Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is Jesus the Messiah. What of OT prophecies?  (Read 5134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tony N

  • Semi-Super User!
  • *
  • Feedback: +1/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1623
Is Jesus the Messiah. What of OT prophecies?
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2006, 07:43:16 AM »

Quote from: nojc4me
The following was taken from the Jews For Judaism site. (q.v.)

Question: Is it true that sixty-nine "weeks" of the Seventy Weeks countdown of Daniel 9 starts in 444 B.C.E. and ends with the death of Jesus (30/33 C.E.)?

Answer: Christian commentators prefer to start the Seventy Weeks countdown with 444 or 445 B.C.E. because it brings their calculations closer to the time period in which Jesus died (30/33 C.E.). A far better starting date is the decree of Cyrus (537 B.C.E) upon which all subsequent grants of approval were based (Isaiah 44:28). A correct reading of the passage and some simple arithmetic dispels any attempt to claim 444 B.C.E. as a starting date and Jesus' death in 30/33 C.E. as a terminus.

First, the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks are really two separate periods and speak of two separate "anointed" ones. Second, even if we were to count 483 years from 444 B.C.E. we get to the year 38 C.E. Jesus is crucified in the period ranging from 30 to 33 C.E. But, the text of Daniel 9:26 says, "And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off." This shows that if we use 444 B.C.E. as a starting date the alleged second "anointed one" was "cut off" in the period following the year 38 C.E. (that is, "after the sixty-two weeks"). There would be no connection to anyone "cut off" prior to that year. Thus, there is no reference here to Jesus.
[/size]

Tony's reply:
And this begs the question: Just who was the Prince, the Messiah who was cut off in 38 C.E.? How did that Messiah fulfill the Daniel prophecy and all prophecies related to Messiah from Genesis to Malachi? If they say He never came then God, Gabriel and Daniel lied. Daniel would then a false prophet.

Nehemiah is containing the record of the 20th year of Artaxerxes (or 445-444 B.C.) in which the word went forth to rebuild Jerusalem. Read Nehemiah yourself if you don't believe me.

Quote
Question: How can Christians apply the phrase v'ayn lo, "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing" (Daniel 9:26) and Isaiah 53:12, where the suffering servant receives "a portion with the great," to Jesus?

Answer: One needs to understand that both references, when read in the context of Christian theology, refer to Jesus after his death and supposed resurrection: Daniel 9:26 referring to after he is "cut off" and Isaiah 53:12 as a reward for his suffering and death.

Yet, v'ayn lo, "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing" cannot refer to Jesus' situation at or after death, if one takes the New Testament seriously. Christianity claims that unlike mere mortal bodies which decay after death Jesus rose bodily into heaven, where he sits at the "right hand of the throne of the Majesty."

V'ayn lo certainly could not refer to a lack of wealth or followers, for this would not distinguish Jesus from the great majority of the world's population. One who "has nothing" or "shall have nothing" (Daniel 9:26) does not receive "a portion with the great" (Isaiah 53:12), does not rise bodily to heaven (Acts 1:9), and does not sit at the "right hand of the throne of the Majesty" (Hebrews 8:1). It is precisely with his death that Jesus was allegedly able to attain his rewards (Philippians 2: 8-9). Therefore, the application of both verses to Jesus is untenable.
[/size]

Tony's reply:
According the Concordant Literal Old Testament Daniel 9:26 reads differently than some other translations:

Dan 9:26 After the sixty-two sevens, Messiah will be cut off, and there is no adjudication for Him. The city and the holy place shall be laid in ruins with the other governor's coming; then its end is by an overflow, and till the end of the war desolations will be decided."

Adjudication: 1. The act of adjudicating; the act or process of trying and determining judicially.

When Christ was before Pilate, Pilate wanted to release Him for He had done no wrong but the Jews demanded He be crucified so He didn't really receive a fair trial, and thus no real adjucation process.

Quote
Question: Why do Jews say that the Seventy Weeks countdown begins with the Persian king Cyrus?

Answer: It is Isaiah who proclaims that Cyrus would give the actual command to rebuild Jerusalem. God declares through the prophet, "He [Cyrus] shall build My city" (Isaiah 45:13; see also Ezra 1:1-8, 6:1-5). Indeed, it was Cyrus who issued a proclamation (ca. 537 B.C.E.) for the return, and for the rebuilding to start. This occurred forty-nine years after the destruction of Jerusalem. God declares concerning Cyrus, "He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasures; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the Temple: 'Your foundation shall be laid'" (Isaiah 44:28). Hence, the Scriptures teach that it was during the reign of Cyrus that the rebuilding of the city began. This was symbolized, first of all, by the start of construction on the Second Temple, which was completed ca. 516 B.C.E., seventy years after the destruction. It is with the completion of the Temple that the period of desolation officially terminates.

Isaiah 45:1 describes Cyrus as God's "anointed." His decree to rebuild Jerusalem comes forty-nine years after the destruction of the city and the Temple, which is the time when an "anointed one" (Daniel 9:25) is to come to fulfill the prophecy, ". . . until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks [forty-nine years]."

When all is said and done, the biblical record must speak for itself. That record shows that it was Cyrus (Isaiah 45:13), who is given credit by God for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. As we have seen, the initial effort to rebuild was a direct result of Cyrus' decree. All subsequent permits were based on this decree.
[/size]

Tony's reply:
The Jews who believe it was Cyrus and not Artaxerxes (or 445-444 B.C.) may actually be a minority. This Jewish rabbi believes differently from your small marginalized group:
http://www.bethelnyc.org/sufferingmessiah.asp

But let us say for the sake of argument that your group just might be the majority. Does majority prove correctness of theology? Hardly.


Quote

Question: If Cyrus is the "anointed one" mentioned in Daniel 9:25 who is the "anointed one" mentioned in Daniel 9:26?

Answer: The first seven weeks ends in 537 B.C.E. The second segment of the Seventy Weeks period, sixty-two weeks in length, covered by verse 26, culminates in 103 B.C.E. (586-49-434=103 B.C.E.). Verse 26 indicates that "after sixty-two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off." This "anointed one" is the High Priest Alexander Yannai (103-76 B.C.E.) who came to power just at the end of the sixty-two week period in 103 B.C.E. and was the last of the important Hasmonean leaders. The phrase "after sixty-two weeks" indicates the time frame during which the "anointed one shall be cut off," that is, suffer karet, "excision." The penalty accompanying karet is here aptly described as "to have nothing," or "be no more." This punishment is given to Alexander Yannai infamous for his unjust, tyrannical, and bloody rule. He is notorious for his open violent animosity against the Pharisees and his brazen rejection of the Oral Law. For example, Josephus records that Alexander Yannai fought against the Pharisees for six years, "and . . . slew no fewer than fifty thousand of them" (Jewish Antiquities XIII. 13. 5. [373]). He also "ordered some eight hundred of the Jews to be crucified, and slaughtered their children and wives before the eyes of the still living wretches" (Jewish Antiquities XIII. 14. 2. [380]).

Verse 26 shows when Alexander Yannai, the "anointed one," would assume power and what kind of punishment would be meted out to him for his transgressions against God.
[/size]

Tony's reply:
Cute. I'm sure Yanai fulfilled all other messianic promises as well. LOL. I'm sure all his murderous ways proves that he was sinless.



Quote
Question: Is the Seventy Weeks countdown of Daniel 9 computed according to a 360-day "prophetic year"?

Answer: There is no "prophetic year" of 360 days alluded to anywhere in the Bible. It is a nineteenth century Christian invention developed through imaginative use of the Genesis flood narrative.

Some post-biblical sectarian literature and the apocryphal books of Jubilees and Enoch advocate a calendar consisting of 364 days, divided into twelve months of thirty days each. At the end of each three-month cycle a thirty-first day was added to the month. But, this is still not a 360-day "prophetic year."

Obviously, the calendar used in the Daniel 9 countdown has nothing to do with the nineteenth century development of a spurious 360-day "prophetic year."[/size]


Tony's reply:
I thought I already dealt this this. Either way, Christ is still the anointed one (that's what Christ means you know) and is the One Who fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel when the word went forth to rebuild the city in Nehemiah's day between 445-444 B.C.


Question: I have noticed that there are many differences between Jewish Bible translations of Daniel 9:25-26 and several different Christian Bible translations. What should be the correct readings of the disputed words and phrases?

Answer: In our study of the different translations we will compare the Hebrew text with that of the King James Version of the Bible. It contains the grossest errors, which are, in whole or in part, duplicated by other Christian versions of the Bible.

First, the King James Version puts a definite article before "Messiah the Prince" (9:25). The original Hebrew text does not read "the Messiah the Prince," but, having no article, it is to be rendered "a mashiach ["anointed one," "messiah"], a prince," i.e., Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1, 13; Ezra 1:1-2).

The word mashiach is nowhere used in the Jewish Scriptures as a proper name, but as a title of authority of a king or a high priest. Therefore, a correct rendering of the original Hebrew should be: "an anointed one, a prince."[/quote]


Tony's reply:
I agree that it should just be Messiah. This accords with the Concordant Literal Old Testament : "Dan 9:26 After the sixty-two sevens, Messiah will be cut off." Yannai was no Messiah.  It is improper for your source to even say "an anointed one" for you can't say "an Messiah one." That's bad grammar. "an" and "one" is not in the Hebrew.
They made a mistake above however when they wrote: mashiach ["anointed one," "messiah"], a prince," i.e., Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1, 13; Ezra 1:1-2). It should be "Messiah," i.e., Jesus (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9).

Quote
Second, the King James Version disregards the Hebrew punctuation. The punctuation mark 'atnach functions as the main pause within a sentence. The 'atnach is the appropriate equivalent of the semicolon in the modern system of punctuation. It thus has the effect of separating the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks: ". . . until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again . . ." (9:25).

By creating a sixty-nine week period, which is not divided into two separate periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks respectively, Christians reach an incorrect conclusion, i.e., that the Messiah will come 483 years after the destruction of the First Temple.

Some Christians claim that there is something called a "prophetic year" of 360 days, thus shortening the interval between the beginning of the 483 years which they claim began in 444 B.C.E., and the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. They do this in order to make the dates coincide, but the claim of a "prophetic year" is without any scriptural foundation.
[/size]

Tony's reply:
The original Masoretic text joins the 7 and 62 weeks without using commas or semicolons. "Some Christians" does not mean all Christians and thusly "some Jews" does not mean "all Jews." Some Jews believe the way your source claims. Of course, not all do.

Quote
Third, the King James Version omits the definite article in Daniel 9:26, which should read: "And after the threescore and two weeks. . . ." By treating the sixty-two weeks as a distinct period, this verse, in the original Hebrew, shows that the sixty-two weeks mentioned in verse 25 are correctly separated from the seven weeks by the 'atnach. Hence, two anointed ones are spoken of in this chapter, one of whom comes after seven weeks (Cyrus), and the other after a further period of sixty-two weeks (Alexander Yannai).

Fourth, the words v'ayn lo (9:26) are incorrectly translated by the King James Version as "but not for himself." They should be translated as "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing." There are Christian commentators who maintain this phrase has both meanings, but that claim cannot be supported grammatically.
 
Content Copyright Gerald Sigal, 1999-2003
[/size]

Tony's reply:
Your source is incorrect as well as is the KJV. Daniel 9:26 should be translated:

Dan 9:26 After the sixty-two sevens, Messiah will be cut off, and there is no adjudication for Him. The city and the holy place shall be laid in ruins with the other governor's coming; then its end is by an overflow, and till the end of the war desolations will be decided."

Looks like we are at an impasse. I have sources which contradict some of what your source says and agree with some of what your source says.

There are rabbis who believe and believed that Daniel 9 is about THE Messiah who I quoted aready. They contradict your source.

Jesus is the Messiach of Daniel 9. There is no other.
Logged
Did God say that He "will have all mankind to be saved" or that He "will NOT have all mankind to be saved? (1Tim.2:4-6]
Did God say He IS the Saviour of all mankind, or that He "is NOT the Saviour of all mankind? (1Tim.4:10)


Well?
Are we told to "charge and teach these things" or are we told "NOT to charge and teach these things"? (1Tim.4:10,11).


Well? Are we?

nojc4me

  • Prevalent User
  • *
  • Feedback: +1/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1089
Is Jesus the Messiah. What of OT prophecies?
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2006, 09:09:37 PM »

CALCULATION OF DATES
After Creation, Jewish dates have been used (rather than the Christian ones) because they can be verified by means of the Hebrew Bible.
The "70 years" prophecy from the destruction of the First Temple to the rebuilding of the Second Temple.  (Jeremiah 25:12, 29:10; Daniel 9:2)
3338 to 3408.
The exodus from Egypt occurred in 2448, as is clear from the lifetimes of the following men (as recorded in Genesis and Exodus): Adam (1--930), Methusaleh (687--1656), Shem (1558--2158), Jacob (2108--2255), Amram (2255--2392), Moses (2368 + 80 [his age at the time of the exodus] = 2448).  
Construction of the First Temple began in the fourth year of King Solomon's reign, i.e., 480 years after the exodus (I Kings 6:1). Solomon reigned for another thirty-six years, (I Kings 11:42) whereupon a succession of kings occupied the throne for 374 years, until the First Temple was destroyed (II Chronicles 12:13 to 36:11). Thus, 2448 + 480 + 36 + 374 = 3338.
70 weeks (490 years) The breakdown of the seventy weeks is according to Rashi from the destruction of the First Temple to the destruction of the Second Temple.
3338 to 3828. This year (1990) coincides with the year 5750. The Second Temple was destroyed in 68 C.E. (1,922 years ago). 5750 - 1,922 = 3828.
Of these 70 weeks:  
7 weeks (52 years). 7 weeks x 7 = 49 years. The remaining 3 years (52-49) are carried forward.
from the destruction of the First Temple to the Edict of Cyrus, the first Prince.  (Daniel 9:25)  3338 to 3390 plus 62 weeks (438 years). 62 weeks x 7 = 434 years. The extra 4 years (438-434) are carried forward.
From the Edict of Cyrus to King Agrippa II - The second anointed.  (Daniel 9:25--26)  3390 to 3828  
The 70th week. The above 7 surplus years (3+4) make up this last week of years. This 70th week involved the third prince, Vespasian, and the destruction of the Second Temple.  (Daniel 9:26--27)  But it (the 70th week) does not fit in with the missionaries' calculations, therefore, they have -- without Scriptural foundation -- assigned it to the time of Jesus' "second coming".

Tony N asked:

And this begs the question: Just who was the Prince, the Messiah who was cut off in 38 C.E.?

That was the point: there wasn't one. Therefore, the christian's timeline makes no sense. It simply doesn't work out! The count, from the christian's "official" starting point, counting the correct number of years with the correct number of days each, comes to a year where no "anointed one" was "cut off."
So the christians are wrong.
The Jew's timeline works, however.

How did that Messiah fulfill the Daniel prophecy and all prophecies related to Messiah from Genesis to Malachi?

Who says he had to? There are many prophecies that speak of messiahs, there have been several messiahs, and not all of those prophecies refer to a single messiah.

If they say He never came then God, Gabriel and Daniel lied. Daniel would then a false prophet.

To paraphrase Reagan, "Well, there you go again!"
You make whatever you want to out be a prophecy, make up your own interpretation of the text, pick your own starting point, make up "years" of whatever number of days you want to, count out days and years however you want to, and then fudge the numbers so it works out as you want it to, and then, when it becomes apparent you're wrong, you claim G-d and Daniel and Gabriel are the liars!
To you, the error can't possibly be yours; it MUST be G-d's.

Nehemiah is containing the record of the 20th year of Artaxerxes (or 445-444 B.C.) in which the word went forth to rebuild Jerusalem. Read Nehemiah yourself if you don't believe me.

It isn't that I don't believe Nehemiah, nor necessarily that I disbelieve your report that Nehemiah might have said thus and so. It's that I know you don't know what you're talking about, and will try to make Nehemiah seem to say what you want us to think he said, even if you have to take it out of context or mis-apply it to suit your ends.

According the Concordant Literal Old Testament Daniel 9:26 reads differently than some other translations:

"There you go again."
I recall that we already showed that you don't know Hebrew, and you admit you aren't Jewish,
so you don't know how to interpret the Tanakh.
Using the CLOT is a sure-fire way to cause brain damage, as the CLOT will shut off the passage of oxygen to the brain. A "brain CLOT".
Get it? [biggrin
Here's another "Literal Translation" for you.
A LITERAL interpretation for "spirit" is "ghost." And "ghost" in German, literally is "giest," which is literally "gas," which also means "flatulence." So the "holy ghost" of the nt is a mistranslation. It really, literally, means "Blessed Fart."
The task of interpreting the Tanakh does not fall upon a literalist christian book, nor to any christian(s). It belongs to the Priests and sages of the children of Israel.

The Jews who believe it was Cyrus and not Artaxerxes (or 445-444 B.C.) may actually be a minority. This Jewish rabbi believes differently from your small marginalized group:
http://www.bethelnyc.org/sufferingmessiah.asp


Messianic "Jews" are not Jews, and messianic "Rabbis" are not Rabbis. And "messianic Jewish Rabbis" are not "Jewish Rabbis".

As I said, the authorities on Judaism and the Tanakh are Jewish Rabbis.
So your statement remains unsupported.
And your boast that Orthodox Jews are "marginalized" is just funny.

Does majority prove correctness of theology?

When you're talking about a  majority of Orthodox Jewish Rabbis, yes.

'm sure all his murderous ways proves that he [Yanai] was sinless.

I know of no messianic prophecies that say the messiah will be sinless, so it's pointless to say that, because a person wasn't sinless, he wasn't the messiah.
Scripture lists several people who were anointed, yet whose acts were sinful.

Tony's reply:
I thought I already dealt this this. Either way, Christ is still the anointed one (that's what Christ means you know)


A) you've failed to show that that sinner, jesus, ever lived, so how he is supposed to have fulfilled this passage is beyond me.
B) "christ" may mean "anointed," but not as "anointed" is understood in the Hebrew Torah. An anointed one in the Hebrew Tradition was smeared with the Holy Oil of Anointing. The title "christ" is more closely associated with a "savior" who dies for the sins of others, which is an identification unknown in Israel.
C) You can't show that jesus was anointed with the oil of anointing, so your claim that jesus was the "anointed one" is baseless.
You can't even prove he was "christ"!
Just because that's what he was called, that doesn't mean that's what he was.

The original Masoretic text joins the 7 and 62 weeks without using commas or semicolons.

Of course not; those are modern devices. The Hebrew Masoretic uses little curls, dashes and dots above, under, and/or within the letters of the text to denote such things as breaks in thought today expressed in colons and semi-colons.
But the seven and 62 weeks are separated by the text itself, in that they are specifically expressed as 7 and 62.
Nobody on Earth calls "69" "seven and 62." Just nobody.
So it's "seven" and "sixty-two," not "sixty-nine."

Jesus is the Messiach of Daniel 9. There is no other.

Unsubstantiated in so many ways.
As unacceptable in just as many, and more.
Logged
Suggested Reading list:
"You Take jesus, I'll Take God" - Sam Levine
"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" - Robert Heinlein
"Hope" - Aaron Zelman & L. Neil Smith
"The Probability Broach" - L. Neil Smith
"Wizard's First Rule" - Terry Goodkind (Check out the rest of the series, too.)
"The Constitution of the United States" - input from various American Statesmen (Read that as "Old, wealthy white men, now dead, who were often seen to be wearing wigs and hose in public.")

nojc4me

  • Prevalent User
  • *
  • Feedback: +1/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1089
In respect to the word, "sinless"
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2006, 09:26:54 PM »

I wonder why christians continue to insist that
A) the messiah must be sinless,
B) no man can be sinless, yet
C) that jesus was sinless - and therefore must be the messiah.
None of those assertions are correct.
There is the evidence of the new testament that jesus committed several acts and spoke words that were sinful, so right there, the christians will lose all credibility when the continue to claim jesus was without sin.
Since there is all the evidence we could need to prove that men can avoid sin and repress their sinful inclinations, but no evidence that the messiah must be sinless, the christians have everything to lose and nothing to gain by claiming that jesus was sinless.
My advice: Just stop. You're only embarrassing yourselves.
Logged
Suggested Reading list:
"You Take jesus, I'll Take God" - Sam Levine
"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" - Robert Heinlein
"Hope" - Aaron Zelman & L. Neil Smith
"The Probability Broach" - L. Neil Smith
"Wizard's First Rule" - Terry Goodkind (Check out the rest of the series, too.)
"The Constitution of the United States" - input from various American Statesmen (Read that as "Old, wealthy white men, now dead, who were often seen to be wearing wigs and hose in public.")

shalom

  • Moderator
  • Regular User
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
Re: In respect to the word, "sinless"
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2006, 02:49:06 AM »

Quote from: nojc4me
I wonder why christians continue to insist that
A) the messiah must be sinless,
B) no man can be sinless, yet
C) that jesus was sinless - and therefore must be the messiah.
None of those assertions are correct.
.......
My advice: Just stop. You're only embarrassing yourselves.



I agree with you that Moshiach will be a man, subject to the same struggles and failings of all mankind, but I don't believe it is necessary, nor even prudent, to tell Christians to 'just stop' believing what they believe.  While Christianity may attempt to usurp, at times, Torah (new vs. old testament type of talk), I would much prefer western civilization to have access to G-d, than to be in ignorant.  And I have to be honest and admit at times I hold Israel accountable for Christianity.  Had we been what G-d called us to be (a people set apart, a nation of priests, a light to the world etc.), we might have spared Gentiles from what we view as a hybrid faith (Judaism peppered with Greco-Roman mythology).

For me to consider any man sinless is idolotry. And I think Jesus told his Jewish listeners the same idea. See Mat 19, Mk 10 & Luke 18.  Those who came after him, in particular the Gentile converts of Paul, took Jesus' role, to places I don't think he himself intended to be.  I'm speaking now of the notion of a trinity and all the other fallout over the past 2,000 years that you and I would say is the result of Greco-Roman influences.

There is an old saying " Don't touch the bone in a starving dogs mouth."  The meaning is you'll get bit if you try to remove it.  You need to offer the dog something better, then he'll drop the bone.

That raises the question:  Is christianity a dried up bone?  I don't think so. It has fostered righteousness in the lives of many people.  So I say leave the Gentiles to believe what they want.  It is not up to me nor you to say they commit idolotry in worshiping the man Jesus. If in their hearts they believe they are worshiping the G-d of Israel, then I say let the G-d of Israel be their judge.  Torah was not given to them; neither should they be judged by it. They have as much right to G-d as we and will have as much right to whatever happens (if anything) after this life. How G-d plans to work with the Gentiles might surprize us both.  But for me - I must focus on how G-d works with Israel.  

And I must point out, the passion for a resurrected Messiah isn't only the joy of the Gentiles.  Would you believe some of the followers of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (Hassidic Rebbe - those 'men in black'), are convinced HE is Moshiach?  Forget that he died in 1994.  There are some of his followers who believe he will rise from the dead and reveal himself as Moshiach.  Go figure!

I never said Jews were the smartest people on the planet - maybe the most hopeful, but not the smartest. We griped 40 years in the desert - even with good shoes, we had a passion for gold and for cows.  The moment Miriam died we started complaining about the lack of water - never giving her brother Moses a day's rest.  We burned our children for the false g-d Molech, and if Jesus wasn't enough, some of my people are waiting for the Rebbe to pop out and see his shadow!  - Oye Gevalut !!  It is a Shandah to air such dirty laundry. But I'm all for honesty.

Bottom line:  I get more shopping done at Home Depot (Jewish CEO), on Sundays, when Christians are at church, than I could on any Shabbat - so Please - don't change a thing!

Shalom
Logged
Shalom-שלום_אתם

Zagzagel

  • Superior User!!
  • *
  • Feedback: +5/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2962
    • Kats Adventures
Is Jesus the Messiah. What of OT prophecies?
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2006, 04:54:34 PM »

Hmmm...interesting words and thoughts Shalom.  

In one breath, I agree with you... but in my other breath, I disagree with you... (more on that later though)

For now.. just want to let you three know that i've been keeping touch here [biggrin
Logged
Cheers.  :)  Be well.  Live better!
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up