Sarassin:
With regards TB Joshua, I would just say that I am not a fan, his roots appear to be grounded elsewhere.

I know it is unethical to discuss the flaws/mistakes of another. I usually do not indulge in such. However I would love you to please expand a bit. It could be helpful for my own spiritual ascent.

If it is not possible, then it's ok.

Good day to you sir. When do you move on with the other thread you stopped?

LoJ:

I know it is unethical to discuss the flaws/mistakes of another. I usually do not indulge in such. However I would love you to please expand a bit. It could be helpful for my own spiritual ascent.

If it is not possible, then it's ok.

Good day to you sir. When do you move on with the other thread you stopped?

Regards TB Joshua, I would rather not, I know that a lot of people on these pages hold him in high esteem but I am not one of them.
I will be back on the other thread probably in the next few days.

Sarassin:
Kudos, you are the first Christian to admit an interpolation in the Testimonium Flavium, my point was that Josephus was not biased against Jesus or Christianity as you seek to pursue. He simply recorded his own knowledge of events.

Fair do's to your giving the ''kudos'' over the mutual agreement on the Testimonium Flavium intepolation, but mind you, what's with the Christian tag, you're sounded for a second there like King Agrippa :-)
Hmm, I'll hold my peace on that :-)

Sarassin:
The point is with the exception of a few verses in the Book of Acts known as the "We"documents where it is apparent that your Dr. Luke was an eyewitness to certain events pertaining to the movements of Paul, everything else he wrote, particularly in the Gospel of Luke was based on pious hearsay and tittle-tattle. His infancy gospel of John the Baptist is especially dubious, Luke may have regarded himself an historian but he was no more an historian than the authors of the Gospels of Mark or Matthew

''By no stretch of the imagination is the gospel author of Luke an eyewitness to the accounts he wrote nor is he an historian.''
- Sarassin

Remember it was the above quote where you rubbished Luke as a non-historian that prompted me pulling out Luke 1:1-3
I was not setting out to wrangle over Luke's historian pedigree but only to make the point that if Josephus who incidentally was born in 37CE (i.e. a year after John the Baptist died) and was not an eye witness to John the Baptist but could write accounts about him, then what's the hullabaloo over Luke about. Why the denigration that he isnt a historian, when Luke had already and clearly stated in Luke 1:1-3 his intention, to write an orderly account for the pleasure of His Excellency, Theophilus.

Sarassin:
This also begs the question, If John bore no such resemblance to Elijah, why then would anybody claim on John's behalf that he was Elijah?

Misinterpretation is the reason, as in, does understanding something like this, incorrectly, strike a cord with you

Sarassin:
We should be clear that John the Baptist never applied Mal. 4:5 to himself when pressed, in fact he took refuge in the prophecy of Isa. 40:3 which would apply more aptly to his mission of bursting forth the "messianic spring" and hastening the arrival of the kingdom of God

I am so glad and immensely grateful that you admit to John the Baptist never applied Mal. 4:5 to himself when pressed BUT in fact he took refuge in the prophecy of Isa. 40:3 which would apply more aptly to his mission.

You've cut the work in half with that admittance and paved way for a plain sailing.
I will soon explain why John the Baptist never applied Mal. 4:5 to himself when pressed, BUT in fact INSTEAD took refuge in the prophecy of Isa. 40:3

Sarassin:
But here is the problem. The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself (not someone "like" him or someone "similar" to him, but Elijah himself) would return before the advent of the Messiah. Jesus declared that John the Baptist was Elijah who had returned, stating quite bluntly "Elijah has come"

There is no problem, unless if it's you, like the Jews inserting a problem by doing a literal interpretation of Malachi.
Running with Mal. 4:5 and taking words ''I will send you Elijah'' in their usual or most basic sense without consideration of metaphor
I earlier provided you with Luke 1:5-19 and purposely highlighted Luke 1:17 to draw attention to the bolded
I followed by deliberately stating ''Zechariah, his father'' to be a stimulus to connect or join the dots in:
''John the Baptist was well versed in the scriptures, equally knew what Malachi 4:5 really meant, as this was explained to Zechariah, his father, in Luke 1:17, by an angel''
but alas, you chose not to see or failed to understand the implication of the remark

Sarassin:
So, based on that statement alone, one of the following must be true:

(i) John the Baptist was Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah was reborn.

(ii) John the Baptist was not Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah himself had not returned. And if this is so, then either:

The Old Testament prophecy about Elijah returning before the Messiah failed to come to pass OR quite simply Jesus was not the Messiah. That prophecy leaves no room for speculation as to likeness, resemblance, spirit or any other mechanism of obfuscation.

In my view, Jesus or more pertinently, gospel writers had a vested interest in identifying the Baptist as Elijah, since by so doing, they identify Jesus to the Jews as the Messiah. John the Baptist denied he was Elijah reborn hence the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

It boils down to this: Jesus said John was Elijah, and John said he wasn't. Which of the two is to be believed - Jesus or John?

SMH. Among other things in the above, I can't believe you are that bold to write:
That prophecy leaves no room for speculation as to likeness, resemblance, spirit or any other mechanism of obfuscation.

You dont half make me laugh with the way you displayed a very dramatic and comical outburst in trying to be unconcerned, unaffected and not moved by Luke 1:17, which clearly DEOBFUSCATED Malachi 4:5, by throwing more light to make the prophecy less confusing and more comprehensible.

Never mind, since it's still early to ''explain why John the Baptist never applied Mal. 4:5 to himself when pressed, BUT in fact INSTEAD took refuge in the prophecy of Isa. 40:3'' I'll just say: Watch this space.

That information, no doubt, will be given later, as the thread progresses.

... The underlying conviction of John’s entire mission was, that a baptism of repentance was necessary for Israel's salvation in the imminent Last Judgement..
- Sarassin
before I do justice as earlier above promised, I need to give you some questions and hope to get honest answers back

1) Do you remember the above Sarassin quote? (i.e. it's one of yours, it's an excerpt taken from your fouth post)
2) Hold on to that quote of yours to answer this question:
Elijah accomplished a lot in his career but what do you know or think was the high point of his ministry? (i.e. the most successful point of his career)
Hint: It was a point, where God after, couldnt resist not commenting on it and opted for deferment
3) What does reborn mean? What is reborn. What are you making us to believe reborn is?
In fact, define reborn in your own words and in accordance with your own understanding
4) Is reborn ever affiliated or included in the prophecy in Malachi 4:5?

Please do the honour of answering the above four, so we can wrap this thing up

MuttleyLaff:

There is no problem, unless if it's you, like the Jews inserting a problem by doing a literal interpretation of Malachi.
Running with Mal. 4:5 and taking words ''I will send you Elijah'' in their usual or most basic sense without consideration of metaphor
I earlier provided you with Luke 1:5-19 and purposely highlighted Luke 1:17 to draw attention to the bolded
I followed by deliberately stating ''Zechariah, his father'' to be a stimulus to connect or join the dots in:
''John the Baptist was well versed in the scriptures, equally knew what Malachi 4:5 really meant, as this was explained to Zechariah, his father, in Luke 1:17, by an angel'' but alas, you chose not to see or failed to understand the implication of the remark

What other form are we to take the statement “I will send you Elias” when does a literal statement become allegorical and who makes the determination that such a statement is figurative, and on what criterion?

I am well aware of your highlighting Luke 1:17 and there was no misunderstanding on my part. In my view Luke’s “Infancy Gospel” of John the Baptist is largely unreliable. I would go as far as to say it is composed mainly to suit a series of parallel motives in the Old Testament birth-stories of Isaac, Samson and Samuel surely you can see that is more than a coincidence that the two ladies of this gospel of infancy, Miriam and Elizabeth, bear the names of Aaron's sister and wife.

Luke wrote in hindsight and all that he has done in 1:17 has been to subtly alter or modify the prophecy. You are on a very slippery slope if you hang the interpretation of Malachi 4:5 on Luke 1:17 if it is not based on historical fact.

Never mind, since it's still early to ''explain why John the Baptist never applied Mal. 4:5 to himself when pressed, BUT in fact INSTEAD took refuge in the prophecy of Isa. 40:3'' I'll just say: Watch this space.

Now my friend, who is being dramatic? I await with bated breathe.

1) Do you remember the above Sarassin quote? (i.e. it's one of yours, it's an excerpt taken from your fouth post)
2) Hold on to that quote of yours to answer this question:
Elijah accomplished a lot in his career but what do you know or think was the high point of his ministry? (i.e. the most successful point of his career)
Hint: It was a point, where God after, couldnt resist not commenting on it and opted for deferment
3) What does reborn mean? What is reborn. What are you making us to believe reborn is?
In fact, define reborn in your own words and in accordance with your own understanding
4) Is reborn ever affiliated or included in the prophecy in Malachi 4:5?

Please do the honour of answering the above four, so we can wrap this thing up

1. I certainly remember the quote.
2. I would say the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire.
3. My use of the term “Reborn” is in the context of the re-appearance of the prophet Elijah in a manner that is to be easily and clearly identifiable by all and sundry at the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi.
4. No, the term "Reborn" is not included in the prophecy of Malachi, It was the term used by the Jewish leaders to inquire of the baptist whether he was Elias.

Sarassin:
What other form are we to take the statement “I will send you Elias” when does a literal statement become allegorical and who makes the determination that such a statement is figurative, and on what criterion?

God, the giving of the prophecy does, that is why the angel specifically mentioned to Zechariah that John the Baptist will born with spirit and power of Elijah

Sarassin:
1. I certainly remember the quote.

Good but you didnt keep it mind though when answering #2 below

Sarassin:
2. I would say the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire.

I think you deliberately chose this one because you have sussed from the hint, where I would be going if you had mentioned the correct answer

Sarassin:
3. My use of the term “Reborn” is in the context of the re-appearance of the prophet Elijah in a manner that is to be easily and clearly identifiable by all and sundry at the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi.

In short you mean reincarnation. Reincarnation as in Elijah reborn physically in the flesh and blood in the person of John the Baptist. Am I right?

Sarassin:
4. No, the term "Reborn" is not included in the prophecy of Malachi, It was the term used by the Jewish leaders to inquire of the baptist whether he was Elias.

Thank you for your honesty, but hey no surprises there, as the Jewish leaders most times goof with interpretations.

Please review your #2 answer, keeping your repentance quote and the hint given in mind when revising it

MuttleyLaff:
God, the giving of the prophecy does, that is why the angel specifically mentioned to Zechariah that John the Baptist will born with spirit and power of Elijah

No. Your entire premise that John the Baptist is Elijah appears to rely on an apparently non-historical statement by Luke, it is not attested by any other gospel writer and is in direct conflict with the original prophecy of Malachi. Even if I grant you that Luke's account is not pious fancifulness, and that the Baptist was indeed born with the spirit and power of Elijah, it still does not fulfil the prophecy of Malachi who, could no doubt have saved us all a load of grief by stating "I will send you one like Elias".

I think you deliberately chose this one because you have sussed from the hint, where I would be going if you had mentioned the correct answer

You asked a question, I gave you an honest answer. If you have a different one that suits your pre-determined outcome better, please feel free to share.

In short you mean reincarnation. Reincarnation as in Elijah reborn physically in the flesh and blood in the person of John the Baptist. Am I right?

Nope. You are putting words in my mouth. I mean exactly what I wrote.

Please review your #2 answer, keeping your repentance quote and the hint given in mind when revising it

Is this what lawyers refer to as "leading the witness"?

Sarassin:
No. Your entire premise that John the Baptist is Elijah appears to rely on an apparently non-historical statement by Luke, it is not attested by any other gospel writer and is in direct conflict with the original prophecy of Malachi. Even if I grant you that Luke's account is not pious fancifulness, and that the Baptist was indeed born with the spirit and power of Elijah, it still does not fulfil the prophecy of Malachi who, could no doubt have saved us all a load of grief by stating "I will send you one like Elias".

You asked a question, I gave you an honest answer. If you have a different one that suits your pre-determined outcome better, please feel free to share.

Nope. You are putting words in my mouth. I mean exactly what I wrote.

Is this what lawyers refer to as "leading the witness"?

Sorry for the delayed reply, promise to reply back asap, please bear with me...

Sarassin:
I am well aware of your highlighting Luke 1:17 and there was no misunderstanding on my part. In my view Luke’s “Infancy Gospel” of John the Baptist is largely unreliable. I would go as far as to say it is composed mainly to suit a series of parallel motives in the Old Testament birth-stories of Isaac, Samson and Samuel surely you can see that is more than a coincidence that the two ladies of this gospel of infancy, Miriam and Elizabeth, bear the names of Aaron's sister and wife

I woke up early this morning, planning to finish off replying to: https://www.nairaland.com/3029605/enigma-john-baptist/1#44663813
but then my eye caught the bolded quoted above.

How did I manage to have missed this.

What is your point?

Put your cards on the table man, as, I too, can tell you one or two names of other characters in NT bearing names of characters in OT
Again, what are you REALLY on about with this
''surely you can see that is more than a coincidence that the two ladies of this gospel of infancy, Miriam and Elizabeth, bear the names of Aaron's sister and wife'' remark?

Come on, spit it out
Dang, am beating myself for not earlier noticing your allusive remark

Sarassin:
Luke wrote in hindsight and all that he has done in 1:17 has been to subtly alter or modify the prophecy. You are on a very slippery slope if you hang the interpretation of Malachi 4:5 on Luke 1:17 if it is not based on historical fact.

Trust me, I hang not the interpretation of Malachi 4:5 on Luke 1:17 alone
The interpretation and/or fulfilment of Malachi 4:5 is based on not just historical facts but on biblical ones too

Sarassin:
No. Your entire premise that John the Baptist is Elijah

How do you mean, no.
You are doing a strawman with me, erh?
I never subscribed to any explanation that John the Baptist is Elijah
John the Baptist never agreed that he is Elijah
Jesus Christ never said that John the Baptist is Elijah in the flesh
Jesus Christ never said that John the Baptist is Elijah in bodily or human form

Sarassin:
appears to rely on an apparently non-historical statement by Luke, it is not attested by any other gospel writer and is in direct conflict with the original prophecy of Malachi. Even if I grant you that Luke's account is not pious fancifulness, and that the Baptist was indeed born with the spirit and power of Elijah, it still does not fulfil the prophecy of Malachi who, could no doubt have saved us all a load of grief by stating "I will send you one like Elias".

There you go again, now you're again skillfully ignoring the actual position and substituting it with your misinterpretation version

Sarassin:
You asked a question, I gave you an honest answer. If you have a different one that suits your pre-determined outcome better, please feel free to share

pre-determined outcome?

Sarassin:
Nope. You are putting words in my mouth. I mean exactly what I wrote

Sorry, but if ''“Reborn” is in the context of the re-appearance of the prophet Elijah in a manner that is to be easily and clearly identifiable by all and sundry at the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi'' doesnt equate to and mean reincarnation. Reincarnation as in Elijah reborn physically in the flesh and blood in the person of John the Baptist, I dont then know exactly what you wrote, and certainly arent putting words in your mouth
Seems you want to have your cake and eat it too

Sarassin:
Is this what lawyers refer to as "leading the witness"?

No, but since you deem this to be a trial, then take it to be something like a: ''judge advising the jury, for the jurors to align with the real facts, so as to come to a real verdict...''

MuttleyLaff:
I woke up early this morning, planning to finish off replying to: https://www.nairaland.com/3029605/enigma-john-baptist/1#44663813
but then my eye caught the bolded quoted above.

How did I manage to have missed this.

What is your point?

Put your cards on the table man, as, I too, can tell you one or two names of other characters in NT bearing names of characters in OT
Again, what are you REALLY on about with this
''surely you can see that is more than a coincidence that the two ladies of this gospel of infancy, Miriam and Elizabeth, bear the names of Aaron's sister and wife'' remark?

Come on, spit it out
Dang, am beating myself for not earlier noticing your allusive remark

Don't be too hard on yourself. The parallels are there to be drawn and they leap out of the pages of the OT. If you take a closer look at the birth stories of Isaak, Samuel and Samson all borne by latterly barren women of advanced ages and their births heralded by “Angels” or Men of God and certainly in the cases of Samuel, Samson and John the Baptist all “Nazarites”, it is quite clear to see that Luke’s birth stories of John the Baptist and the annunciation of Jesus are particularly modelled after that of Samuel.

There is no mention of a family relationship between Jesus and John in any of the other gospels and there is no allusion to it by either man. We have to take the word of the arch-storyteller Luke that Zechariah’s wife’s name is Elizabeth whom we are assured by Luke is a Levite and a descendant of the priestly Aaron, and just for good measure, for those who might have missed it, Zechariah himself is a priest of the house of Abijah therefore also a direct descendant of Aaron. Luke is making sure his readers are in no doubt of John’s double priestly descent, and if that is not enough…well he names the Immerser’s mother after Aaron’s wife!

Trust me, I hang not the interpretation of Malachi 4:5 on Luke 1:17 alone
The interpretation and/or fulfilment of Malachi 4:5 is based on not just historical facts but on biblical ones too

There are No historical facts, let alone biblical ones.

How do you mean, no.
You are doing a strawman with me, erh?
I never subscribed to any explanation that John the Baptist is Elijah
John the Baptist never agreed that he is Elijah
Jesus Christ never said that John the Baptist is Elijah in the flesh
Jesus Christ never said that John the Baptist is Elijah in bodily or human form

No strawman here, you gave the following testimony of Jesus about John do you disagree with the words of Jesus?

13"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
14"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
15"He who has ears to hear, let him hear
- Matthew 11:13-15

I refer to your quote above as to what Jesus said. The inference is clear.

Sorry, but if ''“Reborn” is in the context of the re-appearance of the prophet Elijah in a manner that is to be easily and clearly identifiable by all and sundry at the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi'' doesnt equate to and mean reincarnation. Reincarnation as in Elijah reborn physically in the flesh and blood in the person of John the Baptist, I dont then know exactly what you wrote, and certainly arent putting words in your mouth
Seems you want to have your cake and eat it too

As you know the bible neither supports nor teaches reincarnation, resurrection, yes, but then Elijah never demonstrably died therefore the question of a resurrection does not arise….if you forgive my pun.

Lastly,You declared somewhat grandly that:
SMH. Among other things in the above, I can't believe you are that bold to write:
That prophecy leaves no room for speculation as to likeness, resemblance, spirit or any other mechanism of obfuscation.

But then you forget the latter part of the Malachi prophecy,
“……….before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.”

It would be fair to say that day has not yet arrived….don’t you agree?

Sarassin:
If you take a closer look at the birth stories of Isaak, Samuel and Samson all borne by latterly barren women of advanced ages and their births heralded by “Angels” or Men of God and certainly in the cases of Samuel, Samson and John the Baptist all “Nazarites”, it is quite clear to see that Luke’s birth stories of John the Baptist and the annunciation of Jesus are particularly modelled after that of Samuel.

Again, and your point is?

Sarassin:
There is no mention of a family relationship between Jesus and John in any of the other gospels and there is no allusion to it by either man. We have to take the word of the arch-storyteller Luke that Zechariah’s wife’s name is Elizabeth whom we are assured by Luke is a Levite and a descendant of the priestly Aaron, and just for good measure, for those who might have missed it, Zechariah himself is a priest of the house of Abijah therefore also a direct descendant of Aaron. Luke is making sure his readers are in no doubt of John’s double priestly descent, and if that is not enough…well he names the Immerser’s mother after Aaron’s wife!

The bolded in ''take the word of the arch-storyteller'' conceals your disdain for Luke and other scripture whatnots

Sarassin:
There are No historical facts, let alone biblical ones

Historically what happened to Jerusalem in AD 70? Your buddy ''the arch-storyteller, the historian well loved by Sarassin'' Josephus in ''The Wars Of The Jews'' or ''The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem''
Over one million killed and 97,000 carried away as captives

Biblically, what did Jesus say in Matthew 24:1-2 about this?

1As Jesus was leaving the Temple grounds, his disciples pointed out to him the various Temple buildings.
2But he responded, “Do you see all these buildings?
I tell you the truth, they will be completely demolished. Not one stone will be left on top of another!”
- Matthew 24:1-2

Sarassin:
No strawman here, you gave the following testimony of Jesus about John do you disagree with the words of Jesus?

13"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
14"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
15"He who has ears to hear, let him hear
- Matthew 11:13-15

I refer to your quote above as to what Jesus said. The inference is clear.

The inference you made, is not rightly deduced or inferred

I agree with the exact words in Luke 1:17 and agree with the words of Jesus corroborating that John himself is Elijah, as in John came and was born in the spirit and power of Elijah

10So the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
11He answered them, “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things.
12But I tell you that Elijah has already come, yet peoplec did not recognize him and treated him just as they pleased. In the same way, the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”
13Then the disciples understood that he had been speaking to them about John the Baptist.
- Matthew 17:10-13

Sarassin:
As you know the bible neither supports nor teaches reincarnation, resurrection...

The Bible supports or teaches resurrection but not reincarnation.
Makes sense why John never agreed to be a reborn Elijah or reincarnated Elijah

Sarassin:
...yes, but then Elijah never demonstrably died therefore the question of a resurrection does not arise….if you forgive my pun.

ROTBL at demonstrably, you sure like to calculatingly or deliberately choose your words
You'll live to make another pun ojaare.

Fact is, after his translation to a different part of earth, Elijah continued to live on earth and obviously later died
Besides, Elijah hasnt access to no Tree of Life, to eat off, to make him live for ever

Sarassin:
Lastly,You declared somewhat grandly that:
SMH. Among other things in the above, I can't believe you are that bold to write:
That prophecy leaves no room for speculation as to likeness, resemblance, spirit or any other mechanism of obfuscation

I still can't believe you are that bold to have written that:
That prophecy leaves no room for speculation as to likeness, resemblance, spirit or any other mechanism of obfuscation

The likeness is made clear in Luke 1:17 concerning the Malachi 4:5 prophecy
and that

Sarassin:
But then you forget the latter part of the Malachi prophecy,
“……….before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.”

It would be fair to say that day has not yet arrived….don’t you agree?

This is a JJC already answered above question
and it is unfair for you to say that the latter part of the Malachi prophecy wasnt fulfilled when the great and dreadful day arrived and visited on AD 70

MuttleyLaff:
Again, and your point is?

My point is this, Luke’s infancy gospel of John the Immerser is entirely made up. The birth story, the story of the visitation of angel Gabriel et al were conceived to fit a pre-determined outcome, based on the parallels I have mentioned previously, therefore Luke 1:17 in my opinion is spurious. It is so blatant you need physical blindfolds to miss it.

The bolded in ''take the word of the arch-storyteller'' conceals your disdain for Luke and other scripture whatnots

I wasn't trying to conceal it.

Historically what happened to Jerusalem in AD 70? Your buddy ''the arch-storyteller, the historian well loved by Sarassin'' Josephus in ''The Wars Of The Jews'' or ''The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem''
Over one million killed and 97,000 carried away as captives

Your figures are wrong, the entire population of Palestine at the time was put at around One Million with just about half of that figure being ethnic Jews, many Jewish people survived the rebellion out in the countryside.

Biblically, what did Jesus say in Matthew 24:1-2 about this?

1As Jesus was leaving the Temple grounds, his disciples pointed out to him the various Temple buildings.
2But he responded, “Do you see all these buildings?
I tell you the truth, they will be completely demolished. Not one stone will be left on top of another!”
- Matthew 24:1-2

This simply shows that the author of Matthew as we know now, wrote his volume after the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, with the benefit of hind-sight. The words he has Jesus purportedly state are quite wrong, the author would have no way of knowing, as I am sure you do, that there are more than just a few stones still standing there today.

The Bible supports or teaches resurrection but not reincarnation.Makes sense why John never agreed to be a reborn Elijah or reincarnated Elijah

John the Baptist was clearly a man of good sense. And talking about resurrection, you are aware that Hebrew influence regarding resurrection was largely assimilated from Zoroastrianism. The culture of "individual resurrection" came to Israel only after their contact with Persia. Zoroastrians had already believed in resurrection by 350BCE we know this from the writings of Theopompus. And just as an aside it has also transpired that the rabbinical conference held at Philadelphia has expressly declared that the belief in resurrection of the body has no foundation in Judaism, and that the belief in the immortality of the soul should take its place in the liturgy. Philadelphia Conf. 1869

This is a JJC already answered above question and it is unfair for you to say that the latter part of the Malachi prophecy wasnt fulfilled when the great and dreadful day arrived and visited on AD 70

Was your “Chi” wide awake when you typed this? I just know you are not trying to swing this past me. Are you seriously trying to pass of the Jewish-Roman war as that great and terrible day? The day of Judgement? The day the kingdom of God evinces? Did I just read you confidently assert that the arrival of one *like* Elijah in the person of John the Baptist was the herald for a mere Jewish revolt more than three decades after the death of both John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth? Pray do tell.

Sarassin:
Your figures are wrong, the entire population of Palestine at the time was put at around One Million with just about half of that figure being ethnic Jews, many Jewish people survived the rebellion out in the countryside

See, you forgot to consider those who made pilgrimage for the Jewish Passover and Feast of Tabernacles

Sarassin:
This simply shows that the author of Matthew as we know now, wrote his volume after the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, with the benefit of hind-sight. The words he has Jesus purportedly state are quite wrong, the author would have no way of knowing

Trust you have more to say about the authors of Mark 13:1-2 and Luke 21:5-6
Authors rely of eye witness accounts to get way of knowing

Sarassin:
as I am sure you do, that there are more than just a few stones still standing there today

I am sure you do use hyperboles now and then in your everyday life too. For example: ''I am so hungry, I could eat a horse''

Sarassin:
John the Baptist was clearly a man of good sense. And talking about resurrection, you are aware that Hebrew influence regarding resurrection was largely assimilated from Zoroastrianism. The culture of "individual resurrection" came to Israel only after their contact with Persia. Zoroastrians had already believed in resurrection by 350BCE we know this from the writings of Theopompus. And just as an aside it has also transpired that the rabbinical conference held at Philadelphia has expressly declared that the belief in resurrection of the body has no foundation in Judaism, and that the belief in the immortality of the soul should take its place in the liturgy. Philadelphia Conf. 1869

I really was on about the resurrection of life and the resurrection of condemnation culminating to a resurrection to a spirit-based life

Sarassin:
Was your “Chi” wide awake when you typed this?

If it needs known, my ''Chi'' doesn't sleep nor slumbers

Sarassin:
I just know you are not trying to swing this past me. Are you seriously trying to pass of the Jewish-Roman war as that great and terrible day? The day of Judgement? The day the kingdom of God evinces?

Well, so happens, you are a professional and nice skeptic

Sarassin:
Did I just read you confidently assert that the arrival of one *like* Elijah in the person of John the Baptist was the herald for a mere Jewish revolt more than three decades after the death of both John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth? Pray do tell.

10So the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
11He answered them, “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things.
12But I tell you that Elijah has already come, yet peoplec did not recognize him and treated him just as they pleased. In the same way, the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”
13Then the disciples understood that he had been speaking to them about John the Baptist.
- Matthew 17:10-13

I remember you taking ''high point'' literally, by replying with ''the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire'' when I asked the below two:
1) Do you remember the above Sarassin quote? (i.e. it's one of yours, it's an excerpt taken from your fouth post)
2) Hold on to that quote of yours to answer this question:
Elijah accomplished a lot in his career but what do you know or think was the high point of his ministry? (i.e. the most successful point of his career)

You even let it be known I was "leading the witness" when I asked you to revise your response
Whilst keeping in mind your original quote of John the Baptist, have another think on #2 about Elijah accomplished a lot in his career
but what do you know or think was the high point of his ministry? (i.e. the most successful point of his career)
Hint: It was a point, where God after, couldnt resist not commenting on it and opted for deferment

The blinkers will come off the moment you give the right response
and then the ''Elijah has already come'' in Matthew 17:10-13 etcetera will make sense too

MuttleyLaff:
See, you forgot to consider those who made pilgrimage for the Jewish Passover and Feast of Tabernacles

Quite correct and I take your point. However I do not agree that the Jewish-Roman war represented the fulfilment of the Malachi prophecy or the advent of the “apocalyptic judgement” envisioned by John the Baptist or even Jesus.

Trust you have more to say about the authors of Mark 13:1-2 and Luke 21:5-6
Authors rely of eye witness accounts to get way of knowing

In all probability they relied mainly on pious hearsay. As you know, Luke drew on Matthew and Mark …as well as poetic license for source material, and even the most generous dating of the gospel of Mark still dates it to around the time of the destruction of the second temple.

I am sure you do use hyperboles now and then in your everyday life too. For example: ''I am so hungry, I could eat a horse''

Sure, but it also helps if you are writing after the event.

Well, so happens, you are a professional and nice skeptic

Well, thanks. I am open to persuasion by facts.

I remember you taking ''high point'' literally, by replying with ''the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire'' when I asked the below two:
1) Do you remember the above Sarassin quote? (i.e. it's one of yours, it's an excerpt taken from your fouth post)...........

Question asked, question answered. If you have a more justifying answer don’t beat around the bush, spit it out

MuttleyLaff:

ROTBL at demonstrably, you sure like to calculatingly or deliberately choose your words
You'll live to make another pun ojaare.

Fact is, after his translation to a different part of earth, Elijah continued to live on earth and obviously later died
Besides, Elijah hasnt access to no Tree of Life, to eat off, to make him live for ever

@ the bolded. I knew there was something I wanted to pull you up on. What are your proofs for that statement?

Sarassin:
Question asked, question answered. If you have a more justifying answer don’t beat around the bush, spit it out

I'll do it soon, keep your knickers on!

Sarassin:
@ the bolded. I knew there was something I wanted to pull you up on

I knew something like that cant go past you unnoticed

Sarassin:
What are your proofs for that statement?

Well contrary to your assertion of a:
''the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire'',
that assertion is wrong, because Elijah DID NOT GO on any chariots of fire

The chariots of fire drawn by horses of fire, actually only came between him and Elisha,
(i.e. the chariots of fire drawn by horses of fire served ONLY, as a demarcation between Elijah and Elisha)
as a matter of fact, Elijah was translated in a whirlwind or tornado if you like, and not with or by any chariot
I let your ''the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire' slip slide, sorry for the slip-slide pun,
as it is wise to pick and choose battles,
and because ''the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire'' wasnt the action front

Now, the other one of the proofs, is the letter Elijah wrote to the wicked King Jehoram

MuttleyLaff:


I knew something like that cant go past you unnoticed

Well contrary to your assertion of a:
''the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire'',
that assertion is wrong, because Elijah DID NOT GO on any chariots of fire

The chariots of fire drawn by horses of fire, actually only came between him and Elisha,
(i.e. the chariots of fire drawn by horses of fire served ONLY, as a demarcation between Elijah and Elisha)
as a matter of fact, Elijah was translated in a whirlwind or tornado if you like, and not with or by any chariot
I let your ''the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire' slip slide, sorry for the slip-slide pun,
as it is wise to pick and choose battles,
and because ''the ascension of Elijah on the chariots of fire'' wasnt the action front

Now, the other one of the proofs, is the letter Elijah wrote to the wicked King Jehoram

In that case I surely stand corrected. Elijah did not ascend the heavens on the chariots of fire. He was translated in a whirlwind.

Sarassin:
In that case I surely stand corrected. Elijah did not ascend the heavens on the chariots of fire. He was translated in a whirlwind.

Don't beat yourself up over it and if it makes you feel any better, am sorry for bringing the fact up

MuttleyLaff:
Don't beat yourself up over it and if it makes you feel any better, am sorry for bringing the fact up

No need to be sorry at all, I learn something new every day.

Sarassin:


Hi there LoJ,

Thank you for your comments on the thread, I think you are right on the money when you state that that there's a difference between what Jesus actually said and what biblical authors claimed he said. I alluded as such when I made the remark that "gospel writers had a vested interest in portraying John as Elijah". You can count the authentic sayings of Jesus himself on the fingers of one hand.

With regards TB Joshua, I would just say that I am not a fan, his roots appear to be grounded elsewhere.

Hi LoJ, If you are prepared to ignore what the highly learned have to say about the holy Prophet TB Joshua and go to the holy Scoan Church Nigeria, you will come back and teach them the deepest truths they only fleeting know.

Too much debating paralyze action. That is why the ones with the most theoretical knowledge can not enter into the spirit world of Light to solve real life problems. Meaning they can not do what the Holy Profit TB Joshua does freely for the benefit of the world.

LoJ, Go now ! I am waiting for your incredible story when you get back. The spirit world of Light is crippled by theoretical arguments.

Jesus commanded action for the realistic benefit of mankind. He commanded All Pastors/disciples to 'Go and heal, Go and deliver, Go and bless etc. Action ! Action !

For hundreds of years rot set in, now action is substituted with glorified motivational speeches.
The FAKE pastors must leave their sinful pulpits by the thousands.