Quote: › But I don't recall John doing this.

Many, many people were baptized unto repentance.

Quote: › Mal:3 and don't get any sense that the messenger will not be Elijah and will come in the spirit and power of Elijah from reading Malachi 3.

Read Luke's account of the visit to Zechariah by Gabriel.

Quote: › And did John do these things?

In a manner of speaking, yes. He brought the Children of Israel to repentance.

Quote: › it is unclear to me if the "He" is "the messenger" or "the Lord you are seeking [who] will come to his temple

It really could be either. I can certainly concede that.

He may very well be Jesus. I guess it depends on how one reads the grammar of the text.

But either way, please don't confuse the rejection of Jesus by the Pharisees as Israel not turning its heart to God.

Here is a good article on this:

http://gracethrufaith.com/ikvot-hamashiach/john-the-baptist-elijah-or-not/

I know it's not MY words, but I link you to this because they really spell it out much better than I.

Quote: › Read Luke's account of the visit to Zechariah by Gabriel

This is in responce to the "in the power and glory" issue. My point is the prophecy was Elijah would come and the power and glory part has been forced onto Christians by the lack of a real Elijah.
When you said

"In Malachi 3, the "messenger" is in the spirit and power of Elijah, John."

This made sense to me as the N.T. people go on about the power and spirit .But I glean nothing from O.T. reading that implies a P&G return.

Would not a real Elijah return be so much more convincing, and as I have stated before the real Elijah turns up a few weeks/months later at the tranfiguration.

Your linked article says

Quote: › (John’s birth is the other event. It’s foretold in Malachi’s final paragraph.)

I believe this to be untrue

The article also says

Quote: › (Malachi 4:1-6) These are the last verses of the Old Testament.

But only in the Christian ordering system the Jews use 2 Chronicles 36:23

I will add some more about my pet "Jesus & John" theory later.

Quote: › This is in responce to the "in the power and glory" issue. My point is the prophecy was Elijah would come and the power and glory part has been forced onto Christians by the lack of a real Elijah.

There is no "power and glory". It is "spirit and power" of Elijah that takes place.

John came in the essence and demonstrated the conviction of Elijah.

Nothing was forced upon Christians. Luke wrote, much like Strobel, what his investigations turned up.

What is the gain? If Christianity is such a complete farce, what is there to gain by dying for a dead man?

Is Luke, a physician, really that stupid to believe something as idiotic as a dead man rising on the testimony of another?

Luke HAD to see something that convinced him of the reality of the risen Christ.

Luke HAD to have a damn good reason to investigate Christian claims.

Luke HAD to see with his own eyes something that persuaded him of the truthfulness of the claims.

What could take a physician and turn his mindset so abruptly as to cause these things to happen in his life?

Luke could not have been a dummy. His account is truthful in all aspects.

Quote: › Would not a real Elijah return be so much more convincing, and as I have stated before the real Elijah turns up a few weeks/months later at the tranfiguration.

Even if someone were to come back from the dead you still wouldn't believe.

Quote: › I believe this to be untrue

If you can accept it, John is the Elijah that was to come.

Evidently you cannot accept it.

Quote: › But only in the Christian ordering system the Jews use 2 Chronicles 36:23

It is also the order in the Septuagint, written by Jews, before Jesus.

Quote: › There is no "power and glory". It is "spirit and power" of Elijah that takes place.

Yes-sorry I didn't even realise I had changed the words of Luke.(Just as well I'm not an ancient bible copiest-with the more practised memory skills)

Quote: › Is Luke, a physician, really that stupid to believe something as idiotic as a dead man rising on the testimony of another?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I believe you do.
-----
Me "Would not a real Elijah return be so much more convincing, and as I have stated before the real Elijah turns up a few weeks/months later at the tranfiguration."

Rerun "Even if someone were to come back from the dead you still wouldn't believe."
------
What I meant by convincing is, a real Elijah return would be more convincing in the context of the story not convincing to people.


The article you referenced said "(John’s birth is the other event. It’s foretold in Malachi’s final paragraph.)" It's this statement (and it's not yours of course) that I disbelieved.

Any thoughts why John came in the essence and demonstrated the conviction of Elijah while the real Elijah made a cameo appearance a few weeks later?

Quote: › It is also the order in the Septuagint, written by Jews, before Jesus.

Damn I do believe your right.

Off topic but a quick question can someone point me to the episode where some dead/ill person fell off a stretcher and touched a prophets cloak and came to life/healed again .From memory it's in Isaiah , I may well have the details wrong.

2 Kings 13:20–21

20 Elisha died and was buried.

Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. 21 Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

BTW, guess what Elisha had?

Quote: › Please don't take this the wrong way, but I believe you do.

Not true. I experienced the risen Christ on my own. So did Paul. And millions of others too. The bible is my "guide after the fact" so to speak.

If you truly want to know, and are patient, you can too.

Just ask God to reveal His Son to you. If you trust God will, in His time, reveal Christ to you, it will happen.

Quote: › What I meant by convincing is, a real Elijah return would be more convincing in the context of the story not convincing to people.

But, it is destined for man to die only once. John was put to death.

If Elijah was to return then, he would have been killed too.

God has other things in store for Elijah.

I believe he is to be one of the two witnesses in the tribulation.

Therefore, he cannot come back to herald Christ.

But, John, in the "spirit and power of Elijah" can certainly fulfill this role; the Malachi prophecy can be true; and the prophecy of the two witnesses can be true; all at once.

Then there is no hoops, hurdles or anything else that causes an apparent contradiction.

Quote: › Any thoughts why John came in the essence and demonstrated the conviction of Elijah while the real Elijah made a cameo appearance a few weeks later?

As stated above, I believe God has other plans for Elijah. Luke clarified Malachi by showing what Gabriel had prophesied to Zechariah.

Thanks for the reference in 2 Kings ,yes that is the one I was thinking of.

Quote: › BTW, guess what Elisha had?

Two things: He received some of the spirit of Elijah 2Kings 2:9-15
And immediately after the mean spirit to call down a curse in God's name on children who teased him about being bald (as kids are want to do) whereupon two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of them (2 Kngs 2:23-25). Lets hope if J.t.B. received any of Elijahs spirit he got the more benevolent portion.

I thought you might have a different take on testimonies of "dead" people.

Quote: › If Elijah was to return then, he would have been killed too.

I didn't think you had to die to return. Elijah didn't die so he could have just done an "Arnie" and said "I'll be back"

Quote: › And immediately after the mean spirit to call down a curse in God's name on children who teased him about being bald (as kids are want to do) whereupon two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of them (2 Kngs 2:23-25).

That is why I don't prefer the King's English. It is always found wanting.

Here is a good article that explains the grammar and context of the passage. I know they are not MY words, but they do a very good job of explaining the difficulty of the passage better than I can.

http://bible.org/seriespage/elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25

Quote: › I thought you might have a different take on testimonies of "dead" people.

Nope. That is mine.

Quote: › I didn't think you had to die to return.

I didn't say that. Elijah would have been killed if he returned at that time. God seems to have a different time for Elijah's death.

It is destined for man to die once, and then the judgement.

Here is another plausible alternative:

Those that trust in Christ for salvation have seen and accepted John as the fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy of Elijah's return and will not see the literal Elijah's return during the tribulation because of the rapture.

Those that don't accept Christ will see the literal return of Elijah during the tribulation because they will not be raptured. As one of the two witnesses of Revelation, Elijah will be killed, too.

That sounds very plausible. There are more than a few instances of double fulfillment in the bible.

Abraham's seed was a reference to the nation of Israel AND to Christ Himself.

Daniel prophesies about the antichrist in chapter 8. There is a double fulfillment that must occur. Antiochus Epiphanes didn't do half of what was attributed to this "little horn". Antiochus Epiphanes was a "type", a foreshadowing of the main Antichrist in the tribulation period.

There are many more as well.

Quote: › Elijah didn't die so he could have just done an "Arnie" and said "I'll be back"

What if he didn't know he would "be back"?

Quote: › That is why I don't prefer the King's English. It is always found wanting.

Actually I got my info from reading the NIV, a translation with a seemingly large input from Americans, though admittedly it says boys instead of children.

Earlier I expressed some doubts about my theory of Jesus and John being collaberators in the Messiah/Elijah claims. This is because John asked his disciples to find out if Jesus was the Messiah Lk 7:18-22 and Mt 11:2-6.

I now find it hard to believe that John didn't know about Jesus' "status"

There are numerous accounts when John baptises Jesus that the spirit of God descends as a dove , a voice is heard saying "this is my son.... etc.".
John says Jesus will baptise with the holy spirit & fire as well as burn chaff with unquenchable fire.
John says Jesus is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" a pretty bold statement and also says Jesus is God,s Chosen one.
Now if John knew all this why would he need to question Jesus when he (John) was in prison.
John even had the Holy spirit to help him he was "full of it" (Lk 1:15) he even leapt at the news of Mary's pregnancy .What a come down to consequently have to ask if Jesus was the Messiah.

Quote: › Actually I got my info from reading the NIV, a translation with a seemingly large input from Americans, though admittedly it says boys instead of children.

From the ...

23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

25And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

That's why I don't prefer the King's English.

Quote: › I now find it hard to believe that John didn't know about Jesus' "status"

All men are subject to doubt at some time in their life. It is all of humanity's weakness.

No man knows God's timeline of events. It is reasonable to doubt. We must not be consumed by it, but it is natural.

John went to his death knowing Jesus is the Christ, the Lamb of God, just as he proclaimed Him to be.

That is typical of the bible. It shows humans in all of their weakness and strength. It is real. It isn't showing humanity in any other light.

[quoteThat's why I don't prefer the King's English.][/quote] Yes but as I say I gathered my info from the NIV.
[quote] 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.[/quote] I called "boys", "children" which I don't think is terribly wrong.

I acknowledge that J.t.B. could have had doubts , but I am now more happy with my theory that Jesus and John knew each other prior to the baptism scene.

Quote: › Yes but as I say I gathered my info from the NIV.

All I did was quote the KJV and tell you I don't prefer it because of the archaic language and less than ideal translations. That's all.

Quote: › I called "boys", "children" which I don't think is terribly wrong.

But that is not what the original word actually translates. That is where the KJV and the NIV fall short. And I like the niv too. So, it's not about favoritism either.

The original word actually intends for younger men around 18 to 24 years of age.

From bible.org:

“Young lads.” The KJV has “little children” which really misses the meaning here. These were not children, but young men. The word “lads” is the Hebrew naar and was used of servants, of soldiers and of Isaac when he was 28 years old. This was a crowd of young men,..."

Anyone could sic their dog on the boys. That's in their power to do. But God showed these young men that Elisha was His and sent two wild animals to prove that point. God will not be mocked and He is sovereign over all the world.

"Don't mess with God's chosen" was the intent of this demonstration.