The new testament tells us the Jews are stubborn, hypocrites, evil, therefore they rejected Jesus. Jesus pointed out their wrongdoings, critisized them fiercely, and this provoked them to anger till they planned to kill him.

However, is the bible true?

From other points of views, what do you think is the main reason the Jews reject Jesus till today?


:confused:

(first, I just wanna say that I'm christian) Well, I believe that the whole bible is true. Since lots of its stuff has been semi-proved by finding arifacts (pieces of noah's ark, the tomb of the step brother to jesus, so on), then I don't see why all of it wouldn't be true. So I think that it started from when jesus was here, and he told them they were wrong, and they got mad, ,and so they told their children what to believe, and their childrens' children, and so on. So I doubt it's as much as rejecting him, but more from tradition, and what their parents told them. Then again, that's just what I think...

Originally posted by strategicman
[B Well, I believe that the whole bible is true. Since lots of its stuff has been semi-proved by finding arifacts (pieces of noah's ark, the tomb of the step brother to jesus, so on), then I don't see why all of it wouldn't be true. [/B] Ya just gotta love gullibility like this. So much for Intelligent Design.

just the thing an athiest would say.

Jesus is bogus god.

The Jews can not accept a person who just can perform some sorcery and miracles as God.

Jesus never wrote a book to show how wise he was , to prove is god's identity.

Before Jesus, Aristotle lived, he wrote millions of words, a man can do this, how about God ????????

Jesus is false , The Jews is right to reject him!

In modern world, very few people are serious to believe Jesus!

Jesus could be mercifull, compassionate, but, anyway, he is a conman to claim himself God, Or, most probably, the NT authors distorted the true Jesus.

:eek:

and why would he not be god?

Strategicman,

Well, I believe that the whole bible is true. Since lots of its stuff has been semi-proved by finding artifacts (pieces of noah's ark, the tomb of the step brother to jesus, so on),.Semi-proof? Either there is a proof or there isn’t, and a semi-proof isn’t a proof. And “so on”? If you look more closely I suspect you’ll find there are no real proofs for any of the vital claims made in the bible. Even the existence of Jesus is seriously questioned.

then I don't see why all of it wouldn't be true.Surely if you are depending on semi-proofs wouldn’t that mean that you don’t see why it all wouldn’t be half-true? And a half-truth is defined in my dictionary as –

a statement that mingles truth and falsehood with deliberate intent to deceive

Okay, lemme just put it this way: I believe the bible, and you obviously don't. There ya go

Noah's ark? Don't get me started. Hell the amount of money spent to 'prove' this myth is twice the amount of most 'third world' world countries GDP.

Well then, if you end up going to hell, ,that's your problem.

Jews have to reject Jesus - they have no other option. If they embraced him, they would cease to a Jew and would become Christian.

If anyone is interested, Noah's Ark is NOT a myth. In fact by a stroke of amazing good luck, I found a piece of it in my garden last week. I will sell it to you if you like for a good price. It looks a lot like an old rotting out deck, but that, I am sure is due to it's old age.

any offers?

XD LOL

Ha ha, if Jesus WAS god, how come he was so clumsy to give us 4 gospels that are not 100% in harmony with each other.

I read most encyclopaedias about Jesus, all of them say that the gospel of John can not be taken as historical account of Jesus, even the synoptic gospels have to be read metaphorically.

Jesus was/is not God, just a dead man now, after the crusifixion, his body was probably thrown to the dog and devoured!
This is what i read in Encarta encyclopaedia.:D

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

-- Stephen Roberts

The question should not be why don't the jews believe in christ, but why should they believe in him. You're thinking of this backwards, the burden of proof lay on Jesus, and clearly he didn't do the trick, now it lays on you, why should they believe?

For the record, not all jews don't believe in jesus.
It has to do with jewish prophecy of when the messiah would come. Most of the rabidical scholars at that time didn't believe the time was ight for the messiah or that all of the portents had come to pass. That is why they did believe him.

It would be akin to one of your churchmemeber's sons getting up in fromt and saying "i've been sent by god. I'm here to tell you that this is not the way." Would you honestly take him seriously? If so, why did't you buy the whole david karesh thing in texas? What jesus was telling them was to go against hundereds if not thousands of years of tradition. What would you think if that same kid told oyu to start sacrificing animals to god?

The main difference was is the big point. You are god chosen people, and now some guy comes along and says you aren't anymore. You are no different from all those out there that don't believe in our god. you have no better chance of going to heaven then that pagan down the street. Change your religion, change your practices, and acept me as your savior.

There are jews that believe in christ. Research the religion sometime. It doesn't make them christian, because their religion is still a hell of alot more strict than christianity. If anything, christianity is judaism-lite.

As for my oppinion, about 85% of 'christians' are idiots when it comes to their religion. They don't take the time to learn where it came from, so how can they have any idea what it really is. Its like finding an old coin that might be worth millions, but because of laziness, you spend it for 25 cents. If you are going to trow your religion around, at least learn it. Jesus was a jew. What do you think he studied and preached from, the bible?

You guys have alot of faith, but not enough pride or intelligence in your christianity to make it into what it could be.

jews do believe that jesus was an important prophet. they just don't believe he was the "son of god". why should they? he never said he was. other people said so. he just didn't correct them. it was more of a 'believe what you want' attitude. what does it mean to be the son of god anyway? according to teachings, we're all the children of god.

*according to the catholic bible only

I'm a Christian, and I agree that most of us simply accept what we have been told since our youth. However, I am not one of those simpletons. The Jews killed most of their prophets. Stephen, a follower of Christ, pointed this out and was stoned to death. Jesus was just another bringer of change who had to be killed. Really, all Christianity is is a cult of Judaism. The way I see it, we Christians are just the ones who accepted what was obvious.

Saint: Jesus did not write the Gospels. Other people wrote them about him. Unlike Jesus, they were not divine, and were prone to mistakes.

"what does it mean to be the son of god anyway? according to teachings, we're all the children of god" It means lots of things. First of all, Jesus was born to a virgin. There are a plethora of other distinctions that I will not delve into right now.

You atheists have powerful champions, and love to constantly quote them and revel in your supposed triumph. To me atheism is just a sign of impatience. All humans have a desire to experience divine incarnation, but you atheists are the ones who refuse to wait. If you must, just look at the world as proof of God. Why is it so hard to believe that all this was premeditated? I can understand that atheism makes you feel powerful. Crushing the dreams of the weak and shattering the beliefs of those who do not have strong foundations can be fun. When it comes down to it, you guys are just followers of the absence of God. Atheism is your God, and you defend it as best you can. You are still humans, and you will always worship something.

Main reason why: Jews are proud and blind. - simple - deny it all you want, facts still have a tendency to stay fact despite peoples opinons of them. Jesus is the son of God, and the Jews killed Him.

One question for Jews but: if before Christ people had to give offerings to God, and sacrifices, to atone for their sins (transgressions of the law), then why don't they still do it today? don't you guys sin anymore or something, are you that proud that you believe God will accept you without paying the fine that you have incurred by your sin?

God gave ten commandments: don't lie, don't commit adultery, don't steal, etc.

Jesus said even lusting after a women is commiting adultery with her in your heart. Even a white lie is still a lie. Even taking 5 cents is still stealing. The whole world is guilty before God's law. You are all thieving, lying, adulterers. (and thats only 3 of the commandments). Christians realise this, and realise that nothing they do can pay for the sin they have done against God. It is when we fall to our knees that God raises up, by the realisation that only Jesus can pay such a huge debt.

My question again, what do you do, that can pay the debt?

CyA's

Most of the bible deals with the Pharisees, not your typical Jew. Most Jews of today agree with many of Jesus' teaching such as loving others etc., but they are not going to give up their tradition.



One question for Jews but: if before Christ people had to give offerings to God, and sacrifices, to atone for their sins (transgressions of the law), then why don't they still do it today? don't you guys sin anymore or something, are you that proud that you believe God will accept you without paying the fine that you have incurred by your sin?

Yes, one thing that would puzzle me would be the end of Daniel. For Catholics this makes somewhat sense, because the mass is considered a sacrafice and Jesus is present on the altar, but for Jews I do not think this passage would make sense. Also I do being God's chosen people should have stoped them. Isaiah, Ezekiel, and a few Psalms all prophesy gathering all of the nations under the fold of God.


My question again, what do you do, that can pay the debt?

I don't think that you can do anything except accept the sacrafice. Jesus died for all of mankind.

Jesus' thinking is very radical compared to the priests. He had a new interpretation of the OT.

Anyway, from my point of view, Jesus is just a man, maybe a wiseman, and the stories of gospels can not be authentic to tell us everything about Jesus.

Just a simple logical judgement, why Jesus's life stories from age 12~30 are missing in bible, what did he do during that period? If he is God, I think, every moment of him worth writing down for us to learn something.

Jesus seminar tried to ascertain the hisoricity of Jesus, but failed because there is insufficient information about him.
Therefore, Jesus could be a MYTH, no one can rule out this possibility.

Looking at the Bloody history of christianity in Europe that costed so many innocent lives,
I really doubt the claim of christians that their God is a living God.

God must be DEAD and took no action to help human beings when they screwed up because of the religion related to the so-called God-revealed religion.

History tells us that, Christianity and Islam are the religions that


Shed the most blood.

Jesus did not die for mankind, he only died fro his believers.

Is this the so-called universal LOVE ? Fuck it!

Christianity is the most intolerant religion, its doctrine actually FORCE everone to accept it, reluctance to do so will get CURSE and Eternal Fire.

Goddam christianity!:D

Originally posted by Saint
Jesus did not die for mankind, he only died fro his believers.

[

I tend to agree with you, but... the people following Jesus were Jews and maybe a few nameless Gentiles--not Xians. Xians didn't come on the scene until about 325AD, after they got all their god-rearing rules and regulations figured out. Jesus never said he was gonna die for anybody. It was Paul that perpetuated that myth. You have to give it to Paul in a way, because he was one hell of an ad man. He created the greatest story ever sold. I believe Jesus didn't die but was married with children and lived happily ever after in the South of France (See Rennes-le-Chateau.com).

Back to your point, "he only died for his believers." It is only his "believers" who thought he died!

M*W

"He died for all" is in the Holy Scriptures.

Originally posted by strategicman
Well then, if you end up going to hell, ,that's your problem.

this exact saying is what makes so many christians so proud. now strategicman had the pride to say it.. but most christians listen to everyone's opinion then just "think it" in their minds.. sad when a religion that condemns all other beliefs becomes so proud of this fact that its followers exclaim it to the world

The problem is not in the christian doctrin which explitly says that we should not judge others. However having a true belief means that all others are false.

Originally posted by okinrus
The problem is not in the christian doctrin which explitly says that we should not judge others. However having a true belief means that all others are false.

i didn't mean false or correct religions.. i said "condemn" as in condemning members of other religions... it's very much different than simply saying or thinking that they are false

Jesus was a magician and we all know what magicians are.

Originally posted by MrMynomics
Jesus was a magician and we all know what magicians are. Assuming, of course, that he wasn't a fabrication.

Originally posted by strategicman
Since lots of its stuff has been semi-proved by finding arifacts (pieces of noah's ark, the tomb of the step brother to jesus, so on), ... [emphasis added - CA]
Israel says inscription on burial box a fake (http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/ap06-18-122831.asp?reg=MIDEAST#body)

Israel Antiquities Authority declares James Ossuary and Jehoash Inscription Fake (http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=online/features/ossuary/index)

What 'Jesus hoax' could mean for Mideast antiques (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0619/p07s01-wome.html)

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Israel says inscription on burial box a fake (http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/ap06-18-122831.asp?reg=MIDEAST#body)

Israel Antiquities Authority declares James Ossuary and Jehoash Inscription Fake (http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=online/features/ossuary/index)

What 'Jesus hoax' could mean for Mideast antiques (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0619/p07s01-wome.html)

Thank you, you save the world ! :D

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Israel says inscription on burial box a fake (http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/ap06-18-122831.asp?reg=MIDEAST#body)

Israel Antiquities Authority declares James Ossuary and Jehoash Inscription Fake (http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=online/features/ossuary/index)

What 'Jesus hoax' could mean for Mideast antiques (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0619/p07s01-wome.html)

thanks for the info...drat, I was hoping it was real. :(

Originally posted by river-wind
thanks for the info...drat, I was hoping it was real. :(

So was I. The RCC has suppressed so much of the truth for its own financial gain (i.e. celebacy, the genealogy of Jesus, the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the death and resurrection, etc.). The list goes on and on. Just think how much revenue the RCC has gotten for the resurrection alone!

Somewhere in the Vatican, if it hasn't been destroyed, is the truth that Jesus was married to MMagdalene and they had children after the crucifixion.

In much of the Renaissance art depicting Virgin Mary with baby Jesus on her lap--is actually MMagdalene and her babies with Jesus. Sometimes there's an older man in the picture which one would normally assume to be Joseph, but its not. Anytime you see a painting with a skull someone in the picture, that's MMagdalene. Anytime there's an old man with his index finger pointing, that's John the Baptist. (See the Last Supper, for example). I doubt if a lot of those paintings are actually of the BVM and Joseph. Sometimes there's more than one baby. I highly recommend the web site Rennes-le-Chateau.com. It tells all about what the RCC has suppressed. You'd be surprised--maybe not!

Originally posted by Saint
History tells us that, Christianity and Islam are the religions that
Shed the most blood.

Please try to be more accurate, religions don't shed blood, people shed blood over greed, desire to control, and to state supriority. No religion have ever advocated such things.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Somewhere in the Vatican, if it hasn't been destroyed, is the truth that Jesus was married to MMagdalene and they had children after the crucifixion. Ah - yet another peurile "the 'X' are sitting on the evidence, if it hasn't been destroyed" fairy-tale, i.e., "Pope St. Clement I meets Area 52".

Ironically, the very claim is nonsensical. If there is compelling evidence available, what the Vatican did or didn't do is irrelevant, since the availability of such evidence suggests that neither the Vatican, nor anyone else, succeeded in concealing the 'truth'.

Conversely, if the evidence has, in fact, been destroyed or rendered otherwise unavailable, one is forced to wonder by what mechanism this 'truth' was revealed to Medicine*Woman. Perhaps a Spirit Guide, or maybe a fortune cookie. Since this is the same Medicine*Woman who sought to teach us about Shabbat and managed only to parade her own ignorance, my personal guess favors the fortune-cookie scenario.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Ah - yet another peurile "the 'X' are sitting on the evidence, if it hasn't been destroyed" fairy-tale, i.e., "Pope St. Clement I meets Area 52".

Ironically, the very claim is nonsensical. If there is compelling evidence available, what the Vatican did or didn't do is irrelevant, since the availability of such evidence suggests that neither the Vatican, nor anyone else, succeeded in concealing the 'truth'.

Conversely, if the evidence has, in fact, been destroyed or rendered otherwise unavailable, one is forced to wonder by what mechanism this 'truth' was revealed to Medicine*Woman. Perhaps a Spirit Guide, or maybe a fortune cookie. Since this is the same Medicine*Woman who sought to teach us about Shabbat and managed only to parade her own ignorance, my personal guess favors the fortune-cookie scenario.

Let's just say I read a lot. Again, check the web site Rennes-le-Chateau.com. The cover-up by the RCC and this missing evidence is discussed at length.

Just so we are on the same page. Are you a part of this movement M*W http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2B%22New+Age+Movement%22

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Let's just say I read a lot. And what, specifically, did you read about Judaic Shabbat observance?

The internet provides an near endless supply of Kook theories and fringe science - just do a search on alien abduction. Offer me a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you. As for the rest, I'm sorry, but you simply lack sufficient credibility to make your web site recommendations worthy of serious consideration.

Originally posted by okinrus
Just so we are on the same page. Are you a part of this movement M*W http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2B%22New+Age+Movement%22

I'm an independent thinker, so I'm not a part of this 'movement,' although the web site was very interesting. Thanks for sending the link. This 'movement' is like any other 'religion.' I'm opposed to any organized religion which is man's creation, not God's. Until we see God within our own being, we've missed the whole point. You don't have to seek God somewhere 'out there.' God is in each of us--too varying degrees. This is what Jesus was trying to teach us.

I'm an independent thinker, so I'm not a part of this 'movement,' although the web site was very interesting. Thanks for sending the link. This 'movement' is like any other 'religion.' I'm opposed to any organized religion which is man's creation, not God's.

Every beast has a name. :)
"The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man"


Until we see God within our own being, we've missed the whole point. You don't have to seek God somewhere 'out there.' God is in each of us--too varying degrees. This is what Jesus was trying to teach us.

This is a christan belief.

Originally posted by okinrus
Every beast has a name. :)
"The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man"


This is a christan belief.

That is my belief, but I'm not Xian. This belief is held by many non-Xians.

in Hebrews god clearly states for the record that jesus is nothing more than a priest for eternity. Many others also shared that role but jesus was lucky enough to live forever and thus was given that "office" by god. Do not think the ability to live forever makes someone a god, because in doing so you would also have to accept melchizedek as a god.

Yes, jesus deserves a greater glory than moses, as the bible says, but that doesnt make him a god.

Furthermore we're told countless times that we must go through jesus to get to god. Again, that doesn't make jesus anything near being a god- just he is the mediator priest that people see before getting to god.

Furthermore god said you'd know the true messiah by fulfillment of certain prophecies. jesus has not to date fulfilled those prophecies and so can only, as god says, be looked upon as a false prophet.

p.s: There is a group called jews for jesus.

Christianity is fake, full of lies, and its theology has too many deadlocks that can not be logically solved,

it is principally a superstitious religion that squeeze money from people's pockets.

Goddam .:mad:

The priest role is to glorify God. As Isaiah prophesied
Isaiah 60:9b "In the name of the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel has glorified you." Now we know that Christ said that he does nothing for his own glory but only the glory of his Father in heaven. And we also know that John says that the Holy One Jesus.

Ok okinrus, but that doesn't argue the point that jesus is not and never has been a "god".

Furthermore, you didn't tell me why he's anything other than a false prophet. He did not fulfil the prophecies etc etc etc.... why not answer it?

God told Isaiah that the Messiah would come soon. That was around 600BC so soon for God is not in human understanding.

That doesn't bear relevance to anything i said. try again.

Without the specific prophesies I'm not really sure what your talking about. The prophesies concerning the end of the world have not come true yet?

OT Prophesies fulfilled by Jesus (http://biblefacts.org/bible/OT_proph_Jesus.htm)

Originally posted by Flores
Please try to be more accurate, religions don't shed blood, people shed blood over greed, desire to control, and to state supriority. No religion have ever advocated such things.
???
The holy crusades?
the spanish inquisition?
Salem which trials?
Islamic Jihad?

If those aren't examples of religion 'advocating' greed, a desire to control, and to state superiority, what the hell are they??

Originally posted by Jenyar
OT Prophesies fulfilled by Jesus (http://biblefacts.org/bible/OT_proph_Jesus.htm)
Prophesy #1: Micah 5:2 - Wrong!

Jenyar, these laundry lists are a joke, reflecting bad translations, forced interpretations, or both.

That's a pretty broad condemnation. I can understand that some of them might be cryptic, but translation is not the problem.

On what information do you dismiss the Micah prophesy - that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David?

Prophesies aren't really in our culture anymore, so we aren't familiar with their use and interpretation. Because of their nature, you can't really know whether a prophesy is supposed to be literal or not, or even if it applies to the Messiah or not, except by faith. And that is where we lose each other, I guess.

Originally posted by Mephura
???
The holy crusades?
the spanish inquisition?
Salem which trials?
Islamic Jihad?

If those aren't examples of religion 'advocating' greed, a desire to control, and to state superiority, what the hell are they??

This is classic hijacking of a religion, but it seems you're not subtle enough to understand the deeper meaning of things.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I can understand that some of them might be cryptic, but translation is not the problem. On what information do you dismiss the Micah prophesy - that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David? Translation is not the problem? Excellent! You will, therefore, have no problem whatsoever with the following:NASB But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, {Too} little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity. RSV But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.YLT And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth -- to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth [are] of old, From the days of antiquity.HNV But you, Beit-Lechem Efratah, Being small among the clans of Yehudah, Out of you one will come forth to me that is to be ruler in Yisra'el; Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting Your "prophesy" refers, not to a city, but to the clan of Efratah, son of Caleb's second wife. Once again, Matthew blew it.

Originally posted by Flores
This is classic hijacking of a religion, but it seems you're not subtle enough to understand the deeper meaning of things.

Well first off, I can't relly see what subtlety has to do with understanding.
Secondly it isn't hijacking religions. People did what they did in the name of god. True, these people may not have always have spoken for the majority. But in the case of the inquisitions, where it was not only authorized by the pope, but created by the pope, I don't see how that isn't a religion backing some very cruel ideas. Because the pope said it, it does go for the whole religion:

"the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church ..."
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

See I personally don't have a problem with any religion, and no I'm not atheist. I just thinkits laughable when people assume all religions are nice, happy things can't be blamed for anything bad. The crusades? Yeah, it was people, not the religion. Why did they do it? For religion. Once again iit was the catholic church.

"All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc."
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm)

Hell, that just the newer religions. Lets not get into the ones that called for human sacrifice.

Perhaps you ment the tenants of no modern religions support those ideas. Even then, you would be wrong. Look into religions like satanism and the church of satan (actually two different ideas). Or, perhaps you are just really didn't think about what you were saying. There are alot of religions out there. A few do advocate greed, controlling others and stating superiority.

Don't make broad blanket statements when they aren't true as such.

inquisition:
http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/loftis/overview.html

Genesis 35:19
So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem)

Bethlehem Ephratah (Micah 5:2), is also known as Bethlehem-Judah (1 Samuel 17:12), destinguishing the tribe (clan) who associated with it, and maybe even the town itself, since there was another Bethlehem in Galilee. Note that the name of the town itself means "House of Lehem". So it actually reads: "the minor clan of Ephrath from the House of Lehem will bear a ruler":

People who came from Bethlehem, among them King David and his father, were called Ephathrites (Ruth 1:2). The clan was descendent of the Moabite Ruth, who was precluded from converting to Judaism (Deut. 23:4), but followed the God of her mother-in-law Naomi anyway (Ruth 1:16), 'adopting' her religion, and 'being adopted' by God. From her line David was born - the King of the Jews - and God turned the curse into a blessing (Neh. 13:1-2).

So, yes, the passage says that from the clan of Ephrata there will come a ruler, but specifically from the town of Bethlehem. A town itself cannot produce a human being, only human beings do. I also do not think it is a coincidence that the town and the clan has the same denominator Ephrath, though I don't know how significant it is. There is a lot of history to that verse, and it is not only what is written in that line which makes it Messianic.

And if some of the most prominent Jews themselves interpreted it as a Messianic Prophesy, who are we to argue?

"Although thou art little among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge to be Ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah. "
- Rabbi David Kimchi (also known as Redak or Radak)

" The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah. "
- Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a

Originally posted by Jenyar
So, yes, the passage says that from the clan of Ephrata there will come a ruler, but ... Now, all you need to do is prove that Jesus was from the clan of Ephrata prove that someone named Jesus was, in fact, born in Bethlehem as asserted in gMat explain the embarrassing lack of Assyrians and show why the whole thing is not better explained as another Matthean attempt at reverse engineering a prophecyGood luck.

Aramaic is an assyrian language.

Originally posted by okinrus
Aramaic is an assyrian language. Thanks for sharing ... :rolleyes: ... and for avoiding the questions. Micah 5:5 He will be our shalom when Ashshur invades our land, And when he marches through our fortresses, Then we will raise against him seven shepherds, And eight leaders of men. 5:6 They will rule the land of Ashshur with the sword, And the land of Nimrod in its gates. He will deliver us from the Ashshur, When he invades our land, And when he marches within our border.

That is not what my translation says.
Micah 5:4-5
If Assyria invades our country and treads upon our land, We shall raise against it seven shepherds, eight men of royal rank; And they shall tend the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword; And we shall be delivered from Assyria, if it invades our land and treads upon our borders."

footnotes
5,4f This passage, expressing confidence in Judah's ability to deliver itself from Assyria, is in contrast with the preceding messianic oracle, which ascribes deliverance to the Lord and his agent. Some believe that here the prophet is quoting the words of the defiant men of Judah. The shepherds and men of royal rank are one and the same:warriors capable of routing Assyria. The smae kind of numerical progression is used by Amos(1, 3), and elsewhere in the Bible.

5,5 Nimrod: the legendary ancestor of the Mesopotamians; Gn 10,10ff

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Now, all you need to do is prove that Jesus was from the clan of Ephrata prove that someone named Jesus was, in fact, born in Bethlehem as asserted in Mat explain the embarrassing lack of Assyrians and show why the whole thing is not better explained as another Matthean attempt at reverse engineering a prophecyGood luck.
1)Through the ancestry of Jesse and David, who were both from Bethlehem, and Ephrathites, as I have said. "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch will bear fruit" (Is. 11:1). Incidentally, Ephrath means "to bear fruit".

2)Other witnesses include: Mary, Joseph, and Luke, The Magi from the East found him there, and the priests whom Herod consulted pointed him to Bethlehem: "And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea", and the shepherds (tending a sacrificial flock, by the way) who heard: "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord." Interesting that shepherds should be mentioned (and not by Matthew)...

And where else would Joseph have gone? "And Joseph, also, went up from Galilee (far north), out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea (Herod's southern jurisdiction), unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David(Tribe of Judah)"

3)The Assyrians did attack, and their capital was destroyed (The Fall of Nineveh (http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/nineveh/nineveh01.html)). The prophecy was that Assyria would not rule over Jersualem, but instead fall under the rule of others, and it came true. They were replaced by the Babylonians, who took the Israelites into custody. Another prophecy that came true. The Babylonians were overthrown by the Persians (another...), and the Persians by Alexander the Great and his generals, and eventually the Romans. And still no Davidic messiah was evident. The Jews are still waiting for him.

You'll see that both Nineveh and Babylon featured heavily in prophecies. Jesus mentioned the sign of Jonah... where was Jonah sent? To Nineveh, to warn them of their destruction. Babylon is mentioned more in relation to the end-times. As enemies, they equalled the Assyrians, although it is now more a spiritual enemy than a physical one. Although the prophecy was fulfilled, it is still a valid prophecy, and we are still expecting the overthrow of "Babylon".

4)Another? Care to indicate what you base his supposed bias on?

First of all, well done. I appreciate your efforts ...
Please trace Jesus ancestry back to "Beit-Lechem Efratah, Being small among the clans of Yehudah" Referring to "Mary, Joseph, and Luke, The Magi from the East " as credible witneses is a bit like pointing to Toto, the Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow as credible witnesses to the Munchkins. Luke relies on Matthew, and the rest are simpy part of the story - a story apparently unknown to Mark. So? What does this have to do with the end of the 2nd Temple Period? Yes, another: he was equally sloppy with the Virgin Birth, the Nazarene, and the suicide, but let's stick with Micah for now. As to why, I haven't the foggiest idea. Why Koresh supporters?

ConsequentAtheist,
Don't get me wrong, I like doing all the research, but before I get lost in the intricacies of the synoptic problem, Jewish cultural history, translation and other biblical details, I would like to know:
Would proving all this convince you of sin and salvation?

I think there is more to it. Someone once posted how Jesus was some kind of 'scapegoat'. If the religions before Christianity really did have a leader born of God (immaculate conception), or whatever, then I can see no reason why Jesus would have taken some sort of blame, and died so that this other leader may live. Jesus therefore dies for out sins, if what is written here is true.

While we're still on the subject... I came across these very comprehensive notes on Micah 5:2-4, specifically regarding the context and translation. I haven't read it in full yet, but it might be of interest.

Exegetical notes on Micah 5:2-4 (http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/judisch/advent4c.htm)

Mucker,
It's not clear from exactly what you mean. Do you propose Jesus died so that the messiah could live? It's an interesting view, but I would like you to elaborate a little. From my perspective it seems to say that Jesus died so that Jesus could live - which sound right enough, since Jesus died so that God could restore him as King over death, but it could lead to problems if you take it much further. The very term "scapegoat" is an originally biblical one, by the way.

Thank you Jenyar!! 'The very term "scapegoat" is an originally biblical one, by the way.' I didn't know this! In what sense was it introduced?

'Do you propose Jesus died so that the messiah could live?', yes, this is what I meant. :)

Mucker,
The scapegoat is a recurring theme of Jewish history. The Jewish holiday "Yom Kippur" celebrates this "day of atonement". In biblical times, it was a real goat upon which the Jewish high priest cast all the sins of the people:

Leviticus 16
7 Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats-one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. [Hebrew azazel the "goat of removal"] 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.


Take note that the goat was to be presented alive. This is where many critics say that Jesus was not a valid sacrifice for our sins. But they forget that these sacrifices were provided by God in the first place for a reason: that they were necessary. A goat alone in the desert is totally dependent on sustenance, and since it is presented to God, by faith these people would have trusted God to take care of it. By all other expectations it would die a natural death, and their sins would die with it. You can see this was just a temporary solution.
Another typology for Christ was the Passover lamb:

Exodus 12
27 then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.'


The lamb without defect (sinless) was sacrificed (killed) as a perfect sacrifice, so that God's people would be spared (they would eat it and use the blood on their doors - this became the Christian holy communion). This time as a sacrifice of redemption. However, God did not let Jesus die, but raised him up to live, so that he would be the ever-living atonement for our sins. So Jesus was presented dead to us, and alive to God. Through Jesus we have inherited life with God, and escaped death because of sin.

The reason for all these things, and indeed most religious activity, is necessity. Our position before God is one of separation, and we are guilty of all kinds of independance from God. The purpose of sacrifice, and ultimately salvation, is to restore that relationship by removeing the obstacles (sin) and escaping the consequence of separation from God (eternal death). God rectified both these problems through Jesus - not just as a man, but as someone with the full authority of God himself.

It's an action of "saving" (salvation) "taking back" (redemption) and "keeping" (atonement). (This action is mimicked by baptism.)

So people (and animals), as nothing more than carrier's and purponents of values, who follow 'God's word', should eventually produce what? An equal for God?! But why would 'he' need this? He can produce and re-produce on his own (by the looks of it) *looks around* Surely none of us can be an equal for God anyway!

All of creation belongs to God, since He created it. No, these are symbols in essence saying: "take note". Nothing drives home a message like a visible demonstration. You could take Kung Fu as an example - you take 'time' and 'energy' and develop a 'system of application' known as martial arts. The parallel to such a 'system' is the way of life according to God's will, while staying aware of what leads us away from that system of practice.

The New Testament uses the example of the Law (essentially Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus) that was given to expose wrongdoings and illustrate God's will. By doing nothing and sitting on a spot, you can't break any laws, right? But in God's law, this is would be an unproductive life, and would lead to your own demise (we see it as 'psychological' and 'social' regression). On the other hand, getting off your behind and doing something requires a code of ethics. A way of doing what needs to be done. This is the narrow road the Bible talks about. There are no clear edges, only the ones in your mind (we tend to call them 'morals') - but again, all the time we need to keep God's will in mind. Incidentally, this is also the reason for the Sabbath law: that we should not become addicted to work and forget God's will.

I'm probably rambling a bit, sorry. There's an infinite amount of things to say about the subject ;) What I was aiming at is an anwer to your question:
What it produces is not an equal for God, but a life for God. God does not need this, He expects this! Before you jump on your horse about God being an autocratic dictator - it is our lives we are talking about here! This is at the same time the purpose of our lives and an indication of the inadequacy of our powers. If it were a road, we would never reach the destination. The purpose of God's laws are to 1)make us aware 2)direct our thoughts 3)give us hope that there can be salvation, redemption and atonement!

It is this hope that Christ embodies. He has demonstrated his own equality with God, and made it possible for us to be reuited with God. Take for example the hope that "suffering will end". What have we learned? 1)There is a way to end it 2)We have to work towards that purpose 3)We don't have the power to end it on our own - but God has made it possible. He has shown and asked it. Suddenly our suffering has a perspective - we can place ourselves on the map: we are suffering just as Christ suffered, but instead of dying on a heap of sin and guilt, we are dying to sin every day while we 'remain in Him'. We can wake up every morning with the knowledge that He has atoned for our sins (been the scapegoat) and live our day walking on that same narrow path... making a difference.

because he was of the house and lineage of David

How was he from the lineage of david?

Originally posted by Jenyar
ConsequentAtheist,
Don't get me wrong, I like doing all the research, but before I get lost in the intricacies of the synoptic problem, Jewish cultural history, translation and other biblical details, I would like to know:
Would proving all this convince you of sin and salvation? Depending on the definition, I require very little to convince me of sin. The rest would greatly depend on the quality of the proof. :)

Originally posted by SnakeLord
How was he from the lineage of david?

Through his legal father, Joseph. And God adopted David as his son (Ps. 2:7), so through the Spirit, Jesus and David had the same Holy Father.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Through his legal father, Joseph. And God adopted David as his son (Ps. 2:7), so through the Spirit, Jesus and David had the same Holy Father. And his relation to the clan of Ephrata?

Remember, I am only exploring the idea that Ephrata is referring to a human (clan) in this passage, as per your interpretation, while I think it is only implied indirectly. But the conclusion is the same: Neither interpretation precludes Bethlehem from being prophetic.

The original contention is that both words "Bethlehem Ephrata" refer to the town of Bethlehem - known as Ephrata - in the land of Judah, in a usage similar to 1 Chronicles 2:24: "After Hezron died in Caleb Ephrathah"). The town is 'personified' in Micah 5:2 as the hometown and representative of the specific Calebite clan, the Ephrathites. (1Chronicles 2:19)*

From Matthew 1 (and you can verify it in Chronicles if you have the time):
Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> Judah -> Perez -> Hezron ->
Caleb marries Ephrath -> Hur --> Salma, founder of Bethlehem, (1 Chron.2:51) called Ephrata (after his grandmother?) and his clan and the inhabitants are called Ephathrites.

...until --> Boaz marries Ruth (a Moabite, who were precluded from converting to Judaism (Deut. 23:4)) --> Jesse -> David

1 Samuel 17:12
Now David was the son of an Ephrathite named Jesse, who was from Bethlehem in Judah.

Unfortunatey I can't prove that Joseph was a Jew from the line of David any better than Matthew and Luke tries to do it. All I can say is that Joseph would not have gone to Bethlehem if he wasn't.

I must say I have learned a lot by doing this. Hope it's of high enough quality?

*CALEBITES (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=42&letter=C):
...The narratives in Josh. xv. 14 et seq. and Judges i. 12 et seq. were composed to establish the claim of certain Calebite clans to particular localities (see Achsa and Othniel). It appears from I Chron. ii. 18 et seq. that the pre-exilian territory of the Calebites included Ziph and Mareshah and other towns in the extreme south of Judah; while another list in the same chapter (verses 46 et seq.), by representing certain personified towns as sons of Caleb's concubines, among which is Bethlehem, indicates that after the Exile the clan was pushed farther north. This was doubtless due to the occupation of the south by Edomites.

***
PS. I found another interesting fact: the first mention of Ephrata in the Bible is as the place where Rachel (the wife of Jacob) died. The first mention of Joseph in the Bible is... Rachel's first-born son. (As you know, that Joseph was called the 'dreamer', one of the youngest and least favoured of Jacob's sons, sold as a slave, who later became chief counsellor to the Pharoah).

1 Chronicles 5:2
...and though Judah was the strongest of his brothers and a ruler came from him, the rights of the firstborn belonged to Joseph.

And 'Joseph' is the only name that appears three times. (Juda appears two times and once as Judah). Also Zechariah mentions four of the names included in Luke's genealogy of Joseph, in the correct order, 500 years before Jesus:
Zechariah 12
12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives.

Coincidence?

Through his legal father, Joseph. And God adopted David as his son (Ps. 2:7), so through the Spirit, Jesus and David had the same Holy Father.

Lol. Dude, you make me laugh. I'll reply later.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Remember, I am only exploring the idea that Ephrata is referring to a human (clan) in this passage, as per your interpretation, while I think it is only implied indirectly. My interpretation? On the contrary, I've demonstrated it to be a well established interpretation, and you've concurred that "translation is not the problem."

Explain to me again how Jesus came to belong to this tribe, and why Matthew felt it necesssar for him to be born in Bethlemem in order to fulfill the "prophecy".

originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Your "prophesy" refers, not to a city, but to the clan of Efratah, son of Caleb's second wife. Once again, Matthew blew it.

originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
My interpretation? On the contrary, I've demonstrated it to be a well established interpretation, and you've concurred that "translation is not the problem."
???


Explain to me again how Jesus came to belong to this tribe, and why Matthew felt it necesssar for him to be born in Bethlemem in order to fulfill the "prophecy".

And to quote myself again:
"Through the ancestry of Jesse and David, who were both from Bethlehem, and Ephrathites, as I have said. "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch will bear fruit" (Is. 11:1)"

This "branch" is the Messiah. Which is why it was significant that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and why Matthew and Luke mentioned it.

Originally posted by Mucker

'Do you propose Jesus died so that the messiah could live?':)

Very interesting question! There were two Jesuses in question here. One was of the virgin birth fame, "Jesus, Son of God," and the other was a common criminal by the name of "Jesus Barabbas." Both of them were to be crucified at the same time. Pilate offered to let one of them go. He asked the crowd who they wanted to be let go. The crowd alledgedly said, "Let Barabbas go." And so he did.

My disbelief in the crucifixion and death of Jesus, Son of God, is this: Both men (if they actually ever existed0 were named Jesus. Jesus Barabbas in Aramaic means "Jesus, Son of the Father." He was the one Pilate let go. Therefore, there was no crucifixion and no death to Jesus, Son of God or Jesus, Son of the Father. Same person. Same thing.

Besides, the Messiah is not simply one person. The Messiah is the cumulative Spirit of God in Man (the human race).

Medicine*Woman

My disbelief in the crucifixion and death of Jesus, Son of God, is this: Both men (if they actually ever existed) were named Jesus. Jesus Barabbas in Aramaic means "Jesus, Son of the Father." He was the one Pilate let go. Therefore, there was no crucifixion and no death to Jesus, Son of God or Jesus, Son of the Father. Same person. Same thing.
Jesus was a common name (although calling Barabbas 'Jesus' could have been a scribe's error since it only exists in Matthew). It could be a tradition that arose because Jesus "was crucified so that a sinner could have life". One Man for another. Jesus was Son of God, chosen by God, we are sons ('children') of God - as created by Him. The 'created' was replaced by the 'chosen', the natural was replaced by the choice. The crucifiction marked a change in who we are under God. Whether Barabbas existed or not - he is a type for all humanity, and Jesus certainly did exist.

Besides, the Messiah is not simply one person. The Messiah is the cumulative Spirit of God in Man (the human race).
Not by any definition of 'messiah' that ever existed. Did you make this up? The Biblical mossiach ('anointed (Christos in Greek)) is one man, a descendent of David.

The Spirit you might have in mind is the Spirit given to us by Jesus - the Holy Spirit of God. He is only in those who believe in God or those whom He chooses.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Jesus was a common name (although calling Barabbas 'Jesus' could have been a scribe's error since it only exists in Matthew). It could be a tradition that arose because Jesus "was crucified so that a sinner could have life". One Man for another. Jesus was Son of God, chosen by God, we are sons ('children') of God - as created by Him. The 'created' was replaced by the 'chosen', the natural was replaced by the choice. The crucifiction marked a change in who we are under God. Whether Barabbas existed or not - he is a type for all humanity, and Jesus certainly did exist.


Not by any definition of 'messiah' that ever existed. Did you make this up? The Biblical mossiach ('anointed (Christos in Greek)) is one man, a descendent of David.

The Spirit you might have in mind is the Spirit given to us by Jesus - the Holy Spirit of God. He is only in those who believe in God or those whom He chooses.

I have no proof. You have no proof. What this leads us both to is our innate belief system of a higher power. You look forward to salvation, so you need to have a savior. I don't believe that salvation is necessary, so I don't understant the need for a savior.

One reason I'm NOT Xian is because Xian's like yourself and okinrus believe blindly in something you cannot prove. Salvation cannot be proven. My belief system doesn't include salvation. It is sad that you place your faith on something as mistranslated and misleading as the Bible. My belief system does not require anything written by man to base my faith upon. My thoughts about spirituality are my own. If other people identify with what I believe, that's great. If they don't identify with what I believe, I don't care. We were all put on this Earth to learn from our past mistakes and live in peace with our fellow human beings. Xianity is not a religion of peace. It is blood thirsty. It practices mind control. It is opposed to everything Jesus tried to teach. Xianity is the AntiX. The AntiX is not a man but a belief system. It is Xianity of which you are a part.

Medicine*Woman,
I have faith. It might be personal, like yours, but it is not a faith that hangs loosely in the air. The God that I have come to know is the same God that countless people thoughout history had come to know as "I am". Spirituality is easy to find, but faith needs God - specifically the Holy Spirit.

You say that we believe something we cannot prove, while flinging wild statements about the Messiah, the Spirit and God. Either your god is God, or he is your own creation. You do not need salvation? What would you say happens when disobey your higher power - say, nature? When it so obviously tries to sustain your life, isn't your physical degeneration an act of rebellion by your body? If you don'tor can't have children, have you not failed to meet natures expectations? If you decide to accept death, is your death not the natural result of your rejecting life? If I reject God, I am rejecting life. If I sin, I am rejecting God. I know I am a sinner, so I need salvation.

Christians are people, and although some might claim to have the Spirit of God in their lives, by acting against God's will they prove otherwise. A "belief system" is an abstract term denoting a common ground of what people 'believe'. It does not do anything. If you can show me where the Bible teaches "blood thirsty mind control and war", I will agree with you that Christianity is the Antichrist. Otherwise, it is people who murder and destroy who are the antichrist.

Why does the Bible care so much about so much trivial stuff and have NOTHING to say about slavery???
Answer: The Bible is a means of promoting Slavery!
Surely a just God who handed down 10 just commandments would have something to say about Slvery being unjust, But NO, that particular God had NOTHING to say about Slavery.
We think Slavery is unjust because we Evoloved beyond it, NOT because the Bible said it was wronge.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother..." (Matthew 10:34)

What a nice, pleasant, messiah you have. This guy's gonna save you? Ha!

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

Oh, and the disciples- the people in charge of teaching others about your messiah.... what a bunch of nice folk they must have been...

No, Jesus is refering to the seperation of good and evil. Those who follow Jesus will have peace, in this life and the next. Not physical peace but spiritual. After Jesus' crucifixation he said, "Peace I give you" and "Peace be with you." You should read the sword prophesy of Isaiah. Another possibility is that Jesus is emphasizing the difference between himself and the false prophets of Jeremiah's time that called for peace when there was no peace.


"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

The intent in this passage is to put the love of God ahead of everything else. Every passage must be interpreted in the full context of what Jesus said.

Originally posted by okinrus
Every passage must be interpreted in the full context of what Jesus said. There is zero reason to believe that anyone knows what, if anything, "Jesus" said. It's nothing but the redacted and harmonized hearsay of apologists. Any assertion as to "the full context of what Jesus said" is pure pretense -- your Emporer has no clothes. ;)

There is zero reason to believe that anyone knows what, if anything, "Jesus" said. It's nothing but the redacted and harmonized hearsay of apologists.

While we don't have the exact words of Jesus, we can make inferences that he was against war. If we use your line reasoning then major historical figures such as Socrates would be invalidated.


Any assertion as to "the full context of what Jesus said" is pure pretense -- your Emporer has no clothes.

No, we are clothed by our emperor.

Originally posted by okinrus
While we don't have the exact words of Jesus, ... You don't have any words of Jesus.

Well we have greek translations of the words of Jesus. I'm not sure what your point here is.

Originally posted by okinrus
Well we have greek translations of the words of Jesus. I'm not sure what your point here is. No, you have translations of the words of Paul, Luke, etc.

Originally posted by okinrus
While we don't have the exact words of Jesus, we can make inferences that he was against war. If we use your line reasoning then major historical figures such as Socrates would be invalidated.


No, we are clothed by our emperor.

I suppose you credit Jesus for buying your clothes? Your comment doesn't make sense. When are you going to face reality that YOU are responsible for your own existence? Everytime you credit Jesus for something, you are disowning your own abilities. In a way, you are putting yourself (God's creation) down! This is NOT what Jesus would have wanted. I'm sure if there is a Jesus in Heaven or wherever he may be, he's looking down at you and all the other Xians and saying, "My God, my God, just look at what fools you have created."

I suppose you credit Jesus for buying your clothes? Your comment doesn't make sense. When are you going to face reality that YOU are responsible for your own existence? Everytime you credit Jesus for something, you are disowning your own abilities. In a way, you are putting yourself (God's creation) down! This is NOT what Jesus would have wanted. I'm sure if there is a Jesus in Heaven or wherever he may be, he's looking down at you and all the other Xians and saying, "My God, my God, just look at what fools you have created."

Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden and clothed by animal skins, but Jesus christ has given us something much more. We are clothed by Christ with the holy spirit.

Originally posted by okinrus
We are clothed by Christ with the holy spirit. The theological equivalent of indecent exposure ...

Galatians 3:26 "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed youselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gree, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Emphasising that Christ purpose was to seperate the chaff from the wheat not warfare.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother..." (Matthew 10:34)

I suppose that shouldn't be taken literally since Jesus is also quoted to have praised the peacemakers. In any case, this passage seems to speak about division/separation of some kind.

There's also this one-


I have cast fire upon the earth, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes"

Perhaps it's easier to understand this one if one thinks in terms of Prometheus bringing fire (and what fire stands for) to people.

Jesus is the sword and the servent of God the Father. Jesus was prophesied in this <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Is_&ch=49&bv1=1&ev1=7"> passage </a>

The fire of Jesus and sword is also foretold in this <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Is_&ch=64&bv1=1&ev1=5">passage</a> and this <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Is_&ch=66&bv1=15&ev1=17">one</a>

The fire itself could refer to many things. Perhaps baptism because the spirit was described as tongues of fire. Another possibility is Jesus himself. For example the beginning of John's gospel and this <a href = "http://www.ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Is_&ch=50&bv1=1&ev1=11">passage</a>.

originally posted by Jasper
Why does the Bible care so much about so much trivial stuff and have NOTHING to say about slavery???
You haven't been reading the Bible much have you? You can follow the stroy of slavery like a golden thread through the Bible.
Slavery was an institution for a long time, and the Old Testament had strict rules about how slaves were to be treated. More often the Hebrews and Israelites were slaves themselves (especially in Egypt). When God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, did He not make a clear statement?

Deuteronomy 15
12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

Deut. 23
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.

And to fall in with Snakelord's comments about Matthew and Luke:
originally posted by Snakelord
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
At the end of the passage Jesus says:
33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
That is his point. Interestingly enough this fits with the slavery theme:

When the Israelites were ordered to set their slaves free in Jeremiah 36, they did so but took them back into slavery afterwards. They claimed God's property as their own. God saw this and said:
16 But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again.
17 "Therefore, this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom for your fellow countrymen. So I now proclaim 'freedom' for you, declares the LORD -'freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine.
I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth. 18 The men who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces.

And this is what Jesus tought as well: we are free to make war,to hate each other and to die. That is our curse - this freedom. Snakelord and others do not notice the irony of what they are saying. They also make this choice. They choose this freedom from God, and then accuse Christians of promoting slavery and hatred. This is the sword: People will choose life or death because of Jesus. There can be no peace while sin has power. Peace only comes after sin has been destroyed, and we have chosen for Christ and not against Him.

It is a question of who you submit to. If you submit to sin, you are a slave to sin, which leads to death. If you submit to God, you are a slave to righteousness, which leads to life. This reflects on slavery:
Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

And also on war and hatred. Muslims will know that to accept Jesus is to be cut off from parents, brothers and sisters. It is not because Jesus brings hatred, but because being associated with Jesus makes you the target of hatred.

So I conclude the story of slavery as a Christian with Paul's letter to Philemon, about Onesimus a fugitive slave. (Under normal circumstances such a slave would be branded or put to death):

Philemon 1
15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good-- 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
17So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.

And you say the Bible says nothing about slavery? Or promotes hatred?

Biblical Hebrew has no equivalent to comparative adjectives or adverbs. One can say "tall" but not "taller" or "tallest". Hate is an extreme that is often used. Hyperbole is used for emphasis. As Okinrus said: to emphasize the love we should have for God.

Consider the following from a non-Biblical source (Poimandes 4:6):
If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself.

Did the Greeks "hate" themselves? "[A man] must count his own life his enemy for the honor of Sparta" (Poetae Lyrici Graeci). Or does this simply mean they should lay down their lives, family and posessions for the honor of Sparta?

Maybe the Jews couldn't accept Jesus as the Christ because he was gay and therefore an abomination in their eyes.

Perhaps because so many lies were spread about him.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html Also the Torah says that homosexuality is a abomination not the person.

originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Everytime you credit Jesus for something, you are disowning your own abilities. In a way, you are putting yourself (God's creation) down! This is NOT what Jesus would have wanted.
We give credit to God for creating us, and everything we do stems from God's creation. We have nothing to take pride in for ourselves, because everything that is good, meritous and sustaining comes from God. God did not create us so we could raise ourselves up, but so that we could glorify Him! Because all glory belongs to Him in the first place.

Read the Bible and see if Jesus never gave thanks to God for things attributed to Him. We are following his example.

John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Ephesians 5:20
always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And this is what Jesus tought as well: we are free to make war,to hate each other and to die. That is our curse - this freedom. Snakelord and others do not notice the irony of what they are saying. They also make this choice. They choose this freedom from God, and then accuse Christians of promoting slavery and hatred. This is the sword: People will choose life or death because of Jesus. There can be no peace while sin has power. Peace only comes after sin has been destroyed, and we have chosen for Christ and not against Him.

What garbage are you babbling on about? My point was what kind of a teacher can a person be if he hates his parents, wife and children. If someone is at that stage it's obvious he doesn't like anyone and as such, imo, would not make a very good teacher.

Furthermore it says pretty clearly: "I have not come to bring peace but to set a man against his father etc etc"

Nowhere does it say Snakelord is accusing christians of promoting slavery. Frankly i find it lame how you attempt miserably to warp a simple sentence to make me look like im the one who said it.

According to the scripture jesus said: "I, (I = jesus), have Not come to bring peace...."

If we break this sentence down we can state it means the following:

jesus has not come to bring peace.

"But to set a man against his father.."

If we break that down we can see this:

jesus has not come to bring peace but to set people against each other.

So, if we all argue with each other and go against each other, we have in fact fulfilled what jesus came to do. In doing so, we also become his disciples, as long as we hate everyone aswell.

Originally posted by Jenyar
We give credit to God for creating us, and everything we do stems from God's creation. We have nothing to take pride in for ourselves, because everything that is good, meritous and sustaining comes from God. God did not create us so we could raise ourselves up, but so that we could glorify Him! Because all glory belongs to Him in the first place.

Read the Bible and see if Jesus never gave thanks to God for things attributed to Him. We are following his example.

John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Ephesians 5:20
always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, you miss the point and you contradict yourself and your Bible scripture. "...the Son can do nothing by himself;..." was Jesus' admitting that he was only human. Believing that your higher power lives within you and, therefore, you are One with God, is what Jesus was refering to. Without God, you are nothing. With God, your capabilities are endless. "...because whatever the Father does the Son also does...." Again, this is what I've said about being One with God. This absolutely has NOTHING to do with any power Jesus had of himself.

If you are "always giving thanks to God the Father for everything," you would also be thanking yourself and building up your own spirit which IS the spirit of God.

You Xians focus on such miniscule words from such an out-dated, mistranslated, written-by-men book, that you fail to see God's power in your own life! This is why I believe Xianity is the AntiX, and you and your compadres are a big part of this delusion.

What garbage are you babbling on about? My point was what kind of a teacher can a person be if he hates his parents, wife and children. If someone is at that stage it's obvious he doesn't like anyone and as such, imo, would not make a very good teacher.

Maybe but then the bible says that God is our only teacher. God is the source of all goodness. So implying that God is not good does not make sense. God defines what is good.

John 15:19 "If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have choseen you out of the world, the world hates you." The hate is one of seperation.

Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is my associate, says the LORD of hosts. Strike the shepherd that the sheep may be dispersed, and I will turn my hand against the little ones. In all the land, says the LORD, two thirds of them shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left. I will bring the one third through fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them as gold is tested."

The mission of Jesus was not peace in the humanistic way, but the proclaim peace given to us by crushing Satan. King Tyre clearly represents Satan in this <a TARGET="info" onClick="infoWindow=window.open('search.asp','info','scroll bars=yes,resizable=yes,width=560,height=420')" href="http://www.ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Zech&ch=9&bv1=1&ev1=17">passage</a> because of what is written in <a TARGET="info" onClick="infoWindow=window.open('search.asp','info','scroll bars=yes,resizable=yes,width=560,height=420')" href="http://www.ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Ezek&ch=28&bv1=11&ev1=19">Ezekiel</a>.

1 Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

You do not want to understand what Jesus was saying and therefore you would say this is a contradiction. Jesus taught devotion that equals jealousy and hatred, but is neither jealousy nor hatred.
Proverbs 8:13
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

...Even if it comes from fathers, brothers and sisters. Attachment brings prejudice and bias. Jesus also told the young man who wanted eternal life to sell all his possessions, leave his family and follow Him. The question is: how much are you prepared to loose and how much do you trust that God can give it back to you?

In this case hate, is not an emotion, but a choice. Feel the difference. Here is a parallel passage that nobody has had any qualms over:

Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

originally posted by Medicine*Woman
You Xians focus on such miniscule words from such an out-dated, mistranslated, written-by-men book, that you fail to see God's power in your own life! This is why I believe Xianity is the AntiX, and you and your compadres are a big part of this delusion.
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist – he denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus, is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

The only delusion here is that you think you and God are the same thing. That you personally can unite yourself with your creator, according to his will, even while denying his laws, and that He is far greater than you and has set a judge over you.

What God has done is let you over to yourself. He does not stop you from thinking you are a law unto yourself - this is the curse of freedom I was talking about. Jesus has lifted that curse, but you deny him and therefore deny the true God. Your god is powerless and false - he has left no legacy, nothing to know him by, except your personal conviction, which does not amount to faith.

Originally posted by Jenyar
1 Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

You do not want to understand what Jesus was saying and therefore you would say this is a contradiction. Jesus taught devotion that equals jealousy and hatred, but is neither jealousy nor hatred.
Proverbs 8:13
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

...Even if it comes from fathers, brothers and sisters. Attachment brings prejudice and bias. Jesus also told the young man who wanted eternal life to sell all his possessions, leave his family and follow Him. The question is: how much are you prepared to loose and how much do you trust that God can give it back to you?

In this case hate, is not an emotion, but a choice. Feel the difference. Here is a parallel passage that nobody has had any qualms over:

Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.


1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist – he denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus, is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

The only delusion here is that you think you and God are the same thing. That you personally can unite yourself with your creator, according to his will, even while denying his laws, and that He is far greater than you and has set a judge over you.

What God has done is let you over to yourself. He does not stop you from thinking you are a law unto yourself - this is the curse of freedom I was talking about. Jesus has lifted that curse, but you deny him and therefore deny the true God. Your god is powerless and false - he has left no legacy, nothing to know him by, except your personal conviction, which does not amount to faith.

Its really sad that you are so brainwashed. You need help.

Jenyar was able to find an entity of two passages dealing with slavery neither of which condemed the practice.

Deuteronomy 15
12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

Deut. 23
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.

The first one D15 basically condones slavery, within limits.
The second passage D23 is actually a reference to resisting slavery, and I must admit that I did not beleive the bible ever resisted slavery, so I own Jenyar a debt of scolarship for pointing out this one.

Nevertheless, it seems inadequate that in a thousand or so pages of text that purport to be about morality, two minor references to slavery, one that is ambiguous about it and one that VERY BREIFLY denounces it. The inadequacy of these denonunciations of this heinous crime seem all out of proportion. To go on and on and on for hundreds of pages about what is right and wronge and moral and immoral in the human condition, and then to ambiguously sorta wink and nod at slavery for a couple of sentences, tells me that the people who wrote the bible really didn't see much wronge with slavery.
Slavery was resisted AFTER the church lost it's grip over the states.
States outlawed Slavery.
The bible has ALMOST NOTHING to say about slavery and wha it does say about it is ambiguous weak and breif.

touchete

Jasper

Those passages did not come out of nowhere. For something to be accepted into a culture it has to be introduced through a sequence of paradigm shifts.

You must understand that most of the Bible was written at a time when having slaves was no different than having money. It was no different than you having a CEO and working for his company.

Maybe one day when capitalism is considered archaic and even barbaric, you will find passages to show me how the Bible has alarmingly little to say about it, and I will quote one or two passages that shows how everything you have belongs to God (the same principle), and should be used/treated without selfishness, dishonesty, pride, or to further hatred.

It's all about how you treat people, how you accumulate wealth, and how you use what God has given you. What you do is up to you, and no holy book or laws is going to change you.

Here's an exercise: find something in the Bible teaching about something you love doing, and then see how long it takes for you to conform to it. Maybe then you'll have some honest perspective about slavery as well.

Slavery was resisted AFTER the church lost it's grip over the states. States outlawed Slavery. The bible has ALMOST NOTHING to say about slavery and wha it does say about it is ambiguous weak and breif.

Jesus says "No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mamon." So this shows that man cannot have God as his master along with a slave master. Your also mistaken into thinking that the Torah is always a definitive guide to correct morals. It is not, it is a code of law for a society. The Torah does not bring rightousness. Even today somethings are legal, but morally wrong. And this is what Jesus says about the Torah, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultry with her in his heart." Mathew 5:31-43 outlines the difference between the Torah and Jesus' teaching that fullfilled the Law. When speaking about divorse, Jesus says that He allowed divorse because of their harden hearts. I'm sure that the brutal form of slavery practiced in the south goes against "Love your neighbor as yourself" right? And so what if the bible does not detail every specific morally wrong thing. Jesus said, "The Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth". The early christians never practiced slavery, but were far of it. A few of the christians were actually slaves. It appears that the form of slavery in Jesus' time was more civilized than the kind practiced in the South.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Jasper

Those passages did not come out of nowhere. For something to be accepted into a culture it has to be introduced through a sequence of paradigm shifts.

If GOD had anything to do with writing the bible, maybe he would have been able to say something negative about slavery. But since Arrius Calpurnius Piso wrote the new testament and assorted men wrote the old testamnet, they they could only write about what was, in your words, "accepted ... culture"

You must understand that most of the Bible was written at a time when having slaves was no different than having money. It was no different than you having a CEO and working for his company.

Owning PEOPLE is now, was then and forever shall be Qualitiatively different from owning money. Money, if left on a shelf is happy to sit there. People if left to persue their own life, liberty and happiness will run away from slavery. Money in short is inanimate, slaves are in short sentient. The jews ran away from slavery and much of the early part of the bible is the story of God intervening on behalf of them to help them throw off the unjust yolk of slavery. Why did he NEVER help let's say the Negro in a like mannner? Could it be that he doesn't exist? Or maybe GOD is a RACIST?

Maybe one day when capitalism is considered archaic and even barbaric, you will find passages to show me how the Bible has alarmingly little to say about it, and I will quote one or two passages that shows how everything you have belongs to God (the same principle), and should be used/treated without selfishness, dishonesty, pride, or to further hatred.

Capitalism is a little Barbaric, isn't it?
Are youdefending God's Racism when He helps one group escape the inhumanity of slavery by Parting The Seas, no less, only to turn a blind eye to everyother instance of slavery in history? Not a fair fair Guy is HE?

It's all about how you treat people, how you accumulate wealth, and how you use what God has given you. What you do is up to you, and no holy book or laws is going to change you.

Here's an exercise: find something in the Bible teaching about something you love doing, and then see how long it takes for you to conform to it. Maybe then you'll have some honest perspective about slavery as well.

We are all children of god......

Originally posted by Clockwood
We are all children of god......

Yes, but the free will of some of god's children stole the free will of some others of god's children. I believe all sins (negativity) stem from free will.

posted by Jasper
Arrius Calpurnius Piso wrote the New Testament
What an obvious hoax. I'm surprised that you even quote it. I don't have time to research it now, but I am aware of these sites:
"I won't say it's not a hoax" (http://members.shaw.ca/chatfunk/The%20Arrius%20Piso%20as%20author%20of%20the%20New %20Testament%20theory%20is%20a%20hoax.htm)
Of the Edge of the Lunatic Fringe (http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html) and
Piso's bark only shows that he has no teeth (http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake2.html)


Owning PEOPLE is now, was then and forever shall be Qualitiatively different from owning money.
To you and me, yes. But not to a culture that accepts slavery as part of life. In Biblical times, slaves were either seen as nothing but property and a means to further your own wealth (as they still are by slave traders and child-labourers around the world), or the lowest member of the extended family, often competing with children for the favour of their master and father. The latter is the kind of relationship which the Bible addresses: that both child and slave has the same heavenly Father.

Children and slaves were important in upholding the economy and creditability of a family. If they were treated well, they listen and worked well. If they were mistreated, they rebelled and could destroy the family. Slavery is wrong, and that is why it is condemned all over the world. But it was a process to get here. Just as it was a process to get from Monarchies to Republics, from Despotism to Democracy. Once you're there, it's easy to point a finger to every idiot who came before you. You don't realize you are in the same position, only in a different culture.

Therefore your crusade against slavery in the Bible is a bit passe. There are irresponsible people alive today who treat their children worse than responsible people treated their slaves then. The "slavery" you are condeming is a state of mind. It is only that state of mind that predicts how a person with authority will treat those who are employed under him.

I'd recommend you do some research on ancient family values and cultures.

Originally posted by Clockwood
We are all children of god......

We are all the creation of god. God is not a human to begett children, he is a god that creates things to beget and to him belongs all.

Originally posted by Flores
We are all the creation of god. God is not a human to begett children, he is a god that creates things to beget and to him belongs all.
Flores, you misunderstand the context in which "begotten" is used, at least by Christians. It does not necessarily mean physical reproduction:

Psalm 2
7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
He said to me, "You are my Son;
today I have begotten you [become your Father].

(This Psalms is made applicable to Christ in the New Testament). As you can see: When God calls you his child, he has "begotten you" in the sense that He has become your Father. The person had already been born, and come to know God, but never before has God called him "son". "Take"="Get"="got"="begotten"

It is not a difference in what has actually happened, just a different description of our relationship with God. A main difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians see themselves as adopted children of God, while Muslims see themselves as slaves. It does not change the way God created us - how could it?

(first, I just wanna say that I'm christian) Well, I believe that the whole bible is true. Since lots of its stuff has been semi-proved by finding arifacts (pieces of noah's ark, the tomb of the step brother to jesus, so on), then I don't see why all of it wouldn't be true. So I think that it started from when jesus was here, and he told them they were wrong, and they got mad, ,and so they told their children what to believe, and their childrens' children, and so on. So I doubt it's as much as rejecting him, but more from tradition, and what their parents told them. Then again, that's just what I think...

For a long time I belived in Christianity.. I feared a God that would put me into hell for all eternity if I got him mad at me.

I finaly woke up to the real trueth about reality. Religion even Christianity is not only harmful, it threatens all life on our planet. I belive all religion evolves over time even Christianity..

Think about this...
All viewpoints of any religion ever created view god in the context of the culture when it was created. Including Jewdiasium which Christianity came from.

Isn't it odd that the depictions of "GOD" and "Angles" are dressed in the same atire of the people of their day? Robes? And sites on a throne? Why were they concept of their days and not some visions of GOD that where different from their own culture?

Is it realy relavent anyway? Are we willing to say it is right for any sentiant being no matter who he claims to be, to claim us as his/her propery? And that He/She has the right to "RULE" us? Back to slavery? God still thinks thats ok...

I'm sorry but I can no longer be intimidated by threats of eternal hell. If it does happen then so be it. I would rather spend eternity in hell for the right reason then spend eternity in heaven for the wrong one.

I can no longer except a concept that was to obviously man made. Who uses threats and intimidation to control others? Didn't the rulers of their day do that? It continues to this day, especialy by the wealthy that we work for. The concept of reward and punishment is not only very human. Just about any religion or cult use it to brainwash and control their followers.

So why should we except it as OK?

Do we rule ourselves? Or do we stay sheeple, Just "belive" have faith and be ruled by the big bully at the end of the block, who threatens to torture us if we don't follow him or fire us if we disagree with him?

Doesn't that make GOD the biggest of all terrorists?
It should't be supprising that the Abramic religions are violent, should it?

Shouldn't it also not be suprising that they supress women? they have since the religion was founded, in a culture where men where in control. That "GOD" is a "MALE" figure? if God always was, why does he even have a gender? Isn't "GOD" a spirit? Does a spirit have sex? If "GOD" does have a gender, doesn't it beg the question where did it come from? A father and a mother? Which he claims never existed. The very fact that he is a male declairs that there is also the female somewhere... one of two of a kind?

How can GOD be LOVE and torture billions of people in an eternal hell?
I belive what ever sentient being or beings that do exist that where here before we where should be our teachers, not our "GODS" or "Masters". That is if they are benevolent to begine with.

I want nothing to do with any religion or Being who ever he is, who wants to clam me as "property" I am my own person and I belong to myself and no one else.

I belive any benevolent being with any inteligence can understand and except this belife. If they can not.. He/She is not any kind of GOD. that any one should follow.

Jews have to reject Jesus - they have no other option. If they embraced him, they would cease to a Jew and would become Christian.
Not quite true, actually, all the early followers were Jewish Christians & Gentile Christians, see below:


http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act002.html#40
Act 2:40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act005.html#select
Act 5:12And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
Act 5:13And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.
Act 5:14And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)


And now, there are messianic Jews, see below:

http://www.umjc.org/main/umjchome.aspx
The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations was founded 25 years ago to establish and strengthen Messianic Jewish congregations everywhere.

http://www.menorah.org/mjews.html
Messianic Jews
Among the 14 million Jewish people there is a group of perhaps twenty or thirty thousand people, born Jews, who believe in the Torah and the rest of the Tenach and practice Jewish customs and religion. They also believe in Jesus. Some, if not most of them, prefer to call Him by His Jewish name, Yeshua. Although small in number, they are a vocal group, constantly challenging the Jewish spiritual and secular authorities with their presence, demanding recognition as Jews.
It would be easiest for these Jewish believers, among whom is also the writer of these lines, to accept the advice of rabbinic leaders and put aside our belief in Jesus. The Jewish authorities work very hard to achieve it. Organizations and individuals spend their time and hundreds and thousands of dollars towards this end. Among the best known are the Peilim, Karen Yeladdenu, supported by the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Israel, and many more who do it as a full or part time job.
Why do Messianic Jews resist? What lies behind their obstinancy, not only continuing to believe themselves but also spreading their faith to others? The answer as we see it is spiritual. This spiritual aspect can be summarized as follows:
Prophecies Demand It
We believe in Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah because He alone gives sense to the words of our Jewish prophets. There is Isaiah 53 with its minute description of the suffering servant who was despised and rejected, afflicted with pain and stripes, by whose "stripes we are healed." He then dies, is buried, yet is revived and suffers all this "for the affliction of my (Isaiah the prophet's) people." All this can best be applied to one person only - Yeshua of Nazareth. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 98) teaches that this chapter refers to Messiah. The Targum of Jonathan begins the passage with the words Ha yatslakh avdee Mashikha, "Behold my servant the Messiah shall prosper. .. " Common sense says it must refer to Jesus.

http://www.ifmj.org/aboutus.htm
I would like to mention the names of some of the faithful men who continue to be strong, courageous, and firm in this revival. Each of them continues to move toward the goal set before them by HaShem to spite the daily struggles of finances and the spiritual warfare.

Rabbi Victor Faur, Beth Shalom HaMashiaj, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Rabbi Eliezer Bograd. Bet El Shaddai, Caracas Venezuela
Rabbi Dennis Bakon, Beth Israel, Tampa, Fl
Rabbi Tom Phipps, Beth Israel, Tampa, Fl
Rabbi Reinaldo Tangarife. Bet Israel Medellin, Colombia
Rabbi Ricardo Guevara Melo, Beth Israel, Cali. Colombia
Rabbi George Quinn, Beth Israel, El Paso, Texas.
...
Long list of rabbis follows

Jesus is coming back soon, no need to argue anymore.

The new testament tells us the Jews are stubborn, hypocrites, evil, therefore they rejected Jesus.actually, if you see who Jesus was talking about, it was the religious authorities; the Pharisees, Saddacees mostly, those that did stuff for "all for show" or were too legalistic, the masses were condemed by their own "unbelief", yet most early converts were jewish, enough that the elders started to persecute them

Jesus pointed out their wrongdoings, critisized them fiercely, and this provoked them to anger till they planned to kill him.again the leadership

However, is the bible true? christians are betting their lives on that
From other points of views, what do you think is the main reason the Jews reject Jesus till today?
many still convert

here are some messianic Jews, see below:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/
http://www.umjc.org/main/umjchome.aspx
http://www.menorah.org/mjews.html
http://www.ifmj.org/aboutus.htm

Hello spiritually concerned,

Sorry to butt in but,

We give credit to God for creating us, and everything we do stems from God's creation. We have nothing to take pride in for ourselves, because everything that is good, meritous and sustaining comes from God. God did not create us so we could raise ourselves up, but so that we could glorify Him! Because all glory belongs to Him in the first place.

Does anyone else find this egotistical god to be repulsive? Who would make things to gloryify himself? I don't understand this point of view, or this god.


Another thing, does anyone else find that quoting god is possibly the most unlikely thing ever to have happened- even though it is done so here all the time? We speak because it is the way we communicate- because we have evolved to manipulate air to produce noise, noise that we deem to have value. For a being that never had to speak (god), I think it unlikely that he could be quoted. In terms of the way I think a god would communicate to humans for example, a blanket message to everyone would be the only way not to lose everything in translation.


With Jews, I always thought Christians had it wrong and not the other way around. In my understanding Jesus never proclaimed himself god, but was a Jew, who followed Jewish practice. No matter what can be said of him or around him, it seems undeniable to me that to believe in Jesus is to believe in what he believed, not what others might have said of him.

time is a human construct and does not actually exist,

staples disconnected

Hi Staples,

Yup you are right, this statement...

"We give credit to God for creating us, and everything we do stems from God's creation. We have nothing to take pride in for ourselves, because everything that is good, meritous and sustaining comes from God. God did not create us so we could raise ourselves up, but so that we could glorify Him! Because all glory belongs to Him in the first place."

...is totally nauseating. It carries all the hallmarks of indoctrination and control and mental enslavement. This nullifies and degrades every empathetic and compassionate act that man commits unto his fellow man. Yeah, like I want my kids to glorify me. That’s why I had kids silly!

The Jews don’t believe Jesus as the son of god or the messiah mainly because of the following:

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

Read further here, all will be revealed. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm

Allcare.

"my God My God, Why Has Thou Forsaken Me">>>>>..does That Sound Like God ???

johnahmed: "my God My God, Why Has Thou Forsaken Me">>>>>..does That Sound Like God ???
*************
M*W: No, of course not. There's also a passage that says something like, "Greater love has no man than he who lays down his life for his friend." Obviously, this is a reference to Jesus's stand-in on the cross. Some scholars sa