Topic: Sticks and Stones | |
---|---|
Jesus had all the right to do that lol. AGAIN, they were trespassing, they were NOT suppose to be running that business there.
Actually, (if that even even happened,) he did not have the "right" to do that. At the time, Jesus was looked upon as just one of many wandering cult leaders and had no connection to any established churches. He could have been arrested for his vandalism at the time if such an event even took place. It would be like you going into a church that you are not a member of that was conducting business of some kind like a flea market etc. and reeking havoc with everyone. You would have been looked at as crazy person and arrested. Those people had no idea who Jesus thought he was. They did not regard him as the son of God. To them he was just another crazy hippy type going ballistic. Jesus was not proclaimed to be the "son of God for another 200 years. Even today there are guru's going around claiming to be God in the flesh and some even claiming to be Jesus reincarnated. How do you know if they are telling the truth or not? You don't really. You just naturally think they are nuts or liars. That is what people thought of Jesus back then. He had no connection to the church and he had no right to be there throwing things around. |
|
|
|
Jesus had all the right to do that lol. AGAIN, they were trespassing, they were NOT suppose to be running that business there.
Actually, (if that even even happened,) he did not have the "right" to do that. At the time, Jesus was looked upon as just one of many wandering cult leaders and had no connection to any established churches. He could have been arrested for his vandalism at the time if such an event even took place. It would be like you going into a church that you are not a member of that was conducting business of some kind like a flea market etc. and reeking havoc with everyone. You would have been looked at as crazy person and arrested. Those people had no idea who Jesus thought he was. They did not regard him as the son of God. To them he was just another crazy hippy type going ballistic. Jesus was not proclaimed to be the "son of God for another 200 years. Even today there are guru's going around claiming to be God in the flesh and some even claiming to be Jesus reincarnated. How do you know if they are telling the truth or not? You don't really. You just naturally think they are nuts or liars. That is what people thought of Jesus back then. He had no connection to the church and he had no right to be there throwing things around. He had all the right regardless if they knew who he was or not. Again, if someone was setting up a business on your front lawn, would you not go out and tell them to get off regardless if they knew who you were or not? And if they didn't leave, would you then do something about it? |
|
|
|
No it is not. The leadership of the Temple decided this was ok and appropriate. Obviously the true owner of the building disagreed with their assessment. Therefore, the analogy is correct. Neither God nor Jesus invited them into Their House. how would the leadership of the temple know that Jesus the teacher of turning the other cheek was going to have a conniption fit and start tossing people things out the temple money changing in what ever form was how the temple raised money...even giving tithes would be money changing...clearly God wasn't giving them any money to run the place....didn't Jesus give tithes or pay temple taxes..so wouldn't that be money changing? ...this is another example of how Jesus was being a hyprocrite and playing to the crowd Tithing has nothing to do with money changers. money changer - one whose business is to exchange the money of one country for that of another country And if this was from the tithing money, this could have and should have been done outside the church. Not running a business inside the church. That is the reason Jesus did that. Because it was running a BUSINESS inside of God's house. A church isn't a "business". The tithes are to go towards the church for helping others and possibly church upkeep, not into the pockets of any people. Cowboy...no matter how you try to spin it...tithes is money...and the only purpose of money is to do business Jesus involement with the church and his tithes and temple taxes are what help bring in money to finance the going ons in the Temple....he was in fact a money changer ...but yet condemn others for doing the same ... |
|
|
|
No it is not. The leadership of the Temple decided this was ok and appropriate. Obviously the true owner of the building disagreed with their assessment. Therefore, the analogy is correct. Neither God nor Jesus invited them into Their House. how would the leadership of the temple know that Jesus the teacher of turning the other cheek was going to have a conniption fit and start tossing people things out the temple money changing in what ever form was how the temple raised money...even giving tithes would be money changing...clearly God wasn't giving them any money to run the place....didn't Jesus give tithes or pay temple taxes..so wouldn't that be money changing? ...this is another example of how Jesus was being a hyprocrite and playing to the crowd Tithing has nothing to do with money changers. money changer - one whose business is to exchange the money of one country for that of another country And if this was from the tithing money, this could have and should have been done outside the church. Not running a business inside the church. That is the reason Jesus did that. Because it was running a BUSINESS inside of God's house. A church isn't a "business". The tithes are to go towards the church for helping others and possibly church upkeep, not into the pockets of any people. Cowboy...no matter how you try to spin it...tithes is money...and the only purpose of money is to do business Jesus involement with the church and his tithes and temple taxes are what help bring in money to finance the going ons in the Temple....he was in fact a money changer ...but yet condemn others for doing the same ... No he was not lol, no matter how you try to spin it, that won't work lol. Tithes is money yes, but tithes go to things for God. Again things such as church upkeep, bibles, ect. Not for the profit of oneself. So no, not a business. The money doesn't go to buy the preacher things for his life, the money goes again FOR THE CHURCH. That's CHARITY my friend, to help another(s). Again, wasn't for the gain of oneself as a business is for. |
|
|
|
Once again - HE DIDN'T DAMAGE THE TEMPLE!!!!! Most likely he didn't damage the property of the money changers either. Tossing their property out the door does not necessarily = damage. And knowing the type of property they would have had - highly doubt anything was damaged other than a few egos... so "mylifetoday"... tossing someone property on the ground is not damage to those that follow Jesus ....ok...let's use your computer to test that theory.....I will toss if out the front door unto the ground ...it perhaps may break and never work again but according to you that doesn't mean that it's damage you guys are so scary Jesus had all the right to do that lol. AGAIN, they were trespassing, they were NOT suppose to be running that business there. ok Cowboy.....for the sake of argument let's go with your theory that Jesus had a right to destroy the property of others .... one would figure that a person that teach others to turn the other cheek would not be a hypocrite and resort to violence |
|
|
|
No it is not. The leadership of the Temple decided this was ok and appropriate. Obviously the true owner of the building disagreed with their assessment. Therefore, the analogy is correct. Neither God nor Jesus invited them into Their House. how would the leadership of the temple know that Jesus the teacher of turning the other cheek was going to have a conniption fit and start tossing people things out the temple money changing in what ever form was how the temple raised money...even giving tithes would be money changing...clearly God wasn't giving them any money to run the place....didn't Jesus give tithes or pay temple taxes..so wouldn't that be money changing? ...this is another example of how Jesus was being a hyprocrite and playing to the crowd Tithing has nothing to do with money changers. money changer - one whose business is to exchange the money of one country for that of another country And if this was from the tithing money, this could have and should have been done outside the church. Not running a business inside the church. That is the reason Jesus did that. Because it was running a BUSINESS inside of God's house. A church isn't a "business". The tithes are to go towards the church for helping others and possibly church upkeep, not into the pockets of any people. Cowboy...no matter how you try to spin it...tithes is money...and the only purpose of money is to do business Jesus involement with the church and his tithes and temple taxes are what help bring in money to finance the going ons in the Temple....he was in fact a money changer ...but yet condemn others for doing the same ... What you don't realize is the reality of the situation. Jesus did not own that church. I doubt if he was the assigned deacon or preacher in charge of it either. This is still the real world. People who go around claiming to be the son of God just are not taken seriously, even if it were true. But you are entitled to your opinion. |
|
|
|
Once again - HE DIDN'T DAMAGE THE TEMPLE!!!!! Most likely he didn't damage the property of the money changers either. Tossing their property out the door does not necessarily = damage. And knowing the type of property they would have had - highly doubt anything was damaged other than a few egos... so "mylifetoday"... tossing someone property on the ground is not damage to those that follow Jesus ....ok...let's use your computer to test that theory.....I will toss if out the front door unto the ground ...it perhaps may break and never work again but according to you that doesn't mean that it's damage you guys are so scary Jesus had all the right to do that lol. AGAIN, they were trespassing, they were NOT suppose to be running that business there. ok Cowboy.....for the sake of argument let's go with your theory that Jesus had a right to destroy the property of others .... one would figure that a person that teach others to turn the other cheek would not be a hypocrite and resort to violence No hypocrite there. Jesus is the law. Jesus didn't destroy anything anyways. He turned over a couple tables and made them leave. Nothing destroyed, no fights, nothing. Just turning over of a couple tables and removing the trespassers. |
|
|
|
No it is not. The leadership of the Temple decided this was ok and appropriate. Obviously the true owner of the building disagreed with their assessment. Therefore, the analogy is correct. Neither God nor Jesus invited them into Their House. how would the leadership of the temple know that Jesus the teacher of turning the other cheek was going to have a conniption fit and start tossing people things out the temple money changing in what ever form was how the temple raised money...even giving tithes would be money changing...clearly God wasn't giving them any money to run the place....didn't Jesus give tithes or pay temple taxes..so wouldn't that be money changing? ...this is another example of how Jesus was being a hyprocrite and playing to the crowd Tithing has nothing to do with money changers. money changer - one whose business is to exchange the money of one country for that of another country And if this was from the tithing money, this could have and should have been done outside the church. Not running a business inside the church. That is the reason Jesus did that. Because it was running a BUSINESS inside of God's house. A church isn't a "business". The tithes are to go towards the church for helping others and possibly church upkeep, not into the pockets of any people. Cowboy...no matter how you try to spin it...tithes is money...and the only purpose of money is to do business Jesus involement with the church and his tithes and temple taxes are what help bring in money to finance the going ons in the Temple....he was in fact a money changer ...but yet condemn others for doing the same ... What you don't realize is the reality of the situation. Jesus did not own that church. I doubt if he was the assigned deacon or preacher in charge of it either. This is still the real world. People who go around claiming to be the son of God just are not taken seriously, even if it were true. But you are entitled to your opinion. lol I don't think you realize the reality of the situation, Jesus didn't have to be the deacon or preacher. It was his house. The church is the house of God, the house of the lord. |
|
|
|
No it is not. The leadership of the Temple decided this was ok and appropriate. Obviously the true owner of the building disagreed with their assessment. Therefore, the analogy is correct. Neither God nor Jesus invited them into Their House. how would the leadership of the temple know that Jesus the teacher of turning the other cheek was going to have a conniption fit and start tossing people things out the temple money changing in what ever form was how the temple raised money...even giving tithes would be money changing...clearly God wasn't giving them any money to run the place....didn't Jesus give tithes or pay temple taxes..so wouldn't that be money changing? ...this is another example of how Jesus was being a hyprocrite and playing to the crowd Tithing has nothing to do with money changers. money changer - one whose business is to exchange the money of one country for that of another country And if this was from the tithing money, this could have and should have been done outside the church. Not running a business inside the church. That is the reason Jesus did that. Because it was running a BUSINESS inside of God's house. A church isn't a "business". The tithes are to go towards the church for helping others and possibly church upkeep, not into the pockets of any people. Cowboy...no matter how you try to spin it...tithes is money...and the only purpose of money is to do business Jesus involement with the church and his tithes and temple taxes are what help bring in money to finance the going ons in the Temple....he was in fact a money changer ...but yet condemn others for doing the same ... No he was not lol, no matter how you try to spin it, that won't work lol. Tithes is money yes, but tithes go to things for God. Again things such as church upkeep, bibles, ect. Not for the profit of oneself. So no, not a business. The money doesn't go to buy the preacher things for his life, the money goes again FOR THE CHURCH. That's CHARITY my friend, to help another(s). Again, wasn't for the gain of oneself as a business is for. Cowboy...you keep saying that money is used to get things for God....isn't God supposed to be omnipotent or something?...so can you explain what things God need that only money can buy if you can not explain why God need money or present any passage from the bible why God need money...then it's an indication that you are once again making up stuff that's not in the bible in order to hide the fact that Jesus was a money changer so I now await that passage from the bible which states that God need money ....do God also accept checks and money orders? |
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Fri 04/15/11 08:42 AM
|
|
No it is not. The leadership of the Temple decided this was ok and appropriate. Obviously the true owner of the building disagreed with their assessment. Therefore, the analogy is correct. Neither God nor Jesus invited them into Their House. how would the leadership of the temple know that Jesus the teacher of turning the other cheek was going to have a conniption fit and start tossing people things out the temple money changing in what ever form was how the temple raised money...even giving tithes would be money changing...clearly God wasn't giving them any money to run the place....didn't Jesus give tithes or pay temple taxes..so wouldn't that be money changing? ...this is another example of how Jesus was being a hyprocrite and playing to the crowd Tithing has nothing to do with money changers. money changer - one whose business is to exchange the money of one country for that of another country And if this was from the tithing money, this could have and should have been done outside the church. Not running a business inside the church. That is the reason Jesus did that. Because it was running a BUSINESS inside of God's house. A church isn't a "business". The tithes are to go towards the church for helping others and possibly church upkeep, not into the pockets of any people. Cowboy...no matter how you try to spin it...tithes is money...and the only purpose of money is to do business Jesus involement with the church and his tithes and temple taxes are what help bring in money to finance the going ons in the Temple....he was in fact a money changer ...but yet condemn others for doing the same ... No he was not lol, no matter how you try to spin it, that won't work lol. Tithes is money yes, but tithes go to things for God. Again things such as church upkeep, bibles, ect. Not for the profit of oneself. So no, not a business. The money doesn't go to buy the preacher things for his life, the money goes again FOR THE CHURCH. That's CHARITY my friend, to help another(s). Again, wasn't for the gain of oneself as a business is for. Cowboy...you keep saying that money is used to get things for God....isn't God supposed to be omnipotent or something?...so can you explain what things God need that only money can buy if you can not explain why God need money or present any passage from the bible why God need money...then it's an indication that you are once again making up stuff that's not in the bible in order to hide the fact that Jesus was a money changer so I now await that passage from the bible which states that God need money ....do God also accept checks and money orders? LoL, you were pretty funny before, but now you're getting hilarious Funches. The money itself is not for God. The money was to better the house of God and or to provide resources to help ones in need. God works through people my friend. Money is irrelevant to God. But in this world, it is needed to help others in need. To supply people with things they can not get but need. |
|
|
|
No hypocrite there. Jesus is the law. Jesus didn't destroy anything anyways. He turned over a couple tables and made them leave. Nothing destroyed, no fights, nothing. Just turning over of a couple tables and removing the trespassers. Cowboy...if Jesus is the Law as you claim....then wouldn't that mean that Jesus had himself crucified? .... so are you sure that Jesus was the Law? |
|
|
|
No hypocrite there. Jesus is the law. Jesus didn't destroy anything anyways. He turned over a couple tables and made them leave. Nothing destroyed, no fights, nothing. Just turning over of a couple tables and removing the trespassers. Cowboy...if Jesus is the Law as you claim....then wouldn't that mean that Jesus had himself crucified? .... so are you sure that Jesus was the Law? Yes Jesus is the law. Jesus fulfilled, completed, finished the laws we once had to bring us a new covenant, new laws. People rejected this, so they crucified him. But what did they gain from doing as such? Jesus is still alive, Jesus is still spreading the laws, Jesus is still there loving us. So in the long run, what did they accomplish from having Jesus crucified? |
|
|
|
LoL, you were pretty funny before, but now you're getting hilarious Funches. The money itself is not for God. The money was to better the house of God and or to provide resources to help ones in need. God works through people my friend. Money is irrelevant to God. But in this world, it is needed to help others in need. To supply people with things they can not get but need. see Cowboy... there you go contradicting yourself again first you claim that money is irrelevant to God and in the same post you claim that God work through the people to use their money to help better his house and help those that are in need .... so cowboy pick one for the record so that you want keep running back and forth.....is money irrelevant or relevant to God? |
|
|
|
No hypocrite there. Jesus is the law. Jesus didn't destroy anything anyways. He turned over a couple tables and made them leave. Nothing destroyed, no fights, nothing. Just turning over of a couple tables and removing the trespassers. Cowboy...if Jesus is the Law as you claim....then wouldn't that mean that Jesus had himself crucified? .... so are you sure that Jesus was the Law? Yes Jesus is the law. Jesus fulfilled, completed, finished the laws we once had to bring us a new covenant, new laws. People rejected this, so they crucified him. But what did they gain from doing as such? Jesus is still alive, Jesus is still spreading the laws, Jesus is still there loving us. So in the long run, what did they accomplish from having Jesus crucified? Cowboy...Rome was the law not Jesus... |
|
|
|
LoL, you were pretty funny before, but now you're getting hilarious Funches. The money itself is not for God. The money was to better the house of God and or to provide resources to help ones in need. God works through people my friend. Money is irrelevant to God. But in this world, it is needed to help others in need. To supply people with things they can not get but need. see Cowboy... there you go contradicting yourself again first you claim that money is irrelevant to God and in the same post you claim that God work through the people to use their money to help better his house and help those that are in need .... so cowboy pick one for the record so that you want keep running back and forth.....is money irrelevant or relevant to God? Money is irrelevant to GOD himself. God can have anything and do anything without the need of any money. The people on this Earth need the money though. So to maintain God's house one needs the money to do as such. That is where the tithes come in. People give tithes to help improve the conditions of God's house. It is given to help do the will of God with helping others. There are many uses for the tithing money. But again, that tithing money isn't to go in the preachers pocket or anything of such. It is to better the house of God and to help those in need. |
|
|
|
No hypocrite there. Jesus is the law. Jesus didn't destroy anything anyways. He turned over a couple tables and made them leave. Nothing destroyed, no fights, nothing. Just turning over of a couple tables and removing the trespassers. Cowboy...if Jesus is the Law as you claim....then wouldn't that mean that Jesus had himself crucified? .... so are you sure that Jesus was the Law? Yes Jesus is the law. Jesus fulfilled, completed, finished the laws we once had to bring us a new covenant, new laws. People rejected this, so they crucified him. But what did they gain from doing as such? Jesus is still alive, Jesus is still spreading the laws, Jesus is still there loving us. So in the long run, what did they accomplish from having Jesus crucified? Cowboy...Rome was the law not Jesus... Hate to tell you bro, Jesus is the law of the world. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Milesoftheusa
on
Fri 04/15/11 09:49 AM
|
|
I am curious how we know what the 'seventh' day was,,,,,being that we named the days AFTER God created them and seven is a measure of placement,,, I always thought the biblical example of sabbath was in the number of days worked, that six on and one off principle in exodus "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you," (Exodus 20:8-10, NASB) I dont know why the ritual of a SPECIFIC day became so significant, or when It's not real significant. Just the usual day of celebrating the sabath has been placed on Sunday for most and Saturday for a couple. This is done as to make it easier for gatherings, eg., "church". So we can congregate easier. But no, it's not specifically "Sunday" or "Saturday". Just work your 6 days and give at least one day to the lord. One day for praise and worship and not putting much mind towards you. Giving the lord just one day for praise and worship. Is that to much to ask for? Just one day? Thats fine thats why PLEASE PLEASE never call me a chr-stian because i do not want to be know as a Hypocypt by anyone. I am super busy these days as my GK's come 1st. I do not have time for your REBELLION.. look that scriptual word up so when someday you are asked why you you hated the WORD and its definition from the beginning is judgement against you. then the Prophecy of " Insulting the Spirit of Grace" will not be foriegn to all who pick and choose. so here is my answer either you understand it or you don not.. It all depends on you.. it will point to why I say what I do about Yahweh's WAY. Heb 4:8 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. KJV or Heb 4:8-9 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. NKJV in one of very few instances will I leave things not corrected for your benefit to Ponder. Now here is the whole thought and if you disagree its only the BELIEVERS CHOICE not to SEARCH out the Matter.. OK????? EDIT for UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Gen 1:1 - Heb 5:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath,'They shall not enter My rest,'" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"; 5 and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest." 6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "Today," after such a long time, as it has been said: "Today, if you will hear His voice,Do not harden your hearts." 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. 11 The Word Discovers Our Condition Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. 14 Our Compassionate High Priest Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. NKJV Left alone to your Desire. Retrobate.. Shalom..Miles Gen 1:1 - Isa 3:7 O house of Jacob, come and let us walk In the light of the LORD. 6 For You have forsaken Your people, the house of Jacob,Because they are filled with eastern ways;They are soothsayers like the Philistines,And they are pleased with the children of foreigners. 7 Their land is also full of silver and gold,And there is no end to their treasures;Their land is also full of horses,And there is no end to their chariots. 8 Their land is also full of idols;They worship the work of their own hands,That which their own fingers have made. 9 People bow down,And each man humbles himself;Therefore do not forgive them . 10 Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust,From the terror of the LORDAnd the glory of His majesty. 11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled,The haughtiness of men shall be bowed down,And the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. 12 For the day of the LORD of hosts Shall come upon everything proud and lofty,Upon everything lifted up — And it shall be brought low — 13 Upon all the cedars of Lebanon that are high and lifted up,And upon all the oaks of Bashan; 14 Upon all the high mountains,And upon all the hills that are lifted up; 15 Upon every high tower,And upon every fortified wall; 16 Upon all the ships of Tarshish,And upon all the beautiful sloops. 17 The loftiness of man shall be bowed down,And the haughtiness of men shall be brought low;The LORD alone will be exalted in that day, 18 But the idols He shall utterly abolish. 19 They shall go into the holes of the rocks,And into the caves of the earth,From the terror of the LORDAnd the glory of His majesty,When He arises to shake the earth mightily. 20 In that day a man will cast away his idols of silver And his idols of gold,Which they made, each for himself to worship,To the moles and bats, 21 To go into the clefts of the rocks,And into the crags of the rugged rocks,From the terror of the LORDAnd the glory of His majesty,When He arises to shake the earth mightily. 22 Sever yourselves from such a man,Whose breath is in his nostrils;For of what account is he? Isaiah 3 3:1 Judgment on Judah and Jerusalem For behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts,Takes away from Jerusalem and from JudahThe stock and the store,The whole supply of bread and the whole supply of water; 2 The mighty man and the man of war,The judge and the prophet,And the diviner and the elder; 3 The captain of fifty and the honorable man,The counselor and the skillful artisan,And the expert enchanter. 4 "I will give children to be their princes,And babes shall rule over them. 5 The people will be oppressed,Every one by another and every one by his neighbor;The child will be insolent toward the elder,And the base toward the honorable." 6 When a man takes hold of his brother In the house of his father, saying,"You have clothing;You be our ruler,And let these ruins be under your power," 7 In that day he will protest, saying,"I cannot cure your ills,For in my house is neither food nor clothing;Do not make me a ruler of the people." NKJV |
|
|
|
Money is irrelevant to GOD himself. God can have anything and do anything without the need of any money. Cowboy...that fact that the church takes tithes proves your statement to be false |
|
|
|
No hypocrite there. Jesus is the law. Jesus didn't destroy anything anyways. He turned over a couple tables and made them leave. Nothing destroyed, no fights, nothing. Just turning over of a couple tables and removing the trespassers. Cowboy...if Jesus is the Law as you claim....then wouldn't that mean that Jesus had himself crucified? .... so are you sure that Jesus was the Law? Yes Jesus is the law. Jesus fulfilled, completed, finished the laws we once had to bring us a new covenant, new laws. People rejected this, so they crucified him. But what did they gain from doing as such? Jesus is still alive, Jesus is still spreading the laws, Jesus is still there loving us. So in the long run, what did they accomplish from having Jesus crucified? Cowboy...Rome was the law not Jesus... Hate to tell you bro, Jesus is the law of the world. Cowboy.....as in your words, Rome full-filled those laws when they crucified Jesus ...those laws died on the cross ..... do tell which laws and teachings of Jesus that you personally follow .... if you do not follow all of them religously....then that proves my point |
|
|
|
No hypocrite there. Jesus is the law. Jesus didn't destroy anything anyways. He turned over a couple tables and made them leave. Nothing destroyed, no fights, nothing. Just turning over of a couple tables and removing the trespassers. Cowboy...if Jesus is the Law as you claim....then wouldn't that mean that Jesus had himself crucified? .... so are you sure that Jesus was the Law? Yes Jesus is the law. Jesus fulfilled, completed, finished the laws we once had to bring us a new covenant, new laws. People rejected this, so they crucified him. But what did they gain from doing as such? Jesus is still alive, Jesus is still spreading the laws, Jesus is still there loving us. So in the long run, what did they accomplish from having Jesus crucified? Yahshua said he did nothing of himself. With that thought. Does anyone know the Prophesy of the Money Changers? Why as you can see in John like chapter 2 or 3..look? Why they hated Yahshua and started thier Plan on how they were going to Kill Yahshua and you know what its not like the other places that speak of the Money Changers because His cousin John is spoken of as being ALIVE still.. shalom..Miles |
|
|