Prophecy vs Free will

Correct. The term WITNESS is a legal term relating to legal representation, and aligned with other laws in the same source. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

State your premise boldly: does it mean if the math is credible you favor it as a correct law? I don't like cyclical debates. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

you are bound to moral/ethical/judiciary commandments which have been accepted as LAW. All such Hebrew laws [non-ritual] are accepted as the LAW - comprehensively and exclusively seen in the Hebrew bible.

​

This is an unsubstantiated. No evidence supplied, no sources.

---

Will it impress you any more if a prominent and esteemed Christian says it better them me how commandments are laws:

quote:

---

"You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today," Voight said, and signed the letter, "With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138241

---

Do you even understand what the Greeks, Romans, early Christianity and Islam referred to by the term 'The People of the book [of laws]? Or why Moses, and no other human, is given the title as The Law Giver? These slogans have kernels of truth which have defied time and counters. It is also a vindicated slogan that Christianity will be the educators of humanity - which they have fullfilled, not w/o errors, but substantially performed excellently. Christianity was the first nation which recognized the light of the Hebrew bible and made it the world's most known and accepted book of laws - even while trying to supress it. Mysterious, no!? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Getting back to the topic:I say yes, if a true prophesy it transcends free will.True prophesy: That Israel shall return.It is a true prophesy because it was made 1000's of years before the fact, and we have this in hard copy documentation uncovered as relics. This was a most implausible prophesy and was set against every super power and religion's wills: almost 99% of the world disdains and rebels against it today. It never occured before in history, yet this one occured when it was least posssible, via a ragtag remnant and accompanied by another implausible event: the Hebrew lagnuage, dead for 2000 years, became resurrected as an active, living language again - this too has never occured before or since.

BREAKING NEWS.Gaddafi's regime has been toppled. Edited by AdminPD, : warning

quote:

---

No, your distinction, still bent on ridicule, is itself ridiculous. Rituals are applicable only to specifically directed people for specifically directed reasons and prefixed 'unto you'; mostly these serve as funny uniforms for postmen and reminder ceremonies. Thus it is not a violation if a Christian consumes pork, for example, this ritual was not given them.

​

What the fuck is that? Do you actually believe that this paragraph makes sense or relates to anything in my post? The only thing i can dredge out of it is that you thought the potplant bit was ridiculous. It was. it was meant to be. Its called sarcasm.

---

You keep confusing rituals with non-ritual laws. I gave you a defining interpretation on several occassions.

quote:

---

remember what I said about providing evidence. where is the law of 1 day of rest with pay. This law does not exist. I provided multiple examples refuting your claim. Produce the law with a reference stating that it is illegal to work on the sabbath. Produce the law that states that people get 1 day with pay off every week. Keep in mind that you have said that this law is blatant and common to everyone. Why are you argueing when you could simply provide the law. I can tell you with 100% certainty that no such law exists in Australia, NZ, The USA and England. If you disagree, provide the law.

---

One has the free will to reject any law. Even one that says a worker shall have one day per week without work. This includes any animals owned by the person. Did you know the DAY & WEEK were introduced to humanity in Genesis - you should better use your free will to show more respect of humanity's most impacting document?

quote:

---

Let me make this clear. You said that the commandments are laws. I said they were not and provided an example of how I could perfecly legally break the commandment regarding coveting thy neighbors wife without breaking the law. You agreed witgh me that I could do this. Then you go on to say that stalking is against the law. What the fuck does that have to do with it. Coveting is not stalking.

---

Yes, it is. Coveting is stalking when exposed and noticed by others. There is no law against what one thinks - the infringement only occurs when it is actioned. The law against coveting is unique and the only one which impinges on private hidden thoughts - it is related to an obsession and planning, not mere day or night dreaming, and is usually impacting on everything one does in actions. Violations like adultry, rape, stealing and murder are preceded with obsessive plannings of the coveting person.

quote:

---

This 3rd C from Sinai refers to honesty and not to violate one's word or contract, which all laws depend upon. It is correctly placed at the top of all moral, ethical laws.

​

This is your interpretation. This is something that I think that you do not understand. Are you aware that there are people who interpret the scripture differently to you? Do you believe that you have correctly interpreted the scripture and that any otheer interpretation is wrong? You mention moral and ethical laws. Can you provide the acts that list the moral and ethical laws? This is you moving the goal posts again. We are discussing laws as in the judicial system crime and punishment. Morals and ethics do not have a code of laws. This would be the third time I have refuted your original points.

---

Read carefully and understand:

quote:

---

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. {P}

---

"Not to take the name in vain" - applies to swearing, vows, oaths and contracts and as seen today in applying the hand on a bible to speak the whole truth [this is where this comes from]; 'not hold him guiltless' applies to a legal term in a court action which finds the false swearer in default. It is correctly placed before all moral/ethical laws. # Real life example: This law makes the corruption ofthe Balfour Declaration the greatest post-W.W.II crime by Brtain; it also renders all Christians guilty for turning the cheek; atheists are also liable here. Guess why Britainistan is happening!

quote:

---

Just as the term species was adapted from the word 'kinds' in Genesis, you should replace the term commandment with law today. Atheists are subject to the law of the land.

​

The term species was not adapted from the word kinds. That does not make any sense in any way.

---

Then consider that the first listing of life form groups is in Genesis; species refer to life form groups.

quote:

---

I will provide another example. I swear to almight god that I will never post another reply on the EvC forum. I swear in the Jewish gods name. i swear this in the Christian Gods name and the Islamic gods name. I swear this to be true in the eyes of God.

​

Now, this will easily refute your claims that the commandments are law. When I next post, call the authorities. i am not sure where you are calling from but I am in Brisbane in Australia so just google a brisbane CBD police station, and tell them that I have broken one of the commandments. See what they do.

---

You are only exposing a failed attempt to turn a magestic law into corny. Swearing by yourself is your own affair, but put that in a document form and invest some loss factor should you violate it, between two parties who acept your oath - with consequences attached. That will cost you dearly.

quote:

---

What you have provided are commandments. Not laws. These are not laws. Mitzvah is hebrew for commandment. Commandments are not laws. laws are not commanments. is there any other way i can say this so it will sink in?

---

Commandments = laws. Thou shall not steal. Check with your local sherrif! Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

HOW DID YOU WORK OUT THAT IF 20% OF THE WORLDS POPULATION WAS HOMOSEXUAL, THE HUMAN SPECIES WILL BE EXTINCT IN 3 GENERATIONS?

---

I agreed with a thesis which showed how an accumulative impact on the population growth would result in a negative outcome with compounding factors.There is no alternative to this mathematical fact. I never said '3rd' generation; it is ratio based. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

IMJ, most of the TEXTUAL laws you say were adoted by society, were actually eixsting intrinsic laws already in the heart of man, long before the written code.

---

Agreed. Truth is intrinsically recognised by humanity and all life forms - we call it a gut feeling; even the premise of evolution subscribes to this, al beit via inanimate matter recogising the best path for survival. Nor do I subscribe transcendent knowledge to a band of savages coming out of ancient Egypt after centuries of enslavement. The point remains it is first introduced in one source, a late comer in the ancient world which did overturn mighty and older nations' premises, denoting a mystery.

quote:

---

ie, "who told you you were naked", because they were ashamed.

---

This highlights the deficiant understanding of this text. You fail to see this verse also says that humans will be the only life form requiring clothing, totally altering the value of this verse! One must not read a verse here as superfluous - every alphabet is impacting.

quote:

---

Those laws as you call them were already in eixistence immediately following the fall. "Where is your brother Able". He knew murder and llying was wrong , intrinsically

---

Yes, you are correct. The question is not a question, but giving Cain an op to show remorse and admit guilt.

quote:

---

If you actually believe moral, ethical and judiciary rules were given by God in the book,

---

Yes, they seem to be included here exclusively, and every one of the laws are active today - a mystery again.

quote:

---

non absolutes, then it would follow logically that any other rmoral precepts he has advocated in another testament, would be as binding and VALID

---

Correct. Else all tumbles.

quote:

---

These are not absolutes:
NO SALVATION BUT THROUGH ME.
NO GOD W/O MOHAMMED AS HIS PROPHET.
JEWS ARE BORN OF THE DEVIL AND/OR APES.

​

It would depend on who one believes gave the command or statement to begin with. If the above are not absolutes because man gave them, then it would follow logically that some other moral code given in another book, by men, are not absolutes either, even if a society did adopt them, even if they are helpful

---

But this is not the case?

quote:

---

The implication should be obvious. depending on whom one believes gave the law , will determine if the statement, "no salvation through me', is valid as an absolute, I hate to break the news to you IMJ, you are not the standard and proclaiming they are not absolutes, because society has not always accepted them, is not the same as demonstrating it logical form

---

Its as absolute as Islam's similar statement: and both cannot be right! Once a name is attached to a law, it becomes a non-law and enters belief. The Hebrew bible is not belief based but law based: no names attached and they have to stand on their own. Your law mass murdered and villified millions of innocent folk. Its not a law! Christianity blasphemed the second, most copiously worded commandment from Sinai, while Islam also did the same by attaching a name as the condition for being a believer in a creator.Let me put it honestly and bluntly, which I owe you and to myself: the law against image worship was not fulfilled away for any other reason than that Christianity would have gone south if this was insisted upon: Europe simply could not absorb an invisible God - it was against their nature and history. The same applies with the fulfilling away of the dietery laws: Paul would have been thrown out head first if he told Greeks and Romans to abandon pork and shell fish! Keep it honest applies.

quote:

---

As was indicated in Jar's bungling of the topic or thread, 'Did Jesus fulfill any of these Prophecies', freewill uaually has little or nothing to do with Prophecy Prophecy usually concerns God himself and his specific plans, which dont involve a specifc persons plans or decisions

---

Disagree. There was no prophesy from the Gospels which can be proven today. Nor even miracles, which are never casual, such as turning water to wine; a miracle must have at its core a meaning for all humanity and creation itself, as with overturning slavery, divine emperors, etc and affirming liberty, inalienable human rights and justice for all based on actions and deeds only. Thus a good Christian is better than a bad Jew or bad Muslim; the reverse of what is advocated in the NT & Quran, both being the destructive struggle seen in ancient Egypt, Rome, medevial Europe and Islam today. There is no alternative to the belief in only an invisibe, indecribable and unquantifying Creator, and magestic laws. remember that only complicated, complex laws tumbled down from Sinai, beginng with the first utterence - and to a band of newly freed slavery who expected anything but!

quote:

---

And has already been indicated, human plans and decisions can alter Prophecy, due to the general nature of prophecy

---

Disagree. Our choices and abilities are limited. True prophesy comes via man, not from man, and it must never contradict a past prophesy in any manner whatsoever.

quote:

---

Simply because God knows the future, does not mean he directs every detail

---

This is a hedy issue. We have freedom of choice only in moral/ethical decisions, then too it is limited by the community rights as overiding the individual. We have no choices outside of moral/ethical laws of any impact: one can opt to stop breathing, but for how long? Choosing between a red Merc or gree honda is not a choice; choosing between a red or green Merc is. There is a manifest reason why ALL of the Hebrew laws are active today, while not a single one comes from the Gospels or Quran. A great mystery!

quote:

---

This discussion will move naturally move twords discussions of freewill, and the nature and purpose of prophecy, which I hope admin will see applies to the general discussion

---

You have to be first cautioned, which has not been the case here.

quote:

---

Since Franko/Frako has abandoned, atleast temporarily, this thread, I am assuming he means prophecy from a God and Biblical perspective

---

What other kind is there? Unlike the stiff necked Israelites, it appears none in Europe asked the critical questions or dmand proof - perhaps that's why an ever challenging group was chosen? Do you not see Israel's re-emergence as a fulfilled prophesy - it counters, NOT A BRICK SHALL STAND and ITS A BLESSING TO KILL JEWS?

quote:

---

Do YOU believe God exists? Not can it be proved, do you believe it?

---

Yes I don't believe there are any real atheists as well.

quote:

---

Do you believe God is the author of the scriptures, OLD TEST? Please no disortations

---

The author is given as Moses, said to be via a dictation in 42 stops in a desert. Belief does not impact here; far greater if one accepts it by contemplation and also devil's advocate. A wrong belief can be inculcated very easily because it is the most exploitable factor of all, as in a religion or ideology: they cannot all be right. Very few of us question our beliefs - it is akin to jumping into an abyss. I do agree with what I have read of the Hebrew bible more so than any other scriptures. I got sucked in by its literary merit first and foremost, then by its mathematical excellence. I regard it as the most credible historical writings of the ancient world and one which stands up today with great vindication, despite the FX miracles also contained therein.

quote:

---

This highlights the deficiant understanding of this text. You fail to see this verse also says that humans will be the only life form requiring clothing, totally altering the value of this verse! One must not read a verse here as superfluous - every alphabet is impacting.

​

Well Im not sure how that applies to anything I said

---

The only factor in the verse is that humans uniquely live with attire; although there are levels of deeper meanings included. 'We leave this life only with the garment of our deeds' - K. Solomon.

quote:

---

Disagree. There was no prophesy from the Gospels which can be proven today. Nor even miracles, which are never casual, such as turning water to wine; a miracle must have at its core a meaning for all humanity and creation itself, as with overturning slavery, divine emperors, etc and affirming liberty, inalienable human rights and justice for all based on actions and deeds only.

​

the words "must have at its core" are an absolute statement. Which means that you can prove your OT prophecies are from God and absolute in thier truthfulness. Otherwise your statement and its absolute categorical enphasis are worthless.

---

It must be hard, but see it instead as a test. Chrstians exulted with a passion in the death of a nation, boasting this is from God, using terms like 'rebel' for what was and remains the greatest defense of a faith in all recorded history. It was hardly love by any imagination, and the deeds of Europe speak for themselves - America is the candidate for saving Christianity - from medevial Europe! Its an enigma how such was accepted by 2B humans as Godly or as love. It was certainly not a prophesy - Europe failed this testing, as did Muslims did too when they failed to welcome Jews to their land during the holocaust. Now they are affronted by Israel existing, when they should be happy of it. Go ahead and deny it!

quote:

---

Your speaking about miracles as if you have absolute truth of thier characteization. How dio you know what the rules are for miracles. Are you deciding this because you favor the Old testament

---

This was stated in hard copy text before it occured - fully proven. By contrast, we have no proof of the Gospels being written before the Roman war which destroyed Judea. Otherwise I would hail the Gospels as a true absolute prophesy. As it stands I cannot, nor can anyone else.

quote:

---

This is a hedy issue. We have freedom of choice only in moral/ethical decisions, then too it is limited by the community rights as overiding the individual.

​

IMJ, your statement s are to categorical. buying a and choosing a car is not a moral issue

---

Choosing between a red Merc or green honda is not a choice; choosing between a red or green Merc is.

quote:

---

you could not for your life show why both are not a choice.

---

Yes, I can. Consider them as credible, impacting choices or frivilous ones which do not impact. Anyone would select a Merc to a Honda. A true choice should include a hard decision of two equivalent values.

quote:

---

There is a manifest reason why ALL of the Hebrew laws are active today, while not a single one comes from the Gospels or Quran. A great mystery!

​

there is no mystery IMJ. Humans had to start with the simple first. the simple remains and is added upon as the grow in understanding

---

Pls quote some laws from the Gospels or Quran - those emerged in a later, more grown up age.

quote:

---

"In the fullness of time God sent for his Son into the world" Galatians

​

the laws of the Gospel are as active in thier place and for what God intended them, as they ever were.

---

"God is not like man" [Samuel].You are cherry picking what suits you, ignoring the impacting laws which do not suit. Your ancesters had no choices here - they would have been villified and put in ghettoes if they did not toe the medevial European post-Roman belief. A precedence sets off more of the same: does a granson also apply? One can believe in pink zebras - that is their right. One cannot impose their beliefs on others and villify them if they don't agree. Calling the Hebrew bible as OLD and transcended by a new belief 2000 years apart, with no history of observance in monotheism, is presumtious and a heritage genocide. Consider that Islam did unto you what you did unto the Hebrew bible? I am not trying to be harsh with you, only honest, limited to a non-personal debate.

quote:

---

If I cant define whether you actually believe God was the author of the prophecy, it matters little whether it affects freewill

---

However sincere it is, the term BELIEF should be set aside here; everyone has belief, a generic, inherent trait - but all beliefs are not right or true - they contradict each other in core values. The issue is also not about what I think - the text says Moses authored the five Mosaic books and that it was dictated to him by Gd.Infact, there is section where four sisters challenge Moses concerning their right to their father's heritance, wheich the law said must go to the sons or his tribe if he had no sons. IMHO, this is the first recording of women's rights. Moses says he sees their point but he does not know what to do, and that in the next 'Tent of the Meeting' - he will ask Gd. This affirms the dictation factor. So yes, we can say it is from Gd or we can say it is greater because it is from the hand of a human: the creator does not need to be lauded here and any task is not above the Creator. BTW, the women won the case and the answer given Moses of the right decision as to how to proceed was an excellent one.

quote:

---

The logical implication of such a belief is that if God dictates every move, then freewill is circumvented

​

Is God the author and finisher of those prophecies? Please no rehtoric

---

Authour was Moses [the text]; prophesy vindication is by Gd via an intrument.

quote:

---

Im sure you believe all the schalorship concerning the OT, as well do I accept for example FF Bruce as a credible source for the dating of the NT, which would confound your premises above.

---

We have no proof of a single apostle being a real historical figure and not a shred of contemporary writings in Hebrew or Greek. I understand this is also not available of the Hebrew, however these were different times and the same condition cannot apply. Not for me personally at least. Nor do I accept the notion of Jews dancing about their own nation's demise or foresaking their laws as being fulfilled away, or of calling their temple as a den of satan. These are 100% false versions of history, smacks only of pre-Christian Roman tongues - the real reason no proof exists and only belief is presented in its place.Someone is telling biblical fibs between the three religions - and its not up for negotiation. Someone has to bite the bullet. Its also not a finger pointing at today's believing folk - we are victims here.

quote:

---

That was not my point. Your categorical contention was that a prophecy or miracle must have a credible impact on all of humanity, not a single person, for it to be a true and valid miracle

​

I believe you make this distinction due to favoring the OT. if not, what is your cirteria for demanding a prophecy follow your guidelines? Is God its author?

---

Consider the import of a true prophet making miracles for frivilous reasons? Can you show me a single Hebrew prophet who did such? I rest my case.

quote:

---

Yes, I can. Consider them as credible, impacting choices or frivilous ones which do not impact. Anyone would select a Merc to a Honda. A true choice should include a hard decision of two equivalent values.

​

Equivalent values have very little to do with the actual nature of a choice. To demonstrate what you originally intended, you would have to demonstrate that a mental process was not employed and involved. The only way to demonstrate this is to show a choice never took place. There was never any consideration concerning anything. You cant do that

​

If I make a decision (choice) to jump off a building, believing I wont hit the ground, that wont change the law of gravity. In the same way, values have nothing directly to do with what the nature of a choice is. It is what it is just like gravity

​

This is where the skeptic gets in to logical trouble, in acusing God of Evil, even if he did create freewill. Your making the same logical error

​

For them to prove God as evil, they would need to show that freewill does not involve equal ability to do the right thing as well as the wrong. thats the nature of freewill. Of course there is no way to do that, so thier accusation falls to the ground

---

Free will, in the context of interaction with Gdliness, is a spiritual occurence; it cannot be frivilous or in vain or pertaining to personal vanity. This is a vain human endeavour between humans only. If one examines the dialogue between Moses and the creator - not a single word is superfluous; it is as if any one in this situation even retrospectively with today's advanced knowledge at hand, would ponder the right question and answers very deeply. It is a writing for all future generations, as we do now in this forum. It cannot be frivilous - such as turning water into wine, yet ignoring Rome at the door! The Gospel's Jesus failed here - and differed from Moses.

quote:

---

From what I can tell, you and DB agree that prophecy does not negate free will.

---

IMHO:Free will is a testing against laws; no laws mean no issue with free will; no free will means no need for laws. Prophesy cannot contradict on what was given previously from the same source, based on the premise Gd is truth. The Gospels nontheless says the laws given previously are now fullfilled away, and presenting this as a prophesy from the same source. It is a chaos and it set the world imersed into the same chaos - all these three religions want to kill or die for this chaos upon humanity today. We are still at a very primitive stage to accept such a situation.

Don't you think the notion of competition with free will becomes mooted where two factor are not inclusive, namely:Where free will contradicts the law of the land it is not free will anymore but a violation?andWhere prophesy contradicts previous prophesy it is more in competition with the source it appears to represent?

quote:

---

Sure we do, we have the writings themself. Then we have the Apostolic fathers and early Christian writers, some of which were contemporaries with the Apostles

---

Those are all subject to doctoring. We do not have a single contemporary item, in a space-time from which we have 1000s. This is despite that the Gospels claims numerous writers in both Hebrew and then in Greek. Nor can we prove the Gospels by the Gospels. The earliest piece we have is 4th Century. In addition, we have all round contradictory depictions from the Hebrew, Romans and later Islamic writings. It is evidential that the Gospel writers were Roman, harbouring the same villifications when pre-Christian archives are examined; this says the hate did not come from the Gospels but the reverse applies: the Gospels came from the pre-dating hate. Even the notorious blood libel claims are seen in pre-christian Greek archives. All divine king nations hated the Hebrew laws.It would be good when some real proof does turn up - this will put to rest any doubt that the apostles were real historical people. Christianity's genuine followers need this desperately.

quote:

---

Im sure you are aware there is much more proof corroborating the NT writings, than the old, correct? Even though I believe in thold as the word of God as well

---

No, I am not aware of this at all and do not accept such a position. We have over 70% of the Hebrew writings proven via archeological relics, scrolls and parchments confirming their datings and alignment with the ancient Hebrew books; we also have a 3,500 year Egyptian stelle which mentions Israel by name; and subsequent return of the Israelites to Canaan; a sovereign kingdom till 70 CE; proof of King David and two temple destructions. Most of all, we have hard copy laws introduced to humanity. We have 'NOTHING' whatsoever as proof of anything in the NT, and no laws.

quote:

---

Jesus said, "If you do not believe the words that I speak, then believe me for the miracles sake, because they testify of me"

---

That is fine, but if the miracles are frivilous they do not prove anything. Its not like Moses was raised, but only that Moses' position was contradicted - by miracles on display, this would not be followed by the Jews, as was the case, and appears to be a Roman/Greek view. Would a Christian follow Islam if such miracles were performed and it contradicted the Gospels? No - yet this occured after only some 4 centuries later, while the Hebrew measures 2000 years of belief and numerous existential wars.

quote:

---

Confirming his sonship and that he is from God is frivilous? Which of the prophets that performed miricles in private for one or a few people would you call vain or frivirlous?

---

See, this is your belief and I would not like offending. However, this clearly and totally contradicts the Hebrew belief and will never be entertained. Europe had no history of monotheism and it was natural to accept such a premise, while the Jews had a polar oppositte history than Europe. Is it not even a little strange that the Jews had wars with all divine king nations, including foresaking their nation in the war with Rome - that European Christian still does not accept the Jews as bona fide, and came up with the only singular impossible demand? Would you accept the Gospels had you been a Jew upholding the second command from Sinai as your conerstone belief? I doubt it! I say Christianity and Judaism are the two most aligned belief systems, even though Islam strictly adheres to the same oneness of God. This is because the moral/ethical laws are followed by Christians and Jews in a most powerful way, and these must be the foundation before any belief is touted. I say its ok to have a core difference in this situation. Both are sincere, so this applies:AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT BEATS A DISHONEST AGREEMENT.

quote:

---

"which is it easier to do, tell the man to take up his bed and walk or tell him his sins are forgiven" Dont both prove he is God?

---

Forgiveness of sins is not a Gospel item but a Hebrew one. These are in the 13 Attributes and nowhere is forgiveness of sin more pronounced, and done without foresaking the law. But it is not deemed a sin in Christianity to worship images or divine man; it is with the Hebrew - so the issue of forgiveness is not relevant here. BTW, it is a false notion that humans must have images: one gets closest to belief when there is nothing seperating two points.

quote:

---

you havent demonstrated or shown form reason or the NT, why any prophecy or miracle was in vain or personal vanity. Unless you are saying God is vain

---

Changing water to wine or walking on water does seem frivolous. Confronting Rome would be more impressive. Of course I don't accept what is said in the Gospels of a Jew in Judea, which was a most fundamentalist time in opposition to pagan and brutal Rome - we need hard copy proof here!

quote:

---

Reuniting man to God is a failure?

---

Surely not. I accept that there is a hovering mystery in christianity, namely how such a premise was accepted! This says it was sanctioned via a mysterious compulsion, and this had to be in polar contradiction of the Hebrew: else the 'MANY NATIONS' from Abraham would not happen. It is marked by the seperation factor, otherwise all the religions would be one - and that is not many. The prophesy of the Hebrew is amazingly pristine and accurate.

quote:

---

Why is water into wine different than a burning bush? In each instance God is trying to impress upon his Apostle (Moses in solitude or the Apostles by themself in a boat), who and what he was, as he walked on the water

---

Yes, I accept this, but it does negate the fact that Moses' given power was used to introduce Liberty and inalienable human rights. In contrast, an entire nation had to sacrifice themselves when Rome challenged this peoples' belief. This was the greates show of belief in all recorded history and it is not even in the Gospel/Christian radar. When do you say the Gospels was written?

Read the second of the 10 Commandmentds again. Its the most wordy one of all. Is it fulfilled away?

quote:

---

Therefore prophecies, as defined for the purpose of my post, cannot come into conflict.

---

They do so. The Gospels declared Israel is dead, not a brick shall stand and the Hebrew laws fulfilled away. None of those happened; its reverse did.