Wrong Perspective About Christians

[hottiedeafboi]

Netrox, studied the Bible is good, but using intellectual terms doesn't do you, but wisdom makes a lot of difference, bec the way see the Bible isn't the same way you see them. On other thread, all so called contradictions in the Bibles and quote about Jesus was drunk, its not what happen and how it happens. I have seen so many quoting verses and missing the point and not only that, no wonder why they don't believe the Bible. You may choose your disbeliefs as I remain stand firm on my Rock. Wisdom is from the Spirit of God that takes the scale off spiritual eyes and begin to see. Its like a quarter you looking for and overlook it, bec its right under your nose, but couldn't see it, its the same way with people look in the Bible and couldn't notice it, even read it thousand times, and still didn't get it.

 

[Rose Immortal]

See, the thing is here, you're pulling "prophecies" out of parts of the Tanakh that do not contain prophecy in order to deceive the person into thinking "wow, he did all this stuff!" when, in fact, most of the things you're citing aren't even prophecies, they're prayers. Moreover, you ignore the actual prophecies he didn't fulfill on the grounds that he must be the Messiah because he did all of this other stuff.

On this, I think that some (myself included) would suspect that the Psalmist had a vision of some sort that worked its way into the Psalm.

One particular instance where I believe such a thing happened in the Old Testament is one that I think can be seen quite readily. This particular one has to do with Creation. More conservative Christians won't accept this, but I've been pretty certain of it since the age of 5, since my parents gave me a wide variety of things to read (as in, science as well as religious stuff--to clarify before I get into this, I do accept scientific findings as fact).

The opening parts of Genesis in the first Creation account are in my eyes an incredibly accurate description of the Big Bang considering the lack of scientific knowledge the writer would've had. To me there is a fantastic description of those early ages of the universe: the explosion of the singularity into light, the coalescing of that material into stars and planets, and then a further description of the formation of a planet. To the best of my knowledge, only the Judeo-Christian Creation account contains that sort of description.

I believe that in order to have written that kind of description, the author must have been given a vision of the Creation. He would've had to have some guidance from God to sort it out into terms he could understand, and perhaps he had a hand in choosing appropriate language that he felt would give his peers the general idea: that through careful, planned processes (as in, not chaos or accident), God crafted the universe for humanity to live in, and then humanity itself. For me, the writer of Genesis is writing as someone who witnessed the Big Bang in some fashion, and very likely evolution as well. (And I might add on a side note that with that kind of information overload, it's way too much to expect the writer to get everything in proper order, let alone get a grasp on what exactly evolution is--so the series of snapshots we get in the Creation account is perfectly understandable.)

Why discuss this? I'm doing it to illustrate that even if not in a section marked "prophecy," a writer may have had a vision. In that case it was a vision of the far distant past. However, I think visions of the future can happen too, and the more significant the future event is going to be, the more lives it's going to alter, the further back in the past one is likely to pick up on it, and with greater intensity. And the person having it may not actually make the connection between the vision and events to come.

I'm going to give you two examples that may seem crazy--they both come from my own life. Since you and I agree on the existence of God and that which the eye cannot see, I feel like we have enough common ground for me to use it. These are much, MUCH lower-order event than anything worthy of Scripture, but I believe that it happened.

The first is the smaller of the events in terms of casualties, although it had more of a direct impact upon me as an American. On September 10, 2001, I remember distinctly that I walked past a major building in my town and there were fire trucks around it. At that sight, I got an irrational fear that there was a bomb inside the building, that some kind of act of terrorism was happening. I was fully aware there was no apparent reason for me to be thinking that kind of thing, but the feeling was kind of nagging. I forgot about it until the next day when it occurred to me that I may have had a presentiment about the attacks.

The second thing I started to experience a couple of years before the actual event. There was a time when I used to have a recurring nightmare where I would be on a beach and suddenly I'd realize there was a HUGE wave coming at me. I remember the terror of clawing my way up a steep sand dune, and of not being able to get enough traction fast enough. Sometimes I would get away in time; other times I would wake up thinking I would've been pulled under if I'd stayed in the dream longer. These nightmares would reoccur every so often. At the end of 2004, the Indian Ocean tsunami occurred. I have not had that nightmare since then. Prior to the tsunami I had no idea that these nightmares were anything more significant than simply some kind of fear symbol in my own mind, but the recurrence prior, and the immediate cessation after, makes me certain of what happened.

Now consider what would happen if one had a similar sort of vision, but the triggering event occurred after their death. He or she might not ever realize that the dream/vision was in fact a predictor of a future event, but might see it as a mere symbol as I did the tsunami dreams in the years before it happened. But to my personal mindset, it makes perfect sense for an event on the scale of what Christians believe the the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ to be "perceptible" many generations prior. This to us is a massive shifting of the heavens themelves, even more than a shifting of the earth.

The types of people who wrote the Psalms, as well as other parts of the Bible, are in my guess people who have an extreme degree of sensitivity to visions--the kind that comes along very rarely. Things such as I've described in myself are commonplace, nothing to write home about. But for someone to be able to write Scripture, they must have been truly unique individuals in that regard. For a Psalmist to have had presentiments and visions of the events in the New Testament would not be unexpected to me...and in my opinion, it's likely that he would recognize them as significant, especially if he encountered them during prayer, dreams, or other very spiritually-attuned times in his life. However, he may not have understood the full import of what he was seeing--i.e. not recognized it as a prophecy. Nonetheless, it would still frame some sort of understanding in his relationship with God, and he would consider it songworthy.

This is why I think that these particular prayers that have survived the generations did so for a reason, and why I think they are perfectly admissible as evidence. I know I'm conjecturing, but I feel very strongly about this.

Sure he is. I'm god too! Wheeeeeee! WORSHIP ME!!!! OR YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!

I don't think this is going to help the discussion get anywhere. I find the "hellfire and brimstone" type stuff pushy, but I don't see much use to doing the same thing back.

The idea in Judaism is that since the Torah is the law, laws derived from the Torah are equally valid in the eyes of God.

Derived by whom? I want to make sure I get where you're going with this before I try to say anything.

The mikvah is a ritual bath of "living waters", the purest of all kinds of water and the only kind that can be used for certain purposes. (This is discussed in tractate Mikvaot of the Talmud.)

The two major uses of the mikvah today are the cleansing of niddah (the state of ritual impurity following menstruation) and as part of the conversion process.

In the conversion process, the idea is that one enters the mikvah a gentile (ritually impure) and emerges a Jew (ritually pure, at least momentarily). The actual legal status of a Jew for purposes of Jewish law can only be established by a beth din, though that status is conveyed before immersion. I'm not sure when the practice originated, though excavations on the Temple Mount have discovered no less than 100 mikvaot on the grounds of the former Temple, so it's clear that the mikvah as a Jewish practice predates Rabbinic Judaism, though exactly what fashions it was used in before are unknown.

It is interesting that you would use the words "living water" to describe it. That may provide the cultural context in which Jesus uses that phrase when extending salvation to a Samaritan woman here in this chapter from John:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=4&version=31&context=chapter

He is essentially stating that He can bring about the same sort of spiritual purification of His own volition rather than it occurring through physical contact with water. I have to wonder from this if the immersion custom was taking place in that time then, because the implication is that one first approaches Him as a gentile and comes away as an heir to His Kingdom with the same rights as one born a Jew. It's also interesting that He addresses this to a woman, because He further implies here that He has both the power and the authority to confer this purity in a permanent, lasting way, unlike the temporary purity you're describing for women.

I'm aware of this story. I'm not sure what to make of it, honestly. A lake or river does not qualify as a mikvah because it is not "living waters", but the baptism is still a fairly important ritual in Christianity. I was raised Catholic, so I was baptised as an infant and can't remember the experience at all.

I imagine it would be more meaninfgul to me now as an adult if I actually believed in Christianity at a religious level.

While I am not a Baptist, this is the rationale that the original Anabaptists used when they began requiring adult/adolescent baptism instead of infant baptism. Denominations such as mine, Methodism, allow confirmation as an option for older children or adults. When I went through mine, there was a sort of ritual rebaptism. Even though no water was put on me, the ritual was intended to allow for a mature person's experience of what the meaning of one's baptism was.

As I alluded to in an earlier part of the post, the Christian understanding of "living waters" is spiritual, not tied to the tangible kind of water. It would not suprise me if this was a reason for using the river Jordan for this purpose--to get people's attention that something different was going on from what they were familiar with. As for why the Jordan was used...it wouldn't be the first time that particular river's waters were used for a healing, though in that case it was physical.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&chapter=5&version=31&context=chapter

This comes from the book of Kings, and you can see that Naaman's first reaction to being told to go wash himself in the river was basically, "Are you KIDDING me?! What a load of B.S.! If you want physically CLEAN water, that sure isn't the place to go!" But when he gets control of himself and tries it, he not only is healed but seems to have new skin entirely. I'd imagine that people in the day of John the Baptist had the same reaction. "Are you KIDDING? Purify me in that icky water? No way!" But in all likelihood they reflected upon the incident with Naaman and realized something more was going on.

Heh. :-P I don't consider Christian Scripture to be canonical, so the texts are about as useful for my beliefs as the Gnostic gospels.

Without seeing links between the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, it would appear that way, but to my belief there's much more consistency between Old and New Testaments than between those and the Gnostic gospels.

 

[sculleywr]

That is not what I read. Even in Revised English Edition of the Bible (NIV), it said that KJV had too many errors that warranted some changes.

With all due respect to the scholars who compiled the NIV Translation, the KJV has the most documentary evidence of any translation of the Bible that there is. There are some words added to increase the ease of reading it, but most of them are pronouns and they are all bracketed so that a person reading would know that the translator had inserted them. I have nothing against the NIV, nor do I have anything against some of the other translations. I have only come across three thus far that I found to fit my more stringent standards (KJV, NKJV, and NIV (This one is really close though). However, I have online sources that will show the translation, word by word, verse by verse, and show the reason for those. I am not saying that any one translation is perfect. However, I have my reasons for preferring the KJV. That includes the high number of translations used in the original translation in 1611 and the subsequent transliteration from old to new English in the early 1700s.

 

[sculleywr]

Teresh's postings carry so MUCH weight over looney Xian postings. Teresh makes more sense and clearly shows her knowledge of religions.

I am so disgusted with Xians on this forum so I decided, let them stay stupid if they won't change.

I will NEVER tolerate the spiritual threats - "You must believe in Jesus or you'll not be saved!" and that's why I reject the Bible.

Or how is this one: "You MUST be perfect or you'll not make it to heaven."
Sound any better?

 

[hottiedeafboi]

Teresh, how you took netrox post and put it on mine. Bec I didn't say you are a jews. and I'm not going to say any further of your timidating remarks. I have seen how God works in my life and taste the awesome presence and also seen His works thru my devotionals and even many times it has happen and still doing as I have ask the Lord to reveal to me and knowing you are with me, inspite of my failure and constantly giving my life to You, as what has happened last few days thru my devotions, remarkably the sermon is just that and also many ways He has showing me thru songs also. I remain stand on my Rock. May say its illusion or coincidence, the fact is its not. I love my Living Lord for alor He has done inspite of your disbelief of the fact of Messiah Jesus Christ.

 

[sculleywr]

See, the thing is here, you're pulling "prophecies" out of parts of the Tanakh that do not contain prophecy in order to deceive the person into thinking "wow, he did all this stuff!" when, in fact, most of the things you're citing aren't even prophecies, they're prayers. Moreover, you ignore the actual prophecies he didn't fulfill on the grounds that he must be the Messiah because he did all of this other stuff.

You make it a numbers game but you ignore the numbers that are actually important. If the Messiah fails to accomplish any of the ACTUAL prophecies, he is NOT the Messiah. A hundred thousand times zero is still zero!

Name one that he didn't fulfill. Tell me how Jeremiah's New covenant was a prayer. Jeremiah's prayer is in Lamentations, which was written shortly before he was taken to Egypt.

They are not "taught" Christianity because Christianity is a different religion. Do you expect to be taught how to chant Hindu mantras in Sunday school? Um, no. The knowledge is not hidden from Jews, it's simply not relevant to their lives as children. Why should a Jew be raised learning about someone else's religion before his or her own?

No, but we are taught how to counter the arguments of other people's beliefs. Our most famous argument is the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. Obviously they never believed the body was in the grave because they could have just pointed to the grave and said, there he is. They also knew the guards were there, because they never said they didn't exist. So how did a bunch of women defeat an attachment of Roman guards?

What translation are you talking about?

1- The "Greek Bible", the "Septuagint":
From the third century before Christ, is the oldest document we have: It is the Greek translation made in Alexandria by a Group of 72 rabbis (6 from each one of the 12 Tribes of Israel), and hence the name of "Septuagint" given to the translation. It has 46 books, like the Catholic Bibles, and it was the common version of the Bible among the Jews well after Christ; the one used and quoted by the Evangelists and Apostles when they wrote the New Testament, and the one mostly quoted in the Talmud.
- It was then translated to Syriac in the 1st century AC, to Coptic in the 3rd century AC, and to Latin in the 4th century AC (the "Vulgata").

http://religion-cults.com/Judaism/escript.htm

According to this site, it wasn't until AFTER the 4th century AD that the Hebrew scriptures were translated. Since there is no one to one translation from Greek to Hebrew and then from Hebrew to English, The English version from the Hebrew scriptures could be of much debate. The more reliable one is the septuagint. Also, according to secular sources, EVERYONE spoke Greek. By the time, there was a good sized group of Jews that were not in Israel and had never been to Israel. How did they get along without speaking Greek. They had to speak with the Roman guard, the Roman government and its representatives, and of course the people coming into Israel who were visiting. If they refused to speak the language, they would face persecution.

And you do know this? You think that as a Christian you know more about Judaism than the Jews do? How audacious and arrogant you are to think you who have studied none are more learned to those who have spent their lives in study.

And being a non-Jew, as you claimed, makes YOU more knowledgeable. Sorry, that doesn't give you a leg to stand on.

The fact that many gentiles knew Greek is irrelvant. We're talking about the Jews of Eretz Yisrael here. The Jews in Israel never adopted Greek as their language.

Correction, they did, and I cite the quotes from the Talmud, mentioned in the above website, as proof. The oldest version of the Talmud includes the Greek language.

No, they are not the Sanhedrin, they are a group of posers who would like to be the Sanhedrin but do not have any legitimate claim to being that organisation.

Well, they sure as heck managed to capture a good standing in the current Israeli government, making trips to the Temple mount, where the blueprints for the Temple are laid out.

That's just a bold-faced Anti-Semitic lie that while enshrined in Christian Scripture has no basis in fact. You want to believe it becauseit would give you justification for your hatred of Jews, but the fact of the matter is, the Sanhedrin did not have the power to execute people and the death penalty was strongly opposed by the Pharisees.

If I hated Jews, I wouldn't be trying to win them to the Lord, now would I? It isn't a very hateful act to inform them of eternal death. The Sanhedrin had the power to blackmail the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. They were a large enough, and influential enough, group that could sway the Jews to whatever they liked. There are a few instances where they have historically condemned people to death, including many Christians who were considered apostles. These would include Peter, James, and the twelve.

Because the Messiah is a man, not a god.

Incorrect, no man could rise from the dead and stay alive. No prophet could remain sinless for his life. Little secret for the Jews: Every prophet lied at some point in his life. Every patriarch committed some kind of sin. Every person has sinned. Sin is the reason we are unable to view God in His full glory. Jesus is God. God is a triune God. You have The Lord Himself, The Spirit of the Lord, and Jesus Christ Himself, who came and spoke to Abraham.

No, they were not. You're fabricating lies here because you've already lost the basis for your argument. There was no "vote" in Israel constituting the "new Sanhedrin"--It's a group of men who claim to be something they're not.

Not according to the news. I have shown you the news articles. Of them, three call them the "newly elected." Last I checked, to be elected, you need a vote.

There's nothing on any of the results that states that the nascent Sanhedrin is legitimate. Again, why don't you READ YOUR OWN SOURCES.

I did, that is why I am posting them. Last I checked, when you refer to someone as elected, someone had to vote him in. You being a non-Jew, don't have a leg to stand on without posting sources, and then giving a logical followup.

Sure he is. I'm god too! Wheeeeeee! WORSHIP ME!!!! OR YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!

You see any of that in what Jesus said? I don't.

I don't need to walk anywhere to worship my God. God is with me always. My entire life is a prayer to God.

Well, you sure haven't been acting it. Last I checked, the Torah said to love thy neighbor as thyself. Well, mocking people sure ain't doing you well for the "God-fearing man" that you claim to be.

Salvation was always for everyone who sought it--It was never just for the Jews, though I'm sure you'd like to think that as it justifies your hatred for Jews and their religion.

However, a gentile had to jump through every religious hoop the rabbis put in. I have noticed something about today's idea of Judaism. Even today, the Jews value tradition so much that they blind themselves with it. The tradition today is that Hebrew is the Jewish language, and thus must have been at all times. Problem is, current Hebrew isn't anything like the Hebrew that was used in Bible days.

And you keep changing the subject to deflect attention from the fact that it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You might want to check back on that one, because the deflection, if any, is very small compared to the multi-page reports we have going here. We might just be able to write a book.

You might want to learn to read between the lines.

When you use such lengthy answers, you can't ever expect me to read every line.

Oldest doesn't mean best. It's an established and understood fact that Septuagint, with the exception of the Torah which was translated by Jewish sages, was a poor translation for its time. I find it hilarious that you claim legitimacy for your beliefs based on a bad translation when the the Hebrew original text, in which lies the full and unmodified representation of the Tanakh, is staring you straight in the face.

It is the only translation. And it was ALL translated by 72 Jewish rabbis. Shoot, not even the Jews claim that is wrong. That is history speaking, read the above.

But of course, it's easier to deny the truth that your religion is a massive constructed fallacy than to accept the fact that you don't know as much as you think you do.

The truth is rarely the more elaborate explanation. Get a grip. If Jesus wasn't the Christ, the disciples wouldn't have enough motive to die for him. These people went to their deaths, proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God. A terrorist who killed Christians turned around and wrote the Majority of the books in the New Testament. He was jailed twice, once on house arrest and then killed by Emporer Nero, the man who destroyed the Jewish Temple. Stephen, the first martyr, claimed claimed he saw Jesus seated on the right hand of the Father. Peter was so firm in his belief that he felt unworthy of dying in the same way Christ died, so he was crucified upside down. You tell me why someone who had known Jesus for all of His ministry would die for a lie. The simplest explanation is that it was true.

 

[Teresh]

On this, I think that some (myself included) would suspect that the Psalmist had a vision of some sort that worked its way into the Psalm.

Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that the Psalms were never considered to contain prophecy until Christianity came along and reinterpreted everything.

One particular instance where I believe such a thing happened in the Old Testament is one that I think can be seen quite readily. This particular one has to do with Creation. More conservative Christians won't accept this, but I've been pretty certain of it since the age of 5, since my parents gave me a wide variety of things to read (as in, science as well as religious stuff--to clarify before I get into this, I do accept scientific findings as fact).

The opening parts of Genesis in the first Creation account are in my eyes an incredibly accurate description of the Big Bang considering the lack of scientific knowledge the writer would've had. To me there is a fantastic description of those early ages of the universe: the explosion of the singularity into light, the coalescing of that material into stars and planets, and then a further description of the formation of a planet. To the best of my knowledge, only the Judeo-Christian Creation account contains that sort of description.

Agreed. I was raised with the idea that it was not a literal account of creation, but more symbolic and allegory.

Why discuss this? I'm doing it to illustrate that even if not in a section marked "prophecy," a writer may have had a vision. In that case it was a vision of the far distant past. However, I think visions of the future can happen too, and the more significant the future event is going to be, the more lives it's going to alter, the further back in the past one is likely to pick up on it, and with greater intensity. And the person having it may not actually make the connection between the vision and events to come.

The problem with that statement is that then, theoretically, anything anywhere in the Tanakh could be considered "prophecy", something that doesn't make any sense. Is there prophecy in Job? Esther? Song of Songs? Ezra/Nehemiah?

In the Jewish ordering of the Tanakh (as opposed to the Christian Old Testament, where the books are all in a different order), the third section is the K'tuvim, the Writings. As the title implies, when compared with the Torah and the N'viim (Prophets) these books are not considered quite as important... The Torah is the word of God, the N'viim are basically God's word but also the prophet's own interpretation, the K'tuvim are entirely human works.

The first is the smaller of the events in terms of casualties, although it had more of a direct impact upon me as an American. On September 10, 2001, I remember distinctly that I walked past a major building in my town and there were fire trucks around it. At that sight, I got an irrational fear that there was a bomb inside the building, that some kind of act of terrorism was happening. I was fully aware there was no apparent reason for me to be thinking that kind of thing, but the feeling was kind of nagging. I forgot about it until the next day when it occurred to me that I may have had a presentiment about the attacks.

Deja vu?

The second thing I started to experience a couple of years before the actual event. There was a time when I used to have a recurring nightmare where I would be on a beach and suddenly I'd realize there was a HUGE wave coming at me...my own mind, but the recurrence prior, and the immediate cessation after, makes me certain of what happened.

The problem with considering this God-related is that, for example, a person might have recurring nightmares about, say, a volcano. The volcano erupting is not an unnatural thing, so, eventually, and not too far into the future, a volcano would erupt somewhere in the world.

This is why I think that these particular prayers that have survived the generations did so for a reason, and why I think they are perfectly admissible as evidence. I know I'm conjecturing, but I feel very strongly about this.

I'll opt to disagree. As far as their surviving goes, many Jewish liturgical services (Kabbalat Shabbat especially) very heavily use the Pslams as source material.

I don't think this is going to help the discussion get anywhere. I find the "hellfire and brimstone" type stuff pushy, but I don't see much use to doing the same thing back.

It's called sarcasm. The point is that you should not believe everything anyone tells you without a certain amount of healthy criticism.

Derived by whom? I want to make sure I get where you're going with this before I try to say anything.

Anyone sufficiently knowledgable in Jewish history and the Torah.

It is interesting that you would use the words "living water" to describe it.

"Living waters" is straight out of the Mishnah (tractate Mikvaot).

That may provide the cultural context in which Jesus uses that phrase when extending salvation to a Samaritan woman here in this chapter from John:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=4&version=31&context=chapter

I have to wonder from this if the immersion custom was taking place in that time then,

Well, like I said, there were many many mikvaot on the site of the Temple, implying they were doing *something* with them. What, precisely, I don't know.

because the implication is that one first approaches Him as a gentile and comes away as an heir to His Kingdom with the same rights as one born a Jew.

She had the same rights as a born Jew anyway... Judaism considers righteous action, rather than belief the way one achieves the afterlife. The person being a Jew is not at all important in the scope of Judaism.

The thing with the Samaritans is that they weren't considered gentiles, but they weren't considered Jews either. The reason is that by Jewish law, many of the Samaritans were Jews by birth as their mothers were Jews, but there were also many gentiles among them, marrying with the Jews, so the legal status of any given Samaritan was unclear. The Jews typically did not associate with the Samaritans for the same reason they didn't typically associate with gentiles

It's also interesting that He addresses this to a woman, because He further implies here that He has both the power and the authority to confer this purity in a permanent, lasting way, unlike the temporary purity you're describing for women.

Niddah, as an idea, has existed since Moses's time. In Torah study, we discussed this idea a few weeks ago--Why was it considered important for a woman to go to the mikvah? The explanation we came up with is that menstruation was something that was completely beyond anything the Israelites understood about science or medicine, thus, it received a certain "cootie factor" and that thus needing to go to the mikvah is probably an outdated concept now that we actually understand what menstruation is. (Note that this is a Reform congregation--A more traditional group would probably come up with a different answer.) There's a whole tractate on the subject in the Talmud, though I haven't read it myself.

Without seeing links between the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, it would appear that way, but to my belief there's much more consistency between Old and New Testaments than between those and the Gnostic gospels.

Well, the Tanakh could be interpreted that way...Heck, that's Christianity at its heart. It's just not the Jewish way of looking at it.

 

[Boult]

hottiedeafboi,

Please get serious. It's been 15 years since I studied the Bible. I know from my memory that the Bible simply fails to meet the logical criterias that I needed.

Teresh and I have totally different beliefs, she's Jewish (I think... maybe I am wrong) and I am an athiest but what she wrote about the misquotes and false prophecies are very accurate from what I have learned.

Unlike Xian fundamentalists who supposedly take the bible literally, I interpret exactly what it meant, not what their doctrines tell them. It is a fact that the Bible says that the creation was done in 7 days. It is a fact that the Old Testament prophesized Messiah but it is NOT a fact that it predicted Jesus Christ no matter how Christians try to persuade me. That doctrine is totally false and thoroughly debunked. Jews knew that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

Unlike fundies, I see errors and contradictions. Unlike them, I don't try to "harmonize" them. The errors are there because the authors were wrong or changed their minds. Unlike fundies, the Bible is a collection of many books by different authors. God did not write the Bible, people did.

You don't want to believe anything else but what your church teaches you.

as for this quote;

Unlike fundies, the Bible is a collection of many books by different authors. God did not write the Bible, people did.

I agree and those books in bible were selected by Bishops.

 

[Boult]

Teresh, how you took netrox post and put it on mine. Bec I didn't say you are a jews. and I'm not going to say any further of your timidating remarks. I have seen how God works in my life and taste the awesome presence and also seen His works thru my devotionals and even many times it has happen and still doing as I have ask the Lord to reveal to me and knowing you are with me, inspite of my failure and constantly giving my life to You, as what has happened last few days thru my devotions, remarkably the sermon is just that and also many ways He has showing me thru songs also. I remain stand on my Rock. May say its illusion or coincidence, the fact is its not. I love my Living Lord for alor He has done inspite of your disbelief of the fact of Messiah Jesus Christ.

Teresh made mistake... you see Teresh made lot of copy and past when quoting.. she forgot to change the name to Netrox instead of yours just remind her! instead of accusing her

 

[sculleywr]

as for this quote;

I agree and those books in bible were selected by Bishops.

incorrect. If you would care to read the post I wrote on my thread, you would see when it was first compiled. And what makes you so sure that God didn't DICTATE the Bible to the people whose pens hit the paper?

 

[hottiedeafboi]

Teresh made mistake... you see Teresh made lot of copy and past when quoting.. she forgot to change the name to Netrox instead of yours just remind her! instead of accusing her

Well, I'm sorry is that's the way you look at. But, teresh need to let me know if that's what's she did and not only that. And that's the point of all about misunderstood and mistakes and stuff, but the person need to say something if its a mistake, bec, there is debates during the time and when I asked him how he does thatm but no response in that, that's teresh popular phrase to the christians, that wouldn't give you a license ( any person in the issue) to any part of saying like to back the person up or cover up or anything. Even tho, I don't want you mistunderstand me, that I don't care if you are a christian or not, there is no reason to support of name calling and blaming and give an excuse by claiming what christians does and taught. Bec, they aren't the fact by the way claiming what christians does and taughgt, in some way there are SOME christians doing that. All I read, twisting, no I'm not against christians, I didn't say that, I'm talking about creationism, then later see that's why I hate christians bec so and so.. And then back in by saying, no I'm not saying all christians does and etc and on they go, there is no point by doing that. We do have a right to share our beliefs as much as yours as I see is this, " we have the right to say anything we learnedl but christians doesn't, and should keep their mouth shut" attitude. This is waht I have been seeing in here. Yes, in some way christians does kinda off track in some ways, but each of us in different way.

 

[Teresh]

Name one that he didn't fulfill. Tell me how Jeremiah's New covenant was a prayer. Jeremiah's prayer is in Lamentations, which was written shortly before he was taken to Egypt.

I said many that you claim he fulfilled that he either:
A. Didn't. or B. Weren't prophecies.

You've selectively chosen to ignore that because it would require you to think and question yourself.

I said that the Psalms were prayers. Either you misread me or you're actively trying to distort what I said. Why don't you actually try READING my posts before you try to refute them?

No, but we are taught how to counter the arguments of other people's beliefs.

They apparently didn't teach you very well, then, as you're not holding your own in this discussion by propagating hatred, lies and misinformation and then not being able to defend them when I respond. (And then changing to another topic in order to divert attention from that.)

Our most famous argument is the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. Obviously they never believed the body was in the grave because they could have just pointed to the grave and said, there he is. They also knew the guards were there, because they never said they didn't exist. So how did a bunch of women defeat an attachment of Roman guards?

Huh? English, please? Your paragraph here doesn't make any logical sense because it uses too many pronouns without first defining who they refer to.

From the third century before Christ, is the oldest document we have:
It is the Greek translation made in Alexandria by a Group of 72 rabbis (6 from each one of the 12 Tribes of Israel), and hence the name of "Septuagint" given to the translation. It has 46 books, like the Catholic Bibles, and it was the common version of the Bible among the Jews well after Christ; the one used and quoted by the Evangelists and Apostles when they wrote the New Testament, and the one mostly quoted in the Talmud.

The information is wrong, then, as the Septuagint was not used by the majority of Jews at any time in history. The only Jews recorded to have ever used the Septuagint were the Alexandrian Jews in Egypt. Moreover, the legend holds that there were 70 sages, not 72. Moreover, the entirety of the translation did not all occur at once and the sages were only commissioned with translating the Torah.

According to this site, it wasn't until AFTER the 4th century AD that the Hebrew scriptures were translated. Since there is no one to one translation from Greek to Hebrew and then from Hebrew to English, The English version from the Hebrew scriptures could be of much debate. The more reliable one is the septuagint.

So an English translation of the Septuagint, a bad translation of the original Hebrew is more accurate than an English translation of the original Hebrew. Right. That makes sense.

By the time, there was a good sized group of Jews that were not in Israel and had never been to Israel.

Again, I said "the Jews in Eretz Yisrael'. Stop changing what I said, you're just digging your own hole deeper by distorting my words.

If they refused to speak the language, they would face persecution.

They were persecuted anyway, why do you think they revolted in the late 60s CE?

And being a non-Jew, as you claimed, makes YOU more knowledgeable. Sorry, that doesn't give you a leg to stand on.

I've actually given the subject a fair bit of thought and honest research. I'm willing to say that yes, I know more than you do about the subject. I don't have an axe to grind with the Jews like you do, thus allowing me the freedom to learn Jewish history and about the religion without the Christian bias that Jews are an evil and spiteful people or the false belief that Judaism is an incomplete Christianity.

Correction, they did, and I cite the quotes from the Talmud, mentioned in the above website, as proof. The oldest version of the Talmud includes the Greek language.

Both the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud were written in Aramaic, not Greek. Additionally, the former was incomplete which is why it is largely not used today.

Well, they sure as heck managed to capture a good standing in the current Israeli government, making trips to the Temple mount, where the blueprints for the Temple are laid out.

The Temple Mount is a pilgrimage site both for all of the three major Abrahamic faiths, but especially Jews and Muslims. One needs to be no more than a respectful tourist to gain access to the site.

If I hated Jews, I wouldn't be trying to win them to the Lord, now would I?

No, it is precisely the fact that you do hate Jews that is the reason you want to convert them out of their faith. You believe their faith is wrong--A typical Christian vantage point, one held for all other religions as well but one that does not make any logical sense in the real world.

It isn't a very hateful act to inform them of eternal death.

No, it's a hateful act to misquote and misinterpret scripture in order to brainwash a person into rejecting their faith and their heritage because you want to control the way they think and feel. It's a hateful act to prey upon someone who does not share your faith by using a wicked and sinister approach to force them to convert.

The Sanhedrin had the power to blackmail the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.

They didn't blackmail Pilate. Pilate executed Jesus because Jesus was inciting revolution, not because the Sanhedrin organised a massive conspiracy to get one of their own executed. It's a common conspiracy theory that people like you hold, but since Pilate is known historically for oppressing his subjects (the Jews, in particular), the chances that he was willing to forgo that to do the leaders a favor lacks any logical backing.

Of course, that assumes the Sanhedrin actually had a reason to have Jesus killed, something it didn't.

There are a few instances where they have historically condemned people to death, including many Christians who were considered apostles. These would include Peter, James, and the twelve.

Considering the apostles were not killed by the Jews, that argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Incorrect, no man could rise from the dead and stay alive.

If a man rose from the dead, he would be alive wouldn't he? Unless he's a zombie of course. That'd just be scary.

No prophet could remain sinless for his life.

There's nothing that indicates Jesus was sinless either.

Little secret for the Jews: Every prophet lied at some point in his life. Every patriarch committed some kind of sin.

The Jews are well aware of that fact. The Jewish idea on the subject is that humans are not perfect but they aren't inherently evil either. Following the commandments, versus not following them, creates a balancing act between good and evil for a person. If the person's net of the actions he takes is positive, he is good. If the net is negative, he is evil.

Jesus is God. God is a triune God. You have The Lord Himself, The Spirit of the Lord, and Jesus Christ Himself, who came and spoke to Abraham.

Sorry, but Judaism is a *monotheistic* faith. Judaism also doesn't believe God has multiple personality disorder.

Not according to the news. I have shown you the news articles. Of them, three call them the "newly elected." Last I checked, to be elected, you need a vote.

The only one of those articles on the Google News site that even contains the word "elected" is The Sanhedrin Reestablished (Part II), which does not use the word in relation to the election of the Sanhedrin itself. It uses the word in relation to the group (the nascent Sanhedrin) electing a group of seven to be the leaders of the overall organisation.

Once again, you have made your case based on fabrications--Can you see websites that don't exist or are you just lying?

I did, that is why I am posting them. Last I checked, when you refer to someone as elected, someone had to vote him in. You being a non-Jew, don't have a leg to stand on without posting sources, and then giving a logical followup.

Again, read above. It's quite clear you don't read your own sources because there's not a single article there that says that the Jews, or even Israelis elected the nascent Sanhedrin.

I have more of a leg to stand on about Judaism as I'm not out to get them to accept brainwashing and reject their faith (as you are) and I'm actually involved in that community.

You see any of that in what Jesus said? I don't.

No, I just see it in what Christians say about Jesus.

Well, you sure haven't been acting it. Last I checked, the Torah said to love thy neighbor as thyself. Well, mocking people sure ain't doing you well for the "God-fearing man" that you claim to be.

You've treated me with disrespect, and so shall I return that unto you. I am not obligated to take your harrassment nor am I obligated to sit quitely while you lie about the Jews and propagate your lies and hatred.

Considering you can't even follow the tenet of loving one's neighbor as oneself in your own religion, why don't you examine your own actions first, then question mine?

I don't claim to be a "God-fearing man" because I do not fear God nor am I male.

However, a gentile had to jump through every religious hoop the rabbis put in.

The gentile, for salvation, has to observe the Noachide Laws. That's it. 7 basic rules that all reasonably decent people would be following anyway without even knowing it.

The tradition today is that Hebrew is the Jewish language, and thus must have been at all times. Problem is, current Hebrew isn't anything like the Hebrew that was used in Bible days.

There are several Jewish languages, Hebrew being one of them. Hebrew fell out of use after the Babylonian captivity in favor of Aramaic, which fell out of use after the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world in which Ladino emerged as the main language among Sephardim and Yiddish became the main language among Ashkenazim. It was not until about 100 years ago when Eliezer Ben-Yehuda modernised Hebrew that the language was restored to actual usage. Hebrew is the original Jewish language, but it's not the only one ever used and modern Hebrew does have its differences from Biblical Hebrew due to the latter being out of common colloquial use for about two millenia.

You might want to check back on that one, because the deflection, if any, is very small compared to the multi-page reports we have going here. We might just be able to write a book.

Depends. Would my words be censored as traditionally the words of Jews discussing theology with Christians have been?

When you use such lengthy answers, you can't ever expect me to read every line.

Why not? I read every single word of your responses.

If Jesus wasn't the Christ, the disciples wouldn't have enough motive to die for him.

That's circular logic. We would have to first accept that they did die for him.

 

[hottiedeafboi]

Stop, teresh, enuf accusation against sculley, this does not make him wrong on his side and you are right. What is the point, he learned as much you learned and back it up what he had studied. Like you said you don't hate christians but we hate jews. Which is not true. As I read it thru sculley point it out, but you came out accusing him and think his studying is wrong and you are right and claiming you know everything and also thinking we should give it up. We won't. We stand what we believe and the fact of it of who is the Messiah. Bec the way you are doing to him, reba, me and others. You aren't really honest about yourself the way you feel about christians. No, we do not ever manipulate to make someone convert, it is Go's job, our job is to share. No need to lash out on any of us whome we believe. When you point out, we point out likewise. Don't claim we didn't respect, we also have the right to point what we believe. Do we hate you, no. Do we tolerate your timidating remarks? No. Are we trying to find peace with you? Yes. Are we try to convert you? No. Why? Bec its God's work to do that. His grace is beyond than human can imagine, no matter who you or anybody or us or me are/is. We have gave up. We gave our lives to Him not man.

 

[Teresh]

Stop, teresh, enuf accusation against sculley, this does not make him wrong on his side and you are right.

You're contributing nothing to the discussion except telling me not to talk. The only reason you are telling me not to talk is because you disagree with me. So long as the discussion continues, I will continue with it. I am not required to bow down to your request that I stop talking and nor should I. If you have a right to state your opinion, so do I. Do not extend yourself the right of expression if you will not extend it to others.

As I read it thru sculley point it out, but you came out accusing him and think his studying is wrong and you are right and claiming you know everything and also thinking we should give it up.

I never said anything of the sort. Like scully, you're fabricating things that I did not say and claiming they are my words or my opinion because you dislike what I say but cannot refute it outright. I never claimed to know everything nor did I say that the discussion should end.

We won't. We stand what we believe and the fact of it of who is the Messiah.

It's good that you have strong beliefs. That doesn't mean I haven't the right to dispute them if you're giving yourself the right to dispute mine.

You aren't really honest about yourself the way you feel about christians.

No, my opinion is just outside the scope of your comprehension because I do not see the world in black and white.

No, we do not ever manipulate to make someone convert, it is Go's job, our job is to share.

The actions taken by people like Jews for Jesus are downright predatory, far be it said that they are not manipulative.

No need to lash out on any of us whome we believe.

I don't "lash out" on you because you believe, I merely respond to false statements about Jews or about Judaism. I also respond to the attempts to demonise non-Christians and liberals.

When you point out, we point out likewise. Don't claim we didn't respect, we also have the right to point what we believe.

Yes, you do have that right. Sadly, however, it is always the other way around, with YOU flaunting your beliefs and ME responding. I don't flaunt my beliefs, I only discuss them when asked.

 

[hottiedeafboi]

You're contributing nothing to the discussion except telling me not to talk. The only reason you are telling me not to talk is because you disagree with me. So long as the discussion continues, I will continue with it. I am not required to bow down to your request that I stop talking and nor should I. If you have a right to state your opinion, so do I. Do not extend yourself the right of expression if you will not extend it to others.



I never said anything of the sort. Like scully, you're fabricating things that I did not say and claiming they are my words or my opinion because you dislike what I say but cannot refute it outright. I never claimed to know everything nor did I say that the discussion should end.



It's good that you have strong beliefs. That doesn't mean I haven't the right to dispute them if you're giving yourself the right to dispute mine.



No, my opinion is just outside the scope of your comprehension because I do not see the world in black and white.



The actions taken by people like Jews for Jesus are downright predatory, far be it said that they are not manipulative.



I don't "lash out" on you because you believe, I merely respond to false statements about Jews or about Judaism. I also respond to the attempts to demonise non-Christians and liberals.



Yes, you do have that right. Sadly, however, it is always the other way around, with YOU flaunting your beliefs and ME responding. I don't flaunt my beliefs, I only discuss them when asked.

That's not how I see it. Yes, I know jews for Jesus in someway doing it. But sometime we can discuss further to point it out, but you keep saying I know more than you do and how christian did this and that and etc. Its nothing wrong by try to share our point. But I try every way to have peace, but when we continue what we shared, it like you hoping I won't say any further why I point out I believe. Many times, keep looking at the mirror and ask the Lord, show me, what I need to change. And He has and He is stil working in me. I rather ask the Lord to show me than, trying to get logic, theories, intellectuals and etc instead of pause for a moment to ask God to show you just like I learned, bec we are human and futile.

 

[sculleywr]

Ok, in the hopes of ending the multi-page messages that have been flying everywhere. Let us deal with the first part:

Prophecies, show one prophecy that was NOT fulfilled.

 

[Teresh]

Ok, in the hopes of ending the multi-page messages that have been flying everywhere. Let us deal with the first part:

Prophecies, show one prophecy that was NOT fulfilled.

I already did, the onus is on you to discuss that.

Here's some others to chew on, though:
Isaiah 11:12
Ezekiel 37:26 - 27
Micah 4:3

 

[sculleywr]

I already did, the onus is on you to discuss that.

Here's some others to chew on, though:
Isaiah 11:12
Ezekiel 37:26 - 27
Micah 4:3

Isaiah, fulfilled in 1962 when Israel became a nation

The Ezekiel verse, by pure level of timing, must come after Jeremiah's prophecy of a NEW covenant.
Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Daniel 7:7-10

7After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

8I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

9I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

10A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

Now, parallell this with the book of Revelations. The ten-horned beast is the antichrist (the little horn amongst the ten) leading the ten kings mentioned in Revelation (the ten horns). Rome could not be this nation it mentioned by this beast. The actual timeline, given by the Bible, and agreed upon by CHristians, secular, and even Islamics, is the following:

Messiah comes
New Covenant written.
Scattering of the Jews (Which greatly helped the spread of the gospel)
Jews brought back to Israel
Antichrist comes with his ten kings
Armageddon, where Jesus, the messiah, destroys all sinners, whether they be Jew or Gentile.
Final covenant written.

And that is based on the Old Testament. You really don't want the more complete version.

 

[Teresh]

Isaiah, fulfilled in 1962 when Israel became a nation

Eretz Yisrael != Medinat Yisrael. The former had a much larger span of land. But that's not even the important thing. It's a Messianic prophecy--Jesus didn't do it and it still hasn't been fulfilled yet. Not all Jews live in Israel right now.

The Ezekiel verse, by pure level of timing, must come after Jeremiah's prophecy of a NEW covenant.

The Messiah is required to rebuild the Temple in his lifetime--Jesus didn't do that. The Second Temple was still standing when he was alive. And, heck, it and the rest of Jerusalem got destroyed to the last stone about 40 years after he died.

Daniel 7:7-10

Daniel is not a prophetic book.

Messiah comes
New Covenant written.
Scattering of the Jews (Which greatly helped the spread of the gospel)
Jews brought back to Israel
Antichrist comes with his ten kings
Armageddon, where Jesus, the messiah, destroys all sinners, whether they be Jew or Gentile.
Final covenant written.

And that is based on the Old Testament. You really don't want the more complete version.

No, that's based on selective reading of the Tanakh and of Christian Scripture, not the Tanakh.

Traditionally, the eschatological beliefs held by Jews (still held by some Orthodox Jews, but rejected by Conservative and Reform Jews) is this, and this comes from the Tanakh, not your story.

Temple destroyed
Jewish dispersion
All humans come to acknowledge the One God
Messiah comes
Messiah restores Jewish people to Eretz Yisrael
Messiah rebuilds the Temple
Physical resurrection of all righteous people, Jew or Gentile
War between the righteous and the wicked
The righteous win the war
The Messiah reigns as King of Israel
World peace for all eternity

 

[hottiedeafboi]

Well, what I learned that true, not all jews comes to Israel and not only that there are several jews are discussing for coming to Israel, Israel became nation around 1940s. Now, about the Temple, its not yet come, that will happen in the future. And yes, Book of Daniel is not just prophetic part, but Daniel prophesied what he saw which will happen in the future and that's when John saw likewise, same parallel. Prophisied Jesus has been fullfilled while He was on earth, but the reign of Glory hasn't yet, that's why Jesus acsended to Heaven, when God, the Father sees how the world is doing, when things gotten out of control just like the days of Noah, that's when times comes and its going to be very horrific events.