YSG has been commenting on the “Christianity Unmasked” page for some time now. This is a response to his most recent comment – 2014/08/02 at 7:07 pm
YSG
You failed to understand my question about the third coming and you have indeed contradicted yourself. You dismiss the possibility of third coming because “The reason there cannot be a third coming is that it would contradict everything that scripture has to say about the second coming and the Kingdom of God. It’s not about what God didn’t say about a third coming. It’s about what he DID say about the second coming that makes any such consideration an absurdity!” These are your words.
This is the very reason why we cannot accept a second coming. It contradicts the heart and soul of the Messianic promises that God gave to the Jewish people through His prophets. God promised a vindication of the Jewish people not their embarrassment (Isaiah 41:11, 49:23,25,26, 60:10-14, 61:6,9, Jeremiah 30:16, Ezekiel 37:28, 39:25-29, Joel 4:2,16,17, Micah 7:10,16,17, Zephaniah 3:20). He promised a restoration of the Mosaic Law not its annulment (Deuteronomy 30:2,8,10, Ezekiel 11:19,20, 36:26,27, 37:24). He promised a restoration of the Temple together with the animal sacrifices and not their replacement (Isaiah 2:2, 60:7, Jeremiah 33:18, Ezekiel 37:26, 43:7, 44:15, Micah 4:1).
You provided a list of prophecies that Jesus allegedly fulfilled. I shall soon demonstrate that he never fulfilled any of them but your list is no response to my challenge to you. I asked you to give me just one prophecy that Jesus fulfilled before his crucifixion, just one – and this you failed to do. All of your “prophecies” are associated with the crucifixion. So my challenge to you still stands – how would a Jew who heard Jesus preach before the crucifixion have been able to accept his messianic claim?
You claim that Jesus fulfilled Psalm 41:9 (its 10 in my Bible). So do you believe that Jesus sinned? Just read verse 5 in this Psalm. Do you believe that this is talking about Jesus or are you just cherry picking what fits your agenda? Am I supposed to take this seriously?
You claim that Jesus fulfilled Zechariah 11:12-13. It is God’s shepherd that is receiving the thirty pieces of silver. Do you believe that Judas was God’s shepherd?
You point to several verses in chapter 53 of Isaiah that you believe Jesus fulfilled. Let me point out to you that you have manipulated God’s word. You quote Isaiah as if he said that the servant died with criminals and was buried in a rich man’s grave when actually Isaiah says that the servant dies with the rich and is buried with criminals. Why did you tamper with the word of God?
I have already demonstrated on this blog why Isaiah 53 teaches that Jesus is not the Messiah – I encourage you to read this – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/isaiah-53-teaches-that-jesus-is-not-the-messiah/
You point to Isaiah 49 as a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. I explained this prophecy also – please read this – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/armor-bearers-isaiah-5211/
I wrote about Psalm 22 as well – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/psalm-22/
Your quoting of Zechariah 13:6 is quite remarkable. This is speaking about false prophets – do you believe that Jesus was a false prophet?
You claim that Amos 8:9-10 was fulfilled at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. This prophecy is directed at the ten Northern tribes. It should have been fulfilled years before Jesus was born. Furthermore, this prophecy has nothing at all to do with the Messiah by any stretch of the imagination.
I addressed Zechariah 12:10 here – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/zechariah-1210/
You claim that Jesus resurrection is predicted in Psalm 16:10. This is David speaking of himself as the Psalm clearly indicates.
You dismiss my point that Jesus’ sought to glorify himself because he sometimes attributes honor to God. You say that I sound “awfully silly” when I say that Jesus was asking for the worship that is coming to God.
Perhaps you aren’t aware of this but there is a world religion which understands Jesus to mean exactly what you refer to as “awfully silly.” Is it perhaps possible that Jesus wasn’t as clear as you claim he was? You realize that this never happened with Moses. Did you ever stop and wonder why?
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
Hello
Apologies for not being directly involved in this particular exchange, but I ciuldnt help but see a error here. You mentioned that Zech ch 11 v 12, is referring to Judas. It was Zechariah that was recieving the silver, but Zechariah was told to do this acting out role. Many prophets were instructed to do, some what strange acts to make a point and reveal Gods intentions
Judas, yes recieved the silver, but it was Jesus wage/price, who is the shepherd that was sold. The whole chapter is speaking of Israel leaders and the Messiah, not Israel and a false prophet or Judas.
In summary;
Zechariah ch 13 v 7 is a one verse summary of the whole of Zech ch 11. The shepherd of 13.7 is the good shepherd of 11.4-14. The humanity of Messiah is clear….. ” and against the man”. The english translation is not sufficient, so the divinity of Messiah is not made obvious. My companion, or my associate, should/does read in hebrew “my equal”. To be equal with God must mean the Messiah will be Devine.
The striking of the Shepherd emphasises the violent death, the scattering is the dispersal in AD70 as Jesus said would happen.
Paul
About Zechariah 11 – so it boils down to how you choose to read the symbolism -this has nothing to do with fulfilled prophecy and everything to do with cherry picking
About Zechariah 13:6 – Can you read Hebrew? The word for “associate” in Zechariah 13:6 is word that most often refers to a competitor.
Hi
Unless the emmiediate context says otherwise, biblical reading in regard to symbolising should always be held in continuation. The text never speaks off or even gestures a false prophet. That would render Zechariah the false prophet!
The false shepherd which is mentioned directly is Simon bar Kohba (spelling)??, who was sent as a punishment to Israel becsuse the true Shepherd was rejected.
The word that you mention, competitor, cannot make sense. If he was competitive, then Israel wouldn’t have been exiled. Israel would have been blessed for NOT listening to him. Scriptures show that Israel never listened to her prophets, why make this one the exception??
Israel was always warned about false prohets. If Jesus was false, why the dispirsal and scattering?
King Nebuchadnezzar was given by God Himself false prophets to speak to Israel to see the kings intentions through, the true prophet Jeremiah was sent but ignored.
History always repeats its self when fools ignore the truth.
Logical sense of scrpture and history, not cherry picking shows Jesus as Messiah.
Xtians want to constantly blame Israel as being punished for this or that, i.e. they were exiled for non-belief. For NON-Belief? How absurd. I have my own ideas of why Israel was dispersed to the nations and Not for punishment as Xtians want to insist.
We know that the nations refused Torah before being given to Israel at Sinai. Those nations refused to accept it on differing moral grounds. Therefore the nations lacked any moral clarity. It is quite clear from history that Xtianity spread, not teaching moral clarity, but violence and hatred, just as those nations who were offered Torah in the past. In order for the nations to grasp the righteousness of Torah and its morality the nation of Israel would have to insert themselves into those nations. As Yonah showed, this would not be done willingly. Instead only the method of exile would accomplish such. Once those nations became introduced to the “ways of My people, Israel”, as the prophet says, the people of those nations couldn’t bear the responsibility of that moral compass and further exiled the Jew. This would result in the Jewish population seeking better pastures, and thus showing even more nations the righteousness of Torah. The nations would never fully accept Torah, whether in the past, or throughout history. It is why so many nations fell when their Jewish population left. Hashem, in His mercy, has given the nations ample opportunity to learn His ways of moral clarity but, as throughout history, the same nations who refused Torah in the beginning have refused to this day. There is nothing new under the sun.
Israel’s covenant with God included the concept of being protected as a nation. God had his hand of protection on the nation, and when He pulled his hand away because of the sin of the people, they were no longer protected. Israel was surrounded by enemy nations that wished destruction upon it. It was always that way from the beginning of the nation, but although there would be setbacks at certain points because of the sin of it’s leaders, essentially, the nation was protected and would remain in the land of promise because of God’s protection. In the time of Jeremiah, God removed his hand of protection for a time, and yes, this was a punishment. Your own prophets warned of this punishment, but your people would not listen, and so the punishment was carried out. Israel could not suffer such a thing as destruction of their Temple the massacre of large numbers of it’s people, and exile from the land, if God had not removed His hand of protection. The massacre, Temple destruction, and deportation from the land in AD 70 cannot be seen any differently. This was the greatest calamity to ever befall the sovereign Jewish nation since its establishment in the land. Such a calamity could never come upon the nation, except by punishment where God removed His hand of protection. Your prophets never spoke of the coming exile of your people in terms of it being a chance to evangelize, no, they spoke of it as a punishment for the disobedience of the nation. God does not allow the massacre of Millions of His own people in order to give them a chance to evangelize in other nations, that is absurd. What happened in AD 70 could never have occurred if God had not removed his hand of protection from the people. This removal of protection is not permanent, but it most certainly was a punishment. It could not be otherwise. What God protects cannot be devastated in such a way! God’s promises were to Abraham, and only conditionally extended to Judah. When the nation obeyed they would prosper, and when they disobeyed they suffered. AD 70 was a result of their disobedience, and could not possibly occur while under God’s promised, but conditional protection. A covenant is a two way contract, not just a one way promise. God held up His end, but Israel did not.
Isgood, even when people have sinned, G-d does not remove protection from them. Read the book of Job, what about Sampson? How about Peter? All of Job’s friends kept telling him, repent, repent, G-d is displeased with you, you must be sinful somehow. He always retorts with, “I have done what he has asked.” There was no temple, or sacrifice in Daniel’s day, the people were in exile, yet G-d redeemed them even so without blood and in repentance. As for conditions of G-d’s love to Israel, the gifts and call of G-d are irrevocable, to them belong the covenant, the giving of the law, and the adoption as sons. Paul in Romans warns the Gentiles not to be boastful. You too are not immune to making G-d upset either. Ask yourself a question. If everyone were baptized, or Christian, but nobody does the deeds of Jesus, is anyone actually redeemed? If you think Judaism is old wine, I point you to this verse. Luke 5:39. Abraham’s discussion with G-d about Sodom would be a good thing to read. G-d doesn’t abandon anyone, ever. People abandon G-d before he abandons them, or so I’ve been told.
Be well
We are not speaking of individuals here, but of the fortunes of a nation that was most definitely under God’s Protection. I never said that God did not care about his people, nor did I say that He directed His hand against them. There is a huge difference between God coming directly against His people, and his merely removing His hand of protection from off of the nation for a time. There is a difference between his temporary judgements, and His unquenchable wrath. It is unquestionable that Israel lost some key battles because they did not listen to and obey God, and yes people did die as a result of this. Israel was great precisely because of God’s Hand of protection, and when it has been removed for periods, the nation has suffered as a result. It is absolutely unquestionable that The prophets spoke of the destruction and exile that would come as being judgements for the sins and Idolatry of the Jewish people, so I’m not sure what your point is. Scripture is clear that in spite of their punishment, God had not completely forsaken His people. I’m not sure why you and others are so intent on trying to make it seem as if Israel was immune to God’s judgement. I’m not sure what the lack of a temple during the exile has to do with anything, or what your point is in mentioning it. I guess it’s your way of trying to show that God was still with His People. Why you feel this is necessary is beyond me. Judgement and punishment does not mean that godf has forsaken His people, nor did I ever say or imply so. God’s reminds everyone not to be boastful, so don’t get high and mighty with your attempts to prove the superiority of the Jewish people over all others. God did not choose the Jews for their superiority, but precisely because of their weakness, and he did so in order to honor his covenant with Abraham, through whom they are blessed. You also needn’t remind me of my own weaknesses. I never took a superior stance in any way. That is the result of your skewed perception and defensiveness. I have not attacked you or the Jewish people by simply pointing out, after attempts to obfuscate the matter, that the Jews have in fact suffered god’s Judgement, so get real. Once again, I never said God stopped loving His people, or that He has forsaken them. That is your defensiveness in overdrive. I merely pointed out the fact of judgement after attempts to deny it. It’s simply a fact. God’s love is irrevocable, and he bestows it upon all believers, and all people for that matter.
If Jesus were the truly the messiah why would there be a dispersal? The real messiah will bring all of the Jews to the land of Israel — Jesus did the opposite. “I will restore your judges as at first, and your counselors as in the beginning; afterward, you will be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city. Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and those who return to her, with righteousness” (Isaiah 1:26-27). Nowhere does the bible say the messiah will send Jews into exile!
Jesus did not fulfill even one messianic prophecy — including his prediction that “not one stone” would remain standing in Jerusalem.
As to Zechariah 13, the Rabbi already noted that you are ignoring the context. In Zechariah 13:6, the one with the contusions from being beaten, turns out to be a false prophet, even though he wore the hairy mantle, which was a distinctive garment worn by prophets of Israel (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 19:13,19; 2 Kgs 2:8,13,14). If you apply Zechariah 13 ito Jesus then you admit he was a false prophet!
Zechariah 13:7 says that עֲמִיתִ֔י (the one associated with G-d as His shepherd) will be SMITTEN. Again, you want to believe that G-d turned on Jesus??? G-d “SMITED” Jesus?? For line 7 says: “O sword, awaken against My shepherd and against the man who is associated with Me! says the L-rd of Hosts. Smite the shepherd, and the flock shall scatter, and I will return My hand upon the little ones.”
Read D’varim / Deuteronomy chapter 28. Moses made it clear that we Jews would be sent into exile for the sin of some of us turning away from G-d. “Your sons and daughters will be given to a foreign nation. . . A strange nation will consume the fruit of your land and all your toil. You will be constantly cheated and crushed. . .G-d will scatter you among the nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will serve idolators who worship gods of wood and stone, unknown to you and your fathers.”
But then what happens? Read on to chapter 30 “There, among the nations where G-d will have banished you, you will reflect on the situation. You will then return to God your Lord, and you will obey Him, doing everything that I am commanding you today. You and your children [will repent] with all your heart and with all your soul. God will then bring back your remnants and have mercy on you. God your Lord will once again gather you from among all the nations where He scattered you.”
This didn’t happen with Jesus. You yourself admitted that the Jews were sent into exile a mere 100 years after Jesus!
But G-d tells us He will return us to Israel “Even if your diaspora is at the ends of the heavens, G-d your L-rd will gather you up from there and He will take you back. G-d your L-rd will then bring you to the land that your ancestors occupied, and you too will occupy it. G-d will be good to you and make you flourish even more than your ancestors.”
And, Paul, does G-d do all of this because Jews turn to your false god Jesus? NO. “All this will happen when you obey G-d your L-rd, keeping all His commandments and decrees, as they are written in this book of the Torah, and when you return to G-d your L-rd with all your heart and soul. . . [You must thus make the choice] to love G-d your Lord, to obey Him, and to attach yourself to Him. This is your sole means of survival and long life when you dwell in the land that G-d swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, [promising] that He would give it to them.”
Hello Devorah
Time being against me here, I will respond 1- 2 of your paragraphs at a time.
You are correct per se that The scriptures dont mention the Messiah sending Israel into a dispersion. However God did. As of course from the view of oneself then God/Jesus arsurrounding in course The Angel of Jehovha being pre incarnte Messiah, warning Israel post exodus, would also fit the critea of devine prophetic warning.
I do agree that of course Israel will be restored according to the Abrahimic and Davidic covenant s. But this will be through Christ Jesus at His second coming. Of course Jesus didnt fulfill this, because the scriptures clearly teach that Messiah will come and be rejected first. He couldn’t bring in the Messianic Kingdom at first, because very obviously your forefathers rejected Him, so how could He?
Jesus said on many occasions, ” repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand”. The leaders of Israel said “no thanks”!
So yes I agree with the Isaiah passage, but that is yet to come.
Im a little confused on your statement that Jesus did the oppersite, what do you mean, opperdite to what?
Are you saying also that Israel are NOT in a dispersal?
Finally, it is a small point, but then big, depending on how one sees it. Jesus never said that one stone will not be standing on each other in Jerusalem, He actually said not one stone of the temple will be left standing. The western wall does not comprise of the temple it self, its the surroundings of the temple with Muslim layed stones on the very top. If you can show me a picture of a piece of the 2nd temple itself, then that would be much appreciated. As far as im aware no remnants remain, so Jesus very right in His warning.
Jesus spoke about the temple destruction to His disciples on a few occasions. Math ch 27, talking about the AD70 fall. The entire book of Galations warns about not being in Jerusalem in the coming destruction of ” this wicked generation”.
An incorrectly perceived statement of Jesus is often quoted about the temple and its fall. Jesus NEVER said, ” I will destroy it in three days time and THEN rebuild it in three days from now. He simpley said, I will destroy it, and ALSO rebuild it in three days. The statement was never given chronilogically in order.It was just two statements given. The rebuilding was the resurrection of Christ, the fall was AD70.
The temple mount today has a mosque sitting on it, why?? Because the times of the gentiles has not come to and end. And until the God if Israel has broken the stiff neck of His People, until He Adonai opens your eyes to Yeshua God And King Of The Jews, until you call on His Name, then your Land will remain under Gentile rule, and not under The Messianic Theocratic rule of The God of Israel.
I don’t have much time — but Jesus was not a messiah (an anointed one). He never fulfilled even one messianic prophecy –and that is what I meant by the things he did were the opposite of the messianic prophecies. The messiah will return the Jews to Israel. The remaining Jews in Judah were thrown out about 100 years after Jesus death. This is the OPPOSITE of the prophecy.
Nowhere is there a prophecy that the messiah will die and then the Jews will be dispersed.
The true messiah will bring global knowedge of G-d to the world. Jesus hasn’t brought global knowledge of even Christianity — there are tens of thousands of versions all of whom disagree with one another.
I quoted Isaiah 1 — Jesus did not restore the judges.
The messiah will restore the Levitical priesthood to glory. (Malachi 3:3). Jesus didn’t do that either.
“Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither will they practice war any more” (Isaiah 2:4). Well we know THAT didn’t happen 2000 years ago — or any year since!
The messiah will BUILD the Temple. The physical temple (read Ezekiel who describes it in great detail). Again, Jesus was around when the opposite happened. The 2nd Temple was destroyed within 40 years of his death.
And on and on it goes.
G-d made it clear that He would punish us Jews — and He did. He also made it clear He would not divorce us or desert us. We are to follow His Torah, His laws, His ordinaces — which are eternal and forever. Following Jesus is to do the opposite of what G-d wants us to do as He clearly says in His bible.
As for Jesus doing all of this in his “second” bite of the apple. Show me in the bible where it says this will happen. The JEWISH bible. It is nowhere. The second coming is just an excuse to make for Jesus not fulfilling any of the messianic prophecies. I could as easily say that anyone who ever lived and wasn’t the messiah will “come back” and do it next time. It is a flimsy excuse and nothing more.
Why is there a mosque ont he Temple Mount? Because the time is not yet right — we don’t have a state of purification to build the third Temple — although we are getting very close. Have you heard about the red heifer??
Paul, you said “Jesus never said that one stone will not be standing on each other in Jerusalem, He actually said not one stone of the temple will be left standing.” Wrong. Sorry, but you’re wrong.
And when he was come near, he (Jesus) beheld the city, and wept over it (the city) and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because you knew not the time of your visitation.” Luke 19:41-44
Not the Temple — but Jerusalem. Re-read Matthew 24.speaks of the Temple (and also says that that generation won’t die before Jesus comes back — yet another failed prophecy!). . .
Read Mark 13: 1 “As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
How a bout Luke 21:5 the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”
Not one stone HERE. Do you see ALL THESE THINGS.
Notice that Mark 13 says “what magnificent BUILDINGS.” (plural).
Jesus prophesied that the entire city of Jerusalem would be destroyed per Luke 19. As is typical with the Christian bible one “gospel” contradicts the next, but Luke clearly says Jesus wept over THE CITY. And his prohecy was that there would not be one stone left IN THE CITY. . . — and Josephus (a historian 2000 years ago). proved this to be a false prophecy. Josephus wrote: “Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done), [Titus] Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminence; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison [in the Upper City], ”
And Paul — there are thousands of stones, not just one. Easy to ignore if you are blind perhaps, but view it once and you’ll know Jesus got it wrong. It is 320 meters (1,050 ft.). Not only do our own eyes tell us he did — but so does history. “Caesar gave orders that they should. . . leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminence; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared.” . .Titus Flavius.
Yet what did Luke say? Luke 19: 41 “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said. . .They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of G-d’s coming to you.”
Hello
Yes I do see your arguement here. However you keep insisting that the city and the temple are one of the same.
Yes Jesus wept for the city, why?? Because of the impending destruction. He never stated the city would be levelled flat. Just destroyed as a city. The temple was though. I asked you to show me a remnant of the temple itself, not the citys walls. The temple has been destroyed. If not why are you not using it???? Acording to the Law that you live by?
You quoted ” not one stone shall be left in the city” would that also mean that the NT would be wrong also because no one came and removed all the thousands of stones from the city. Commons sense says otherwise. Its just a phrase used to describe a situation.
I dont disagree with you about Ceasars comment. He said destroy the temple. You just said that ceasar quoted, destroy the temple but spare some of the city, well guess what, the temple has gone, but parts of the city remain. You just proved my point!
Jesus didnt mean He would pull the temple down with His own fleshly hands, there and then. He said I will destroy it. Him and His Father are one. God pulled the temple down via the romans.
Its called devine judgement.
Devorah, with respect, even whilst allowing that Jesus was alluding to the destruction of the city, and temple, it is hard indeed to say that his prophecy was not truly fulfilled because the city was not entirely leveled literally. According to the Torah’s mention of the prophecy of Hulda in 2 kings 22 king Josiah is commended for purifying Jerusalem, being righteous, and being contrite. Hulda says he will be gathered to his ancestors. The Torah only ever uses that phrase gathered to your ancestors to refer to a righteous man passing away in a peaceful way. As we know, Josiah was killed by archers, hardly a peaceful rest. Does this mean hulda was false, because her details weren’t 100%? Jesus prophesied destruction, (as did others in his day,) and it happened. If that’s not enough, there is no way to tell the true from the false, because the Torah is often light on details. The same goes for statements about Jesus’ return. Jesus said, some of you will not see death until you see the the son of man coming with power etc. KEEP READING.
The transfiguration illustrates that fulfillment in the next chapter. If that’s not deemed impartial enough because he didn’t restore sovereignty to Israel in the eyes of all, the disciples had the same problem, and asked him, but the whole text illustrates his saying that his coming is contingent upon repentance. Nobody knows the day or hour, oh how I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but ye would not etc. Part of his prophesy of destruction illustrated him saying this will happen because you did not know the hour of your visitation. The problem with saying that Jesus didn’t bring world peace, end war, etc so he isn’t messiah, is that these things depend on our repentance and our acknowledgement.
You say that Jesus did not bring knowledge of G-d. Not even Maimonides doubted that he brought knowledge of G-d. It’s amazing to me how much physical testable tangible independent evidence is required of Christianity by Judaism to demonstrate the veracity of the claims it makes, but Judaism as a whole is accepted by its adherents based on the uniqueness of its national revelation claim, even whilst the veracity (testable reliability) of that claim is not demonstrable, or even declared part of the core claim. That doesn’t make sense to me. If a person cannot trust a providential act of G-d when there are aspects of the event that are so clear, how are we supposed to trust based on less? I think that’s a fair question.
Respectfully
Concerned Reader
Con,
It is inconsistent for you to insist that Devorah should “KEEP READING” when you deny applying that same principle to the Torah. You have consistently advocated for the twisting of Torah based solely on the existence of such method of ‘interpretation’ within the Dead Sea scrolls. You cannot now insist that with the NT, one should consult the context.
However, I do hold that one should consult the context. So, let’s keep reading.
When Jesus says that “there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom,” it cannot possibly mean the supposed Transfiguration. Just that quote alone shows why. He is not speaking merely about being glorified. He is “coming in his Kingdom.” But from the verse before, we know that entails judgment. “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done” (Matt. 16.27). This coming in his kingdom is the establishment of his rule and either the judging of his enemies or the final judgment. This did not happen at the Transfiguration.
It should also be noted that the only Gospel that does not contain an account of the Transfiguration is the one supposed to have been written by one of the three witnesses to the event. Maybe he just didn’t feel the need to write it after reading the other three gospels.
One would be hard-pressed to prove that early Christians did not expect the return of Jesus in their lifetime, either. In 1 Cor. 7, Paul is clearly writing of an imminent “passing away” of the “present form of this world”. It is not likely that the early church interpreted Jesus’ claims that some would not see death before his coming with his kingdom to refer to the Transfiguration.
If I have time, I will take up your misrepresentation of Maimonides later today.
Jim
Hello again,
you stated previously;
Re-read Matthew 24.speaks of the Temple (and also says that that generation won’t die before Jesus comes back — yet another failed prophecy!). . .
Not sure you have the Christian, Messianic concept of 2 comings of Messiah?
1.Jesus hasnt yet returned to establish the kingdom.
2. The meaning of the quoted passage is dealing with Israel future. As the future is still future, the prohecy is still future, so no prophecy has failed.
3. The context here is when you see these things happening. What things??…… the abomination of desolation as spoken of by Daniel. These words are given as a comfort for those Jews living in the 7 yr tribulation. The context is the future and the fig tree is a season in time. Israel are not the fig tree here, but the tree is used as an illustration of the times. When the tree begins to blossom. Fig trees blossom in spring, so they bare fruit in the summer. So summer is on its way. Messiah is on His way.
4. The generation spoken off that wont die, are the ones that see the anti christ making himself like God, sitting in the temple, see Daniel,,, and see the coming of Messiah Jesus to establish His Kingdom. This is the same generation.
5. The anti christ breaks his covenant with Israel at the 3.5 yr mark. So after the next 3.5 yrs, Jesus will return for Israel.
6.As stated this is still future. Yes I know of the red heifer etc. Yes the temple will be rebuilt at some point. It has to, because Daniel speaks of it, so does Jesus here.
7. In summary the Olivet discourse is speaking of 3 events. The soon coming destruction of the temple, the Rapture of the Church, and the second coming of Christ.
“7. In summary the Olivet discourse is speaking of 3 events. The soon coming destruction of the temple, the Rapture of the Church, and the second coming of Christ.”
Say What??? Soon coming destruction of the temple???
A person has to do some Real twisting to legitimize this!! It’s not even worth rebutting.
The “prophecy” of returning in the generation of those standing there is an obvious and conclusive False prophecy, whether or not a person is capable of admitting it.
Hi
Not sure you have understood this??
Jesus made three points of history to come. The disciples asked three questions, Jesus just simply replied and gave the three answers.
Out of the three answers given, or three periods of Israels and the church history, you seem to question the very one which is historically, thus,
correct. THE TEMPLE HAS GONE! Trust me on this, its deffinately gone. Israels 2nd temple was dedtroyed in AD70!.
The rapture and second coming you seem to ignore????
How can you legitimately claim that a prophecy is false, if the said avents are still future?
How can you legitimately claim that a prohecy failed, which historically are factually correct?
What Jsus said was those who are with him would not die before he reigns on earth.
Your insertion of Daniel and some “anti-whatever” sitting in the temple is nothing short of ludicrous. You would also have to say the third temple would thus have to suffer the same fate as the second. So, as there are suppose to be two comings there are also two abomination of desolations. This is in direct contradiction to Yechezkel and his writing of the third temple. If there were some adversary as you assume it would have been written there.
What is more likely and aligns with prophecy is the Real Messiah will come and this will result in the end of Xtianity but many Xtians will “assume” this is their “anti-one” and go against him and G-d Himself. They will be the true blinded ones at that time and thus suffer the consequences.
Hello
You assume, you say that the fate of the 3rd temple must be the same as the 2nd?
The scriptures dont mention that. OT/NT, so no. I didnt base my arguement on assumption, just whats written. You are arguing on your ideas not on the written word.
You dont believe in the NT, fine, but the NT does align with the OT, assumptions dont.
The church, true church that is, not the church that you see as Christianity, will be gone into heaven before the said events.
Hello
Also I would like at add. Daniel spoke of a very clear act, That act never happened post Daniel or pre AD70 destruction. So the only time it can happen is in the 3rd period. The 3rd temple spoken of by Yechezkel, is yes the 3rd temple but post The second coming, in the Messianic Kingdom.
There is no 2 second comings or 2 desolations as you suppose I think. I never stated such, nor do the scripture teach so.
Just to add also. When I said it was the anti christ, its never taught in scripture, that Israel knowingly sign a covenant with the anti christ. Israel do sign, but not with knowledge who he is. Its not until the 3.5 yr mark, the middle of the tribulation, that he, the anti christ, sits himself in the Holiest of Holies, and declares Himself to be like God. It is this act that causes Israel to see the deception, this then in turn causes Israels massive suffering from him and the worlds surrounding nations. 2/3rds of the worlds Jews destroyed in the coming years. Only then will the small remnant be left, Gods elect, will then call on His Name, and Jeshua God and King will come back.
Paul, I never heard such utter nonsense. The Only person who was Ever considered to be considered as a god was Jsus. Jews would not accept such an idea in the past and most certainly would never accept it in the Third Temple period. Your entire premise literally contradicts what Yechezkel wrote about concerning that time. Once the Temple is built the Messianic Era will be in progress. No matter how you twist the writings of Daniel you simply cannot come to your conclusion. As I said, it is utter nonsense in the extreme.
Hello
Im just catching up on your last statement here. It seems to me that you are saying that the sole means to survive, and have a long life is to live in Israel, with living within the confines of the statutes of the Torah Law.
Questions;
1. How does a gentile recieve the law?
2. Why are there no Jews evangelising to Gentiles?
3.Does the means of living within the land discriminate against those who live outside the land?
4.How do you today, with no Temple service atone your sins?
5. How with no Temple, keep the requirments of the Law?
6. What is Israel waiting for? If the road too heaven is by repentance with all the heart and soul, are you saying at this moment in time, no one is ready to repent and change. Is it to do with, “we will repent, when we want to, but dont rush us”?
7. What happens to all souls post AD70 until the rebuilding of the temple?
8. Doesnt the scriptures teach, pre Law that faith only, by Gods grace bring men into Heaven. Faith being the key word here.
Hello
Yes again I understand your logic, but your understanding of Daniel is wrong.
Of course the prohets speak of the temple and the Messianic period. But you assume the temple will be built and then the Kingdom will automatically start. There is no writings to say such as such in detail. However the temple can be built, working but not actually blessed, anointed, until Messiah returns.
If your idea is true, it raises the question, why would Israel allow the abomination to occur in Messiahs Kingdom. Surely this would be absurd. Or does Israel continue in adolatry in the Messanic Kingdom?
What abomination. You said there weren’t two but now you suggest another one in a future time. Where do you find in Daniel that there is such an abomination at the end of days. He only speaks of one and that had to be before the common era.
Hello
Definitely some crossed wires here. I only mentioned one abomination. Which I stated was future from the time of writing of Daniel, but it is still future as of today, ie, pre Messianic period, but during the 7 yr tribulation.
Daniel chap 9 v24. Seventy sevens.
Sorry for any confusion.
WHAT!! The text is abundantly clear. There is a time of 490 years and no matter how it is counted it is in the past. If one counts from word that went forth and 490 years it falls into the timeline of Antiochus and what he did to the Temple. Daniel is pretty specific in these matters. There is no way to calculate it in modern times.
Hello Sharbano
Sorry im a little lost here, can you explain your statement. I understand your are saying 490 in the past from which date???
Daniel writes that the word given to Yirmiyahu and Gavriel says it will be 490 years. From the command to rebuild Jerusalem, by the anointed Cyrus, puts the time frame at the second temple period. There are no writings that put an abomination at the end of days.
Hello Sharbano
A great subject this!
I dont see Jeriamiah given any revelations on the number of yrs as 490, only 70. Ch 25 vs 10-14…….. 29 v 10-14, Its The angel Gabriel that reveals 490 yrs. Gabriel corrects Daniels application to scripture? Gabriel says not 70 yrs but 70 sevens of years, = 490.
“Gavriel says it will be 490 years.”
And those 490 years Starts with…. Who? Therefore this does not apply to end of days.
Hello Sharbano
Im glad we’re in agreement about Gabriel and the 490 yrs not Jeriamiah.
The start of 490 yrs is the decree of cyrus.
Did you not read Daniel. The entire narrative Begins with him concerning what Jeremiah heard from Hashem. This is when the 490 year clock begins. You used Daniel to support the idea that an abomination would occur during the Third Temple. Daniel 9 clearly and unequivocally disputes that idea.
Paul, are you aware that Dr. Michael Brown is in disagreement with you on this “antichrist temple” in Daniel? I asked him if Daniel 9:27 speaks of an “antichrist temple,” and Dr. Michael Brown emphatically responded, “no sir.” Watch this video at 1 hour and 10 minutes into the recording. You disagree with one of the most prominent evangelical christian missionaries in the world!
Hello Yehuda
Im not that familar with Dr Browns ministry etc. Only on what I see here being disputed by the blog. Of course Dr Brown, as anyone else on earth, even you has a opinion of the scriptures. The only concern for me is what the scriptures teach, not what man says the scriptures teach.
If Dr Brown is in error, then he is in error. Its that simple.
Just to say though, you asked Dr Brown if he believed in a anti christ temple. He responded, “no”.
I never said that the temple was the anti christs temple, nor Does the NT teach such. I stated that the anti christ (a gentile political leader) will make a peace treaty with Israel, and at some point, at the 3.5 yr mark, he will break his peace treaty with the abomination, ie making himself like god and sitting himself in the holiest of holies.
The temple cannot be his, because he is a gentile, and the temple is Jewish.
So technically Dr Brown could have been answering your question like I am, it depends on how he understood your question. That also depends on how you presented your question in the first place.
You state you don’t accept man’s teaching but only what scripture teaches. Where in Tanach does it say that a gentle will enter this holy of holies. This presupposes that it would have to be during the Third Temple. As has already been discussed, this cannot be, especially according to Yechezkel. What does it say about the completion of that Temple.
Paul, I think you should listen to what Sharbano is saying. The problem you have with your interpretation is that there is no mention of a different temple with regards to the abomination of desolation. Daniel 9:26-27 gives no indication that there will be another temple built up later in the future that will house “the abomination of desolation.”
Daniel 9:26. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation.
Daniel 9:27. And he will strengthen a covenant for the princes for one week, and half the week he will abolish sacrifice and meal- offering, and on high, among abominations, will be the dumb one, and until destruction and extermination befall the dumb one.
The “dumb one,” or “the abomination of desolation,” refers to something in relation to the Second Temple. This abomination was already set up during those times. Daniel 9:27 says that eventually, destruction and extermination shall befall this abomination. That is what we are waiting for…
Your interpretation baselessly assumes that Daniel 9:27 refers to a different temple in the future. Where does the text say this? It doesn’t. Thus your interpretation is completely baseless. When Titus destroyed the Temple, he caused the abomination of desolation. Ever since then, this abomination has not been rectified. When the true Moshiach comes, this will be the end of the abomination of desolation.
There are plenty of christians who do not believe in a literal third Temple. Dr. Brown is one of them. I asked him that question because I knew that he was in disagreement with christians like yourself who baselessly assume that Daniel 9:27 refers to some “anti christ temple.” Both of you are incorrect. Daniel 9:26 does not speak of jesus and Daniel 9:27 does not speak of another future temple.
Shalom
Hello Sharbano
Yes I do say that there is a third temple.
The tribulation temple.
The first and second temples were consecrated by God and the sacrifices were acknowledged. However because of constant idolatry God removed the temples from Israel.
Isaiah ch 66 v1-6 clearly teaches that another temple is built at some point in the future, and the temple is not consecrated by God, and God refuses to accept the sacrifices presented.
Of course Ezekiel speaks of the Millennial Temple that Messiah builds. So if God annoints the first, second and Messiah builds the fourth, the temple of Isaiah must be another that God doesnt accept. God would never build a temple just to reject its existence and service.
Its just a matter of time when Israel builds the 3rd temple, of course as you know the temple insitute are just waiting for the right time. Looking at the dome on the rock in its present location, and the constant friction in Israel today, I dont see personally the third temple replacing the dome, just accompanying it somehow? Who knows that detail.
Anyway the temple was never ordained by God to be built, so, according to Isaiah no sacrifices accepted.
As stated previously, I never said, nor does the NT teach a anti christ temple. Its a Jewish temple, that at some point the sacrifices are stopped and he, the anti christ, polictical leader makes himself like God, an idol, in the holiest of holies. When Jesus spoke in Math ch 24 v15, this is the warning of the great and intensified persecution to come. The warning is to flee for saftey.
Paul, you are really straining in order to lend credence to faulty reasoning. By your logic there should be numerous Messiah’s and numerous Temples. Why stop at Four Temples. It wouldn’t be that difficult to come up with a couple more. Instead of using the Xtian method of “reading” scripture you would do better to read the “narrative”. What does the rest of the chapter speak of.
This prophecy was related at the end of his lifetime, during the reign of King Menasheh. Immediately after the promises of the previous chapter regarding the Temple this prophecy encourages the faithful not to despair when the Temple becomes desecrated and destroyed.
Paul,
Let’s stop playing semantic games, alright? When I refer to “the antichrist temple” I am referring to the false christian concept of an “antichrist sitting in the temple” as referred to in II Thessalonians 2:4. This is what you believe Daniel 9:27 is referring to. As Sharbano and I have pointed out, Daniel 9:26-27 mentions nothing of a “tribulation temple” or some “temple that an anti-christ will sit in.” The “abomination of desolation” referred to in verses 26 and 27 refer to the events leading up to the destruction of the Second Temple and the subsequent exile that we are currently in now. Once the true Messiah comes, the “abomination of desolation” will be destroyed and the true Messianic era will begin!
Your theology causes you to baselessly insert some random “anti christ temple.” (Or how about I call it a temple that some “anti christ” sits in. Does that suffice for you?) If you read Isaiah 56, you will see that the Temple that Isaiah speaks of is 100% approved by G-d Himself. The nations shall take part in the sacrifices of Hashem and the Temple shall be called “a house of prayer for all peoples.” (Isaia 56:7) You are assuming that this Temple is some “temple that G-d does not accept.” You have no basis for making such a claim! Nothing in the Tanach indicates such. Are you beginning to see your error?
Shalom and G-d bless!
Jews without a Temple and without sacrifices do what Jews have always done in those circumstnaces. We follow the mitzvot of G-d. The mitzvot includes NOT bringing sacrifices in the wrong place or at the wrong time or in the wrong way.
The first Temple was destroyed in 425 BCE and the second Temple was not built until 349 BCE. During those years, there was no Temple and no sacrifices. Yet during that time we had some of the greatest prophets ever known including Ezra and Nehemiah — they also had wonderful relationships with HaShem. Daniel lived in exile — he could not bring sacrifices and yet G-d loved Him. . .
The myth that Judaism “changed” after the destruction of the Second Temple is just a myth. Judaism exists with or without a Temple, with or without sacrifices — and it always has.
Sacrifices were never a major way to atone for sin. Most qorban (sacrifices) had to do with thanking G-d, not trying to atone for sin or guilt. Only accidental or minor sins could even be atoned for with sacrifices — and G-d makes it clear that even then a sacrifice without atonement is abhorant to Him.
Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of the Eternal a man avoids evil. [Proverbs 16:6]
To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Eternal than sacrifice. [Proverbs 21:3]
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. [Hosea 6:6]
Without a Temple we are forbidden from bringing qorban. They are “suspended” during times when there is no Temple standing in Jerusalem [Hosea 3:4-5, 14:2-3]. However, these will be “reinstated” for all the occasions noted in the Torah when the promised Jewish messiah builds the Third Temple in Jerusalem [Ezekiel describes all this in the last nine chapters of his book].
There is atonement through repentance (II Samuel 12:13-14, Jonah 3:10, Lev. 26:40-42, Ezek. 18:21-32, 33:11-16)
kindness (Prov. 16:6, Daniel 4:24)
prayer (Hos. 14:2-3,I Kings 8:46-50, Daniel 9:19)
removal of idolatry (Is. 27:9)
punishment (Is. 40:1, Lam. 4:22),
death (Is. 22:14)
flour offerings (Lev. 5:11-13)
money (Ex. 30:15)
jewelry (Num. 31:50)
and incense (Num. 17:11-12).
Non-Jews do not need to become Jews to be loved by G-d. G-d loves His creations, not just His Jewish ones. G-d wants the non-Jew to follow the 7 Nohaide mitzvot and any time a non-Jew is truly interested in learning from a Jew we are more than happy to educate them — just as we do here.
Well spoken Devorah
Paul
Isaiah 66 is talking about the First Temple
Hello Sharbano
I dont see why I should be accused of straining to make my apparent understanding fit my logic. Because I stated what I did, 4 temples is not straining a falsehood of teaching. 2 temples are historical fact, one is the tribulation, which I clearly backed up from scripture, and one is Millennial. Thats only one more temple than your beliefs, hardly in the tens. Plus whenever did I state or even imply plural Messiahs?
You are falsely implying that my logic on the number of temples and Messiahs are endless.
Seeing that God took two of your temples away because of your sins, its not that unreasonable to say that Israel will build her own temple in her sins. What ever Israel do in the Dispora, until Messiah returns will be in done in the flesh and not in the spirit, so building a third temple is hardly impossible. Scripture teaches that even while the second temple stood, false idols and child sacrifices were committed, so if thats factual and historic, how can my arguement be seen as unreasonable?
Its not unscriptual to say Messiah will build His temple either.
To make my point of re- jigging scriptural text, Isiah ch 66 is not a prophetic riddle with double meanings, and double standards. Its a clear statement of sacrifices in a temple that are not approved by God. Its not a pagan temple, its a Jewish temple. Taking a step back and looking at what ive stated can hardly be labelled straining.
Or antisemitic! !!
There Has to numerous temples if you want to read Isaiah 66 as another temple. If not numerous temples then why not numerous messiahs. Since you want to count This chapter as an additional temple then every prophet who speaks of a temple must be an additional temple. Has anyone else in their right mind come to a conclusion of Four temples.
Then to come up with some devil man who will “Sit” in this temple shows even More ignorance of anything Jewish / Judaism. That’s not the way things work. From what I remember it sounds as if you are taking the book of revelation and trying to make some sense of it. You evidently realize Daniel doesn’t work in that regard so you come up with something of your own that is so far out there it would make people laugh at it. You fail to realize When Isaiah lived and what was occurring during his time. Xtians would be able to understand much much more if they would study some Jewish history. I happen to recall many decades ago there was much talk in Xtian circles about the 400 silent years. They have continued to come up with a newer version for everything they don’t understand. But we have always understood the truth and its there if people as yourself were willing to learn. Do as Jeremiah says, “if they will diligently learn the was of My People”
Hello Sharbano
Well yes and no to numerous temples. If I go beyond scripture, ie more than four, then of course one would be going into the false teaching of scripture.
Becsuse your view is three temples only, then your view will remain the same. Your view is from non Messianic/christian belief. Thats fine of course. Your view is 2 temples past, so the next, by logic is the third and last. But scripture never states, ver batum, “There will be three and only three”. No more does it say pre 1st temple that a second will be built.
However if you read the scriptures from a neutral standpoint, collectively, more than three, but no more than four can be seen.
Isaiah 66 is as clear as it gets. If a view of Isaiah 66 is of unexcetable services to God, is not then surely by reasoning it must be other another, It cant be Solomons.
Isaiah wrote and spoke about Israel returning from the exile and encouraged them to build another, the second, why then write condemnation about the sacrifices?
You then need to explain why God didnt accept the sacrifices in the new second temple. Why encourage the people to build, only then to refuse the offerings?
Obviously Isaiah cannot be speaking of the first temple, the second temple doesnt make sense, unless God never intended to recieve the services from the second temple, and Messiahs third is a ridiculous idea.
From a christian perspective, using books like Revelation, Mathew etc is not a pre concieved plan to overthrow the Tanach and prohets, its just simply putting all things together.
You quoted Jerimiah, which is strange. Out of all Thousand upon thousands of Jews in Israel that Jerimiah spoke to, only a literal few believed in him and what God was saying. God made sure that Jerimiah didnt lose heart with all his fellow kinsfolk wanting him dead For speaking out against there rebellious hearts. God reassured Jerimiah that a selective remnant remains to Gods statutes. Scriptually, only a very small number of Jews do. That quote of course, contextually is aimed at Israel, not gentiles or the church. I was wondering which side of Jerimiah s statement you stand on?
2 Cor ch 3 v 14-15.
One thing is for certain. You cannot put Isaiah 66 into some context of a devil sitting in the Temple. As is with much of Xtian thinking that keeps evolving, to no end I must say, you come up with an idea and will twist and turn the written word to match that thinking.
I suspect it amounts to a deeper conception than a fact of four temples. One way or another Xtianity simply Has to teach that Jews are of their father the devil and what better way than to accuse the Jew of setting the devil IN the temple itself. Rabbi Singer put it quite well when he says Xtianity believes Jews do know the truth of Jsus since they “prove” it from a Jewish source and Still deny his being messiah. Therefore they must be evil. I have heard many a minister speak when referencing their OT and use it for lessons by explaining how evil the Jews were and to avoid such. If they would learn the lessons of Torah it wouldn’t be necessary to vilify Jews at every turn.
Every doctrine that passes from Xtianity is more proof of what Isaiah says about the nations will be astonished. They will learn from facts on the ground and not surmise from words on a page. They will no longer see vagueness of words in promoting an idea.
How convenient to give a quote saying the Jews are blinded. Are you aware that Isaiah says there is a veil spread over the nations. This must be why you are unable to understand Tanach.
Hello Sharbano
The first thing you need to understand that, from the statements that I gave previously stated about the anti christ sitting in the temple etc. I never stated that the Jews accepted the man knowingly as a anti type to knowingly sit in the temple. The statement of that he will be a gentile political leader who Israel sign a covenant with, and then at some point sees himself able to sit in the temple. Your reasoning of my statements are not of the same. I can clearly see that by the way and what you commented on my view. Ie You try a qualify that christians think that Jews are devils. That is your misconceptious defense strategy. And its the only defense that you have left. Or play the race card.
As as far as any rabbi or Christian preacher goes, I would only believe in what the scriptures say.
Again context is vital. The Isaiah passage is a positive text not negative like the veil over the eyes of Israel. The text speaks of life through God destroying death, death which covers the earth. ie the veil. Its not talking about spiritual blindness.
This goes to prove my point.
I responded to the veil that YOU sourced from the Xtian text which said the Jews cannot understand because of this “veil”.
Isaiah speaks of when the nations will be humbled and the Jewish people exalted, a blinding mask will be lifted from the eyes of the Gentiles. This mask prevented them from seeing the truth, which allowed them to torture the Jews without compassion. And the evil inclination which blinded mankind will be lifted so that all will see.
Regarding this man who sits in the temple there isn’t any place that this is written. It comes from your own imagination. You used Isaiah 66 for this assumption but that isn’t written there. Isaiah speaks nothing about a covenant. That chapter is speaking of the First Temple, as it says the survivors will be sent to Tarshish, Pul, Moshkhei, Keshet, Tuval Yavan and the distant islands who never heard of Me nor saw My Glory.
Con,
You misrepresent Maimonides when you say that he “did not doubt that Jesus brought knowledge of God.” It would be much better if you were less concerned as a reader and more careful.
He writes of Christianity:
“Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord.” (Laws of Kings 11.4).
Note that he does not say that Jesus brought the world a proper knowledge of God. Rather he says that Christianity has done great damage to the Jewish people. And to the rest of the world, he says that it has caused them to “err and serve a god other than the Lord.” You have mischaracterized him!
He does say, however, that because of Christianity the world has become aware of the concepts of Messiah, Torah, and mitzvos. But this is not something with which he credits Christianity, so much as God, Who is able to turn something negative into something positive. Nor did God do this only with Christianity. He did it also with Islam. In both instances, however, Maimonides is crediting God, not the movement itself.
It is incredible that you would so misrepresent the words of Maimonides to suit your agenda while writing that the people here are engaged in mere rhetoric and polemics.
Jim
I’m taking a leaf out of Larry’s book and posting so I can follow.