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.

these 3 verses reveal the disciples believe He is the Christ [Anointed One - Messiah]

Matthew 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Mark 8:29
And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.


Luke 9:20
He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.


this verse confirms that Yeshua admits He IS THE CHRIST!!

Matthew 16:20
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.




so, once again, YOU ARE WRONG!!

this verse fits you, reserve perfectly


1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Geologic Column System

William Smith first used the similarity of fossils to construct detailed geologic maps across wide areas. He used fossils to map and correlate rock layers and constructed the first geologic map of England and Wales in 1815.

By 1885 the finer divisions of the column had been identified based on the principles established by Steno, Smith, and Lyell. These ideas were also beginning to impact the study of biology, and Lyell’s long-age ideas played a major role in Darwin’s development of the theory of biological evolution over vast geologic eras.

It was "assumed" that by identifying the order of fossil succession, the layers could be correlated from one region to the next. Index fossils are still one of the major indicators of the age of a given layer. Shelled creatures such as ammonites and mollusks are the most commonly used index fossils.

Another problem with index fossils is that, rather than being proof of evolution, evolution was already assumed to have occurred. The changes in features in index fossils of different periods are assumed to be caused by evolution, and the presence of different organisms in different periods is then used to support biological evolution. This is a case of using an assumption to prove the assumption is true—circular reasoning by any measure.

As ideas on the formation and age of the earth changed, the ages assigned to the layers of the geologic column changed along with them. Different radiometric dating techniques have been developed to date the rocks, and thus the fossils in adjacent layers, but the use of index fossils is still the primary method of identifying and describing the strata in the rock record: not carbon 14 dating. If the carbon 14 test dates for a fossil do not fit the geologic column, "retesting is performed" until they fit within evolutionary thinking. Many times the printed material regarding carbon 14 dating states the highest limits and lowest limits are discarded and finding the mean average of the remaining numbers is used. Not an accurate scientific method of testing.

Misconception: The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.
The notion that the earth's crust has on "onion skin" structure with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten geologic column systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system.

Misconception: Strata systems always occur in the order required by the geologic column.
Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they do not belong.

Misconception: Tectonic plate shift caused mixing of geologic column levels
If tectonic plates pressed together (quickly or slowly) the massive rock movement would grind any fossil into dust. Instead of finding a mixing of geologic column levels a complete loss of the fossil record would result.

Misconception: The geologic column and the positions of fossils within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution.
All the animal phyla, including chordate fish, are now known as fossils in the Cambrian System. No ancestral forms can be found for the protozoans, arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinoderms or chordates. These phyla appear in the fossil record fully formed and distinct, in better agreement with the concept of "multiple, abrupt beginnings" (creation) than with the notion of "descent from a common ancestor" (evolution). Nowhere on earth has a "missing Link" between lower forms and more developed forms ever been found. If inter-developmental species missing links) existed the earth should be over run with them. For almost 200 years those who believe in evolution have searched for missing link existence. They should be as plentiful as the fossils we, so often, find.

Story: a family in Alaska visits a geology museum. The first exhibit is a map of the geologic column systems. The geologist states that the geologic column systems was scientifically developed and is proof of the age of dinosaurs. The next exhibit is a full fossil of a dinosaur. The geologist states that the dinosaur proves the ages reliability of the geologic column system. One young lady asks the geologist a question: "If the geologic column proves the age of fossils and a fossil proves the accuracy of the geologic column, isn't that circular reasoning"? The geologist looks to her father to correct her "misconception". The father remains silent and looks to the geologist for a response."Interesting question" is his response and the tour continues.

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.

nothing conflicts with my beliefs concerning your scripture usage. Yeshua revealed who He was to His disciples and then commanded them to keep it a secret. that is good enough for me.

and since you don't actually understand why Yeshua would withhold His true identity to the Pharisees [whom He Yeshua knew was going to kill Him], reveals all I need to understand concerning you.

I will keep my opinions to myself since your own posts outs you.

Science is the quest for knowledge.
Sometimes the results of that quest do become knowledge.
Theory is also science.
Sometimes theories yield results that become knowledge.
Knowledge is understanding.
Science acknowledges that not everything known is fully understood.
It continues to quest for understanding by retesting and surmising the knowledge we assume.

Just like there are readers of the Bible and scholars that study the Bible that have different understanding of the Bible, there are also people that have different understanding concerning sciences.

I don't see religion and science as opposing absolutes. There is a whole range of in-betweens.
My belief in God is not threatened by understanding of science.
For me, both God and science works.

People get so caught up in trying to be right they ignore the obvious right in front of them.

As for Carbon-14 dating, Carbon-14 is only one form of dating thru isotopes.
2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
Other methods include:

argon–argon (Ar–Ar)
iodine–xenon (I–Xe)
lanthanum–barium (La–Ba)
lead–lead (Pb–Pb)
lutetium–hafnium (Lu–Hf)
potassium–calcium (K–Ca)
rhenium–osmium (Re–Os)
uranium–lead–helium (U–Pb–He)
uranium–uranium (U–U)
krypton–krypton (Kr–Kr)

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.

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.

In my post concerning carbon 14 dating I laid out why this method of dating is invalid. The severe limits that even scientists recognize.

a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks, and lead volatilizes and escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures. It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206 first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time.

b. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks. Potassium volatilizes easily, is easily leached by water, and can migrate through the rocks under certain conditions. Furthermore, the value of the decay constant is still disputed. The moon rocks were potassium/argon tested and the dates given were 2.5 billion to 4 billion years old. This is a 55% error rate. Not exactly science.

c. In the strontium/rubidium system the strontium-87 daughter atoms are very plentiful in the earth's crust. Rubidium-87 parent atoms can be leached out of the rock by water or volatilized by heat.

All dating methods are based on conditions that have no contamination and assume conditions on earth have always been the same. All of these special problems as well as others can produce contradictory and erroneous results for the various radiometric dating systems. The above are just a few.

Evolutionists know the problems and limitations but choose to believe their theoretical approaches.They refuse to consider that the assumptions they make could be faulty. They call inconsistent results a non-conformity. If the test results (Carefully done in a controlled environment) do not match what they are looking for (assumptions) they throw them out. Those who choose to believe in evolution vehemently dislike the alternative to evolution and will do anything to try and find another answer.

^^^^Great post .

Actually, carbon dating has been improved. I don't think anyone still uses Carbon 14 dating anymore.

There are numerous dating methods, all of which have reliability issues. I've spent the evening reading numerous university sites on this subject. Some even say carbon 14 dating is valid only up to 50,000 years. Yet, in our public classrooms carbon 14 is the most touted scientific method mentioned.

Many criticize the bible as teaching a flat earth. While scripture was not given primarily as a science book one can find concepts that agree with science.

There is a passage saying the earth is round found in Isaiah 40:22:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Even in ancient Babylonian writings (2000bc) one finds comments about the earth being round. Even though Greek mythology has Atlas holding up the earth check out the statue on the internet. The earth is a globe. After Rome fell the west fell into the dark ages. This includes those of science. Unfortunately the Roman Catholic Church accepted Roman ideas instead of remaining true to scripture. While middle ages Church and science accepted the flat earth the above scripture is clear on this subject.

The bible never taught a flat earth: the traditions of men did.

What's the deal with all this scripture quoeting, does it prove god, why is their never any mention of other religions or goddess's. If God/gods and goddess's do exist didn't they exist before 'scripture'. If I said God was talking to me and told me to write a book and I started quoiting this book to you, you would probably dismiss me as a lunatic

I never argued this fact, I merely pointed out what Yeshua allowed His disciples to believe and then commanded them to keep it a secret. He did tell them, flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but the Spirit of God did[concerning who He was].

but the fact you do not believe can be judged to the same scripture meaning. which is, one could attest you are still in flesh and blood, not in the Spirit of God that reveals the TRUTHS of God!!

quoting scripture is a form of communicating to other like believers.

and there is no need to mention other deities since we do not believe in them.

This is like scripture point scoring, I feel like I'm in a room with a bunch of Jehovah's witnesses, may ganesha remove your obstacles and bring wisdom to you all

but JW's and Mormons do not believe in Yeshua.

ironically, some of the students of hindu and buddhism are calling Ganesha a demon.

nowhere can you find someone who followed Yeshua ever making the same claim.

so, to the demon Ganesha, "Get thee behind me in the name of Yeshua!!"

for greater is HE that is in me, than he that is in the world!!