Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: PhilipFreneau

“Three different websites disagree with you, and all seem pretty credible. Are you sure you are interpreting correctly?”

Those three websites are all based on the theory of one man, Ernest Martin, who is in the minority among scholars with his theory.

“Now if you can prove what you believe, without a shadow of a doubt, then I might be interested. But there is no way you can prove it.”

Well, there’s no point in discussing anything with you, if that is your attitude. You’ll just go on believing what you want and dismissing any evidence that contradicts it, just as you dismissed the high school-level math that debunks Martin’s Temple Mount theory.


151 posted on 04/11/2014 6:28:06 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman
>>>Well, there’s no point in discussing anything with you, if that is your attitude.<<<

Attitude is a two-sided street, Boogieman. Do you consider your own attitude squeaky clean? You obviously have no recollection of our past conversations.

>>>You’ll just go on believing what you want and dismissing any evidence that contradicts it, just as you dismissed the high school-level math that debunks Martin’s Temple Mount theory.<<<

I always begin with the understanding that Christ is always right. That way it is easier to identify the charlatans who try to twist his words to fit their agendas.

For example, one of the first things I noticed in the Scofield Bible I acquired in the past year was that Brother Cyrus had to create two Eliajah's to maintain the Dual Covenant myth. He also had to pretend that the piercing of Christ on the Cross was not a fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10; and that the conversion of Cornelius was not the fulfillment of Amos 9:11. Talk about a Charlatan with a capital "C." What is even more bizarre is that people actually believe that clown over the plain words of the scripture.

This is all I am asking: if you can prove that the so-called wailing wall, or any other wall or structure that is still partially standing, was part of the temple complex, then prove it. But there is absolutely, positively, NO WAY you can prove it without aerial photography taken immediately prior to the destruction by the Roman Armies in 70 AD. When you can provide that kind of proof, I will admit I misunderstood the plain words of Christ.

Philip

152 posted on 04/11/2014 7:59:55 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson