Yeru
While ignoring the personal attack which is so out of place with christian debate,
You’re picking things out of thin air, Yeru, for the purpose of trying to paint me up as one who engages in unchristian practices. You’re hurting insofar as proving your case, Yeru; and it’s normal for those in such a position as you’re in (in their desperation) to resort to performing character assassination on their opponent.
This is what I had said that you are referring to:
You're ridiculous, Yeru. That's done been done. That's what I have already done. You are just too dimwitted to realize it.
Of course that wasn’t meant as a “personal attack”, Yeru … not in the way that you’re construing it. Why? Because what I said is true! You ARE being “ridiculous”, and it’s quite obvious that “you are just too dim witted to realize” that those things have already been proven to you. To state something true is not making an attack on the other person. And it IS a proven fact, a fact that you’ve demonstrated to be true very well. Now if it’s TRUE that you are being “ridiculous”, and it’s PLAIN that you’re unable to see it … even after all that I’ve said has been placed before your eyes … then it’s not a personal attack upon you for me to call attention to your problem of dimwittedness. I also think that you’ve got your feelings hanging out just a mite, Yeru.
I ask you, WHERE exactly was this scriptural evidence? I sure don't remember you offering one shred of evidence fromt he bible, just you opinion. So, again, SHOW IT TO ME IN SCRIPTURE.
Test time, Yeru. Do you remember me saying this, or something similar, more than once to YOU?:
Have you already forgotten what I have told you, or is it that you wish not to remember? I had said, quote: ... the Bible is silent as to where the “star” come from. [For that reason, therefore,] it is left up to our discretion to determine the source of the “star”, by reasoning upon all the facts that can be gathered.
How about this? Did you read me having said this to Terraly:
But when it comes to the “star” the Bible doesn’t directly say who the source of it was. So, as I’ve already stressed, all that is left for one to do, that is if one is concerned enough to want to know, is to gather all the facts available and make a judgment based upon those facts.
Do you recollect me having said that, Yeru. If so, where do you disagree with that? If you don’t disagree, then why do you keep saying “show me”? I’ll tell you why you keep saying that! It’s because you’re being “ridiculous”, and you’re just too “dimwitted” to see the facts that are available which lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that Satan, not God, was the source behind the “Bethlehem Star”. Of course if you say that you don’t remember me saying that in the quotes above, then you failed the test.
I can indeed offer you Isaiah 60 and it holds. Isaiah 60 is clearly speaking of Messiah, IS 60:6 clearly mentions Gold and Frankincense being brought to Messiah, and Matt 2 clearly mentions Gold and Frankincense being brought to Jesus. Unless you can show me another place in scripture where Gold and Frankincense is brought to Jesus from people from the East, then the coming of the Magi MUST be the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 60; case closed.
“It holds.” Ha! Pony pebbles! Yeru, it escapes your notice that YOU’VE BEEN CAUGHT IN A BALD-FACED LIE. What you say here (which I have just quoted) is outright contradictory to what you say to Bboyneko, down below. He had said: “Whether or not Isaiah is fulfilled by Jesus is open to debate….” To which you replied: “You might have a point, you might not.” Now which way is it, Yeru? Is it like you so solemnly swore in my quote above, namely: “Isaiah 60 is clearly speaking of Messiah,…”? Or is it like you told Bboyneko, namely: ‘Well, it may be debatable'? Which way are you gonna have it Yeru? You can’t have it both ways.
Now: You said that “Isaiah 60 is clearly speaking of Messiah”. Oh, is that right? Then you know what’s so amazing to me (and should be to you too), given that everything is so very CLEAR as you would make it out to be, Yeru? It’s the fact that there are plenty of Bible commentators that JUST DIDN’T GET IT regarding Isaiah chapter 60 … commentators that consider themselves to be Biblical scholars. For example: Besides other commentaries, I have a parallel commentary (entitled The Bethany Parallel Commentary) which includes comments by Matthew Henry; Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (a trio); and Adam Clark. That’s 5 different persons under the cover of this one commentary who considered themselves qualified to comment on the Scriptures. You know what, Yeru? Out of them all, there was only one that hinted about your theory being a possibility. And that was, as I mentioned earlier, Matthew Henry.
This is part of what Matthew Henry had to say about Isaiah 60, including the verse 6 that you’re so fond of:
Yes you have come unto Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, which serves for a key to this prophecy. -- Ephesians 2:19.Then later on, with reference to verses 5 and 6 he goes on to say: “The forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee, to guard thy coasts, and fight thy battles.” The camels and dromedaries that bring gold and incense, those of Midian and Sheba, shall bring their richest commodities of their country, not to trade with, but to honor God with. This was in part fulfilled when the wise men of the east came to Christ, and presented to him treasures of gold, frankincense, and myrrh,. -- Matthew 2:11.
So, yes, Matthew Henry prefers to think there is some connection between the 6th verse there and the fact that the Magi of Matthew 2 presented to Jesus, gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But, that this commentator was indulging in mere speculation is apparent when one considers the fact that NOWHERE in his comments did he show proof to support this conclusion. You might take comfort in the fact that you and this great commentator have something in common, Yeru … in that neither one of you have anything to offer as a basis for your claim except to say ‘that’s just what I prefer to believe’. At least Matthew Henry admits though that Isaiah 60 has reference to “Mount Zion”, which, by the way, reinforces the Society’s NWT of verse 1 making reference to a symbolic “woman”. Quoting the NWT: “Arise, O woman, shed forth light, for your light has come and upon you the very glory of Jehovah has shown forth.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, how about the 4 other commentators included in that Parallel Commentary I refer to? Surely, since it is as you claim, that “Isaiah 60 is clearly speaking of Messiah” then we will be certain to find that these other 4 will agree with Matthew Henry … right? NOT right! They only agree with Matthew Henry as far as what he said about “Mount Zion”. I’ll quote them here for the benefit of you and all the readers of JW.com that may be following along with this:
These are the comments made by the trio; Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown:
Vss. 1-22. ISRAEL’S GLORY AFTER HER AFFLICTION. An ode of congratulation to Zion on her restoration at the Lord’s second advent to her true position as the mother church from which the Gospel is to be diffused to the whole Gentile world; the first promulgation of the Gospel among the Gentiles, beginning at Jerusalem, is an earnest of this. The language is too glorious to apply to anything that as yet has happened.
It is notable, and so very, very strange, that these three commentators didn’t have as much as one single comment to make with reference the all-important verse 6, of Isaiah 60. Wow!!! … just think, 3 much- respected commentators here JUST DIDN’T GET IT! They never had it dawn on them what Yeru says is all so very clear, namely that ‘Isaiah 60 speaks of the Messiah’. Now mind you, that this was even in plain view of the fact that two of the famous items, namely gold and frankincense, which the Magi presented to Jesus was mentioned right there in plain sight for all to see, in verse 6 of that chapter. Wow! … maybe Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown ought to go into hiding, and cover their heads in shame for being so unattentive. (Actually NONE of them are any longer among the living today.)
But, now, what DID these 3 perceive Isaiah 60 to be all about? This: About “Israel’s glory” … about “Zion on her restoration at the Lord’s second advent”. Yes, that’s ALL that these 3 commentators saw Isaiah 60 as being about. Guess they should have lived long enough to have taken a few lessons from Bible-scholar Yeru.
This boils it down to the Bible commentator, Adam Clarke:
The subject of this chapter [Isaiah 60] is the great increase and flourishing state of the Church of God by the conversion and accession of the heathen nations to it, which is set forth in such ample and exalted terms as plainly show that the full completion of this prophecy is reserved for future times. This subject is displayed in the most splendid colors under a great variety of images highly poetical, designed to give a general idea of the glories of that perfect state of the Church of God which we are taught to expect in the latter times; when the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in, and the Jews shall be converted and gathered from their dispersions, and the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.
As was the case with the “trio” of commentators, above, it is notable that Adam Clarke didn’t have a word to say with reference to Yeru’s all-important verse 6, of Isaiah 60. But his comments were harmonious with the other 3 commentators. Funny thing … that Adam Clarke didn’t fervently latch onto the mention of “gold” and “frankincense” as being an obvious clue for connecting everything up with Matthew chapter 2, as Bible-scholar Yeru has.
Now, I'm going to go back to the rest of your posts and read them. I only ask that when you reply you stay away from personal attacks which are so unbecoming a true Christian.
Now you’re being ridiculous again. Plus, you’re making it all the more plain just how desperate you really are. Are you looking for a way out of the discussion, Yeru? Sounds to me like, that if I don’t stop pointing out your short comings, you just might get mad and excuse yourself. Besides, in view of some of the disgusting things I’ve read that you’ve said in other threads, you sure are one to be pointing-the-finger regarding things which YOU suppose are unbecoming of a “true Christian”.
Also, dear friday, you said,
Oh come off it, Yeru! I’m no more “dear” to you than God is to Satan. You, in a heartfelt way, said in your very next breath, quote: I hear bible truth quite well Friday, I just have little tolerance for the lies told by the society and instantly believed without criticism by "sheep". You insult my brothers and sisters, by charging them as being a bunch of gullible-good-for-nothings, and then you claim that I’m “dear” to you. Although I can afford a new keyboard, I’m not interested in making a trip to the computer store to purchase another one … so lay off the “dear” crap, would you, it makes me have the urge to hurl.
Insofar as “lies told by the society”, you haven’t proven that the Society has lied about their claim that the “star” was of Satan the Devil; and of course that’s the subject here: Was God the source of the “star”? Or was it Satan? So what you need to do is STOP trying to divert attention off the subject at hand, over onto something that you may have in mind that is completely irrelevant to this issue. I’ve already caught you attempting that once earlier, and called your attention to it. As a matter of fact you had to be reminded of that by your having quoted me in your very next words. You quote me as having said: “Do not use THIS particular point/issue as another diversion tactic to avert attention off the many things that you should have already answered, but didn’t.” I must say again, Yeru, that your head is as about as hard as the sidewalk leading from my house out to the street. Look, Yeru, the Society’s “lies” or “truths” have nothing to do with the issue between YOU and ME. And to make such irrelevant statement as you just have is just so much blab. So, focus on the issue, either that or remain silent and admit defeat. And you have ALREADY been defeated, of course, but you’re just to dimwitted to see it … even as I’ve pointed it out already, twice-over as a matter of fact.
"We have seen his star in the East and come to worship him" Sounds to me as if they knew while they were still OUTSIDE of Israel, that they knew what country to go to. The bible does NOT in fact, say that the star led them to Jerusalem, it was the diplomatic thing to do to go to Jerusalem.
You emphasize a very good point here, but at the same time you’re nitpicking.
Of course a more-understandable translation of the account reads: “For we saw his star [when we were] in the east….” (Matthew 2:2; NWT) Now: Yes, you’re right, they KNEW the direction to head because the “star” was obviously off in the particular direction that it wanted them to go. For that reason it can be said that the “star” led them … and because their astrological charts (or what-have-you) had suggested to them that the “star” signified that there had been a king born … and because the “star” was off in the direction of the land of Israel, it is only natural that they would go into Jerusalem (the seat of the king) making their inquiry regarding “one born king of the JEWS. Although it may have appeared to you otherwise (and I can see why it might have), that’s the reason I said: “How else do you suppose that they knew that the “king” that was supposedly born was to be king of the Jews?” They knew such a thing because the “star” pointed them in the direction of Israel … and that of course spelled out J-e-r-u-s-a-l-e-m … because of where the seat of the king was. In that sense “it pointed them in the direction of THAT city”, even as I said.
So yes, the “star” did lead them to Jerusalem, although not directly.
And I think that what I said earlier bears repeating, because you apparently don’t see the significance of it:
I previously stated:
The star these men followed led them, not directly to Jesus’ birthplace in Bethlehem, but to Jerusalem [even tho indirectly], where King Herod ruled. Their following that star resulted in the slaughter of all the male infants in Bethlehem … it’s therefore absurd – ABSOSUTELY ABSURD -- to attribute the star to God. God would have foreseen the tragedy and not took them via Jerusalem [He would have corrected their course so as to make absolutely sure that they didn’t go there] if it had been Him that had been maneuvering the star. As it is, the way you would have it -- attributing the star to God -- you are making God responsible for the deaths of a huge number of children, which of course is not true at all.
And again here:
I had made the point that if the “star” had been of God’s doing, then, since He would have obviously known beforehand that all those infants were destined to die as a result of that star having led the Magi to Herod, then God Himself therefore would be the one to blame for the deaths of all the children that were slaughtered.
For the above reason, it could
NOT have been God that was behind the “star”. And frankly, therefore, I fail to see why any lover-of-God would wish to insinuate that he was the one behind it … given the facts available.
No, I am citing the bible accurately,
That quote was what you said in response to my words here:
You’re not citing the Bible accurately, Yeru. (Will you be honest enough to admit that? Or will you conveniently ignore it like you did all the times up above.) You are ignoring the fact that the “star” was first seen again by the Magi upon their leaving out of Jerusalem: [According to Matthew 2:9-11]: When they had heard the king, they went their way; and, look! the star they had seen [when they were] in the east went ahead of them, until it came to a stop above where the young child was. On seeing the star they rejoiced very much indeed. And when they went into the house….
I had said that in response to you having said:
Another reason to think that perhaps the star didn't take them to Jerusalem is that they were "overjoyed" at seeing the star when the got to Bethlehem.
In attempting to explain what you meant, you said:
the star preceeded or went ahead of them, not led them, to where the child lay.
The implication of the wording in the account wasn’t: ‘The star they had previously seen had gone ahead of them, and was resting over the house’. It was more like: ‘The star they had previously seen went ahead of them, until it came to a stop above the house’. (verse 9)
Here’s the actual reading, according to the NIV:
After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.
Now, the Living Bible, although it supports your theory in the text, in its footnote it says: “Literally, ‘went before them until it came and stood over where the baby was’.” So, as we all know, the LB is a paraphrased version that presents the understanding of those who prepared it … which is about as good as you or I, Yeru, writing our own Bible. Of course YOU like the LB, obviously, because it agrees with your thinking. As for me, I have little appreciation for it on this point because I know that it’s not correct. That’s not to say that it’s altogether a bad translation. There is a place or two where I have used it in preference to the NWT, in my letters to the Society, because it presented the idea more clearly or precisely.
it stands to reason that while the Magi were in Jerusalem they did not have sight of the star,
That’s correct, while “in Jerusalem” they didn’t see the star. (As a matter of fact it would be my guess that they saw the star only once before they got to that city, simply because once would have sufficed.) But, upon leaving out of Jerusalem the “star” appeared to them again.
Herod DIRECTED them to Bethlehem, which he would not have had to do had they stayed with the star. Lots of conjecture on your part, and not much scripture.
Yes, it’s true that they were instructed by the king to go to the exact town where the prophecy said the Messiah was to be born. And so, no, it’s quite clear that they didn’t absolutely need the star in order to know where to go insofar as the town was concerned. But, it looks as if Satan was so eager to maintain their excitement (because of his serious stake in the matter) that he was more than willing to go out his way to accommodate them by causing the star to become manifest again upon their having left out of Jerusalem.
So, Yeru, I’ll say it again, and ask the same question again:
You’re not citing the Bible accurately, Yeru. (Will you be honest enough to admit that? Or will you conveniently ignore it like you did all the times up above.) You are ignoring the fact that the “star” was first seen again by the Magi upon their leaving out of Jerusalem:
Am I to assume by this that you do not recognize Isaiah 60 as speaking of Messiah?
You assume correctly. But, once again you avoid doing what I asked you to do, several times over now as a matter of fact. I suppose that you think by requiring ME to answer questions regarding that chapter that it will get you off the hook of having to explain it yourself. Notice once again what I said:
I had said:
I keep asking you to explain, starting with verse one, the context that surrounds that verse; and keep stressing that it’s YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that you understand it all so as to justify having a claim such as you do. But so far you continue to ignore the fact that such a responsibility rests in your lap, because it is YOU that says that the 6th verse means such and such.
Now how about it, Yeru … you gonna spit it up or not. Like I said before, “If you can’t do that, you can’t reasonably say that you have justification for believing what you do. The mere fact that verse 6 mentions the same two items (gold and frankincense) that Matthew 2:2 does sure don’t cut it.”
Nope … I’m not gonna help you out of your dilemma, Yeru. I’m not the one on the spot here, either.
Chapter 59 and 60 speak directly to Messiah.
You keep telling me and the rest of the world that, but neither you nor Matthew Henry have bothered to explain just exactly how you KNOW that to be true. Just simply to believe isn’t good enough in my books, Yeru. It’s proof that I want.
The Jews have long recognized that fact, and it's clear from the context (oh, sorry, context never seems to matter to the society)
Thanks for reassuring me about what the Jews BELIEVE. Yes, what the Jews ‘recognize’ is simply what they believe, and nothing more. Besides, who would be so foolish as to point to them to support their (your) stance? Particularly since they were the very people who should have been able to “recognize” the Messiah when he arrived the first time, but was too stupid to do so. You take the cake, for sure, Yeru. Are you really THAT desperate. Like Farkel would say … “Good Gawd man!!! Haven’t you dug yourself in deep enough yet, so that you want to bury yourself even deeper.”
You say “oh, sorry, context never seems to matter to the society”. Let me ask you again, Yeru. Am I the Society? Are you speaking to the Society here? Like I said up above, in response to you saying that I attacked you, “it’s normal for those in such a position as you’re in (in their desperation) to resort to performing character assassination on their opponent.” Now, here, you have attempted to take the heat off yourself again by doing just that, but this time bad-mouthing the WTS … which is completely irrelevant to the discussion regarding what we are trying to settle here in this thread.
You say “it’s clear from the context”. If that’s so true, then why didn’t all the other commentators which I presented understand that as being so? It’s because you only wish it was that clear, Yeru. When will you admit that isn’t the case? Probably never, would be my guess. Why would I guess that way? Because you have demonstrated over and over again that your head is a hard as the sidewalk in front of my house that leads out to the street. Plus, you enjoy the Christmas holidays too much to be willing to turn loose of them. And you would definitely have to do that if you were to admit that the glorious Bethlehem Star had been a tool of Satan. Yes, he wanted to get his strike “in the heal” (Ge 3:15) out of the way while Jesus was yet a mere child. That’s the cowardly weasel that your friend Satan is. And yes, he is your friend, because you defend his ways while attributing them to God instead … though you deny that in your ignorance.
SO again, show me some other place in the New Testament where anyone from the east brings gold and fankincense to Jesus other than Matt 2. Oh, that's right, there isn't any other place this prophecy of Messiah is fulfilled.
Show you, my butt! You show me YOUR stuff, like I’ve asked you to do several times over now. Show me the goods, you’re the one that’s made the claim … you and Matthew Henry, that is. Quit trying to sidestep the only way that you possibly have of saving yourself, by asking me questions regarding that verse in Isaiah instead. Besides, to begin with, that question is loaded with the assumption that Isaiah 60:6 was prophetic of the Messiah coming in the first century … which is not true.
NO MATTER, we'll [meaning Friday, as well as all other JWs] accept the Society's proclaimation in spite of scripture!
Does it look to you and the rest of the world that I have accepted the Society’s proclamation in spite of scripture? As I keep affirming to you, there is no scripture that speaks directly to the issue as to the source behind the “star”. Do you need for me to repeat it once more that all that is left for one to do, if were concerned enough to want to know to begin with, is to gather the facts that the surrounding context supplies, and what we know about just how desperate Satan is to win the contest which burns between he and God. You certainly can’t accuse me of accepting anything blindly, at least justifiably so.
You quoted me as having said:
I’ve already explained how unreasonable it would be to conclude that such “star” was in fact a literal star. ...And yes, I would suggest that the Bible be taken “at it’s word” … but then again, to understand it correctly isn't failing to do that. Instead, it’s doing so all the more.
To which you replied:
By "correctly don't you mean to say "as the Society understands it" Was it a real "star" in the sense of a large gaseous cloud on fire? I don't know. But it was a REAL object, and not just an apparition. Again, I see no where in scripture that gives Satan the ability to create, only to create illusions, not real actual things. The bible calls it a star, I take it to be a real THING, not an illusion created by Satan.
Well of course I agree with the Society here, because I know that they are correct on this issue. And your implication once again is that I accept things blindly, just because the Society say such and such is the way it is. However, Yeru, you have just proven how unreasonable you can be and are being. You, as well as anyone else has, has heard me say several times over that I have discarded the 1914 doctrine altogether. And yet, in your desperation, you make another attempt at saving yourself by resorting to something like this that YOU know isn’t the truth. Give me, and the rest of the world, a break, won’t you, Yeru? Of course, Satan likes to lie also. Doesn’t that make you and him have a lot in common. No question about it!
You say, “But is was a REAL object.” Here you have completely ignored what I had said in my other post. See what I mean about you? Ever heard of a flashlight, Yeru? Remember me saying, that, insofar as artificial light, we do it every day. And we’re not even as intellectually bright as the angels are. Satan is an angel, you know. And so, you’re unashamedly willing to say before the whole world, that you absolutely refuse to accept the idea that Satan himself could produce a similar, but bright light. Well, okay! But I’m sure that you just made an ass out of yourself. But hey! … you did salvage your cherished Christmas.
You say, “The bible calls it a star, I take it to be a real THING, not an illusion created by Satan.” You are really something else, Yeru. Something else indeed! Something that’s very, very unreasonable … something that is unable to reason, as a matter of fact. Go on and get back to celebrating your Christmas, that’s what’s really blinding you to begin with. You can’t see, because of your desire for pleasure. You can’t really enjoy your pleasures, because there’s something in the back of your mind that’s worrying you … the possibility that you’re wrong. You, Yeru, are the most miserable of men … you and others who can’t make do without the world’s holidays. It’s one thing to enjoy pleasure, but then it’s an entirely different thing to place pleasures before the Almighty whom deserves our worshipful obedience.
The Society is now an expert on ancient astrological practices? We have no way of determining how the Magi precieved the star coming to rest over where the child lay.
Yeru
To avoid any confusion, those were your words, not mine.
You spoke them in response to my having recited a point out of the Society’s publication, as follows:
As to the “star” (Gr., a·ster') seen by them, many suggestions have been given as to its having been a comet, a meteor, a supernova, or, more popularly, a conjunction of planets. None of such bodies could logically have ‘come to a stop above where the young child was,’ thereby identifying the one house in the village of Bethlehem where the child was found. It is also notable that only these pagan astrologers “saw” the star.
No, the Society is not pretending to be an expert of any sort. What they’ve said is very reasonable. If it hadn’t been, I wouldn’t have quoted their work.
After that you quote my words here:
I had made the point that if the “star” had been of God’s doing, then, since He would have obviously known beforehand that all those infants were destined to die as a result of that star having led the Magi to Herod, then God Himself therefore would be the one to blame for the deaths of all the children that were slaughtered.
To which you said:
You would blame God for the death of these children IF he created the star, yet you don't blame God for the death of BILLIONS because God created a tree that Satan used to pervert man? That makes NO SENSE at all. Why does God get the blame if he made the star, but doesn't get the blame for the billions even though he DID make the tree? NO LOGIC THERE AT ALL ACCEPT SOCIETY LOGIC ( which is no logic at all).
I NEVER blame God for anything, except for having blessed persons for serving Him, Yeru. So get that out of your mind. Also, there’s a big difference here that you’re refusing to acknowledge. Namely, the fact that it was because of that “star” that the Magi were in touch with king Herod. That’s one thing. Another, is that there was a prophecy which foretold the death of all those children there in the first century, deaths that came about in association with that “star”. Now, since it was Jehovah God that inspired that prophecy to begin with, then he obviously had read the future beforehand regarding events having to do with the one which he would send to earth in behalf of mankind. Because of having seen the future in that regards, if He had been the one behind the “star” then that would make Him the guilty culprit for the deaths of some of the very ones that he sent his Son here to save.
On the other hand, regarding the “tree” of which you keep harping about, He specifically informed Adam as to how to keep living … and that was by NOT eating from that tree. So, you’re being completely unreasonable in your attempt to find something comparable with the two situations. With regards to the “tree of the knowledge of good and bad”, that was something that didn’t have to result in anybody’s death. That was completely in the hands of Adam, and God had nothing at all to do with it except to encourage Adam NOT to eat from it. And all that Adam had to do was to simply recognize that his Creator knew best. Simple as that!
You have yet to prove that the star led the Magi to Herod, I draw from scripture that it did NOT.
You see now why it was that You Know didn't respond to your challenge, Yeru? He knew beforehand that he would be debating with a hardhead that was impenetrable. Besides, you had your mind made up from the start that you were going to claim that, and you just wanted to pick my brains; I knew that. What HAS been proven is what you can’t see that has been proven, Yeru. You’re blinded by your involvement with the world, and you love it that way. And, no, you don’t “draw from scripture” anything at all that proves that Isaiah 60:6 is connected to Matthew 2:11, or any other part of Matthew’s account for that matter. You and Matthew Henry ought to be buried in the same cemetery. You need me to find out where he’s buried for you?
Friday we move to S.C. so the surgery (or the move) has come at a rough time for us. Looking forward to the move though.
What some people will do when they get backed into a corner while involved in a debate!!! Wow!!! Can’t you think of some way out of this, besides making your wife undergo surgery?
Friday
