Tanakh vs NT

Find my three books:
* Jewish Bible v Gospels Paul: Bitter Root Was Jesus Sinless?

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@jquestforTheWay "Another" — Your question presupposes that there is a first "messiah" which you've not proven and doesn't even touch the topic of the original post: that Psalm 110 has no explicit verse saying it's about only one special individual and no one else.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

Christians who reject rabbinic authority claim outrightly that Psalm 110 is about THE Messiah. One obvious problem: the text doesn't say that. And it's just a song.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@abi4560 @alexlyle The worship of man. That predates and underlies much of the evil in this world. In my eyes.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@abi4560 @alexlyle It's definitely a big one. It helped create Islam and its poison strengthened atheism. It has a lot to answer for.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@abi4560 @alexlyle Oh, they kill that little verse stripping it from its context. So sad they abuse God's word because of the criminal Jesus and the conman paul.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@abi4560 @alexlyle Don't you love how people declare a song is definitely about THE messiah when no verse in the song says that, and, since they reject rabbinic tradition, there's nothing in the text that says it's a prediction about a singular special individual, neither did Jesus fit it?

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@abi4560 @Nomad_95Bin248 Very true!

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Little_Ms_Nope Well said!

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Little_Ms_Nope EVERY SINGLE WORD! DAMN RIGHT!

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Little_Ms_Nope @Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC His answer said it all. "I did not care to study the foundational texts before the new testament before accepting Jesus." It's a familiar and popular story, including my own before I had to check myself. It's the doom of so many Gentiles. As Jeremiah said, "we inherited lies."

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope You're finished. Ok. Bye. May God show mercy and lead us all to his truth.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope Then stop apologising. It makes true apologies meaningless when you overuse terms. You don't mean that you apologise. You mean you think there's something sad about us disagreeing. Use the correct term.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope Each passage is from different books and each, in context, talks of very different things. I'd ask that you not use the scattergun approach. If you think each of those passages supports your view, then focus on one and we'll deal with it.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope John 1:1 doesn't say that. It says εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος. What you gave was someone's understanding of it and there are others. If you did not know God's law, how did you John's was of any value?

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope This point is irrelevant. Truth is truth, regardless. It seems you accepted Jesus as God before you even understood what the Hebrew Bible teaches. That makes your faith in the NT not based on former biblical principles but devotion to a man.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope I never brought up Judaism, only texts. Throughout history, EVERYONE gets things wrong. Jews getting some things wrong doesn't automatically make Jesus true or God. You haven't even proven him to be a good man, much less anointed one or God. Start with the basics.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope It's ok for us to disagree. Just make sure you use evidence to back yourself. Don't go with hunch or feeling. Use bible. And if either of us is wrong, so be it. We have to be humble either way.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope What a man claims means nothing without scriptural backing. Again, 1st century reality: a Jew, a man, caused 2000 pigs to die. A man is not God. The "satan" in Job is God's agent, not an evil rebel—that's Christian eisegesis. So you agree: a man caused destruction = sin?

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope In the 1st century CE, all you’d see is a Jew, a man, causing the destruction of pigs. That is a sin for man to do as you agreed. God and man are totally different categories. Also, there’s no evil being in Job. That will be a totally different topic. Now don’t divert.

[Tanakh vs NT @TanakhvsNT]

@Brandmorn57 @Nomad_95Bin248 @BenOhrIC @Little_Ms_Nope Did you read what I said, because I already answered that?