With bafflement upon bafflement!

[Redemptionsong]

Ummm... it sure does. It's not only suggested it's precisely and literally what happens in the story. The "new cart" replaces and prohibits carrying it on their shoulders. What I said was "the details of the law are jetisoned". The detail of carrying on shoulders is gone, ignored, over-ruled, made irrelevent by the "new cart". And that's also what Hebrews perscribes about the original law. ( Hebrews 8:13 )

Yes. Jews. But again, you are skipping, skipping, skipping, repeatedly 20 verses that indicate the "new cart" was a bad idea.

Yes... she's being sarcastic

Yes, and he does not rejoice until *after* the "new cart" has been abandoned. They may have been playing music, but the joy of King David comes later.

It doesn't matter because to be a match Jesus would need to be chosen by the LORD to be ruler and he wasn't. I don't know your scripture well enough to locate the story you're referring to. But plenty of people can act like a fool and bring honor to themself from common people. What you're describing is a comedian not a king.

You say, 'Jesus would need to be chosen by the LORD to be ruler and he wasn't'.

As l see it, John the Baptist was sent as the forerunner to the Messiah and his prophetic mission was accepted by the people. John pointed to Jesus, and witnessed his baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was not men choosing Jesus; it was God choosing Jesus.

The scriptures teach of Jesus that, 'He came unto his own, and his own received him not.' [John 1:11]

This would suggest that God did not force His king upon the Jews. To have done so would have been an act of despotism.

According to Acts 1:11, Jesus will return in the clouds from heaven, but he comes only when lsrael are ready to accept His salvation [Zechariah 12:9-14]. This appears to be when the nations finally come against Jerusalem.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sorry, but that does not follow. In fact that claim would refute the Bible.

Why should l listen to an avowed atheist, whom God regards as a fool [Psalms 14, 53]?

IMO, you have set yourself up in opposition to God, and to his Christ. It follows that you must have a very high opinion of yourself and your intellect.

 

[dybmh]

You say, 'Jesus would need to be chosen by the LORD to be ruler and he wasn't'.

As l see it, John the Baptist was sent as the forerunner to the Messiah and his prophetic mission was accepted by the people. John pointed to Jesus, and witnessed his baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was not men choosing Jesus; it was God choosing Jesus.

The scriptures teach of Jesus that, 'He came unto his own, and his own received him not.' [John 1:11]

What does John say? Here comes "the lamb of God" to take away your sins. That's not a king.

Scriptural challenge:

Find me something in the Gospels where Jesus is chosen to be king by God. You can even equate "the-father" "the one who sent him" as God for this challenge. I don't know your scripture well enough to say for for sure; but, if I recall, even Jesus would not admit that he was King. The best he says is to Pilates " ... you say I am. "

So, from my perspective, scripturally there is nothing but wishful thinking happening here.

For King David we have actual scripture describing the LORD chosing him. From the KJV:

1 Samuel 16:1

1 And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons
​

1 Samuel 16:11-13

11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.

12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he. 13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.
​

Here we have 4 important elements.

1. The LORD is speaking making its will known
2. The word king "מֶֽלֶךְ" is explicitly stated
3. The chosen king is anointed
4. The spirit of The LORD came on him

We have already established that Jesus was never anointed. We have already established that the spirit that descended on him is of questionable origin. So really the Christian narrative doesn't match King David.

But, for this challenge all I'm asking for is the first 2 elements. Please bring Gospel scripture where the LORD ( or "the-father" or even Jesus ) communicates its will using the word "king" as applied to Jesus. I'm guessing you won't find it because it would be an outright lie. And as I've noted, liars perish, and this would have interfered with Jesus' wonder-workings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why should l listen to an avowed atheist, whom God regards as a fool [Psalms 14, 53]?

IMO, you have set yourself up in opposition to God, and to his Christ. It follows that you must have a very high opinion of yourself and your intellect.

You made more than one error there. God does not do any such thing.

Of course I am in opposition to false gods. You should be too. Why do you support a false God?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What does John say? Here comes "the lamb of God" to take away your sins. That's not a king.

Scriptural challenge:

Find me something in the Gospels where Jesus is chosen to be king by God. You can even equate "the-father" "the one who sent him" as God for this challenge. I don't know your scripture well enough to say for for sure; but, if I recall, even Jesus would not admit that he was King. The best he says is to Pilates " ... you say I am. "

So, from my perspective, scripturally there is nothing but wishful thinking happening here.

For King David we have actual scripture describing the LORD chosing him. From the KJV:

1 Samuel 16:1

1 And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons
​

1 Samuel 16:11-13

11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.

12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he. 13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.
​

Here we have 4 important elements.

1. The LORD is speaking making its will known
2. The word king "מֶֽלֶךְ" is explicitly stated
3. The chosen king is anointed
4. The spirit of The LORD came on him

We have already established that Jesus was never anointed. We have already established that the spirit that descended on him is of questionable origin. So really the Christian narrative doesn't match King David.

But, for this challenge all I'm asking for is the first 2 elements. Please bring Gospel scripture where the LORD ( or "the-father" or even Jesus ) communicates its will using the word "king" as applied to Jesus. I'm guessing you won't find it because it would be an outright lie. And as I've noted, liars perish, and this would have interfered with Jesus' wonder-workings.

The problem with your challenge is that it fails to acknowledge that the Suffering Servant must precede the advent of the King. 'My servant David' is a prince amongst his people [Ezekiel 34:24] before being their King [Ezekiel 37:22].

And to deny that there is a Suffering Servant contradicts a number of important scriptures, some of which have been traditionally attributed to the anointed Messiah by Jewish rabbis. Take, for example, Zechariah 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***'.

Why would your king Messiah come riding on the foal of an ***, if he's the King of Kings?

In Isaiah, there are a number of prophecies that conflate the mercy of God with the vengeance, or judgement, of God. What these prophecies do not show is that there is a time gap between the mercy and the judgement. This is to allow all people the opportunity to accept the Messiah. But, of course, God knows that the Jews as a nation, led by the High Priest and Council, will reject the anointed Messiah. This allows the 'maidservants' to take the message to the Gentiles.

Can I provide evidence that Isaiah conflates the two 'comings' of the anointed Messiah? Sure.

Isaiah 11:1-9. Verses 1-5 are the 'Suffering Servant', and 6-9 are the king Messiah.

Isaiah 52:7-10. Verses 7,8 are about the mercy of God in the Gospel; verses 9,10 are the redemption brought by the coming of the King.

Isaiah 61: 1,2. This passage, up to the middle of verse 2 is about the 'Suffering Servant', and, then, the additional words, 'the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn' is a reference to the 'second coming'.

This interpretation of Isaiah 61 is confirmed by Jesus, who reads it in the synagogue in Nazareth, but only up to the bit that talks about 'vengeance'. In other words, Jesus knew that he had come as the 'Suffering Servant', and not as the King to bring 'vengeance' on the enemies of God [See Luke 4:16-20]. However, the same Jesus is reported, by angels, to be the returning King [Acts 1:11].

The very man who was mocked as 'King of the Jews', returns as 'King of Kings'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with your challenge is that it fails to acknowledge that the Suffering Servant must precede the advent of the King. 'My servant David' is a prince amongst his people [Ezekiel 34:24] before being their King [Ezekiel 37:22].

And to deny that there is a Suffering Servant contradicts a number of important scriptures, some of which have been traditionally attributed to the anointed Messiah by Jewish rabbis. Take, for example, Zechariah 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***'.

Why would your king Messiah come riding on the foal of an ***, if he's the King of Kings?

In Isaiah, there are a number of prophecies that conflate the mercy of God with the vengeance, or judgement, of God. What these prophecies do not show is that there is a time gap between the mercy and the judgement. This is to allow all people the opportunity to accept the Messiah. But, of course, God knows that the Jews as a nation, led by the High Priest and Council, will reject the anointed Messiah. This allows the 'maidservants' to take the message to the Gentiles.

Can I provide evidence that Isaiah conflates the two 'comings' of the anointed Messiah? Sure.

Isaiah 11:1-9. Verses 1-5 are the 'Suffering Servant', and 6-9 are the king Messiah.

Isaiah 52:7-10. Verses 7,8 are about the mercy of God in the Gospel; verses 9,10 are the redemption brought by the coming of the King.

Isaiah 61: 1,2. This passage, up to the middle of verse 2 is about the 'Suffering Servant', and, then, the additional words, 'the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn' is a reference to the 'second coming'.

This interpretation of Isaiah 61 is confirmed by Jesus, who reads it in the synagogue in Nazareth, but only up to the bit that talks about 'vengeance'. In other words, Jesus knew that he had come as the 'Suffering Servant', and not as the King to bring 'vengeance' on the enemies of God [See Luke 4:16-20]. However, the same Jesus is reported, by angels, to be the returning King [Acts 1:11].

The very man who was mocked as 'King of the Jews', returns as 'King of Kings'.

No. Poetic language does not need to be exact. When one is overly literal one refutes the Bible.

 

[Soapy]

The problem with your challenge is that it fails to acknowledge that the Suffering Servant must precede the advent of the King. 'My servant David' is a prince amongst his people [Ezekiel 34:24] before being their King [Ezekiel 37:22].

And to deny that there is a Suffering Servant contradicts a number of important scriptures, some of which have been traditionally attributed to the anointed Messiah by Jewish rabbis. Take, for example, Zechariah 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***'.

Why would your king Messiah come riding on the foal of an ***, if he's the King of Kings?

In Isaiah, there are a number of prophecies that conflate the mercy of God with the vengeance, or judgement, of God. What these prophecies do not show is that there is a time gap between the mercy and the judgement. This is to allow all people the opportunity to accept the Messiah. But, of course, God knows that the Jews as a nation, led by the High Priest and Council, will reject the anointed Messiah. This allows the 'maidservants' to take the message to the Gentiles.

Can I provide evidence that Isaiah conflates the two 'comings' of the anointed Messiah? Sure.

Isaiah 11:1-9. Verses 1-5 are the 'Suffering Servant', and 6-9 are the king Messiah.

Isaiah 52:7-10. Verses 7,8 are about the mercy of God in the Gospel; verses 9,10 are the redemption brought by the coming of the King.

Isaiah 61: 1,2. This passage, up to the middle of verse 2 is about the 'Suffering Servant', and, then, the additional words, 'the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn' is a reference to the 'second coming'.

This interpretation of Isaiah 61 is confirmed by Jesus, who reads it in the synagogue in Nazareth, but only up to the bit that talks about 'vengeance'. In other words, Jesus knew that he had come as the 'Suffering Servant', and not as the King to bring 'vengeance' on the enemies of God [See Luke 4:16-20]. However, the same Jesus is reported, by angels, to be the returning King [Acts 1:11].

The very man who was mocked as 'King of the Jews', returns as 'King of Kings'.

It was uncommon for a king to ride on a donkey in those times;

Why would your king Messiah come riding on the foal of an ***, if he's the King of Kings?

Solomon rode on a donkey and he was the richest of all kings of the patriarchs.

It is a reference to being humble.

 

[dybmh]

According to Acts 1:11, Jesus will return in the clouds from heaven, but he comes only when lsrael are ready to accept His salvation

"he only comes ... " This is a facinating idea. Can you elaborate? More scripture the better. I'm not seeing this represented in Acts 1 anywhere. I see something like it maybe coming from Romans; but, the return isn't mentioned.

[Zechariah 12:9-14]. This appears to be when the nations finally come against Jerusalem.

OK. Zecharia. It's a very dense little book. We can talk about it if you want. There's clearly elements there which will be compelling for Christians.

But just focusing on the topic, like Acts, there is no return of the messiah in Zecharia. The closest I can find is in the vision of the 2 olive trees. But the interpretation is given. The angel says there are 2 who are anointed. The literal meaning: a king and a priest: 2 olive trees. NOT a king-priest hybrid. That would be one tree. The other meaning is that there could be 2 messiahs. I'm guessing you've heard of the theory. Neither of these fit Christian theology. So, I'm confused.

Thank you,

 

[Redemptionsong]

It was uncommon for a king to ride on a donkey in those times;

Solomon rode on a donkey and he was the richest of all kings of the patriarchs.

It is a reference to being humble.

Funny that: 'And I saw the heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.'
Revelation 19:11.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny that: 'And I saw the heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.'
Revelation 19:11.

Hmm. I guess the donkey died

 

[Soapy]

Funny that: 'And I saw the heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.'
Revelation 19:11.

What is the relevance of your comment?

One does not go to war on a donkey.

Jesus was not at war when he rode on the donkey. In fact, he was entering Jerusalem in humbleness as befitting one coming in peace:

• “In the ancient Middle Eastern world, leaders rode horses if they rode to war, but donkeys if they came in peace. First Kings 1:33 mentions Solomon riding a donkey on the day he was recognized as the new king of Israel.” (from ‘GotQuestion.com)

I fail to understand why you feel the need to dispute this very very simple fact.

 

[dybmh]

The problem with your challenge is that it fails to acknowledge that the Suffering Servant must precede the advent of the King. 'My servant David' is a prince amongst his people [Ezekiel 34:24] before being their King [Ezekiel 37:22].

So, neiher the LORD, the-father, nor Jesus chose Jesus to be king. It didn't happen.

And to deny that there is a Suffering Servant contradicts a number of important scriptures,

BUZZZZZZZ. That's a false statement. Sorry. It is scripturally false. Isaiah 53 does NOT say there is a suffering servant. The suffering servant is completely in the past tense. The TRUTH is that scripture says prior to composition there was a suffering servant. ( Not Jesus )

some of which have been traditionally attributed to the anointed Messiah by Jewish rabbis.

I know for certain you don't want the opinions of Rabbis introduced as evidence. If we do that, the entire Christian theology goes kaput. Even ignoring the past tense issue, the suffering servant is a dead end. Jesus did not go quietly: "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?????" ( Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 27:46 Matthew 27:50 )

Take, for example, Zechariah 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***'.

And then it says:

10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
​

Verse 9 and 10 are connected. Yes, the king will arrive via donkey, *AND* he will rule to the ends of the earth. So, not Jesus. Jesus had no dominion. You confirmed that by promoting this theory of a suffering servant who doesn't rule.

Why would your king Messiah come riding on the foal of an ***, if he's the King of Kings?

First of all "King of Kings" is not the Jewish messiah. ( Daniel 2:37 Ezekiel 26:7 Ezra 7:12 ).

But to answer your question about the foal; the idea is that the Jewish people at that time did not merit a king in a chariot.

 

[Redemptionsong]

"he only comes ... " This is a facinating idea. Can you elaborate? More scripture the better. I'm not seeing this represented in Acts 1 anywhere. I see something like it maybe coming from Romans; but, the return isn't mentioned.

OK. Zecharia. It's a very dense little book. We can talk about it if you want. There's clearly elements there which will be compelling for Christians.

But just focusing on the topic, like Acts, there is no return of the messiah in Zecharia. The closest I can find is in the vision of the 2 olive trees. But the interpretation is given. The angel says there are 2 who are anointed. The literal meaning: a king and a priest: 2 olive trees. NOT a king-priest hybrid. That would be one tree. The other meaning is that there could be 2 messiahs. I'm guessing you've heard of the theory. Neither of these fit Christian theology. So, I'm confused.

Thank you,

There can only be one Messiah, or Christ. This is because there is only one God. God only has one 'right hand', and He can decide whether to bring mercy or judgement (or both) with his right hand [Psalm 138:7]. Psalm 110:1 makes it clear that the mediator between David and the LORD is the one and only 'Lord'.

The NT confirms the unique place of the mediator: Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.

As regards the appearance of Christ, there are various scriptures to consider:
Acts of the Apostles 1:11 sees Jesus Christ ascend in the clouds after resurrection.
Daniel 7:13,14 sees Jesus received by his Father in heaven, there to be given dominion and a kingdom. What is unclear, is whether a time gap exists between the his coming to 'the Ancient of Days', and his being given a kingdom.
Matthew 24:37,38. Like the days of Noah.
Matthew 13:41,42. The tares are gathered and burned.
Matthew 16:27,28: Jesus says, 'For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom'.
Luke 21:25-28. 'the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory'.
Luke 21:36. Watch, that ye may be accounted worthy.
John 5:27. Authority to execute judgement is given to the Son of man.
1 Thessalonians 1:10. Waiting for his Son from heaven.
1 Thessalonians 4:16,17. The Lord shall descend from heaven. The rapture.
Revelation 14:14. 'upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man'..

These scriptures are aimed at the Church, the body of Christ. To understand the place of Judah and Jerusalem, one has to look back at the Hebrew scriptures. Zechariah ch.12-14, for example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There can only be one Messiah, or Christ. This is because there is only one God. God only has one 'right hand', and He can decide whether to bring mercy or judgement (or both) with his right hand [Psalm 138:7]. Psalm 110:1 makes it clear that the mediator between David and the LORD is the one and only 'Lord'.

The NT confirms the unique place of the mediator: Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.

As regards the appearance of Christ, there are various scriptures to consider:
Acts 1:11 sees Jesus Christ ascend in the clouds after resurrection.
Daniel 7:13,14 sees Jesus received by his Father in heaven, there to be given dominion and a kingdom. What is unclear, is whether a time gap exists between the his coming to 'the Ancient of Days', and his being given a kingdom.

I have to stop you here. It appears that the writers of the Gospels were also Jewish scholars. They knew of verses like this and may have written the various new testament books to give their beliefs more credibility. It is not very convincing when one remembers that even then books were a real thing. The "Son of Man" title is not very convincing.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What is the relevance of your comment?

One does not go to war on a donkey.

Jesus was not at war when he rode on the donkey. In fact, he was entering Jerusalem in humbleness as befitting one coming in peace:

• “In the ancient Middle Eastern world, leaders rode horses if they rode to war, but donkeys if they came in peace. First Kings 1:33 mentions Solomon riding a donkey on the day he was recognized as the new king of Israel.” (from ‘GotQuestion.com)

I fail to understand why you feel the need to dispute this very very simple fact.

I'm not disputing the association between the donkey and humility, I'm simply applying it to the two appearances of Christ. For Torah Jews, Christ has not yet come. This shows that their understanding of this scripture is misplaced. When Christ returns, he will not come 'lowly', or upon an ***!

 

[Redemptionsong]

So, neiher the LORD, the-father, nor Jesus chose Jesus to be king. It didn't happen.

Luke 1:31. 'And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.'

 

[dybmh]

In Isaiah, there are a number of prophecies that conflate the mercy of God with the vengeance, or judgement, of God.

Conflate? I'm not sure about that. They're opposites. Are they alternating themes? sure.

What these prophecies do not show is that there is a time gap between the mercy and the judgement.

OK. These prophecies do not show a time gap. Got it.

This is to allow all people the opportunity to accept the Messiah.

But, but, you just said that the prophecies don't show a time gap. So, now you're making stuff up.

God knows that the Jews as a nation, led by the High Priest and Council, will reject the anointed Messiah.

This is still made up, right? Where is it written?

This allows the 'maidservants' to take the message to the Gentiles.

I'm not following this at all. I've tried to research 'maid servants' and nothing is coming up. Without something scriptural, it looks like this is another dead end.

Can I provide evidence that Isaiah conflates the two 'comings' of the anointed Messiah? Sure.

OK, let's look at it

Isaiah 11:1-9. Verses 1-5 are the 'Suffering Servant', and 6-9 are the king Messiah.

Sorry, there's no suffering here. It's just the future king. Next!

Isaiah 52:7-10. Verses 7,8 are about the mercy of God in the Gospel; verses 9,10 are the redemption brought by the coming of the King.

Nope. The whole passage is about mercy, no king. Next!

Isaiah 61: 1,2. This passage, up to the middle of verse 2 is about the 'Suffering Servant', and, then, the additional words, 'the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn' is a reference to the 'second coming'.

Now you're splitting up verses. It doesn't work in this case ( if it ever does ). You're ignoring the word "AND" connecting the beginning and the end of the verse. That's number one; you're changing scripture to force a meaning that isn't there. Shame on you.

Second, the future king brings peace. That's in Isaiah 11. You said that verse 9 was "King Messiah". Verse 9 is about peace. Now you're saying the 2nd coming where Jesus is king will be a day of vengeance not peace. Make up your mind, you're contradicting yourself.

This interpretation of Isaiah 61 is confirmed by Jesus, who reads it in the synagogue in Nazareth, but only up to the bit that talks about 'vengeance'. In other words, Jesus knew that he had come as the 'Suffering Servant', and not as the King to bring 'vengeance' on the enemies of God [See Luke 4:16-20]. However, the same Jesus is reported, by angels, to be the returning King [Acts 1:11].

Regarding Luke, he stopped mid-verse, the day of vengeance had not come. That doesn't mean there are two advents.
Regarding Acts, there still hasn't been reasons given to believe the stories are true. But if it's true, the angels say nothing about a king, nothing about ruling, nothing about being finally actually anointed. All they say is he will return the way he came. Poof. Still no king.

So to review: Jesus was never king, was never chosen to be king, never called himself king, never ruled. And none of the scripture you brought indicate a 2nd coming. O yeah, and much of the scripture you brought cannot be referring to Jesus.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I have to stop you here. It appears that the writers of the Gospels were also Jewish scholars. They knew of verses like this and may have written the various new testament books to give their beliefs more credibility. It is not very convincing when one remembers that even then books were a real thing. The "Son of Man" title is not very convincing.

Few people would argue that Jesus was not crucified while Pontius Pilate was governor in Judea.

It takes more than a bit of knowledge of Hebrew scripture to write the NT. Jews had no idea what was about to unfold! As Jesus was dying, he quoted the opening line of Psalm 22. How could a disciple have made this up? If they did, then it means the disciple had special insight into Psalm 22. Even today, Torah Jews cannot agree about the meaning of this Psalm. But, Jesus knew that the Psalm, written nearly a thousand years before his birth, was a Psalm about the crucifixion. This is something you cannot stage!

 

[dybmh]

As regards the appearance of Christ, there are various scriptures to consider:
Acts of the Apostles 1:11 sees Jesus Christ ascend in the clouds after resurrection.
Daniel 7:13,14 sees Jesus received by his Father in heaven, there to be given dominion and a kingdom. What is unclear, is whether a time gap exists between the his coming to 'the Ancient of Days', and his being given a kingdom.
Matthew 24:37,38. Like the days of Noah.
Matthew 13:41,42. The tares are gathered and burned.
Matthew 16:27,28: Jesus says, 'For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom'.
Luke 21:25-28. 'the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory'.
Luke 21:36. Watch, that ye may be accounted worthy.
John 5:27. Authority to execute judgement is given to the Son of man.
1 Thessalonians 1:10. Waiting for his Son from heaven.
1 Thessalonians 4:16,17. The Lord shall descend from heaven. The rapture.
Revelation 14:14. 'upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man'..

These scriptures are aimed at the Church, the body of Christ. To understand the place of Judah and Jerusalem, one has to look back at the Hebrew scriptures. Zechariah ch.12-14, for example.

None of this shows that Jesus will only return will Israel is ready to accept him,

Jesus will return in the clouds from heaven, but he comes only when lsrael are ready to accept His salvation

Apologies for the extra large font above; but, this is important and it's not getting addressed.

Where is it written that he *only* returns when Israel is ready to accept him? Please.

 

[dybmh]

There can only be one Messiah, or Christ. This is because there is only one God.

Well that's not true, but if it is, then Zecharia is talking about a priest and a king, not a priest-king.

Anyways, let's look at the scripture you brought.

God only has one 'right hand', and He can decide whether to bring mercy or judgement (or both) with his right hand [Psalm 138:7]

God's right hand saves. Yes it rarely, but, can deliver justice. That's not in that psalm though. What's in that psalm is the concept of salvation. Not the future king. You still need to connect it to a future king if we're talking about the Jewish messiah of prophecy.

Psalm 110:1 makes it clear that the mediator between David and the LORD is the one and only 'Lord'.

There is no mediating happening in Psalm 110.