

Are God and Jesus really one in the same? Please answer logically how this is possible given the verse above.

Where in the gospel of Mathew is Jesus referred to as God? I can't find it.

 

[Ken Brown]

I believe John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah, and his soul will incarnate again, or already has several times.

Hi Shermana, do you believe that EliYah has or will reincarnate as a "beast," seeing the Scriptures indicate the same fate awaits both man and beasts?

Ecc 3:18-21
(18) I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that Elohim might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
(19) For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
(20) All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
(21) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Psa 49:12-20
(12) Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish.
(13) This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah.
(14) Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.
(15) But Elohim will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.
(16) Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, when the glory of his house is increased;
(17) For when he dieth he shall carry nothing away: his glory shall not descend after him.
(18) Though while he lived he blessed his soul: and men will praise thee, when thou doest well to thyself.
(19) He shall go to the generation of his fathers; they shall never see light.
(20) Man that is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish.

KB

 

[Shermana]

While I certainly do believe that a soul can regress into being reborn as a beast as a means of atonement, as the Pistis Sophia says explicitly, I don't believe those verses necessarily meant such and were more or less simply comparing men to beasts.

 

[Ken Brown]

While I certainly do believe that a soul can regress into being reborn as a beast as a means of atonement, as the Pistis Sophia says explicitly, I don't believe those verses necessarily meant such and were more or less simply comparing men to beasts.

Hi Shermana, I believe the comparison, in those verses of men to beasts, was the fact that BOTH die, and return to dust, but with man, there is a HOPE of the resurrection:

Dan 12:2
(2) And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

And this agrees with what Paul stated concerning the hope of the resurrection:

Act 23:6
(6) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Act 24:15
(15) And have hope toward Elohim, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Act 26:6-8
(6) And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of Elohim unto our fathers:
(7) Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving Elohim day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.
(8) Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that Elohim should raise the dead?

So Shermana, should we also have a hope of reincarnation when we sleep in the dust of the earth, or is our hope to be in the resurrection? KB

 

[Shermana]

The ressurection is a form of reincarnation.

When Job says "Naked I return to the womb" he's not talking about returning to the "Womb of the Earth".

The final ressurection is for souls who have achieved perfection and can live in the Holy New Jerusalem in perfect compliance with the Law and never sin.

 

[Ken Brown]

The ressurection is a form of reincarnation.

When Job says "Naked I return to the womb" he's not talking about returning to the "Womb of the Earth".

The final ressurection is for souls who have achieved perfection and can live in the Holy New Jerusalem in perfect compliance with the Law and never sin.

Hi Shermana, do you honestly think Job is stating he is going to return naked again through another birthing process in another woman's womb (reincarnation)? Job is speaking of EVERYTHING that was taken from him, and his statement concerning how he was naked when he came out of his mother's womb, is only speaking about how he will be naked when he dies. It is just like here:

Ecc 5:15
(15) As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand.

Job was only stating that he would carry nothing back with him (he would be naked) when he returns to the dust of the earth. He came from dust, and he returns to dust, naked he came forth, and naked he returns. Why should reincarnation even be considered in what Job stated? KB

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Shermana,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
I was aware that you believed in reincarnation. Since you believe that Eliyah will enter again into a woman's womb and be born once more, when this Eliyah appears, do you yourself have an understanding how this reincarnated Eliyah shall fulfill this prophecy?:
Malachi 4:4-6
4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of YAHWEH:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
Apparently, the Law of Moses is somehow involved in turning hearts. Your reincarnated Eliyah by your own admission has had several fathers. Consider yourself. If you yourself have also been reincarnated, then you also have had a number of fathers. To whom will Eliyah turn your heart? To a father present or a father past? And how does the Law facilitate this turning of your heart? Even more so, if all your fathers have passed away, how can Eliyah turn their heart to you?
What is your understanding of these issues, Shermana?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Prophet,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
My Messiah Yahushua plainly states in Matthew 15:4 that honoring one's father and mother is a commandment of ELOHIM.
Now, I am sorry, Prophet, but I just have to ask you this question right here: Is remembering the Sabbath Day to keep it holy a commandment of ELOHIM, or is it a commandment of men?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Dinner123]

I have a different understanding of Elijah.

John is Elijah, but not the old Elijah. The old Elijah never died; so he can't really reincarnate or resurrect. John is as to Elijah as Jesus is to David. Jesus is called David in the prophecies but is not the same David. There is a David and Elijah that was, and a David and Elijah to come in the prophecies.

Elisha was something like a new Elijah as well. He had a double portion of Elijah's Spirit. So, he was in the anointing and authority of Elijah. John the Baptist was a similar case.

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, do you honestly think Job is stating he is going to return naked again through another birthing process in another woman's womb (reincarnation)?

Affirmative.

Job is speaking of EVERYTHING that was taken from him, and his statement concerning how he was naked when he came out of his mother's womb, is only speaking about how he will be naked when he dies. It is just like here:

No, he says Naked to the Womb he returns. It's pretty simple.

Ecc 5:15
(15) As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand.

That in no way disproves the concept.

Job was only stating that he would carry nothing back with him (he would be naked) when he returns to the dust of the earth. He came from dust, and he returns to dust, naked he came forth, and naked he returns. Why should reincarnation even be considered in what Job stated? KB

You're welcome to your view but you're wrong. The verses do not negate the idea whatsoever. You are simply reading into it what's not there. The plain reading explicitly says he returns to the womb, and yes, he loses everything he had alongside. To read anything poetic from it from there and to brush aside what it explicitly says may work for you, but I prefer to not engage in such twisting.

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
I was aware that you believed in reincarnation. Since you believe that Eliyah will enter again into a woman's womb and be born once more, when this Eliyah appears, do you yourself have an understanding how this reincarnated Eliyah shall fulfill this prophecy?:
Malachi 4:4-6
4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of YAHWEH:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
Apparently, the Law of Moses is somehow involved in turning hearts. Your reincarnated Eliyah by your own admission has had several fathers. Consider yourself. If you yourself have also been reincarnated, then you also have had a number of fathers. To whom will Eliyah turn your heart? To a father present or a father past? And how does the Law facilitate this turning of your heart? Even more so, if all your fathers have passed away, how can Eliyah turn their heart to you?
What is your understanding of these issues, Shermana?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

I fail to see how this in any way disproves the idea of reincarnation or what your point is. I'm not even sure what you're asking.

 

[Prophet]

Prophet, the only thing worth replying to you that isn't just a series of you repeating yourself and me repeating myself, in your attempt to vainly say you are right and I am wrong blah blah blah, is your misunderstanding of the meaning of "Prophecy" as Jesus said Isaiah prophecied.

When Isaiah "prophecied" that, it was part of a general prophecy regarding the fate of Israel.

Other than that, you're welcome to your delusions and egomania.

Whether I really am a "prophet" or not, you fell right into another "Clever trap". You proved yourself to be a complete hypocrite, lashing out at anyone who merely asks you civil questions about your claims, and then lashing out at anyone who claims a similar one as you.

You think the only thing that constitutes "rational" thought is that which agrees with you, and you think that you know what the "Spirit of truth" is but in reality you have nothing but your own criteria. If anyone actually believes you have something worthy to say, more power to them.

Other than that, my point is made, that you have no idea how to even read the Scriptural quotes in "context", and despite you making a big deal that you have the "right context" and I don't, there's really no way to prove anything to you. Even if I make it clear as day, you'll dismiss and deny and then claim that verses are fabricated if they don't match your interpretation. I myself claim many verses are interpolated....but usually there's much scholarly support for those. You don't have even the foggiest idea of Biblical scholarship to begin with.

Regardless of what is happening on your end, I see more than just an insurmountable struggle. I can demonstrate the following pattern in many of your conflicts in general.

Upon finding material you disagree with, you commence ridicule in various forms, typically aimed at denigrating your opponent's intelligence or education. "You just misunderstand everything." "You should go read this book, and then come back prepared to debate me." "Scholarly people think like me, uncultured boobs think like you." These are typical debate starter templates for you, and they are completely irrelevant to every debate when they cannot be logically supported. Wish I could expand on your pattern more, but ridicule is your only debate tool.

If you are going to out-and-out just tell anyone that they misunderstand Scripture, you better be ready to rationally support that with more than just your own understanding of Scripture as support. If you need a template for this kind of dispelling of delusion, I'm sure I can help:

When I reject your claims, I demonstrate reasons for doing so that actually consider the absurd implications of your claims being true. For example, when I pointed out that your belief that Mosaic Law was the basis for sin and that Abel was murdered before Moses existed, you just squirmed. This is a clear conflict which you just dance around. For example two, I pointed out that your beliefs that goodness was equivalent to not breaking Mosaic Law should translate directly to you cutting off any body parts which tempt you to sin, because "surely it is better to arrive in heaven maimed than to have the whole of your body thrown into hell", just as Jesus said! Your comeback: telling me my interpretation of Jesus message was wrong, and you know this because you're a prophet. EXACTLY what you accuse me of.

You say you would've followed Jesus in his time, his miracle magic tricks proving to you that he was a representative of God. I don't believe Jesus ever performed a single magic trick, but if he did and you disagreed with his message, his magic tricks would no longer be evidence to you that he was in league with the God above but rather the devil below! He would cease to be a prophet to you and would now be called a sorcerer, all based upon whether you agree with him. The same evidence but two opposite results based upon how you want to see it! Crucify him!