We made a post exposing both John the Baptist and the new testament messiah as false prophets, and members of the Christian community got MAD. These upset Christians ran to Google and Youtube, searching for rebuttals to the fact that John the Baptist wore camel hair (Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6) which according to Leviticus 11:4-8, is UNCLEAN and not to be touched. Not to mention John the Baptist’s limited edition, camel leather belt: “And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins.” Mark 1:6
—> Leviticus 11:4,8 – Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: AS THE CAMEL, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, AND THEIR CARCASE SHALL YE NOT TOUCH; they are unclean to you.
According to the standard set by The Most High in Leviticus 11:4-8, John the baptist was unclean from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet. And according to scripture, while you’re unclean, anything you touch becomes unclean as well.
Now, Matthew 3:13-16 and Mark 1:6 -10 says False Messiah sought out John the baptist; for John to baptize him in the Jordan. The river Jordan was unclean; because a camel hair wearing, camel leather belt wearing, John the baptist was standing in it, baptizing people with his unclean unclean hands, wearing his unclean clothes. As soon as False Messiah stepped his big toe in the Jordan to be baptized by John the Baptist, he became unclean, never mind the fact that an unclean John the baptist submerged him, baptizing him in the unclean Jordan, thanks to John’s UNCLEAN wardrobe choices.
Then, to add insult to injury, after this filthy, unclean, farce of a baptism takes place, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of Deity descending like a dove, and lighting upon him (now the “Holy Spirit” is unclean! Father help us all?!): And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved [UNCLEAN] Son, in whom I am well pleased. And there you have it. False Messiah’s father is “pleased” with his dripping wet, unclean son.
☝☝☝ Above is a summary of the lesson we taught. And our angry Christian friends were not happy about it. So, they cracked their Google knuckles; stood up and did their Youtube warm-up exercises; then copied and pasted their Christian commentator rebuttals; which eisegetically presumes the unsupported idea that the camel hair garment of John the baptist, was [“made out of”] woven camel hair, instead of simply being camel hair (fur) as Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6 clearly states.
The Christians “woven/spun” camel hair argument is an extrapolation and a prooftext that they’ve copied and pasted from the websites of bible commentators, that they looked up with a Google search. And those bible commentators themselves, are prooftexting Zechariah 13:4
Zechariah 13:4 “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive.”
The bible commentaries they’re copying and pasting for their rebuttals, are asserting that Zechariah 13:4 “proves” that Elijah wore a “woven hairy garment” and that John the baptist therefore must have worn a woven hairy garment, too.
Okay. We already made our point, crystal clearly, solid, unshakeable and immovable, in our previous exposé on John the baptist and False Messiah (aka Jesus) and the fact that both men were unclean, false prophets. But since our Christian friends believe Google study is an acceptable replacement for bible study, and Youtube videos are an acceptable replacement for actual books and hours of actual reading, we’re going to use the very words of their beloved bible commentators against them, and lay this discussion to rest, once and for all.
In this post we’re going to point out two things: (1) despite the fact that Zechariah 13:4 says prophets of that time wore rough garments, Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6 specifically state that John the baptist wore camel hair, period. And (2) False Messiah (aka Jesus), John the baptist, and the writer of Luke, are all treacherous, deceitful, LIARS.
Let’s begin, shall we?
Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6 both say John the baptist wore camel HAIR. Let’s take an exegetical, CONTEXTUAL look at the word “hair” in these verses.
Noun – Genitive Feminine Plural
Strong’s Greek 2359: Hair (of the head or of animals). Genitive case trichos, etc. of uncertain derivation; hair.
◄ 2359. thrix ►
Strong’s Greek Concordance
Original Word: θρίξ, τριχός, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Phonetic Spelling: (threeks)
Usage: hair (of the head or of animals).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
a prim. word
hair (13), hairs (2)
☝☝☝ Okay. There’s no confusion here. The scripture says HAIR. Not “woven material” or “spun fabric.” Never mind the fact that neither the writers of Matthew or Mark say anything about John the baptist’s clothes being “woven” or “spun” camel hair. Thus making the “woven/spun” argument 100% conjecture, biblically UNSUPPORTED, inapplicable and irrelevant. However, let’s play devil’s advocate and see what our friendly neighborhood bible commentators have to say about the ‘garments of prophets.’ Here again, is the passage of scripture they’re using to support their argument:
Zechariah 13:4 “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive.”
☝☝☝ So, the above passage is what they’re using as their “proof” that John the baptist wore a garment, woven or spun in some fashion or other, and “made out of” camel hair, instead of just being camel hair. And they’re prooftexting 2 Kings 1:8 as further “proof” that Elijah himself, wore a “hairy garment.” These arguments are classic examples of “prooftexting;” when a person strips a verse away from its indigenous environment, or snatches bible verses away from their natural surroundings, and uses them as “proof” of a totally unrelated assertion, elsewhere in the bible.
Here are 5 bible commentators’ breakdown of Elijah’s “hairy” appearance, and their justification for believing the prophets of Elijah’s era, wore hairy garments, instead of just believing the bible when it says Elijah was a hairy man.
—> Bible commentator #1 Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
(8) Answered.—Said unto.
“An hairy man.—Literally, a lord of hair. This might refer to length of hair and beard (so LXX., δασὺς, “hirsute,” “shaggy”); or to a hairy cloak or mantle. The second alternative is right, because a hairy mantle was a mark of the prophetic office from Elijah downwards. (Comp. Zechariah 13:4, “a rough garment;” and Matthew 3:4, where it is said of John Baptist—the second Elias—that “he was clad in camel’s hair,” and had “a leather girdle about his loins.”) The girdle, as Thenius remarks, would not be mentioned alone. ***THE COMMON DRESS OF THE BEDAWIS IS A SHEEP OR GOAT’S SKIN WITH THE HAIR LEFT ON.”
☝☝☝ The statement, “The common dress of the Bedawis (Bedouins, “desert dwellers”) is a sheep or goat’s SKIN WITH THE HAIR LEFT ON” as it relates to the prophets of the bible during Elijah’s era, is a clear indication that the common dress of the prophets of that time was NOT a woven material or spun fabric, but the actual HIDE (skin) of the animal with the animal’s hair still attached to it, as would be a fur shawl or a robe of fur.
—> Bible commentator #2 Benson Commentary
“2 Kings 1:8. They answered, He was a hairy man — This may either denote his wearing long hair on his head and beard, according to the manner of the ancient Greek philosophers, or it may signify that he was clad with a hairy garment, that is, ***WITH A SKIN THAT HAD NOT BEEN DRESSED, such as the prophets were wont to wear, (Isaiah 20:2; Zechariah 13:4; Matthew 3:4,) and eminent persons in Greece in ancient times; and such clothing the poorer Arabians use at this day.”
☝☝☝ The statement “Or it may signify that he was clad with a hairy garment, that is, ***WITH A SKIN THAT HAD NOT BEEN DRESSED, such as the prophets were wont to wear,” once again tells us that the prophets weren’t known for wearing spun or woven animal hair, but the garments of prophets were the actual HIDE (skin) of the animal, with the fur/hair still attached to the animal’s skin. These are not our own words, but the words of your beloved bible commentators that you love looking up on Google when you can’t handle the truth.
—> Bible commentator #3 Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
An hairy man – Either in allusion to his shaggy cloak of UNTANNED SKIN*; or, more probably, an expression descriptive of the prophet’s person, of his long flowing locks, abundant beard, and general profusion of hair. His costume was that of a thorough ascetic. Generally the Jews wore girdles of linen or cotton stuff, soft and comfortable. Under the girdle they wore one or two long linen gowns or shirts, and over these they had sometimes a LARGE SHAWL. Elijah had only his leather girdle and his sheepskin [sheepskin is biblically clean] cape or “mantle.”
☝☝☝ Above, we have another bible commentator saying the garments of the prophets consisted of the hide of the animal with the hair (or fur) still attached. But he goes on to let us know that Elijah’s garment was CLEAN, since the carcasses of lambs, sheep and goats are biblically clean. ☝☝☝ The above bible commentator did NOT say Elijah wore a cape or mantle made out of “sheep’s wool” or “woven sheeps hair.” He specifically said sheepskin. All of these bible commentators are saying the same thing; that the prophets of that time were known for wearing the hairy hides (skins) of animals. They have said nothing about hair being woven into a fabric. Each of these Christian bible commentators have all specifically stated, SKIN. And according to Leviticus 11:4-8, camel skin/hide is UNCLEAN, which further let’s us know that the clothing John the baptist chose to wear, was UNCLEAN.
—> Bible commentator #4 Pulpit Commentary
“Verse 8. – A hairy man; literally, a lord of hair (בַּעַל שַׂעָר). Some take the meaning to be that he was rough and unkempt, with his hair and beard long; and so the LXX., who give ἀνὴρ δασύς. But the more usual explanation is that he wore a shaggy coat of untanned skin, with the hair outward. Such a garment seems certainly to have been worn by the later prophets (Zechariah 13:4; Matthew 3:4), and to have been regarded as a sign of their profession.”
☝☝☝ Plain and simple. Cut and dry (pun intended).
—> Bible commentator #5 Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
8. an hairy man—This was the description not of his person, as in the case of Esau, but of his dress, which consisted either of unwrought SHEEP OR GOATSKINS (Heb 11:37), or of camel’s haircloth—the coarser manufacture of this material like our rough haircloth. The Dervishes and Bedouins are attired in this wild, uncouth manner, while their hair flows loose on the head, their shaggy cloak is thrown over their shoulders and tied in front on the breast, naked, except at the waist, round which is a SKIN girdle—a broad, rough leathern belt. Similar to this was the girdle of the prophets, as in keeping with their coarse garments and their stern, uncompromising office.”
☝☝☝ The above bible commentator’s unnecessary use of Hebrews 11:37 as a prooftext to describe Elijah’s hairy appearance in 2 Kings 1:8, is gratuitous and redundant. But then, they added a possible alternative: “camel’s haircloth—the coarser manufacture of this material like our rough haircloth;” without explaining why. By presenting an alternative to what four previous bible commentators have determined to be SKIN, without any attempt to explain why, we have no other option but to conclude that everything else they have to say about Elijah’s appearance, following the word “or” is simply the bible commentator’s opinion. The part of this bible commentator’s comments that we can take seriously, is that the garments of the prophets of Elijah’s era, consisted of unwrought SHEEP OR GOATSKINS; “unwrought,” meaning unworked, unspun or unwoven; raw; natural.
☝☝☝Now, we do NOT agree with these bible commentators when they say Elijah wore a hairy garment. The bible does NOT say that. 2 Kings 1:8 says Elijah was a HAIRY MAN. What is the Strong’s Hebrew Concordance’s definition of the word “hairy,” in 2 Kings 1:8?
◄ 8181. sear ►
Strong’s Hebrew Concordance
Original Word: שֵׂעָר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Phonetic Spelling: (say-awr’)
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
from an unused word
hair (23), hairs (1), hairy (4).
☝☝☝ The Hebrew Strong’s Concordance says “hairy” in 2 Kings 1:8 means, HAIRY. Not “hairy garment.” So, whenever we see the words “hairy garment,” when referring to Elijah’s appearance, we know those are only the words of bible commentators; not the bible. However, since our Christian friends love doing Google searches to refute what we’ve said on this subject, we’re simply using the words of their own, beloved bible commentators, to prove them wrong.
☝☝☝ Above you have at least four bible commentators all stating that the prophets’ garments of Elijah’s era, were made of animal hides (or skins). Not material “spun out of” or “woven out of” the animal’s hair, but the actual skin/hide of the animal, lying raw on the naked shoulders and chest of the wearer. And Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6 both say John the baptist wore camel HAIR. Which means John the baptist was an unclean, phony runt, who no Israelite in their right mind, would allow to put his unclean hands on them. Yet, the false messiah (known as, Jesus) not only got in the water with him, but URGED the unclean man to lay unclean hands on him and submerge him in unclean water.
Now, I know what Christians are going to say next, because I used to be a Christian and I know how Christians think: “When the unclean woman with the issue of blood touched Jesus, she was made whole! And even though John the baptist and the river Jordan may have been unclean, it was Jesus! And when Jesus got in the water, the water, John the baptist AND his camel hair were all made whole! Clean! Hallelujah!!Thank ya, Jesus!!!”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is but another reason we’re no longer Christians and could never again be Christians. It’s mandatory, that Christian bible scholars (and Christian laypersons) bend over backwards and do unthinkable GYMNASTICS, YOGA AND CONTORTIONS, to make the new testament work.
We do NOT respect doctrines or nonbiblically supported, commentaries. We respect the TEXT. THE TEXT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. And this is what Christians hate, and why they prefer Google study over bible study, and Youtube, when the biblical text betrays their theology. When the text betrays their Christian doctrines, they go scouring and combing the internet for excuses and nonbiblical, unsupported, commentaries, explanations and sorcery-grade eisegetics, to fix the holes, contradictions and inconsistencies in their theology. <— This, we do NOT do, nor do we TOLERATE.
John the baptist was a filthy, unclean runt, posing as the second coming of the Old Testament prophet, Elijah. John the baptist was a cosplay, costume wearing wanna be, deceiving the illiterate, unlearned people of Judaea into believing he was the second coming of Elijah (Malachi 4:4-6). And the camel skin belt and camel hair that he wore, was a PROP, intended to deceive and subconsciously put the thought of the prophet Elijah, in the minds of the people, whenvever they would see him.
The bible says the prophet Elijah was a hairy man; not that he wore a hairy garment. He did not wear an unclean camel carcass, to appear “hairy” to onlookers. He was already hairy and he wasn’t trying to deceive the people of his day into believing he was someone else, who might have been known for being hairy. Elijah was simply himself, which leads us to believe he wore an ordinary garment, which was common among the men of his day. But even if Elijah did wear a hairy garment, it would’ve been a garment of sheepskin or goatskin as four out of the five above bible commentators have stated. John the baptist wore CAMEL. Why is that so hard to understand?
Not only did John the baptist wear camel fur, he wore it TO DECEIVE.
Zechariah 13:4 “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to DECEIVE.”
☝☝☝ Bible commentators assert that this verse is referring to false prophets. Whether it’s talking about false prophets or not, is irrelevant. Because we have already shown that John the baptist could not have been a prophet of The Most High (Deut 18:20). We know very little about John the baptist, including any verified prophesies he may have spoken IN THE NAME OF THE MOST HIGH, which came to pass, validating him as a prophet of The Most High. NOT ONE. (Deut 18:20)
John the baptist was a cheap, weak, COPYCAT. And he readily admitted it.
#1 —> Matthew 11:13 “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John (the baptist). And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.” <— He IS ELIJAH, of whom it was prophesied would return.
#2 —> Matthew 10-13 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
The first time False Messiah told his disciples that John the baptist was Elijah, it went over their heads (Matthew 11:13,14). But after he said it the second time, they understood that he was saying John the baptist was the second coming of Elijah, as prophesied in Malach 4:4-6.
*(Malachi 4:4-6 is another reason we KNOW False Messiah (Jesus) is NOT the anointed one of Israel, as prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). The Old Testament says several events will to take place to let us know the messiah (Anointed One) has come and is the fulfillment of prophecy. The Old Testament says NOTHING about those events being delayed until a “SECOND COMING” of the Anointed One. Malachi 4:6 said “And he (the Anointed One) shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse” as a prophetic sign that the Anointed One of Israel has COME, once and for all. Malachi said NOTHING about this prophecy being fulfilled at the messiah’s “SECOND” COMING. The Old Testament says not one word about the Anointed One coming two separate times.)
Nevertheless, False Messiah made it emphatically clear (twice) that John the baptist was Elijah.
“And if ye will receive it, THIS IS Elias, which was for to come.” Matthew 11:14
“But I say unto you, That ELIAS IS COME already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. —> Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” Matthew 17:12,13
Yet, we see in John 1:20, that John the baptist confessed that he was NOT Elijah:
—> John 1:19-23 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
☝☝☝John the baptist just admitted he’s a fake, phony, copycat. Yet, False messiah (aka, Jesus) said, “this is Elias.” Matthew 11:13
So, the Christian rebuttal against False Messiah (aka, Jesus) being a liar, is found in the book of Luke:
—> Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
☝☝☝ Who gave Luke this alternate interpretation? Did False Messiah speak to Luke in a dream or a vision and tell him this interpretation is what he meant? Did one of the Disciples tell Luke this? Not knowing where Luke got this alternate interpretation, presents us with another new testament inconsistency. According to the writers of Mark and Matthew, they quoted False Messiah as saying one thing, while not only is the writer of Luke (1) NOT quoting False Messiah, but (2) also saying something totally different from what False Messiah said, without explaining why he believes False Messiah meant something other than what he said.
Going on the TEXT ALONE, (1) False Messiah (aka, Jesus) lied, (2) John the baptist confessed that False Messiah’s declaration was a lie and (3) what the writer of Luke is doing, is called EISEGESIS:
“Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. … Exegesis is drawing out text’s meaning in accordance with the author’s context and discoverable meaning.”
The writer of Luke interpreted Matthew 11:13 and Mark 9:13 in such a way as to introduce his own presuppositions, agendas or biases. Luke is DRAWING OUT False Messiah’s words in accordance with his own context and discoverable meaning, to cover up the fact that False Messiah lied. We have NO biblical witness (including Luke) or biblical precept to corroborate Luke’s claim, in Luke 1:17. Going on the TEXT ALONE, Luke said, “And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias” because he wanted to; not because any other verse in the bible says ANYTHING remotely similar about False Messiah’s claim that John the baptist was Elijah. We have no record of who told the writer of Luke, that False Messiah meant something other than what Matthew 11:13 and Mark 9:13 clearly say, he said.
Which means the writer of Luke interpreted his own biased meaning (eisegesis) into his writing. How does the writer of Luke know, “And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias” is what False Messiah meant, if neither False Messiah (the speaker), nor any of his disciples told Luke, that his interpretation is correct? For what it’s worth, the writer of Luke doesn’t know. These are the facts.
Secondly, even if Luke’s eisegesis of False Messiah’s words were true, did False Messiah (Jesus) “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers?” No. He did NOT. Oh, we almost forgot!? False Messiah (aka, Jesus) is going to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers” at his “second” coming!!!!!! YAY!!! Thank ya, Jesus!!! 臘♂️️️
According to the TEXT (not what we merely want it to say to protect the reputation and testimony of “Jesus,” but the words alone) John the baptist was UNCLEAN. And False Messiah (aka, Jesus) was okay with letting an unclean man baptize him in an unclean river. Then False Messiah declared this camel fur wearing charlatan to be the second coming of Elijah the Tishbite, which (1) John the baptist admitted was a lie, and (2) the writer of Luke attempted to conceal, by using eisegetic slight of hand, to interpret the words of False Messiah (Jesus), posthumous.
The priests and Levites took the Hebrew bible literally. They didn’t take all that Christian, esoteric, spiritual, “type & shadow,” “foreshadowing,” mumbo jumbo, seriously. Which is why they confronted John the baptist about who he was and whether or not he was Elijah:
—> John 1:19-23 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
The priests and the Levites did not ask John if he “walked in the spirit and power of Elijah.” No. They asked him whether or not he was LITERALLY Elijah, in the flesh. Everybody believed John the baptist was the return of Elijah IN THE FLESH (not in the spirit and power), because False Messiah SAID so. And that’s what they were confronting him about, because that is what the public at large, was led to believe. Luke said, John the baptist walked in the spirit and power of Elijah. WHY DIDN’T JOHN SAY THAT HIMSELF, WHEN HE WAS ASKED POINT BLANK, WHO HE WAS? John’s answer was, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.”
Basically, John is saying, “I’m just a prophet.” But that is NOT what False Messiah said. In Matthew 11:10, False Messiah declared that John the baptist was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words: “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”
The problem with False Messiah’s declaration is that Isaiah 40:3 is not talking about ONE prophet. In Isaiah 40:3, when Isaiah says, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,” the voice Isaiah is talking about, are all the voices of the prophets of Israel, including his own. He is not talking about ONE, solitary, prophetic voice, but all the prophetic voices in Israel. When False Messiah (aka, Jesus) said, “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee,” False Messiah was prooftexting Isaiah 40:3, taking it completely out of context, turning it into a prophecy for the future arrival ONE, solitary prophet, when Isaiah 40:3 is talking about all the prophets of Israel, declaring the arrival of GLORY of The Most High Elohim back into Israel. Not the arrival of a prophet. False Messiah eisegeted his own meaning into Isaiah 40:3. Yes, False Messiah (aka, Jesus) is a master of eisegesis and prooftexting the Old Testament.
And lastly, Luke’s assertion that “he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,” is false because the 12 disciples specifically asked False Messiah (aka Jesus): “Why then SAY THE SCRIBES that Elias must first come?” Matthew 17:10
The scribes were referring to Malachi 4:5 – the REAL return of the real Elijah. The scribes weren’t expecting someone other than Elijah, to return “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” The scribes were looking for the ACTUAL return of the real, flesh and blood prophet, Elijah. And the 12 disciples specifically asked their leader, “Why then say the SCRIBES that Elias must first come?” His disciples were not asking him for information about the return of someone else walking “in the spirit and power of Elias.” His 12 disciples were asking him about the return of the REAL Elijah. So, the writer of Luke is a liar and a deceiver, trying to do damage repair, on the bona fide fact that JESUS LIED. The disciples asked their leader why were the scribes insisting that the real Elijah must return before the coming of the Hebrew messiah. <— That is a 100%, bona fide, prophecy, point blank, period, no ifs, ands or buts about it. The REAL return of the REAL PROPHET, known by his mama and his daddy, as Elijah. That was the question the disciples wanted to know the answer to. They weren’t asking about a foreshadowing or a type and shadow of Elijah. They were asking about the flesh and blood return of the real man, that they heard the scribes insisting had to happen before the messiah could come. And unless False Messiah (aka Jesus) misunderstood their question, he gave them a direct answer to their question, an answer which turned out to be a hot, flaming, LIE.
When you seriously study the Old and new testament side by side and compare them, it won’t take a degree in rocket science to realize the entire new testament is a work of EISEGESIS. The new testament is an eisegetic interpretation of the Old. And the new testament is TRASH. Throw it OUT. It STINKS. False Messiah (aka Jesus) is a LIAR and a deceiver, and so is his false prophet, John the baptist. This discussion is closed. Leave it alone. If you insist on worshipping your false god, then have at it. Bon appetite. Just know that your choice to continue praising and worshipping him, is in the face of irrefutable evidence, that he is NOT who he said he was!