How To Know You Were Never Saved

I suppose you could just ask John Loftus or Bart Erhman, or soon enough, Rob Bell. Ask them what they were thinking as they read the Bible. Or, for example, ask John what event led to him leaving the ministry.

Or you could read 1^st and 2^nd John.

“So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practising the truth. If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that His word has no place in our hearts. If someone claims, “I know God,” but doesn’t obey God’s commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth.”

Or simply pay attention to the reality that is your life. For example:

Have you lost sight of the gospel in your personal life?

Do you sense a growing disconnect between your private and public life?

Is your day no longer driven by a sense of worship?

Do you feel misunderstood by Christians?

Do Christians seem to cringe at your thoughts, words and behaviours?

Do you find yourself looking for life in places where you once said it couldn't be found?

Are you saying to yourself that following Jesus is no longer a privilege and a joy but is now a burden?

Those who have a healed and forgiven relationship with Jesus will follow a steady road of progress, regardless of bumps and hurdles. Your relationship with God may be hot at times and cold at times but it will never be lukewarm. Those who simply had faith in faith will slowly but surely drift away.

As John said, “Those who leave us were never with us.”

Sad but true.

The Integrity of Atheists

Bart Ehrman. Ever hear of him? Most atheists who blog sure have. Ehrman is a guy, much like John Loftus. Well, they left the Church for different reasons (those that visit John's blog should ask John what happened) but both men are those kind of atheists that swear up and down that they used to be dyed in the wool Christians.

They absolutely knew that Jesus existed as God incarnate right up until they didn't.

They were saved right up until they weren't.

They served the Lord right up until they denied Him.

And then? Well then these men turned on Christianity like pit bulls in a dog fight turn on each other. Take Bart for example. He went from claiming that the Bible is God's Word to saying that there are literally hundreds of thousands of textual errors and is utterly unreliable. Internet atheists eat that kind of stuff up like it's their favourite meal. Come to think of it. That kind of thing is their favourite meal.

It makes me wonder, if Ehrman wasn't telling the truth about being in a healed and forgiven relationship with Jesus the Christ, is he telling the truth now? Or did something happen to make him turn with such vengeance on the one he used to call his Lord and Saviour?

Here's why I ask.

Ehrman says that there are hundreds of thousands or errors in the Bible when reality paints a much different picture. Most everyone knows that if a copy writer wrote an “a” instead of an “e” and that error was copied 50,000 times, it's counted as 50,000 errors. Technically these people are correct, but only technically. The greater contrast between reality and what Ehrman says in his book is really quite astonishing. You see, the New Testament has around 20,000 lines of text. Of those 20,000 lines of text only forty lines are in question. Roughly one page.

Atheists tend to get quite excited over news like this because, and here's the strange thing about atheists. Atheist read the Bible more literally than any other group of people on the planet. Why, to listen to an atheist you would think that literary styles like allegory or metaphor, poetry or history don't even exist. Anyhow, the thing is, these sentences that are in question, that Ehrman says he's discovered are already highlighted in the Bible. These lines that are in some ancients copies and not in others are not something that's been hidden from anyone.

Back to the point. Almost all of the variations are insignificant to the meaning of the text. Say it this way, say it that way, the meaning stays the same. What's more, the variations that are left do not affect doctrine in the least. No Christian doctrine is built upon those texts.

So why would Ehrman and Loftus and others of their ilk make such a big deal out of this stuff? Because the presupposition of atheism desperately needs such distractions. Atheism must have such hooey to keep atheists from paying attention to the evidence, to help them deny the existence of Creator God. They need this to distract them from the fact that they stand before a Holy God guilty as charged. 

Are atheists people of integrity? How do you describe people who claim to be good (without God of course) but don't even live up to their own moral standard?

When I Was A Christian . . .

I've lost track of how many times I've heard such nonsense. People like John Loftus speak of their days as “Christians” just as though being a follower of Jesus has something to do with the depth of theological knowledge or their GPA in Biblical literacy.

It's as though these men and women know nothing of the fact that being a follower of Jesus has to do with inner change, with how you live your life, not by rote learning, but by Spirit driven transformation. It's as though these people have no clue that one can be theologically astute and Biblically literate yet be in a position where they will one day hear Jesus say, “Get away from Me. I never knew you.”

No, as it is said, “If they left us, it was because they were never with us.” 

Mind Bending Ignorance

“Most Christians are really atheists who feel trapped in their family’s religion,”

David Silverman

When you read that, does your jaw drop just a little? As you lean a little bit towards the computer screen does your brow furrow and your mind go, “What? Most Christians are atheists?” 

And this meretricious observation comes via Times Square, from a Bright who is  American atheist's Leader - representing 5% of the population. What kind of logic must less able atheist thinkers possess? 

I have no doubt that there are many, many people who are “trapped” for whatever reason in the beliefs of their parents; children of religious parents and children of atheist parents. But to label someone a Christian because h/her parents went to Church or because the parents were genuine followers of Jesus? Seriously?

As the line goes, “God does not have grandchildren.”

Silverman's line of thinking does explain one thing. It explains how atheists can say, “I used to be a Christian.”

By being a Christian, what people like Silverman mean is:

. I prayed – therefore I was a Christian.

. I got baptised – therefore I was a Christian.

. I read the Bible – therefore I was a Christian.

. I sang in the choir – therefore I was a Christian.

. I took the Sacraments – therefore I was a Christian.

. I was a Pastor / Priest – therefore I was a Christian.

. I taught Sunday School – therefore I was a Christian.

. I tried to be a good person – therefore I was a Christian

. I went to Church with my parents – therefore I was a Christian.

. I had a belief in Christian beliefs therefore I must have been a Christian.

The problem is, Jesus said that none of these things are deciding factors as to who is and who is not a follower or disciple of His, i.e. a Christian. While a follower of Jesus will do these things, doing these things do not a Christian make.

In reality, a Christian is someone who “has an intimate, healed and forgiven relationship with Jesus.

In reality we can have all of the rules and none of Jesus.

Therefore we have on the one hand people like John Loftus and Bart Erhman, who emanate, from a Spiritual perspective, a perfidious stench. It allows them to say with a straight face, “I was a Christian right up until I wasn't.” While on the other hand we have people like David Silverman, and Greta Christina who, if they realised the extent of the ignorance they spew regarding what it means to be a Christian they would hide their heads in shame.

. Being a Christian to these people has nothing to do with relationship and everything to do with behaviours.

. Being a Christian to these people has nothing to do with submission to one's Creator and everything to do with working and striving and following rules.

That's why Jesus warned, “Many will come to Me on the day of Judgement and say, “Jesus you are my Lord, and the proof is in all the things that I've done in Your name,” but I will say to them, “Get away from Me. I never knew you.””

Silverman is hell bent on attacking Christianity but he doesn't have a clue what or who defines a Christian. He and those like Him say that Christianity (the teachings of Jesus) is dangerous but He couldn't tell you one teaching of Jesus that is dangerous.

As I've said many times, “For me, to deny the existence of Jesus the Messiah would be like denying the existence of my wife or children. It can't be done.”

According to Jesus, a Christian is someone who knows Jesus and knows Him as Messiah. A follower of Jesus knows the reality of His existence to the point of acting upon what Jesus Christ taught about Himself, about life, death, sin, forgiveness and the resurrection (His and ours). 

This type of "doing" has nothing to do with guilt or shame or duty and everything to do with gratefulness and love.

Jesus taught that a follower of His is a person who is so certain in the reality of a living Christ that s/he depends upon Jesus alone for salvation. He taught that a disciple of His is someone who depends upon what Jesus calls His Word (The Bible), and upon His Spirit for guidance and strength in daily living.

Like Dawkins and ALL the other leaders in the atheist movement, while garrulous and stentorian to the extreme, they speak of things they know nothing about. 

Merry Christmas
God Bless
Happy Holy Days

Hey Hugo

First, let me start with your experiment from, if I remember back 40 years, psych 101 - “Don’t think about the colour red” I think it was in the text book. Even back in the day when I mocked God and those who believed in Him, I wouldn’t have tried such a trivial game to see if God existed.
=====

"First, how do you distinguish between your own self, your conscience, and God, when praying. In other words, the information and/or knowledge and/or skills that you can get/improve while praying must come from an external source. How can you identify elements coming from outside?"

That’s not always easy to do - sometimes I suspect it’s impossible. One main way of distinguishing something “from” God is, does it agree with what the Bible says. For example, Let’s say my kids saw a neighbour take some of tools out of my garage when I wasn’t home and now several weeks after his job was done he still hasn’t returned them. In fact, as we’re talking one day on his driveway I can see my tools sitting on his workbench. This is the third time he’s done this. I’ve told him that I don’t mind lending him tools but I want him to ask so I know where my things have gone. I am really, really upset that he’s done it again.

I silently ask God how I should handle this. I “hear” “Firmly but politely tell him you notice your tools on his bench and say "Would you get them for me so I can take them home." Remind him that you want him to ask before taking you stuff. Then forgive him.”

Since God’s Spirit lives within me, since I know what the Bible says about these kinds of situations, since after 30 years of learning from God and my conscience is tuned to His will, it would be near impossible to tell where I end and He begins re: my thoughts.

On the other hand, if I ask, “How do I handle this Lord,” and I “hear” “Rip him a new one. Who does that jerk think he is. End this friendship now!” I know, because it contradicts what the Bible says that I’m not hearing from God. I may be hearing from "my old self" or I may be hearing from a "dark" external source. I'm not sure how one would tell nor am I sure what difference it would make as to the source.

Further, when I talk to you or other atheists in a tone of distain and derision, I am deliberately ignoring the Bible / God / conscience.
=====

"I don't understand exactly what you mean when you say that you get knowledge/insights through prayer? Is there really an interaction with an external source or do you consider that it's already all "in there" and that prayer only makes you access it "within" yourself?"

I don’t think you CAN understand this Hugo. That’s not an insult. It just is. Until God speaks to us, until He makes us know something about Himself, we can’t know it. Like the concept of grace. Without really knowing what we’re asking for, humans think they want justice, not grace. Only after learning grace by receiving grace can we know grace. The same with God Himself, until He reveals Himself to you, i.e. communicates His existence to you (not your conscience and certainly not you), you CAN’T know He exists. You can act like you believe in His existence, but sooner or later you’ll just become another John Loftus.

For some old atheist questions on prayer see:
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheist-missionary-tract.html

No Evidence For God

Over at John Loftus blog there are some pretty funny things being said. Well, funny or sad, I guess, depending on your perspective. It reminds me of something that another atheist said a couple years ago. Since it’s in the same vein as what’s being talked about over at JL’s place, I let you read it hear.

It comes from Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson and it’s positively hilarious. In his comment,
- He’s referring to the constants and quantities that hold the cosmos together.
- He’s referring to the relationship between these constants that allow our biosphere to not only exist but to support intelligent life.

During his comedy routine, Mr. Dyson says, “There are many lucky accidents in physics. Without such lucky accidents, life as we know it would be impossible.”

If you can’t see the humour in that, chances are very good that you’re an atheist.

Other atheists look at the following information and say that to conclude that the evolution of "Us" was something other than luck or an amazing coincidence is “Resorting to a god of the gaps.”

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:

. Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect observers such as ourselves to exist. Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values. In fact, the natural range of possible values is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 1000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.

If this number was conceptualized as a dartboard, the distance from one side of the dartboard to the other side would extended across the length of our entire Milky Way Galaxy. I’ll return to this comparison a little later. That being the case, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.

It’s important to remember that the values of these constants and quantities were not something that evolved, or something that “settled in” as the universe aged. These constants were “put in” at the Big Bang. As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos appear to be unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, even arbitrary. In reality, they are independent of each other except for one thing. The only thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them need to be exactly as they are in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet. While there are around 100 constants and qualities, the most fundamental constants are the Fine Structure constant, the Gravitational constant, the Weak Force, the Strong Force and the Ratio between the mass of protons and electrons.

. What scientists, what ATHEIST scientists call an “astonishing coincidence” or “a lucky accident” is the following list of facts.

. At the Big Bang, and I mean before 10^-43 seconds into the event, the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism had to have been exactly as it was or else at 10 to -17 second after the start of the singularity, the necessary binding of helium -4, beryllium -8 and carbon -12 would not have occurred and life as we know it would not have appeared.

. The exact number and types of neutrinos at 1 second after the beginning of the Big Bang had to be in place or the expansion rate would have prohibited the formation of our universe.

. If the mass of a neutron were slightly increased by 1 part in 1,00000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000, then stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.

. If the strong force were a long-range force (like electromagnetism or gravity) instead of a short range force that only acts between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, all matter would either instantaneously undergo nuclear fusion and explode or be sucked together forming a black hole.


Pretty lucky for us, huh, that all this just happened by chance? You sure wouldn’t want to think that maybe there was some intelligence behind this “amazing coincidence.” But that’s not all.


. If what we call the Pauli-exclusion principle did not exist, all electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit, which would make complex chemical interactions impossible.

. If what we call the quantization principle did not exist, there wouldn’t be any atomic orbits, electrons would be sucked into the nucleus and therefore no complex chemistry would be allowed.

. The gravitational constant must be EXACTLY 10 ^ 40 weaker than the Strong Nuclear Force or again, no us. For those that are interested, that’s ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times weaker than the strong force.


Pretty lucky for us that it just happened to work out that way. I've been told that to suggest that it’s anything more than an amazing coincidence is jumping to conclusions or falling for a god of the gaps scenario.


A change of only 1 part in 10, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000 in the Gravitational constant as well as in the Weak Nuclear Force would prevent life from existing.

If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life.

Remember, these values had to be put in prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, prior to 10 ^ - 43 second after the singularity.


How lucky do you feel so far?


The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 10 ^1,230. Any variation greater than that in EITHER direction and - no universe. Atheists will sometimes scoff at this by throwing out the term, “the magic of large numbers.” The phrase makes them feel secure in their ignorance. Let me however describe the above equation in yet a different manner. Scientists have described it this way. Imagine an aircraft carrier weighing 100,000 tonnes. If the weight of the ship was balanced to 10 ^ 1,230 it could not be off by more than billionth of a trillionth of the mass of an ELECTRON on one side or the other, or the ship would capsize.

Are you getting this? Do you really think it accidental?


Now, I mentioned this galaxy wide dartboard comparison. If the universe was an accident the values of these potential constants and quantities could potentially and theoretically fall anywhere within that area. The equation that I just gave you gives us a target within our galaxy wide dart board (get a picture of that) that is less than 2.5 centimetres in diameter. For us to exist, the values HAD to fall within that range.

Listen up now because here comes what atheists call the really lucky part. The amount of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, one that we come upon, according to atheists, by accident and not by jumping to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, is like blindfolding yourself, spinning around ten times and then randomly firing a dart at our GALAXY wide dart board and hitting the target exactly in the centre of its 2.5 centimetre disk. Missing that target by any amount and - that’s right, no universe.


What I find sad and absolutely amazing is that if you’re an atheist, none of the above will be enough to convince you to consider Creator God as part of the equation. So let me use a different example.

The distance from one edge of the Milky Way galaxy to the other edge is the potential distance or range for our constants and quantities. Travelling at the speed of light, that’s 100,000 years of travel.
. If the cosmological constant had varied any more than 2.5cms, no us, no life.
. If the entropy per baryon had varied any more than the width of ONE PROTON - no us, no life of any kind - No Universe!


If, by this point your mind isn’t numb with the credulity and gullibility that atheists force themselves to live with, I just don’t know what it would take to get you to throw up your hands and give up. I mean, just how blind does a person have to be before s/he willingly stops demanding the right to drive the car? This is not a joking matter any more. Atheist scientists have discovered this information. They know it, but obviously maintaining their bias against Creator God is worth throwing away their integrity. It’s embarrassing. It’s shameful. It should be a crime for them to teach “The Universe As An Accident” to your children.


Still not impressed? Listen up. Remember, these constants and quantities are independent of and unrelated to each other. There's no natural reason for any one of them to be just as they are. So, as astronomical are the odds of any one of them being just right for a life sustaining universe, to find all of them being as they are in the same universe, by accident is beyond comprehension. To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100, add to that the constant of gravitational constant 1 in 10^120, which gives you 10 ^ 100 + 120 + . . . and so on for ALL of the 100 + constants and quantities.

Still not impressed? Science states that anything beyond 10 ^ 50 is the same as impossible. On the one hand Stephen Hawking has said “If all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth were possible universes, and only one of those grains of sand was a universe that allowed for the existence of intelligent life, then that one grain of sand is the universe we inhabit.” Yet on the other hand we know that Hawking remains an atheist. In the face of this evidence, why would Hawking or any atheist for that matter continue to search for natural solutions? They have to. In order to maintain their dogmatic, definite, deliberate denial of God’s existence, atheists must believe that the impossible is possible.

And that is why atheists say that we’re really, really lucky to be here.

That is why atheists say all this is just an amazing coincidence.

That is why atheists say there is no evidence for Creator God

That is why atheists say that any one who suggests that Creator God is involved in this miracle of life is just jumping to conclusions.

Are You Good Soil?

Most people who go to Church have heard Jesus’ parable of the Sower and the Seed. This is the one where Jesus predicts that roughly three quarters of those who make a commitment for Jesus will sooner or later fall away, give up, quit the cause. This must be disappointing for guys like John Loftus who think that there is something marvellously independent and rational and courageous about them for quitting Christianity when Jesus knew they would do it all along. In fact, people like Loftus aren’t the exception; they’re the norm! A dull, dreary and tragic norm.

According to Jesus’ story, some seed falls on gravel and dies. Some falls in shallow soil and dies. Some falls among thorns and is choked to death and dies. And some, the one quarter who fall on good soil are the ones who Jesus nurtures and tends and uses to produce a bountiful crop. "For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose." Philippians 2:19.

As the apostle Paul said, “I’ve finished the race. I’ve fought the good fight. I’ve kept the faith.” He, as I also hope to be one day, is the exception.

Here’s what I wonder.

What percentage of those of us who attend Church etc. believe that we are the good soil? How many of us believe that we are the one's through whom God "works out everything in conformioty with the purpose of His will" Ephesians 1:11, producing a bountiful crop with the Word that God has given us?

What percentage of us think that there aren’t any thorns choking out our love for Jesus?

Do we recognise busyness as thorns?

Do we recognise “Jesus plus works = salvation” as something depleting our ability for growth?

How about the amount of time we devote to sports or other hobbies?

How about the way we strive for more material “blessings”?

I work with a lot of Christians who don’t even recognise cherished sins as something that is choking out their love for Jesus. One woman, one “Christian” woman said to me last week with a big smirk, “Well, if lust is wrong then I guess there are a lot of us doing stuff wrong.” Are you surprised that she and her husband are separated and she’s living with another man?

Do you assume that you are good soil in which the Word of Jesus flourishes?

Does your relationship with Jesus actually make a difference in how you live?

Or are you like the proverbial frog being slowly boiled to death by the society in which you’re immersed?

The Temple

Over at John Loftus’ blog I’d mentioned that according to prophecy, the Messiah must come to the Temple. Obviously this means He would come to the Temple before its destruction, which took place in 70AD.

To save time and space I’ll just touch on the main points.
1) Isaiah 52:13- 53:12: This tells us that the Messiah will be highly exalted BUT not before He suffers terribly. He would be beaten beyond recognition, lifted up (crucified) and would live again after being crucified.

Only a prior commitment to a world-view that is hostile to Jesus could prevent someone from recognising the life of Jesus in this passage.

The rejection of Jesus as the Messiah by the Jews as a whole was also prophesied in this very same Isaiah passage. The Jews’ preconceived ideas of what the Messiah would do (see tomorrow’s post) made it possible for them to not recognise Him as Messiah. At the same time, thousands upon thousands of Jews DID accept Jesus as Messiah and all of the first missionary efforts took place in Jewish places of worship. From that time until now there has always been a remnant of Jews who recognise Jesus as their Messiah.

2) Now to the question of the Jerusalem Temple.
There have been two Temples in Jerusalem.
a) In 2nd Chronicles 7:17-22 Israel was warned that if its sin reached a certain level the first Temple would be destroyed. Its sin did reach that level and the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians, just as predicted.
b) In Daniel chapter 9, Daniel prophesied that a second Temple would be built and that Temple too would be destroyed. It did get built and it was destroyed by Rome, again as prophesied.

According to prophecy, several things regarding Messiah were going to happen prior to the destruction of the second Temple.
a) Haggai 2:6-9 - This prophecy tells us that the glory of the second Temple would be greater than the first. That sounds like a “so what” kind of statement. Build a bigger Temple and you get your greater glory. Problem - the physical structure of the second Temple was pitiful in comparison with the first Temple that was built by Solomon. Yet, this passage tells us that the glory of the second Temple would be GREATER than the first. While the word for glory can sometimes mean “wealth” (was the Temple filled with coins?) for the passage to say - “I” will fill the [second] Temple with glory,” clearly implies the presence of God Himself.

b) Malachi 3:1-5 - This prophecy tells us that prior to the destruction of the second Temple, the Messiah would come to the Temple. “The Lord you are seeking will come to His temple.” The Jews were looking for a human Messiah. However, since the word used for “Lord” always and only refers to God Himself, they COULD have known that Messiah would be God Himself.

c) Daniel 9:24 - This prophecy tells us that before the second Temple is destroyed the Messiah would provide for an everlasting atoning sacrifice for all people. No more temporary sacrifices would need to be offered.

If prophecy is accurate then these things had to happen and in fact they did happen prior to the Temple being destroyed in 70AD.
Since the death and resurrection of Jesus 2,000 years ago, religious Jews have had:
NO atonement system,
NO functioning priesthood and
NO functioning Temple.
That is because all of the above found their fulfilment in Jesus. The Jews were expecting Messiah to come and rescue them. He did come, He did provide the means for spiritual rescue (the only kind that’s important), but they did not recognise Him.

Are you getting this?

1. According to prophecy of the Jewish Scripture, the Messiah would come to the second Temple before it was destroyed.
The second Temple was destroyed in 70AD.
If Messiah didn’t come to the Temple prior to its destruction then Messiah isn’t coming at all.

2. According to prophecy of the Jewish Scripture, atonement for sins would be made by Messiah prior to the destruction of the second Temple.
The second Temple was destroyed in 70AD
If atonement for the sins of the world didn’t take place prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD it isn’t going to happen.

But
. One claiming and proving to be the Messiah - Jesus - did appear prior to the destruction of the second Temple in 70AD.
. One providing atonement for sins - Jesus - did appear prior to the destruction of the second Temple in 70AD
. Jesus visitation to the second Temple was the only visitation by Messiah to take place.
. Jesus glory, the very presence of God incarnate, was the only way that the second Temple’s glory was greater than the first.

Because of a prior commitment to a different belief system, you may not like the idea of Jesus being Messiah, but if Jesus isn’t Messiah then nobody is Messiah.

If none of this took place prior to the destruction of the Temple which took place in 70AD then we may as well say that atheists are correct because the prophecies were not fulfilled and it’s all a lie.

However:
All of this did take place in the person of Jesus.
The prophecies were fulfilled.
The Messiah did come right on schedule.
This is not speculation. This is historical fact!
Once again atheists are wrong on all counts.