ang diyos sa old testament ay iba sa new sa testament

[Stonyclub]

Salamat sa pagtugon mo doombot.

bakit prankster si god sa OT
example 1: sacrificing isaac, ok sinabi ni god na sacrifice si isaac. tapus bandang huli babawiin din niya. ilagay mo ang sarili mo kay abraham at isasacripisyo mo ba ang anak mo? conclusion: god trolled abraham

God trolled abraham? Please elaborate further what you exactly meant by God trolled abraham. Parang pinaikot yata, o di kaya ay may bitag, ganun ba? Thanks.

example 2: god pranking job by by letting satan take everything from him. then giving it all back to him at the end.
conclusion: god plays with satan by letting satan torture him.

Ah ito pala ang ''pranking'' thing ni God sa iyong personal na pananaw. Aba ay lalong ngang dumami kaysa sa dati ang mga pagpapala ng Dios sa wakas ng pagsubok niya kay Job eh, papaano naging pranking act ito ni God? At umalis din talunan si ''taning'' sa hamon niya kay God na isusumpa kuno ni Job si God dahil sa napakahirap na pagsubok, ay hindi naman nangyari sa huli. Parang mali yata ang kinalabasan ng obserbasyon mo? Baligtad at wala sa tamang katuwiran.

imagine a cannibal tide you into his basement and every friday he takes a piece of flesh from you and let it grow back again to only take that same flesh again.

Oh, anong namang kinalaman ng isinalarawan mong imahinasyon na ito sa itaas tungkol sa cannibalism? Wala namang karela-relasyon sa pinaguusapan. Magbigay ka naman ng mas matinong illustration kapatid, at lumalabas tuloy ang katotohanan kung papaano ka mag-isip, wala sa tamang lugar, kung baga.

At ano ba ang alam mong mga katangian ng Dios sa Biblia? Para lalo nating masiyasat kung bakit ganyan kang magcon-clude ng pilipit tungkol sa Dios ni Abraham, Isaac at Jacob. Magbigay ka nga ng ilan, pakiusap lang.

[TLG]

Merun naman .. pero bias siya kasi hudyo lang pinagbabaitan niya sa OT. at malupit siya.

di katulad nung sa NT medyo lilo na siya dun

or magkaiba nga sila

Meron naman palang makikitang kabaitan eh, ang tao talaga hindi kayang makuntento, hindi makita ang kabaitan kasi mas tinitingnan ang kasamaan. Its a matter of perspective lang yan.

So, sa tingin mo kaya TLG dapat bang gawin ng Diyos mo ito?

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a.ss.

Sa tingin mo kaya hindi sasama sa paningin nila ang tinuran ng Diyos mo na iyan

Sumama ba ang tingin natin sa amerika ng pasubugin nito ang hiroshima sa pamamagitan ng atomic bomb?

Kung nabuhay ka ng panahon ng hapon na panahon ng gyera, na ang mga anak mo, mga magulang ay pinahihirapan ng mga hapon, bilang isang Filipino, magagalit ka ba na pinaslang ng mga kano ang buong bayan ng hiroshima sa pamamagitan ng atomic bomb?

Ano ang magiging tugon mo ginoong bani.

[doombot]

Salamat sa pagtugon mo doombot.
God trolled abraham? Please elaborate further what you exactly meant by God trolled abraham. Parang pinaikot yata, o di kaya ay may bitag, ganun ba? Thanks.

Ah ito pala ang ''pranking'' thing ni God sa iyong personal na pananaw. Aba ay lalong ngang dumami kaysa sa dati ang mga pagpapala ng Dios sa wakas ng pagsubok niya kay Job eh, papaano naging pranking act ito ni God? At umalis din talunan si ''taning'' sa hamon niya kay God na isusumpa kuno ni Job si God dahil sa napakahirap na pagsubok, ay hindi naman nangyari sa huli. Parang mali yata ang kinalabasan ng obserbasyon mo? Baligtad at wala sa tamang katuwiran.



Oh, anong namang kinalaman ng isinalarawan mong imahinasyon na ito sa itaas tungkol sa cannibalism? Wala namang karela-relasyon sa pinaguusapan. Magbigay ka naman ng mas matinong illustration kapatid, at lumalabas tuloy ang katotohanan kung papaano ka mag-isip, wala sa tamang lugar, kung baga.

At ano ba ang alam mong mga katangian ng Dios sa Biblia? Para lalo nating masiyasat kung bakit ganyan kang magcon-clude ng pilipit tungkol sa Dios ni Abraham, Isaac at Jacob. Magbigay ka nga ng ilan, pakiusap lang.

eto po yun kasi di ko ma explain sa words kaya imag nalang


nakapanuod ka na ba ng episode ng mtv punked ganun yun.

ang sagot sa aking example simple lang..

ok your brain cannot process my illustration, eto nalang *** kay job, subukan mo mag bigay ng tuta sa isang bata yung tuta na yun palalakihin ng bata at mapapamahal siya tutal ngayun bigla mung patayin ang tuta. para i test ang bata kung magagalit siya? ganun yun sa pamilya ni job.

after the test on abraham and job god's troll face in heaven:

[doombot]

Meron naman palang makikitang kabaitan eh, ang tao talaga hindi kayang makuntento, hindi makita ang kabaitan kasi mas tinitingnan ang kasamaan. Its a matter of perspective lang yan.




Sumama ba ang tingin natin sa amerika ng pasubugin nito ang hiroshima sa pamamagitan ng atomic bomb?

Kung nabuhay ka ng panahon ng hapon na panahon ng gyera, na ang mga anak mo, mga magulang ay pinahihirapan ng mga hapon, bilang isang Filipino, magagalit ka ba na pinaslang ng mga kano ang buong bayan ng hiroshima sa pamamagitan ng atomic bomb?

Ano ang magiging tugon mo ginoong bani.

si ginoong banimalek ang tinatanung mo pero ako muna proxy.

uu masama ang tingin ko sa kanila nung time na yun kung ako nabubuhay nung time na yun.

why? you may ask.

kasi tinapos nila agad, they can inflict and torture more if they wanted just like in germany. little by little ang push para matagal ang suffering para at least may equalize *** suffering ng ginwa nila sa pinoy.

dapat pa nga mag pasalamat mga hapon tumalino pa nga sila dahil sa radiation. tignan mo products nila ngayun hightech

[Stonyclub]

eto po yun kasi di ko ma explain sa words kaya imag nalang
http://chzhistoriclols.files.wordpre...een-punked.jpg
nakapanuod ka na ba ng episode ng mtv punked ganun yun.
ang sagot sa aking example simple lang..
mababaw ka mag isip

1. Ayos lang kung sabi mo ay mababaw akong mag-sip. I can live with that. Kalayaan mo iyang sabihin at puedeng ko rin namang ibalik sa iyo yan.

2. Pero bakit litrato lamang ang ibinigay mong sagot? At hindi mo kamo ma-explain sa words, kaya image na lang. Ano ba yan? Aba eh, napakaraming ibat-ibang interpretasyon ang puwedeng ibigay dyan dahil litrato / image lang. Paano ngayon yang ''pranking'' god conclusion mo at hindi mo na maipagtanggol ng maayos ang pilipit na idea mo sa God of the Bible? Hindi mo ba napapansin ang pagsagot mo ngayon ay parang unti-unti pumunta na sa sarcasm expressions at pag-uuyam na illustration na lang? Maghonus-dili ka kapatid!

3. At hindi ka pa rin nagbibigay ng sagot sa katanungan ko tungkol sa mga attributes of God of the Bible. Magbigay ka naman kung merong matino kang alam?

[TLG]

si ginoong banimalek ang tinatanung mo pero ako muna proxy.

uu masama ang tingin ko sa kanila nung time na yun kung ako nabubuhay nung time na yun.

why? you may ask.

kasi tinapos nila agad, they can inflict and torture more if they wanted just like in germany. little by little ang push para matagal ang suffering para at least may equalize *** suffering ng ginwa nila sa pinoy.

dapat pa nga mag pasalamat mga hapon tumalino pa nga sila dahil sa radiation. tignan mo products nila ngayun hightech

Eh mas brutal ka pala eh!

[doombot]

1. Ayos lang kung sabi mo ay mababaw akong mag-sip. I can live with that. Kalayaan mo iyang sabihin at puedeng ko rin namang ibalik sa iyo yan.

2. Pero bakit litrato lamang ang ibinigay mong sagot? At hindi mo kamo ma-explain sa words, kaya image na lang. Ano ba yan? Aba eh, napakaraming ibat-ibang interpretasyon ang puwedeng ibigay dyan dahil litrato / image lang. Paano ngayon yang ''pranking'' god conclusion mo at hindi mo na maipagtanggol ng maayos ang pilipit na idea mo sa God of the Bible?

3. At hindi ka pa rin nagbibigay ng sagot sa katanungan ko tungkol sa mga attributes of God of the Bible. Magbigay ka naman kung merong matino kang alam?

anu sinagut na kita gawin mo lang *** sa mtv punked ilagay mong ng pupunked ay si god at ang pina punked ay si abraham. ganun lang ka simple wala ng cheche boretse hindi mo pa ba makuha yun. o may gulay

litrato lang kasi kala ko makukuha mo agad.

[doombot]

Eh mas brutal ka pala eh!

yun lang ba isasagot mo? mas brutal ako tsk tsk

[Stonyclub]

Eh mas brutal ka pala eh!

Mas maganda daw iyong tahimik at napagkakamalang matalino. Iyon mga walang ingat sa pagdadaldal ay lumalabos tuloy mula sa bibig nila ang katotohanan na hangal pala. At sabi mo nga, ''mas brutal'' pa pala. Ano ba yan!

[doombot]

Mas maganda daw iyong tahimik at napagkakamalang matalino. Iyon mga walang ingat sa pagdadaldal ay lumalabos tuloy mula sa bibig nila ang katotohanan na hangal pala. At sabi mo nga, ''mas brutal'' pa pala. Ano ba yan!

aba nag teteam up kayu ah. anung masama sa pagiging brutal? hahahaha, pinoprovoke niyo lang ako para mawala ko sa hulog uyyy kayu ah ehehehe. i know what you did there.

dahil nag team up kayu pangangaralan ko ***

OT - ang diyos diyan ay isang reptilian in origin alien

NT - ang diyos diyan ay isang Nordic space alien

gigil na gigil kayu no kaya iniiba niyo na usapan

[Stonyclub]

anu sinagut na kita gawin mo lang *** sa mtv punked ilagay mong ng pupunked ay si god at ang pina punked ay si abraham. ganun lang ka simple wala ng cheche boretse hindi mo pa ba makuha yun. o may gulay litrato lang kasi kala ko makukuha mo agad.

Salamat muli sa sagot mo ha! Ipinakita mo muli sa publiko kung paano lumalabas ang kototohanan tungkol sa laman ng isip mo. Pa ''cheche boretse'' ka pa, ay wala ka palang maayos na paliwanag tungkol sa inumpisahan mong thread. Nagturo ka pa sa mtv. Interesting sana ang topic na sinimulan mo, kaya lang ganito ka pala ka-hangal magbigay ng paliwanag sa malabong mong idea tungkol sa God of the Bible. At mukhang habit mo rin yata ang pag-uuyam na pahayag. Hindi mabuting asal iyan kapatid! Walang matinong patutunguhan. Wala kang pinagkaiba sa mga ilan regular dito sa PinoyEx.

Anyway, salamat sa ating maikling paguusap. Ayos na din yon. At nawa tumino ka sa pagdating ng araw. Sabi nga ng iba, ''Habang buhay may pag-asa''

[doombot]

Salamat muli sa sagot mo ha! Ipinakita mo muli sa publiko kung paano lumalabas ang kototohanan tungkol sa laman ng isip mo. Pa ''cheche boretse'' ka pa, ay wala ka palang maayos na paliwanag tungkol sa inumpisahan mong thread. Nagturo ka pa sa mtv. Interesting sana ang topic na sinimulan mo, kaya lang ganito ka pala ka-hangal magbigay ng paliwanag sa malabong mong idea tungkol sa God of the Bible. At mukhang habit mo rin yata ang pag-uuyam na pahayag. Hindi mabuting asal iyan kapatid! Walang matinong patutunguhan. Wala kang pinagkaiba sa mga ilan regular dito sa PinoyEx.

Anyway, salamat sa ating maikling paguusap. Ayos na din yon. At nawa tumino ka sa pagdating ng araw. Sabi nga ng iba, ''Habang buhay may pag-asa''

unfortunately mr stoneclub hindi mo alam ang beliefs ko eto ipopoint out kita sa thread na to para malaman mo
http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/...d.php?t=560706

[doombot]

ufo fanatic ako mr stoneclub para sakin yan ang katotohanan basura sayu pero sakin katotohanan

intedes? nasayu naman yun kung itake mo o hinde basta ako yan ang paliwanag ko

reptilian ang diyos sa old testament.
ang hina talaga ng pangsgap ni mr stoneclub slow talaga tinawag pa kung hangal sa paniniwala ko

[TLG]

yun lang ba isasagot mo? mas brutal ako tsk tsk

one thing is clear, you are in no position to question God's "brutality" in the OT because your sense of morality is also questionable.

Hindi ka naman nagtatanong para malinawan eh, nagtatanong ka para makapang-atake.

Yun lang, am done with this thread.

[doombot]

one thing is clear, you are in no position to question God's "brutality" in the OT because your sense of morality is also questionable.

Hindi ka naman nagtatanong para malinawan eh, nagtatanong ka para makapang-atake.

Yun lang, am done with this thread.

na trap niyo ko dun hahahaha, viddy well i'll just get you next time.

i'll watch out for the stoneclub-tlc combo

but i'm not questioning gods brutality in OT, I'm implying that there are two different gods in each book. since the title of the thread is "ang diyos sa old testament ay iba sa new sa testament" I'm really saying na magkaiba nga sila.

[banimalek]

Sumama ba ang tingin natin sa amerika ng pasubugin nito ang hiroshima sa pamamagitan ng atomic bomb?

Kung nabuhay ka ng panahon ng hapon na panahon ng gyera, na ang mga anak mo, mga magulang ay pinahihirapan ng mga hapon, bilang isang Filipino, magagalit ka ba na pinaslang ng mga kano ang buong bayan ng hiroshima sa pamamagitan ng atomic bomb?

Ano ang magiging tugon mo ginoong bani.

Naku kung nabubuhay ako noon ay hindi ko idadamay ang mga kawawang sanggol na walang kamuwang-muwang at idamay pa ang mga hayop na walang kaalaman sa nangyayari.

sa sampol mong iyan ay mali po ang ginawa ng amerika sapagkat maski ang mga walang kamuwang-muwang ay nadamay.

Ngayon sinagot na kita sa sampol mo at ikaw naman ang sumagot ngayon sa tanong ko at sana huwag kang umiiwas at gumawa naman ng sampol.

Kapag inutusan ka ng Diyos mo ngayon tulad ng nakasaad sa talata "destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a.ss."

Susundin mo ba ang Diyos mo (pakisagot lang ang bawat mapili mo)


OO >>>>>>>>>

HINDI >>>>>>

[doombot]

Naku kung nabubuhay ako noon ay hindi ko idadamay ang mga kawawang sanggol na walang kamuwang-muwang at idamay pa ang mga hayop na walang kaalaman sa nangyayari.

sa sampol mong iyan ay mali po ang ginawa ng amerika sapagkat maski ang mga walang kamuwang-muwang ay nadamay.

Ngayon sinagot na kita sa sampol mo at ikaw naman ang sumagot ngayon sa tanong ko at sana huwag kang umiiwas at gumawa naman ng sampol.

Kapag inutusan ka ng Diyos mo ngayon tulad ng nakasaad sa talata "destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a.ss."

Susundin mo ba ang Diyos mo (pakisagot lang ang bawat mapili mo)


OO >>>>>>>>>

HINDI >>>>>>

kinombo ko ni tlc at clubstone kanina hehehe

pero walang kwenta mga sagot brutal daw ako eh siya etong papatay ng mga sibilyan sa example niya

[skye_phoenix]

Ganito daw yun, nung time ng OT ay tulad ng sa isang bata na wala pang muwang, sa panahon na iyon, yun ang tamang panahon ng pag disiplina sa bata diba? Sa NT time, mature na siya, marami ng alam, kaya medyo bibigyan mo na siya ng kalayaan para makapag desisyon sa sarili niya.

Sensya na, hindi ko alam kung paano i-explain eh. Basta parang ganun.

PS. I will not entertain follow up questions.

[banimalek]

kinombo ko ni tlc at clubstone kanina hehehe

pero walang kwenta mga sagot brutal daw ako eh siya etong papatay ng mga sibilyan sa example niya

Oo nga napansin ko ka nga, pero lumalabas nga na kayang gawin ni TLG ito ""destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a.ss."" pero wait parin natin siya anong malay natin ang sagot niya ay HINDI.

[tiburcioSais]

GOD 's divine Words from the old and new sacred Testaments that converged on to HIS absolute recognition.

HIS written Words as leading on the path without the contextual, literal and word for word philosophical interpretations.

isaiah 28: 9} Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10} For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

....

GOD OF THE OLD & NEW TESTAMENT


Where was God when He manifested Himself in the flesh?


Perhaps, the big question that bothers the mind of the Natural Man is, "Where was God when He manifested Himself in the flesh?" Jesus was the Father in the flesh, a real man. He is not half-God, half-man, in order to be a perfect model in showing the Way to His brethren. As such, therefore, He was called the "eldest Son of God," and "the only begotten Son of the Father."

To the Apostles, the question could be gleaned in the request of Philip: "Lord, show us the Father (John 14:8)." Jesus kept on relating to the Father: praying, asking, depending, etc. They knew that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man like themselves, made of "flesh and blood, and of bones." So they wanted "to see" the Father God Who is a Spirit. Jesus told them with a tint of rebuke in His voice, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me...how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Jesus told them, "Believest thou not that...the Father is in me?...the Father dwelleth in me (John 14:10)."

Were the Apostles expected to understand what Jesus told them? Did the Apostles fully recognize God and Jesus at that moment? If they did, they would not have doubted Jesus’ resurrection, and many things He told them before. While the Disciples did not fully comprehend things about God and Jesus, they, however, did not reject what they heard from Him. They "tarried in Jersualem until they were endowed with power and wisdom from on high (Luke 24:49)."

To the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Elders of Israel, and the Jews in general, the matter was dismissed as plain stupidity and foolishness. Everything that Jesus told them were all hoax and fraud. They were greatly inflamed when Jesus said, "That ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him (John 10:38)." Jesus was accused of blasphemy and that is one cause of His death. At the moment Jesus said, "the Father is in me," they sought to take him; but he escaped out of their hand (John 10:39). To hear Jesus say, "The Father is in me," must have been very loathsome to the Jews, especially to the Scribes and Pharisees, who did not recognize Him.

To the real Christians of the 20th and 21st centuries, how does the Son’s claim, "The Father is in me," register in their mind? Is it similar to Jesus’ Disciples’ non-rejection and wait-to-know attitude? Or, to the Scribes’, Pharisees’, and Sadducees’ total rejection and repulsive disposition?

To the Apostles, the statement "The Father is in me" did not mean much before Pentecost. To the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, and the Elders of Israel, it was abominable. What did the statement mean to the Apostles after Pentecost? What does it mean to the people believing in the Bible today?

To the Apostles after Pentecost, the statement meant the revelation of the relationship of the Father and the Son; and the identities of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son showed that His human body, as a perfect example for His brethren, was the temple or the dwelling place of the Father, a Spirit. The Father promised Himself to be the Inheritance in His Testament (Ezekiel 44:28, Numbers 18:20, Psalms 16:5), but what the real believers received was the Holy Spirit (John 7:39, Acts 2:3, 1 Corinthians 3:16 & 6:19).


To the Disciples of Christ, the statement meant seeing themselves in the shoes of the model:


1. Just as the model said, "The Son can do nothing of himself," the Disciples saw themselves saying the same thing.

2. While Jesus was in His human body, He told them that He was not the real Teacher, but the Spirit:

JOHN 16:12-13 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."


The Apostles saw themselves in the shoes of the model. While Jesus spoke the truth, it was not He Who could make the believers understand, but the Holy Spirit; so with the "brethren." This is the rationale behind:

1 JOHN 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you..."


This is God’s divine justification for dispensing with human teachers and human trainors for Christ’s chosen servants:


EPHESIANS 4:11 "And he (Jesus, not any man or group of men) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"

The Apostles, putting themselves in the shoes of the model, including Paul who was appointed by the "spiritual" Christ, replayed the life of the "physical" Jesus. Just as the Son said, "The Father is in me," so the Disciples claimed being "filled" with the Holy Spirit. "The Father or the Holy Spirit is in us:"

ACTS 13:52 "And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost."

HEBREWS 10:15 "Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us..."


Is this not the same for the Son, a real human being, changing only the Holy Ghost to Father?


JOHN 5:36-37 "But I have greater witness...the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."


The Son was endowed with power and wisdom by the Father, as the Apostles were endowed with power and wisdom by the Holy Spirit!

ACTS 10:38 "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power... for God was with him."


Where was God when He manifested Himself in the flesh? The "flesh" was in front of the very people professing to know the God of Abraham. The "flesh" was with the chosen people of God humbly demonstrating the Way for them. God was never gone, He is a spirit. The spirit God was in the presence of both the believers and the unbelievers. The "flesh" testified to this:

JOHN 8:29 "And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him."


WHO IS THE FATHER? WHO IS THE PROMISED INHERITANCE? WHO IS RESIDING IN THE PHYSICAL BODY OF THE DISCIPLES AFTER PENTECOST? WHO WAS RESIDING IN THE PHYSICAL BODY OF THE SON JESUS? WHO IS RESIDING IN THE PHYSICAL BODY OF THE REAL CHRISTIANS TODAY?

Just as the "flesh" said, "The Father hath not left me alone," so the real Christians also say, "the Holy Spirit is dwelling in us, Who teaches and makes us understand great things about Him." But all these "spiritual things" are foolishness to the NATURAL MAN:

1 CORINTHIANS 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Using the sense of SIGHT (at the baptism of Jesus) and the sense of HEARING (at the 'conversation' of the Father and the Son), and trying to comprehend with the INTELLECT (grammatical plurality of God), is it not a "foolish question" to ask, "WHERE WAS GOD WHEN HE MANIFESTED HIMSELF IN THE FLESH?" We heard this question from the Apostles before Pentecost. But never after Pentecost!


Jews waiting for the Messiah


Until now the Jews are still waiting for the promised Messiah. The Messiah came in the person of Jesus Christ. They saw and heard Him speak. But they did not recognize Him! The reason is they "did not come to their God with their whole heart."

Has that truth passed away in our time? Just as the Jews were entrusted with the Laws or words of God, traditional Christianity is likewise entrusted with the words of God in the Bible. Are not so-called Christians today in the different religious sects, also waiting for the second coming of the Messiah?

The God of Abraham, the only Savior, came in the form of man and He was not recognized by the Jews. Jesus Christ came in the form of Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and He also is not being recognized by so-called Christians. The Jews are still waiting for their Messiah, just as so-called Christians are waiting for the second coming of Jesus, the Messiah. Can they now both claim "having come to the Lord with their whole heart" that the promised heart to know Him would have been given to them? Who is telling a lie? God or man?

The Jews, because they did not recognize their Messiah, rejected and killed Him! Can we not see the same thing today how, thousands of Christian religious sects, because they do not recognize the TRUTH Who is the spiritual Messiah, reject and "kill" Him with their man-made doctrines?/QUOTE]