[vladimir998]

“I don’t give a rats behind about pagans. I’m pointing out that you’re dead wrong in saying there were no non-Jews in the temple when Jesus used His whip.”

And you’re still wrong. Remember you have yet to present a single shred of evidence that a single non-Jew was present in the Temple when Jesus chased out the money changers. You have yet to present a single shred of evidence that any of the money changers were non-Jews. Insisting that non-Jews were in the Temple centuries before Jesus proves nothing about the time of Jesus or the incident with the money changers.

“Paul did die before his execution, and was brought back.”

In any case, what I said about Paul was true. 100% true.

“It means everything because of your claim of perfection.”

I made no claim of being perfect. What I said was perfectly true. It still is. You have yet to show a shred of evidence to the contrary.

“In post #50, you told another poster that his example of Jesus whipping the moneychangers did not involve non-Jews.”

And what I said was correct. You have yet to show any evidence to the contrary.

“Anybody that studies the bible more than Catholics knows the temples were taken over by foreigners by Jesus’ time, so you’re dead wrong.”

Again, no. I HAVE STUDIED THE BIBLE and perhaps more than you ever will. And the Temple’s own concerns were largely left to the Jews. That’s why they had their own Jewish Temple guards, for instance.

“I’m as biased as you are.”

My bias is toward the truth.

“But yet you did not know there were Levites, Benjamites, Nethanims, and Edomites in the temples in Jesus’ time. You have a problem with retention, apparently.”

You have yet to prove any of the above were NON-JEWS at the time of Jesus and were in the Temple when Jesus chased out the money changers and were in fact among those whom Jesus chased out. And even if you did, none of it would change what I originally said: Jesus never invaded the temples of pagans interrupting their worship. Now, I can only conclude that the response post to this post I am writing now will also have no evidence of what you keep claiming. Will that be the case?

“I say it the way the bible says it.”

No, you don’t. If you did it, it would be posted in Hebrew letters because that is how the Bible says it. You’re just posting it as the KJV says it. That’s merely a translation.

“If you really want to argue semantics, the correct spelling of “know” is k-n-o-w, not n-o as you posted above in your first sentence. You must be pretty desperate to ignore the point and attack semantics instead.”

That wouldn’t be semantics. It would be spelling. Are you sure you know (or “no”) what semantics means? Semantics is a field of study in linguistics about meaning, not spelling.

“Oh really?”

Yes, really.

“Jesus uncle was a Levite, he never went to the temple?”

You still have yet to show a single scrap of evidence that the money changers were non-Jews. Also, none of that would show that Jesus ever interrupted the worship of pagans in their own temples anyway.

“The bible clearly states Zechariah was of the course of Abia, and was made mute in the temple. Do you not know anything?”

I sure do. I know your example doesn’t work for your claim.

“Nope 100% wrong. Levites, Benjamites, Nethanims, and Edomites are not Jews.”

Your claim doesn’t hold up – not even remotely. No matter what you claimed there, it still doesn’t prove that the money changers were non-Jews. Also, none of that would show that Jesus ever interrupted the worship of pagans in their own temples anyway.

“Your post #50 says Jesus did not encounter non-Jews in the temple. 100% wrong.”

No, what I said was 100% correct, but you keep misstating what I said. You still have yet to show a single scrap of evidence that the money changers were non-Jews. Also, none of that would show that Jesus ever interrupted the worship of pagans in their own temples anyway.

“Your post #50 is clear, you aid there were no non-Jews in the temple. You’re dead wrong.”

No, what I said was 100% correct, but you keep misstating what I said.

“Now that’s laughable. They were around circa 1400BC when the Israelites entered the promised land. They were around circa 500BC when the Israelites re-entered the promised land, but somehow disappeared between 500BC and Jesus’ time. You’re something else. The fruits of Catholicism, make up things out of mid-air with no factual or scriptural basis whatsoever.”

So you’re now claiming that the situation in A.D. 30 was EXACTLY THE SAME AS in 1400 BC and 500 BC? And yet you’re claiming Catholics make up things out of “mid-air”? Matthew 7:3.

“Let the fruits of Catholicism be seen, you can’t stand by your implications. How about we spend the next 100 posts arguing the meaning of “is”.”

I stand by everything I wrote – and you keep proving I am correct. You still have yet to show a single scrap of evidence that the money changers were non-Jews. Also, none of that would show that Jesus ever interrupted the worship of pagans in their own temples anyway. Everything I posted was 100% correct.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

Your posts are completely illogical. The Pharisees Jesus encountered told Jesus they were of Abraham but their ancestry were never slaves. Jesus agreed with them. That means they were Edomites. Edomites were never slaves, all the Israelites were. In your scenerio, whole tribes of people would have to disappear for no reason, and of course they didn't because we know Jesus encountered non-Jew Pharisees, and we know Levites and Benjamites had a right to be there in God's plan.

The temple incident was the only recorded time Jesus used violence. That should get your attention but it flies right over your head. It's an example of what will happen at the second coming. Judgment starts at the pulpit. Are you going to be in a church that is good in Jesus' eyes, or in a church that receives violence?

The descendants of Caiaphas and his Edomite ilk fled from Jerusalem from the Romans in 70AD, lived in four cities near the Sea of Galilee for a time, moved over to the two Jewish universities in Babylon and became exilarchs. The ancestors of Charlemagne brought one of these exilarchs, a direct descendant of Caiaphas, to Narbonne to give the Jews there encouragement to fend the Muslims back from France. More exilarch families moved from Babylon to Narbonne. The exilarchs expanded their influence into Lyon. Charlemagne was crowned emperor by the pope and there was very close cooperation between Charlemagne and his exilarch allies, and the Catholic Church. Could it be the Catholic Church hierarchy is now composed of descendants of Caiaphas and his fellow Edomite liars and murderers of Jesus? With the communist turn the Catholic Church has taken, something is definitely not right.

But go ahead and ignore truth and logic, twist yourself into a pretzel trying to weasel yourself out of the unlearned errors you post in about every paragraph and keep supporting the commie pope, his commie hierarchy in Rome, and his tool, the Catholic laity that hasn't caught on yet.