“Okay, let’s look and your statement that you say is absolutely free of mistakes.”
And it is.
“You say there were not any non-Jews in the temple when Christ took a cat-o-nine-tails to them.”
No. Apparently you’re confusing me with another person here. Look at post 93 or 100. I didn’t post either one of those posts.
“Now let’s look at Jesus’ words in Revelation:”
That won’t help your claim. Here are the reasons why:
1) Since I never made a claim about no non-Jews in the Temple when Jesus chased out the money changers this makes no difference in any case. What I posted is still 100 % true.
2) Nothing in Revelation actually suggests that there were non-Jews in the Temple on the day Jesus chased out the money changers anyway - which would be immaterial in any case since I never brought up that as an example of anything.
“Okay, so we learn that there is an ancient group of people that say they are Jews but are not.”
Irrelevant - for three reasons:
1) You have presented no evidence they were in the Temple during Jesus’ days on earth. The Book of Revelation was written decades later.
2) The idea that they were literally non-Jews rather than poor examples of Jews is simply erroneous.
3) Even if there were non-Jews there it would be irrelevant because my point was about St. Paul INVADING the temples of pagans not non-Jews being in the Jewish Temple. In other words, your example from Revelation - which is absolutely not helpful to the case you’re trying to make - is actually about something that is the exact opposite of what I was talking about.
“Some of these people were in the temple in Jesus’ time and no doubt were the ones that Jesus took a whip to.”
And that is still irrelevant even if true since it was a JEWISH Temple and not a pagan one.
“You say you were absolutely correct in saying that Jesus did not go against non-Jews in the temple. Oh yes He did.”
First of all, that’s not what I said. I said nothing about “going against”. I said that St. Paul did not invade the temples of pagans. And he didn’t. And Jesus didn’t either.
“Sorry, your claim of perfection has fallen woefully short, you are no Jesus.”
I never claimed to be Jesus. What I said is still 100% correct. Jesus did not invade a pagan temple. St. Paul did not invade a pagan temple.
No there were definitely non-Jews in the Jewish temples of Jesus' time.
No. Apparently you’re confusing me with another person here. Look at post 93 or 100. I didn’t post either one of those posts.
In post #50, you said there were no non-Jews in the Jewish temple of Jesus' time. In post#81, you said post #50 was absolutely correct to answer another poster. No it wasn't.
That won’t help your claim. Here are the reasons why: 1) Since I never made a claim about no non-Jews in the Temple when Jesus chased out the money changers this makes no difference in any case. What I posted is still 100 % true.
No, in post #50, you said there were no non-Jews in the temple when Jesus took a whip to them.
2) Nothing in Revelation actually suggests that there were non-Jews in the Temple on the day Jesus chased out the money changers anyway - which would be immaterial in any case since I never brought up that as an example of anything.Irrelevant - for three reasons: 1) You have presented no evidence they were in the Temple during Jesus’ days on earth. The Book of Revelation was written decades later. 2) The idea that they were literally non-Jews rather than poor examples of Jews is simply erroneous.
You're Catholic and so you follow the traditions of man which make void the Word of God. You don't study the bible enough to know what happened to the temples from the time of the Judges to the time of Jesus. You need to do a study on the Nethanims. The Nethanims are descended from those God told the Israelites to absolutely wipe out but the Israelites didn't when they entered the promised land. They are not Israelites. They are not Jews, not Levites, not Benjamites, the three tribes that should have been in the temple. So you're wrong coming out the gate. Levites were supposed to be the temple priests, not Jews to begin with. Anyway, Nethanims started out doing menial jobs for the Levites at the temples, being scribes, woodcutters, etc. Over the centuries, they took over as priests. When some of the Israelites returned from the Babylonian captivity, there was not one Levite to be priests at the temple, they were all Nethanims, which are foreigners as I said. During the Captivity, Edomites took over Judaeah. Edomites are descended from Esau, who mixed his seed with Canaanites and Ishmaelites. When the Edomite priests told Jesus they were of Abraham, they were, descended from Esau, but they were not Israelite, and therefore of course not Jews. According to God's law, there should have been no Jew as a priest, just Levites, but they weren't even Levites they were Nethanims and Edomites. That's who Jesus took a whip to.
3) Even if there were non-Jews there it would be irrelevant because my point was about St. Paul INVADING the temples of pagans not non-Jews being in the Jewish Temple. In other words, your example from Revelation - which is absolutely not helpful to the case you’re trying to make - is actually about something that is the exact opposite of what I was talking about. And that is still irrelevant even if true since it was a JEWISH Temple and not a pagan one. First of all, that’s not what I said. I said nothing about “going againstâ€. I said that St. Paul did not invade the temples of pagans. And he didn’t. And Jesus didn’t either. I never claimed to be Jesus. What I said is still 100% correct. Jesus did not invade a pagan temple. St. Paul did not invade a pagan temple.
In post #50, you told another poster his Jesus example did not involve non-Jews. That is absolutely incorrect.