Jesus already came (at lest for some)

[brewer]

The only person not willing to accept is you because it does not conform to your fantasy. Twist!

You still haven't proven how "last time" equates to meaning 2000 years ago...

And you haven't proven that god exists and this is not all just one big fantasy devoid of reason and logic.

[Huggy Bear]

The apostles used the OT prophecies to preach about the Messiah. There preaching in this manner lead many thousands to the Messiah and they were Jews including priests. The rest of what you put forward is to happen at and after the second coming.

Poor deluded G-C.  Still thinks his silly shit is real.

What did Jews expect the moschiach to accomplish?

The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5).

He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1).

He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18).

He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).

Jesus, like a piss-poor batter went 0 for 4.  And there wasn't any second bite at the apple.  The real messiah was supposed to get it all done in one fell swoop.  This "second coming" horseshit was a later development when early jesus freaks realized their godboy had fucked up and wasn't coming back any time soon.

And morons like Huggy and G-C eat that shit up.

Except I showed where it clearly states in Zechariah that when the Jews meet the Messiah, he would have wounds from being pierced, Zechariah 13 specifically mentions the hands.

So If the Messiah was to accomplish all of that during his first coming, where did the wounds come from? And why are the Jews clueless as to how he received them?

[Minimalist]

Conveniently ignoring all the other failings of your godboy, Huggy.  Shouldn't a god be able to do better?

P.S., the jews would not have been impressed with a great king who got himself killed.  Where do you get this shit?  You are far too desperate.

[Inkfeather132]

Poor deluded G-C.  Still thinks his silly shit is real.

What did Jews expect the moschiach to accomplish?



Jesus, like a piss-poor batter went 0 for 4.  And there wasn't any second bite at the apple.  The real messiah was supposed to get it all done in one fell swoop.  This "second coming" horseshit was a later development when early jesus freaks realized their godboy had fucked up and wasn't coming back any time soon.

And morons like Huggy and G-C eat that shit up.

Except I showed where it clearly states in Zechariah that when the Jews meet the Messiah, he would have wounds from being pierced, Zechariah 13 specifically mentions the hands.

So If the Messiah was to accomplish all of that during his first coming, where did the wounds come from? And why are the Jews clueless as to how he received them?

So I just went and read Zechariah 13...In the NIV the wounds are not specified as being on the hands, so I guess you're reading a false translation. And other than the very first verse, this chapter is talking about false prophets, not the messiah.

[Minimalist]

You simply do not understand buy-bull reading 101.  Whenever it doesn't say what you want it to say you hold it upside down in a mirror and run in place so that you can't read it at all and then it always says what they want it to say.

Huggy and G-C play that game constantly.  No one pays any attention to them any more.

[Huggy Bear]

You still haven't proven how "last time" equates to meaning 2000 years ago...

And you haven't proven that god exists and this is not all just one big fantasy devoid of reason and logic.

And this is where every discussion on matters of religion (with atheists) ultimately end up...

I didn't start the OP, you claimed the Bible stated something that it doesn't, whether or not you believe god exists has no bearing to what the Bible actually says or does not say.

If we were discussing what a dictionary says, would proving God exists be relevant to that? so why is it relevant in this case?

What it's like having a discussion with atheists when THEY bring up the subject of religion.

---

The point is that we're discussing myths here, you know. Atheists (or deists, and/or an agnostics) can be no less educated in theological aspects of a given religion than even apologists of said religion but the differense is that they operate with full knowing that it's still nothing more than a myth.

By the way, an interesting aspect is that an unbeliever may happen to enjoy studying and discussing theological and philosophical aspects of a religion much more than a believer. Because a believer is almost always restrained and pressed by his dogma while an unbeliever's mind and imagination are free.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

The fact of the mater is she started the conversation, there are a lot of things I don't believe in, but guess what? I have no interest in discussing them.
You guys claim to not believe in God, fine, But then don't start threads on how evil God is, because he doesn't exist right? If you actually want to start a discussion about God, I don't need to hear the proclamation that God isn't real, do you think I forgot where I am?

If you don't want to discuss the subject of God, then don't bring it up.
That's all.

You know, in the real world we mostly don't. Around here we can vent about the stupid shit we heard from one of you christers at work (or on tv or at the mall or street preaching or...). We get pounded by christer beliefs daily yet on the rare occasion we mention it to someone in position to stop it (when it's in an inappropriate place, like at work), we're usually shut down.

Then we get ass-clowns like you coming here and complaining about what we choose to discuss. Don't like what you read here, don't come here. You won't find me on a christer board and I won't miss you if you leave.

let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.

Atheist: God is evil!
Christian: God isn't evil.. (gives reason)
Atheist: God doesn't exist!

Surely you can see how asinine that conversation is....

---

[Minimalist]

The discussions are always the same because you clowns cannot produce evidence for your god.  The ball is in your court.  Your buy-bull is heavily edited propaganda.  We need real evidence that you are not full of shit.

Your turn.

[Huggy Bear]

Except I showed where it clearly states in Zechariah that when the Jews meet the Messiah, he would have wounds from being pierced, Zechariah 13 specifically mentions the hands.

So If the Messiah was to accomplish all of that during his first coming, where did the wounds come from? And why are the Jews clueless as to how he received them?

So I just went and read Zechariah 13...In the NIV the wounds are not specified as being on the hands, so I guess you're reading a false translation. And other than the very first verse, this chapter is talking about false prophets, not the messiah.

Read chapter 12 of Zechariah and compare it to 13, they are speaking of the same event, there is no way that you can deny it it referring to the messiah.

That being said;

The NIV was published in the 1970's, The KJV is from 1611, in fact the NIV omits whole verses...

And one shall say unto him, ‘What are these wounds in thine hands?’ Then he shall answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’ - Zechariah 13:6

Nevertheless the NIV says "body" instead of "hands"... this changes things how? seeing how Jesus was pierced though the hands, feet and side.

[Inkfeather132]

So I just went and read Zechariah 13...In the NIV the wounds are not specified as being on the hands, so I guess you're reading a false translation. And other than the very first verse, this chapter is talking about false prophets, not the messiah.

Read chapter 12 of Zechariah and compare it to 13, they are speaking of the same event, there is no way that you can deny it it referring to the messiah.

That being said;

The NIV was published in the 1970's, The KJV is from 1611, in fact the NIV omits whole verses...

And one shall say unto him, ‘What are these wounds in thine hands?’ Then he shall answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’ - Zechariah 13:6

Nevertheless the NIV says "body" instead of "hands"... this changes things how? seeing how Jesus was pierced though the hands, feet and side.

Zechariah 13:
13 “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.

2 “On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be remembered no more,” declares the Lord Almighty. “I will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the land. 3 And if anyone still prophesies, their father and mother, to whom they were born, will say to them, ‘You must die, because you have told lies in the Lord’s name.’ Then their own parents will stab the one who prophesies.

4 “On that day every prophet will be ashamed of their prophetic vision. They will not put on a prophet’s garment of hair in order to deceive. 5 Each will say, ‘I am not a prophet. I am a farmer; the land has been my livelihood since my youth.[a]’ 6 If someone asks, ‘What are these wounds on your body[b]?’ they will answer, ‘The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.’

Here it is. It is clearly not speaking of a messiah, it is talking about false prophets. Anyone who is interested may read it for themselves.

[brewer]

And you haven't proven that god exists and this is not all just one big fantasy devoid of reason and logic.

And this is where every discussion on matters of religion (with atheists) ultimately end up...

I didn't start the OP, you claimed the Bible stated something that it doesn't, whether or not you believe god exists has no bearing to what the Bible actually says or does not say.

If we were discussing what a dictionary says, would proving God exists be relevant to that? so why is it relevant in this case?

What it's like having a discussion with atheists when THEY bring up the subject of religion.

---

The point is that we're discussing myths here, you know. Atheists (or deists, and/or an agnostics) can be no less educated in theological aspects of a given religion than even apologists of said religion but the differense is that they operate with full knowing that it's still nothing more than a myth.

By the way, an interesting aspect is that an unbeliever may happen to enjoy studying and discussing theological and philosophical aspects of a religion much more than a believer. Because a believer is almost always restrained and pressed by his dogma while an unbeliever's mind and imagination are free.

You know, in the real world we mostly don't. Around here we can vent about the stupid shit we heard from one of you christers at work (or on tv or at the mall or street preaching or...). We get pounded by christer beliefs daily yet on the rare occasion we mention it to someone in position to stop it (when it's in an inappropriate place, like at work), we're usually shut down.

Then we get ass-clowns like you coming here and complaining about what we choose to discuss. Don't like what you read here, don't come here. You won't find me on a christer board and I won't miss you if you leave.

---

You say it says one thing which is very debatable and varies from translation to translation (why would a god make it so?), I say it says another. Are you arguing that the bible is not open to interpretation? If so, you should all be of one sect. However, the bible, in all of it's forms, is open to wild degrees of interpretation and christians are not of one belief/sect! 

We are not discussing a dictionary but your preferred poorly written fantasy story. It is relevant in this case because it's the christians position the content of the book is of god and not fantasy. Back at ya, prove it. 

If I speak to another christian and get different answer, then yours only becomes opinion (not truth?). Again, why would an ultimate god let it's words devolve into confusion, debate and discord? Answer, it would not. This is a fantasy story written by men.