Well, what verses do you offer?

I know you don't appreciate this fact, but (in my opinion) except for the Trinity idea perhaps, you have far more in common with Urantia Book believers intellectually and otherwise, than you do with a certain fundamentalist rustic.

Whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, or whether anyone believes that, has no effect on anyone's salvation. You're concerned with nothing but trivia:

...Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 10:25)
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." (Luke 10:27)

"Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Matthew 12:50)

YOU MUST do the Father's will to be saved. Believing Jesus is the Messiah and believing in the Atonement have nothing to do with it. And the Father's will is that you love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

You got one thread locked and blocked for calling people liars because they didn't agree with you, and now here you are doing it again, using "scripture" to do your dirty work.

I don't deny the Father and the Son. But Jesus was not the Messiah the Jews were expecting. Ask them. Face reality. Find out what their Messiah was supposed to be, and you'll see that Jesus did not fit the criteria. Why do you get so angry when people refuse to agree with you? Have you thought about anger management classes?

I asked you some questions. Why do you refuse to answer them? Here they are again:

YOU now understand the specifics of the bible? Who else besides you does? Are there a lot of such people? Are they all in the "Oneness" sect? Are there any other sects that understand the specifics of the bible as you do?

And what does "believing upon Him" mean? I "believe upon Him" myself. If we both "believe on Him," what is the problem?

Jesus indicates that He is not the Messiah at Matthew 22:41+

Mat 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Mat 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
Mat 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Mat 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

I'm sorry you don't like the verses above and I'm sorry if that conflicts with the bible some other place. That's not my problem. But the answer is that Jesus has had material added to him later, just as I know you know happened with Mat 28:19, the change to Jesus' original words by the Catholic church. You remember, right? The same sort of thing happened at Matthew 16:20. And as for the other three verses you posted, they are all the same. If the three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were boiled down, they'd basically say the same thing. I could post the real words of Jesus but I'm sure that would make you furious.

to a degree I completely agree. where I would argue is the fact that Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel [major prophets], and John [Revelation] wrote specifics concerning Yeshua.

No they didn't. Ask a real Jewish Rabbi, a teacher of Judaism. Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel are their scriptures. "Yeshua" is not mentioned in them. Ask a Rabbi.

Yeshua is the Messiah whom the Jews [not the Messianic Jews] rejected.

Can you prove that? Isn't that just your opinion/belief?

Even Jesus indicated he was not the Messiah:

Mat 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Mat 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
Mat 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Mat 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

and the Old Testament from how the Holy Temple is designed, the Ark of the Covenant, the Tree of Life, are all examples of the Yeshua [or the coming Messiah].

The Tree of Life? Where can I see that?

The Ark of the Covenant? Where can I see that? Where is it located?

it's why the phrase His Story [History] is coined for the bible,

LOL.

because ALL of it is either a fore shadow before His appearance on earth and afterwards [N.T.] a confirmation

But can you prove any of that?

[Peter Acts explains this Yeshua whom ye crucified is the Messiah]!!

So, "Peter Acts" explains it? I never heard of Peter Acts. But Jesus indicates at Mat 22:41-46 that he was not the Messiah. Who should we believe, Jesus, or Peter Acts?



That's a doctrine of men ("the person who died for us"). Jesus said that He came here to "bear witness unto the truth" (John 18:37), not to die for us. Jesus also told His followers to preach "the gospel of the kingdom" that he and the 12 preached with him while He was alive, not the "gospel of the person who died for us."



"The New Gospel"? What is that? What was wrong with the "OLD GOSPEL," the gospel of the kingdom that Jesus told his followers to preach? And according to Catholics, they call that the "Mass," the first Mass (in private, in the upper room), and they say they drink Jesus' blood and eat his flesh to remember him. Do you do that? If not, why not?



Whatever.



YOU now understand the specifics of the bible? Who else besides you does? Are there a lot of such people? Are they all in the "Oneness" sect? Are there any other sects that understand the specifics of the bible as you do?

And what does "believing upon Him" mean? I "believe upon Him" myself.



Is that what you think Jesus would say? Why don't you answer my questions? You answered none of them. Here they are again:

YOU now understand the specifics of the bible? Who else besides you does? Are there a lot of such people? Are they all in the "Oneness" sect? Are there any other sects that understand the specifics of the bible as you do?

And what does "believing upon Him" mean? I "believe upon Him" myself. If we both "believe on Him," what is the problem?



But I haven't misused any scriptures. You are not the arbiter of what scriptures mean. Did you think you were? Didn't you learn anything from Ludlow? "The Catholic Church, [is] the sole authentic interpreter of scripture." Where do you and your interpretations fit in to that? Do you say that they, the Catholic church, is also misusing scripture for their own purposes because they don't agree with you? If so, you have a lot bigger fish to fry than me, there's a billion of them. Why don't you take your war on anyone who doesn't agree with your bible interpretations to the Catholics and give me a break? And no, you cannot prove that I am misusing scripture. I follow Jesus only. I don't think you can say the same.

I've merely corrected you and asked you to prove your statements. Rather than do that, you've opted to attack me. And I think that "habitual habit" is some sort of redundant.

True... but...

I was never a fan of his until I saw a couple of his movies, namely the one called, "Edge of Tomorrow" (Live, Die, Repeat) and I had to admit, the guy is a very good actor. I think "Oblivion" was another that I enjoyed. I'm a big fan of his sci/fi movies.

I agree. It doesn't matter what He looked like.

No they didn't. Ask a real Jewish Rabbi, a teacher of Judaism. Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel are their scriptures. "Yeshua" is not mentioned in them. Ask a Rabbi.



That's a doctrine of men ("the person who died for us"). Jesus said that He came here to "bear witness unto the truth" (John 18:37), not to die for us. Jesus also told His followers to preach "the gospel of the kingdom" that he and the 12 preached with him while He was alive, not the "gospel of the person who died for us."



YOU now understand the specifics of the bible? Who else besides you does? Are there a lot of such people? Are they all in the "Oneness" sect? Are there any other sects that understand the specifics of the bible as you do?

And what does "believing upon Him" mean? I "believe upon Him" myself.

36:3.5 In the bestowal of life the Life Carriers transmit nothing of their personal natures, not even on those spheres where new orders of life are projected. At such times they simply initiate and transmit the spark of life, start the required revolutions of matter in accordance with the physical, chemical, and electrical specifications of the ordained plans and patterns. Life Carriers are living catalytic presences which agitate, organize, and vitalize the otherwise inert elements of the material order of existence. -The Urantia Book

I once had a woman believer in such things tell me that communication with the dead was "well documented." But of course it's not.

** sordid

LOL!

Very good.

But that's not what "eternity" means as far as God is concerned. It means He has no beginning and no ending. It's really an infinity concept and since we're finite beings, we can't understand it. We can SAY it but we don't GET it, even if it's true.

There possibly is such a thing as eternal in one direction, such as us, as you mentioned above, we had a beginning, but if we make it to heaven, we're probably good there forever, eternally, going one way into time.

No offence, but your entire premise "old saying" is wrong.

The proof is not in the pudding.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

That's the expression.

No one can prove God to anyone else. You either believe or you don't. If you don't, that's fine. (imo)

I do. And that's fine too.

Me too, Bigd.

LOL!

I dont' think that's necessarily true, Dave. When I state that about the burning people at the state and so on, I am very clear that I mean the Catholic church did it. And they would do it again if they could, imo. They have not changed their superior, imperious attitude one bit, it's just laying there dormant, waiting, waiting, waiting.



Agreed, Dave, but they insist that they do anyway.



Maybe he just meant the Catholics, Dave. That's what I mean when I talk about it. The Catholics: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

A just God would torture and punish someone for all eternity? For what? For not loving God? For masturbating?

That's blasphemy against God, in my opinion.

Just my opinion. The God I believe in would never do such things.

"The wages of sin is death." Rom 6:23

I do believe that.

That's a bit cheeky, and allowing for misspellings, but what the heck? I just want to say that when Bigd says there is no Hell, he has the FULL support and agreement of The Urantia Book.

What sort of a monster God would torture his own children, for making immature mistakes, or even for not loving him? Saying that there is a Hell, owned and operated by our Creator Father for the purpose of punishing us for all eternity for whatever reason is simply BLASPHEMY against God.