With bafflement upon bafflement!

[Harel13]

In other words, the only reason Jesus went to Samaria was because it lay between Judea and his home in Galilee! Since he was walking, he stopped near Sychar, at Jacob's well, to get a drink!

Which just happens to be in the heartland of the Samaritan territory. Curious indeed (not!). There were other routes to Jerusalem. Via Jericho, for example. In fact, many Jews preferred the other routes because of the animosity between them and the Samaritans.

 

[Redemptionsong]

False. Again. "A day of a thousand years" does not exist in Hebrew scripture. I already explained this. You did not / could not refute it. If you have something from Jewish scripture to support this then bring it. Otherwise you are just spreading falsehood. Proverbs 13:3, Proverbs 19:9.

How can you say it doesn't exist in Hebrew scripture when the clues are derived from Psalm 90:4? This passage is quoted by the rabbis in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a. Where else do you think they got the idea from?

 

[Redemptionsong]

False. Again. "A day of a thousand years" does not exist in Hebrew scripture. I already explained this. You did not / could not refute it. If you have something from Jewish scripture to support this then bring it. Otherwise you are just spreading falsehood. Proverbs 13:3, Proverbs 19:9.

Peter's epistles are opinion. What reasons are there to believe it's word of God?

• He never speaks in God's name or in God's voice.

• The vision he supposedly had in Acts 10 describes his god instructing him to break the law of Moses. So, really he's not connected to the same god as Jewish scripture? Thus his epistle is not word of God.

• If you go back to the Gospels, Peter is far from a perfect vessel of faith in Jesus. So, again, **at best** anything coming from Peter is weak evidence because according to the story his faith is inconsistent. He could backslide at anytime.

• Look closely at 2 Peter 3:8, he is NOT directly quoting scripture. If he were, it would indicated as in 1 Peter 1:6. "διότι περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ ... " "There contained in scripture ..." If it's not a direct quote, then Peter's assertion about days and years is opinion, not scripture.

Per Jewish scripture Peter is a false prophet. He spoke falsehood about The Lord.

Deut 13:6 And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.
​

Where does Peter speak falsehood?

1 Peter 4:11 If anyone speaks, he should speak as one conveying the words of God. If anyone serves, he should serve with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen.
​

But the Lord doesn't share glory... Isaiah 42:8

8 I am the Lord, that is My Name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to the graven images.
​

But, if a person ignores ( or is blind ) to all that... Let's assume Peter is writing holy scripture. Does it make sense to apply it to Hosea 6:2 as "1 day = 1000 years"? No. it doesn't fit.

• 2 Peter 3:8 does NOT provide a direct equivalence 1 day = 1000 years. Look at the text. It is using a simile, a poetic device. The verse says "one day with the Lord is LIKE [ὡς] a thousand years, and a thousand years are LIKE [ὡς] day one". So you cant use this verse to do any date-math.

• 2 Peter 3:8 CANNOT be used to interpret Hosea 6:2. Again, look at the text. The condition in Peter's letter is "With God". The speaker in Hosea 6:2 is NOT with God. They are bound, smitten, and in need of healing. So the comment from Peter does not apply here.

So again, at best 2 Peter 3:8 is weak evidence that 1 day = 1000 years. You're still stuck with a weak argument in this debate. So much is dependent on one word "day". Deriving a thousand years for this day is NOT scriptural.

Do you have any scriptural reasons to think Jewish people are spiritually blind? You have utterly failed to this point.

The blindness of the Jewish people relates specifically to the Messiah. Once again I turn to my friend Isaiah.

Isaiah 8:13-18. 'Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.'

Who do you think 'I' refers to in verses 17 and 18?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Which just happens to be in the heartland of the Samaritan territory. Curious indeed (not!). There were other routes to Jerusalem. Via Jericho, for example. In fact, many Jews preferred the other routes because of the animosity between them and the Samaritans.

And Jesus must have regularly used these other routes. But on this occasion he chose to go through Samaria. My guess is that he followed the leading of the Holy Spirit, in order that this specific meeting might be recorded for posterity.

 

[dybmh]

Nor do the rabbis actually deny that the Messianic era should have started after four thousand years. Eliyyahu teaches that it is the transgressions of the people that delay his coming.

You are citing the Talmud again. The Talmud refutes Christianity. The Talmud is not scripture. This is a dead end.

Interestingly, Jesus was anointed as Messiah,

Nope. Never anointed. Depending on which Gospel, It's either the wrong oil, the wrong procedure, or both.

In Matthew it is called expensive oil. That means it was purchased somewhere. Therefore it's not the holy anointing oil. Exodus 30:33. It's highly unlikely this oil came from the temple as being sold. (Strike 1)

In Mark, it's also listed as expensive with the additional problem that it conatined the wrong ingredient, νάρδου spikenard. (Strike 2 and 3).

In John, same problems, expensive oil... wrong ingredient ... But here there's another problem, she didn't annoint his head, just his feet. So that's the wrong procedure also ( Exodus 29:7). Strike 4, 5, and 6.

In Luke, the oil isn't described, but the woman doesn't annoint his head only his feet. That's the wrong procedure, strike 7.

his reign over the whole earth did not take place.

yup.

The kingdom present is a kingdom in the hearts of believers, not a visible kingdom.

The heart is deceitful above all things... Jer. 17:9

 

[dybmh]

This depends on how you view 'Israel'.

Israel is the name given to Jacob when Jacob met 'face to face' with the Lord. In my opinion, Jesus is the head of Israel, and all 'in lsrael' (the body) means the same as 'in Christ'. It comes to apply to both Jews and Gentiles who accept Jesus as the Saviour and Messiah.

If you have to change the words of scripture to mach your beliefs... guess what? That's not evidence in a sciptural debate. The verse says "ruler IN Israel", your guy wasn't. Micha 5:2 CANNOT be talking about Jesus unless the text is altered.

Prophecy Failure.

 

[dybmh]

Can you explain to me how it is that all lsrael 'shall be saved'?

Easy! What would King David do? Psalms 119. Step by step, one verse at a time.

TLDR skip to verse 174.

I yearned for Your salvation, O Lord, and Your Torah is my occupation.

" ... your salvation ... Your Torah is ... " literally.

 

[dybmh]

The salvation of God is a 'who', not a 'what'!

HA! Show me the scripture that supports that!

 

[dybmh]

How can you say it doesn't exist in Hebrew scripture when the clues are derived from Psalm 90:4?

It's easy IF you read the verse. Have you done that?

Psalm 90:4 does NOT say that a day is a 1000 years. That is 100% false. Read the psalm. It diminshes 1000 years to a day then to shorter than that, "a watch in the night". The Psalm does NOT magnify a day to 1000 years. Magnifying does not fit the theme of the Psalm. Moses is asking God "Return O Lord how long???" He is praying to reduce the amount of time, not increase it.

Psalm 90:4 Clearly says this is NOT a direct equivilance. It is a simile. It says 1000 years is LIKE a day. Like a day IN GODS EYES. Not to humans. To humans a day is still a day. To God 1000 years "looks like a day". That's it, it's perception not reality.

This passage is quoted by the rabbis in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a.

Is the Talmud scripture? Yes or No?

Where else do you think they got the idea from?

It doesn't matter. Psalms 90:4 doesn't fit with Hosea 6:2. 2 Peter 3:8 doesn't fit with Hosea 6:2. It needs to fit with Hosea in order to make your point. Neither do, so your point has failed. You need different verses to make your point. done.

 

[dybmh]

The blindness of the Jewish people relates specifically to the Messiah. Once again I turn to my friend Isaiah.

Isaiah 8:13-18. 'Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.'

Who do you think 'I' refers to in verses 17 and 18?

Ahhh... So If I don't "see Jesus" as "I" in verses 17 & 18 ... I'm blind? Is that the extent of it?

 

[Redemptionsong]

You are citing the Talmud again. The Talmud refutes Christianity. The Talmud is not scripture. This is a dead end.

Nope. Never anointed. Depending on which Gospel, It's either the wrong oil, the wrong procedure, or both.

In Matthew it is called expensive oil. That means it was purchased somewhere. Therefore it's not the holy anointing oil. Exodus 30:33. It's highly unlikely this oil came from the temple as being sold. (Strike 1)

In Mark, it's also listed as expensive with the additional problem that it conatined the wrong ingredient, νάρδου spikenard. (Strike 2 and 3).

In John, same problems, expensive oil... wrong ingredient ... But here there's another problem, she didn't annoint his head, just his feet. So that's the wrong procedure also ( Exodus 29:7). Strike 4, 5, and 6.

In Luke, the oil isn't described, but the woman doesn't annoint his head only his feet. That's the wrong procedure, strike 7.


yup.

The heart is deceitful above all things... Jer. 17:9

You've confused two different anointings!

 

[dybmh]

You've confused two different anointings!

Show me with scripture.

 

[Harel13]

And Jesus must have regularly used these other routes

That is not stated anywhere. You have no evidence of this, hence you stick in "must have". There's no "must have" about it. Before I told you the main Jewish route from the Galilee to Jerusalem was via Jericho, you thought that everyone always passed through Samaritan territory. You altered your understanding of the text - of your god - on a whim. How do you know that Jesus only changed his travel route that one time???

 

[Redemptionsong]

That is not stated anywhere. You have no evidence of this, hence you stick in "must have". There's no "must have" about it. Before I told you the main Jewish route from the Galilee to Jerusalem was via Jericho, you thought that everyone always passed through Samaritan territory. You altered your understanding of the text - of your god - on a whim. How do you know that Jesus only changed his travel route that one time???

I don't. But the route along the river Jordan to Jericho was well trodden by pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem. And the parable of the Good Samaritan is set on this particular road. We also have stories of Jesus healing a blind man.

Luke 18:35. ' And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging:
And hearing the multitude pass by, asked what it meant.
And they told him that Jesus of Nazareth passed by.'

Luke 19:1. ' And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.
And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.'

And it was to Zaccheaus that Jesus said: 'This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is lost.'

 

[Redemptionsong]

Show me with scripture.

Mark 14:3-6:
'And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she break the box, and poured it on his head.
And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of an ointment made?
For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.'

The Song of Solomon 1:12: ' While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.
A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved to me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of En-gedi.'

Spikenard is a perfume, and was used to anoint the dead. It is not associated with the giving of the Holy Spirit.

Olive oil was used to anoint, and is symbolic of anointing in the Holy Spirit. But, remember, when Jesus was baptised at the river Jordan, he was not being crowned as king. It was a parallel anointing to that made by Samuel upon David [1 Samuel 16:13], where a prophet was called upon to anoint a man chosen to be king. Then, God's Spirit came upon him, and the Spirit was upon David thereafter, even before being made king over either Judah, or lsrael.

Interestingly, the moment that the Spirit of God came upon David, was the moment that the Holy Spirit departed from Saul. In this allegory, Saul represents the old Israel, living under law. For, once the new covenant becomes effective, the old passes away.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ahhh... So If I don't "see Jesus" as "I" in verses 17 & 18 ... I'm blind? Is that the extent of it?

Tell me who the 'l' refers to. You must have a teaching on this subject.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Easy! What would King David do? Psalms 119. Step by step, one verse at a time.

TLDR skip to verse 174.

I yearned for Your salvation, O Lord, and Your Torah is my occupation.

" ... your salvation ... Your Torah is ... " literally.

Do you not know that Christ is the 'Word of God'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you not know that Christ is the 'Word of God'?

That is the claim. It does not make it a fact.
And what does that even mean?

 

[Harel13]

Spikenard is a perfume, and was used to anoint the dead

You just quoted a verse from Song of Songs that shows it had other uses...

Although, a small nitpick on your translation: The Hebrew is נרד, nard. It was the translator's decision to identify that nard with spikenard.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That is the claim. It does not make it a fact.
And what does that even mean?

I don't expect someone who doesn't accept the existence of God to even entertain the idea that his Word can become flesh, but this is exactly what John records:
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'

'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth'.